>Brett, do you believe that *DNA* is the agent for biological evolution?
As DNA is made up of chained proteins and energy bonds; no, energy must have
predated DNA as an evolutionary blueprint. My own theory of the beginning
of "life" is that salt in a body of water creates electrical charges which
move between areas of different densities ("diffusion")--we have
specialization, electrical impulses, circulation, gas exchange...all of the
main qualities of life as far as I am concerned.
How is this natural process duplicated by the human population across
generations (do you ask..."the agent for biological evolution"?) Saying
that DNA is the agent for biological evolution is like saying that the
Mississippi is the agent for returning water to the ocean--it is one of the
more obvious ways but in turn is a result of more-and-more subtle processes
(which must be duplicated in all forms of matter from the most dense to the
least dense; that is, unless you can come up with an explanation as to how a
process which is occurring in a system is unaffected by and does not effect
those "other" processes.
>Do you believe that it is *genes* which "compete"? (I wish we had a less
If there is a more dense example of "competition" (and that is the human
race), then there is a less dense example in the gene. If one is willing to
say that genes do not compete (they are not willful), then one must be
willing to say that their product also does not compete (that humans are not
willful). I am almost willing to say the later--that we humans have no free
will (but not quite). If humans *do* have free will (I think they have the
ability to choose death/or to willingly refute the life processes
represented by "truth"--an aside), where did they acquire this will? Would
you say that genes give us free will but do not contain it? So,
yes--defining "competition" as willful opposition--I would go so far as to
say that the processes represented by a gamete include processes which
willfully oppose the un-controlled mass-production of unspecialized cells
(that they are not the same as a cancer).
>adversarial word for this.) That "survival of the fittest" means survival
of the fittest *genes*? (Not bodies)
Like I implied, "as above so below".
> Do you, Brett, think that DNA is the
blueprint for order and complexity in biological forms and, as such, it is
the evolution of DNA (genes) over time that is driving force behind
evolution? Where do you stand, Brett?
Having said all of this, I believe that the meme is the blueprint for all
biological forms. That a pattern is created in less dense matter (energy)
which organizes "itself" (for all practical purposes) creating bonds between
proteins based on the energy requirements of the protein. I see this
"energy" connection running the whole "gamete" from micro to macro universe.
I see interractions in the mind/brain as having a direct relationship to
these energy configurations--that we can willfully direct this energy flow
to greater levels of evolutionary development by increasing the likelihood
of positive developments (as opposed to--or in addition to--decreasing the
likelihood of disadvantageous developments).
All of these processes can be clumpped under the heading of evolution...can
be exemplified by DNA...can then be measured accross a population or
populations over successive generations; or, they can be clumpped under the
heading of "un-natural de-selection" ...can be exemplified by responses to
posts on the subject...and be measured by the intellectual growth of "me",
an individual, as I write this response; which is to say, that growth and
development occur...
Brett
At 10:27 PM 8/17/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Eric, out of honesty and good will, wrote:
>> >You see, we (or at least I) am not too knowledgable about evolution.
>> >Certainly the people on the list he refered you to would know more than
>> >the people here. (Boyd)
>To which Brett replied:
>> Seems if the people on this list are "not too knowledgable about evolution",
>> the THEY are the ones who need to "go to a group where they debate
evolution".
>Well, Brett, I am just egotistical enough to think that I *DO* know a
>thing or two about evolution. So if you want to talk about it here, be my
>guest. Just remember: you asked for it!
>Let's begin shall we?
>Brett, do you believe that *DNA* is the agent for biological evolution?
>Do you believe that it is *genes* which "compete"? (I wish we had a less
>adversarial word for this.) That "survival of the fittest" means survival
>of the fittest *genes*? (Not bodies) Do you, Brett, think that DNA is the
>blueprint for order and complexity in biological forms and, as such, it is
>the evolution of DNA (genes) over time that is driving force behind
>evolution? Where do you stand, Brett?
>Aye, put up yer dukes! (In my best Popeye voice)
>-Prof. Tim
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Often the test of courage is not to die but to live.
Conte Vittorio Alfieri