1 of 3
1
Do we carry the genetic code from the beginning of life?
Posted: 03 April 2017 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

I have long thought that everything which precipitated the earliest beginnings of the “known Universe” is evident in each of us; in fact, we could not have thrived without.
Biological behaviors in the womb, including the creation of dihydrotestosterone (determinant of male gender) may be the repetition of some pre-evolutionary experience which was the “in the beginning”. I believe knowledge of the experience is much like the memory created by a scent; it creates an image to associate it with, for which words have no description.
Great effort and research has gone into explaining why the difference between Genders. The first explanation offered is the obvious differences in our biological make up; able to confirm visually at birth. Now, with science it is known that chemistry stimulates certain attributes to be more prevalent in the earliest of developmental stages of human development in the womb. What is the relationship between these deciding factors and the factors which decided the earliest creation of our coming into being? If we can determine the gene which is responsible for a characteristic trait in a human being, to what do we attribute a characteristic trait of a planet?  Human life cannot exist without an atmosphere. I submit for consideration that the evolution of our planet to have a human life sustaining atmosphere is also part of the same experience coding we share as our human ancestry. That the heat contained within our core of planet is the same heat with in each of us that has existed prior to when cognition was a prevalent attribute in the universe; but memory none the less. 
“Go forth and multiply” it is written, was a command from God. Might be one our first attempts at verbalization of the occurrence which we all share immediately following conception? This is also the way the “Big Bang” theory tells us that life began; with a single object expanding rapidly and still continuing to do so. Equally the human species has not ceased in its ascent since when we first began.
Anthropologists seek the age of man from the remains of bones and evidence of our surrounding to measure our stage of development. Our religions teach to think in terms of an ancestral relationship with an infinite power. Our understanding of each and the story each tells may be a tall tale sign from our emergence to a physical/biological state of existence.
The theories about beginnings are innately human in our quest to know. Evidence is compelling when observed from the unabated writings, drawings and philosophies of antiquity. Processed today by a highly developed grey matter of our brains, we have a self-consciousness that looks beyond deductions make from past observations (the world is flat). We as individuals and we as the collective body are beginning to recognize that everything from our place of origin on this planet to the foods available where we came from have an impact on our cultural familiarity, and thus preferences; to even our self determination as to what is believable.
I have been looking for a forum to posit my thoughts on all the above in the hopes of generating conversation. I was on Facebook this morning when I came across Richard Dawkins addressing a group regarding a question an atheist’s ability to make judgment on morality. I found it refreshingly candid and remarkably honest. Just the kind of debate I enjoy listening to.
Thanks for taking the time to read my introduction. Please comment as I look forward to another voice and perspective on our collective understanding.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2017 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
BioPhilo - 03 April 2017 10:12 AM

I submit for consideration that the evolution of our planet to have a human life sustaining atmosphere is also part of the same experience coding we share as our human ancestry.

How so? They’re both physical processes, true, but I don’t understand what you mean by “experience coding.” Geological evolution and DNA are very different things, and experience does not factor into the equations anywhere I can see.

Welcome to the forums.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2017 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Point accepted.
My meaning is that all beginnings are experienced whether or not a cognitive memory is created to recall it. Mr. Dawkins make this point when using the example of a parasite bird population and how they leave their eggs in host nests, where the egg resembles those of the host bird. He goes on to explain how this adaptation is the result of a long line of repetition, albeit with some degree of failure until it has been mastered. The code in this example is genetic. My premise is that if we were to trace back the human genetic code to what it was before nature got it right we very well might find it was at the beginning of the universe. Thus “Thee Biginning”, as an experience is one in which our beginning is shared and its memory is in our genetic code as a species. And, to address the obvious next question, so too is this memory present in everything in the universe. The “code” is in other words, genetic possibility. The experience captured and repeated throughput eternity saved in our genetic code. Even some rocks evolve to become gems. Hope this adds some clarity to my thought.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2017 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

After the Big Bang the universe was far too hot for atoms to exist. It took 300,000 years for the universe to cool off enough for simple atoms to start forming. Then came several billion years of galaxy development and stars forming the basic elements and spreading around through supernova explosions, then after another round or tow of star formation stellar systems could form with enough heavy elements for rocky planets. After roughly nine billion years the conditions were right for life to begin forming on Earth, and then it took another couple billion years life to begin. DNA came along afterward. You cannot trace human genetics to the beginning of the universe.

Edited for clarity.

[ Edited: 05 April 2017 06:33 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Text book empirically supported data, of itself does not rule out the existence in some form of the ingredients which lead to the creation of DNA.
The occurrence of the Big Bang is the creation of all that would follow. That it took Billions upon Billions of years supports that life, however quantifiable existed from the beginning as evidenced by its emergence from the linage so noted above. Absent that event we can not say nor prove that our existence may or may not have come along. Time and distance from the event does not measure the sound the event created, the distance from the epicenter of it, nor what antecedents may have predicted its occurrence.
Ergo I submit that although undetectable, instruction in some form existed to enable the DNA to come forth when it did. Hence I assert that it is part of human ancestry and we carry the unconscious memory of that beginning. 
There are a myriad of sciences’ empirically supported data which when viewed simultaneously demonstrate biologically, socially, behaviorally, philosophically and in many of our belief systems world wide that we mimic some of the same traits from early evolution. More than any other, in my opinion, epistemology unlocks some of the mystery behind the Big Bang. If that event and all that transpired after it were fashioned by an intelligent design, then knowledge of that design is inherent in each and every occurrence and evolution of it.
So I imagine. And is imagination real? Where does it come from? Is Imagination knowledge? If empirical data is to be trusted, it is at the exclusion of another perception?
I do not claim to have the answers. I do believe those questions are worthy of consideration in our quest for understanding of our beginning and the nature of our relationship to thee Beginning.
With all do respect,

Your Humble Servant.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2009-10-21
BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 08:10 AM

Text book empirically supported data, of itself does not rule out the existence in some form of the ingredients which lead to the creation of DNA.

I really need to stop getting into these conversations where someone says, “well, yeah, data, sure, that doesn’t PROVE anything”.

BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 08:10 AM

There are a myriad of sciences’ empirically supported data which when viewed simultaneously demonstrate biologically, socially, behaviorally, philosophically and in many of our belief systems world wide that we mimic some of the same traits from early evolution. More than any other, in my opinion, epistemology unlocks some of the mystery behind the Big Bang. If that event and all that transpired after it were fashioned by an intelligent design, then knowledge of that design is inherent in each and every occurrence and evolution of it.
So I imagine. And is imagination real?

Okay, that’s enough. You’ve already undefined “data”, “life”, “consciousness”, might was just say that reality isn’t real and get it over with.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

My apology if I have discounted your information in anyway. I was merely giving what I believe to be support for my contention. I don’t view our world so deterministically or literally, and rely on various inputs before drawing a conclusion. For me this was an exercise which proved fruitful in letting me know I have lot more work to do to gain acceptance of my contention; it’s a good thing. I don’t want just quote others to express my thoughts. Therefore I have inherent ownership for my own words and response to them.
Would it be fair to say that your input has reliability for what it does conclude and that my version is simply different?
I have appreciated your contributions. Thank you for your time. Done

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2009-10-21
BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 10:15 AM

Done

Are you interested in answers? Or are you “done” done?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Answers. Yes please.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2009-10-21
BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 10:15 AM

My apology if I have discounted your information in anyway. I was merely giving what I believe to be support for my contention. I don’t view our world so deterministically or literally, and rely on various inputs before drawing a conclusion.

I have no idea what those inputs are. You have stated a variety of things, many of which aren’t valid, like your imagination. You’re free to speculate, but say you are, don’t try to tell me you hallucinated something, therefore it’s real.

BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 10:15 AM

For me this was an exercise which proved fruitful in letting me know I have lot more work to do to gain acceptance of my contention; it’s a good thing. I don’t want just quote others to express my thoughts. Therefore I have inherent ownership for my own words and response to them.

Yeah, but are you? Are you owning your own words, or do you make vague claims about “accepting inputs” that make your conclusions valid, that add weight to what you say. I haven’t noticed. I know you are making things up because I know what made up things look like, but you are trying to claim they aren’t just made up, like you can make a connection from life on earth to something that happened 13.7 billion years ago. There is a connection, but nothing like what you are saying.

BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 10:15 AM

Would it be fair to say that your input has reliability for what it does conclude and that my version is simply different?
I have appreciated your contributions. Thank you for your time. Done

I’ll leave you to judge the reliability of my input. We are different in that I would not make claims about DNA or anything else without some evidence to back it up. If there is nothing demonstrably true behind my words, how can we have a conversation about what my words mean?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 01:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Forum:a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. You obviously are not open to such an exchange.
“I really need to stop getting into these conversations”, good self revelation. Good Bye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2009-10-21
BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 01:07 PM

Forum:a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. You obviously are not open to such an exchange.
“I really need to stop getting into these conversations”, good self revelation. Good Bye

You obviously think you can tell me how to think. If the forum is indeed open, then that includes statements about the quality of the statements therein and personal statements explaining how one might care to engage.

A discussion of the “open mindedness” claim used as a silencing technique.

Buh-bye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2017 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

“...epistemology unlocks some of the mystery behind the Big Bang.”

Nonsense. I don’t think you know the means by of “epistemology.” What we know (and can know) makes us 99 percent sure matter could not exist for 300,000 years after the Big Bang. DNA is made of matter.

I’m with Lausten. Buy bye.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2017 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  380
Joined  2015-11-28

From the beginning of our species life, from what I read we do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2017 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
BioPhilo - 05 April 2017 08:10 AM

Text book empirically supported data, of itself does not rule out the existence in some form of the ingredients which lead to the creation of DNA.
The occurrence of the Big Bang is the creation of all that would follow. That it took Billions upon Billions of years supports that life, however quantifiable existed from the beginning as evidenced by its emergence from the linage so noted above. Absent that event we can not say nor prove that our existence may or may not have come along. Time and distance from the event does not measure the sound the event created, the distance from the epicenter of it, nor what antecedents may have predicted its occurrence.
Ergo I submit that although undetectable, instruction in some form existed to enable the DNA to come forth when it did. Hence I assert that it is part of human ancestry and we carry the unconscious memory of that beginning.

What other form do you have in mind?  Darron has already pointed out that atoms didn’t even begin to form until 300,000 years after the big bang, and complex molecules that form life billions of years after that.  What other form would these “instructions” take?

There are a myriad of sciences’ empirically supported data which when viewed simultaneously demonstrate biologically, socially, behaviorally, philosophically and in many of our belief systems world wide that we mimic some of the same traits from early evolution.

Yes, the evolution of LIFE, which took place long after the Big Bang.

If that event and all that transpired after it were fashioned by an intelligent design, then knowledge of that design is inherent in each and every occurrence and evolution of it.

I suppose it could be.  But from where did that intelligence come?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2017 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Scientists are exploring several possible locations for the origin of life, including tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life. Furthermore, using the DNA sequences of modern organisms, biologists have tentatively traced the most recent common ancestor of all life to an aquatic microorganism that lived in extremely high temperatures — a likely candidate for a hydrothermal vent inhabitant! Although several lines of evidence are consistent with the hypothesis that life began near deep sea vents, it is far from certain: the investigation continues and may eventually point towards a different site for the origin of life.
Another article I am finding a hard time relocating talks of microorganisms found in meteors found in frozen ice, which are allegedly millions of years old. Once thawed they came back to life. Now this presupposed the existence of life prior to records reported earlier.
Forgive me, I did not realize this to be an academic forum. I started this conversation with a supposition: “I have long thought that everything which precipitated the earliest beginnings of the “known Universe” is evident in each of us; in fact, we could not have thrived without.” Made no claim that there is a record of empirical evidence to support it.  I believe that human kind owes it to ourselves to look not just backwards for our understanding of where we came from, but to also glance to each side of ourselves. What this means to me is that our complex human biology is a synergy of occurrences none of which we can live without; which includes, imagination, intuition and instinct.
I am very interested to learn if such things COULD have had antecedents that preexisted “Human Cognition”.  Admittedly this is not your typical dinner conversation material. It is for me a worthwhile consideration. Where I feel it has merit for others to consider is that it has as a likelihood for explaining why we are; and if that may have had an effect on the the way we got here; Carl Jung referenced our common knowledge as a kind of collective unconscious. If there are certain things which are known to us all inherently, do we have to be in a physical form for that knowledge to exist?
So when articles such as the one above talk about DNA sequencing to a “common ancestor of all life” I can imagine there is yet more to be revealed.

After conception and the multiple replication of identical cells, differentiation has to occur or the organism dies.
So where do we know for certain that life itself did not have a plan how differentiate from molten lava to into the existence of all living things. 
Hopefully I haven’t upset personal sensibilities by voicing my thoughts here. Thank You. Your Humble Servant

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
‹‹ trouble posting      An introduction ››