changin' ur genes

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by gamelord, Jun 6, 2018.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    The same can be said for me.
    Or almost anyone.
    Simply by the math.

    You think there is some sort of hard line between desirable people and undesirable people. There isn't. It's a smooth curve.


    There are an uncountable number of females out there neither traditionally attractive nor economically sound, who are lonely and looking for companionship.

    They see men vying for playboy-esque women and think no man would ever give them the time of day.
    You are one of those men.

    What are you looking for? The pretty, sexy, bright girl of your grade school memories that you can romp with in the grass? Or a companion who cares about you even more than you care about her?

    You have been told by society what you ought to be looking for. And what you ought not accept.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Biology is a natural technology, not a man-made artificial technology. Watch the internal natural mechanisms hard at work inside our bodies, every moment of our lives, by the billions.

    Epigenetic Mechanisms

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Technology is - by definition - man made. That is what distinguishes it from natural.

    You might as well say black is just a dim white. Love is just happy hate.

    We use words to define and illuminate things - make them discrete from each other - to distinguish rock from cellphone. If you simply assert that a cellphone is a rock, then words lose meaning, all you are unable to discuss anything.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I disagree. Natural technology is "biological" (bio-technology). Human technology is "artificial", often bases on Biomimetics.
    So who came up with this technology? Sharks!
    https://www.sciencefocus.com/future...n-10-examples-of-nature-inspiring-technology/

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biomimetics

    Looks like our human technology is often derived from mimicking bio-technology.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Facts are not something that can be disagreed with.

    No it is not.

    Biology evolves; Technology makes.
    Tigers evolved claws. humans made spears.

    No. Sharks evolved the ability. Naturally.

    Absolutely. There is nothing preventing us from making something by copying something that has evolved. So what?

    You know, simply sharing some common words does not make something become relevant to a given topic. This is not the first time you've made such an error.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Absolutely. There is nothing preventing us from making something by copying something that has evolved. So what? [/quote]
    So you agree that humans make technology copied from evolved shark technology?
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    You do not understand what evolution is.

    Is this the take-away you were hoping for?
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Yes I do understand the "natural mechanics" of evolution and natural selection.
    Hopefully we haven't started yet. Would hate to get stuck on a word such as nano-technology, the natural ability of bio-chemicals to form complex functional structures. Biological technology
    https://www.thesaurus.net/technology#other-synonyms


    Many biologists use terms normally associated with human inventions. But which came first, the technologies employed by nature or our imitations of these technological abilities, which we then gave names.....?

    The reason is that nature teaches us much of our existing technology, because it's all mechanical, nothing mysterious. We copy the natural functional premises and call it technology. Therefore that which was the example for the technology may be called a "natural technology", IMHO.

    Insects had conquered aerodynamics a billion years before Lindbergh employed the right aerodynamics to get off the ground at all.

    Many flowers employ the functional natural technology (efficient energy collector) contained in the Fibonacci Sequence.

    The Venus flytrap uses hydraulic technology to close its leaves

    Nano-technology includes the self-formation and self-assembly technologies to manufacture very complex biological communication machinery. Nano-tubules......check em out!

    DNA is a natural chemical coding system including the ability for natural self-replication technologies.

    The human body is an extraordinary complex natural organic mechanism.

    Photosynthesis is a naturally evolved technology for converting light into growth energy.

    I am a Tegmark fan. Natural mathematics, natural patterns, natural technologies, natural mechanics, etc. ..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://multithesaurus.com/
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    If its natural, then it's not technology.

    (That does not mean you can't apply technology to biology, as you are fond of pointing out.)
    But "a natural technology" is about as sensical as "a correct error" or "a stationary movement".

    I'm not going to keep correcting you on this. If you insist on making up your own definitions for existing words, you're in for lot of eye-rolling from the world.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Can you suggest a single term that is more suitable to describe the mechanics of a naturally evolved functional process?
    I like natural technology just fine. It is very clear as to its intended mechanical perspective.

    OK then, tell all those who are studying nano-technology that they are not studying nano-technology but nano-evolution and see who is going to roll their eyes.

    No, Dave, my use of the terms natural technology, natural mechanisms, and natural architecture, and all those natural mathematical aspects of the universe is just fine.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Dave, would you accept the term natural "mechanism", or natural "machinery"? Would that constitute natural technology?
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/#SigSys
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-mechanisms/#MecFun
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Nano-technology is a human invention. It is technology (made by humans) at the submicroscopic scale.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I believe it is a specific scientific discipline; nano-technology, the spontaneous mathematical self-organization of nano-particles into functional mechanisms, such as nano-tubules. All very mechanical and mathematical all by itself without any interference by humans. Trillions of times per day.

    We are learning how to use nano-technology to imitate these natural processes, using the natural particle. Nothing artificial about them, until we design our own little toys using artificial ingredients.

    What would you call the natural processes that yield self-assembling and regeneration of functional nano-mechanisms?

    What is the objection to having natural mechanics and technologies? I thought that a specific reference to human application is called artificial use of natural technologies, biological machinery and mechanical functions or is that also verboten language?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    Yes.
    Technology is the act of copying a natural phenomenon. That does not - in any way - mean the phenomenon is technology.
    What makes the copied thing "technology " is that it is deliberately made.

    Things forming spontaneously is not technology; that is natural.

    It can't be more clear than this.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I understand what you are saying and I am not disputing that your use of the term technology is correct .
    But things do not form spontaneously. Nature does employ various techniques in the process of self-assembly. Those instructions are encoded in the organism's DNA and RNA.

    Give me a term which can replace our use of the word technology for the techniques nature employs.

    How about natural "mechanics", can that be applied for non-human uses. I know we cannot use the term "artifact" for a naturally occurring phenomena.
     
  19. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    I have 2 points to add here.

    1)Changing the expression of genes in an already born human is very difficult and is not expected to happen for the next decades, if ever. Despite the hype and the huge amount of money that have been spent, experiments with gene treatments have been unsuccessfull for decades. Some new technologies like CRISPR are promising, but still the obstacles are very very challenging, so don't expect real world results any time soon.

    2)Technology is a human-made word with a specific meaning (aka human-made inventions). Using the word technology to describe natural mechanisms or phenomena is not correct technically. However, i guess you can use it and everybody will understand what you mean.

    There are various reasons why this is problematic.
    Human technology refers to something that was made to serve a purpose. For example to obtain energy from coal, to create a nuclear bomb, or to create a water supply system, etc. They mimic natural phenomena such as the digestive system, the nuclear fusion in the sun and the water-cycle on earth (sea, clouds, rivers,etc.)

    Natural phenomena do not serve a purpose. They just exist. The sun fuses nuclear energy. If it didn't, it wouldn't be the sun and we would not be here to make this discussion. So from this point of view, the sun is a natural technology to keep us alive. However, would you call the sun a "technology"?
    Similarly the digestive system is a system of breaking down nutrients. As a part of a bigger system, it does not serve any other purpose apart from it helps itself to sustain itself. So apart from itself, the digestive system has no other purpose.
    Same thing with the water cycle. The system of rivers helps the water-cycle system to sustain itself. However, you would not call it exactly a technology.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  20. Vmedvil Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
    It is simple you just use a Retroviral Vector to change your genes , you can buy them from Addgene and many biotechnology companies they will change your genes after birth even just stick a VSV-G on them and they will add a gene to any cell or if you have a CRISPR insert it can silence any gene.

    https://www.addgene.org/viral-vectors/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That how we get glow in the dark cats.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    All technology, natural or human, refers to something that was made to serve a purpose. That's the evolutionary process.

    I still believe that human technology is no more than a copy of a natural technology (by any other name)

    IMO, technology is any form of machinery which produces a very specific product. It seems to me that an apple-tree is an amazing natural fruit producing machine. I don't believe we have been able to apply human technology to that purpose yet.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495
    This is astonishingly backwards thinking.
    Nature - and particularly evolution - does not make things to serve any purpose.

    W4U, I would not have pegged you for a believer in ID.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2019
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,495

Share This Page