Are instincts a program or a developed coincidence

[PsychoSarah]

Either they were created that way by God, or they evolved. But part of being a given species is having those behaviour patterns already there, implicit in the DNA.

I'd have to disagree, since there is variation in the strength of instinct expression between individuals, as well as instinct presence. The instincts are present in MOST members of a species, not necessarily all.

After all, any genetic instinct is going to be subject to change via mutation just as much as any other trait.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

After all, any genetic instinct is going to be subject to change via mutation just as much as any other trait.

i.e. not at all. basically, according to all living things God Created, His Way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i.e. not at all. basically, according to all living things God Created, His Way.

-_- do you seriously deny that mutation exists? I'd love to know how you think cells become cancerous, then.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

-_- do you seriously deny that mutation exists? I'd love to know how you think cells become cancerous, then.

It's not what I (nor you or anyone) thnks that is important, is it ?

Decades ago it was proven what cells are cancerous (identical cells no matter where they are in the body, mostly - something like 20 identical characteristics)
and why. A little research perhaps may reveal this to you. Maybe not, especially if someone does not trust Yahweh, since then they are 'cursed' and not blessed.

"I'd love to know how you think cells become cancerous" Really ? Now we will find out.... (if you take any action to truly find out what is already known) ....

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's not what I (nor you or anyone) thnks that is important, is it ?

Decades ago it was proven what cells are cancerous (identical cells no matter where they are in the body, mostly - something like 20 identical characteristics)
and why. A little research perhaps may reveal this to you. Maybe not, especially if someone does not trust Yahweh, since then they are 'cursed' and not blessed.

-_- I literally took and passed a Cancer Biology course in my last semester of college, which was this year. There are various characteristics most cancer cells have, but the mutations that cause them are not entirely the same.
Just look at cancer cell karyotypes like these, there is a ton of variation in the genomes of different cancers, regardless of what tissue they are derived from:
https://albertio.imgix.net/user-ass...4915-SKY.jpg?ixjsv=2.2.4&rect=960,490,0,0&w=1

https://www.worldwidecancerresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/karyotype-from-PMID-10865986.png

However, a unifying trait of all cancer cells is that they have mutations that impair mechanisms which control cell growth and division, among others, and that they themselves originate from normal, healthy cells.

The area of cancer research is extremely important to me personally. Nearly half of my family has either died of or suffered from cancer. A close childhood friend of mine is currently dying of cancer. Nearly everyone on this planet has friends or family that have had the disease or are currently suffering from it, so who DOESN'T care about cancer?

"I'd love to know how you think cells become cancerous" Really ? Now we will find out.... (if you take any action to truly find out what is already known) ....

-_- I don't think your commentary could have been directed at a worse atheist than myself when it comes to this topic. My degree is in Biomedical sciences and I went out of my way to take an advanced Cancer Biology course over the Virology course due to personal interests. If you think mutation doesn't have anything to do with cancer, you aren't even on a high school level of understanding cancer.

By the way, you still haven't actually said how you think cells become cancerous. I am waiting for your explanation, and I better not get more along the line of "you couldn't possibly get it" and "you should do your own research" from you in response. Because that's just insulting at this point. Do you even know what Src and p53 are and their relevance to cancer without looking them up? Heck, I'll stream all three episodes of "Cancer, the Emperor of all Maladies" with commentary from me during it just to present that I understand the topic, with additional information to show that I am not gaining the understanding just from the series itself. If that's what it takes to make more people understand cancer, then so be it.
Who wants to watch?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I literally took and passed a Cancer Biology course in my last semester of college, which was this year.

Sorry, According to Truth, God's Word, and Jesus,
this did not help you nor anyone else.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry, According to Truth, God's Word, and Jesus,
this did not help you nor anyone else.

-_- the scientific study of cancer is the reason why childhood acute leukemia isn't an absolute death sentence anymore. It helps those kids to live full lives. My grandmother would be dead if no one had put any effort into treating the disease. If you view prolonging life as pointless, that's a personal opinion I fundamentally would disagree with even if I believed in an afterlife.

But hey, I don't see an explanation of how you think cancer works here, and you entirely ignored my offer to watch "Cancer, the Emperor of all Maladies". No longer feeling the spirit of research? Don't want to direct me on the right path to learning about cancer? You can't just assert I don't know about a topic and need to research it more and leave it at that; the internet is too big of a place and too filled with premium cheap baloney to think I'd reasonably find the same sources as you on the matter. So do elaborate on your knowledge of cancer.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

the scientific study of cancer is the reason why childhood acute leukemia isn't an absolute death sentence anymore.

This is false.
SO sorry.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So do elaborate on your knowledge of cancer.

..... hmmmm..... you apparently never tried to find out the truth about cancer.... are you even willing now to find out ? It doesn't look like it....... Is there any reason at all you can show, that verifies that you really want to know the truth and to help heal people ?

 

[juvenissun]

I agree, but how did they appear in the first examples of each species?

Evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

..... hmmmm..... you apparently never tried to find out the truth about cancer.... are you even willing now to find out ? It doesn't look like it....... Is there any reason at all you can show, that verifies that you really want to know the truth and to help heal people ?

-_- who doesn't want to cure cancer? From those who have common decency and would want to cure any ailment even at the cost of themselves, to the most selfish individual on this planet that would use it for financial gain, there are motivations for everyone to want to know that information. Complete disinterest would be extremely abnormal.

But hey, if half of my family dying or suffering from the disease in their lives, as well as a childhood friend currently dying from the disease isn't adequate for me to be interested in curing the disease, then I don't know what to tell you. You can be choosy about who you tell that to, but in the end, all that will do is insure more people will die than necessary if you actually know a cure.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is false.
SO sorry.

-_- so do you think all kids with deadly leukemias die despite attempts at treatment, or do you think survival rates for these diseases wasn't higher during the start of the 21st century versus the start of the 20th century?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

-_- so do you think all kids with deadly leukemias die despite attempts at treatment, or do you think survival rates for these diseases wasn't higher during the start of the 21st century versus the start of the 20th century?

I'm so sorry you don't seem to care for them.
To want what is best for them.
The schools you went to (you admitted you went there)
taught you very common falsehoods about ... well, man's ways opposed to healthy ways that are natural inexpensive non-harmful and true - that have been true for thousands of years.

Can you ever even hope to realize this ? Or to ever even hope to learn how to help those if you care for them, in the ways God provided instead of harmful and greedy ways ?

 

[pshun2404]

1. I am unaware of any evolutionary scientists who believes evolution to be a random process. It is a process wherein random variations are selected. You have said as much here. You did not say as much in the post to which I objected. That's all you have to do in future: be honest and present the evolutionists' view accurately.

Now, if your seriously believe that there are evolutionary scientists who do not believe this, then just provide a citation to their published work where they state as much. Otherwise cease your misleading rhetoric. It is extremely unattractive.

Epigenetic factors do not offer any long-term, significant mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For personal reasons I regret this, since I have been seeking such a plausible mechanism as a vital element in an SF novel I have had on the backburner for four decades.

Seriously? I have to spell it out?

Any characteristic, no matter how small, that conveys an advantage, no matter how small, will be favoured by natural selection.

The fishy ancestors did not have the full range of fishy swimming skills. They didn't need them. They were not competing with other fish. They were competing with other fish ancestors, some of whom had not chanced to acquire a tiny bit of wriggling movement, a movement that provided a survival advantage.

"In the country of those incapable of swimming, the one-wriggle wonder is King."

In short, my answer was concise, pointed and relevant. I even translated it from the Latin for you (in regione caecorum rex est luscus), thus invoking memories of the H.G.Wells short story, which in turn was a peace offering, since the theme of the story provides the only plausible counter attack you could have to my remark. But it seems concision, elegance and erudition are not your thing. I'll keep that in mind.

I am unaware of any evolutionary scientists who believes evolution to be a random process. It is a process wherein random variations are selected.

Interesting, since I never said or implied that evolution (as a whole) is a random process (nice twist though), but also think about what you have said here...So again, how did the referenced instructions within the code arise? Selection among RANDOM variations? Okay then how did these RANDOM variations arise, and do we KNOW of any alternatives that actually existed that were not selected? Or must we assume they must have existed?

Consider genetic drift as one characteristic mechanism of evolution. Understanding Evolution says "Genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of the population but, unlike natural selection, through an entirely random process." How about mutations? Random or not random? Most are clearly random so natural selection then genetically works on that which is originally random.

Then you could read Evolutionary Biologist, John Tyler Bonner's book, Randomness in Evolution. Obviously natural selection makes sense (that the best suited or healthiest would pass on their genes as opposed to the least suited and unhealthy) but it must select from among these random variations produced by the appearance and effect of random mutations that had arisen.

Epigenetic factors do not offer any long-term, significant mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

I did not mention “acquired characteristics” (nice twist #2 though), just heritable changes in functions within the genome that effect phenotypical characteristics (these do not necessarily make changes in the DNA itself, mostly just how it functions in different organisms of the same species). They are however evidence of environmental influence which may affect transmission of certain propensities and talents. This is a really new but intriguing subject (I am keeping watch).

Those who could not swim would have died in their own generation, as would their offspring (if they even could have survived to reproduce), and we have no examples that such fish (or fishy creatures) even existed let alone became swimming fish.

But if you are saying swimming fish also existed with these non-swimming fishy types, and thus were selected, we have two issues to consider. One is that this would mean they already had the “referenced instructions” in their genetic code (which was my point and again where did these come from, how did they arise), or that there were others without these instructions or with alternate instructions, but to know this, we would have to have examples (unless we are to assume it), and there are none (I have looked for them).

 

[Tayla]

scientists are concluding that it is more likely that these propensities and abilities are somehow already written in the genetic code or are pre-coded into what becomes their developed brain. In the former such actions would occur on a purely biological basis but if the latter is more correct (still being based in genetic transmission) then it could constitute what we could call “knowledge”, or imply that important survival based memory is itself inherited.

Yes, God created all the biological components of all creatures. Simply marvelous!

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, God created all the biological components of all creatures. Simply marvelous!

Isn't it? Wonder-full!

 

[pshun2404]

Lynn Margulis on against Random Mutation says “...neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”

And I agree, in fact I believe because it is not just a random accident here and there, then it is equally plausible that it may be a purpose driven selection.

James Shapiro’s work encourages “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification. The emphasizes is systemic rather than atomistic and information based rather than stochastic”.

This purpose being already written before it is fulfilled could constitute what we could call “knowledge”, or imply the plausibility that an important survival based genetic memory is itself present and inherited.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe I did not phrase that as well as I should have. Of course we demonstrate instinctual or instinctive behaviors, and these are from "referenced instructions" predetermined IN "the genetic code"...and I was not referring to reflexes at all which however are also pre-programmed in the coding from before our fully developed birth. (go back to post #1)

Fixed Action Patterns and Their Human Manifestations | RealClearScience

From as early as the embryonic stage it is already a foregone conclusion that this organism will demonstrate these reflexes and they are also part of the expression of the played out code's intent (and I am not referring to the code making a mental choice).

When the software does its job the correct hardware performs the correct functions of the program's intention. For example, I had a 10 year old Dell computer with XP professional as the OS that simply could not use Windows 10 software (that hardware was not capable). The same is most likely true for biochemical codes. Certain hardware can do some things other hardware cannot. For an example of this, consider that a fish embryo can never develop fully functional lungs and breath successfully outside of the water. As an autonomic function it is not part of the program (referenced instructions). The hardware simply is not equipped to handle the software's inherent intention or purpose.

Looking at genetics as an analogy of a combination of software and hardware, is only conceptual.

Genetics is hardware only. There is no "hardware/software" distinction.
Life is, at bottom, just an extreme expression of complex chemistry.

 

[pshun2404]

Looking at genetics as an analogy of a combination of software and hardware, is only conceptual.

Genetics is hardware only. There is no "hardware/software" distinction.
Life is, at bottom, just an extreme expression of complex chemistry.

Genetics is hardware only.

So in your opinion Ophiolite was incorrect? There are no "referenced instructions" in the genetic code, specific to each species (for example manifesting Trachae in Beetles, but a Gill system in fish, or the specific type of functional Lungs all us humans share in common)?

Sorry...on this one I would have to defend the "referenced instructions" insight...which is the software aspect. Ignore the obvious if you wish.

 

[pshun2404]

-_- I literally took and passed a Cancer Biology course in my last semester of college, which was this year. There are various characteristics most cancer cells have, but the mutations that cause them are not entirely the same.
Just look at cancer cell karyotypes like these, there is a ton of variation in the genomes of different cancers, regardless of what tissue they are derived from:
https://albertio.imgix.net/user-assets/ebriii/00ce9db4-371d-416b-95ec-b002af7e4915-SKY.jpg?ixjsv=2.2.4&rect=960,490,0,0&w=1

https://www.worldwidecancerresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/karyotype-from-PMID-10865986.png

However, a unifying trait of all cancer cells is that they have mutations that impair mechanisms which control cell growth and division, among others, and that they themselves originate from normal, healthy cells.

The area of cancer research is extremely important to me personally. Nearly half of my family has either died of or suffered from cancer. A close childhood friend of mine is currently dying of cancer. Nearly everyone on this planet has friends or family that have had the disease or are currently suffering from it, so who DOESN'T care about cancer?


-_- I don't think your commentary could have been directed at a worse atheist than myself when it comes to this topic. My degree is in Biomedical sciences and I went out of my way to take an advanced Cancer Biology course over the Virology course due to personal interests. If you think mutation doesn't have anything to do with cancer, you aren't even on a high school level of understanding cancer.

By the way, you still haven't actually said how you think cells become cancerous. I am waiting for your explanation, and I better not get more along the line of "you couldn't possibly get it" and "you should do your own research" from you in response. Because that's just insulting at this point. Do you even know what Src and p53 are and their relevance to cancer without looking them up? Heck, I'll stream all three episodes of "Cancer, the Emperor of all Maladies" with commentary from me during it just to present that I understand the topic, with additional information to show that I am not gaining the understanding just from the series itself. If that's what it takes to make more people understand cancer, then so be it.
Who wants to watch?

Already had seen the 1st, but just saw the photos from Worldwide....it was great (just sayin). Sorry to hear of your early maladay, a dear friend's son also went through this (he is now in his 20s and still cancer free).

Yes there are definite distinctions and ALSO similarities in cancer cells (depending on many factors not the least of which is the type of cancer as well as the organism it arises in both of which affect the genomic variances)

Just wanted to let you know someone was interested in your points.