DNA Theory is Incomplete

[Ouroboros]

Based purely on my Googling I found evidence of a scientist who says misrepresentation goes on. Like I said before, he may have been mistaken but seemed genuine enough.

I don't think he's mistaken. Using the "blueprint" analogy is very common, but it's an analogy for the purpose of making it easier for common people to understand. It has that purpose. I think he and you are both overreacting about the issue.

I've also found anti-ID sites that say Hox genes ARE the complete answer. I wont say they are scientific sites. Maybe Hox genes was not a good example of dogma in science.

You can link to those sites if you want to.

It wouldn't surprise me if some scientists, even perhaps many scientists are ill-informed about how the hox genes work. The science in the area has expanded the past 10-15 years dramatically, so it's not too strange to see many of the earlier culls from school having slightly wrong impressions of how it works. Many scientists don't have time to read and study all new science all the time. In fact, the information doubling is happening everywhere, every 18 months. So to keep up, a scientist have to spend all their time, not doing anything else, just reading, and still not be able to keep up! Scientists happen to be humans too!!! Big surprise, but it's true. They're not gods. They're not infinite in knowledge, insight, and read-up on every scientific article out there. Things change. We get to know more. Which means that people are constantly falling behind, and scientist as well.

Anyway, I think I will read Sheldrake's book to get a better idea of dogma in science. I don't have the resources to produce specifically scientific articles claiming what I say. Maybe they don't exist.

Is there dogma in science? Yes. I actually agree on that.

Are there flaws in science? Yes. That too.

Do some scientists lie at times? Yup. That happens.

Are we wrong at times about science? Absolutely.

Do we many times rely on old information in science and are not read-up on the latest? Constantly! The biggest challenge of them all.

 

[Satsujin]

Yeah calling something pseudo scientific seems common when scientists try to explore the immaterial realm. Only the material is real to science. I'm not sure what is believed about consciousness but the general idea seems to be that it can be explained materially. Just we haven't found the answer in the material realm but thats where it is for sure. Sounds like dogma to me. For me that doest work when we have people like Patient R --- a man who lost all parts of brain associated with selfawareness by science but was still self aware and functional except for strong memory issues.

Anyway, people should be free to believe what they want. Even materialist scientists.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah calling something pseudo scientific seems common when scientists try to explore the immaterial realm. Only the material is real to science. I'm not sure what is believed about consciousness but the general idea seems to be that it can be explained materially. Just we haven't found the answer in the material realm but thats where it is for sure. Sounds like dogma to me

How can it be dogma wen we see questions answered in the brain and the tester knows the answer before the test subject ?????????

Dogma, is following mythology.


Following lines of factual evidence is not.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah calling something pseudo scientific seems common when scientists try to explore the immaterial realm.

Is there another name for it?

Exploring is one thing, its the conclusions that are pseudo scientific.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah calling something pseudo scientific seems common when scientists try to explore the immaterial realm. Only the material is real to science. I'm not sure what is believed about consciousness but the general idea seems to be that it can be explained materially. Just we haven't found the answer in the material realm but thats where it is for sure. Sounds like dogma to me. For me that doest work when we have people like Patient R --- a man who lost all parts of brain associated with selfawareness by science but was still self aware and functional except for strong memory issues.

Consciousness is a tricky issue. The dogma I consider holding a stronghold is reductionism, which relates to your point about materialism above. There are some (maybe even plenty) scientists who now know that reductionism might not be the way to answer all questions. For instance, swarm behavior isn't reduced to a single individuals behavior or function. It's the result of the co-operation or competing behaviors of many. Consciousness probably has to be explained by the interaction of many neurons rather than just matter becoming conscious. It's the processing information and information itself that produce awareness, somehow.

The beliefs in science regarding consciousness are many. Even in cognitive science you have different fields and views, if I understand it right. Different schools of thought.

Anyway, people should be free to believe what they want. Even materialist scientists.

Of course, but do know that today "materialism" does include energy, fields, and such things as well, not just actual physical matter. You can't really see energy. You can only see the effects of it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't remember now, but Hox genes are the big ones regarding this, but there are a couple of more. Can't remember what they're called. And then we have epigenetics that can affect the body plan as well. For instance, mothers who don't get enough zinc can give birth to boys with hypogonadism.

What do you mean that you think it's not accepted by others? Other scientists? Like who?


Really. That's news to me. Do you have a link or source? I'm interested.


Science isn't willing to lie. Science is a field of study that works hard on trying to find the objective truths about nature. Scientists, however, can sometimes lie. But that's what peer-review is for. And sometimes, wrong information, facts, or theories can stick around for a while until it's challenged by a new generation. Usually, during generation shifts in science, you see old theories put to the test. Rarely is faulty science around for very long.


Look up Drosophila melanogaster.

It is just completely delusional about the enormous difficulties scientists have with accepting subjectivity is valid. Accepting that opinion, belief, religion, expression of emotion is right for finding truth, besides fact.

 

[Quintessence]

It wouldn't surprise me if some scientists, even perhaps many scientists are ill-informed about how the hox genes work. The science in the area has expanded the past 10-15 years dramatically, so it's not too strange to see many of the earlier culls from school having slightly wrong impressions of how it works. Many scientists don't have time to read and study all new science all the time. In fact, the information doubling is happening everywhere, every 18 months. So to keep up, a scientist have to spend all their time, not doing anything else, just reading, and still not be able to keep up! Scientists happen to be humans too!!! Big surprise, but it's true. They're not gods. They're not infinite in knowledge, insight, and read-up on every scientific article out there. Things change. We get to know more. Which means that people are constantly falling behind, and scientist as well.

I'd like to add to this that scientists are specialists. They are always specialists in this day and age. It isn't really a matter of not having time. It's a matter of the sciences being specialist disciplines with specialist membership. The number of relevant experts and specialist in any particular scientific field is quite small. And on something like hox genes? It's a tiny fraction of the total number of scientists, and even a small fraction of biological scientists. I'll confess this talk of scientists as if we're some sort of uniform group is beginning to be another one of my pet peeves.

I'd also like to point out that there is typically a dramatic difference between what the general public thinks sciences (or scientists) say, and what the sciences (or the relevant subject experts) actually say. The public likes to moralize and politicize everything. Which is unfortunate, and it twists and distorts things not insubstantially.

 

[Bunyip]

Most scientists and atheists would say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life. But this is untrue. What science currently knows about DNA is that it is the molecular blueprint for the production of proteins. As far as I know, there is nothing indicating how those proteins get organized into the body structure for life. This info not in the fertilized egg either. Maybe it is something that will be discovered later. But the point is that is not what science currently teaches. As far as I know, it DOES say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life.

Never seen it defined as such. But I have to ask - what on earth do you mean by a 'complete' or 'incomplete' theory?

What are you trying to say when you claim that a theory is incomplete? What is a complete theory.

 

[Satsujin]

would any of you you say that more scientists are leaving the tenets of reductionism? Or that it is still the majority view?
I don't know about this but it may be hard to believe in the immaterial world without personal experience. But even personal experience can be rationalized as psychosis, hallucination and delusion unless you truly believe. I've had several spiritual experiences experienced as a voice in my head and was not 100% sure they were not simply psychosis since I have a history of psychoses. Aids is generally incurable but there was one Islamic cleric who got it after sleeping with prostitutes and was cured after slowly dying for a long while after which he saw a vision of Jesus. These stories are generally ignored by science as 'lucky coincidences'. Am I saying Christianity is the only true religion? No, but Jesus is possibly the only form God takes in visions because Jesus can be recognized universally after most artists painted him the same. Dude with long hair and goatee.

Just out of curiosity, what is your explanation for Patient R? I think the scientists involved in testing him took the opinion that if the scientific parts associated with self awareness had disappeared but he was still self aware then awareness must be located in the brain stem somewhere or that no specific part of the brain controls self-awareness which makes more sense. Are there some central groups for the differing fields of science that state what is currently believed to be true? Science probably doesn't claim something is true when something contradictory has been found(scientists may) but they are unwilling to explore the immaterial as a place for answers possibly out of fear of losing reputation and being laughed at as pseudo scientists. But experiments can be performed on the immaterial just prolly not empirical ones. I haven't read much about it but Sheldrake claims to have based his theory of morphic resonance on experiments he conducted. Just prolly through no process a materialist would accept.

 

[Satsujin]

Anyway, I cannot change your beliefs. Just make you more aware of the alternative I have chosen and my reasons for it. If you all have closed your mind to the concept of an immaterial existence then that is your decision.
I will not respond in this thread unless something amazing crops up.

 

[Bunyip]

Anyway, I cannot change your beliefs. Just make you more aware of the alternative I have chosen and my reasons for it. If you all have closed your mind to the concept of an immaterial existence then that is your decision.
I will not respond in this thread unless something amazing crops up.

What is an 'immaterial existence'?

How could a person exist and be immaterial at the same time, surely 'immaterial existence' is a contradiction in terms?
Like a tall short person, a fat skinny person.

 

[Satsujin]

How could a person exist and be immaterial at the same time, surely 'immaterial existence' is a contradiction in terms?

Existence means to be. Not be only material.

I know I said I wouldn't respond and then just did. Maybe I'll respond to question but not statements whether I agree with them or not. If you are not a pseudo skeptic then I recommend read the first 33 pages of Sheldrake's Science Set Free. It is basically an outline of how Science evolved from both material/immaterial to material alone. You can get it for free on some illegal online sites.

 

[Bunyip]

Existence means to be. Not be only material.

How can a person be and not be material? We are material. Or do you mean immaterial existence like an abstract?

And what do you mean by 'incomplete' theory?

 

[Satsujin]

How can a person be and not be material? We are material. Or do you mean immaterial existence like an abstract?

Are you only your body? Or is your mind part of you too?

 

[Bunyip]

Are you only your body? Or is your mind part of you too?

My mind is a non-physical product of the brain. It depends upon a physical brain existing.

 

[Bunyip]

What is an 'incomplete' theory?

 

[Satsujin]

What is an 'incomplete' theory?

Ignore my ref to incomplete theory.

 

[Bunyip]

Ignore my ref to incomplete theory.

Oh ok. So you know now that theories are never considered 'complete' or 'incomplete'?

 

[Satsujin]

They are touted as complete until something comes to challenge that. There have been points in history when scientists claimed everything that could be discovered about the world had been. Before quantum science appeared for example.

 

[Bunyip]

Existence means to be. Not be only material.

Sure, like abstracts.

I know I said I wouldn't respond and then just did. Maybe I'll respond to question but not statements whether I agree with them or not. If you are not a pseudo skeptic then I recommend read the first 33 pages of Sheldrake's Science Set Free. It is basically an outline of how Science evolved from both material/immaterial to material alone. You can get it for free on some illegal online sites.