DNA Theory is Incomplete

[Quintessence]

Which subdisciplines are you referring to? Psychology? Quantum science? Are these considered as strong as neuroscience today? And as far as I know the only central tenets of the material sciences are the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Even some of these have been challenged by other scientists.

Nah, I'm specifically thinking of the fields that I know best - ecology, conservation, land management. Reductionism just plain doesn't work when approaching those fields. It doesn't work when approaching environmental topics in general, from environmental science to climate science, which is why nobody uses it.

Can you recommend any books or papers? I understand the concepts behind the empirical method of science(repeatable, falsifiable, controls etc) but in science today it is not considered scientific if it is not empirical. And who is to say the immaterial world follows natural laws like the material world? It can however be studied as the unpopular Noetic sciences have shown.

I don't have any specific recommendations, no. Ironically, in spite of having studied specific sub-areas within the philosophy of science, I never actually had a formal overview of it in the broad sense, thus the broad formal theory of it isn't something I have specific resources for. Doesn't help that it's been a few years now since looking at such things.

Understand that I'm not suggesting that particular things can't be studied simply because they're beyond the scope of sciences. I'm quite an opponent of that sort of scientism - of taking the sciences as some sort of fundamentalist dogma and the only correct way of knowing the world. But I'm also an opponent of us calling something science when it isn't. I think we need to work more on recognizing the value and place of non-science. I like to think I'm in a unique position to do that as someone who has had both a scientific bent and an artistic bent for my entire life.

 

[Satsujin]

I'm specifically thinking of the fields that I know best - ecology, conservation, land management.

Hmmm, well, I wouldn't take those as some of the more major fields in science. Understand I'm not saying ALL science has a reductionist angle. Just many of the major ones. A reduction to materialism at least.

I'm also an opponent of us calling something science when it isn't. I think we need to work more on recognizing the value and place of non-science. I like to think I'm in a unique position to do that as someone who has had both a scientific bent and an artistic bent for my entire life.

That may be where the confusion lies. Thinking that something can't be called science because it is not fully material even though it can be researched and studied to provide testable, falsifiable, repeatable data using controls. I only recently learned about the Noetic Sciences but they seem to be doing this and look like a step in the right direction to more open enquiry. Of course, because of today's materialist inclination, they are not taken seriously. I assume by non-science you mean pseudo science. What would you define that as? Something that studies the non-material and can be taken seriously? Or cant be taken seriously? The term non-science implies that latter.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmmm, well, I wouldn't take those as some of the more major fields in science. Understand I'm not saying ALL science has a reductionist angle. Just many of the major ones. A reduction to materialism at least.

What's a "major" field? Ecology is a huge sub-discipline of the biological sciences, as is the application of that knowledge in the forms of conservation and land management. Honestly, little in biology makes any sense at all from a reductionist lens, but I'm getting the impression from this that you are using an unconventional understanding of reductionism in the context of human knowledge. Reductionism means one attempts to understand reality through dissection of small parts, and is contrasted with a holistic view where one attempts to understand reality through consideration of the whole. One can be a reductionist materialist as much as a reductionist non-materialist.

That may be where the confusion lies. Thinking that something can't be called science because it is not fully material even though it can be researched and studied to provide testable, falsifiable, repeatable data using controls.

I don't recall saying that, though. I recall saying something must be quantified in order to pass the muster of scientific standards, as you can't analyze anything with statistics unless you've got a number to it. The sciences, social sciences in particular, routinely quantify non-material things, such as a person's thoughts or cultural ideas. I understand that the sciences get conflated and confused with materialism, but it's not at all required for it. Intangibles like ideas or thoughts can be quantified just as well as the length of someone's leg.

I only recently learned about the Noetic Sciences but they seem to be doing this and look like a step in the right direction to more open enquiry. Of course, because of today's materialist inclination, they are not taken seriously.

I'm pretty sure there are reasons for that aside from that, but it's not something I've personally looked into.

I assume by non-science you mean pseudo science. What would you define that as?

By non-science I just mean non-science... which encompasses the vast majority of human experience and knowledge. Anything that lies outside the narrow confines of empirical, methodological naturalism is non-science. That describes everything from human relations, the arts ranging from storytelling to oil painting, trade skills, religions, and more. We take non-science seriously on a routine basis.

Pseudoscience is specifically a non-science that masquerades as science, but isn't. I understand the motives for misconstruing something as scientific - as a culture we tend to feel something must be science to be seen as legitimate. Thus there is incentive for people will lie to themselves and to others about a work being scientific. But it's still a lie - a lie that often backfires and makes the idea sound that much more disingenuous and fraudulent. I've far more respect for people simply presenting something for what it is instead of posturing and pretending one is scientific. Something doesn't need to be science to be legitimate or of value, and I have much more respect for an honest approach. It's not the stuff of pseudoscience I have a problem with (I mean, good gods... I'm a Witch... I practice spellcraft!), it's the calling it science when it isn't that I have a problem with.

 

[Satsujin]

iI think you're misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I'm not saying ALL sciences only deal with the material even though many seem to approach solely from a material point. Really, I am saying that new sciences like Noetics should be taken more seriously instead of just being called pseudoscience and ignored. Check out the data on that Global Consciousness Project(GCP) page I posted. You can find it by searching for GCP on the prev page. Even neuroscience and biology can be used to deal with immaterial aspects in a material manner. Did you know Japanese scientists have created technology that can video record your dreams now? Its still new but can produce a movie of your dreams. I dont think it has audio yet though. There are youtube videos on this.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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. There were also a lot of new discoveries with what was considered Junk DNA. 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.

In atheism there is enormous pressure to reach a unifying/ complete explanation and close the book, leaving no room for "faith"- "belief" etc -

This is exactly what happened with 'immutable classical physics, and static/steady state universes which were touted to 'make God redundant' - case closed

I think the core flaw with evolution is exactly the same as these two also- entropy- simple laws make simple results, both needed further underlying instructions specific to particular outcomes to be functional.

There is some interesting work in epigenetics etc, looking at alternative processes. But questioning 'classical' evolution, like questioning static universes and classical physics- can still be viewed as heretical by some in this day and age. It's no coincidence that Lemaitre and Planck were staunch skeptics of atheism

 

[Bunyip]

In atheism there is enormous pressure to reach a unifying/ complete explanation and close the book, leaving no room for "faith"- "belief" etc -

No, there is no such thing as an 'atheism of the gaps' fallacy. Atheism is not connected to science - although you seem stuck on that misconception.

This is exactly what happened with 'immutable classical physics, and static/steady state universes which were touted to 'make God redundant' - case closed

I think the core flaw with evolution is exactly the same as these two also- entropy- simple laws make simple results, both needed further underlying instructions specific to particular outcomes to be functional.

There is some interesting work in epigenetics etc, looking at alternative processes. But questioning 'classical' evolution, like questioning static universes and classical physics- can still be viewed as heretical by some in this day and age. It's no coincidence that Lemaitre and Planck were staunch skeptics of atheism

 

[Kirran]

Weighing as someone who's studied this quite a bit:

Proteins get organised into the 'body structure for life' based on their properties, and the environment in which they are produced (the body, or the mother's body, or the egg, etc). Hox genes only serve to regulate this process in various ways, but they aren't some master switch which makes a pile of protein into a body.

 

[Satsujin]

Thanks Kirran, I did not know that. Can your recommend some online papers or articles viewable for free that might provide more info?

 

[Kirran]

Thanks Kirran, I did not know that. Can your recommend some online papers or articles viewable for free that might provide more info?

No worries. It's not really an exact theory in that way - it hasn't been postulated. It's just what we see in individual cases, and see no need to propose some higher level of organisation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am saying that new sciences like Noetics should be taken more seriously instead of just being called pseudoscience and ignored.

On Noetic dot org I found a paper titled Effects of Intentionally Enhanced Chocolates on Mood. I found another one titled Double Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Attention on Water Crystal Formation. Taking a look at these papers I notice the mathematics, careful experiment design and layout and explanations. These are studies or reports. What is missing that would make them Science is plenty of peer review and a compelling reason to do the experiments in the first place. Science cannot take place if people don't see something that needs to be explained. People have to take interest, and people have to check each other's work. Until that happens the subject cannot be considered a science. Its just reports and studies by individuals. It doesn't matter how skilled the individual is. Even Einstein had his work checked by many people. You would need competing researchers at multiple institutions, and there doesn't seem to be anything like that going on. Nobody is interested, so it remains research not science.

 

[David M]

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. There were also a lot of new discoveries with what was considered Junk DNA. 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.

Your knowledge is incorrect and incomplete, its long been known that DNA does more than simply contain the code for the production of proteins. A very important function of DNA is the regulation of how and when genes are expressed, it is from this function that body structures are "organised".

DNA is indeed the blueprint for life on this planet, that is because DNA does far more than just "produce proteins". But it does not contain every single piece of information that determines the end result, the environment also affects gene expression and body formation.

HoX genes are certainly important for body plans, that is a fact as experiments that modify HoX genes have shown. However they are not the only genes that determine body plan development.

 

[Kirran]

Around 5% of DNA does something in eukaryotes. Around 1.2% is protein coding. So 3.8% is basically regulation.

 

[outhouse]

In atheism there is enormous pressure to reach a unifying/ complete explanation and close the book, leaving no room for "faith"- "belief" etc -

Science does not look at faith because it is belief in the light of NO EVIDENCE.

No logical or reasonable conclusion in life is based on no evidence.

core flaw with evolution

Is you don't understand it.

 

[outhouse]

Noetics should be taken more seriously instead of just being called pseudoscience and ignored.

Obvious pseudoscience is what it is. When people refuse to follow good methodology, it is pseudoscience

It is pseudoscience

 

[Aly Millard]

We don't know everything about absolutely anything at all. Does that mean we should dismiss it all as garbage or just make educated guesses as to which theories sound most probable?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We don't know everything about absolutely anything at all. Does that mean we should dismiss it all as garbage or just make educated guesses as to which theories sound most probable?

We already know for a fact freedom is real and relevant from our daily live, so we can throw all theories about origins which are not based on the mechanism of choosing in the garbage.

But in stead what happens knowledge about free will is thrown in the garbage. The wiki on free will is a mess of contradicting viewponts with little to no practical knowledge of how things are chosen.

And with that knowledge weak, democracy, religion, and all subjectivity becomes weak too.

Fundamental knowledge is being destroyed in the name of science. The scientific community is garbage just as well, no more money to them.

 

[Aly Millard]

We already know for a fact freedom is real and relevant from our daily live, so we can throw all theories about origins which are not based on the mechanism of choosing in the garbage.

But in stead what happens knowledge about free will is thrown in the garbage. The wiki on free will is a mess of contradicting viewponts with little to no practical knowledge of how things are chosen.

And with that knowledge weak, democracy, religion, and all subjectivity becomes weak too.

Fundamental knowledge is being destroyed in the name of science. The scientific community is garbage just as well, no more money to them.

Yeh, but do we? Maybe in the future us humans may discover something that jusst makes all the things we think are true not true. Maybe, somehow, I'm not typing this article right now even though I think I am due to some undiscovered particle that makes you think you are doin........ You see what I'm getting at? Nothing can be certain.