Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Dawkins' book, The Genetic Book of the Dead: A Darwinian Reverie, just published September 17, 2024, is very likely to provide as much as scientists know today. I have only just started the book so I cannot yet say how detailed Dawkins is about the evolution of the DNA structure. However, based on what I have read so far, the newest Dawkins book is likely to be very relevant to your question.

you know that's interesting, although I doubt I will read it because I have so much to do and read as well, but -- now you got me wondering if DNA and RNA actually die when the flesh dies. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

Dawkins' book, The Genetic Book of the Dead: A Darwinian Reverie, just published September 17, 2024, is very likely to provide as much as scientists know today. I have only just started the book so I cannot yet say how detailed Dawkins is about the evolution of the DNA structure. However, based on what I have read so far, the newest Dawkins book is likely to be very relevant to your question.

Actually I was thinking that back to the soil it goes -- as God said to Adam in reference to death. From the soil, back to the soil.

 

[cladking]

No one has shown that it [consciousness] is relevant, so why worry about it.

Why worry about it??!!!?

Because Darwin et all els have made the assumption. If it is false than so is the Theory of Evolution.

Sounds like a fine reason to worry about it.

 

[rkwnyc]

you know that's interesting, although I doubt I will read it because I have so much to do and read as well, but -- now you got me wondering if DNA and RNA actually die when the flesh dies. What do you think?

My understanding is that DNA can only replicate itself as part of a living cell - it is not living by itself but the key component to the reproduction of cells - which is necessary for our ongoing living.

you know that's interesting, although I doubt I will read it because I have so much to do and read as well, but -- now you got me wondering if DNA and RNA actually die when the flesh dies. What do you think?

 

[McBell]

I've seen no evidence from some claiming to be theists on here that demonstrate they are theists. In fact, the behavior often seems the opposite to me.

It is another nothing burger they think is some sort of ace in the hole.

 

[McBell]

OK, if that is so, let's see how you respond as to why you are a theist, how about it? I can start, but how about you, will you say why you are a "believer in God" under that circumstance?

Belief in at least one deity is all it takes to be a theist...

You do know that, right?

 

[John53]

What insult? Let's keep going over it, ok?

Sure. What apology?

 

[John53]

Interesting that I've not seen explanations from some of those here who claim to be a "theist" as to why they are theists. very interesting.

I'd say that is true for most theists including yourself.

 

[McBell]

you know that's interesting, although I doubt I will read it because I have so much to do and read as well, but -- now you got me wondering if DNA and RNA actually die when the flesh dies. What do you think?

 

[We Never Know]

View attachment 97343

All ya have to do is think about cases of dead bodies where they get DNA to identify the body.

 

[McBell]

All ya have to do is think about cases of dead bodies where they get DNA to identify the body.

For what reason?

 

[We Never Know]

For what reason?

Gee I don't know... How about what youns are talking about. They can extract DNA from people who have been dead for thousands years or longer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gee I don't know... How about what youns are talking about. They can extract DNA from people who have been dead for thousands years or longer.

It's interesting, I think. After You Die, These Genes Come to Life

 

[YoursTrue]

View attachment 97343

As I said, it's interesting. After You Die, These Genes Come to Life

 

[gnostic]

you know that's interesting, although I doubt I will read it because I have so much to do and read as well, but -- now you got me wondering if DNA and RNA actually die when the flesh dies. What do you think?

DNA & RNA are essential biological macromolecules (macromolecule means ”large molecule“) in each living cell, but DNA & RNA, by themselves are never alive, YoursTrue.

DNA & RNA can persist in the body of a dead organism, but just as tissues decay and decompose, breaking down the proteins in the tissues and cells, so can either nucleic acid. Eventually you cannot test the DNA of any cells, as the nucleic acid breakdown.

DNA can survive for thousands of years, but it depends on the body of being a frozen mummified remains, like some of the frozen mammoths found.

You cannot test DNA or RNA when it become fossilised, where the mineralized tissue parts (eg bones, teeth, exoskeleton remain) in a body becomes rock.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why worry about it??!!!?

I'm not. I'm more concerned that you manipulated my post that you responded to. You may want to reconsider persisting in that practice.

Why worry about what you claim is fact when there is nothing to consider it to be fact.

Because Darwin et all els have made the assumption. If it is false than so is the Theory of Evolution.

A nearly incoherent claim that is incorrect. There is no reference to consciousness, because there is no evidence to support that it is involved or necessary to evolution to require being mentioned by the theory of evolution. And I think zero chance you will ever even attempt to support your claim that it is.

The lack of involvement of consciousness in evolution is not an assumption of the theory. It isn't considered, because there is no reason to consider it.

So far, we know what you think are assumptions of the theory, but not any actual assumptions.

Sounds like a fine reason to worry about it.

Then I would say that all your worry is for naught and merely a manifestation of your ignorance of this subject.

 

[Pogo]

you know that's interesting, although I doubt I will read it because I have so much to do and read as well, but -- now you got me wondering if DNA and RNA actually die when the flesh dies. What do you think?

I think that there is no point in your asking these questions after as long as you have been here. Having more to read is very apparently a waste of time in your case though maybe a completely different subject might have some value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again. I not only don't believe in the Theory of Evolution I also don't believe that it is reflective of reality. One of its numerous problems, the reasons it is not reflective of reality, is that they have weird and erroneous definitions and assumptions.

Reading your posts, it seems that what you call "erroneous definitions and assumptions" is just you and your strawmen, mistakes, misunderstandings and willful ignorance.

Like after all this time, still not understanding what "fit" means in evolutionary biology.
I mean.... literally in the previous post of the one you are replying to, you required it explained that "mate selection" is part of "natural selection".

You even literally used the word "selection" and still you had to have this pointed out to you.
It's kind of hard to take your objections to the biological sciences seriously if you even manage to get such basic things wrong.

When I abandoned the "theory"

What's up with the quotes?
Are you trying to make another fallacious anti-science point?

many many years ago I also abandoned their definitions.

Yeah, it shows. You manage to get most basic terminology completely wrong. Like "fit" and "selection".

I can read the results of an experiment without knowing they believe females engage sexually in "natural selection". I would describe this as "unnatural selection" if I believed in survival of the fittest and such things. Females can control with whom they mate but they can't control the mostly wired parameters for how they make such choices. I am merely suggesting that selection of healthy and typical mates is part of what makes up every individuals and, as such, related to consciousness and language.

HILARIOUS.

It took you literally just one post to repeat the mistake of which I predicted that while you seemed to acknowledged to have learned something, you would simply repeat the same mistake in the future. Which you do in literally the very first post following that prediction.

Ow my!

No, I probably won't remember that you say that this is part of survival of the fittest

Yeah, it seems you have already forgotten it.

because I don't care about it any more than you care whether I believe in God or not or the nature of that God.

Correct. You don't care about being wrong and misrepresenting the theory.
That's a you-problem.

We can't help you if you are so adverse at learning and so insisting on repeating your mistakes.
Be my guest to live your life in this perpetual willful ignorance, but the only thing you'll accomplish is that you'll continue to be wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is YOU suggesting that species change on the basis of fitness and sexual selection differentials.

PART OF IT

What is it about these words that is tripping you up?

I believe almost every force exerted by nature on individuals and species is to keep them exactly as they are.

Your belief is demonstrably wrong.
Selection pressures change in parallel with ever-changing environments.

Species either adapt to these changes and thrive, or they don't and die.

Every time a fox chases a rabbit the rabbit and fox are more rabbit and fox than ever. If the fox comes home with a full belly it more likely to reproduce and more likely to reproduce a typical and fit fox. Without a full belly it is more likely to reproduce another day but it didn't come home hungry because it isn't fit, it came home hungry because the rabbit got away. Very few unfit individuals are created and most of these fall by the wayside without reproducing. They are accidents of nature and not the cause of speciation. If they reproduce their off spring are more likely to be unfit so such problems are quickly bred out of populations.

All you are doing here is once again demonstrating that you don't understand what "fit" means in evolutionary context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Um...I hate to say this, but I'm betting no money on the fact that you will get no answer except to tell you don't understand...lol...uneducated and etc. in that vein. Vein? Oh no, that's a metaphor...lol...

Answer to what?