UFOs, are they real

That old chestnut about we only use some small percent of our brain capacity has been haunting the world of psychology and neurology for years!!! I'm guessing they would all pay a month's salary to have that old ghost exorcised once and for all.

We use all of our capacity!!! What do you think? It's like you bought a car with a V8 and they put spark plugs in only four cylinders?!

PET scans and newer MRI technology shows all of our brain is working. Now, are some of us mentally lazy? Hells yeah!!!

It's like my friend Giora says: "Looking around, and maybe after all, man is not the smartest creature in nature"

We use all of our capacity!!! What do you think? It's like you bought a car with a V8 and they put spark plugs in only four cylinders?!

'Self' build Lego car. Roughly the same number of bricks, assembled by yourself and your environment. My Jalopie's going nowhere fast. You can pick your own interpretation for the vermobile. ET may have a bigger set of bricks is all I'm saying. Now I am out of here. Divination is currently more interesting, and I wont be tempted back.

Hi Vermin,

I heard a story once that scientists had put two subjects to a test. One was a genius and the other was a...well...moron (not sure if that would be the correct term).

They hooked them up to a machine that showed brain activity. The video of the brain would light up where there was electrical activity. Then they gave both of them the same problem. What they found was baffling!

The genius' brain was dimly lit. Only a portion of his brain was working on the problem. The moron, however, was brightly lit. His whole brain was working on the problem!

I saw this machine on Discovery channel or National Geographic once so it's not a far fetched story. I haven't confirmed whether the comparison test was ever conducted, however. If anyone has a link to this, I'd appreciate it. I've been searching for it before posting but didn't have luck.

It does make sense, however, that someone who is intellectually challenged would use more of his brain to solve a problem. So, if a normal or above-normal person is only using part of this brain to solve a problem, would it be beneficial if he could use more of his brain to solve it?

Let's take a slightly different angle on the experiment. First, we have to conclude that the retarded individual had either a damaged or poorly configured brain. In other words, their retardation was caused by a physical brain abnormality.

If the retarded person had say fewer synapse or malformed neurons, this could account for the large amount of brain activity. Signals may be leaking all over the brain instead of staying tightly on track.

The intelligent person showed activity, and thankfully for his sake, the information signals route right where they're supposed to. However, if you showed the intelligent person sexual pictures or oil paintings or photos of people showing different facial moods, different parts of his brain would be seen as lighting up.

That's what's so interesting about the brain, it is not just a stick of DDRAM, it is a multi-level, extremely parallel processor, and full of specialized areas for different purposes. In the healthy, well integrated individual, these pieces play together as a symphony.

I personally think a more interesting test would have been to give the intelligent person different mental tasks of varying degree of difficulty. That way one could determine whether more of his brain kicked in as the tasks became more difficult - and at full load, was he incapable of using anymore than the proverbial 10%.

"...to give the intelligent person different mental tasks of varying degree of difficulty..."

Done in Sweden in 1998, no expected correlation was found between type of activity and level of signalling flux. It seems that this is very complex, and not so understood.

However,

More such expected correlation was found on the brains of four subjects with torrent syndrome.

Go figure.

Should be: Tourette's Syndrome (of course).

I work with a really brilliant software engineer that has Tourette's Syndrome. Both of his parents are PhD. chemists.

I love knowledge.... Thank you Yuval. I am learning all the time...

Csoulpro,

That is absolutely the *most exciting* technological description I've heard yet of what a (UFO)space ship might look like and how it might be propelled through space.

Bravo for your lengthy response, and thank you!

My feelings echo yours, I too believe that it is ludicrious that we humans think we are the only sentient beings in the entire universe.

Thank you, Csoulpro, for induldging us.

Now on to Yuval's rules...

Jules

I suspect you are familiar w/ the floating frog.

Yanking the chain on both ends will take us nowhere.

We cannot say on one hand "We discovered laws governing the universe" and "These are the universe' laws, we only discovered them" and, "They are not arbitrarily ours, they are the same everywhere, and they are complementing each other, covering everything, from A to Z", while on the other hand, say "Well... there might be some other set of rules we haven't yet discovered" or "There might be some other physics for aliens, for other brain configurations" - because it wouldn't make much sense.

Here's why:

- Any theory we develop, is by it's definition, exclusively for human grasp and utilisation. We develop it with our sensory, our capacity to reason, and our way of processing input, and we summarise and phrase it, for human comprehension and dialectic abilities.

- Aliens may have an alien explanation as to the behaviour of nature, more suitable to their "brains", suitable for their capacity to grasp and apply.

- Both of the above, does not change the actual behaviour of nature, more than your perception is able changes the essence of anything other than yourself.

The myth that your perception may change external reality, is an ancient anthropocentric myth, and if it was ever valid beyond the realm of wishful thinking, we would have a myriad of different realities, each working according to it's own set of rules, and any laws of physics (according to which technology is based and working), would be meaningless, and therefore pointless to apply. I suspect we collectively know, this is not the case.

Some choose to take the easy way out, and only partially accept the rules, those which would not threaten their own set of wishful thinking rule, and reject the rest, as if the laws on nature can be only partially applied.

IMHO, this is a severe misunderstanding of the basic premise upon science itself is based, and also a severe misunderstanding of the basic criteria and methodology, upon which scientific thought is being practiced.

For me it's more like that of a spoiled brat, relating to the bits of reality they favour, while ignoring the rest.

This is not just some childish denial. This is a petri-dish for the growth of delusional thought, and pseudo everything theoretical, and thus probably practical.

That is, unless we are such extreme hypocritical to ourselves, that we take physics for granted as real and dependable, but only externally deny or abuse it, to justify or legitimise the other 1001 abuses of reason we maintain to pretend valid, in our tortured minds.

Very good argument Yuval.

I do believe that science and math are pure disciplines, but alone they do not make for a full experience.

When you add the fine arts to this mix, you create an objective world balanced with subjective beauty. This art world is also pure, but it lives in our sensory experience and in our imagination. Art is the juice that inspires the intellect to grow outside of the box. I won't go into the mind/body/spirit connection but I will say that the spirit follows the mind, and ultimately, mankind could grow in spirit if only his mind were entertained.

It is possible that each human being is created with a yearning in his spirit to know his creator and learn where he originated from and where he will go after leaving this reality. He has also pondered the sky with all its stars, and attempted to explain signs and wonders as comets blasted past him.

Artists such as William Blake produced fine works that helped take man's mind back into the realm where he could possibly understand more than what he comprehended about his world. Classical musicians created such works of beauty that man's mind couldn't resist taking the leap into the sky.

Back to science:

As a fan of both science and the fine arts, I can accept the laws of physics "as we know them," and also accept that we don't know everything and that perhaps the laws of physics as we know them do not apply to everything in the universe. Since I'm not personally attached to these laws, it doesn't matter to me if they only govern certain realities as we currently know them.

I can also accept that if we remain open minded (not gullible mind you, just open minded) we may learn more about the universe around us than if we stick only to what we have been taught in school.

Yes there's a lot of schlock floating around in our immediate atmosphere, and that detracts from what could very well be a separate set of many undiscovered rules that we have yet to grasp. And those rules are only for here, imagine what's happening outside of our little world.

My belief is that humankind is not the end-all, be-all knowledge expert, and that our very hubris has historically led to our downfall, again and again and again.

Hubris and organized religion

If we could ever release ourselves from these two elements, we could perhaps embrace science as we know it and also leave a window open for science as we don't know it.

Jules

VERY well said Jules! I applaud you.

"Hubris and organized religion

If we could ever release ourselves from these two elements..."

In my mind, slamming all organized religion into the same little box is over-simplistic. Much evil has also been done by national governments, but I don't think the answer is to demonize all governments, either.

I respect your right to practice a non-organized religion, but I ask that you respect my right to practice Christianity as well.

No worries Astronaut, you misunderstand me. You also bring up a good point.

I am not saying that any religions are bad. I am certainly not making any comments about your right to practice Christianity, nor am I demonizing governments.

Religion as a word is intended in this case as a dogmatic religious system belonging to a certain group of people who claim ownership, which excludes everyone else.

Due to the fact that no one person and certainly no one group of people perceives religion exactly as another, and religion is built on such a non-linear system, unlike science as we know it, there is always room for argument and arguments sometimes lead to blows, etc.

What seems like your umbrage at my innocuous comment is a demonstration of this phenomena.

When humans use their religion to force other humans to bend to their will, that can also become war and enslavement.

Two subjects that mankind can always fight over are politics and religion. My point is that hanging onto old belief systems (science or religion) that don't work with all occasions is one weakness that prevents humankind from making the total leap into new science.

In other words, as a scientist, one should not have to force the Adam and Eve (or whichever) story into their laboratory version of The Beginning.

There should be a little distance between religion and science to allow for the truth to emerge. Here's a good question: How does one juggle religion and science when the two contradict?

I hope that all of us will be able comfortably partake in this thread without allowing our own personal religious belief to interfere with a lively conversation about science, even if it is somewhat fringe. Wiggle room is how we discover new technologies, new galaxies and cures for disease.

Jules

Thanks for the clarification, photonicgirl! I thought you meant that organized religion was an evil thing from which humans needed to free themselves; I am very glad to know that I was mistaken. I entirely agree with you that the misuse of religion is a very bad thing. That said, I am willing to forgo any further discussion of "the dreaded R word" in this thread.

:)

How long do you have to practice it before you get it right?

All life long, good buddy - all life long!

That's too bad! So many people could use your help right now.

Fortunately, people who are "still practicing to get it right" can do a lot of good along the way. Kinda like practicing medicine.

IMHO, that's a good answer!

Adding everything cultural (not just art) to the mix is definitely it: A mix. Our human experience is so diverse and so embedded with hints, half-truths, emotions, gestures, and speculation, founded or otherwise.

We need art to express the unexplained, the sublime, the unrelated, the wild and the quirky, the uncensored, uncontrollable.

We need tradition to asses our sense of belonging, origin, ancestry

We need news (or gossip) to feel connected, updated, attached to the 'in-crowd'. To avoid feeling 'out-of-the-loop'.

We need human feedback to reflect our sense of self in some other such creature looking at us. To fill the "Rashomon" gap, to abolish the Searl's 'Chinese room' paradox, in our confused perception.

We need technology any form of technology, to simply survive. We need it to compensate for our being a typical prey, in pure natural terms.

And we need science to have at least one objective, measurable, empirical system of thought and enquiry, which we can truly trust to be coherent, repeatable, consistent, dependable. Something we can base technology upon.

This sentence is in Hebrew when you are not looking at it.

Good post Yuval, but just a little robotic. Surely you're not...

I still suspect the brilliant Yuval is really Mr. Smith...or one of them.

At least I'm very well-defined within your frame of reference.

Whether your frame of reference is on the intended grid, is another issue altogether...

It's probably that to you, being native to your native language, my somewhat quirky put phrasing in English may sound alien, robotic, whatever. For me, it's understandable and to be expected.

I'm used to it by now, and also very easy to identify other Israelis when they write in English. I can only guess you'd sound the same, writing some long passages in Hebrew. No biggie.

Yuval, I suspect there's just a hint of friendly teasing in that last comment about "robotic writing."

Your writing is actually quite good, and yes, if I had to write in another language, which I have attempted by the way, my writing is laughable.

It is not immediately obvious to me that you are from a country other than the US as your writing is scholarly and scientific. I won't even say you write like a typical engineer because you probably have heard the rumours that engineers can't write.

Jules

Believe me Jules, that if I was to read your Hebrew, I would refer most to your massage, and least to your grammar.

By a strange, unexplained way, I cannot help but take it as a latent form of a complement:

In the few times here on CR4, that remarks were directed at the level or style of my English, I couldn't help but notice, an attempt to avoid the massage and cling instead to style or appearence....

Yuval, it is easy to miss the message when focusing on grammar. I would hope that here on CR-4 we can forego such minutia to gain access to the larger picture.

Jules

True. Trivial but true. With you on that.

Yuval, I'll confess...I taught English Comp I and II at the university level...

Your grammar is excellent. Nuff said my friend.

Jules

Technology forces evolution. A few more thousand years of wireless technology and we WILL be telepathic as the unending onslaught of microwaves enhances the connection between our symbiotic primordial and as of yet dormant 90-95% un-evolved mental capabilities. We reached for fruit and we stood. We dream of 'what if' and we create.

I admittedly have trouble with this one.

How can wireless technology improve telepathy? Unless something new has been developed that is well-hidden from the mainstream, microwaves currently do not resonate with the human body's electrical impulses, nor do they enhance our symbiotic primordial mental capacities. In fact, they seem quite detrimental to the general health and well-being of the average human.

Guest, please identify yourself and explain your comment.

Jules

Accept for a moment that some cancers are cellular genetic evolutions gone awry or even the necessary anomalies that occur toward differentiation. Carcinogens by that token are not all bad. in fact they go unnoticed in an individuals lifetime. But over a few generations these mutations, changing cellular functions (ie: diabetes, obesity, earlier adolescent development, increase learning capacity etc.) are in fact evolution as defined. So what facilitates change is the continuous input of some stimuli that cells respond to and thus cellular systems(organs) and then ultimately organ systems and then an animal as whole. Either the animal adapts to the change or dies or at least loses functionality sliding backwards (a negative or undesirable evolutionary effect).

So the leaps of faith:

#1 Man's mind is not consciously used in whole. We may in fact use more than 10% but it is not presently in our control.

#2 6th sense, heightened awareness, ESP and similar abilities/occurrences are real to some degree.

#3 cellular mutations can occur by radio wave, radiation microwave etc.

When factors effect the cellular level and the external environment the organism accelerates system acceptance or rejection. this is true of anti viral drugs, insect poisons, rat poisons, plant killers. It is true of fertilizers, vitamins, oxygen receptors, etc. Both for and against.

So if we inherently have a 'wireless circuit' buried somewhere between the pineal and the hypothalamus that allows some to voluntarily, some involuntarily, some during system crises (seizures, coma etc.) to experience at a conscious or semicon level, we could well see an evolutionary move toward conscious control. Meanwhile, a more common experience of obscure conscious thought interruptions by external stimulus much undesired to the recipient from deep penetrating wave forms (perhaps from such technologies as the failed(?) death/debilitating ray of the 40's from Japan as well)

written in haste, will talk more to it if needed

should read: "cancer, and similar cellular variations "

Guest, whoever you are,

My apologies for bluntness:

Your leaps of faith and and subsequent theory have no basis in any kind of science.

The parts do not make a whole.

Jules

Interesting! He seems to have a kind of Nechian fixation... "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger!" The only flaw with his twisted reasoning is that carcinogenic and mutagenic materials always lead to particular mutations that are usually fatal. They do not give rise to a wide and unknown spectrum of both lethal and non-lethal mutations. Simply put, all of his possible biological "accidental experiments" are well known as are their pathology. If you are exposed to asbestos or benzene, we know which mutation you will develop. It ain't no surprise.

[The only flaw with his twisted reasoning is that carcinogenic and mutagenic materials always lead to particular mutations that are usually fatal.]

Usually always.

hmmm? Tell me more 'oh great knower of all things challenging and unconventional'.

The reasoning is not twisted, if I thought discussion with you to be beneficial we could further analyze your inaccurate comment. I suppose we could banter about a bit, to and fro. Alas for an intelligent and civilized dialogue to occur, both people need not only be intelligent; they need act so too.

If you plug the known into the equation each time, how might you expect to achieve a new result?

Unless....Oh I get it. you will not place your own concepts, thoughts theories in the public forum wher they might be received for discussion ridicule and argument because of your fear. Yet when some mind puts forth an intriguing concept that is widely accepted you stand on your short little tippy toes and proclaim from the large opening low center your head, "I knew it all along. See how bright I am for my recitations?!"

'oh great knower of all things challenging and unconventional'

Why thank you for the compliment. By the way, if you would have looked at the "in response to" area, you would have found that my rather rabid response was in no way directed toward you - C Rummel3. Unless you are posting as "Guest" you ain't the target. That post was in response to "Guest."

If you read his few previous postings, I believe even you would find his ideas somewhat beyond the pale.

Gentlemen.

Let's lay down some new ground rules for this blog because I want us to have fun and we ain't at the lab we ain't at the bar and there's no excuse for any of you BOYS to argue over who's got the biggest football!!!!

Here's the rules:

1. We agreed, religion is out, and I would vote out politics also with your agreement.

2. Yuval's recently posted rules are still in effect unless someone can get away with bending them and have a good arguement to sustain their theory

3. No personal slamming. We can compliment each other, but we will no longer slam each other period. I mean it. Or else there will be nails across the blackboard....

4. I'd like to say no *guests* but I can't officially say that. I would prefer no return guests...so those of you out there who are speaking anonymously, please do register.

5. Anything else goes....

Now, back to my Starship. Thank you for listening.

Jules

Hi Jules,

It appears that Guest (#596) is a victim of his/her own carcinogen(s) from that post. I think mutations are an aberation and are a local event (in evolutionary time) and consequently are not a part of the mainstream evolutionary process. A specimen mutated by external means always represents a step down from an organism otherwise regarded as normal, thus it must be excluded (or rejected) by the natural selection process.

I suppose in a post apocalyptic world where radiation and other nasty things abound, mutations might very well represent "the best of the best" and get included in the selection process. That is, if the nasty things don't kill off the population first.

If I come to your Starship will it get me away from all these mutants hanging around me?

-John

Not necessarily, Johnjohn. A deformity caused by a congenital screwup is not genetic, can not be passed on, and is usually fatal in nature. Additionally, I would bet that most genetic mutations are detrimental, as well. What we're looking for is a genetic change that improves a beings ability to cope with their environment, and that gives them an advantage to breed more often than those individuals that do not have the mutation.

Again, I agree that most mutations lead to a short and unhappy existence. However, even a slight beneficial mutation can become amplified through successive generations.

For example, science believes that whales and dolphins were originally land animals that were somehow forced near the water. A minor mutation caused one or more of these animals to be successful in the land/water ecosystem. As time went on, this mutation became so beneficial it aided in procreation and was amplified into the creatures we know today. Flipper is the result of some minor, first-step mutation that has played deeper and deeper into dolphin physiology. On the other hand, a mutation such as a dolphin baby with no fins will not last long.

One last thought on the nature of evolution... How many thousands or millions of generations did it take to finally get on dry land? Then, just when you think everything is settled down, some animals suddenly find being back in the water a big advantage! Evolution is going up, down, forward, backward, and left and right all at once. When does it end? Hopefully never.

Mutation is the main driving force, the great enabler of evolution in general.

Mutation is the basic facilitator for the variability, from which natural selection is able to select the more fitting variants, to a given selective-pressure.

This is a key-concept in the non-Lamarckian explanation of natural selection and Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) evolution.

'Nuff said.

Just to clear in advance:

- Mutation is universal, in all species, and have been so throughout life's history. It is such a fundamental occurrence, that it's present in all, even those making exact copies of themselves such as Hermaphrodites, or those reproducing non-sexually.

- Cancer is universal, in all species, and have always been. Some bloated roots we eat such as potato or carrot, are the result of virally induced cancer, in the root-system.

- It's only we, humans, who differentiate between malignant and benign forms of cancer, calling 'cancer' only the latter.

Nature does no such distinction, and in 'natural' terms, cancer is just one form of mutation, that of the control-genes in charge of cell-division, one of many others possible.

It's all an integral part of the natural mutative playground, which enables nature to constantly experiment with new building design-schemes and variations, to face changing environments, and new survival and fertility challenges.

"...differentiate between malignant and benign forms of cancer, calling 'cancer' only the latter..."

Should be: "...differentiate between benign and malignant forms of cancer, calling 'cancer' only the latter..."

Hi Yuval,

You said "- Mutation is universal, in all species, and have been so throughout life's history".

Not counting the time before man became man and walked upright, can you provide any examples of mutations (cancers, etc.) that has caused modern day man to be a more superior species than his ancestor.

I'm not arguing the point, I'm just trying to get a more comprehensive picture of it.

-John

positive? mutations.

If I may stick a couple of cents worth in. Some will argue that the skeleton of Neanderthal vs modern is an example. Skin color another, which is further bolstered by many that accept Pangea as fact. Eye and nose shape. Of course there is the sickle cell discussion as well.

CR3

positive? mutations.

If I may stick a couple of cents worth in. Some will argue that the skeleton of Neanderthal vs modern is an example. Skin color another, which is further bolstered by many that accept Pangaea as fact. Eye and nose shape. Of course there is the sickle cell discussion as well.

There is a much more philosophical debate re: how cultural evo. affects the acceptance of children who are savant or autistic which possess phenom that are extraordinary. Some argue that these mutations might be links to a human step up in perception and reasoning rather than a negative whole. That is to say that these people may be the modern human brain 4.0 in beta trials. These children have been killed (long ago) or placed in sanitariums or institutions out of society sight AND unable to develop within a more organic and natural environ and as such millennia of questionably 'beneficial' DNA has been excluded from the gene pool.

Imagine if just a few dozen of those possessing the genetic mutation were incorporated. It has been suggested that some frightening experimentation has in fact taken place in our own recorded history.

And off point, steadfast evolutionists insist in trillions of positive genetic mutations across all species. From creepy crawly critter right on up to fascinating us, platypus(?) and so much more.

CR3

my apologies for the double up. I pulled a Me and mis-read the original question.

First, cancer (as Yuval said) is basically caused by damage to the control genes that oversee cell division. Really not part of evolution. More correctly part of death.

Since we cannot go back in time and give early man IQ tests, etc., it's darn hard to tell when small mutations caused us to become more intelligent, for instance. A possible example of humans adapting to natural pressures, however, can be seen in a tribe of South American Indians (in Peru, I think) that have adapted to drinking extremely salty water. The salinity of their well water is high enough to do you or I in. Yet by some adaptation, these people can tolerate it. Another is the lung capacity of the Sherpas - supposedly significantly larger than flat-landers.

One note on Neanderthal et all, as far as paleo-archaeologists can determine, when our ancestors split away from the common animal between man and ape, there were many branches. Most of which wound up extinct. Furthermore, it turns out that Neanderthal Man has been miss represented for years. The first skeletal remains were later proven to be those of an individual that was deformed, had terrible arthritis, and was largely crippled.

Today, Neanderthal Man is considered to have been much more human-like than previously assumed, and instead of becoming extinct, was simply absorbed into the population of Cro-Magnon Man. In other words, there may be a little "Monkey Boy" in all of us.

My nickname is Monkey Boy. What a coincidence you should include that.

Yes cancer is negative as we express it medically. But cell mutation on whole is not. Cancer might very well be (in some cases) the undesirable sequences precluding a positive ultimate outcome (a very argumentative statement). Either way, it shows that cells are very capable of change in response to some deep lying mechanism being triggered. Cells are designed for mutation, for change. Therefore it may be suggested that this feature of cells must be a tool that helps us with the need for survival. He said "cancers etc", which I take to mean mutations in general.

Man's IQ is 'tested' through the record of toolmaking, agriculture, dwellings, engineering forums etc.

The sherpas simply utilize oxygen more efficiently; as I understand. As they develop, they increase the physical expansion ability of their lungs much like pearl divers.

Although not familiar with the high salinity subject prior to now I am curious. That may be partially due to the diet also. If they are eating a salt absorber it could be getting passed through the digestive system in a less harmful way?

Yes, anthropologists have determined that our initial thoughts re: neanderthal were not indicative of the whole. But that is all about to change quite soon according to Science and to Nature. Please take a quick look at this

Also, in the Middle East, on several excavation sites, there was positive evidence that Cro Magnon And Neanderthals co-habited the area for some 10 to 15 thousand years (Some 70 to 50 thousand years ago), which strongly suggest they probably had some inevitable occurrences of inter-breeding, which in turn would suggest (and as currently thought) we carry some Neanderthal sequences in our collective genome.

As Linus Pauling once put it "It may very well be that cancer is a an ancient genetic remnant of early life bacteria. It is simply their varying degree of the ability to reproduce by division"

We as modern developed organism, simply carry this type of mutative tendency, which originally was probably a competitive trait between dividing single-cell organisms, in our modern genome, without the ability to get rid of it, being such ancient tendency, and so well established in our genome.

The quote is not word-for-word. It was loosely translated from Hebrew, to maintain it's original content

But you have pointed out yourself that alleles and their interactions are the driving force of change... To include the cause of cancer (again which you pointed out well) with these larger pieces of genetic material is like confusing bacteria with viruses.

Cancers is caused when an "on-code" gene gets turned off and/or when an "off-code" gene gets turned on. There is a great difference here between the mixing of genetic traits (either dominant or recessive), and the well-known genetic damage that causes cancer - in which mixing alleles plays no part.

It's a little like comparing sex to a car wreck... In each case two things are banging together. Of course, with vastly different outcomes.

I didn't link the (sexual) mixing of genes with cancer, as cause and effect, in any order.

Cancer, is merely a form of mutation, although a rampant, wide-spread, repetitive type of mutation.

I pointed out that mutations are the driving force for the variety, from which natural-selection pressures, weed-out those mutations which happened to burden ther carrier's survival or fertility, and also pointed out, that cancer, is a very ancient, well established, mutative tendency.

I also pointed out, that if recessive (gene) mutation is beneficial for enough generations, it is likely to establish itself in the genome, as dominant. Likely, but not always, because what we usually call a gene, a trait-causing gene, is actually a complex chemical interaction of hundreds of gene basic (protein encoding) units, each called a 'cistrone'.

A 'gene' in our usual use of the term, is the chemical interaction of hundreds, sometimes thousands of cistrons, acting together to show the 'gene'-originated trait.

As a consequence of the above, it is also worth mentioning, that our loose use of the term Recessive and dominant, may sometimes be misleading:

'Recessive' or 'Dominant' is not a determinant, definite, chemical marker. It's classified as such, only in hind-sight of analysing the the consequence of pairs of alleles, materialising as apparent trait.

I think I'm arguing a small point that really might make little difference, however, let me try one more time...

Consider a strand of DNA something like the keyboard on a piano. Each key is an individual gene. However, the mixing of genetic material occurs not on a pre-key basis, but on the level of chords. Chords, in this case, are like the alleles. Within a chord a key can become damaged. This is the cause of cancer - damage to an otherwise normal key.

I will admit that within a particular chord passed on by an individual, there can be poorly made keys with a susceptibility for breaking. In this way, a tendency to develop very specific forms of cancer can be inherited. Thus, the individual is more susceptible to that chemical/whatever that affects the "easily broken key." This is the reason why certain specific cancers (such as lung cancer) tend to run in certain families, while other families that are exposed to the same carcinogen have no incidence of the disease.

I still believe that cancer arises from damage to an individual's genes, and is not a spontaneous mutation - that just simply isn't the pathology of cancer.

I basically agree with everything you mentioned, as long as we keep in mind that cancer is a mutative tendency. It's there in potential, but only occur in specific cell-types (and there are many of those), once a mutation allows.

The randomly occurring mutation is simply an error of duplication to either occur in mitosis (in divisive cells as bacteria, or tissue-cell type in multi-cell species), and/or meiosis (for sexual species in bacteria - conjugation - or in multi-cell sexual species - in gamete preparation). It might be a misplacement ('splice') of already written segment, or a recombination ('scramble') of AGCT letters.

It's known that types of cancer are running in certain family lineages, and this pretty much relates to Pauling's remark in the sense that each type of single-cell (in nature as bacteria, or in animals as tissue-type) has it's own variant control genes to oversee the rate of cell-division, represented in the complete genome.

So,

In some cases, by a random mutative process to allow, this or that already-written set of control-genes act out, and rampant cell-division of a given cell-type occur.

Not 'sexual' in the usual manner (male and female) we may refer to, but the same in the sense of exchanging genetic material.

There is also no 'meiosis' per-se in bacterial life. My reference was so phrased, in order to point to the universality of mutation, in all forms of life, and all types of cell reproduction.

"...cancer arises from damage to an individual's genes, and is not a spontaneous mutation - that just simply isn't the pathology of cancer..."

I think I got you point, at last.

You refer to the occurrence of cancer in individual life, usually induced by some selective pressure, such as exposure to a carcinogen or repetitive stimuli causing rampant division.

The point being, that this externally induced cancer, is enabled via specific genetic tendency, already present in the genome of a given lineage, clan, family.

Was this what you meant?

Sorry, #696 above, was me.

Forgot to log-in.

So basically we're back to what I said earlier. Cancer always has a negative (bad) impact upon an otherwise "normal" organism and thus the organism with the cancer will be excluded (or rejected) by the natural selection process.

-John

Only if it specifically endangers the carrier's survival or fertility.

See, mutations that always endanger the carrier, will soon be extinct, because the carrier will not get to immortalise it as a copy in their offspring's DNA, in the next generation.

For a gene, any gene, including a mutant, it's only a matter of not endangering the carrier, in order to be copied to the next generation. This is how so much 'Junk-DNA' is being accumulated in the genome.

How about latent viruses that don't "appear" to endanger their host such as Epstein-Barr virus (herpes) which may lie dormant for a long time, described in Wiki as follows:

"The latent programs reprogram and subvert infected B-lymphocytes to proliferate and bring infected cells to the sites at which the virus presumably persists. Eventually, when host immunity develops, the virus persists by turning off most (or possibly all) of its genes, only occasionally reactivating to produce fresh virions. A balance is eventually struck between occasional viral reactivation and host immune surveillance removing cells that activate viral gene expression".

I believe HIV is also a latent virus.

Do you think such latent viruses might inject themselves into the mainstream evolutionary process? If so, might they eventually become non-threatening to future generations?

I cannot analyse each case, as to it's possible chance to be immortalised in the genome.

The name of the game is 'Replication'. Life is a game of genes trying to replicate themselves, through as many copies and as many generations as possible.

According to Dawkins, this is done via single-cell colonies, or a multi-cell colony called a 'living-body', dedicated to go through life, reproducing to the best of their ability.

If a gene manages to infiltrate into a genome, and many retro-viruses manage to integrate their own short genome, into a multi-cell long genome, and this doesn't cause your host to die or become sterile before it manages to father an offspring, it's immortalised.

That's really all there is to it, in a nutshell.

Good answer.

Very interesting, I'm glad this topic being discussed here.

Jules

Not that I have fossils of mutative cells, as they look like any other cell, except for some minute chemical markers....

No. That would be like asking "Do you have an exemplary evidence that early living cells had DNA?"

It is just that without mutation, there would be no diversity of life-forms, and that cancer is a form of mutation linked to the most basic of life's reproduction system, division.

In other words: It's so fundamental, so basic, that life as a chemical phenomenon, wouldn't get far beyond the very start, without it.

An indirect evidence, is in it's universal distribution in all surviving species from the most 'ancient' like algae or sea polyps, to the 'youngest' most modern, like mammals and birds. This is to include plants as well.

P.S:

All this issue of Cancer, is only relevant in multicellular organisms of course. I forgot to mention earlier, that the term 'cancer' is meaningless for bacteria or single-cell organisms reproducing by cell division.

As we are multicellular organisms, we find it hard to conceive any reproductive system, other than sexual, because it is so wide-spread, and for a reason: It's a much faster and more efficient way of mixing genes, prior to creating the next generation.

As we are multicellular organisms, we find it hard to conceive any reproductive system, other than sexual, because it is so wide-spread, and for a reason: It's a much faster and more efficient way of mixing genes, prior to creating the next generation.

I am assuming the key word here is 'mixing'. Not to be compared to binary fission or mytosis.

Ahh, keyword multicellular. Ahaa.

it helps so much when I read thoroughly.

The mean rate of gene mixing, is nature's way to propagate populous diversification, a good way to protect a population from pathogens, thus ensuring it's survival for generations to come, and also to shorten the path through which a recessive gene (which requires both alleles present, in order to be expressed as trait) can turn into a dominant one.

Statistically, most mutations initially act as recessive genes, which explains why incest and in-breeding is so often pathological. The closer your DNA image to your spouse, the more likely your common recessive alleles will populate the same spot, and thus materialise as a trait.

On the other hand, some mutations are beneficial to the carrier or to it's population, so it's for the best if it turns from recessive to dominant, in the shortest number of generations, to benefit the population, and immediately materialise. A dominant gene, only requires one allele to materialise.

To reiterate, this is the part I don't buy:

A few more thousand years of wireless technology and we WILL be telepathic as the unending onslaught of microwaves enhances the connection between our symbiotic primordial and as of yet dormant 90-95% un-evolved mental capabilities.

Cancer does not telepathy make.

Jules

Photonic girl,

I must admit I was surprised by your firm assertion that the above statement possessed no scientific roots.

Psychic phenom here

Mental evolution here and here

Mutation Frequency

This page and the previous two have investigated the different ways that mutations arise, and the following elaborates on the ways in which mutations are instigated.

Barring all external factors, mutations occur very rarely, and are rarely expressed because many forms of mutation are expressed by a recessive allele.

However there are many mutagenic agents that artificially increase the rate of mutations in an organism. The following are some factors that increase genetic mutations in organisms

• Members of species in a particular geographic area or ethnic origin are more susceptible to mutations
• High dosages of X-Rays or ultraviolet light can increase the likeliness of a mutation
• Radioactive substances increase the rate of mutations exponentially

As mentioned previously, genetic mutations are a source of new variation in a species because it physically alters the sequence of nucleotides in a given sequence, therefore altering the genome in a unique way.

The next pages investigate genetic diversity in more detail, an how certain alleles (perhaps mutations) are favoured over other alleles in natural selection...

Your narrow-minded and argumentative response calls to question which of the little electro-chemical brain wave emitters in your head is responsible for such a loud noise from your mouth.

CR3

Social Darwinism (Eugenics- A subject worthy of a thread of it's own - actually originated by Darwin's relative, Galton) was wide spread the world-over between the end of WW1 and WW2.

True, Nazism was it's most prominent agent, but it was socially and culturally accepted within political systems in many countries.

Curiously, the concept precedes Darwin and Wallace, and one of it's originators was no other than Hegel, with it's origins rooted deep in the 'unlighted' times of the seventeenth century.

It was even partially practiced in nineteenth century Alice Island, selecting immigrants into the US, until the late nineteen forties.

Needless to say, it has it's origins in both Racism and exophobia in general, which 'luckily' found some pseudo-scientific justification for their clearly unethical practices.

good links

I want to argue that we Are doing much of what is being discussed right now. Cells within an organism are subject to otherwise unknown (to the organism) in an effort to facilitate a desired change. Chemotherapy , interfuron and the likes are widely accepted.

I refer us back to the evolution of bats. Our flying mammal relatives which posses an astounding ability to echo-locate as in my previous post.

Perhaps a new thread is in order as we have drifted from ET vehicular motion to to ET (we are them) communication.

Chemotherapy is based on a very simple process... These are compounds that inhibit cells from dividing. This is why they're usually a bitch to take. Think about all the cells in your body being inhibited from dividing. The hope is to slow down the tumor and give the immune response a chance to catch up.

Interferon is also a small form of hell. The tactic here is to rev up the immune system to attack anything it can find, including the patients own tissues. Most individuals on interferon report very profound flu-like symptoms.

The point I am trying to make here is that neither of these drug groups are intended to somehow affect the tissue of the tumor to mend it's wayward ways. To somehow get the tumor to genetically change back to healthy tissue.

Just wanted to make that clear.

Agreed. And aside from some personal experience I am def no expert on this subject. I was admittedly stretching to illustrate a point and it was rather poorly done.

I'm sure you meant "Ellis" Island my furry friend.

Yes, thanks, I couldn't find a written reference to be able to confirm. Lucky I'm in the company of some informed Americans

studies in cultural anthropology, studies in physical anthropology, 2 years of anatomy and physiology, pre-med ya know.

Oh yeah - I have read the works of some of those 'bozos', present company included.

Have you been hangin' round the dioxin? you don't seem well.

While I do not agree that exposure to wireless technology will make us telepathic, I think the thought (did I actually say that) comes from the knowledge that part of the human body's functions are electrical in nature, particularly the nervous (the brain, primarily).

Might it be possible to increase or manipulate the electrical activity so that radiowaves are generated from within the human body? Human electrical impulses are in the tens or hundreds of hertz but if we can be trained to generate in the hundreds of kilohertz then radiowaves might be possible.

I'm just repeating a discussion my classmates and I had back in highschool. We were studying electronics back then, making small AM radios as projects. At the end of the discussion, we decided that it was just that, an interesting discussion.

To be more precise the human nervous system (including the brain) is not electrical, but elector-chemical. What is picked up as "brainwaves" is really just noise. Neurologists have learned if this part of the brain is putting out this type of noise and at this level, it's a good indication that the part of the brain in question is probably healthy. Rather like a mylogram, the crackling sound coming from the two needles stuck in your leg indicates neural impulses. I don't think you could ever break the crackling noise to mean "Move your leg."

It is not outside the imagination to entertain the thought that in the future, electrical-mechanical implants in the brain could possibly lead to a type of communication system. I think, however, that a more likely scenario would be individuals wired at birth to stimulate different parts of the brain...

Vulcan, get me a glass of water, please"

"Vulcan, kill him, would you please. Now we've had this talk before. Do as I say and I will make the pain stop. Just pull the trigger and all the pain will go away."

Not so fast vermin,

You said "What is picked up as "brainwaves" is really just noise".

Take a look at this.

-John

or this

Yes, I've seen this news and am actually impressed. However, these are not the typical EEG waves that doctors have been using for so long. I was referring to the EEG waves as "useful noise." This is something very different.

At the very least we're getting a look at how signals propagate through the complex conglomeration of pathways and tissues. A bit like Faraday watching the path of current through a modern PC motherboard. And perhaps these types of waves may have potential for understanding thoughts. We might finally be able to answer that age old question: "When I see orange, does it look the same to you?"

I appreciate the absence of ridicule. This is an area of personal interest.

Fair enough. I will take the comment "personal interest" to mean that you are somehow emotionally involved in this area. I will attempt to restrain my edgy neurons in the future, and reply without sarcasm.

Thank you Mr. Vermin. We here at CR-4 appreciate all attempts at politeness...from everyone. After all, it's not like we are in the Lab.

Jules

Mr. vermin?

Mrs. vermin?

Sorry for my last one. Your "verminette" was probably etched deep and solid in my fragile consciousness. As you intended?

I'm a hog. What can I say?

This way, we might even train our nervous-system to send complete file-packages to each other, if it could only operate under FTP protocols...

Or stream audio to each other under SRA of SAAC...

Or You-Tube each other under FLV...

Heck, we could surf each other's mental-space under HTTP

- Is it at all possible, that this analogy has taken to a life of it's own?

Let's review this, in tight captions if you will:

1. Mutations occur in random manner.

2. Mutations beneficial to the species, given certain natural selection pressures, get to be immortalised in the genome by providing the carrier with some chance-advantage in both survival and fertility.

3. Over enough generations with this trend, these freak mutations, become a main part of the species morphology, by spreading widely in the populous' genome.

Granted. Accepted.

How exactly does this mechanism, allow for people to become telepathic, given enough mutations caused by radio waves present in the aether?

I simply cannot see the connection. Please explain.

Until recently man has never been subjected to the constant, uninterrupted bombardment of radio waves and the like. We know that to subject any species to an new stimulus can invoke unpredictable responses.

Utilizing the evolutionary record lets look at history. change in environment, new stimulus, new adaption, new behaviours, new technologies and vice versa.

over the course of many generations we cannot predict the outcome. the facts are very well established that we could further develop 6th sense abilities. A sudden influx of a consistent and persistent stimuli might very well facilitate that quicker or conversely, hinder.

Animal brains respond biologically to radio waves. Animal brains have more potential than we understand.

Psychic phenom due occur.

It is simply a possibility. A hypothesis , nothing more.

I am surprised how fast some embrace EA's yet balk at the possible results.

Our moon is made of cheese. Dutch Gouda Cheese.

Mind you, I don't suggest it as an unshakable reality.

Only as a hypothesis. A viable possibility.

I don't ask you to accept it in advance.

I only ask you be open-minded enough, to take it into serious consideration.

Is it too much to ask for?

One day the animals of the ocean, at least some of them, will no longer extract oxygen from the water, thay shall breathe a blended gas.

Poppycock!

Some animals will take up wings and fly on the wind.

Balderdash!

One day we will see into the very core of matter. And then fuse those things we find together to make large amounts of energy for a vast populaton of advanced creatures that are us.

Absurd!

vi·a·ble /ˈvaɪəbəl/

Rummel, please don't kill the messenger, I merely represent here, what is thought to be of common scientific agreement.

I'm not the sole origin of it. we all are.

My argument here is about how, by which detailed, empirical process, traits of given species evolve.

Let's be humble enough to look directly at nature, and honestly learn how it behaves, instead of forcing upon it, what we think it should have done, according to our personal or communal wishes, beliefs, or taboos, be it what it may.

This is not a theology class. There are plenty of those around.

This, I thought, was a scientifically-oriented place of argument, discussion and debate.

I do not see the exclusion of science nor the propagation of theology in this dialogue.

I apologise. My bad.

Are we in agreement on the accepted mechanism of evolved traits?

If not, please state your position.