DNA

I don't believe it evolved naturally. DNA is too perfect and logical to have evolved naturally. >Stores every piece of information about the physical and mental traits of the bigger entity each cell belongs to. >Cells know what to take from the nutrients given to it and replicate X amount of times to create a living organism. >You can modify DNA, and put it back into the living organism and there's a mechanic that will propagate that change to the rest of the DNA. Evolution makes sense, but don't tell me DNA wasn't intentionally created by a higher being and left to evolve.

If we know anything about design by intelligent beings, is that such design is utterly imperfect, inefficient, downright unsustainable. Of course we only have our own species to account for such an observation. Moreover, if nucleic acids were designed given matter as building blocks, then the possibility of that matter to be arranged in stable self-replicating systems was designed into matter itself, but then the potential for matter to accomodate such mechanisms would, under the right conditions, lead them to emerge themselves by the interaction of it's building blocks, keeping in mind that it is all an autonomous self-renewing system (still, under the right conditions.) So really, it is the inherent properties of matter and the development of "the right conditions" which would then be in the agency of whatever force (natural or supernatural) driving the generation of these processes. But then the question begs: don't these conditions arise as a consequence of the very nature of the matter itself: forming in clusters and displaying outbursts of energy, rearranging nuclei and running into each other in innumerable configurations... the question repeats ad infinitum... There is no difference between nature, and the nature of nature; the separation of the platonic with the material is but an interpretation of our discriminating brains. One final thought: I've heard the argument go: if it wasn't for divinity, or a soul, how does animate life emerge from inanimate, non-living matter? Yet the question of what is life, and what is "living" eludes clear definitions, it is again, a separation borne of our minds. There is no such thing as non-living matter, if the universe arranges itself in such a way that, even in one tiny planet in a corner of one little galaxy among millions, life flourishes, then matter holds the properties of life in it's very nature, and so it is a living system, only not by our definition which is based on our current experience and excludes most everything that doesn't fit with out own subjective experience of ourselves as rationalizing entities. tl;dr nigga wat

Read sumerian lore on human creation, might enjoy it

>>60444 Fair enough, but how did the higher being came to be? Certainly something so perfect as a creator of DNA could not have evolved naturally. Don't tell me the higher being wasn't intentionally created by a higher higher being and left to evolve.

>You can modify DNA, and put it back into the living organism and there's a mechanic that will propagate that change to the rest of the DNA. I don't beleive this. If you get an organ transplant, you don't end up with the dna of the donor you just have an organ with different dna.

Francis crick made a similar comment, idk if it was long after or right back then and there when discovered it. I think up until this day the numbers dont add up to the complexety of life and dated age of the earth. There are serious flaws in the theory of evolution, such as the movement appendages of single cell organism which could not have evolved randomly as they require bilateral symetry in order to function, this is a serious dent in the whole randomly cooked up life thing. >Evolution makes sense, but don't tell me DNA wasn't intentionally created by a higher being and left to evolve. That is a very bold statement, first of one would ponder the question what does this higher being imply and why would it be just left to evolve. If anything i might well imagine this to be some strange experiment.

>>60457 not op but strictly speaking true in form of retroviruses. The mechanic is of course that you just got an entire virus code injected into dna and the only reason other cells get it is cause your infected cell will reproduce the virus. fun fact: humans have bits of a retrovirus injected millennia ago in their collective genome that keeps on causing mutations which results in accelerated evolution speed as well as more cancer.

>humans naturally have a mechanic to copy modified DNA throughout the entire body >that mechanic is a specially designed machine that must be inserted into the body because it doesn't exist there naturally >fun fact, hold on a minute while I pull it out of my ass

>>60460 >when you have no education but think youre the expert wasup dunning google too hard

"Sequences of retroviral origin occupy approximately 8% of the human genome. Most of these “retroviral” genes have lost their coding capacities since their entry into our ancestral genome millions of years ago, but some reading frames have remained open, suggesting positive selection. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228468/ literally first hit "retrovirus in human genome" once again i like to state how much i hate how users are too retarded to use google before talking trash.

>>60444 I'm a biology major and the only reason you think DNA is perfect or logical is because you only had high school bio, frankly. DNA is a fuarrrking mess, with a ton of unnecessary complexity, weird edge cases, etc. As a basic example, there's no real "logical" reason for uracil to replace thymine in RNA.

>>60508 the present state of dna doesn't really matter to his theory that humans were lab made 100k+ years ago. Obviously dna would deteriorate with each generation which means ancient dna theories are free real estate although i believe we do have some genome from hominids? Think i read something like that but i doubt its well preserved anyway. Btw uracil isn't pointless as it affects protein folding structure. Now whether its better i dont know but it does make a difference for certain.

>>60450 https://www.dvusd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=149414&dataid=127660&FileName=Sumerian%20creation%20Story.pdf

>>60459 >fun fact: humans have bits of a retrovirus injected millennia ago in their collective genome that keeps on causing mutations which results in accelerated evolution speed as well as more cancer. thats insane! what if it was aliens or god trying to speed our evolution or something?

>>60461 >wasup dunning google too hard kekekekekk

>creation or evolution? The wise man says: I don't know. The wisest man says: Does it really matter? Will the answer directly influence my life? Protip: no, it won't.

>>60519 wisestestm man: why are there exactly two options?

wiseass man: why cant evolution be deliberately created

>>60519 >>60524 >>60525 The absolutely wisest man: Don't tell me what I say. Speak for yourself.

>>60444 blind evolution always nonsense. its the equivalent of saying consciousness and awareness do not exist, or play no causative role in reality. but dna maybe designed by a lower being. some clever cells, or self aware patterns of electro-chemical energy. >>60508 you must have failed your biology major then retard. uracil was the initial nucleotide. thymine is uracil marked with a methyl group, so that after deamination the dna repair pathways can distinguish it from cytosine. >>60516 darwin's radio best fiction book about this. sudden evolutionary jumps as all the retroviruses wake up and rearrange the human genome.

>>60535 >blind evolution always nonsense. its the equivalent of saying consciousness and awareness do not exist, or play no causative role in reality How so? Why could consciousness and awareness not emerge from non-conscious objects?

>>60444 >DNA is too perfect and logical to have evolved naturally. the majority of your DNA is completely useless or actively bad for you. It's a big mess to be honest. >Stores every piece of information about the physical and mental traits of the bigger entity each cell belongs to. Sorta kinda. Epigenetics actually account for much of it. >Cells know what to take from the nutrients given to it and replicate X amount of times to create a living organism. It's pretty easy to use genetic algorithms to evolve a cellular automaton that leads to a specific larger-scale outcome. >You can modify DNA, and put it back into the living organism and there's a mechanic that will propagate that change to the rest of the DNA. Can you name that mechanic? Because I have never heard of such a thing.

>>60539 >Can you name that mechanic? Not what he described but we do have designer babies where the dna is screened and pre-selected which gives you a similar result. lab takes eggs from women, fertilize them in vitro with sperm of husband, then let them go 4cell stage so you can separate and use copies to screen the dna since as cell is destroyed in the process. So now you have a bunch of fertilized cells which you know the genome of and can pick the best choice to install in a surrogate mother to carry to term. They let you choose things like eye color, hair color and screen for genetic defects based on what was discovered so far. So instead of modifying directly you simply let natural mutation and recombination give you lots of choices and pick what you want. Now that leaves of course still limited to whats available in the genome of mom&dad. You can however find tec to edit genes and a chinese did it first 2018 He Jiankui - he disabled a receptor that made the babies hiv immune. So overall i think right now if you have enough money and dont care about morals you can lab make your finest superbaby however you want. If you want to experiment on yourself there is a lot to read under "gene therapy" but i dont believe it will be ever as good as modifying the fertilized cell to create a designer baby since afaik you cant reach all cells in an adult body regardless what cocktail you use.