How hard is it to become proficient in weapons based arts compared to physical fighting ones?

Macro-evolution occurs of course and selection has a role, but every macro evolution is a bunch of micro evolutions that aren't that random or genetic (genetic in terms of DNA inheritance, not inheritances in general). Inheritance occurs of course.

 

If the DNA in every cell of your body was removed, you'd still be able to think and walk around. You'd still be alive. You could still create, recognize and self-direct.
How are the claims of biologists reasonable given this? DNA is just a molecule chain and there are several parts of the cell working together just to get RNA and DNA to interact. Every part of the cell is interwoven and fulfilling their role but none suggests DNA is the mastermind behind it all.
The likely and very dull reason it's assumed DNA is the mastermind of it all is because it's at the center or nucleus of the cell. If it isn't DNA that's the mastermind, it's the nucleus. If it's not the nucleus, it's the cell itself (in multi-cellular organisms). Seeing that this doesn't explain what is happening, biologists are left with a dead end and try to forget the conversation all together or run in circles. They claim that nothing is alive, all is dead matter that just happens to be organized in the shape of the human experience. It's utterly mind numbing and nihilistic garbage. They begin to claim there is no quality of being truly "alive", no soul and that consciousness is just an illusion of matter like ghosts are a figment of the imagination; it's all just "biological machines" and that's when you know you're dealing with a depressed nihilistic idiot. There is no point where matter ends and being alive or consciousness begins according to the official narrative; as they would have to admit that what is organizing and concerting the parts of a cell is some mystical ghost or soul. They don't admit to this, so they try to skim over the fact that their conclusions have no basis in the events and mechanisms evidenced and taught.

 

You seem to be good at having opinions about things you have no experience in.


What are you biology qualifications? or have you just watched some conspiracy videos on YouTube?

You seem to be arguing that science isn't true because it doesn't recognise the soul/ghosts/gods.

What religion are you?

 

And what is the mechanism of that inheritance?

You seem to be arguing that it's gods/ghosts/etc not DNA?

 

Sorry I have better things to do than to read up book in order to prove random folk on the internet wrong, when no matter what argument I'd use, you'd still think yourself more clever. I simply don't have the energy ot do that. If you're genuinly interested in the topic, I pointed an interesting thing to learn about it. If not, feel free not to read it.
I do not think there is any prove of changes happening within an organism's lifetime that would be passed down directly. I do believe stuff is passed down through genes. You claim otherwise, where's your prove?
The fact that species can evolve rapidly when isolated on an island has been documented before. A more widely accepted theory is a Founder Effect. Ever heard of it? Also an interesting process: Founder effect - Wikipedia

 

The mechanism of inheritence isn't explained by DNA. It is just widely accepted as such. Since the role of DNA is very limited, why would it explain inheritence?
If you are scared that being "too clever" means you're an idiot, perhaps everyone around you feels the same and so doesn't question something once it's repeated often enough to be fact and self evident. What is self evident about DNA being the mechanism of inheritence? What backs this up? Every thinker and philosopher is thought of as "trying to sound clever" but this is how methods of logic are developed. Cleverness is a positive thing when you are trying to learn and gain insight. If no argument of yours will satisfy the question then you are just not qualified to answer, right? I am being very plain and reasonable about all this. Where have I stopped being reasonable? What have I said is unreasonable? I have criticized attaching ideas to basic biological mechanisms left and right, if you are paying attention you will see this. DNA is for protein synthesis, and that is it. As they describe the function of something, I have accepted. When they claim things without any evidence, I have objected. Do not enchant a simple process like protein synthesis to god or Soul-like power. I am asserting limits on biology because there is no dynamic or structure explaining biologists conclusions. It's simple critical thinking and I invite any expert to provide their input and engage in discussion with me.

You are not qualified to render me unqualified. If Dead pool wants to invite his friend to speak then please do.
I understand things such as the Founder effect. This is an observation of what occurs, but once again, it attempts to pin it all on DNA as the mechanism of inheritence. Do you understand my objection to this yet? I am not disagreeing with internal forces interacting, I am not disagreeing with inheritance itself, but with pinning it all on DNA.

 

Most people seem to think DNA is responsible for everything but that is assertion within a vacuum. There is DNA. There are things that happen. Proteins are synthesized. This does not mean that the cell is its DNA or that the DNA decides what part of itself is activated and what part of itself is not. There is nothing to suggest that all command radiates from DNA and processes within the entire organism explained by it. I am being as reasonable I can here, if you do not wish to discuss the topic that is up to your own arbitrary decision; do not discredit and insult me for thinking.

 

Theory = DNA isn't responsible for inheritance.

Problem = how to explain GMOs, Genetic disorders, familial testing, mitochondrial DNA testing, etc.


Your solution = it's god or the soul.


Your evidence = there is none.

Our view of your non evidence.




It's just such a intellectually lazy approach.

I'm not sure if you are being willfully ignorant, or just doing it to troll, but your coming accross as both ignorant and lazy.

 

If you want to educate yourself.

How DNA organises the bodies formation and growth.


Morphogenesis - Wikipedia

Sonic hedgehog - Wikipedia

 

So you have no formalised biology education.

Thanks for the clarification.
We can give your opinion the merit it deserves.

 

Arguing against meiosis, which is a fundamental part of sexual reproduction, is extremely silly.

Again I ask you, what is your alternative explanation?

Meiosis - Wikipedia

 

Is this some kind of new age creationism?

 

There's a few genetic testing labs called diagen, and an old element of plantonic philosophy called diagenism, so I assume he's trolling. I could be wrong though, it is summer time/school's out etc.

 

You are incorrect.

The shape of a cell and of the structures that make up that cell are an emergent property of the behaviour of proteins. Proteins behave in a similar way to Lego. The shape of the protein molecule dictates how it interacts with other proteins. Proteins clip together to make larger blocks. These in turn clip together to make the larger structures of the cell. Its like building a model from Lego.

Proteins are constructed by joining different amino acids together in a chain. The type and order of amino acids is specified by messages written by the DNA. The shape of the protein is dictated by the way that parts of it are attracted and repelled from itself and its surroundings as the chain is formed. This causes the chain to fold giving it it's particular three-dimensional structure.

The order in which proteins are joined together is controlled both by the timing and location of their production and the chemical conditions in that area of the cell. These in turn are controlled by the actions of other proteins which in turn are controlled by - DNA.

 

You aren't even representing what I say correctly.
Theory: DNA is just an organ of the cell and doesn't determine it. It's a part of a whole. DNA does not explain inheritance nor does it explain form and function ongoing throughout multi or singular cell organisms. To put it simply, the DNA does not have 'command' of the cell or cells, and is a string of molecules 'read' from, nothing more. DNA expression or use is not determined by DNA. At some point the volition of the organism enters the picture, and it affects gene expression. This contradicts the assumption that DNA is the sole determinant of an organism. The volition of the organism also affects the proteins of the body, of course. If you train, genetic events related to adapting to such training stimulus occur. This pits DNA as reacting or responding to the organism rather than the other way around. You can not get around this fact.
In principle this means one has determination in their form and function. This power is relative but without hard boundaries, as the national geographic article with the lizards demonstrates: stomach and bone (skull) of the lizards morphed within a few generations, and every single one were related genetically to the orginal 5 pairs of lizards. They were the same as the population they came from and evolved to suit their environment. This is the body or cells responding to the needs of the macroscopic organism. There is no refutation for this. Their DNA is the same. The organism made demands on its DNA not the other way around

"The shape of a cell and of the structures that make up that cell are an emergent property of the behavior of proteins." Your lego analogy is correct but the probability of proteins assembling themselves the way they do is mathematically unfeasible. There is a much higher likelihood that the proteins do not assemble themselves in harmony with the entire organism, and it becomes a "major car crash with thousands ramming into eachother and dying" to put it dramatically. There is nothing that supports your claims. The living aspect of the living organism is necessary to assemble and coordinate its body into something resembling a macroscopic organism, there is no probability of it occuring on its own, emergently. There would be no centralized consciousness or experiencer.
Your conviction is based in faith, which you may accuse me of doing as well. This would make us equal and there is no use in quarreling over the soundness of my mind then.

 

No one is arguing against meiosis. Are you arguing that there is no agency in a living organism? Where does the determinism end and begin, I'm curious.

 

According to science, where does the self-determination of an organism begin and end.
Rather, where does YOUR self-determination begin and end?

 

Your link.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

"Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s."

I think you may of misread the article, they were exactly the same on their mitrocondrial DNA, i.e. they were only the offspring from the originally introduced lizards.

The biologist said at the end of your article.

""All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes.""

Because they hadn't fully sequenced the lizards yet Vs the original population.

Mitochondrial DNA is different to regular DNA.
It's passed on only through the maternal line, and is an reliable way to guage lineages.

 

The original paper Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

"Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrčaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population"

You seem of to not know what the difference between mitochondrial DNA and regular DNA.

 

Yes you are, sexual reproduction via DNA mixing.