100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Instinct....what IS it? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
However, such hypothesis -- Future scientists preventing potentially bad discoveries -- kills the initiative of researching anything: rather than pursuing the goal of research, scientists might as well give up at the first difficulty -- claiming the future scientists are preventing them from accomplishing the task because it might have negative implications in the future... That's why I don't think science should say that something is impossible. I have done a little digging, and it would seem that a lot of scientists have changed their tune in recent years as far as cellular memory. There have been numerous cases of organ implant recipients having drastic changes in their lives that are not easily brushed off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember reading a science fiction story about scientists who have grown the entire person (or has it been a dinasaur) out of a single cell.
That could be possible, if a cell contained some kind of memory of all other cells... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember reading a science fiction story about scientists who have grown the entire person (or has it been a dinasaur) out of a single cell. That could be possible, if a cell contained some kind of memory of all other cells... Wouldn't that actually be possible as long as the DNA string was kept intact?? After all, they cloned a sheep. I am not really sure they would be able to pull of growing a human, though. I would think that, eventually, it might be possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Mon 02/08/10 10:35 PM
|
|
But of course they will:
if they can clone separate organs, then, eventually, they will manage clonning the entire human being. Actually, lots of them -- since medical research and space exploration require lots of specimen!!! That's the main purpose of clonning!!! {although I haven't heard of any "speciwomen"!) If the sheep could be cloned, it's not that far from cloning a homo sapience! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it might be a little further than you might think. Mainly because of the complexity of the human brain.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible, or even likely. Just saying that it may take them quite a bit longer to manage a fully functioning " human ". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who needs a fully functioning "human"???
The less a human-like speciman resembles the real human, the better! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True enough.
But, that begs the question. If they did, at some point, fully clone a human, would that clone have the natural human instincts?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think they better learn fostering some instincs, while getting rid of other ones...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think they better learn fostering some instincs, while getting rid of other ones... Not a bad idea. But, since they can't quite figure out where instinct actually comes from ( by what mechanism it's delivered ) then they have, until they get it figured out, no chance of actually selecting which ones to pass on and which to inhibit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Tue 02/09/10 12:52 PM
|
|
Give me a whip and a piece of a cake, and I'll instill the required instincts in anybody!!!
(the same refers to inhibiting certain instincts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember reading a science fiction story about scientists who have grown the entire person (or has it been a dinasaur) out of a single cell. That could be possible, if a cell contained some kind of memory of all other cells... Suppose you draw up some blueprints for a building. Then you build the building, and in each room of the building, you leave a photocopy of the blueprints of the building. Now if you want to duplicate the building, you can take any room, extract the blueprints of the room, and create a near-duplicate of the building. In doing this, you don't need to know anything about the history of the original building from the day it was built to the day it was copied. Maybe some of the desks in those buildings contains all kinds of records and notes of what happened in that building, but you don't need any of that information for the construction of a near-duplicate. Just because we can use DNA to create clones, does not (by itself) indicate that there is any kind of 'cellular memory' of the cell's (or body's) life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
massagetrade:
Just because we can use DNA to create clones, does not (by itself) indicate that there is any kind of 'cellular memory' of the cell's (or body's) life
Exactly, that's what I've been trying to convince JustAGuy2112 of! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
massagetrade: Just because we can use DNA to create clones, does not (by itself) indicate that there is any kind of 'cellular memory' of the cell's (or body's) life
Exactly, that's what I've been trying to convince JustAGuy2112 of! Jane's right. And there isn't any difference between cloning a human and a sheep. The government regulations vary. There is a problem in telomere shortening (replicative senescence) as in a sheep. A few humans do not seem to have this trait which could lead to a class of perfect clones or people who could live forever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
metalwing:
telomere shortening (replicative senescence)
Excuse my backwardness, please, but could you, please, translate that? ? ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
massagetrade: Just because we can use DNA to create clones, does not (by itself) indicate that there is any kind of 'cellular memory' of the cell's (or body's) life
Exactly, that's what I've been trying to convince JustAGuy2112 of! * ahem * I don't need convincing.....lol I am only posing questions in a quest for people's thoughts on the subjects at hand. lol Ok....answer this though...if we DID manage to clone a human, and the instincts were, indeed, intact, would that not indicate some sort of " cellular memory "??? Since it wasn't a " natural " process, nature wouldn't really be able to put those instincts in place. Would it?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am only posing questions in a quest for people's thoughts on the subjects at hand. lol Ok....answer this though...if we DID manage to clone a human, and the instincts were, indeed, intact, would that not indicate some sort of " cellular memory "??? Since it wasn't a " natural " process, nature wouldn't really be able to put those instincts in place. Would it?? Do we have a good working definition of "cellular memory"? There are many, many different ways that 'information' and 'experience' gets encoded or remembered in living systems. Scientists do a good job of using precise terminology to examine and discuss these many different mechanisms. In my experience (no offense intended!) most people who talk about 'cellular memory' have abandoned anything resembling a precise thought process. I mean, if we want to talk about something which we call 'cellular memory' - exactly which kind of memory are we talking about? Stored at what level of organization? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since it wasn't a " natural " process, nature wouldn't really be able to put those instincts in place. Would it?? Why wouldn't 'nature' be able to? It appears that cloned animals have the same instincts as naturally conceived animals. I think we ought to also be careful about 'what we really mean' with the word 'instinct', too. It appears that most of what we call 'instinct' is derived from genetics - if this is true, then we would expect cloned animals to have the same instincts as naturally conceived animals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since it wasn't a " natural " process, nature wouldn't really be able to put those instincts in place. Would it?? Why wouldn't 'nature' be able to? It appears that cloned animals have the same instincts as naturally conceived animals. I think we ought to also be careful about 'what we really mean' with the word 'instinct', too. It appears that most of what we call 'instinct' is derived from genetics - if this is true, then we would expect cloned animals to have the same instincts as naturally conceived animals. That doesn't make any sense to me. If those cloned animals have the same instincts as natural creations, then those instincts have to come from somewhere. There has to be some kind of mechanism for them to be out in place. I just can't bring myself to buy into the " it's just THERE " idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that most of what we call 'instinct' is derived from genetics - if this is true, then we would expect cloned animals to have the same instincts as naturally conceived animals.
That doesn't make any sense to me. If those cloned animals have the same instincts as natural creations, then those instincts have to come from somewhere. There has to be some kind of mechanism for them to be out in place. I just can't bring myself to buy into the " it's just THERE " idea. One of the great things about the way that modern scientists operate, is that they tend to measure their speculation against evidence, and they tend to temper their personal bias with evidence. You say that instincts have to come from 'somewhere'. The evidences suggests that they might derive from the genes. You aren't comfortable with this? Why not the genes? Maybe you will reconsider Wux's post on the first page? Not the information itself, but rather the building commands for building proteins that create the number of cells that get that information not implanted by external learning, but by internal inheritance.
In other words, the DNA of a single egg and male sperm united carries not the behavioural code, but the code that builds that behavioural code, without any necessary intervention. Think of it this way. Mrs. Claus gave birht to many elves. Each elf makes a part for a toy, which gets assembled by other elves. The ones who make the parts have no clue what the final product will be like, but they all make something according to the design specification that had been given to them. Once the toy is put together, it will take the shape of an airplane or a doll house. The elves who make the parts (these elves can be thought of as the dna of the fertilized egg) have no clue what the parts will be used for. But once the parts are put together, their functionality comes to life. The functionality is not part of the learning process of the part-making elves, yet it is an inevitable end result. The instinct is not a part of the fertilized egg, but once the parts that the fertilized egg produces are put together, the functionality (instinct) comes to life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that most of what we call 'instinct' is derived from genetics - if this is true, then we would expect cloned animals to have the same instincts as naturally conceived animals.
That doesn't make any sense to me. If those cloned animals have the same instincts as natural creations, then those instincts have to come from somewhere. There has to be some kind of mechanism for them to be out in place. I just can't bring myself to buy into the " it's just THERE " idea. One of the great things about the way that modern scientists operate, is that they tend to measure their speculation against evidence, and they tend to temper their personal bias with evidence. You say that instincts have to come from 'somewhere'. The evidences suggests that they might derive from the genes. You aren't comfortable with this? Why not the genes? Maybe you will reconsider Wux's post on the first page? Not the information itself, but rather the building commands for building proteins that create the number of cells that get that information not implanted by external learning, but by internal inheritance.
In other words, the DNA of a single egg and male sperm united carries not the behavioural code, but the code that builds that behavioural code, without any necessary intervention. Think of it this way. Mrs. Claus gave birht to many elves. Each elf makes a part for a toy, which gets assembled by other elves. The ones who make the parts have no clue what the final product will be like, but they all make something according to the design specification that had been given to them. Once the toy is put together, it will take the shape of an airplane or a doll house. The elves who make the parts (these elves can be thought of as the dna of the fertilized egg) have no clue what the parts will be used for. But once the parts are put together, their functionality comes to life. The functionality is not part of the learning process of the part-making elves, yet it is an inevitable end result. The instinct is not a part of the fertilized egg, but once the parts that the fertilized egg produces are put together, the functionality (instinct) comes to life. If there is evidence that instinct is contained in the genes, then yes. That I could more easily see. |
|
|
|
|
