Wednesday, December 05, 2007
GENETICS
Genetics
Short remark to contemporary genetics
Genetics as it has been understood until recently and as some “scientists” still do understand it today is a total nonsense. Let’s consider a gene for reading. If the ability do read is stored in some gene and genes are not subject to any other change than absolutely blind and random mutation then, it must be possible to find a gene for reading in any bacteria. If there is a gene for creation of heart, lungs and other body parts, then these genes must also be found in one cell organisms. What a silly idea of those who really do think so.
This is as silly idea as the idea that some traits are innate. Well, if they really are, fine, but how had they succeeded to become innate. Where did they come from? If for example the ability to pretend being dead, a useful trick applied by some snakes to escape sure death by being eaten by their predator that does happen not to like to eat dead bodies should be innate trait, firmly stored in unchangeable genes, then we people would have to exhibit the same trick, well we do not usually. We use different tricks, and also the gene for this behavior would have to be located in human genome as well. I really doubt that this will ever be the case.
Some traits only appear as innate, because of the time they are used. If some traits are used for a long time, then we cannot differentiate between innate and acquired, and they appear all as innate. There are no innate traits whatsoever. All of them are acquired, only some of them were acquired some 4 billion years ago, and some only 550 million years ago.
We have ears and many other animals do have ears too. That would mean that there must be gene or set of genes responsible for ears. The second condition that genes are unchangeable makes this a funny think as some one cell organism would also have to have this gene or this set of genes for ears., Have you ever seen a one cell organism with ears?
Short remark to contemporary genetics
Genetics as it has been understood until recently and as some “scientists” still do understand it today is a total nonsense. Let’s consider a gene for reading. If the ability do read is stored in some gene and genes are not subject to any other change than absolutely blind and random mutation then, it must be possible to find a gene for reading in any bacteria. If there is a gene for creation of heart, lungs and other body parts, then these genes must also be found in one cell organisms. What a silly idea of those who really do think so.
This is as silly idea as the idea that some traits are innate. Well, if they really are, fine, but how had they succeeded to become innate. Where did they come from? If for example the ability to pretend being dead, a useful trick applied by some snakes to escape sure death by being eaten by their predator that does happen not to like to eat dead bodies should be innate trait, firmly stored in unchangeable genes, then we people would have to exhibit the same trick, well we do not usually. We use different tricks, and also the gene for this behavior would have to be located in human genome as well. I really doubt that this will ever be the case.
Some traits only appear as innate, because of the time they are used. If some traits are used for a long time, then we cannot differentiate between innate and acquired, and they appear all as innate. There are no innate traits whatsoever. All of them are acquired, only some of them were acquired some 4 billion years ago, and some only 550 million years ago.
We have ears and many other animals do have ears too. That would mean that there must be gene or set of genes responsible for ears. The second condition that genes are unchangeable makes this a funny think as some one cell organism would also have to have this gene or this set of genes for ears., Have you ever seen a one cell organism with ears?
# posted by Dalibor @ 1:41 PM 
