Re: Theory On Certain Functions Of Nervous System
- From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:33:55 -0700
On Apr 18, 5:38 pm, Faustino Núñez Hernández <faus...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi , I'd like to contribute the following consideration :
1º Genes want to adapt to new environments ( evolution ) .
Well, they don't "want to". They just do it. They are open to
opportunities of mutation. Nature could have produced a form of life
whose genetic transmission of characteristics was 100% unchanged.
Maybe it did, and the species that did it never evolved again, and
became extinct, overwhelmed by shape-shifters like ourselves.
2º Organs , subsystems and parts of the body are instruments that
serve the genes which developed them ; ( genes want the organs ,
subsystems and parts of the body for adapting to new environments or
environmental circumstances ) .
This looks like a "Selfish Gene" argument. Which isn't a bad thing.
Richard Dawkins got at least one book deal from the idea. I hear it
may be a situation comedy next year if the movie sells. Lewis Black
from _The Daily Show_ is lined up to play Gene.
3º Sensory nervous system is a part or subsystem of the body ( in
animal kingdom ) .
4º So , sensory nervous system is an instrument that serve the genes ,
for evolving and adapting to new environments ; ( genes want - also -
sensory nerves for adapting to new environments ) .
5º The function of sensory nervous system is to provide the ability to
refer proper motive actions to external objects or information ; the
function of sensory nervous system is to detect external information .
6º So , it seems that , in some way , genes should use the sensory
nervous system to " get information " , or to " watch " or to " know "
the environment , and , this way , to evolve ( mutate ) in an adaptive
manner . Or it seems that this idea has a certain scientific
characteristic .
7º So , nervous system should be able to influence in some manner in
some of the mutations of genes , according to environmental
information .
If it happens , it probably occurs as any chemical conditioning in the
formation of reproductive cells , where nervous system can take part .
Maybe some specialized neurons can control the release of certain
chemical substances . But a neuro-chemical mechanism of this nature
has not been described yet , and I think it should be an amazing
discovery .
Cutting to the chase... there seems to be some evidence that not all
inheritance is DNA. Of course, all of our culture is non-chemical
transmission from parent or community to offspring. But even in
things like obesity, there are claims of detecting a hereditary signal
that is not DNA. And there's the argument of evolution under stress -
"This life form is under pressure, so let's mutate and maybe we'll
turn into something fitter."
On the other hand, as it /is/ viruses happily hitch a ride inside our
reproductive facility. If we were (more) open to evolutionary
development through individual experience, maybe viruses would take
advantage of that ... maybe like the bug that apparently damages a rat
brain so that the rat loses the sense of fear, is soon caught and
eaten by a predator and the predator catches the disease... or rabies
that apparently gives you the urge to bite?? So perhaps it's safest
to keep our hereditary characteristics locked up in the DNA with
(mostly?) one-way transmission from the DNA to the form of the living
thing.
.
- References:
- Theory On Certain Functions Of Nervous System
- From: Faustino Núñez Hernández
- Theory On Certain Functions Of Nervous System
- Prev by Date: Re: The biggest mistake an anti-creationists can make
- Next by Date: Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
- Previous by thread: Theory On Certain Functions Of Nervous System
- Next by thread: the pope should take a stand on creation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
