Quote:
Quote by: gallo  I'm not sure that I know what you are talking about. What cells that kill themselves intentionally are you talking about? How do you think that a cell actually forms some sort of "intention?"
Beyond that, how do you propose that evolution will happen without the death of one generation, followed by another generation? Exactly what is it that you understand genetics and evolution to be?
Of course, there is also the fact that there are few individual organisms that die because their cells kill themselves "intentionally." Given the nature of reality, most organisms succumb to predators, parasites, and infections.
And, of course, when you equate genes 'getting older' with cells 'working at full capacity', you are talking about two different things. My father died at 74, and my mother at 88. Neither because their genes got older or their cells stopped working. My mother's sister is still going strong at 91 - her genes and cells are still working just fine. Of course, she has had some problems with her back, but so have I.
But let me repeat the answer to the your primary question with another question. How do you propose that evolution can happen without reproduction and death, generation after generation? Do you know what evolution is? Do you know what genetics is? Do you understand either? Do you know what a gene is? Do you know what a chromosome is? Do you know what a telomere is? Do you know what a centromere is?
So, if you have some specific questions, I am willing to answer them. |
Intention would suggest thinking. If cells stop growing and die for the greater good of evolution through reproduction, then that might suggest intention and therefore thought. Cells then would be the servents of some sort of 'greater' (supernatual) thought process with a plan.
Such a notion could not be reduced to just the examination of cells or genetics and so any claim to that effect would not be a scientific one.
But before we toss out intention as a possible science would need to have a good explaination for what consitutes thought. Does genetics play a role in formulating thought? Is physical reaction to stemulation concidered to be primitive thought, or the 'evolutionary anscester' of thinking? Can we draw a relationship between reactory responses an reactionary thinking with a evolutionary map?
How much authority can we grant thought? Now, as far as I know a cell does not have a brain and so it cannot know things, or imagine things, and so forth. And so brainless intention would seem to be an unacpetable concept. (each of these claims are questions).
If cells reproduce every 6 years (more or less) - with exception of the eye? Then apparently cells pass on weaker abilites survive or else they no longer have external support systems in thier environment to continue the process of reproduction and death, perhaps harmones are what they need in their environment to continue and that source slows down or discontinues which then breaks down the whole system. Keeping in mind that the 12 strands of DNA are composed of an asortment of chemical combinations, which might need be re-supplied, perhaps?
But then you are back to square one. Chemicals with intention, which idea gets to sound a bit radical. And yet Ants communicate chemically and they can produce different chemicals to 'write' messages on the ground for other ants to follow. And so how much would reacting to chemical combinnations play a role in understanding the 'how' - relative to the OP ponderings? And so intention might be simply reaction to chemicals or it could mean that certain chemical combinations control genetics as well as thought processes. (meaning not intention at all).
Can cancer cells behave that way due to their reaction to some external chemical combination in their environment that is not the norm?
A reaction to a threat.
Unless they can think they cannot know if something is a threat. So we must attempt to figure about another system that consitutes such behavorism in order to sound sceintific. Reaction to stress might be one area we could examine (also). Age is a measurement of the effects of time on a living being. This would suggest that time is a pressure or force that causes death by wearing out the established 'being'. Like water wearing down a stone in a river. Time, becoming like a gravity that weights-down the life force until it is no longer strong enough to withstand the continued pressure. To overcome that theat animals evolved generational reproduction - and the genetics to make that possible, while the individual being cannot withstand the test of time as it would subcome to the "pounding tides of time" upon it's shores (to use some poetic anology for illustrational purposes). Reproductive evolution is sort of like mouse-clicking the refresh button on your computer. (that idea just popped up and might be a bit un-reasonable as an anology).
And so we have chemical-electronic combinations at work in our biology. And abibities to react to stemulation, such envrionmental stemulations might be temperature, and perhaps time. But the time factor would have to conform to established theories about what consitutes time to be sceintific - or a new theory would be called for to establish the linkage between time and death. I am only a visonary so I will need to leave the scientific theory making up to you other people.
Now lets sidetrack a moment and compare concepts of social science with this project. The rise and fall of Rome - hmm? Can internal corupting forces come into effect on the human body such that it can rot away form it's core and then die due to it's weakened ability to deal with outside attacks it's immune system. (far-out eh?). Is that a "spiritual topic only" or one that can become "scientific"?
Can isolated cancer cells be compared to rebel sub-groups within the mainstream establishment of a culture (governmental system)?
Do the same modes of conduct apply? Can science embrace such notions or should we leave that for the philosophy department to imagine about?
The attitude of selfishness and egoism - if our mind is selfish and ego-centered then could our body cells pick up on those intentions and express them also in their behaviorisms? Are cancer cells being egocentric and selfish - trying to hog everything up for "me me me" (them). Can science embrace that notion or is that just metaphysical nonsense? RE: mind-body-spirit theology.
That's all folks - whatcha' think - or shoud I say "what do you know from all that hard study from book reading".