The Purpose of Life

[yahoo]

But galaxies don't have the ability to ask questions about why they exist. Human beings do, and human beings typically rationalise such things as having some sort of 'purpose' or 'meaning'. I know that's not science, but it's how most human beings generally do things.

Has anyone considered the possibility that plants communicate with each other on a level we do not understand.  Maybe they talk to each other about their "Purpose of Life"

Yeah like that strange weed keep telling to smoke it.

[reaper]

 

[|iR|Focalor]

I looked outside and observed nature today... it was so breathtaking and majestic as a whimsical breeze wafted against me. Us retards can just never hope to understand this extraordinary masterpiece we call nature. If you wanna know what i'm talking about smoke some peyote. Just not too much or you will be visited by mesquilito; just enough to observe nature to the point you cannot understand it, so in turn you truly understand it

Yes sir. Ole Uncle Yotie will take you to the spirit world that the indians always talked about.

[QuakeDuke]

But galaxies don't have the ability to ask questions about why they exist. Human beings do, and human beings typically rationalise such things as having some sort of 'purpose' or 'meaning'. I know that's not science, but it's how most human beings generally do things.

Has anyone considered the possibility that plants communicate with each other on a level we do not understand.  Maybe they talk to each other about their "Purpose of Life"

Not wanting to mess up the discussion which I'm finding a bit interesting. I don't know about plants but having been a beekeeper for over 50 years I have to say I'm totally amazed at those little buggers communication (and a lot of other)  skills (as well as a lot of other insects )

QD

[Tubby]

The point is, we're not passing on a bunch of customized genetic information to our children in the general case.  We're passing on a subset of the same identical genes carried by the rest of the population.

So unless an individual is the carrier of some new advantageous mutation (rare!), his genes are already widespread throughout the population.  If that individual doesn't breed, his genes haven't been lost anyway.

I've lost you here, Quadz...

I always considered a child exactly just that: "A bunch of customised genetic information"; which is why no two children anywhere in the world (apart from identical twins) look the same.

Sure, a child's genetic inheretance is composed only of those genes already available in the gene pool (apart from spontaneous mutations as you say), but those genes can be rearranged in a virtually infinite number of ways.

Yes, the child's genes are "subsets" of those already available in the gene pool, but you seem to be looking at those "subsets" as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which can only be put together in one specific way - which is clearly incorrect, otherwise we would all look the same...

Aren't those subsets more like grains of sand on a beach which, once disturbed by the tide, are never likely to form the same pattern again?

Idk - Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying?

[Tubby]

Not wanting to mess up the discussion which I'm finding a bit interesting. I don't know about plants but having been a beekeeper for over 50 years I have to say I'm totally amazed at those little buggers communication (and a lot of other)  skills (as well as a lot of other insects )

I'll bet that every "skill" your bees display will ultimately relate back to the procreation of their colony.

Am I right or wrong? Be honest...

[l0ckp1ck]

I always considered a child exactly just that: "A bunch of customised genetic information"; which is why no two children anywhere in the world (apart from identical twins) look the same.

i don't agree with that. i have seen cases hwere kids even adults look like the spitting image of eachother and could pass to be their sister/brother twin, but they are in fact unrelated

[quadz]

I always considered a child exactly just that: "A bunch of customised genetic information"; which is why no two children anywhere in the world (apart from identical twins) look the same.

Sure, a child's genetic inheretance is composed only of those genes already available in the gene pool (apart from spontaneous mutations as you say), but those genes can be rearranged in a virtually infinite number of ways.

We'd need to be careful with what we mean by, "genes can be rearranged in a virtually infinite number of ways".  The information in the genes themselves is not being rearranged--meaning again that (barring mutation) any genes the child passes to its own offspring, will be the same unmodified genes it inherited from one of its parents.

It's really a crucial point that the genes are being passed on unmodified, because it's a key reason evolution by natural selection operates over such long time scales; and conversely a key reason why evolution by natural selection is mostly oblivious to the reproduction of individual organisms.

In the typical case, the failure of an individual to reproduce does not affect the longevity of his or her genes, because there are plenty of copies of those genes in a larger population.

However, if there's a particular gene that causes members of that whole popluation who carry it to realize some slight advantage over their peers who don't carry the gene, then we start to see the engine of natural selection begin its slow grind over long timescales involving so many generations that the small advantage afforded by this gene has tipped the balance so that in future generations, the gene is carried by an increasing contingent of the population.

Again, in the general case, if an individual dies without reproducing, evolution by natural selection doesn't notice.

Yes, the child's genes are "subsets" of those already available in the gene pool, but you seem to be looking at those "subsets" as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which can only be put together in one specific way - which is clearly incorrect, otherwise we would all look the same!

Appearance (phenotype) is significantly affected by epigenetics, where environmental factors affect gene expression, without any change to the underlying DNA.  (And thus, without any change to the genes passed on to offspring.)

This is, for instance, why a cloned animal can have the same DNA as the original animal, yet have a different appearance.

Aren't those subsets more like grains of sand on a beach which, once disturbed by the tide, are never likely to form the same pattern again?

If we're just talking about an individual's uniqueness, then yes, we tend to be very unique.  But we don't pass along our uniqueness to our offspring via reproduction.  We pass on usually-verbatim copies of the parents' genes in some proportion, none of which is noticed by evolution by natural selection until we stretch out on long timescales and look at the success of various genes in the population after numerous generations.


 


(Full disclosure: I'm as much of a rank amateur in genetics as physics, so this is all to the best of my understanding.)

[haunted]

I looked outside and observed nature today... it was so breathtaking and majestic as a whimsical breeze wafted against me. Us retards can just never hope to understand this extraordinary masterpiece we call nature. If you wanna know what i'm talking about smoke some peyote. Just not too much or you will be visited by mesquilito; just enough to observe nature to the point you cannot understand it, so in turn you truly understand it

Haunted, I think you're right (to some extent). Most drugs tend to repress / supress our higher thought processes and revert us to a more 'primitive' state in which we are probably more in tune with nature as it really is - not as we attept to rationalise it.

Not that I've ever experienced this... 

Glad we can finally agree on something, Tubby.

[Sgt. Dick]

I always considered a child exactly just that: "A bunch of customised genetic information"; which is why no two children anywhere in the world (apart from identical twins) look the same.

I guess you have never been to the backwoods of Kentucky or West Virgina, they have whole groups of people who look alike. 

[BIG DICK RICK]

almost kinda funny how anyone even replies in this thread considering Tubby is obviously just here to troll and disagree on anything anyone says because he knows all, and writes a novel in reply to any disagreement or such.  Should just lock this topic and be done with it already.

[Tubby]

We'd need to be careful with what we mean by, "genes can be rearranged in a virtually infinite number of ways".  The information in the genes themselves is not being rearranged--meaning again that (barring mutation) any genes the child passes to its own offspring, will be the same unmodified genes it inherited from one of its parents.

It's really a crucial point that the genes are being passed on unmodified, because it's a key reason evolution by natural selection operates over such long time scales; and conversely a key reason why evolution by natural selection is mostly oblivious to the reproduction of individual organisms.

Quadz, I think what's happening here is that you're looking at genetic inheritance on a molecular level, wheras I'm looking at it as it expresses itself in the individual human being (bee, coconut palm, dog, elephant, housefly, etc.).

You say "evolution by natural selection is mostly oblivious to the reproduction of individual organisms". But without the reproduction of individual organisms, natural selection would not occur at all. Life itself would not occur.

Thus, not only is life "oblivious to the reproduction of individual organisms"; it is totally dependent upon it.

Hence my argument that 'the purpose of life is to create more life'.

[Tubby]

almost kinda funny how anyone even replies in this thread considering Tubby is obviously just here to troll and disagree on anything anyone says because he knows all, and writes a novel in reply to any disagreement or such.  Should just lock this topic and be done with it already.

That's right, Rick. Let's just sweep it all under the carpet, because thousands of people all around the world aren't really oppressing, rejecting, and killing each other because of their own personal (usually religious) beliefs.

Yes, let's just be done with this topic and lock it already.

That will surely solve the problem.

[BIG DICK RICK]

almost kinda funny how anyone even replies in this thread considering Tubby is obviously just here to troll and disagree on anything anyone says because he knows all, and writes a novel in reply to any disagreement or such.  Should just lock this topic and be done with it already.

That's right, Rick. Let's just sweep it all under the carpet, because thousands of people all around the world aren't really oppressing, rejecting, and killing each other because of their own personal (usually religious) beliefs.

Yes, let's just be done with this topic and lock it already.

That will surely solve the problem.

You spending your whole life on a forum trolling isn't going to solve anything either.  Keep bitch/whining/crying/trolling/whatever you wanna do, you aren't going to change shit.  But keep going, this thread has given me a couple of grins. 

[fdrjk]

<Over-exaggeration>You spending your whole life on a forum trolling </Over-exaggeration>isn't going to solve anything either.  Keep bitch/whining/crying/trolling/whatever you wanna do, you aren't going to change shit.  But keep going, this thread has given me a couple of grins.