Looking for evolutionary info on how smells can be carried on DNA

by Crabby 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Crabby

    bohm, being confused is excellent because it shows that you are at least not formulating an answer out of nothingness like other people do here. Something that a mouse smells in this life, can be passed to it's offspring and grand offspring. We know this, it has been proven as I also noticed the same thing in dogs. That said the question is still a nonsense question designed to see what kinds of answers people will give. So anyone who answered and knows the truth is either a liar (typical JW) or is the greatest genetic scientist alive, because they know what all the other genetic scientist do not know. In other words I already know the answer to my question and the answer is no one knows how smells are transmitted to offspring.

    Except for Viv of course, she knows EVERY TRUTH..........


  • LoveUniHateExams

    This demonstrates that smells are carried on DNA in some way - no.

    This demonstrates that certain behaviours (e.g. puppies reacting to pus) are inherited (encoded for by genes).

    I used to have a cat. My cat went out every night (and often during the day) and snakes are very rare where I used to live. I never saw one. Nevertheless, the response of my cat when I used to put a black leather belt on the carpet and move it towards him was the same every time: head up, both paws pounce on the end of the belt, where the snake's head would have been. I can only assume that such behaviour is inherited.

  • bohm

    crabby: Okay, but I think we got to talk specifics. If you simply look at the wikipedia page on epigenetics you can see different mechanisms according to which information can be transmitted between generations, none of which involve any supernaturalism:


    I am honestly puzzled about what you are arguing. Are you saying that epigenetics somehow falsifies evolution? In other words, that the findings that information can be transmitted require a supernatural cause because the above mechanisms can't account for it? In this case it would seem you have to argue the above mechanisms can all be ruled out for the particular experiment you have in mind...

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Let me see if I can explain it to you in simple terms Crabby.

    In any population of animals of a particular species you have a variation in traits. That variation in traits is a reflection of variation in DNA. One such variation in traits would be preference for the taste of pus. Some in the population would love the taste of pus and others won't.

    Those that love the taste of pus would lick the pus laden wounds, disinfecting it and halting the progression of infection. The incidence of death by infection would thus be lower in this set of animals. They would thus have a longer lifespan per capita and more opportunity to reproduce.

    Those that don't love the taste of pus would not lick the pus laden wounds, and would thus have more deaths by infection. The incidence of death by infection would thus be higher in this set of animals. They would thus have a shorter lifespan per capita and less opportunity to reproduce.

    So over time, because the pus lovers have a reproductive advantage - due to their infection survival advantage - the offspring of the pus lovers will outnumber the offspring of the pus haters (or pus "apathites"). Eventually over the course of many generations the genes that result in the love of pus will pervade the whole population. Fast forward millions of years and we arrive at today where dogs virtually all love to lick pus wounds. It's not because they remember the taste of pus from their genes. It's because the genes for loving the taste of pus were naturally selected for because it afforded the species a survival advantage. It has nothing to do with memory of what pus tastes like. The dogs just find the smell and taste pleasing without knowing how or why.

    So let's review: There's variation in genetic traits in every population. Those genetic traits that happen to ultimately provide a reproductive advantage within the environment of the population, will eventually become the dominant trait in the population. This is called natural selection. The environment acts as a seive, selecting for survival, those traits that are most advantageous to the animal in that environment. There's no intelligence involved. It's all probability and statistics.

  • Crabby

    bohn, again I believe in evolution as a process that tunes an individual to it's surroundings. The complexness of evolution and need for DNA to run it means that DNA had to exist before evolution. Someone had to put the parts together before the process could work. Now as to pus reactions in puppies and the mouse cherry blossom experiments, these both clearly show that the way that things are passed on to new generations in a method that is not understood. Your need to feel that one thing must replace the other is wrong, we have bilions of parts that work together in a myriad of ways, that all work in tandem.

    Darwin knew nothing about genes or DNA, we do, that said there is still more that we do not know that is so important that it makes us little more knowledgeable than Darwin. So something more has been learned, we might understand this new thing shortly or it might just elude us, it does however change the big picture in some way as DNA and our brains are storing things that we can not do as currently science can not store a scent on disk. To understand how to do this, we need to understand ourselves, which is something that no JW will ever do because they are not allowed to ask why?

  • bohm

    crabby: I disagree with you that DNA is required for evolution (biologists believe RNA was a precursor to DNA).

    At any rate, I am simply trying to understand your argument. You are starting from the premise that we don't understand (or fully understand as some of the mechanisms are understood, see the wikipedia page) the mechanisms according to which information is passed down in these epigenetics experiments. But what is the conclusion based on that lack of understanding? That a supernatural force must pass down the information?

    I am honestly very puzzled. Could you clearly state the assumptions and the conclusion you draw from this experiment?

    Also do you believe the information on e.g. the wikipedia page is accurate or do you reject that as well?

  • Crabby

    RNA is no less likely to create itself in the mud than DNA is. This is just another chicken and the egg example.

    You in my opinion do not understand the two types of evolution. This guy can explain how ignorant his teachers were. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdi3TGd717U

  • bohm

    Crabby, I was just making a point regarding your statement about DNA...

    What is your answer to my other question in the post?

  • Crabby

    Island man, I understand your pus evolution traits selection argument, and do not disagree as Wolves are violent predators that are always getting kicked gored or bitten on top of their heads which they use to attack. Then a pack member cleans the would to keep the pack healthy and strong.

    What you are not taking into account is in 1, ONE, generation a mouse was accustomed to pain coming from cherry blossoms and that this reaction was passed to all offspring. The means by how such a thing is stored in not known. Furthermore all you are explaining is the why of this happening. I am asking not why as I agreed, I am asking how.


    PS. If you knew you would be teaching not reading and reposting nonsense on the net.

  • Crabby

    My conclusion to the mouse experiment is that there is likely a layer to DNA information storage, that may be completely not understood, or perhaps not even seen. The facts are more important than the conclusions anyway, and the facts are that smells can be inherited. The conclusion is the end, since this is new there is no conclusion. Conclusions are needed for personality types that need closure and are not prepared to experiment and evaluate the results. Explorers on the other hand seek open trails that end only at another trail. JW's disagree as their false God does not try to heal the sick as jehoopa will kill them anyway.

Share this