Total change of evolutionary theory.

[lazyfatbum]

lazy that's not entirely correct. The cells don't "pick up" any changes. Genes are completely blind to not only their environment, but the body they are in. They just do what they do.

...Process of introns and exons? :D But a side from nhRNA and DNA you then say that cells dont react to stimuli such as light and temperature changes...? I command you soak your head! IMMEDIATELY! :D

Essentially certain genes will change over time, this always happens. Sometimes dark bears show up in polar environments due to mutations. The difference is that in a polar environment, these bears tend to die, so it never goes any further down that chain. However, in another environment, it may be successful.

This is entirely inaccurate guessing sir. Polar bears do need to hide when hunting seals in the open, but their primary diet consists of sleeping seals that have to be broken out of the packed snow. An adult polar bear doesn't rely on camouflage as it has no natural predator and hunting relies more on strength than hiding.

At birth they're in dens with mom and cubhood there is nothing except the rare wolf and angry polarbear dad to eat the young. But for a wolf to gain a prize of a polarbear cub is extremely rare as mom and dad are always around. I dont believe a 'brown' polar bear has ever been found, dead or alive, in any part of the world (except Arizona, apparently) but I dont know this for a fact. I do know that there are hybrid bears, where a polarbear and grizzly were successfully mated.

But beyond that, a dark polar bear, until recently, hasn't been found. I believe it might be safe to say that its only being found now because of the new generations that have been out of their snowy environment for so long. A mutation of that gravity is unheard of, spots sure. I've seen polar bears with pink noses, spotted noses, etc but an entirely new coat?!? And it just 'happens' to match the environment?

It would also appear in that image specifically (mind that I know very little of hair) seems that this hair isn't as thick. It actually looks like the polarbear 'turned on' old genes during its gestation to make it more adaptable, dipping in to its brown bear ancestry. Very similar to some species that can reactivate older genes like clockwork, like the grass hoppers that gain wings every 15 years to fly over the ocean and spread their grasshopping because the gene pools have become too thin (read: uncle brother daddy just made babies with his sister daughter cousin). Then suddenly give birth for the next 15 years to wingless offspring exclusively.

What i'm proposing (and based off the article linked in this thread) is that individual cells containing our base structures in the DNA can act like a transcriber of sorts. In very basic terms: The cells pick up the day to day routines since they, like anything in our bodies are living things with little minds of their own. We know they react to stimulus, but this idea expands on that and suggests that they record changes in day to day routines to pass the information on and keep the 'host' at its top form based specifically on its needs.

If you started swimming every day and spent hours doing so, it's picked up by your body, stamped on your cells and DNA. You yourself will change becoming a slimmer and toned DJ with great lung capacity, your skin will feel different and your body will try to change to better suit what you're doing to make you a better swimmer until you plateau and reach your max top form. Your children will carry that stamp. If they swim everyday, that stamp gets a sticky note that says 'might be useful to update'. If their kids also swim everyday, and so on and so on, its possible that the change will alter their DNA permanently to make them better swimmers. Now what if I told you that this actually already happens? Children on the Mediterranean born with high capacity lungs, denser and smaller skin pores with more compact frames that offer lengthier limbs, when compared to any other region.

The proposal is that its not random at all, but actually follows a distinct path. "You are what you eat." and do, and its carried in your cells.

We can notice a difference what an Italian looks like and how they differ from a Croatian. These are small changes created by the need of the body for its environment. Croatians swim more than Italians. Certain African peoples spend a lot of time running, others dont and rely on tree climbing for their food. The differences are obvious with children being born built for running or tree climbing respectively. Korea is hot and muggy, often clear skies and a hot sun while Japan is cold and cloudy. The Japanese at birth are much more pale than their Korean ancestors and its the environment that made it that way.

People who live high in the mountains have larger nostrils to allow more air in to their lungs at a time, and they're BORN that way. People in climates of blinding snow or sand evolved narrower eyes to protect them and again they are that way to their core base. This is not random mutation where the survivors fill the gene pool, it's cause and effect. As humans we survive regardless, even if own bodies reject our mother's milk we, unlike animals, can find an alternative and insure that child's life. The first evidence of this going back thousands of years where breast milk was mixed with goats milk and plant extracts to sooth the stomach of a baby born unable to process human milk. When we *should* die, we live. Even our most retarded, most deformed are cared for and raised accordingly to live a lifetime and even have children. So we cant say Asians have the eyes they do because a random mutation popped up and the ones with the mutation were able to procreate more. It's that the body NEEDED to protect the eyes because of the day to day struggle with blinding snow.

Its a group effort and it ensures that the entire SPECIES follows its footsteps. Unless of course, that species is so wide spread that it calls for other needs because of a vast difference in environment.

Think of it this way. Within one individual cell it has 23 pairs of chromosomes (I could be wrong on that number). Within each chromosome are thousands of genes making up the deoxyribonucleic acid. Each single cell has more information in it than the largest library in the world. Each cell fights for its life and knows that to insure its life, it has to keep the host healthy and prepared for sickness, changes and so on. If each cell can act individually which we know they do, each fighting for its life and each containing our entire genetic make up from the start of life on earth... wouldn't it make sense that its our individual cells that are guiding our evolutionary leaps? This, in tandem with theories of the DNA located within the sperm cells and eggs being the 'freshest record' of our strongest traits all points to this idea.

Is it making sense now?

Part of it is a misunderstanding of what a gene is. A gene is not a descrete "bit" of DNA. You can't point to a part of a chain of DNA and say "this is a dividing line between this and the next gene". A gene is basically just a section OF DNA, of it's base components, and some are longer or shorter than others. The thing that defines what a gene is is basicaly it's ability to survive through the generations. For example, they all can't pass a certain length limit because past that limit, the odds of them being severed during reproduction are too high and they can't survive. Some genes have the survival "strategy" of simply being really small and being attached to other genes. They don't have any real effect on the body. The important thing is the genes don't care about the body, they just care about themselves, and I use "care" in an anthropomorphised sense, not in a literal one. They're just bits of molecules.

Keep in mind that even our top studies know very little about DNA and its inner workings, though a living thing is a living thing. DNA is in fact alive and just as you say tries to dominate other genes of its type and survive the 'passing on'. The specific gene for brown eyes is so dominant, two blue eyed people can still give birth to a brown eyed one. The gene for brown eyes has lived longer in our pools as a species and has thus become stronger. That's why I dont understand what you're trying to say here, while we do have very little knowledge in the subject simply because we cant measure it as well as we'd like, we do have some interesting facts collected so far. One is that we can differentiate some genes and even separate them. In gene therapy for example, we can introduce specific genes to the body to heal broken ones. Whether your a carrier of a disease or an infected (in terms of genes).

Also, a "mutation" is far more wide spreading than one tends to think. Since all a gene is is a combination of aleles or base pairs, ANY change counts as a mutation. Sexual reproduction is a massive number of mutations in this sense. After all, you can't really say that there are NO new genes when you have literally shuffled together two people's entire genomes and made a brand new unique one. To say that's not "really" any new genes is like saying that randomly shuffling the 1's and 0's of a program isn't REALLY producing new information because you never added a 2. You only have 4 base pairs to work with. What makes a new gene is just the order they are combined. Further, a gene's effect is not an absolute. A gene isolated from the rest of the genome codes for nothing. It needs context. A gene's environment in terms of it's surrounding genes is what's important.

There is so much wrong with this particular passage, I have no idea where to start.

And you don't need to take my word for it, take a look, it's in a book, such as Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". I've been reading all manner of web sites from various biologists and they all agree with the same thing. There is NO awareness at the gene level of what's going on. It's all blind. Another book to illustrate the point would be "the blind watchmaker".

Proteins unaware? I'm not familiar with their works but I am familiar with some current writings. DNA is very much aware as it is a living thing. It doesn't think or feel pain, but it is alive. It's not just molecules like air is just molecules, of course you could say everything is 'just molecules' but that would be confusing. DNA or rather chromosomes are just as much a part of a living thing as an organ. An organ is alive, your stummy as an example. Stummies by themselves are balloons of fleshy sacks but as part of the animal it becomes a living thing. Pulsating and doing its best to leak on our chewed food and squish it in to paste. chromosomes in a cell are like its reproductive organs. A cell without chromosomes is a cell doomed. The very aticle you linked to suggests that there is some kind of awareness, at least, to transcribe the events of the body like the cell's personal secretary.

But, it is NOT totally random. The mutations are pretty much random occurances, this is true. However, selection is anything but random. The natural selection part is what does the work.

If it were random occurrences, we'd be fucked. No joke, we'd not even resemble human beings. In the 4 million years or so of our species with the steel grip we take to life, no natural predators, a social system where our genetically defunct are cared for and even when a mother is born with a faulty womb that 'runs in the family' her egg can still be fertilized to create a baby outside her body. If mutations happened randomly and became part of us permanently if our survivability lets us pass it on... we'd be the most retarded life on this planet. That theory of randomness only works if you have that key to natural selection. A green lizard survives better in the forest than a purple one, so the purple ones get eaten and never get a chance to mate and the green ones live on and make more green. Great, now explain human beings. We care for our purple ones and help them survive. For at least the past 2 million years we do everything our power to keep our kids alive, even if their own DNA tries to kill them. It is not random at all and natural selection is an extremely broken theory.