I wrote this yesterday to clarify some the terms 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' to differentiate them from my next post on Epigenetics and Genomic Imprinting. I simply didn't want it to clutter my post on epigenetics with this subject matter. The post is written in the logical way I think and feel minus the metaphysical baggage. I'm simply intrigued by real world mechanisms which provide better answers to questions and more viable material for practical application in working with my plant projects and experiments. These scientific terms used today are so vague and used lazily when no detailed explanation can be found. They are often used as default answers or as some type of natural diety. I've never been satisfied with the definitions given. My other terminology pet peeve is the word "Species" and depending who you are conversing with, it may have sixteen different meanings. Often it too can be used as a default explanation where no viable description can be provided. Seriously folks, molecules are often said to be differing species. But that's another post.
In this post I focus mainly on a couple examples in the Funal world. Clearly more than random mutations and natural selection is going on in both subjects. Epigenetics, but that too is another post. But I think so much of viable science has been held back because of the metaphysical and religious dogma that is behind these terms. Real world mechansisms for me are real things I can grasp, hold onto and comprehend, not some mystic vagued terms inserted in text where no other viable answer is available. Trust me, this is also why Biotechs justify what they are doing.
Interesting article. I have also observed people using terms such as random mutations in ways that show that they don't really understand it. I'm all for democratization of science concepts in a way that more people are learning about science, but I don't want the concepts to be dumbed down or manipulated by some corporation to sell more stuff.
Location: Göteborg Sweden
posted 3 years ago
John Saltveit wrote:Interesting article. I have also observed people using terms such as random mutations in ways that show that they don't really understand it.
This is where the science discipline of epigenetics is going to hopefully replace a lot of the igornace associated with the term random mutations. This is not to say random mutations never exist, they do. But these generally unplanned mistakes can be attributed to human stupidity and ignorance in not taking care of the environment better. Polluting the environment brings random mutations or in other words, sickness, disease, cancer and death. I'm looking forward to finally finishing my piece on epigenetics. The subject is so intriguing and the biomimetic applications which could possibly results are countless. This is why I used the White Button Mushroom example in my post and Paul Stamets commentary. These biotech scientists, clip out the gene which causes browning, but have no clue as to the other functions this gene accomplishes in various epigenetic contexts with other genes for other functions. What are the consequences if these spores get out into the wild and spread this shut down information to other species of fungi ? And there is so many more probable unknowns, even unknown unknowns. Unfortunately, these peopl don't ever think that far ahead. These white lab coats often have no clue as to how life operates outdoors from the lab. And the Academicas and Scientists themselves wonder why people are less than trusting of them and their profession. Science Ethics are too important to leave to the Scientists.
John Salveit wrote: I'm all for democratization of science concepts in a way that more people are learning about science, but I don't want the concepts to be dumbed down or manipulated by some corporation to sell more stuff.
Exactly and it's this dogmatic view that allows Biotechs and other corporate entities to smokescreen the imbalances in Nature they create by their scientists and other academic hired guns to make stupid idiotic irresponsible statements such those I referenced here in this post, where they called for total world extermination of all mosquitoes because they are unnecessary and evolution will just evolve other organism to replace any task mosquitoes perfomred within their niches