DNA -Sea, Land, Air.... Space?

[Etritonakin]

The bible states (taking several verses together) that we may be given bodies which allow for creative power similar to that which allowed for the initial creation (more direct interface/fiat), as well as the inhabitation and ordering of the universe. (Philippians 3:21, Isaiah 45:18, Romans 8, etc.)

As those verses discusses a bodily change which has already been planned, it essentially means such a body has already been designed for us.

While considering those things, I began to wonder if it was possible for DNA-based life to eventually adapt to the point of travel through space without the use of external vehicles.
Can "evolution" alone make the transition from Earth to space -or is it limited by the availability of material?
Is it truly feasible for man to inhabit other planets and solar systems without a drastic change in bodily form -even if using external vehicles?
A body is partly a vehicle -so what sort of bodily vehicle would make inhabiting the universe feasible -and could it be DNA-based?
Can DNA-based life make a "natural" transition to any other sort of base -or can such a transition be made possible by life forms capable of self-evolution?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

"The bible states..<snip>"

*Stops reading*

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Short answer----- No. ....and Yes.

Yes, as in the theory of Panspermia. This could (conceivably) allow for DNA to travel from star to star over eons of time in bacterial, viral, and capsid forms.

No, for us bigger critters. 'Natural' evolution requires that a mutation occur, then "stress" the entire population to see who survives. If enough survived due to mutation X, then their offspring will have a much higher likelihood of carrying mutaion X.

So, unless you want to take the whole human race up in spaceships, shove all 7.5 billion of us out the airllocks, and only let in those individuals who can survive in deep space with no suit, no food, no water, and no air for sayyyyyyy a couple centuries........thennnnn......No.

Bacteria and viruses are such simplistic organisms (not really sure if viruses even count as "life"), they are just clumps of molecular chemicals, and can drift aimlessly through the cold void of interstellar space for thousands of years before again surviving re-entry into the atmosphere of an alien world, where they can set up a new shop.

If you want humans to cruise the stars, then think SERIOUS GMOs.

 

[Etritonakin]

Short answer----- No. ....and Yes.

Yes, as in the theory of Panspermia. This could (conceivably) allow for DNA to travel from star to star over eons of time in bacterial, viral, and capsid forms.

No, for us bigger critters. 'Natural' evolution requires that a mutation occur, then "stress" the entire population to see who survives. If enough survived due to mutation X, then their offspring will have a much higher likelihood of carrying mutaion X.

So, unless you want to take the whole human race up in spaceships, shove all 7.5 billion of us out the airllocks, and only let in those individuals who can survive in deep space with no suit, no food, no water, and no air for sayyyyyyy a couple centuries........thennnnn......No.

Bacteria and viruses are such simplistic organisms (not really sure if viruses even count as "life"), they are just clumps of molecular chemicals, and can drift aimlessly through the cold void of interstellar space for thousands of years before again surviving re-entry into the atmosphere of an alien world, where they can set up a new shop.

If you want humans to cruise the stars, then think SERIOUS GMOs.

Soooo.... This might be a stupid question (there are at least some stupid questions), but could earthly life forms (if birds flew higher and higher or smaller things were suspended in the atmosphere near space, etc.), could they naturally adapt to space alone as they have with sea, land, air, etc.?

Could they naturally develop means of propulsion through space?

Could they naturally adapt to getting energy from whatever is available in space itself?

Or.... Is earthly life bound to the earth or similar places where the components of DNA are available -could earthly life shed DNA altogether for another sort of body?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Could they naturally adapt to getting energy from whatever is available in space itself?

"Where there is a niche there is an organism to live inside that niche". It is an expression that basically applies to anywhere within the biosphere of Earth. However, there must be certain limits that an organism can exist within (i.e. the biosphere). Keep in mind that DNA breaks down rapidly at the temperature of boiling water ...... which is why boiling water is the best way to make water safe for drinking (at least from parasites and other disease pathogens). Similarly steam is used to disinfect surgical instruments before they are used inside the next patient.
Volcanic oceanic vents are surrounded by microscopic life, but nothing lives inside the lava itself.
At the other extreme.....space is a void. No nutrients, no water, NADA. There is minimal solar/stellar energy, but without matter there is no growth, and no reproduction. So even a photosynthetic cell cannot do more than freeze and "hibernate" while out in space. Although even most single cell micro-organisms would die in the superfrigid environement of space. The bonds between cells of all larger (multi-cellular) organisms would fair even less well.

Or.... Is earthly life bound to the earth or similar places where the components of DNA are available

In order to reproduce the organism needs the atomic/molecular components that make up the original organism. So, Yes.

-could earthly life shed DNA altogether for another sort of body?

No. when even something as simple as viral DNA sheds its protein shell to get into a living cell, the shell is just as alive as a rock. The DNA loop that just got inserted into the host cell is the only part of the virus that stands any chance of duplicating itself (and replication/reproduction is one of the defining features of a living organism).
No DNA/RNA = No life ......(as far as we understand life). Other self-replicating molecules could theoretically exist, although simply using different atomic building blocks for the molecules would not allow replication without an environment containing said building blocks.

Soooo.... This might be a stupid question (there are at least some stupid questions), but could earthly life forms (if birds flew higher and higher or smaller things were suspended in the atmosphere near space, etc.), could they naturally adapt to space alone as they have with sea, land, air, etc.?

These are a commonly misunderstood set of terms. Adapt is not the same as Evolve. But we still have the problems outlined above. That is....make the environment too extreme and you will never suddenly make cell-cell interactions occur without liquid water, or DNA survive 300+ degrees Farenheit.

 

[Etritonakin]

"The bible states..<snip>"

*Stops reading*

It is understandable that biblical references would make one cringe and cause a mind to block input, given all that has been associated with the bible.

However, simply ignoring what is actually written in the bible is unfortunate.

Whether one believes it or not, there are concepts therein which would make a sci-fi writer scratch their head -which are also not outside the realm of possibility.

At the very least, an improved more-than-natural body which allowed for great creative power and cosmic travel (not outside the realm of possibility) was considered thousands of years ago, and that in and of itself is awesome. My point with this thread was to consider whether it could happen naturally -or must happen in a more-than-natural way (self-evolution/self-design, resurrection, etc.)
-and whether there was otherwise any point in humans considering leaving the solar system.

The bible also contains a plan spanning thousands of years which would actually solve all of humanity's problems. Even if one does not believe it is happening, the insight is undeniably awesome.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It is understandable that biblical references would make one cringe and cause a mind to block input, given all that has been associated with the bible.

However, simply ignoring what is actually written in the bible is unfortunate.

Whether one believes it or not, there are concepts therein which would make a sci-fi writer scratch their head -which are also not outside the realm of possibility.

At the very least, an improved more-than-natural body which allowed for great creative power and cosmic travel (not outside the realm of possibility) was considered thousands of years ago, and that in and of itself is awesome. My point with this thread was to consider whether it could happen naturally -or must happen in a more-than-natural way (self-evolution/self-design, resurrection, etc.)
-and whether there was otherwise any point in humans considering leaving the solar system.

The bible also contains a plan spanning thousands of years which would actually solve all of humanity's problems. Even if one does not believe it is happening, the insight is undeniably awesome.

I've read the thing front to back several times. It's crazy how far believers are willing to contort to make it fit whatever strain of faith they hold

 

[Etritonakin]

I've read the thing front to back several times. It's crazy how far believers are willing to contort to make it fit whatever strain of faith they hold

True.

What was your mindset when reading? Do you think you were really open-minded and without preconceptions?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

True.

What was your mindset when reading? Do you think you were really open-minded and without preconceptions?

Yes. I approached it as I would any mythology of antiquity.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes. I approached it as I would any mythology of antiquity.

You don't see that as a preconception?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You don't see that as a preconception?

Anyone that has heard of the Bible will have a conception of what it is prior to reading it through. How else to approach it if not as what it is?

 

[Polymath257]

Soooo.... This might be a stupid question (there are at least some stupid questions), but could earthly life forms (if birds flew higher and higher or smaller things were suspended in the atmosphere near space, etc.), could they naturally adapt to space alone as they have with sea, land, air, etc.?

Could they naturally develop means of propulsion through space?

Could they naturally adapt to getting energy from whatever is available in space itself?

Or.... Is earthly life bound to the earth or similar places where the components of DNA are available -could earthly life shed DNA altogether for another sort of body?

Probably not. While energy is on thing and being close to a star will supply that, there are also chemical aspects that need to be fulfilled. So, for example, we depend on oxygen to *process* the energy we take in. Oxygen simply doesn't exist in space. And an oxygen based metabolism is integrated enough into *all* multicellular creatures that get away from it seems very unlikely.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't see that as a preconception?

Well, that is what it is. You can claim it is more than that, but it is at least that.

 

[Etritonakin]

Anyone that has heard of the Bible will have a conception of what it is prior to reading it through. How else to approach it if not as what it is?

It is difficult to acknowledge all preconceptions and read with an open mind, but the term mythology would be inaccurate if the bible is not simply mythology.

Assuming something is mythology -a term which generally equates to something originating in human imagination and being basically false -would cause one to miss something which was more than mythology.

Assuming every such thing is mythology assumes that there is no source of knowledge available to humans other than that which has been learned by humans. Even if God did not exist, that is a mistake.

If humans were able to affect intelligent life on another planet by interaction or transmission of information, future generations on both planets might not understand exactly what happened -or believe that it happened -for many possible reasons.

Allowing for the possibility of being affected by something other-than-human is quite scientific.

Approaching the bible initially as a set of words which you have not yet read would be the best option. Similar to how it is wrong that humans treat each other unfairly when first meeting due to gossip, preconceptions, etc., acknowledging that what you have heard of the bible before that is not direct experience of it -and that your feelings about it might not actually have anything to do with it -would also be a good choice.

 

[Etritonakin]

Well, that is what it is. You can claim it is more than that, but it is at least that.

It is certainly mythology in that it is a traditional story which includes supernatural explanations of things -but many other things are also often falsely assumed when using the term.

Even if the supernatural aspects of the bible were purely mythology (as in made up and inaccurate), they would associated with extremely accurate historical record-keeping and genealogy.

As many things in the bible describe unusual arrangements of usual things which cannot be readily reproduced, they are often assumed to be false and of human imagination.

Overall -and apart from proof which could be gained by an open-minded and in-depth study, which most are unwilling or unable to do -proof that the bible is more than simply mythology would have to come by individual experience of similar things.

If and when (all are free to not believe until they do) what is written in the bible comes to pass, all will have such personal experience. The bible actually states that most would not believe or understand until after God's plan has been accomplished. "Then you will know", "That they may know", "In that day you will know", and other similar wording is in many scriptures.
So -disbelief is perfectly understandable.

Many things assumed about the bible have been shown to be false, but what the bible actually says has not been shown to be false.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It is difficult to acknowledge all preconceptions and read with an open mind, but the term mythology would be inaccurate if the bible is not simply mythology.

Assuming something is mythology -a term which generally equates to something originating in human imagination and being basically false -would cause one to miss something which was more than mythology.

Assuming every such thing is mythology assumes that there is no source of knowledge available to humans other than that which has been learned by humans. Even if God did not exist, that is a mistake.

If humans were able to affect intelligent life on another planet by interaction or transmission of information, future generations on both planets might not understand exactly what happened -or believe that it happened -for many possible reasons.

Allowing for the possibility of being affected by something other-than-human is quite scientific.

Approaching the bible initially as a set of words which you have not yet read would be the best option. Similar to how it is wrong that humans treat each other unfairly when first meeting due to gossip, preconceptions, etc., acknowledging that what you have heard of the bible before that is not direct experience of it -and that your feelings about it might not actually have anything to do with it -would also be a good choice.

LOL

You say I'm not impartial enough?

Of course it's mythology. Unless I am to allow for talking snakes and the rest, it's quite obviously mythology. Sure, you can glean a lot of other things from it too, about the cultural and social norms, links to historical events, so on and so on.

You say I'm not impartial enough, but let me ask you this; how many other creation stories and various forms of dogma and doctrines do you think exist, at this time, both in practice and antiquity? How many of them have you read with the mindset you described above, or at all?

Why does yours deserve special consideration? Hmm?

 

[Etritonakin]

LOL

You say I'm not impartial enough?

Of course it's mythology. Unless I am to allow for talking snakes and the rest, it's quite obviously mythology. Sure, you can glean a lot of other things from it too, about the cultural and social norms, links to historical events, so on and so on.

You say I'm not impartial enough, but let me ask you this; how many other creation stories and various forms of dogma and doctrines do you think exist, at this time, both in practice and antiquity? How many of them have you read with the mindset you described above, or at all?

Why does yours deserve special consideration? Hmm?

I will try to address the special consideration question later, but...

Don't forget the talking donkey. The serpent was explained to not actually be a serpent, but there was an actual donkey which was made to speak.

I am only saying that in the strictest sense, you should absolutely allow for the possibility of a donkey being made to speak, etc.

It is understandable to not allow for it, but it is not outside the realm of possibility in the strictest sense.

Personal experience has much to do with what one will allow one's self to consider. From my experience, I would say you are likely to have experiences in the future which will make a talking donkey seem a simple thing by comparison.
When it happens, you will not be able to convince others.
Reality is extremely weird -and we are newbs.

 

[Polymath257]

It is certainly mythology in that it is a traditional story which includes supernatural explanations of things -but many other things are also often falsely assumed when using the term.

Even if the supernatural aspects of the bible were purely mythology (as in made up and inaccurate), they would associated with extremely accurate historical record-keeping and genealogy.

The record-keeping is fair, compared to, say, the Roman record keeping or even the Egyptian.

The genealogy is poor and mostly traditional.

As many things in the bible describe unusual arrangements of usual things which cannot be readily reproduced, they are often assumed to be false and of human imagination.

Overall -and apart from proof which could be gained by an open-minded and in-depth study, which most are unwilling or unable to do -proof that the bible is more than simply mythology would have to come by individual experience of similar things.

I would say that is comes from a comparison to the other mythologies in the area at the time and whether the supernatural components can be independently verified. Like most myths, they cannot.

The fact that the Iliad describes Troy in good accuracy does not mean Athena was real. The Bible is similar.

Many things assumed about the bible have been shown to be false, but what the bible actually says has not been shown to be false.

No, many things in the Bible have been re-interpreted in the light of facts when they were shown to be wrong. The moving target and the massive amounts of ambiguity are what allows this.

 

[Etritonakin]

The record-keeping is fair, compared to, say, the Roman record keeping or even the Egyptian.

The genealogy is poor and mostly traditional.



I would say that is comes from a comparison to the other mythologies in the area at the time and whether the supernatural components can be independently verified. Like most myths, they cannot.

The fact that the Iliad describes Troy in good accuracy does not mean Athena was real. The Bible is similar.



No, many things in the Bible have been re-interpreted in the light of facts when they were shown to be wrong. The moving target and the massive amounts of ambiguity are what allows this.

The problem lies with continued reinterpretation -not of the accuracy of what is actually written.

The bible is similar from a certain perspective. Athena not being real would have nothing to do with things in the bible being real. It is understandable to assume such, but not correct in and of itself -regardless of whether the things in the bible are real or not.

Some past events may not be independently verified, but many similar things are independently verified by individuals. Collective verification will come by collective experience.

The genealogy is incomplete, but that does not equate to inaccurate.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem lies with continued reinterpretation -not of the accuracy of what is actually written.

The bible is similar from a certain perspective. Athena not being real would have nothing to do with things in the bible being real. It is understandable to assume such, but not correct in and of itself -regardless of whether the things in the bible are real or not.

Some past events may not be independently verified, but many similar things are independently verified by individuals. Collective verification will come by collective experience.

The genealogy is incomplete, but that does not equate to inaccurate.

You aren't understanding what I am saying.

Both the Iliad and the Bible have verifiable historical facts. I agree that Athena is not real. So, having verifiable historical facts does not substantiate the stories of supernatural influences. In particular, the verifiable historical facts in the Bible do not show that the stories of Yahweh are true. Nor even that Yahweh is real. So, using the Bible as evidence of God is no more justified than using the Iliad as evidence for Athena.

As for personal experiences. ALL religions have such experiences. ALL claim to be special in some way. The Christian mythology is no different than every other mythology on this point.

So, why should I believe Christianity and NOT believe all the rest? Isn't it much more reasonable to think that ALL are mistaken?