Search Results
6/7/2025, 11:46:20 PM
>>16690337
There are clearly some forms of life that are more similar/distant when compared to other particular lifeforms.
This isn't even a controversial statement, as it's just an objective fact.
But I do think there's a bit of 'funny business' in regards to how advanced their... let's say 'chemistry', seems to be.
I can accept that if you find a particular chemical that is only found in X, Y, and Z flowers, then it's reasonable to think that they might share some genetics through common ancestry.
I don't have a problem with looking at the physical attributes of some organisms, and trying to arrange them through overlapping categories with one another in an attempt to map 'genetics/common-ancestry'.
The claim that certain 'genes' in an organism can be in/activated to produce previously unexpressed traits in that organism seems to also be visibly 'true', as we can clearly see the results manifesting in the steroids/hormones using community.
But I'm not sure I quite buy all of the grand claims of how a few drops of body fluids such as blood/spit/semen/etc, a flake of skin cells or a strand of hair; just one of those can somehow provide a complete accurate genetic profile down to a unique, individualized level of precision, out of billions of people. For hair tests, I'd say it's more likely to provide some basic information about a few generalized phenotypes- it can probably give you some clues into the race of the individual, but most of the 'identifiable information' likely comes from knowing what kind of shampoo the person uses- which may be helpful when narrowing down a small pool of people who each use different shampoos- but I'm not convinced that strand of hair contains the information to make a 100% complete genetic map. Same deal with other DNA testing methods, I think a saliva test will probably tell you more about the meals they've recently eaten, compared to the little amount of 'unique genetic information' that can be gleaned from a bit of spit.
There are clearly some forms of life that are more similar/distant when compared to other particular lifeforms.
This isn't even a controversial statement, as it's just an objective fact.
But I do think there's a bit of 'funny business' in regards to how advanced their... let's say 'chemistry', seems to be.
I can accept that if you find a particular chemical that is only found in X, Y, and Z flowers, then it's reasonable to think that they might share some genetics through common ancestry.
I don't have a problem with looking at the physical attributes of some organisms, and trying to arrange them through overlapping categories with one another in an attempt to map 'genetics/common-ancestry'.
The claim that certain 'genes' in an organism can be in/activated to produce previously unexpressed traits in that organism seems to also be visibly 'true', as we can clearly see the results manifesting in the steroids/hormones using community.
But I'm not sure I quite buy all of the grand claims of how a few drops of body fluids such as blood/spit/semen/etc, a flake of skin cells or a strand of hair; just one of those can somehow provide a complete accurate genetic profile down to a unique, individualized level of precision, out of billions of people. For hair tests, I'd say it's more likely to provide some basic information about a few generalized phenotypes- it can probably give you some clues into the race of the individual, but most of the 'identifiable information' likely comes from knowing what kind of shampoo the person uses- which may be helpful when narrowing down a small pool of people who each use different shampoos- but I'm not convinced that strand of hair contains the information to make a 100% complete genetic map. Same deal with other DNA testing methods, I think a saliva test will probably tell you more about the meals they've recently eaten, compared to the little amount of 'unique genetic information' that can be gleaned from a bit of spit.
Page 1