In article <71gkgt$ibc at sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>In <71cqlh$gol at ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>>>>"Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes:
>>>>>Of course, the environment is part of the equation, I never said or
>>>otherwise. With a specific person, we may speculate on the relative
>>>importance of DNA versus environment and that too is interesting. I
>>>exception when people say that the brain is fundamentally different
>>>pancreas, that DNA does not construct both.
>>>>The DNA does not construct either the pancreas or the brain. DNA is
>>a set of specifications for making proteins. A blueprint does not
>>construct a house or anything else, but carpenters and bricklayers
>>may use the blueprint in carrying out their construction. DNA
>>doesn't construct anything. The machinery of the living cell
>>constructs, and uses the DNA in the construction.
>>>I suspect that Ray understands what you are TRYING to say, better than
>you do yourself. Certainly, I do.
>(Bytheway: just what IS his point, anyway? In 50 words or less.)
The point is that you reduce the essense of life
to mechanical prototype.
Second point is that you refuse to analyze that, which
contradicts you "dna rules" theory.
And all you have is a theory.
Making claims that this is how it IS and this is
all there is to it is simply stupid and unscientific.
There is hardly an issue in ANY area of science that
is resolved to the point that you can make assertions
of "this is all there is to it" grade.
All you are dealing with is a limitation of context
and scope, and all you can come up with is fallacy
at the end.
>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group