rscanlon at nycap.rr.com (ray scanlon) wrote in message news:<363d693e.0409011607.593a912c at posting.google.com>...
> zzbunker writes:
>> > Hardly. Since *DNA* doesn't *construct* anything.
> > Regardless of what any "motor" DNA *codes*, they
> > are not *triggering* any *motor* action. It's only
> > on context of the extremely more complicated *controllers*,
> > and imitators, that you can even barely lay the
> > scientific groundwork for *Virus* action, nevermind brain action.
>> Oh, Lord! Transcribing gets RNA from DNA. Translation gets proteins
> from RNA. One billion copies of members of a subset of ten thousand
> proteins from a set of thirty to forty five thousaand proteins makes a
> neuron. A large group of neurons makes a motor program gaenerator.
>> So we say, "DNA constructs a motor program generator." Why not?
>> The brain and its activities are very, very simple, if you have eyes
> to see. However, if you keep on insisting at looking at trees, you
> will never see the forest.
BTW, it has NEVER even come in the context of "science"
that the Brain was not simple, since most of science
is well-known to be Political Science. Which is the
reason TVs work. But it's not the reason *human* eyes works,
since even bats got eyes. But bats are also limited
by physics to speed less than light speed.
But only QM retards are limited to light speed.
>> Ray
