Your genetic code and program is your genetic code and program and only your genetic code and program.
No. It came from my parents, then developed toward its own.
No. I am saying the genetic code is your genetic code, and you are saying your genetic code is the code of your parents, and that is false, because your parents have two different genetic codes, and your genetic code is even then your genetic code (namely because of the recombination), if your parents were twins. Genetically (biologically) there is indeed individuality. When the fertilization has happened, then the recombination takes place, and the result is never the same result that your parents got at their fertilizations. Your genetic code is indeed inidividual. Each genetic code is an indivdual one. That is what I am saying, and it is true.
When you say to an geneticist (biologist) that your genetic code is not yours but that of your parents, then they will laugh at you. A recombined genetic code has it roots in two other genetic codes, that is right, but that does not mean that it is the same genetic code. It is a different one.
You are confusing genetics/biology with sociology/psychology.
Evolution is based on variation (mutation included), reproduction, and reproduction interest (formerly known as “selection”). No genetic code is the gentic code of the parents, othrwise there would be no eveolution.
So my parents did not pass on any genes to me and I began as a blank slate?
That is nonsense and not what I was talking about. Do you not know what recombination means? If yes, then we can finish our “discussion”. Each genetic code and thus each genetic program is an individual one. That does not contradict the fact that the roots are the genetic codes of your parents. So they have to do with your genetic code, of course, but they are not the same.
Why is that so difficult to understand for you?
So you have misunderstood me, Ierrellus. It seems that you do not know what the genetic recombination means.
We all have parents - father and mother -, and their genetic codes influence our genetic codes, but that does not mean that they are the same. And if something is not the same, then it is different, regardless how much, it is different. Our genetic codes are different from the genetic codes of our parents because of the genetic recombination.
We are kin to our parents, and even more to our siblings, but we are not them.
Arminus, you are stuck in a corner with an ideology that doesn’t work and are now parroting that ideology.
You are merely describing yourself, One Liner.
Genetics is not ideology, but your brain is full of ideology or at least full of misunderstandings and misinterpretations and certainly because of your ideology.
I did not say that the “I” was free from outside control and not a subject to another’s authority and/or doesn’t depend on another for livelihood or sustenance. That is merely your false interpretation of something that I never said. I am saying that we have to distinguish genetics/biology from sociology/psychology and almost all other realms. Those who do not do this are almost always ideologs.
If you and the other ideologs were right, then there would be no “I”, no evolution of life, thus also no history. “I” and “we” are never the same. Only communists and other leftish ideologs are preaching such a nonsense.
It is not only linguistically but also genetically/biologically right to differentiate between “I” and “we”.
Thank you Arminus for you honest response.
Apparently I have misunderstood you. I know what recombinant DNA involves; but, I’m a carbon copy of my mother. Some of this is due to environment, which does not rule out the possibility of inherited patterns of behavior. I inherited her depression as well as her ability to create poetry and art. Environment alone does not explain our similarity.
You have misunderstood me or you do not know what an “I”, an individual person, is.
I am not. I am I. You are also an I, unless you are not a living being. A living being is one living being. A = one. The child in a womb, regardless whether this child is a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus, is an “I”, a living being, one living being. This child and the mother are two different organisms, two different living systems, two different living beings. If, for example, the blood of the mother comes in direct contact with the blood of the child in her womb, then there is a very high probability that the child or the mother or both will die because of that fact. How we know this? We know this because of medicine/biology/genetics.
If we want to talk about environmental influences, then we have to leave the “I”, because we have to know what the environment is and does and how it influences the “I”. Then we can also use all the other prepositions. And then we can also talk about ecology, economy, sociology, psychology … and so on.
It is no linguistical accident that we have the prepoition “I” and call it the “first person”. That there is something in our body that says “I” is also no accident. So it would not be a mistake to philosophically talk about an “I” too, and the history of philosophy has clearly shown that the “I” is not only a matter of linguistics and biology/genetics/medicine but also of philosophy. It is just logical.
Nobody can deny this.
Here you are talking about heredity (inheritance), Ierrellus, and it is right: all living beings inherit. So it is also right that environment alone does not explain our similarity. But note that I did not deny this, and I would never deny this. But what you and some others are saying or at least implicitly saying is that there is no “I” , and that is not true.
The following quote is a post as a reply to the opening post of this thread:
Martin Luther appealed to the “I”. The belief or faith should be a thing of the “I” and no longer of the “we”, namely the church that exploited its believers, for example by indulgence, thus payments!
I found it interesting that in July 1932 the Nazi vote was twice as high in Protestant areas when compared to Catholic areas.
I’m aware that Martin Luther challenged the we of church dogma in favor of the I of individual salvation. All I’m saying is that the we and the I are equally important. However, in our generation, I’d say the I takes precedence over the we.
@ One Liner.
Adolf Hitler did appealled to the “we” and not to the “I”, whereas - almost half a millennium before him - Martin Luther appealed to the “I” and not to the “we”, The Nazi party ( (NSDAP) was a reaction to and based on a modern political system, wherea the Protestant reformation was a reaction to and based on an ancient religious system (Roman Catholic Church).
That is one of the many consequences and probably the peak of the process of the modern individualism.
You have some very fixed theories about history and I find this fascinating.
In a family of 2 adults and 2 children, Adult A needs to consider themselves as equally as important as the combination of Adult A, Adult B and 2 Children (that is A = A + B + 2C),
Not sure I understand what you are saying.