STUDY - Technical - New Dacian's Medicine
The Life (Part 3) - About Life
Translation Draft
Let's talk now about
adaptation and its mechanisms, continuing the general
evolutionary line of study!
What could be the basis
for adaptation, in terms of life (and implicitly of the human
body)? And, why not, what is the point of this adaptation?!? Or
secondary questions, "taken" from these "initial" questions...
The explanatory dictionary
tells us that adaptation is the capacity, the process of
reaction of living organisms (life forms) to the environment,
resulting in a morphological change (a correlation of
morphological structure) and physiological functions in relation
to this environment...
The first step of our
analysis will try to determine what it is and how adaptation
manifests itself at the level of the cell (which we discussed so
much and tiring in previous posts)... And, the starting point
will be who decides this: RNA, DNA or the need to react to the
environment (not to say directly "to something")..
At present it is almost
generally accepted that it is genetic determinism that controls
our adaptation (so there will be discussions about DNA and RNA).
Genes are the ones that "attract" the "basal" development and
functioning of our body... But now comes the first question
mark...
Functionally, the RNA
controls, structures, restores, etc. any form of protein from
the cellular level and, by implication, to the body level...
DNA is just a form of
additional control based on already "archived" information
and... Very much... Partial destruction of DNA does not cause
the cell to cease its activity but to continue it without
problems (as long as the damage does not affect massive DNA
"warehouses"), most often until its death (or "division with or
without success", depending on the damaged DNA portion and the
RNA's ability to restore the damaged structure)...
More strangely, the
elimination of the entire nucleus, thus of all the DNA content
(through and from chromosomes) to which the driving/determining
functions of our life are assigned (I made this statement
because there is still mitochondrial DNA) has the same result:
the cell continues its activity most of the time until its
"relatively natural" death (which can occur after 2 to 3
months)...
Yes, you read it right! If
the nucleus containing most of the cellular DNA is extracted,
the cell continues to live... Mitochondrial DNA, existing in the
dozens of organelles (referring to mitochondria) even if it is
more unstable, by genetic errors leads to the "fall" of that
organelle and has almost no effect on the cell, its "stability"
given precisely by this effect of "insensitivity to disorders",
compatible with a kind of "stability"...
And so, we've reached the
point where we can make a totalization of the effects related to
DNA damage and its effects on cell function and, by implication,
an organism... DNA plays a "main" role at the time of cell
reproduction...
So for an organism has a
massive role at the time of its formation (of procreation, then
of division, then intraovulatory or intrauterine growth - here,
in fact, I mean only the animal cell, the body and certain
characteristics of it such as the color of the eyes, hair,
etc.).
Possibly it also plays a
role in the reconstitution of the organism, in the processes of
"replacement" of dead cells or "replacement"... But this is
where the "stem" processes that we have discussed and will
discuss.
As for the later part,
after the "completion" of the cell growth (or division), DNA has
only the role of "matrix" for processes directly related to the
synthesis, processing, etc. of proteins or other substances that
are carried out by RNA...
To understand why
geneticists use this term, "matrix," I'll make a little
parenthesis... An RNA (no longer complicating you with technical
descriptions) wants to replicate, or is asked to... Ok... He
will "circulate" to DNA and can only "couple" with the area of
DNA that allows this coupling... From that moment begins a
replication process according to the "model" present in the
respective structure of DNA...
The result will obviously
be a future RNA, but not an RNA... That's because "replication"
has not led to the formation of RNA itself but to some kind of
basis of its creation, using the possible usable way of
transmitting information from the DNA level...
It sounds complicated, but
it's not like that. The elements of chemical interaction
(valences, blah, blah) will "request" the "product" of this
replication a kind of folding from a kind of polymer filament to
the bicatenary form of the RNA in question (described in the
previous post, RRNA).
So, if the DNA is
"destroyed" this sequence of "replication", RRNA (if we
considered it an example), in the first place it will not be
able to "coupling" to initiate the replication process.
And even if he "succeeds"
this, what about the chemical synchronisms at the time of
"bending" for the formation of the bicatenary structure?!?
Obviously it will be impossible. Or it will be possible as we
talk about a body that "provides" a form of functionality, a
kind of "balance" presence, which can be considered to be a new
element with a new functionality...
So, if the "final product"
of phenomena, processes described above is viable, it is clear
that we are discussing the processes of evolution that arise
directly from this... And, this product, it can be "rectified"
by the environment or genetic restoration processes that I will
discuss in future posts.
Well, now I'm going to get
into a little medical detail. From what we described can we
raise the question of how to get to "DNA degradation" with the
unpleasant effects of cancer?
The vast majority of our
body's cells recover periodically (as we have presented in
previous posts or rows). For a few reasons (which we will
discuss in the posts to come) it comes to the "defect" of this
mold (from the DNA).
Thus, the other components
of the "genotypic chain" remain without the mold "construction",
"control" or whatever you want to think and then the defect is
propagated with effects that can give some character of
influence of life (literally) that can go up to the death of the
cell, to the cancer cell or others...
But this DNA degradation
alone is not enough, requiring the accumulation of some kind of
"critical mass" of such "degraded" cells, helpful elements and
much more (see previous and future posts).
So, also as part of our
effort to draw a conclusion on the gene influence, it is good to
remember (from previous posts) that the cancer cell (literally)
must be "supported" by the development of other "helping"
structures and even without regard to it, the cancer cell,
literally, has no "effect" on its own, requiring a certain mass
of cells (a certain number), not attacked by the body's defense
mechanisms, and a duration of "activity supported by the body"
in order to reach this critical mass... Not to mention that the
phenomena of metastasis are also related to completely different
circumstances than genotype...
And so we have come to
"activity supported by the body itself" or, as a way out for
classical doctors, a "chaotic cellular development activity of
the neoformation type" supported by the body itself by "not
recognizing" that structure in the sense of initiated
elimination processes.
So the "genetic limit" of
the approach to cancer "falls", literally, possibly can be
speculated within the known genetic degradation limit are the
genetic name of "genetic defects".
In this case, if we
consider the "mass" of people who may be affected by "genotype
activities" in which we will take into account individuals with
genetic diseases and those who "manifest" their genotype in
other diseases, we will reach a total share of up to 5 - 6% of
the population...
So it can be said, after
all this, that the genotype, what "is the basis of our life, of
our identity" within a limit hard to consider small (without
"reminding us" of the phases of procreation and possibly
cellular restorations throughout life - you will see, in future
posts, that this cellular recovery with all its implications, is
related to other things altogether)... Maximum 5 – 6% of cases
at the level of humanity, as a population.
In order to understand
where I "got" (in fact, where the medical world came from these
figures) the total weight of 5 - 6% is necessary to make the
following clarifications...
Genetic diseases, diseases
or genetic predispositions are directly related to these genes
(which is why they are referred to as "genetic disorders")...
But in this case, the "affected" share of the population is very
small (a maximum of 5% is circulated in medical statistics... So
the actual "genetic capacity for damage" is pretty low.
And these genetic
diseases, most of the time, are unrelenting because they
manifest themselves in a body "against nature" (a body that is
built, from the start, wrong), the genetic condition being a
defect easily comparable to a defect "from the start" therefore,
not to be taken into account in a correct statistic about
influence.
Even with genetic
predispositions, things have a completely different approach
(which we will eventually discuss later)... But essentially even
these "genetic disorders" are related to the considerations and
especially the beliefs of the affected person (for example there
are many cases of individuals affected by Down syndrome who can
end up completing high school; in Romania I remember the case of
Mihai Moceanu from Cluj) and, unfortunately, and the beliefs of
those around him, of society, the case of a student at the
University of Sheffield with hydrocephalus - "water to the
brain" - who finishes a college and is completely normal from a
social point of view but he actually had no brain, his skull
being mainly filled with cerebrospinal fluid, scanning the
"brain" revealing that between the ventricles and the cortical
surface there was only a thin layer of membrane with a thickness
of one millimeter , etc.).
So, DNA is, as we've
discovered several times so far, just a storage medium.
As for RNA, it is not good
to "walk" because it intervenes "independently of DNA" in
protein synthesis, in cellular breathing processes, in
"transit", transport processes, etc. and the cell often dies
almost immediately. But RNA has no "gene" connection to cell
division, so... What can we put behind the RNA in terms of
genotype???
But if we come to consider
the "reactions" to the environment, we will see that RNA has a
decisive role even in DNA repair (even in "filling" it), at
certain "points" in its restoration and, more importantly, it
intervenes in protein synthesis (or other vital materials...
which we will discuss tomorrow...) of the cell... So, at least
here, the considerations of genotypic manifestation are
beginning to demand our attention...
Moreover, from what you
will go through in future posts you will find that DNA is often
completed, even rewritten under certain conditions of
persistence of environmental factors, even under conditions of
"coordinated perceptions" voluntarily controlled by the owner of
those genes.
So everything that happens
in the cell, and therefore also in the body, is a direct
consequence of the cell's need for protein or other substances,
including to accumulate with possible chances of genetic
transmission, in a new individual these accumulations...
But, factually, in terms
of the survival needs of the cell, it actually comes down to
what enters the cell and is processed according to its needs
and, of course, what comes out of the cell (also in correlation
with cellular needs...).
That's where the membrane
comes in with its selective permeability... So the RNA also
loses its great command center role that was originally assigned
to DNA.... It's all about selective permeability now... And, as
we present in previous posts, the membrane is able to make the
selection of what enters or leaves the cell based on simple
feedback mechanisms (automatic response to something determined
such as protein, amino acid, hormone, genetic fragment, "sweet
materials", "fat materials" and so on) ...
And, in addition, this
"response" has the "gift" to ask the membrane for
supplementation or reduction of the mechanisms that achieve all
this, depending on the environment (in response to environmental
demands, as long as they do not affect cellular viability,
implicitly supplemented by membrane viability)...
What if you expand this
reasoning by considering considerations such as: "Fear or the
threat of imminent danger causes the secretion of adrenaline...
If the level of these perceptions, not to say directly feelings
or emotions, causes constant or increasingly increased
"evacuations" of adrenaline, everything will, over time,
increase the number of constituent elements of the mechanism of
synthesis and adrenaltransfer at the level of the cell...
This increase
(strengthening) of the adrenalitic mechanism will be transmitted
to the newly produced cell (with the role of replacing the one
that has ended its life cycle) and thus we are dealing with a
cell more prepared to the environmental factors "penalized" with
increased adrenal secretion...
And so, over time, where a
related reaction to adrenaline is required, we'll have cells
with increased adrenalitic "transit"... Does this have anything
to do with the genotype???
In a way, yes... Because
in certain replicative areas of DNA there will be an inscription
of the need for "adrenaline reaction", the density of the
producing elements, the density of the membranary "gates", etc.,
the new cells being thus better prepared to cope with the
environment...
But not as a manifestation
of DNA, possibly the nucleus of the command center cell... It's
all just a feedback determinism and not a manifestation of a
command center... A reaction of an ensemble, with elements that
have well delineated their symbiotic role and, by no means
particular.
And remember, we are not
discussing chemical, vital, cell (organism) demands and
discussing the influence of some perceptions, possibly of
feelings, of certain beliefs (fear can also be born of
imagination, not only of a real, palpable danger)... So here's
the first link between feelings, emotions and the "evolutionary"
restructuring of DNA (possibly other structures).
As a small analogy, I'd
better present to you something particularly interesting... If
it is the cell membrane that senses the outside world and
"dictates" the selective behavior of the cell, it can be said
that the skin becomes very similar to a brain (a driving
element)...
The previous analogy that
says that what is found in the cell is found and in the human
body now has a connotation... Between the human brain and human
skin (cell membrane homologous, at least as a position) there is
a common "embryo" starting point...
In embryology there are
three "initial" embryonic layers (layers of cells, each layer
giving rise to different organs and tissues), which create the
completely final body: ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. The
outer layer, the ectoderm, gives rise to only two "things" in
the human body: the skin and the brain with the nervous
system... Moving on... We'll see you in future posts!
So, the determinism of
feedback, "response", is the one in which we are not controlled
by genes but we are controlled by the environment, possibly by
perceptions "from" it (in fact, only in humans, where the
processing and conscious selection of perceptions, by our
beliefs...) realized towards the manifestation of the external
environment.
And this is about the
great mass of humans (the mass of 94 - 95% left considered as
being without "genetic problems" - even if their bodies with
disabilities conform to the determinism of feedback, as he can)
who, without having "genetic problems" do all kinds of diseases,
including cancer (which starts with damage/ genetic
modification)...
To recall those presented
to the world of souls, their possible definite influence,
intervention that "departs" from the genetic material "initial"
and can occur to the genetic material "final", transmissible to
a new human being?!?
But that's enough for
today! And tomorrow will be a good day...
First day of the
weekend... Have fun!!!
Dorin, Merticaru