How are they not the same thing? Isn't evolution just random mutation + sexual/viral crossover + natural selection?
Depends on if you use big-E or little-e for Evolution(as in the theory about life after abiogenesis/panspermia) or evolution (generic change over time)
Unless you agree abiogenesis 'created' all the different proteins we have now, then mutation is how humans have *2 000 000 different proteins* (but only 20 000 genes compared to Archaea with +/- 500 protein encoding genes)
So, we are aware of what SNPs do to genes and also how gene duplicating can provide a chance for those to change proteins. Note the one of the simplest proteins in humans, human serum albumin, it has 585 amino acids and 50 or so variants. Of those, most do nothing regarding function, and I could find none providing benefits.
Now, the largest protein in humans, titin, has 34 350 amino acids and many variants. This gene is interesting in that its variants are the result mainly of deletions and give rise to different kinds of striated muscles. (Heart vs bicep) But also this protein is used in chromosome condensation and segregation in mitosis. So here is *one* gene in humans that is made into at least 8 protein isoforms (different proteins of similar function) and without it, *mitosis* wouldn't work correctly.
So here are a few questions for you.
Where does abiogenesis end and Evolution begin? How many genes were produced in abiogenesis? (obviously approximations are acceptable) How does Evolution explain the different proteins after that? How about all the different protein families? How do 20 000 genes make 2 000 000 proteins? Relatedly, can you explain what enables life to know and skip introns while only using exons with both precision and accuracy of 1 bp, every time, in all instances when a protein is properly made? Now how did that mechanism arise? How is it conserved?
How I understand it, DNA is information. But not only raw information, but it also contains the instructions to copy itself accurately. Not only that, but it carries all its 'metadata' accurately and its programming instructions accurately. That is because there are *repair* mechanisms also in place, within the same DNA. These are like md5 hashes where if not legit, then Destroyed!! All this within the same 3 000 000 000 bp. Rather like a computer (loaded to the hilt with programs) that has a 3d printer attached that prints more computer/printer 'babies' that are already 'built' (in IT terms)
That is all within the genome.
Surely all these unknown can/will be known, (I'm not arguing deus ex machina) my point is that there is a whole world more to the genome than random mutation seems to be able to explain. Unless it all happened in abiogenesis.
PS, Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't horizontal gene transfer and genetic drift (what you called sexual crossover) methods to propagate already existing genes?
PPS What happens when you separate populations of a lizard species for '8 million years' and then bring them back together? This
And on top of that, they're starting now what they expect 'Daddy' to finish when he gets around to it.
i.e. 'the earth and the works in it will be *burned up*'
On a related but different thought: I thought I could find it, but I remember a story where scientists modified beta carotene and it produced modified eyesight in some animals or humans. Can anyone help? I'd love to read that again, or was I just dreaming?
You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?
What about, "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." Mt 24:9
Even the disciples carried swords, you dimwit.
Yes and "'Put away your sword,' Jesus told him. 'Those who use the sword will die by the sword.'" --Mt 26:52
A paradoy of your deity might be considered a petty insult. This is the instance where you turn the other cheek. You don't go around killing people for this...
I agree as to this would be a proper time for a Christian to turn the other cheek. Further, Jesus (as described in the Bible) never taught for his followers to hurt or kill anyone. In fact, Christians for at least 100 years after Jesus died would not become or stay soldiers. Neither did they hold political office. Contrast that with every single POTUS
As to deities, Muhammad is a man, Allah is the deity. But you wouldn't get that from the reaction of the Muslims referenced in this story.
You make a good point in that it was one of the events to allow freedom of religion in Vietnam.
I took your statement "nobody can have any amount of power over you" as implying no external occurrences could cause a person to react to them. Sorry.
I do note the irony of Kennedy, a Catholic, backing Buddhists against a fellow Catholic, Diem.
I also note that (at least according to wiki) "Instances of self-immolations in Vietnam had been recorded for centuries, usually carried out to honor Gautama Buddha."
So some monks at least have done it for (worshiping) a man, and not for some 'greater good'
All that is required to be "Christian" is to believe in Jesus Christ
I do not follow your reasoning. Are you referring to John 3:16? If you are, then you are making a religious judgment, and that based on one way to interpret that scripture.
To illustrate, could you explain your stance in light of the following:
(NIV)James 2:19: You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Luke 8:28: (note, Legion speaking) When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!"
Mark 1:24: (again, a 'demon')"What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
Now, OTOH, if you are arguing from another reason, I would like to hear it.
His books have been altered even more in the centuries since then to suit the political pressures at the time.. some parts were cut out, some were added in.
often perverted by those who seek to use it to gain political power. A perfect example of this is Paul
I would be interested in any citations you can provide.
This is not a link to gp's study, but it struck me when I read it.
Regarding the 'intelligence' of 9 month old chimps vs average human 9 month old. There were orphaned chimps who were raised and given love by human 'mothers' There was a control group of chimp orphans given standard care. The 'loved' chimps outperformed humans of the same age (9 months) in an IQ test.
What that means other than babies need love, IDK.
Link: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/02/chimp-baby-smart.html
And please let a molecular biologist correct me, but I think from my reading that the current theory is that mitochondria entered the tree of life once or twice. (as in plants got plastids and animals got mitochondria) So according to that, the same mitochondria have been around for *billions* of years!!!
Could you explain how the lake of fire and sulfur can be hell if it 'eats' hell? Revelation 20:14: "14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. "
Sure, drugs like tobacco and alcohol. And methamphetamines and crack and heroin etc. Even Oxycontin, Valium, Ritalin. Same with butane, ether, and nitrous oxide.
This particular 'Gorilla named Enjoyment', she plays rough. You know, the whole pleasure and pain bit. So, why do so many people jump in Enjoyment's cage? Are they unaware of her teeth and penchant for tearing limb from limb? Probably not. So why jump in? Is there really no other way to get Enjoyment? If one want's out of Enjoyment's cage, surely a responsible person will help... But if we both look down and see the mangled bodies of Enjoyment's toys, what would cause me or you to jump in and try to dance with an 800 pound gorilla?
The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is why drugs that destroy one's own health are so desirable. Deal with that, and so many other problems are solved.
Agreeing with what you said, when a person knows reality and how it is twisted by many, it becomes easy to see when someone is not telling the whole story. The person who removed the two questions and answers from this survey sounds like he has an agenda other than 'Truth.'
as a side note, I also agree with your statement:
I mean hell, it makes no sense at all
Really, a fiery place to burn non-believers forever? Who came up with that one?
The researchers identified the fossils of at least 25 other species of animals, including saber-toothed cats, a wildcat, a brown hyena, a wild dog, antelopes, and a horse in the cave as well.
Also, I thought this was interesting:
"Before this discovery, you could pretty much fit the entire record of fossils that are candidates for the origin of the genus Homo from this time period onto a small table. But, with the discovery of Australopithecus sediba and the wealth of fossils we've recovered -- and are recovering* -- that has changed dramatically," Berger said.
You know, I thought that at first too, and maybe you know more than I, but the article I linked says they occur naturally.
Minute quantities of the fullerenes, in the form of C60, C70, C76, and C84 molecules, are produced in nature, hidden in soot and formed by lightning discharges in the atmosphere.[6] Recently, fullerenes were found in a family of minerals known as Shungites in Karelia, Russia.
I have a short anecdote that backs up your statement, and expands it a little. Two eyewitnesses (one of which was my father) reported to me that a man who claimed to be christian ripped a page out of his Bible because there was a passage in his Bible that clearly contradicted his beliefs. This happened in the 'bible belt' too.
I have a question. Would what is studied be rightly called a FAP (instinct) all the way through, or only after the brain consciously recognizes a potential(?) health threat? A reflex maybe?
Also could you point me to a good quality study of how FAP and reflex develop in the young and how it is passed on to offspring? Wiki was unsatisfying.
I guess we could see if a person uneducated in the principles of infectious diseases has the same reaction...
Are you saying that science is completely amoral?
I had not really thought of it that way. I guess you are right in that the people doing Science are the ones who follow ethics, even doctors will not provide treatment if patient does not want. But science just informs how the kidneys have failed to continue to function. (and how to dialysis)
I agree totally with your second point that this sort of thing generally fails when it gets in the real world. For instance, on NPR a few months ago, there was an economist who was saying that America should spend its way out of the recession. A woman called in and said she was happy as she was now, that being spending on necessities and small homemade gifts for friends and family. The economist said 'She's found the secret for personal happiness, but we can't all do that or the economy will collapse!'
So, not only will people object to science, and there can be bad science, but also science can inform in such a way that the issue is not clear. I personally like this statement, "We have no studies that show that proposed correlation/causation." Meaning many times, 'we haven't studied it.' (Or it was a wash, otherwise the answer would be, "studies show that not to be the case")But that is not clear, I think, to many people. They are lead to believe that studies positively show there is no correlation/causation.
I wrote a lengthy and well thought out reply, but/. will not let me post it. Aarrgh.
I agree in principle with you about the limits of consequentialism. I thank you for the link.
But really most would consider respect for free will part of good morals.
So, you can show that a particular tenet of a particular religion is ethically wrong for your own set of beliefs, but you can't show that it's wrong for everybody else which is what I believe you wanted.
Let's take Eternal Hellfire as an example. Within Christendom it is the fate of all non-believers. Now how does that teaching affect the faithful? Non-believers? Science should be able to tell us. What about the 'Golden Rule'? More harm than good? Same.
Slashdot Mirror
(canceling mods for this comment)
How are they not the same thing? Isn't evolution just random mutation + sexual/viral crossover + natural selection?
Depends on if you use big-E or little-e for Evolution(as in the theory about life after abiogenesis/panspermia) or evolution (generic change over time)
Unless you agree abiogenesis 'created' all the different proteins we have now, then mutation is how humans have *2 000 000 different proteins* (but only 20 000 genes compared to Archaea with +/- 500 protein encoding genes)
So, we are aware of what SNPs do to genes and also how gene duplicating can provide a chance for those to change proteins. Note the one of the simplest proteins in humans, human serum albumin, it has 585 amino acids and 50 or so variants. Of those, most do nothing regarding function, and I could find none providing benefits.
Now, the largest protein in humans, titin, has 34 350 amino acids and many variants. This gene is interesting in that its variants are the result mainly of deletions and give rise to different kinds of striated muscles. (Heart vs bicep) But also this protein is used in chromosome condensation and segregation in mitosis. So here is *one* gene in humans that is made into at least 8 protein isoforms (different proteins of similar function) and without it, *mitosis* wouldn't work correctly.
So here are a few questions for you. Where does abiogenesis end and Evolution begin? How many genes were produced in abiogenesis? (obviously approximations are acceptable) How does Evolution explain the different proteins after that? How about all the different protein families? How do 20 000 genes make 2 000 000 proteins? Relatedly, can you explain what enables life to know and skip introns while only using exons with both precision and accuracy of 1 bp, every time, in all instances when a protein is properly made? Now how did that mechanism arise? How is it conserved?
How I understand it, DNA is information. But not only raw information, but it also contains the instructions to copy itself accurately. Not only that, but it carries all its 'metadata' accurately and its programming instructions accurately. That is because there are *repair* mechanisms also in place, within the same DNA. These are like md5 hashes where if not legit, then Destroyed!! All this within the same 3 000 000 000 bp. Rather like a computer (loaded to the hilt with programs) that has a 3d printer attached that prints more computer/printer 'babies' that are already 'built' (in IT terms) That is all within the genome.
Surely all these unknown can/will be known, (I'm not arguing deus ex machina) my point is that there is a whole world more to the genome than random mutation seems to be able to explain. Unless it all happened in abiogenesis.
PS, Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't horizontal gene transfer and genetic drift (what you called sexual crossover) methods to propagate already existing genes?
PPS What happens when you separate populations of a lizard species for '8 million years' and then bring them back together? This
And on top of that, they're starting now what they expect 'Daddy' to finish when he gets around to it. i.e. 'the earth and the works in it will be *burned up*'
http://healthmad.com/health/carrot-addicts-may-turn-orange/
On a related but different thought: I thought I could find it, but I remember a story where scientists modified beta carotene and it produced modified eyesight in some animals or humans. Can anyone help? I'd love to read that again, or was I just dreaming?
Fahrenheit 451 was wrong? Say it ain't so.
An even more important part of free speech is the right to attack and ridicule any belief and any person.
it would be nice if their followers had but one throat and my hands were on it.
Please reconcile.
You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?
What about, "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." Mt 24:9
Even the disciples carried swords, you dimwit.
Yes and "'Put away your sword,' Jesus told him. 'Those who use the sword will die by the sword.'" --Mt 26:52
A paradoy of your deity might be considered a petty insult. This is the instance where you turn the other cheek. You don't go around killing people for this...
I agree as to this would be a proper time for a Christian to turn the other cheek. Further, Jesus (as described in the Bible) never taught for his followers to hurt or kill anyone. In fact, Christians for at least 100 years after Jesus died would not become or stay soldiers. Neither did they hold political office. Contrast that with every single POTUS
As to deities, Muhammad is a man, Allah is the deity. But you wouldn't get that from the reaction of the Muslims referenced in this story.
Interesting stuff. Do you happen to know how (biochemically) 'flow' can override the reflex arc?
You make a good point in that it was one of the events to allow freedom of religion in Vietnam.
I took your statement "nobody can have any amount of power over you" as implying no external occurrences could cause a person to react to them. Sorry.
I do note the irony of Kennedy, a Catholic, backing Buddhists against a fellow Catholic, Diem.
I also note that (at least according to wiki) "Instances of self-immolations in Vietnam had been recorded for centuries, usually carried out to honor Gautama Buddha."
So some monks at least have done it for (worshiping) a man, and not for some 'greater good'
All that is required to be "Christian" is to believe in Jesus Christ
I do not follow your reasoning. Are you referring to John 3:16? If you are, then you are making a religious judgment, and that based on one way to interpret that scripture.
To illustrate, could you explain your stance in light of the following:
(NIV)James 2:19: You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Luke 8:28: (note, Legion speaking) When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!"
Mark 1:24: (again, a 'demon')"What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
Now, OTOH, if you are arguing from another reason, I would like to hear it.
His books have been altered even more in the centuries since then to suit the political pressures at the time.. some parts were cut out, some were added in.
often perverted by those who seek to use it to gain political power. A perfect example of this is Paul
I would be interested in any citations you can provide.
And that, kids, is what inner peace is really all about...Nobody can have any amount of power over you if you've got that kind of self control.
Then why burn yourself to death?
As a side note, this is the same man whose heart resisted cremation. Echoes of meditation perhaps?
This is not a link to gp's study, but it struck me when I read it.
Regarding the 'intelligence' of 9 month old chimps vs average human 9 month old. There were orphaned chimps who were raised and given love by human 'mothers' There was a control group of chimp orphans given standard care. The 'loved' chimps outperformed humans of the same age (9 months) in an IQ test.
What that means other than babies need love, IDK.
Link: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/02/chimp-baby-smart.html
And please let a molecular biologist correct me, but I think from my reading that the current theory is that mitochondria entered the tree of life once or twice. (as in plants got plastids and animals got mitochondria) So according to that, the same mitochondria have been around for *billions* of years!!!
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory
Could you explain how the lake of fire and sulfur can be hell if it 'eats' hell? Revelation 20:14:
"14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. "
Sure, drugs like tobacco and alcohol. And methamphetamines and crack and heroin etc. Even Oxycontin, Valium, Ritalin. Same with butane, ether, and nitrous oxide.
This particular 'Gorilla named Enjoyment', she plays rough. You know, the whole pleasure and pain bit. So, why do so many people jump in Enjoyment's cage? Are they unaware of her teeth and penchant for tearing limb from limb? Probably not. So why jump in? Is there really no other way to get Enjoyment? If one want's out of Enjoyment's cage, surely a responsible person will help... But if we both look down and see the mangled bodies of Enjoyment's toys, what would cause me or you to jump in and try to dance with an 800 pound gorilla?
In Texas that is not the case. There are other states that are the same.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/19299
Legalizing in the USA
The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is why drugs that destroy one's own health are so desirable. Deal with that, and so many other problems are solved.
as a side note, I also agree with your statement:
I mean hell, it makes no sense at all
Really, a fiery place to burn non-believers forever? Who came up with that one?
The researchers identified the fossils of at least 25 other species of animals, including saber-toothed cats, a wildcat, a brown hyena, a wild dog, antelopes, and a horse in the cave as well.
Also, I thought this was interesting:
"Before this discovery, you could pretty much fit the entire record of fossils that are candidates for the origin of the genus Homo from this time period onto a small table. But, with the discovery of Australopithecus sediba and the wealth of fossils we've recovered -- and are recovering* -- that has changed dramatically," Berger said.
Keep digging guys!!!
*bold mine
You know, I thought that at first too, and maybe you know more than I, but the article I linked says they occur naturally.
Minute quantities of the fullerenes, in the form of C60, C70, C76, and C84 molecules, are produced in nature, hidden in soot and formed by lightning discharges in the atmosphere.[6] Recently, fullerenes were found in a family of minerals known as Shungites in Karelia, Russia.
I looked up a few sources, and they agree. Here is one that looks legit: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w3856554l87733w3/fulltext.pdf?page=1
Buckyballs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene
I have a short anecdote that backs up your statement, and expands it a little. Two eyewitnesses (one of which was my father) reported to me that a man who claimed to be christian ripped a page out of his Bible because there was a passage in his Bible that clearly contradicted his beliefs. This happened in the 'bible belt' too.
I have a question. Would what is studied be rightly called a FAP (instinct) all the way through, or only after the brain consciously recognizes a potential(?) health threat? A reflex maybe?
Also could you point me to a good quality study of how FAP and reflex develop in the young and how it is passed on to offspring? Wiki was unsatisfying.
I guess we could see if a person uneducated in the principles of infectious diseases has the same reaction...
Are you saying that science is completely amoral?
I had not really thought of it that way. I guess you are right in that the people doing Science are the ones who follow ethics, even doctors will not provide treatment if patient does not want. But science just informs how the kidneys have failed to continue to function. (and how to dialysis)
I agree totally with your second point that this sort of thing generally fails when it gets in the real world. For instance, on NPR a few months ago, there was an economist who was saying that America should spend its way out of the recession. A woman called in and said she was happy as she was now, that being spending on necessities and small homemade gifts for friends and family. The economist said 'She's found the secret for personal happiness, but we can't all do that or the economy will collapse!'
So, not only will people object to science, and there can be bad science, but also science can inform in such a way that the issue is not clear. I personally like this statement, "We have no studies that show that proposed correlation/causation." Meaning many times, 'we haven't studied it.' (Or it was a wash, otherwise the answer would be, "studies show that not to be the case")But that is not clear, I think, to many people. They are lead to believe that studies positively show there is no correlation/causation.
I wrote a lengthy and well thought out reply, but /. will not let me post it. Aarrgh.
I agree in principle with you about the limits of consequentialism. I thank you for the link.
But really most would consider respect for free will part of good morals.
So, you can show that a particular tenet of a particular religion is ethically wrong for your own set of beliefs, but you can't show that it's wrong for everybody else which is what I believe you wanted.
Let's take Eternal Hellfire as an example. Within Christendom it is the fate of all non-believers. Now how does that teaching affect the faithful? Non-believers? Science should be able to tell us. What about the 'Golden Rule'? More harm than good? Same.