|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Column 2:Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. (close but no, still not evolution) |
"God guided this process" could mean anything from "miracles were required at every step" to "God started everything off with a particular course of events in mind, then let the physical factors play it all out." So it might count as evolution, or it might not. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
|
I think the trouble with the US polling results may be in the way the questions were asked. I would suspect that anyone who held a belief in any deity would be reluctant to agree that said deity had "no part in this process." Myself for instance; I am inclined to believe that if there is a deity then that deity is responsible for at very least laying the groundwork upon which the universe is built; subsequently, I could not agree that if there is a deity that deity had "no part" in evolution even though I fully accept evolution as the most probable explenation for the development of all life on earth without any direct guidence from said deity. I would imagine that if one were to re-word the questions slightly they would get drastically different results. |
|
|
| Lira |
| "Deity", Moral, "deity". Unless we're talking about nutritious supernatural entities here, then it's okay :D |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
"Deity", Moral, "deity". Unless we're talking about nutritious supernatural entities here, then it's okay :D |
Doh!... edit time...
** edit - wow, I used that word way too much for one paragraph! Quick, somebody get me a thesaurus! ** |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Well, the mutations themselves are random in the statistical sense -- they are not usually caused in a predictable way by factors in the environment -- but the differential reproduction is not. "Adaptation" is just another way of saying "mutation + some mutants reproduce more than others." Adaptation occurs at the level of the clade rather than that of the individual.
Just a clarification. |
Yep, thats the case. Although there is a new tendency which questions if this is the whole story. There are new findings that prove an important epigenetic influence leading to some very important ideas. Epigenetic findings suggest that DNA can change (through processes such as methylation or through proteomic mechanisms through histones) throughout the lifetime of the individual and the important fact is that, that some of these changes could pass to the offspring. A breed of yellow fat mice which are prone to obesity and cancer called "agouti" could lead to offspring of the normal "brown and slim, more healthy" breed if the mother receives appropriate nutrition rich in B12. The methyl groups would attach to the DNA and change it leading to different offspring. These mechanisms could explain the fcat that homozygotic twins become more and more different as they grow older. Some estimates suggest that up to 30% of the homozygotic genome could change as a result of epigenetic changes and that some of these changes could pass to the offspring. Could it be that an individual who is psychologically traumatised (e.g. during a war) would result in his DNA changing leading in turn to a possibility (probability) of having more prone-to-anxiety offspring without previous anxiety (genetic) predisposition? Anyway, these findings could possibly lead to a form of soft neo-lamarckism and suggest that things are much more interactive and environmentally dynamic than previously thought, although not all DNA is equally prone to epigenetic changes and not all changes are there to stay. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| What kind of useless pseudophilosophical wankery are you fags perfoming here? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
philosophical wankery |
Redundant! Didn't we agree last year that philosophy IS wankery? |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Yep, thats the case. Although there is a new tendency which questions if this is the whole story. There are new findings that prove an important epigenetic influence leading to some very important ideas. Epigenetic findings suggest that DNA can change (through processes such as methylation or through proteomic mechanisms through histones) throughout the lifetime of the individual and the important fact is that, that some of these changes could pass to the offspring. A breed of yellow fat mice which are prone to obesity and cancer called "agouti" could lead to offspring of the normal "brown and slim, more healthy" breed if the mother receives appropriate nutrition rich in B12. The methyl groups would attach to the DNA and change it leading to different offspring. These mechanisms could explain the fcat that homozygotic twins become more and more different as they grow older. Some estimates suggest that up to 30% of the homozygotic genome could change as a result of epigenetic changes and that some of these changes could pass to the offspring. Could it be that an individual who is psychologically traumatised (e.g. during a war) would result in his DNA changing leading in turn to a possibility (probability) of having more prone-to-anxiety offspring without previous anxiety (genetic) predisposition? Anyway, these findings could possibly lead to a form of soft neo-lamarckism and suggest that things are much more interactive and environmentally dynamic than previously thought, although not all DNA is equally prone to epigenetic changes and not all changes are there to stay. |
Think you get a little ahead of yourself here. You work in the field of genetics? If not, I'd like to see some sources on this (books, sites et cetera).
There are plenty of traits that can change within ourselves from things we do daily. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| But seriously, what's going on here? One-sentence COR-version or something? I'm a scientist and might want to solve all questions and discussion points with a single, clear as a Siberian winter night answer of not more than 7 words, but more profound insight than a four page nefardec logorrhea. |
|
|
| woscar |
Just read Lira's post then, and take it from there.
What is your field of study? Using tunneling electron microscopes to analyze Slylee's posts does not count. :p |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| My cat's breath smells like cat food. |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Just read Lira's post then, and take it from there.
What is your field of study? Using tunneling electron microscopes to analyze Slylee's posts does not count. :p |
Which is yours? |
|
|
|
|
