My friend said she was asked the question about faith and science in her

[GoldShadow]

Please name some non-trivial "gain-of-function" mutations. Toxicity, minor change to existing functionality, reversal of previous loss-of-function would be trivial in my view. I'm genuinely interested.

I can't come up with modern day examples, but evolutionarily, there have been some very important ones.

Duplication of hox genes is a big one (I believe humans have 4 sets of hox genes), and these are essentially responsible for our morphology and development:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/10/4492

Color vision is also a big one. Trichromatic vision evolved due to a mutation in the opsin gene(s) as a result of unequal crossing over and subsequent duplication. I would assume the 5-color-pigment eyes in many birds evolved the same way.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/11/991109072142.htm
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/991202/colorvision.shtml
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=24891

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[matthewdarby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s


http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-10.html

 

[axlaxl1]

It's funny but I was just sitting in my evolution class. We were learning about the branching of phylogeny's and they were caused by mutations blah blah.

I was reading this thread. Laughing and decided to ask this question. See if any of you can answer it.

Why after a mutation that a new species is developed and boom that species can no longer cross breed with the previous species? How does the genetic code know that after a "good" mutation whether point or enlongated that "hey you are new and can't breed with the old." Answer me that?

 

[FinchHead]

Why after a mutation that a new species is developed and boom that species can no longer cross breed with the previous species? How does the genetic code know that after a "good" mutation whether point or enlongated that "hey you are new and can't breed with the old." Answer me that?

The genetic code doesn't, "know" anything. The new species either evolved to a point where it's DNA is incompatible with the origional species, or it isn't. Think about it, after a long period of seperation, each species is going to be evolving seperatly, and their DNA is going to get farther and farther apart.

Also, don't be confused and think ONE mutation will make a new species. It won't. A new species comes when a species splinters, either into geographic areas or specialties. It is one species, where two distinct groups emerge, and don't cross breed (geographic seperation), or their cross breeds fail (donkeys, different types of finches having a less specialized offspring).

 

[GoldShadow]

FinchHead explains it well.

Just remember that, sometimes, boundaries between species are not always clearly defined; they are the result of many mutations and much genetic change.

 

[RySerr21]

Mendel was a monk and Pasteur makes my milk safe to drink.

as long as milk contains animal protein, it will never be safe to drink

 

[axlaxl1]

FinchHead explains it well.

Just remember that, sometimes, boundaries between species are not always clearly defined; they are the result of many mutations and much genetic change.

Yea like for example: I don't believe T-rex turned into a bird.

 

[MattD]

as long as milk contains animal protein, it will never be safe to drink

I've never heard an argument for veganism from a safety angle...

 

[ghostfoot]

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, tell me you're joking?

Mutations that result in a loss of function due to alteration of a protein are called, not surprisingly, "loss-of-function" mutations. Mutations that result in a new function or overexpression due to alteration of a protein are called, not surprisingly, "gain-of-function" mutations and there are plenty of examples of both.

"there are plenty of examples," and you typed quite a bit, but not a single example? In your defense, that's probably how your Darwinist bio teachers preach...

Ghostfoot, you need to stop arguing until you've taken an introductory biology class and a genetics course.

So I have your permission to argue then? Thank you.

Please, just give an example of mutation(s) leading to some higher level of functioning.

 

[RySerr21]

I've never heard an argument for veganism from a safety angle...

then clearly you havent read the china study, or any research on nutrition for that matter. i suggest you do so. it will change the way you perceive nutrition and if you are open to the possibility, it will change your life. i mean that in the most sincere and passionate way possible.

 

[ghostfoot]

Mendel was a monk and Pasteur makes my milk safe to drink.

as long as milk contains animal protein, it will never be safe to drink

I've never heard an argument for veganism from a safety angle...

Milk is very safe to drink (thanks to Pasteur, often called "The father of modern medicine." Pasteur was a creationist and a contemporary of Darwin. While Pasteur contributed a tremendous amount to Chemistry, Biology, and Medicine, Darwin never recorded any original thought that is useful to science).

 

[RySerr21]

"there are plenty of examples," and you typed quite a bit, but not a single example? In your defense, that's probably how your Darwinist bio teachers preach...

do you pick and choose which posts you read so that you are always correct in your mind?? jesus. there are some examples 10 or so posts above this one.

 

[MattD]

then clearly you havent read the china study. i suggest you do so. it will change the way you perceive nutrition and if you are open to the possibility, it will change your life.

No, I haven't, clearly. I probably don't have time to pick it up right now, but do you care to tell me what it says makes animal proteins (other than prions in infected neural tissue) dangerous? Sure, there's a cholesterol and saturated fat issue, but I've never seen any argument that animal PROTEIN is bad for you. After all, we're made of animal protein.....

I totally agree that a diet higher in plant based food with meats in moderation is far healthier than the typical american diet.

 

[RySerr21]

Milk is very safe to drink (thanks to Pasteur, often called "The father of modern medicine." Pasteur was a creationist and a contemporary of Darwin. While Pasteur contributed a tremendous amount to Chemistry, Biology, and Medicine, Darwin never recorded any original thought that is useful to science).

please look a few posts above and read my comment to Matt.

 

[ghostfoot]

I'm not really interested in getting into the whole religion vs. science debate. I honestly don't care what people want to believe.

Elements don't spontaneously appear from nothing (usually), we know how they form and what they're made from. That being said, we can create matter and anti-matter and make them vanish...not from nothing but from energy. Experiments have shown that when the conditions are right, things like amino acids and other biological molecules CAN form, membranes form on their own. I think the problem some people have with life starting on it's own and evolution is that they're trying to think about it on a short timescale and with small quantities. The earth is billions of years old...imagine the whole planet as one giant hot vat of chemicals...billions upon billions of reactions are taking places in a single instant. Even the improbable have a pretty good chance of happening a few times. We didn't go from single celled bubble of goo to human overnight. But if you think about it, we are a complex, elaborate continuous sets of chemical reactions. I'm not debating the soul or when the consciousness appeared. But in terms of just creating a human...once the molecules for replicating genes form, that was really the beginning of evolution and life. Getting all the right things in the right place at the right time sounds entirely improbably, but you need to consider the magnitude of all the reactions going on over a giant period of time...odds are it'll happen.

It's tempting to cop the popular Darwinist argument and tell you to learn cell theory and the laws of thermodynamics, but honestly:

You can't make matter and make matter vanish, as you claim. When you talk about amino acids forming, I hope you're not talking about the notorious Miller experiments.

It's a whole other discussion, but I'd also like to challenge the "timescale" that you seem so confident in.

Somehow I managed to guess your avatar was Chopin on my first try I don't think I had ever seen a picture of him before.

You must be very in-tune with his work. Do you play?

 

[RySerr21]

No, I haven't, clearly. I probably don't have time to pick it up right now, but do you care to tell me what it says makes animal proteins (other than prions in infected neural tissue) dangerous? Sure, there's a cholesterol and saturated fat issue, but I've never seen any argument that animal PROTEIN is bad for you. After all, we're made of animal protein.....

I totally agree that a diet higher in plant based food with meats in moderation is far healthier than the typical american diet.

first off, my apologies if i came off as an ***hole. i didnt mean to make it sound like i thought i was better than you for having read this book. i am j ust recently begining to learn about all of this and it is having a profound impact on my diet and my life. i am pretty enthusiastic about spreading the word, b/c not many people know about it, and if people did and they actually made lifestyle changes, the health in america would be completely different than what it is right now.

i dont really have time to go through all of the findings, there are literally hundreds. but you pointed out the major problem with our health system....NO ONE knows about animal proteins and the effects they have on health. only the few that have the time to squeeze in the read (its a 416 page book). luckily, the book has been assigned for one of my classes (diet, disease, and exercise), so i have to make time for it.

i will breifly discuss one of the very first of the studies that T. Colin Campbell did. this led him to research further and eventually led to the "china study" and the resuts were remarkable to say the least.

basically, they took aflatoxin, one of the most potent carinogens that we know of, and they gave it to rats. they gave one group of the animals a high dose of aflatoxin and the other group of rats a low dose of aflatoxin. the group with the high aflatoxin dose (the highest cancer initiation) were fed 5% animal protein in their diet and the group with low aflatoxin dose were fed 20% animal protein in the diet. the low protein rats developed substantially less tumors than the high protein diet.

this is just ONE study of HUNDREDS that this book discusses. please, no one respond by saying "thats one study what the hell does that show." there are literall hundreds and hundreds. The china study itself investigated more than 2400 chinese counties and 880 million of their citizens, so its not just working with animals, but with humans, discovering relationships between animal protein (not just cholesterol and saturated fats) and rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, etc. all of which are the among the highest in america compared to other countries......

the countries that are at the bottom of the list...well they eat a whole foods plant based diet.

what i find the most interesting part of the book is the 4th section, which is titled: Why Haven't You Heard This Before?? its a damn good question if you ask me

if you read only one other book in your life, let it be the china study....

 

[ghostfoot]

do you pick and choose which posts you read so that you are always correct in your mind?? jesus. there are some examples 10 or so posts above this one.

Please provide your best example (or two) and I'll respond to it.

Keep in mind that there is an enormous amount of Devout Evolutionist propaganda out there that is absolutely baseless, but I will seriously consider your best examples.

Edit: After reading your last post about the dangers of protein, I may not have time to study your best examples of beneficial mutations.

The study that you just discussed (which I'd assume is one of the more convincing of the "HUNDREDS" that you refer to) might lead to some very specific conclusions, but could never support the implications that you suggest.

 

[RySerr21]

Please provide your best example (or two) and I'll respond to it.

Keep in mind that there is an enormous amount of Devout Evolutionist propaganda out there that is absolutely baseless, but I will seriously consider your best examples.

this isnt' my argument. i shouldnt have even got into it, maybe im feeling a little fiesty today, haha. the examples given by the person you were talking to are at the top of this page. they were in repsonse to someone else though. and i'm out of this particular discussion

 

[RySerr21]

The study that you just discussed (which I'd assume is one of the more convincing of the "HUNDREDS" that you refer to) might lead to some very specific conclusions, but could never support the implications that you suggest.

you'd be surprised, i was. read it. the person who published the book was probably the most improbable person to actually do these studies and change his lifestyle, he talks about it in the beginning.

he grew up on a farm, i forget where. all he ate was meat and all he drank was milk. his dad died of heart disease. thats just a very breif background.

 

[ghostfoot]

you'd be surprised, i was. read it. the person who published the book was probably the most improbable person to actually do these studies and change his lifestyle, he talks about it in the beginning.

he grew up on a farm, i forget where. all he ate was meat and all he drank was milk. his dad died of heart disease. thats just a very breif background.

That sounds like a very emotionally compelling story and I can understand why it has invigorated you.

Scientifically, it's baseless.

 

[RySerr21]

That sounds like a very emotionally compelling story and I can understand why it has invigorated you.

Scientifically, it's baseless.

the background story is not meant to be scientific, it was just to show that even people who are initially resistant to the idea that animal protein may be a cuase for poor health make changes. you get to a point where you just can't deny the findings any longer. they are indisputable and far from baseless.

you can ignore me if you want, it really has no effect on me or my life. but you exemplify the main stream population in the world. people are resistant to change. for whatever reason they don't like hearing about it. its an unfortunate fact of life.

i hope that one day you break out of your comfort zone and are able to read and learn about things that may fly in the face of what you once believed.

 

[GoldShadow]

"there are plenty of examples," and you typed quite a bit, but not a single example? In your defense, that's probably how your Darwinist bio teachers preach...

I already did, read my post above:

I can't come up with modern day examples, but evolutionarily, there have been some very important ones.

Duplication of hox genes is a big one (I believe humans have 4 sets of hox genes), and these are essentially responsible for our morphology and development:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/10/4492

Color vision is also a big one. Trichromatic vision evolved due to a mutation in the opsin gene(s) as a result of unequal crossing over and subsequent duplication. I would assume the 5-color-pigment eyes in many birds evolved the same way.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/11/991109072142.htm
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/991202/colorvision.shtml
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=24891

These are just two relevant examples, I really don't want to go through every single organism in the history of life on earth.

 

[axlaxl1]

Very interesting

This morning on Morning Joe via MSNBC:

There is a book, sorry missed the authors name and all, that states how Einstein believed in a "higher power." In fact, he went on to say how he would hate how atheist would use his life's work to prove atheist points of views.

FINALLY, to my original point and post. Einstein stated that he garnered his creativity for science and development by trying to read the thoughts of how "god" would have created things. And then to say the higher deity was far beyond his genius and or creativity.

Science and God do mix and he was a PhD/Physician I am telling you.

 

[Wylde]

Interview.

She gave me her answer of what she said but I thought of it like this.

"I believe in god more now than ever after pursing a biology degree. We as scientist are all trying to be like god and that is the basis of the ongoing pursuit of science." you like you like?

Take it go ahead. I have quotes that will blow you away.

that is a really bad answer imo, we aren't pursuing scientific knowledge to be like god?! Also, how do the two sentences relate, does trying to "be like god" make her believe in god more or visa versa?

 

[axlaxl1]

that is a really bad answer imo, we aren't pursuing scientific knowledge to be like god?! Also, how do the two sentences relate, does trying to "be like god" make her believe in god more or visa versa?

oh god, is this hard for you to understand?

 

[smeagol]

Very interesting

This morning on Morning Joe via MSNBC:

There is a book, sorry missed the authors name and all, that states how Einstein believed in a "higher power." In fact, he went on to say how he would hate how atheist would use his life's work to prove atheist points of views.

FINALLY, to my original point and post. Einstein stated that he garnered his creativity for science and development by trying to read the thoughts of how "god" would have created things. And then to say the higher deity was far beyond his genius and or creativity.

Science and God do mix and he was a PhD/Physician I am telling you.

1. I can't believe you revived this thread.

2. I think this belongs in sociopolitical or all students.

3. Einstein's belief in God is not a mystery. You can probably do a search: "Einstein + God + Spinoza" and you will get results.

While I'm not doubting he believed in God, Einstein claimed to believe in a very funny type of God. His sort of view is coined pantheism; he thinks the entire universe is God. This coffee mug on my table is a part of God, because it is a part of the universe too...

You can call the universe God if you want, but understand that some people will just call it the universe.

4. I don't like these appeals to authority.

The general formula:

Some smart guy believed in X
X is probably true

is kind of lame.

Descartes is a really smart guy. He believed in God, and he also believed the pineal gland was the conduit between mind and body :\

5. You seem smart enough to figure this out on your own. You don't need to appeal to really smart people, or acquire the approval of people on message boards that think you're wrong.

 

[HumidBeing]

Here are some Einstein quotes.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936)

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?"

For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

From all that I've read, Einstein did, indeed, have a highly spiritual side that he called called religious, but it was a pantheistic view, that all is related, connected, tied together. I particularly enjoy the applicability of that final quote to arguments over science and religion.

Call him religious. Call him non-religious. I think both are true. He believed both in social morals and analytical reasoning, but no particular religious doctrine or dogma.

 

[riverwoman1040]

I'm pretty sure the goal of interviewing is to get yourself accepted. Judging by the responses, quite a few people would have rejected her based on this answer. That alone makes it a bad answer.

 

[axlaxl1]

Here are some Einstein quotes.



From all that I've read, Einstein did, indeed, have a highly spiritual side that he called called religious, but it was a pantheistic view, that all is related, connected, tied together. I particularly enjoy the applicability of that final quote to arguments over science and religion.

Call him religious. Call him non-religious. I think both are true. He believed both in social morals and analytical reasoning, but no particular religious doctrine or dogma.

I have read what you said. And my opinion is that overall Einstein did believe in a god, just not on the usage and practicality of how we use it in "religion." I think he thinks as I do. God was a supreme scientist/ supreme intellectual individual that created something amazing in the form of life. IMO of course. lol