Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

A Revolution in Evolution

2456789

Comments

  • #32
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    What is the "central dogma" of evolution?


  • #33
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    What is the "central dogma" of evolution?

    There isn't one. The "central dogma" refers to molecular biology.

    Put simply, genetic information is stored in DNA which is translated into RNA and the RNA codes for proteins.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology


  • #34
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Ziphius wrote: »
    I've just read the paper (more or less). And there is plenty I disagree with, yet I don't see how you can conclude from Noble's arguments that organisms and cells (!) are self aware and intentionally evolving towards a specific goal.

    My conclusions, which you misstate, are not from Noble's arguments, they are from Shapiro's arguments. Noble in the first paper I presented summarizes the current challenges to the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis, and is basically making the argument that a new modern synthesis is long overdue. Noble references Shapiro throughout his paper, the full extent of Shapiro's arguments are in the paper attached to post 28 above.

    I haven't used the phrases "self aware" nor "evolving toward a specific goal" so not sure why you are attributing these beliefs to me. Whether nature is teleological, as these claims would imply, is an open question that we have about as much evidence to support or refute as Krauss' "Universe from Nothing" i.e. none. "Mindful", a word I have used, does not imply self awareness. For example, our brains monitor billions of cells in our bodies every second and make decisions, without our being aware of it. We are "self aware" of very little that goes on biologically in our bodies, so we have to conclude life by and large does not need self awareness.

    What Shapiro is arguing is that we should not submit to the ideology that evolution progressed only by random accidents, in particular when our knowledge of the genome is still in its infancy. In doing so he of course gets accused by militant atheists of being an ID proponent, as of course is everyone who dares to question neo-Darwinism. The only valid scientific discussion is whether Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering hypothesis has validity. Furthermore, in referencing Shapiro, militant atheists always bring God into the discussion. In fact one of Shapiro's most active critics, Larry Moran, finished his review of Shapiro's recent book with the supreme "aha" moment.. "I once asked Shapiro if he believed in God, and he refused to answer". What Larry forgets is that the question of belief in God or lack of belief in God is and should be irrelevant to science, unless of course the militant atheist real agenda is to drive all religious people out of science.

    Asking the question is there intelligence involved in evolutionary processes is not the same as claiming there is intelligence involved in evolutionary processes. Questioning the mechanisms of evolution is not the same as questioning evolution itself. The hostility shown towards Shapiro and other scientists (and these are true scientists) has the same origins as that which resulted in Barbara McClintock, a brilliant scientist, ceasing publishing her work in 1953 due to the abuse directed her way from fellow scientists. She was later awarded a Nobel prize for her work, 30 years later, when most of those that had abused her were long dead.


  • #35
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Ziphius wrote: »
    Put simply, genetic information is stored in DNA which is translated into RNA and the RNA codes for proteins.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology[/QUOTE]

    Open to correction, but that's not the Central Dogma, or rather is the less controversial aspect of the Central Dogma. The Central Dogma, as outlined by Watson in 1970, and taught to biology students ever since, is that the information flow you outlined is irreversible. This has been shown to be false, by several cellular processes (referenced later in the wiki article), the most recent being epigenetics, where proteins can and do impact gene expression, and the changes in gene expression are inherited.

    It was an unfortunate choice of wording by Crick originally, but one that was made much worse later by Watson, after which it essentially became dogma.


  • #36
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    nagirrac wrote: »

    I haven't used the phrases "self aware" nor "evolving toward a specific goal" so not sure why you are attributing these beliefs to me.

    You have, however, used these words;

    "Any living cell, regardless of the organism it is part of, is an incredibly intelligent, purpose driven entity."

    and:

    "The conclusions of Shapiro's work is that all organisms are sentient,
    are intrinsically teleological (tending towards a goal), and nature acts like a genetic engineer."

    So, you can understand my confusion.

    Can you state clearly and concisely what, exactly, your problem with the modern synthesis and your support for this conclusion.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    nagirrac wrote: »

    Open to correction, but that's not the Central Dogma, or rather is the less controversial aspect of the Central Dogma. The Central Dogma, as outlined by Watson in 1970, and taught to biology students ever since, is that the information flow you outlined is irreversible. This has been shown to be false, by several cellular processes (referenced later in the wiki article), the most recent being epigenetics, where proteins can and do impact gene expression, and the changes in gene expression are inherited.

    It was an unfortunate choice of wording by Crick originally, but one that was made much worse later by Watson, after which it essentially became dogma.

    In fairness, I did say 'put simply'. But yes, the central dogma does state that the direction of information goes from DNA to proteins and not the other way round.

    TBH, I don't think epigentics challenges this. Sure, there a factors which alter the expression of genes but are there any cases were a protein codes for a gene. Is the information flow from DNA to RNA to Protein ever reversed? That would certainly be interesting.


  • #38
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    nagirrac wrote: »
    My conclusions, which you misstate, are not from Noble's arguments, they are from Shapiro's arguments. Noble in the first paper I presented summarizes the current challenges to the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis, and is basically making the argument that a new modern synthesis is long overdue. Noble references Shapiro throughout his paper, the full extent of Shapiro's arguments are in the paper attached to post 28 above.

    Apologies, I missed the second paper. I will have a look when I have more time.


  • #39
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Ziphius wrote: »
    So, you can understand my confusion.

    Can you state clearly and concisely what, exactly, your problem with the modern synthesis and your support for this conclusion.

    The confusion is between a scientific hypothesis or theory, and a philosophical conclusion. Two individuals looking at the same scientific evidence, one who believes there is intelligence behind the universe as we observe it, and the other concluding there isn't. The view that only the latter philosophical position is valid is the arrogant view of the militant atheist.

    From a scientific standpoint my problem with the modern synthesis is that it is incomplete and out of date. The question simply stated is do we need to add components to our evolutionary theory, and the answer is yes. The only people who argue against this are those who believe the modern synthesis as it stands explains everything there is to know about evolution.

    The main problem with the modern synthesis is that it left developmental biology out of the picture, something that is now being addressed by the field of Evo-Devo. Saying that "everything has been explained" is not a good response to naturally occurring phenomena that are currently difficult to explain. What current science is telling us is that there are many layers of heritable variation, above and beyond the gene-centric one, facilitated variation, phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic mechanisms.

    So, your challenge to me is how can I can arrive at a philosophical conclusion from all of the above evidence that nature is intelligent and purpose driven? Quite easily, in exactly the same manner as someone who concludes the opposite i.e. that nature is blind and directionless. In fact I used to subscribe to the latter position, until a careful review of all of the evidence from all sources has convinced me otherwise. If you were to ask me to cite a single piece of evidence from biology, then I would say phenotypic plasticity (how different phenotypes evolve from the same genotype due to their changing environment) and the role of epigenetic inheritance.


  • #40
    sea_monkey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 755 ✭✭✭sea_monkey


    Proteins can and do alter gene expression yes but to say the dogma is reversible is wrong. They act as activators for gene transcription and defects can cause major changes to how how genes are expressed (p53 defects in 50% of cancers)

    you wont see a protein go through a ribosome, come out as mRNA have introns re-added then get reverse transcribed into DNA.
    Differences in ncRNA is what can cause epigentic inheritance, this is what goes against the dogma.

    it was previously believed that the 98% of DNA which didnt code for proteins was junk but now its known that 70% or more of the DNA is transcribed and has regulatory functions in the form of ncRNA. Its when this RNA has an adverse effect on normal DNA transcription that you can get mutations and genetic drift. so the dogma is looking something like this.
    DNA+activator proteins -> RNA +ncRNA -> mRNA+ncRNA->alternative splicing ->proteins


    The flow of information in relation to protein coding genes is still DNA->RNA->Proteins


  • #41
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Interesting article I read in today's London Times concerning epigenetics in mice. In the full article, it mentioned the name of the particular molecule or compound which formed the characteristic smell of a food. The food was accompanied by shock treatment. Offspring of the mice had extra receptors for the chemical, and showed aversion to it, despite never having received the shock themselves.

    What all this shows is that the scientific method is open to enquiry and does not have a rigid dogma. Even Darwin would probably have said his theory was just a foundation.
    But nowhere does it indicate cells acting with their own intelligence and purpose.
    BTW isn't it funny how they only give you a choice between the Indo and The Times in Mc Donalds :)


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    recedite wrote: »
    Interesting article I read in today's London Times concerning epigenetics in mice. In the full article, it mentioned the name of the particular molecule or compound which formed the characteristic smell of a food. The food was accompanied by shock treatment. Offspring of the mice had extra receptors for the chemical, and showed aversion to it, despite never having received the shock themselves.

    What all this shows is that the scientific method is open to enquiry and does not have a rigid dogma. Even Darwin would probably have said his theory was just a foundation.
    But nowhere does it indicate cells acting with their own intelligence and purpose.
    BTW isn't it funny how they only give you a choice between the Indo and The Times in Mc Donalds :)

    Story is in New Scientist too for those interested.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24677-fear-of-a-smell-can-be-passed-down-several-generations.html#.Up0NPsRDuSo


  • #43
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    [...] the militant atheist [...]
    As above, I you'd have far more success igniting some interest in this topic if you could avoid, as El_Duderino pointed out above, unnecessary name-calling like this -- it really has no part in this debate and frankly, it's quite tiresome to have to keep pointing this out to you.


  • #44
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Two individuals looking at the same scientific evidence, one who believes there is intelligence behind the universe as we observe it, and the other concluding there isn't. The view that only the latter philosophical position is valid is the arrogant view of the militant atheist.

    What makes the latter view arrogant and militant, but yours not? As you say yourself, you use the same methods to arrive at your conclusions as they do:
    nagirrac wrote: »
    So, your challenge to me is how can I can arrive at a philosophical conclusion from all of the above evidence that nature is intelligent and purpose driven? Quite easily, in exactly the same manner as someone who concludes the opposite i.e. that nature is blind and directionless.
    so you must be equally arrogant and militant.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    In fact I used to subscribe to the latter position, until a careful review of all of the evidence from all sources has convinced me otherwise. If you were to ask me to cite a single piece of evidence from biology, then I would say phenotypic plasticity (how different phenotypes evolve from the same genotype due to their changing environment) and the role of epigenetic inheritance.

    And, briefly, what aspects of phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic inheritance make them appear intelligently driven to you?


  • #45
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What makes the latter view arrogant and militant, but yours not? As you say yourself, you use the same methods to arrive at your conclusions as they do:

    so you must be equally arrogant and militant.

    The word only in the sentence, "the view that only the latter philosophical view is valid..". As a former atheist I find both positions valid, that is the difference which some seem to spectacularly miss.


  • #46
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    robindch wrote: »
    As above, I you'd have far more success igniting some interest in this topic if you could avoid, as El_Duderino pointed out above, unnecessary name-calling like this -- it really has no part in this debate and frankly, it's quite tiresome to have to keep pointing this out to you.

    I didn't invent the term "militant atheist" robin and it is quite commonly used in popular culture. It is not an attack on the person, it is an attack on their beliefs;), and considerably milder than calling people delusional, or suffering from mental illness as happens all too frequently towards religious believers.

    It is also not a derogatory term, the proper understanding of the term militant in this context is "someone who has combative and aggressive support for a cause", in this case the cause being to rid the world of religion. Dawkins himself, who is much milder than Jerry Coyne, has stated his disappointment that the goal will not happen in his lifetime. I happen to disagree, also in a combative and aggressive manner, which I suppose means I am a militant deist (and there are far fewer of us than militant atheists).

    By no means do I think all atheists, or even most atheists, are militant atheists. Although many New Atheists influenced by the likes of Dawkins appear to be.


  • #47
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And, briefly, what aspects of phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic inheritance make them appear intelligently driven to you?

    Right, getting back on topic.

    Firstly, how do we define intelligence? If we start with the wiki definition, generally a good starting point: "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways, including logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, emotional knowledge, communication, learning, retaining, planning and problem solving".

    I would say cells exhibit several of these traits. There are also many of these traits where we cannot say today with any level of confidence that cells exhibit, mostly because we have no way of knowing presently. We know that cells communicate and are able to solve problems (e.g. error correction). There is now strong indication that they retain information by adapting to their environment and passing on the adaptation to their offspring (epigenetics). Not necessarily in a willful way but in an adaptive way, especially in a highly stressed environment. Like mutation this can have a positive or negative impact in terms of survival, but more important is the link to novel features. Up to recently, random point mutation of DNA has been regarded as the primary provider of variability for natural selection to do its work, resulting in the incredible diversity of life and the novel features that have evolved in so many species. An adaptive mechanism as outlined by sea-monkey above (if I understand it correctly) appears a very valid alternative, especially to explain rapid evolution as we see in multiple research papers in recent years. In other words is epigenetics the elusive "missing link" that explains the variation in phenotypes available to selection.

    I struggle to see today why some people find the idea of intelligence in nature offensive. Is it the connection to God or a specific religious view that creationists insist on? Must everyone who sees intelligence in nature be labeled a creationist? Should science not pursue the idea of nature being intelligent lest it give fodder to creationists?

    What are attempts to develop artificial intelligence other than attempts to duplicate what nature has done in terms of developing intelligent traits?


  • #48
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    What is the "central dogma" of evolution?

    There is none really. It is just religious linguistics being used, despite the moderators asking it not be, in order to attempt to rile up a reaction in people.

    The only central fixed point I know of in Evolution is that it happened. Evolution is a fact.

    The rest.... The Theory Of Evolution.... is our ruminations on how it went about happening and why.

    The difference between a fact (Such as Gravity exists) and a Theory (The Theory of Gravity) is stark but willfully ignored by many.

    Other than that I can think of no central fixed point in Evolution and the OP appears to be reacting against things that are not actually there while outright ignoring things, like posts on this thread, that actually are there.


  • #49
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I would say cells exhibit several of these traits.

    I see them exhibiting as many of these traits as I see replies from you to my last post on this thread. That is to say: None.

    Let us go through your list however.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    logic

    Cells do not exhibit logic. They merely conform to the "logic" that our universe constrains upon them. Cells exhibit "logic" just about as much as the rocks in my garden do therefore.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    abstract thought

    Cells do not have a mind. They do not think. They do not plan. They do not engage in the production of art. Where exactly do we see Abstract thought in the cells?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    understanding

    What do they "understand" exactly? They are just mindless machines like the one that puts wrapping on your mars bar. Cells exhibit no "understanding" of their own that I am aware of.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    self-awareness

    Do you think cells are self aware then? Really?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    emotional knowledge

    You will have to adumbrate what you even think this means, let alone how you think cells display it.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    communication

    They do not, in the sense humans mean it, communicate. Not directly, and only in the loosest sense of the word indirectly. They respond to their environment but this is not "communication" per se.

    It is like "flocking" in birds that dance a pretty pattern in the sky. They do complex turns and dips and dives, all as a group, and it looks.... fantastic. People often wonder how they "communicate" their intentions and achieve this.

    But they do no such thing. They merely respond individually to nothing more than what their direct neighbour is doing. And that simply condition/setting is enough to send out a complex pattern throughout the whole flock. There is no "communication" here per se, except as I said in the very loosest terms of the word. Certainly no where even close to enough to justify the application of "intelligence" you are so desperately trying to smuggle into the thread.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    learning, retaining, planning, problem solving

    Again they appear to do no such thing as above. But again I am all ears.

    I can genuinely see how Evolution gives the illusion of design, a plan, a goal or even an intelligence. But an illusion it very much seems to be.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I struggle to see today why some people find the idea of intelligence in nature offensive.

    I find it unsubstantiated. Any impression you have of offense would appear to exist in your own head. But quite often on threads like this people all too willfully miscontrue simply disagreement with offense or attack.

    I disagree with your position because it is unsubstantiated. Any attempt to misconstrue that by inventing emotional biases or agendas is just an obfuscation attempt.


  • #50
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The word only in the sentence, "the view that only the latter philosophical view is valid..". As a former atheist I find both positions valid, that is the difference which some seem to spectacularly miss.

    The views are contradictory, only one of them can be valid.


  • #51
    sea_monkey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 755 ✭✭✭sea_monkey


    I wouldn't go so far as to say epigenics is a result of a cell being sentient. That would assume that cells are capable of making their own decisions. Could you imagine if a load of your brain cells woke up in a bad mood and didnt want to go to work one day? eek!

    The main driver of evolution is mobile genetic elements and exon copying/shuffling leading to selected traits.

    Also, I'm confused. Is this a religious debate? If so, why? Can I pray really hard and get some sweet epigenetic traits?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I didn't invent the term "militant atheist" robin and it is quite commonly used in popular culture. It is not an attack on the person, it is an attack on their beliefs ;), and considerably milder than calling people delusional, or suffering from mental illness as happens all too frequently towards religious believers.
    There is no fixed meaning for the term "militant atheist" and therefore -- ad nauseam, passim -- it's not a term that adds anything positive to any debate that isn't mostly concerned with what it means.

    Look, you can have a debate about the science behind whatever it is you're trying to promote here -- I still don't have a clue -- and this thread is the best for that, though you will be expected to stick to the science and document whatever it is carefully, succinctly and with some evidince. Alternatively, and this is mostly fine too, you can have a slagging match where you accuse biologists you don't like of heresy, militant atheism and whatever other boo-words take your fancy. But don't expect it's going to turn out into anything other than an extension of the specious nonsense thread, into which the contents of the thread may well then be transferred.

    However, trying to mix the two isn't going to work and that's why this thread is being avoided by most forum regulars.


  • #53
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    sea_monkey wrote: »
    Is this a religious debate?
    It's certainly more about politics than science.


  • #54
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,457 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Right, getting back on topic.

    Firstly, how do we define intelligence? If we start with the wiki definition, generally a good starting point: "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways, including logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, emotional knowledge, communication, learning, retaining, planning and problem solving".

    I would say cells exhibit several of these traits. There are also many of these traits where we cannot say today with any level of confidence that cells exhibit, mostly because we have no way of knowing presently. We know that cells communicate and are able to solve problems (e.g. error correction). There is now strong indication that they retain information by adapting to their environment and passing on the adaptation to their offspring (epigenetics). Not necessarily in a willful way but in an adaptive way, especially in a highly stressed environment. Like mutation this can have a positive or negative impact in terms of survival, but more important is the link to novel features. Up to recently, random point mutation of DNA has been regarded as the primary provider of variability for natural selection to do its work, resulting in the incredible diversity of life and the novel features that have evolved in so many species. An adaptive mechanism as outlined by sea-monkey above (if I understand it correctly) appears a very valid alternative, especially to explain rapid evolution as we see in multiple research papers in recent years. In other words is epigenetics the elusive "missing link" that explains the variation in phenotypes available to selection.

    I struggle to see today why some people find the idea of intelligence in nature offensive. Is it the connection to God or a specific religious view that creationists insist on? Must everyone who sees intelligence in nature be labeled a creationist? Should science not pursue the idea of nature being intelligent lest it give fodder to creationists?

    What are attempts to develop artificial intelligence other than attempts to duplicate what nature has done in terms of developing intelligent traits?

    Nagirrac would it be fair to sum it up like this?

    You were an atheist and thought you/we/science knew as much as we needed to know. Then you looked into it a bit further and found out that we don't really know that much and there are really interesting things that we cant even test yet.

    On that basis and the fact that we can't explain consciousness/mindfulness or the complexity of how life actually works, you concluded god exists in the form of Deism/Pantheism.


  • #55
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Nagirrac would it be fair to sum it up like this? You were an atheist and thought you/we/science knew as much as we needed to know. Then you looked into it a bit further and found out that we don't really know that much and there are really interesting things that we cant even test yet.

    On that basis and the fact that we can't explain consciousness/mindfulness or the complexity of how life actually works, you concluded god exists in the form of Deism/Pantheism.

    Actually you are not too far off the mark (with one major caveat, and one minor one), and I can see how you come to the conclusions you have.

    Major caveat: Anyone who thinks science knows as much as we need to know or can know has no understanding of science. The first thing you learn in science is that the field of study is ongoing and the history of science demonstrates that. As I have an advanced degree and have worked in an applied science field for 25+ years, I think I have that one down. I continue to be amazed at the ongoing discoveries in science and hope to continue in that fashion until I take my last breath.

    Minor caveat: In my opinion, the basis for all valid religious belief (and I will include Deism/Pantheism in this although it is not a formal religion) is religious practice. Religious practice leads to belief in God for many people, although I fully accept blind faith is more common in organized religion. I have about as much respect for the religious beliefs of many organized religions as most posters on A&A have (none), although I respect those who hold those beliefs, and on honest examination of the question have to conclude I do not know what they actually believe, unless I know them personally and have explored their beliefs.

    Belief in God by default means belief that there is a spiritual realm either separate from our observed universe (a parallel universe if you like), or that our universe is a subset of. This realm can only be explored mentally, through religious practice, and by definition is not something that can be examined directly by science, at least today. That is the only logical explanation I can provide for my belief in God. What that God is, or what its attributes are, is unknown to me. I would say that the spiritual realm, based on my experience, is not malevolent.

    Having said that, the thread has now descended into religion, so let the fun begin:)


  • #56
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Belief in God by default means belief that there is a spiritual realm either separate from our observed universe (a parallel universe if you like), or that our universe is a subset of. This realm can only be explored mentally, through religious practice, and by definition is not something that can be examined directly by science, at least today

    Let's break this down:
    God exists. Ergo a spiritual realm exists. That wasn't the exact statement you made but I hope you'll appreciate that it becomes the conclusion if the beliefs happen to be true. How does that even logically follow?
    A spiritual realm exists, ergo God exists. I doubt you would make this claim, so why make the opposite? That a belief in God entails a belief in spiritual realm. God might be something different again. For example, God's existence may or may not be subject to the properties of the spiritual realm.

    That's not my biggest qualm though:
    You've closed off all modes of inquiry to this knowledge to be mental, or as you punctuated it, religious practice. Again, we've got a problem.
    The spiritual realm may be explorable by others means yet you've for some reason (other than an unsubstantiated belief) you've claimed that it's religious practice.

    Finally, on the topic of science. Science is many things. Some people think it's a simple empirical formula but I'm glad here that we agree it's more than that. It's a method of inquiry into finding knowledge. Or as one philosopher bluntly put it "It's philosophy that works". (Assuming of course, pragmatism contributes positively to epistemology!) However those inquiries work by rejecting valid ideas until there's enough evidence (or reasonable supposition) to support their existence. So I hope you understand why I believe (heh!) the best approach is to reject claims until there's more than a critical mass of support for the claims. Even if at that point the claim understood means all previously accepted claims were profoundly false. If truth is one's ultimate goal then I believe that to be the best approach to take. And saying that science can't test God or religion ignores the very essence of what science is and that's testing the sh*t out of everything including the notion that science can't test something! To put in terms of science: God might exist but even when we do prove it scientifically we'll never be certain. Just like we and I presume God itself can't ever be certain of our existence.


  • #57
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    sea_monkey wrote: »
    Can I pray really hard and get some sweet epigenetic traits?

    Yes, in my opinion. Although I would not use the word prayer, as it had strong religious overtones, and I was hoping we could have a thread that did not descend into a religious bashing exercise like many do in A&A.

    My field of work is developing applications for fMRI, specifically studying brains (humans and animals). I think we would both agree that the human brain, like all biological structures, is build by the genome during embryonic development, even if we don't understand fully how this is done. What is not as widely known is that the brain is also remodeled throughout life, based on nurture or more correctly exposure to environment. Genes, diet, environmental toxins, and behavior all have a role in ongoing remodeling of the brain. Behavior included thought patterns, and thought patterns lead to positive or negative outcomes. This is referred to in psychiatry as "positive and negative neuroplasticity". It is now firmly established in clinical psychiatry that mental behavior, in particular repeated thought patterns, remodels the brain.

    I also have a serious interest in mental illness, and specifically depression. It runs in my own family and I have seen the devastation it can cause. It is my opinion that the onset and development of depression is due to "negative neuroplasticity", however this develops, and can be reversed, at least partially. All disease and in particular brain related diseases have a "nature" and "nurture" element, but the relationship between nature and nurture is the interesting thing. What is the contribution of the genes that are inherited and what is the contribution from changes that occur from the formation of the zygote onwards (very often the 9 month gestation period is forgotten, and it may be the most significant)?. How much of this is imprinted on the genome, through methylation for example, and inherited. "None" we believed up to five years ago, now the consensus is "some". How much is built up generation after generation and becomes a trait?

    There is no question depression is hereditary, but by what mechanism?, and by what mechanisms does it escalate from one being prone to depression, to mild depression, to clinical depression, to suicide (7% of the world's population suffer from at least mild depression, and 10% of that 7% will eventually commit suicide, an absolutely shocking statistic). Is the underlying mechanism genetic or epigenetic, and can it be reversed? If epigenetic, are the effects of traumas for example during one lifetime, which result in an epigenetic imprint (the mouse research study posted above), passed on?

    From my study of the literature, and from personal experience (family members and acquaintances) I am convinced that depression and various anxiety conditions can be reversed using behavioral treatment like meditation and in particular yoga. I have seen it myself up close and personal. I have also heard from those that say it is a placebo effect or even woo, and still believe it is a placebo effect after reviewing fMRI scans that show changes to the brain before and after. I disagree with them. Focused behavior, such as yoga and meditation, have been seen in clinical settings to reverse anxiety disorders, including depression, and this is at least correlated with changes to the brain, detectable by fMRI.

    Is this an epigenetic mechanism? If so, is it inheritable? I would say yes (as a hypothesis), but lots of science to be done to test and verify.


  • #58
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    nagirrac wrote: »
    In my opinion, the basis for all valid religious belief (and I will include Deism/Pantheism in this although it is not a formal religion) is religious practice.
    Are we talking transcendental meditation here?
    What about shamanic use of magic mushrooms.... an equally valid method of inquiry?


  • #59
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    For those who may get the impression I am being rude to nozzferrahtoo for not responding to him, nozz is on my ignore list, something I informed him over a week ago on the Christianity forum. I have only one personal rule when it comes to posting on online forums, regardless of their charter. I am never deliberately dishonest and never deliberately lie, and the only thing I expect is that posters respond in kind. Like anyone I may make a mistake (not capitalizing Central Dogma for example) or even contradict myself at times, but this is due to normal human frailties when it comes to communication.

    I have an advanced degree from an accredited University and have worked in applied science for 25+ years. When someone accuses me of being dishonest or lying about that they go on ignore, as life is too short to continue debate with this tactic. I have only used the ignore button on 3 occasions on boards, all for the same reason. Thankfully boards is by and large a very civil and well moderated site which is why I post here.

    For full disclosure, I did report the post, but got no response. The latter does not concern me as I know the mods are busy.


  • #60
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    nagirrac wrote: »
    {...}
    From my study of the literature, and from personal experience (family members and acquaintances) I am convinced that depression and various anxiety conditions can be reversed using behavioral treatment like meditation and in particular yoga. I have seen it myself up close and personal. I have also heard from those that say it is a placebo effect or even woo, and still believe it is a placebo effect after reviewing fMRI scans that show changes to the brain before and after. I disagree with them. Focused behavior, such as yoga and meditation, have been seen in clinical settings to reverse anxiety disorders, including depression, and this is at least correlated with changes to the brain, detectable by fMRI.

    Is this an epigenetic mechanism? If so, is it inheritable? I would say yes (as a hypothesis), but lots of science to be done to test and verify.

    It sounds like they are placebo effects. However, with mental illnesses, placebo effects are probably going to be as effective as anything.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    For those who may get the impression I am being rude to nozzferrahtoo for not responding to him, nozz is on my ignore list, something I informed him over a week ago on the Christianity forum. I have only one personal rule when it comes to posting on online forums, regardless of their charter. I am never deliberately dishonest and never deliberately lie, and the only thing I expect is that posters respond in kind. Like anyone I may make a mistake (not capitalizing Central Dogma for example) or even contradict myself at times, but this is due to normal human frailties when it comes to communication.
    {...}

    Was it this thread he accused you of lying? Because I can't find it if so. I don't think someone calling into question something you say should be reason to report them/ignore them as this is the internet and anyone can claim anything here. However, you are obviously free to do what you wish in that regard, as this is the internet and the various governments around the world haven't been able to leech all the freedom away from it yet. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    recedite wrote: »
    Are we talking transcendental meditation here?
    What about shamanic use of magic mushrooms.... an equally valid method of inquiry?

    TM?, yes, although there are many disciplines of meditation.

    Although I am not an expert by any means, it is I believe a myth that shamanic practice is mainly or at least solely via the use of entheogens, although it clearly exists. Entheogens seem to have a role to play though in the development on many religions, according to some researchers. As I understand it shamanic practice across a variety of ancient cultures is entering an altered state of consciousness via prolonged exposure to auditory stimuli like drumming (most ancient paintings of shamen suggest this). I don't understand it well enough to comment further, but there are serious studies that have examined it in detail, including people like Michael Harmer who has completely immersed himself in it. I read one of his books years ago, don't think he takes entheogens, but I could be wrong.

    Some modern shamen (or perhaps wannabee shamen:)) seem to be into DMT and other exotic concoctions derived from plants in the amazon, interesting but rather scary. I think I will stick to meditation.


Advertisement