Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not getting into that particular argument, but Lamark may well be partially exonerated by new explorations into epigenetics which suggest at the very least that gene switching is activated at generational levels in some attempt to adapt offspring to a rapidly changing environment.
    Typical example is "Dutch starvation babies" who have higher tendancies towards diabetes, suggesting their genes were tuned to a low nutrition environment, but by the time they were born food became ample, they got fatter than the rest and also got diabetes.
    There still is no connection between gene switching and alterations to DNA, but it appears telomeres can be altered and mutations do occur, so who knows maybe both were right to varying degrees, or maybe God done it just to play a sneaky trick.
    "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      I'm no ignorant simpleton. You are misrepresenting your terms and then calling me an ignoramus. A finch and a gull are the same species? Come on now. Is this supposed to be a debate of the facts or a pissing contest of rhetorical skills?
      I never said you were, I was saying you place your bets on all religious people being idiots. I never once misrepresented my words, terms, or what have you; this is the common style of argument all evolutionists try to pull on creationists to deflect criticism. It ends up being nothing but an argument of semantics, which is circular and pointless.

      What you are repeatedly doing is attaching an ideological preference to the terms of evolution, by calling this "macro evolution". It's an amateur tactic, one which I've explained numerous times already. These happen within genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothing to do with evolution; such as height changes in humans. It is explained in my last post.


      Hox genes are found in all manner of species, from fruit flies to humans. We can compare the genetic makeup of the different Hox genes and know which human hox genes share common ancestry with the different fruit fly Hox genes. It is clear that there have been multiplications of Hox genes, and that their functions have grown to build very different body segments. How is this not evidence of speciation from common ancestry? Pretending all my counterpoints are so laughable as to only merit the reaction of "pfft, I knew you'd say that, because you're so dumb" is a rhetorical device, not a scientific argument.
      I have talked about Hox genes previously, though I did not elaborate enough on it. I don't know why neo-Darwinians keep trying to be misleading regarding these. These code for proteins and RNAs, they don't code for brains, limbs or body plans. They don't create new anything. Yet they keep insisting that Hox genes, are what is responsible for evolution of the organism when all they are seen to do is activate genes in already established segments. This is an established fact. So, why, now, that it fits a specific agenda you're pushing; are Hox genes still being shown as determining factors of anatomy, when all they do is bind to DNA and RNA to effect gene expression in ontogeny? Why do birds have wings but other animals don't when they both have the same number of hox genes? Scientists have shown nothing but disfigurement with their experiments. This isn't a very good argument to make, and again, shows you're speculating, as it's obvious.



      How is homozygosity a thorn in my theory? One population is heterozygous. A geographical or other segregation occurs and in one population, Allele A is favored, where in the other, Allele B is favored (meaning the different traits confer survival advantages in each group). Over time and generations, Allele B can be eliminated from the group where Allele A confers survival advantage, and Allele A can be eliminated from the group living in a situation where Allele B is favored. Am I misunderstanding you still?
      Explained this multiple times already, explained why this doesn't support Darwin's theories many times already.


      You know genes and DNA weren't identified until after Darwin's time, right? And I still don't understand what you mean by a transitional species. Every species is a transitional species. Flying squirrels may some day evolve into bat-like creatures, like the flying fox. Do you expect me to anticipate future phenotypic expressions of gene pools? Obviously, that's like saying "If God can do anything, can he make a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?" It's a tautology.
      Point: One reason evolutionists can't explain how the cell came into existence is due to the irreducible complexity of it. I mentioned this before, "syntropy". Living cells maintain itself with symmetrical cooperation of all its organelles. If one of these organelles fails to function, the cell will die. The cell can't wait for a chance for Darwin's natural selection or mutation to permit for it to develop. So, given this, you would deduce that the first cell on earth was by necessity a complete cell. The rest is speculation and failure to recognize regression to the mean and all other things I've explained throughout this thread. I'm no longer one lining my rebuttals, in hopes that these word games will stop.



      If the kids were running the world and making decisions that affected my life based on their belief in Donald Duck, I just might become that guy. I think removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is backward thinking. When people don't care about those words any more, they'll stop designing the bills that way. I don't live under Gods, and I reject Gods who exist in the clouds, in heaven, or any other remote location. If you want to talk about Gods who live here, on the sacred earth, with me and the other sacred humans, sacred tortoises, and sacred acacia trees, then I'm happy to engage in spirituality all day long.
      This is literally divide and conquer. Atheism is a construct, politically, to revert you to mindless consumerism and apathy. There is nothing that the government under the country you live in now that is in accordance to God. This country is amoral, with man fulfilling the role of God, and using propaganda to turn you against your fellow man. It comes in all forms. If you read scripture, you would see the hilarity of your current statement. You can't blame God or religion simply because they use his name as the same propaganda tricks used to turn people into soulless sheep who buy all the latest pointless brand name merchandise. Atheists are literally in this same boat, just one rejects God, and is hypocritical, and the other believes in a God, and is still hypocritical.

      I'd rather be free of all of it.
      Last edited by Derpamix; 11-04-2013, 10:41 PM. Reason: some redundancy
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
        One reason evolutionists can't explain how the cell came into existence is due to the irreducible complexity of it. I mentioned this before, "syntropy". Living cells maintain itself with symmetrical cooperation of all its organelles. If one of these organelles fails to function, the cell will die. The cell can't wait for a chance for Darwin's natural selection or mutation to permit for it to develop. So, given this, you would deduce that the first cell on earth was by necessity a complete cell. The rest is speculation and failure to recognize regression to the mean and all other things I've explained throughout this thread. I'm no longer one lining my rebuttals, in hopes that these word games will stop.
        You're not going back far enough, in the infinite universe there is infinite possibility, so just as the God argument tries to take high ground on all the unknowns, there is the inconvenient truth of pure logic and that is very simply that matter forms and re forms through the ebb and flow of energy, on occasion it forms molecules that have binding ability to replicate their form.
        Aha, the spark of life,
        No just pure chance and those that replicate their form proliferate, those that don't, well they're nowhere to be seen, they were just a moment in time.
        This world is getting crowded with molecular replicants, so up the ante of environmental challenges and reforming in multi molecular collectives occurs, why because of infinite possibilities, these continue the process until a more complex form arrives that can utilize pre existing forms, what's this feeding, we're starting to get there, fast forward billions of years and you have a species with an overinflated ego imposing it's preordained will on the universe, so it thinks, the universes remain quiet in the knowledge that it is completely fulfilling it's role as one of the probabilities of matter.
        So therefore call it chance or god makes no difference.
        As for a immaculate conception of a cell, have you considered that the cellular structure evolved gradually and gained it's complexity progressively with precursers becoming obsolete i.e. being eaten by their offspring and leaving no record.

        You'll have to try a bit harder than that, every time you say God I say Chance, stalemate, both are infinite.
        Last edited by Omni; 11-04-2013, 11:40 PM.
        "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
          That's adaptation, not evolution.
          Adaptation is, change within the bounds of the organisms current genetic state.
          Evolution is the creating of a new genetic state.

          He was talking about evolution.


          Sent from my iPhone
          A little primal gem - My Success Story
          Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Omni View Post
            Not getting into that particular argument, but Lamark may well be partially exonerated by new explorations into epigenetics which suggest at the very least that gene switching is activated at generational levels in some attempt to adapt offspring to a rapidly changing environment.
            Typical example is "Dutch starvation babies" who have higher tendancies towards diabetes, suggesting their genes were tuned to a low nutrition environment, but by the time they were born food became ample, they got fatter than the rest and also got diabetes.
            There still is no connection between gene switching and alterations to DNA, but it appears telomeres can be altered and mutations do occur, so who knows maybe both were right to varying degrees, or maybe God done it just to play a sneaky trick.
            Interesting. I haven't thought of epigenetics in the context of Lamarck. I always just lol'ed at his stretching giraffe neck example.

            However, Lamarck said that this genetic response to environment is why species become different (long giraffe necks) over time. That isn't what epigenetics is. A gene can be switched on and off but methylation can only happen to a preexisting gene. Genome itself and the population *as a whole* is not permanently altered by epigenetics. If I smoke and activate more of my deleterious genes it only affects my offspring (for up to 50-90 generations... Although this figure is made off of observing bacteria and not humans) and not of the general human population.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
            ------
            HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

            My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


            Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

            " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

            Comment


            • Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
              Interesting. I haven't thought of epigenetics in the context of Lamarck. I always just lol'ed at his stretching giraffe neck example.

              However, Lamarck said that this genetic response to environment is why species become different (long giraffe necks) over time. That isn't what epigenetics is. A gene can be switched on and off but methylation can only happen to a preexisting gene. Genome itself and the population *as a whole* is not permanently altered by epigenetics. If I smoke and activate more of my deleterious genes it only affects my offspring (for up to 50-90 generations... Although this figure is made off of observing bacteria and not humans) and not of the general human population.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
              Hasn't been tested fully, i.e. at this point we can not say yay or nay.

              If the environment remains smoke free then yes the epigenetics effect fades, but if the environment continues in the same direction further switching takes place, is this enough to trigger an engineered mutation, don't know, hasn't been disproven as far as I'm aware.

              One thing is clear is that our genome isn't adequate to explain genetic diversity within our species, there sure was a lot of confused genetecists(human genome project) when the final count came out far below predictions, from memory it was under 30,000 genes vs predictions in excess of 100,000, and as you know maths doesn't lie, so there are other factors, that we don't understand, in this game. You'll probably like this, that glycoproteins play a significant role in gene switching, kind of like using three primary colours to produce an entire spectrum, so what was once considered gap filler between cells, may be far more important, not to mention it's dance with the immune system.
              "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

              Comment


              • Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

                Epigenetics isn't referring to actual mutations though. It is just switching on and off of genes by methylation, making the DNA more inaccessible to the reach of DNA helicase.

                Hence citing epigenetics alone does not vindicate Lamarck.


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                Last edited by turquoisepassion; 11-05-2013, 02:50 AM.
                ------
                HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

                My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


                Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

                " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

                Comment


                • Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

                  Possible explanations for more genes than accounted for: Glycoproteins (as you said), alternative splicing, and exons that aren't fully exons but rather help regulation and maybe even are part of the code in some fashion. Junk DNA isn't really junk... Just stuff we haven't figured out the usage for.

                  Still doesn't vindicate Lamarck because he says we actively change genes in a *population (not just individual) by our actions/environments. All of the factors above are based on genetic material we already have, not creating new information/genetic traits out of thin air.

                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                  Last edited by turquoisepassion; 11-05-2013, 02:53 AM.
                  ------
                  HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

                  My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


                  Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

                  " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

                  Comment


                  • A funny thought; religion doesn't believe in evolution, yet evolution has occurred in religion.

                    We see the whole religion thing spring up 2000 years ago all over the planet (Christianity, Buddhism, etc). Next speciation occurs; they branch into many different forms, each having characteristics of the ancestor, but also new characteristics. We also see adaptation; the Pope saying "evolution is true" so as not to become extinct/crazy in the face of new science.

                    Change thru time. It happens!

                    Comment


                    • I don't believe in evolution as described by atheists. But I also don't believe in the 6 24hr periods of fundamentalists. Wherever I see "we evolved this way" I substitute "we were designed this way". God said let there be light and there was the big bang. I know many might think I'm a crazy and they chide about the "invisible man in the sky". But thats an overs simplification to try to understand something that is beyond comprehension. Like neil bohrs model of the atom. Its wrong, but it helps to explain matter.

                      I think its easier to believe that an intelligent force is behind the creation of everything than everything came from nothing by complete accident. Followed by who knows how many accidents to go from germ to plant to fish to amphibian etc.

                      So how did God create it? Who knows? Who cares? But it would be hard to argue that the world wouldnt be a better place if everyone actually followed the 10 commandments rather than just looking out for number 1.

                      Sent from my SPH-L710 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                        I personally leave people to their faith, except when they argue their superiority over others primarily as a tool to build up their armies of believers and turn a spiritual belief stream into a political tool for personal gain, and sadly that's where most seem to go over time.
                        yeah, you know, because all the wars started and people killed by those crazy evolutionists...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
                          yeah, you know, because all the wars started and people killed by those crazy evolutionists...
                          survival of the fittest man. Two species enter; one species leaves!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
                            yeah, you know, because all the wars started and people killed by those crazy evolutionists...
                            What would an evolutionist Crusade even look like? We'd chain people up and torture them swear that they understand Haldane and Dobzhansky?
                            The Champagne of Beards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
                              survival of the fittest man. Two species enter; one species leaves!
                              Yeah, hitler stalin and mao [sic] were all good alter boys. C'mon... Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff. Dont trash religion because of those that fail to follow their own teachings.

                              Sent from my SPH-L710 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tony_in_nj View Post
                                Yeah, hitler stalin and mao [sic] were all good alter boys. C'mon... Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff. Dont trash religion because of those that fail to follow their own teachings.
                                Ah, sorry, you appear to have taken my lame attempt at humor to be trashing religion. That is not my aim at all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X