Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Orbit]

 

 

I don't understand all the complaints about end3's discussion topic. I see some confirmation bias, because end3 is reading about epigenetic discoveries and confirming bits and pieces of the bible. But what seems to be confirmation bias to one person might seem to be testing a hypothesis to another person. It's not black and white.

 

Epigenetics is very interesting, but we can't get the discussion out of the starting gate because people are being so nit-picky IMO.

 

Why can't we view this more like a thought experiment and see if we can learn something in the process? Like people learned things by thinking about Schrodinger's cat even though it was not a realistic experiment.

To test a hypothesis you must first have things that EXIST in the physical world. Sin does not physically exist in the physical world. The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment CAN be replicated in laboratory conditions (without the cat, obv). The idea that sin is genetic isn't a thought experiment, it's an unprovable assertion with no basis in the physical world, and this opens the door for all kinds of nonsense and pseudoscience.

 

O.k. you are probably right that the Schrodinger cat experiment is not a good comparison. (I don't remember anything about that lecture after the shock of sealing his cat in a box. )

 

But I don't see the problem with using the Bible and sin in our discussion as long as we have clear definitions. For example, we can debate if the foods Jews don't eat are more likely to have damaging effects on epigenetics. Or maybe activities like prayer and meditation have beneficial effects on epigenetics. We already saw that child abuse might have damaging epigenetic effects. That is surprising to me.

 

I don't see why we need to accept the "truth" of the Bible or sin to have a discussion about them. We just need to define them carefully first - any definition will do as long as everybody understands. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't understand why this is a problem.

 

So we would agree to have pseudoscientific speculation? I don't see the value in that.

[Roz]

For "sin against a particular god" to have any meaning, that god must be shown to be real.

 

End3 keeps ignoring the need to establish proof of his christian god, but without it, his god is just a notion like Allah, The Mormon Jesus, and Zeus.

 

End3 sins all the time against Allah and Zeus, willfully violating Allah's command not to drink or eat pork, yet he has no care in the world about it.

 

Why should 'sin against Allah' have any meaning for him?  It doesn't. 

 

This is the same thing he's trying to pass off on Ex'Cs and it's not working.  He's just a deranged frustrated man who can't handle it when he's wrong.

[directionless]

Also here is a link to epigenetics. I don't claim any expertise, but it is very interesting. I never had heard of it until a few months ago.

 

Epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression caused by certain base pairs in DNA, or RNA, being "turned off" or "turned on" again, through chemical reactions. In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is mostly the study of heritable changes that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence; to a lesser extent, epigenetics also describes the study of stable, long-term alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell that are not necessarily heritable. Unlike simple genetics based on changes to the DNA sequence (the genotype), the changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype of epigenetics have other causes, thus use of the term epi- (Greek: επί- over, outside of, around) -genetics

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

[Roz]

The christian's opening linking genetic dispositions to his "fallen world" christian fantasy has just as much meaning as:

 

A muslim linking genetic dispositions to drinking, because Allah says don't drink, but since you all started drinking anyways that led to your genetic deformities and behavior problems. 

 

If you get stuck on one religion instead of looking at all religions equally you end up like End.

[Roz]

If you really want to make a case for why epigenetics links to original sin, then prove the christian god exists first DL, then you would've done what End3 could not.

 

Why should I give a damn if I sin against Santa?  Allah?  Zeus?  Wotan?  Yaweh? 

[Orbit]

Also here is a link to epigenetics. I don't claim any expertise, but it is very interesting. I never had heard of it until a few months ago.

 

Epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression caused by certain base pairs in DNA, or RNA, being "turned off" or "turned on" again, through chemical reactions. In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is mostly the study of heritable changes that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence; to a lesser extent, epigenetics also describes the study of stable, long-term alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell that are not necessarily heritable. Unlike simple genetics based on changes to the DNA sequence (the genotype), the changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype of epigenetics have other causes, thus use of the term epi- (Greek: επί- over, outside of, around) -genetics

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

 

The whole premise is ridiculous. Stress can cause genetic changes. Sin, as Roz points out, is dependent on belief in BibleGod. If I don't believe in Biblegod, and I covet my neighbor's ass, does it show up in my genes? Surely you can see this is ludicrous. Do all Muslims, because they have different definitions of sin, get their DNA zapped by Allah for eating pork? Does a Christian get their DNA zapped for eating pork? Sin does not exist in your genes. Talking about the "effects" of sin presumes an ethnocentric view where Biblegod defines sin, and assumes a magical effect where the nonexistent affects DNA. So what about the rest of the world that doesn't believe in biblegod? It's nonsense. 

[Guest end3]

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

Wrong O Mary Lou.....the changes are passed on for a number of generations before they revert.

[Roz]

Quick poll Ex'Cs.

 

When you were christian, did you at any point go as overboard as End3 when trying to defend your god?

[Orbit]

Nope. No need.

[Roz]

Don't forget, this guy actually used this epigenetics excuse for his god's justification to kill young boys and rape/molest their equally young virgin sisters.

[directionless]

For "sin against a particular god" to have any meaning, that god must be shown to be real.

 

End3 keeps ignoring the need to establish proof of his christian god, but without it, his god is just a notion like Allah, The Mormon Jesus, and Zeus.

 

End3 sins all the time against Allah and Zeus, willfully violating Allah's command not to drink or eat pork, yet he has no care in the world about it.

 

Why should 'sin against Allah' have any meaning for him?  It doesn't. 

 

This is the same thing he's trying to pass off on Ex'Cs and it's not working.  He's just a deranged frustrated man who can't handle it when he's wrong.

We can define sin for purpose of discussion to be "eating pork", "hating my neighbor", "working on the Sabbath", etc. We don't need to believe God is real or that these are his real rules as long as the rules are clearly defined. (For example, "hating my neighbor" is a little bit vague and would need to be better defined.)

 

Then we can discuss if there is any evidence that breaking one of these rules affects epigenetic health negatively. I guess end3 is arguing that the garden of Eden was a state of epigenetic perfection that humanity has gradually lost through generations of sinful behavior. That was my understanding of his argument anyway.

[Orbit]

Isn't it self-evident that eating pork doesn't damage your DNA?

[directionless]

If you really want to make a case for why epigenetics links to original sin, then prove the christian god exists first DL, then you would've done what End3 could not.

 

Why should I give a damn if I sin against Santa?  Allah?  Zeus?  Wotan?  Yaweh?

I guess one indication that portions of the Bible were inspired by God would be if they contained useful information such as instructions for epigenetic health.

 

So it's not fair to expect Christians to prove the reality of God and the divine inspiration of the Bible before starting the discussion whose purpose from the Christian perspective is to support these beliefs in some novel way. It seems like we can't have any discussions if we expect that IMO.

[directionless]

Isn't it self-evident that eating pork doesn't damage your DNA?

I don't know. If stress from child abuse affects epigenetics then why couldn't some chemical in pork affect it? I don't understand epigenetics, but it could explain a lot of things about cancer, cell differentiation, etc. I gather that it's a new discovery compared to DNA.

[Orbit]

I'd rather not have discussions that are based on pure fantasy.

[Roz]

 

If you really want to make a case for why epigenetics links to original sin, then prove the christian god exists first DL, then you would've done what End3 could not.

 

Why should I give a damn if I sin against Santa?  Allah?  Zeus?  Wotan?  Yaweh?

I guess one indication that portions of the Bible were inspired by God would be if they contained useful information such as instructions for epigenetic health.

 

So it's not fair to expect Christians to prove the reality of God and the divine inspiration of the Bible before starting the discussion whose purpose from the Christian perspective is to support these beliefs in some novel way. It seems like we can't have any discussions if we expect that IMO.

 

 

It is absolutely fair.  You prove it before continuing on, otherwise all that's left is End3's opening.  "oh look, there seems to be a connection between my holy book and schizophrenia."  Nothing more to go on.  "What if it's true!"  You're left without proof.

 

If you want to take his side, I level the same task to you.  Prove it first before I give any damn.  The one who posits the positive claim must back up his claim with evidence before the conversation proceeds.  That's how science differs from religion.

[sdelsolray]

 

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

Wrong O Mary Lou.....the changes are passed on for a number of generations before they revert.

 

Nonsense.

 

You obviously won't acknowledge (or know) how genetic material is passed from parent to offspring in sexual reproduction, how and when that genetic material is formed in the parent and how the DNA of the remaining cells in the parent is not inherited by the offspring.

 

Willful ignorance must be your special friend, Sparky.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

A bit of biological reality:

 

1)  In sexual reproduction, inheritance comes from the germ cells, not from any other cells in the parent organisms.

 

2)  In humans (and many other species), the female germ cells (aka eggs) are formed early in life with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

 

3)   In humans (and many other species), the male germ cells (aka sperm) are formed on an ongoing basis with all of that parent's genetic material for any offspring.  Changes to the DNA of any other cell in the organism is not relevant to the offspring.

Wrong O Mary Lou.....the changes are passed on for a number of generations before they revert.

 

Nonsense.

 

You obviously won't acknowledge (or know) how genetic material is passed from parent to offspring in sexual reproduction, how and when that genetic material is formed in the parent and how the DNA of the remaining cells in the parent is not inherited by the offspring.

 

Willful ignorance must be your special friend, Sparky.

 

End3, I know you are not a stupid individual; but I wonder, sometimes about my own perception of you.  Sdelsolray is giving you sound scientific facts here.  Accept them.

[Ravenstar]

When a female is born, her ovaries already contain all the ova she will ever produce. The ovaries of a newborn baby girl contain about 400,000 to 1 million immature ova each surrounded by it's own follicle (each ovum is enclosed in a layer of cells called the ovarian follicle). Between birth and puberty, the number of immature ova decreases. So by the time a girl hits puberty, she will have about 50,000 immature ova. Using one ova per month between puberty and menopause, a woman only uses about 400 to 500 ova. Source: Complexities of Women; Nancy J Kenney et al, 1996. University of Washington. Pages 5 and 6.

 

 

and when you can read and understand this get back to us about genetics:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[directionless]

 

 

If you really want to make a case for why epigenetics links to original sin, then prove the christian god exists first DL, then you would've done what End3 could not.

 

Why should I give a damn if I sin against Santa?  Allah?  Zeus?  Wotan?  Yaweh?

I guess one indication that portions of the Bible were inspired by God would be if they contained useful information such as instructions for epigenetic health.

 

So it's not fair to expect Christians to prove the reality of God and the divine inspiration of the Bible before starting the discussion whose purpose from the Christian perspective is to support these beliefs in some novel way. It seems like we can't have any discussions if we expect that IMO.

 

 

It is absolutely fair.  You prove it before continuing on, otherwise all that's left is End3's opening.  "oh look, there seems to be a connection between my holy book and schizophrenia."  Nothing more to go on.  "What if it's true!"  You're left without proof.

 

If you want to take his side, I level the same task to you.  Prove it first before I give any damn.  The one who posits the positive claim must back up his claim with evidence before the conversation proceeds.  That's how science differs from religion.

 

I agree that end3 hasn't presented very much evidence to support his idea in the OP.

 

I think I finally understand what you guys are saying. You're saying how can we possibly take end3's OP seriously when it assumes the existence of God and we don't believe in God, prove God first. Is that what you guys are saying?

 

For me it's more like: Let's pretend this stuff is true and see if we can learn anything from the discussion or have some fun from the discussion.

[Orbit]

We already know that eating pork doesn't damage your DNA. Lying doesn't damage your DNA. Stress from child abuse is real. Sin isn't. That's the issue. I might as well say fairies are real for the sake of discussion----a complete waste of time because I know they are not real. No discussion of genetics can include the idea of sin because sin does not objectively exist.

[Roz]

I don't mean to be rude to you DL, it's just how I speak.  And yes, it's not the first time End3's pulled something like this.

 

This being Ex'C, I'm assuming a good portion of us already pondered / heard lectures  and sermons about how the fall of man caused sin to enter the world, and that sin made man more and more decrepit.

 

Now as an Ex'C, the religion for me is proven to be nothing more than imaginary construct built on top of earlier imaginary constructs.  Just like Islam.  Just like Mormonism.  Etc.

 

Why should I care about a debunked religion's notion of 'original sin'?  What is there to learn from End3's unsubstantiated claims?  They're the same as unsubstantiated muslim claims.

[directionless]

Here is a quote from wikipedia on transgenerational epigenetics in case it helps the discussion:

Epigenetic inheritance is the transmittance of information from one generation to the next that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA (i.e., the sequence of nucleotides) or from environmental cues. The term "epigenetic inheritance" is used to describe both cell–cell and organism–organism information transfer, while transgenerational epigenetics typically refers only to the latter. Although these two levels of epigenetic inheritance are equivalent in unicellular organisms, they may have distinct mechanisms and evolutionary distinctions in multicellular organisms.

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

[directionless]

I don't mean to be rude to you DL, it's just how I speak.  And yes, it's not the first time End3's pulled something like this.

 

This being Ex'C, I'm assuming a good portion of us already pondered / heard lectures  and sermons about how the fall of man caused sin to enter the world, and that sin made man more and more decrepit.

 

Now as an Ex'C, the religion for me is proven to be nothing more than imaginary construct built on top of earlier imaginary constructs.  Just like Islam.  Just like Mormonism.  Etc.

 

Why should I care about a debunked religion's notion of 'original sin'?  What is there to learn from End3's unsubstantiated claims?  They're the same as unsubstantiated muslim claims.

No problem. I think I see why you guys are asking for those proofs. I don't mind listening to end3's arguments without those proofs, but I see where you guys are coming from.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I've made nine (9) relevant and on-topic posts in this thread, for your attention, End.

 

# 99 (on the 25th) was a direct response to you in person.  

 

#188 was made to you today.

.

.

.

Please respond.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Responding to Roz and Marty, but not to me, End?

.

.

.

 

Ta DAH!  

 

I haven't just been here all week - I've been POSTING HERE for weeks!

 

I really don't agree at all with most of what you have to say BAA. And I don't like your need to control that I respond. You don't really know me nor my motivations and really have no jurisdiction on whether I say anything to you or not. Maybe you are a decent guy. I have seen glimpses of that. Show me that in your posts and I will be more apt to answer.

 

 

Ad hominem.

 

Deal with the issue, not the person asking the questions.