Schizophrenia And Genetics

[bornagainathiest]

 

For the attention of Directionless.

 

Please consider these two examples and try to answer the questions. 

I reckon you'll find this exercise quite illuminating.  Thanks. 

.

.

.

John 2 : 1 - 12 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus changed water into wine. 

Please have a Bible open to this page before you read on. 

 

Two pristine samples from that event arrive at End's analysis lab.  (Never mind how they got there, ok?  Just run with the argument for now.)  Sample A is taken from the ceremonial jar just before the master of the banquet tasted it.  Sample B is drawn from the same jar, but just after the master of banquet tasted it.  Therefore, sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

End's instructions are twofold. 

His first task is to find the natural cause of this change.  

His second task is to find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

So Directionless, can he do either of these things?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just like to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A (water) and sample B (wine)...?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's an Old Testament version, if you'd like to try it.   

 

Please look up Numbers 17.

End's lab receives two pristine samples taken from Aaron's staff.  Sample A is taken from his staff, just before Moses placed all twelve staffs (staves?) in the tent of the covenant law.  Sample B is taken from the same staff, but on the next day, just after Moses retrieved them from that tent.

 

The same questions are given to End.

First, find the natural cause of the change to Aaron's staff.

Second, find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

Can he do either of these things, Directionless?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just ike to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A and sample B? 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

Well, I don't know what goes on in an analytical laboratory. I assume they analyze the chemical composition of samples. Probably your water to wine scenario is more appropriate for an analytical laboratory because it is claimed to be a chemical change.

 

So I think the lab could determine that sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

Correct.  

 

The lab would not be able to determine that sample B was originally identical to sample A, and it would not be able to determine how the supposed transformation happened.

 

Correct and correct.

 

The scientists who brought the samples for analysis would need to do that part of the job.

 

How the samples got to End's lab isn't relevant to the exercise, Directionless.

 

As for your questions about natural vs. supernatural, I assume you are arguing that natural and supernatural can't be distinguished?

 

Not really.

The point I'm addressing here is that End's first task (discovering the natural cause of the instantaneous change from water into wine) is impossible.

 

At least, impossible as far as natural law goes.  

Natural law, as we understand it can say nothing about instantaneous changes like this.  Science, which investigates ONLY natural phenomenon, can't say anything about HOW this change happened either.  It can only say that a change has happened.  So that's a definite, but inexplicable physical change from H²0 to wine.  Cause - Unknown.  Mechanism of change - Unknown.  Process involved - Unknown.  I might also add, not just unknown... but also unknowable.  

 

Unknowable, because even though End's got the before (water) and the after (wine) to hand, he can't reproduce and observe the change that happened.

That event was a one-off.  It happened two thousand years ago.  There's next to no historical documentation about it.  What information there is comes from just one source.  There's no corroborating evidence from any unaffiliated source.  He's stymied. 

 

A similar answer goes for End's second task.

Discovering the supernatural cause of how the water changed into wine.  Science can't address or investigate supernatural things.  So that's a non-question in the first place.  Once again, he's stymied.

 

IMO as a non-scientist, natural is when a future event can be determined from the current physical state of the universe - i.e. deteministic. Apparently there is a lot that happens that is not deterministic. QM seems to make randomness and probability a real force as opposed to simply an acknowledgement of limited knowledge.

 

So my non-scientist idea is that randomness might be the interface that allows the supernatural world to determine the natural world. If we observe patterns and intentions in the randomness then this might be a clue.

 

That's a nice piece of speculation Directionless.  It might be so.  But how do you plan to test that?

 

So if you are arguing that supernatural is meaningless or cannot exist, then I would disagree.   

 

I'm not arguing that it cannot exist.  I'm arguing nobody can test for it using science.  Not even End3, with his state-of-the-art science labs.

 

Of course we can't prove it exists, because we can't measure supernatural state

 

(otherwise it would be natural).

 

Exactly!

 

I'm not sure if that answers your questions. I'm not a scientist so what do you expect.

 

 

Very honest answers Directionless!  

 

Thanks.

 

BAA

[Orbit]

 

 

 

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.

I don't know the methylation happens so I can't say if this is true. No idea whether something cell cell happens in the process.

 

Do you know the difference between gametes and somatic cells, End3?  Knowing the difference is key to understanding what sdelsolray is trying to explain to you.

 

I also don't understand the significance of the gamete/somatic cell point. I assume epigenetics can affect a gamete cell just like it can affect a somatic cell. Apparently epigenetic effects can be inherited by offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics).

 

So we have the possibility that a "sin" like eating pork might affect epigenetics in a gamete that would result in a more "fallen" offspring.

 

So I would appreciate if somebody can explain what you guys are arguing.

 

Your premise is flawed so you can't build an argument on it. There is no evidence that sin (which doesn't exist) has a physical counterpart in genes. We know eating pork doesn't damage DNA. Genetic damage is the result of toxins and stress, not sin.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Here's another one for you, Directionless.

 

This one deals with human tissue, so it's directly relevant to End's argument that science can 'detect' sin.

In Luke 22 : 47 - 53 Jesus heals Malchus, the servant of the high priest.  Simon Peter cut off the man's right ear.  This means that Malchus had TWO right ears - one attached to his head and one lying on the ground next to him.  Samples of the genetic material are taken from Malchus' original ear tissue before it was cut off (Sample A) and afterwards, when it's lying on the ground, B.  A third sample, C is taken from Malchus' new right ear.

 

All three samples are given to End3 and he now has access to the very best genetics lab, anywhere in the world.  New questions are given to him as well.

 

Is there any genetic or chemical difference between sample A and sample B?

Ditto, between A, B and C?

 

What is the natural cause of the regrowth of Malchus' right ear?

What is the supernatural cause of this regrowth?

 

Same as before Directionless.

Can End3 make any more headway with these samples than he did with water/wine or Aaron's staff?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I'm not sure how I can answer this any differently than your earlier question. The wine example seemed ideal for an analytical laboratory. In this ear example, End3's lab might verify that there are two right ears after the miracle. (Of course maybe Jesus reattached the right ear that was severed, but we can pretend he created a new right ear.)

 

There might be differences between the right ears that would indicate the mechanism of the miracle. Maybe the cellular ages are different. Maybe there are some hormones present in one sample.

 

Sorry if I'm missing the point in your questions.

 

BTW Here is a link on regenerating body parts using pig "extracellular matrix" in case you were unaware. Maybe the lab would find something like that.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jul-aug/13-how-pig-guts-became-hope-regenerating-human-limbs

 

 

No, it's ok Directionless.  I think you're getting it.

 

The two other examples (Aaron's staff and Malchus' ear) follow exactly the same path as the water-into-wine example.

Science can't say anything meaningful about them.  Science can't establish any kind of natural mechanism or process to account for these changes.  Nor can science say anything meaningful about about a possible supernatural cause, either.

 

Now, all of these examples were (hypothetically) in End's hands and he could test them.

If he can only draw a blank with samples he has to hand, please ask yourself this question.  How can his argument (sin can be detected by science) about behavior possibly do any better?  Please remember that when it comes to behaviors, his source of information about what constitutes sin is... the Bible.  So he has to try and define what sin is, using only scripture, before he can even start thinking about how to test for it's presence in the human genome.

 

Seriously... Directionless, do you really think he can do that?

And not just do it to satisfy his own standards, but to meet the objective standards of professional science?  So that any scientist, anywhere can perform the same tests, using the same techniques and equipment, the same methods and protocols?  Please don't forget that the best he's been able to come up with so far, after 14 pages of this thread, are a few dictionary definitions of sin and natural law.  

 

I trust that you can see the point I'm making here, Directionless?

That End's having trouble even starting, because what he's trying to do with sin and genetics is no more feasible than any of those before-and-after tests I've just described.  He's stymied.  He's trying to use an inappropriate method (science) to study the supernatural (which it can't) and has no clear idea of what it is (a proper definition of sin) he's trying to detect and how to detect it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

 

 

For the attention of Directionless.

 

Please consider these two examples and try to answer the questions. 

I reckon you'll find this exercise quite illuminating.  Thanks. 

.

.

.

John 2 : 1 - 12 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus changed water into wine. 

Please have a Bible open to this page before you read on. 

 

Two pristine samples from that event arrive at End's analysis lab.  (Never mind how they got there, ok?  Just run with the argument for now.)  Sample A is taken from the ceremonial jar just before the master of the banquet tasted it.  Sample B is drawn from the same jar, but just after the master of banquet tasted it.  Therefore, sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

End's instructions are twofold. 

His first task is to find the natural cause of this change.  

His second task is to find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

So Directionless, can he do either of these things?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just like to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A (water) and sample B (wine)...?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's an Old Testament version, if you'd like to try it.   

 

Please look up Numbers 17.

End's lab receives two pristine samples taken from Aaron's staff.  Sample A is taken from his staff, just before Moses placed all twelve staffs (staves?) in the tent of the covenant law.  Sample B is taken from the same staff, but on the next day, just after Moses retrieved them from that tent.

 

The same questions are given to End.

First, find the natural cause of the change to Aaron's staff.

Second, find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

Can he do either of these things, Directionless?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just ike to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A and sample B? 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

Well, I don't know what goes on in an analytical laboratory. I assume they analyze the chemical composition of samples. Probably your water to wine scenario is more appropriate for an analytical laboratory because it is claimed to be a chemical change.

 

So I think the lab could determine that sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

Correct.  

 

The lab would not be able to determine that sample B was originally identical to sample A, and it would not be able to determine how the supposed transformation happened.

 

Correct and correct.

 

The scientists who brought the samples for analysis would need to do that part of the job.

 

How the samples got to End's lab isn't relevant to the exercise, Directionless.

 

As for your questions about natural vs. supernatural, I assume you are arguing that natural and supernatural can't be distinguished?

 

Not really.

The point I'm addressing here is that End's first task (discovering the natural cause of the instantaneous change from water into wine) is impossible.

 

At least, impossible as far as natural law goes.  

Natural law, as we understand it can say nothing about instantaneous changes like this.  Science, which investigates ONLY natural phenomenon, can't say anything about HOW this change happened either.  It can only say that a change has happened.  So that's a definite, but inexplicable physical change from H²0 to wine.  Cause - Unknown.  Mechanism of change - Unknown.  Process involved - Unknown.  I might also add, not just unknown... but also unknowable.  

 

Unknowable, because even though End's got the before (water) and the after (wine) to hand, he can't reproduce and observe the change that happened.

That event was a one-off.  It happened two thousand years ago.  There's next to no historical documentation about it.  What information there is comes from just one source.  There's no corroborating evidence from any unaffiliated source.  He's stymied. 

 

A similar answer goes for End's second task.

Discovering the supernatural cause of how the water changed into wine.  Science can't address or investigate supernatural things.  So that's a non-question in the first place.  Once again, he's stymied.

 

IMO as a non-scientist, natural is when a future event can be determined from the current physical state of the universe - i.e. deteministic. Apparently there is a lot that happens that is not deterministic. QM seems to make randomness and probability a real force as opposed to simply an acknowledgement of limited knowledge.

 

So my non-scientist idea is that randomness might be the interface that allows the supernatural world to determine the natural world. If we observe patterns and intentions in the randomness then this might be a clue.

 

That's a nice piece of speculation Directionless.  It might be so.  But how do you plan to test that?

 

So if you are arguing that supernatural is meaningless or cannot exist, then I would disagree.   

 

I'm not arguing that it cannot exist.  I'm arguing nobody can test for it using science.  Not even End3, with his state-of-the-art science labs.

 

Of course we can't prove it exists, because we can't measure supernatural state

 

(otherwise it would be natural).

 

Exactly!

 

I'm not sure if that answers your questions. I'm not a scientist so what do you expect.

 

 

Very honest answers Directionless!  

 

Thanks.

 

BAA

 

I think D was talking about what happens between the water and wine stage......that those who brought might contribute to the change mechanism. If this is the case, then it relevant and science....

 

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

End3 doesn't like talking to BAA because BAA asks the hard questions (very clearly and logically).  

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

For the attention of Directionless.

 

Please consider these two examples and try to answer the questions. 

I reckon you'll find this exercise quite illuminating.  Thanks. 

.

.

.

John 2 : 1 - 12 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus changed water into wine. 

Please have a Bible open to this page before you read on. 

 

Two pristine samples from that event arrive at End's analysis lab.  (Never mind how they got there, ok?  Just run with the argument for now.)  Sample A is taken from the ceremonial jar just before the master of the banquet tasted it.  Sample B is drawn from the same jar, but just after the master of banquet tasted it.  Therefore, sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

End's instructions are twofold. 

His first task is to find the natural cause of this change.  

His second task is to find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

So Directionless, can he do either of these things?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just like to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A (water) and sample B (wine)...?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's an Old Testament version, if you'd like to try it.   

 

Please look up Numbers 17.

End's lab receives two pristine samples taken from Aaron's staff.  Sample A is taken from his staff, just before Moses placed all twelve staffs (staves?) in the tent of the covenant law.  Sample B is taken from the same staff, but on the next day, just after Moses retrieved them from that tent.

 

The same questions are given to End.

First, find the natural cause of the change to Aaron's staff.

Second, find the supernatural cause of this change.

 

Can he do either of these things, Directionless?  If so, how?  If not, why not?  Or would you just ike to tell me what you think he can discover from sample A and sample B? 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

Well, I don't know what goes on in an analytical laboratory. I assume they analyze the chemical composition of samples. Probably your water to wine scenario is more appropriate for an analytical laboratory because it is claimed to be a chemical change.

 

So I think the lab could determine that sample A is water and sample B is wine.

 

Correct.  

 

The lab would not be able to determine that sample B was originally identical to sample A, and it would not be able to determine how the supposed transformation happened.

 

Correct and correct.

 

The scientists who brought the samples for analysis would need to do that part of the job.

 

How the samples got to End's lab isn't relevant to the exercise, Directionless.

 

As for your questions about natural vs. supernatural, I assume you are arguing that natural and supernatural can't be distinguished?

 

Not really.

The point I'm addressing here is that End's first task (discovering the natural cause of the instantaneous change from water into wine) is impossible.

 

At least, impossible as far as natural law goes.  

Natural law, as we understand it can say nothing about instantaneous changes like this.  Science, which investigates ONLY natural phenomenon, can't say anything about HOW this change happened either.  It can only say that a change has happened.  So that's a definite, but inexplicable physical change from H²0 to wine.  Cause - Unknown.  Mechanism of change - Unknown.  Process involved - Unknown.  I might also add, not just unknown... but also unknowable.  

 

Unknowable, because even though End's got the before (water) and the after (wine) to hand, he can't reproduce and observe the change that happened.

That event was a one-off.  It happened two thousand years ago.  There's next to no historical documentation about it.  What information there is comes from just one source.  There's no corroborating evidence from any unaffiliated source.  He's stymied. 

 

A similar answer goes for End's second task.

Discovering the supernatural cause of how the water changed into wine.  Science can't address or investigate supernatural things.  So that's a non-question in the first place.  Once again, he's stymied.

 

IMO as a non-scientist, natural is when a future event can be determined from the current physical state of the universe - i.e. deteministic. Apparently there is a lot that happens that is not deterministic. QM seems to make randomness and probability a real force as opposed to simply an acknowledgement of limited knowledge.

 

So my non-scientist idea is that randomness might be the interface that allows the supernatural world to determine the natural world. If we observe patterns and intentions in the randomness then this might be a clue.

 

That's a nice piece of speculation Directionless.  It might be so.  But how do you plan to test that?

 

So if you are arguing that supernatural is meaningless or cannot exist, then I would disagree.   

 

I'm not arguing that it cannot exist.  I'm arguing nobody can test for it using science.  Not even End3, with his state-of-the-art science labs.

 

Of course we can't prove it exists, because we can't measure supernatural state

 

(otherwise it would be natural).

 

Exactly!

 

I'm not sure if that answers your questions. I'm not a scientist so what do you expect.

 

 

Very honest answers Directionless!  

 

Thanks.

 

BAA

 

I think D was talking about what happens between the water and wine stage......that those who brought might contribute to the change mechanism. If this is the case, then it relevant and science....

 

Nope.  Go back and re-read it.  I said they were pristine samples.

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

 

 

That's ok End.

 

If you don't want to talk to me - I'll just talk about you.  

[directionless]

Your premise is flawed so you can't build an argument on it. There is no evidence that sin (which doesn't exist) has a physical counterpart in genes. We know eating pork doesn't damage DNA. Genetic damage is the result of toxins and stress, not sin.

Let's say God wants his chosen people (the Israelites) to be as healthy and inclined towards righteousness as possible. God knows that eating pork causes epigenetic changes that makes people and their offspring less healthy or less righteous (just assume temporarily that pork does that). So God might declare pork to be an "unclean" food. The harmful affect of pork is completely natural.

 

Pork doesn't harm people because it is a sin; pork is a sin because it harms people - through natural mechanisms. So there is no reason why science can't test the hypothesis that pork is harmful. Of course even if pork proves to be harmful that doesn't prove that God told the Israelites that pork is harmful - maybe it was dumb luck or maybe people had guessed this through observation.

 

Also, I'm just using "eating pork" as an example. I doubt pork is harmful.

[Orbit]

 

Your premise is flawed so you can't build an argument on it. There is no evidence that sin (which doesn't exist) has a physical counterpart in genes. We know eating pork doesn't damage DNA. Genetic damage is the result of toxins and stress, not sin.

Let's say God wants his chosen people (the Israelites) to be as healthy and inclined towards righteousness as possible. God knows that eating pork causes epigenetic changes that makes people and their offspring less healthy or less righteous (just assume temporarily that pork does that). So God might declare pork to be an "unclean" food. The harmful affect of pork is completely natural.

 

Pork doesn't harm people because it is a sin; pork is a sin because it harms people - through natural mechanisms. So there is no reason why science can't test the hypothesis that pork is harmful. Of course even if pork proves to be harmful that doesn't prove that God told the Israelites that pork is harmful - maybe it was dumb luck or maybe people had guessed this through observation.

 

Also, I'm just using "eating pork" as an example. I doubt pork is harmful.

 

Again, your premise is false. We know pork does not cause gene damage. Nothing that you can name which is connected to the 10 commandments causes gene damage. Natural mechanisms exist and can be measured. Sin and genes are unrelated. Anything else is pure fantasy, bible fan-fic.

[directionless]

I think D was talking about what happens between the water and wine stage......that those who brought might contribute to the change mechanism. If this is the case, then it relevant and science....

 

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

I guess my thought was that an analytical laboratory presented with sample A and sample B can't invent the hypothesis to test or design the experiment - all it can do is analyze sample A and sample B.

 

I think BAA is arguing that a miracle is an act of God's free will, so we can't design an experiment hoping to reproduce a miracle. But studying the consequences of sin is not like studying a miracle. Sin might be a rule like "eat your vegetables".

[Guest end3]

Nope.  Go back and re-read it.  I said they were pristine samples.

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

 

That's ok End.

 

If you don't want to talk to me - I'll just talk about you.  

 

This is what I mean. Please address the other part of the comment....the natural law def. includes "moral principles". Is half of this definition make unobservable make believe?

[Guest end3]

 

I think D was talking about what happens between the water and wine stage......that those who brought might contribute to the change mechanism. If this is the case, then it relevant and science....

 

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

I guess my thought was that an analytical laboratory presented with sample A and sample B can't invent the hypothesis to test or design the experiment - all it can do is analyze sample A and sample B.

 

I think BAA is arguing that a miracle is an act of God's free will, so we can't design an experiment hoping to reproduce a miracle. But studying the consequences of sin is not like studying a miracle. Sin might be a rule like "eat your vegetables".

 

Yes, not sure we have "conclusive" evidence of all the epigenetic possibilities. And them layer them on top of each other via many generations....that outcome. As I said speculatively, it would be like guessing how my sneeze effects the person across town. My frustration is in the declaration that we "know", make believe, untestable, etc.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yes, not sure we have "conclusive" evidence of all the epigenetic possibilities. And them layer them on top of each other via many generations....that outcome., etc.

 

You are dangerously close to beginning to understand evolution and how it works.  Back away, slowly, End3; your faith is in great peril.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Nope.  Go back and re-read it.  I said they were pristine samples.

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

 

That's ok End.

 

If you don't want to talk to me - I'll just talk about you.  

 

This is what I mean. Please address the other part of the comment....the natural law def. includes "moral principles". Is half of this definition make unobservable make believe?

 

 

Not a problem.

 

Which moral principles did you have in mind, End?

Sikh moral principles?  Rastafarian ones?  Shinto Buddhist?  Baha'i?  Hindu?  Wicca?  Dianetic?  Muslim (Shia or Sunni?)  Druze Gnostic moral principles?  

Please say which moral principles you've got in mind.

 

And when you've done that, please say how you'd like agnostic science to work with the moral principles of your choice.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

 

I think D was talking about what happens between the water and wine stage......that those who brought might contribute to the change mechanism. If this is the case, then it relevant and science....

 

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

I guess my thought was that an analytical laboratory presented with sample A and sample B can't invent the hypothesis to test or design the experiment - all it can do is analyze sample A and sample B.

 

I think BAA is arguing that a miracle is an act of God's free will, so we can't design an experiment hoping to reproduce a miracle. But studying the consequences of sin is not like studying a miracle. Sin might be a rule like "eat your vegetables".

 

 

Yet, you still have to have a working scientific definition of what sin is, Directionless.

 

And whatever definition of sin and whatever definition of moral principles you want to go with, they've both got to work hand-in-glove with agnostic science - otherwise you aren't doing science.

 

Any idea how to proceed?

[RipVanWinkle]

Adam and Eve sinned. As a result sin was imputed by god to all their descendants. Therefore all descendants were born defective. How then can god  rightfully require them not to sin since they were born sinners? God made it impossible for them to be sinless. Or how can everyone born of Adam and Eve be condemned for the condition they were born with? How does this make sense? bill

[Roz]

It's pointless to even entertain those ideas without first confirming the existence of said god. None of us are shaking in fear for violating any other god's laws. 

[directionless]

Yet, you still have to have a working scientific definition of what sin is, Directionless.

 

And whatever definition of sin and whatever definition of moral principles you want to go with, they've both got to work hand-in-glove with agnostic science - otherwise you aren't doing science.

 

Any idea how to proceed?

Why can't we define sin to be "eating pork"? That is very well defined. (We can probably get the poultry producers to pay for the study too. )

 

IMO we can study the effects of sins without buying-into any religious beliefs. Obviously non-believers are going to be more pessimistic and consider this type of study a waste of time and money. But that's not the same as saying that science can't study this question.

 

I assume when you say "agnostic science" you mean don't mix religion into science. I agree with that. IMO science tacitly assumes that atheism and materialism are true. The only way to have theistic science is to compartmentalize (like a paleontologist that is a young earth creationist on Sundays).

[Orbit]

Positing sin IS buying into a religious belief, and you have no scientific way to measure sin in the physical world.

[directionless]

Adam and Eve sinned. As a result sin was imputed by god to all their descendants. Therefore all descendants were born defective. How then can god  rightfully require them not to sin since they were born sinners? God made it impossible for them to be sinless. Or how can everyone born of Adam and Eve be condemned for the condition they were born with? How does this make sense? bill

I agree it doesn't make sense.

[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.

I don't know the methylation happens so I can't say if this is true. No idea whether something cell cell happens in the process.

 

Do you know the difference between gametes and somatic cells, End3?  Knowing the difference is key to understanding what sdelsolray is trying to explain to you.

 

I also don't understand the significance of the gamete/somatic cell point. I assume epigenetics can affect a gamete cell just like it can affect a somatic cell. Apparently epigenetic effects can be inherited by offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics).

 

So we have the possibility that a "sin" like eating pork might affect epigenetics in a gamete that would result in a more "fallen" offspring.

 

So I would appreciate if somebody can explain what you guys are arguing.

 

1)  Please study the difference between meiosis and mitosis.

 

2)  Next, study how the gamete is developed in human females and human males (kt involves meiosis, not mitosis, it is different, and involves stages).

 

3)  Next, determine how many peer reviewed studies about epigenetics deals with mitosis (and not with meiosis).

 

4)  Finally, provide peer reviewed research that deals with epigenetics and meiosis (good luck with that).

[directionless]

Positing sin IS buying into a religious belief, and you have no scientific way to measure sin in the physical world.

To me "sin" is just a list of prohibited behaviors that some religious person gave me. Every religion might have a different list of "sins".

 

Probably you are defining "sin" in a subtly different way and that's why you have this view?

[Orbit]

Sin is, by definition, breaking a religious law, therefore the concept of sin is a religious one. You have no physical, observable, causal link between ANY behavior (sin or not) and genetic damage. That is why your line of reasoning won't work. 

[Roz]

Just me, but I fail to see the point of entertaining religious stories with scientific experimentation.

 

With medical advancements, experimentation and unbiased review weed out anything that doesn't measure up.  When new datasets come in and up-end the old theory, it's widely regarded as a good thing because our understanding advances.

 

With religion, it's quickly apparent that it's just a game of "he said, she said."  This is why there's millions of different beliefs and they all claim to be right.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Nope.  Go back and re-read it.  I said they were pristine samples.

Edit: and they don't exclude morality in the definition of natural law.

 

This is why I don't like talking to you BAA. And your condescension is gamy as well.

 

That's ok End.

 

If you don't want to talk to me - I'll just talk about you.  

 

This is what I mean. Please address the other part of the comment....the natural law def. includes "moral principles". Is half of this definition make unobservable make believe?

 

 

Not a problem.

 

Which moral principles did you have in mind, End?

Sikh moral principles?  Rastafarian ones?  Shinto Buddhist?  Baha'i?  Hindu?  Wicca?  Dianetic?  Muslim (Shia or Sunni?)  Druze Gnostic moral principles?  

Please say which moral principles you've got in mind.

 

And when you've done that, please say how you'd like agnostic science to work with the moral principles of your choice.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

And after that, please refine further by choosing from which century (over the past several thousands of years) such moral principles should be inventoried.

 

And next, choose which subgroup of humans (within each of those gross categories) such moral principles should be chosen from.

 

And please provide a double-blind and bias-free analysis mechanism for deciding which moral principles should be chosen and which should be discarded when there is a conflict between or among these groups.

[directionless]

 

I also don't understand the significance of the gamete/somatic cell point. I assume epigenetics can affect a gamete cell just like it can affect a somatic cell. Apparently epigenetic effects can be inherited by offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics).

 

So we have the possibility that a "sin" like eating pork might affect epigenetics in a gamete that would result in a more "fallen" offspring.

 

So I would appreciate if somebody can explain what you guys are arguing.

1)  Please study the difference between meiosis and mitosis.

 

2)  Next, study how the gamete is developed in human females and human males (kt involves meiosis, not mitosis, it is different, and involves stages).

 

3)  Next, determine how many peer reviewed studies about epigenetics deals with mitosis (and not with meiosis).

 

4)  Finally, provide peer reviewed research that deals with epigenetics and meiosis (good luck with that).

 

o.k. so apparently you are skeptical about transgenerational epigenetics - at least in humans. That's probably a wise position to take. I'm not educated enough in biology to work through your study guide to reach my own conclusion.