Schizophrenia And Genetics

[sdelsolray]

 

 

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.

 

My three points so far are:

 

1)  Offspring inherit the DNA from the parent's germ cells (and from no other place);

 

2)  Germ cells are generated by meiosis, not by mitosis; and

 

2)  Peer reviewed epigenetics research deals with its effects in mitosis, not in meiosis, at least so far.

 

There's more, but let's see if the three points above are absorbed first.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

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.

 

That's fine.  As an alternative, develop your questions into valid scientific hypotheses, develop blind and falsifiable experimentation procedures to test your questions, perform the experiments and publish your results.

 

On Edit:  You should at least, at a bare minimum, learn the difference between meiosis and mitosis.  It will take all of 30 minutes of research, at most.  That way, you will become more educated in biology.

[bornagainathiest]

 

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's answer about the pork issue is exactly the same as mine would have been, Directionless.

 

Re; agnostic science.

Please look up the meaning and origin of the word agnostic and compare it this...  Cause - Unknown.  Mechanism of change - Unknown.  Process involved - Unknown.  I might also add, not just unknown... but also unknowable.  

 

​As I've already mentioned, science can't address religious or supernatural things.  The only answer it can come up with is... unknown.  So any attempt to investigate any definition of sin you come up with always have the same answer... unknown.

 

There's just no headway to be made.

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

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.

 

Um... You'll also need to provide a group of completely a-moral individuals to act as a control.

[directionless]

Um... You'll also need to provide a group of completely a-moral individuals to act as a control.

All I need is a group that "eats pork" and a group that "doesn't eat pork". The fact that a behavior is a prohibited behavior in a religion is irrelevant - it's just a behavior like smoking or eating oatmeal.

 

I don't know any other way to say this.

[directionless]

My three points so far are:

 

1)  Offspring inherit the DNA from the parent's germ cells (and from no other place);

 

2)  Germ cells are generated by meiosis, not by mitosis; and

 

2)  Peer reviewed epigenetics research deals with its effects in mitosis, not in meiosis, at least so far.

 

There's more, but let's see if the three points above are absorbed first.

I understand your points. I think your last point is probably going to far. If you read the link I provided on transgenerational epigenetics there seems to be plenty of evidence in plants and some evidence in animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics). Of course this is wikipedia, so we can question the link for that reason.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you, because you don't seem to be able to make your points without putting me down. Your points may be perfectly valid, but I'm a bit sensitive.

[bornagainathiest]

Directionless,

 

You replied to TheRedneckProfessor, telling him that you wouldn't need a group of completely a-moral individuals to act as a control.

Therefore, I have some questions for you, please.

 

1.

Do you understand what he meant by the word, 'control'?  (If so, please explain what he meant by it.)

 

2.

Have you found out what the word, 'agnostic' means yet and how it applies to science?

 

3.

If you've read post # 305 (my last response to you) do you see why any test of the sin/pork-eating issue (no matter how you group people and no matter what definition of sin you use) will ALWAYS give you the same answer... unknown and unknowable?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Directionless, I was just looking back thru this thread and I saw something I missed!   This needs dealing with asap!

.

.

.

Yesterday, in post # 294 you wrote...

"I assume when you say 'agnostic science' you don't mean mix religion and science.  I agree with that. IMO science tacitly assumes that atheism and materialism are true."

.

.

.

No, my friend!  Not at all.

Science CANNOT tacitly assume that atheism is true.  Science is agnostic, not atheistic.  If science tries to investigate anything religious the answer will always be the same.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.  

 

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is this.

Atheism is the rejection of the claims made by believers in the existence of God. 

Agnosticism is the belief that it's impossible to gain knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

 

This is why science is agnostic and not atheistic. 

Science cannot investigate the question of God's existence or non-existence.  Such a question is outside of it's remit and beyond it's ability to test.  Science can never gain enough (or even, any) information about the question to make a reliable judgement on the matter.  That's why, whenever anyone tries to make science do this, the answer is always the same.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.

 

If science did prove that God doesn't exist, then that'd be a definitive answer, wouldn't it? 

That'd be a 'No', not an, 'Unknown'. 

 

Do you see the difference?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[directionless]

Directionless,

 

You replied to TheRedneckProfessor, telling him that you wouldn't need a group of completely a-moral individuals to act as a control.

Therefore, I have some questions for you, please.

 

1.

Do you understand what he meant by the word, 'control'?  (If so, please explain what he meant by it.)

 

2.

Have you found out what the word, 'agnostic' means yet and how it applies to science?

 

3.

If you've read post # 305 (my last response to you) do you see why any test of the sin/pork-eating issue (no matter how you group people and no matter what definition of sin you use) will ALWAYS give you the same answer... unknown and unknowable?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You guys have written many posts arguing your view and I've written many posts arguing my view. I don't think you guys understand my view or you would agree with me, because it should be non-controversial. But for whatever reason I can't seem to explain it effectively.

 

So I give up on this thread. I'm a bit sensitive to people treating me like I'm stupid. I screwed-up my time in college due to depression and religion, so I didn't get a degree in physics like I wanted. So when people tell me I'm an imbecile at science it is like rubbing salt in a wound. I hope that makes sense.

 

I know you guys aren't doing anything unreasonable by arguing your viewpoint, but I don't need more things to make me depressed.

[Guest end3]

 

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.

 

Ok, so please help me here. We have gene expression and gene suppression? And the function of the methylation suppresses? And through suppression we have disease?

 

I may have this incorrect and will gladly defer.

[directionless]

 

Directionless, I was just looking back thru this thread and I saw something I missed!   This needs dealing with asap!

.

.

.

Yesterday, in post # 294 you wrote...

"I assume when you say 'agnostic science' you don't mean mix religion and science.  I agree with that. IMO science tacitly assumes that atheism and materialism are true."

.

.

.

No, my friend!  Not at all.

Science CANNOT tacitly assume that atheism is true.  Science is agnostic, not atheistic.  If science tries to investigate anything religious the answer will always be the same.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.  

 

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is this.

Atheism is the rejection of the claims made by believers in the existence of God. 

Agnosticism is the belief that it's impossible to gain knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

 

This is why science is agnostic and not atheistic. 

Science cannot investigate the question of God's existence or non-existence.  Such a question is outside of it's remit and beyond it's ability to test.  Science can never gain enough (or even, any) information about the question to make a reliable judgement on the matter.  That's why, whenever anyone tries to make science do this, the answer is always the same.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.

 

If science did prove that God doesn't exist, then that'd be a definitive answer, wouldn't it? 

That'd be a 'No', not an, 'Unknown'. 

 

Do you see the difference?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Thanks, I guess the reason I think science is tacitly atheistic is that it assumes that it can ignore God. Like if God was actively messing with the experiments then science would be impossible. So science assumes that God is mostly irrelevant. In a practical sense science assumes that only the natural world exists IMO.

[Roz]

DL, since you're not a christian, do you still believe in a god?  If so, which god, and is it only one for you or are you open to the possibility that there could be 2+ gods?

[Guest end3]

 

 

Directionless, I was just looking back thru this thread and I saw something I missed!   This needs dealing with asap!

.

.

.

Yesterday, in post # 294 you wrote...

"I assume when you say 'agnostic science' you don't mean mix religion and science.  I agree with that. IMO science tacitly assumes that atheism and materialism are true."

.

.

.

No, my friend!  Not at all.

Science CANNOT tacitly assume that atheism is true.  Science is agnostic, not atheistic.  If science tries to investigate anything religious the answer will always be the same.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.  

 

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is this.

Atheism is the rejection of the claims made by believers in the existence of God. 

Agnosticism is the belief that it's impossible to gain knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

 

This is why science is agnostic and not atheistic. 

Science cannot investigate the question of God's existence or non-existence.  Such a question is outside of it's remit and beyond it's ability to test.  Science can never gain enough (or even, any) information about the question to make a reliable judgement on the matter.  That's why, whenever anyone tries to make science do this, the answer is always the same.  Unknown.  Unknown.  Unknown.

 

If science did prove that God doesn't exist, then that'd be a definitive answer, wouldn't it? 

That'd be a 'No', not an, 'Unknown'. 

 

Do you see the difference?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Thanks, I guess the reason I think science is tacitly atheistic is that it assumes that it can ignore God. Like if God was actively messing with the experiments then science would be impossible. So science assumes that God is mostly irrelevant. In a practical sense science assumes that only the natural world exists IMO.

 

Agnostic vs. atheist, I'm not sure where the bias would be more or less. I'm guessing the point is if we use a declarative type definition (which I'm like you, it seems irrelevant), then all the words don't neatly match up.

[Roz]

And DL, the reason why I'm asking is that the christian clearly made an assertion that links natural phenomenon with his specific religion's creation myth.  This is not a deist god, an unknown god, this is yeshitwa.  

 

The christian is backpedaling away from his own specific god, but that's what christians do when they're asked to present any evidence that their god is real.  However, he tied it to his creation myth and his own specific fall of mankind myth.

 

Just from wiki, but it suffices:

"The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order"

 

I'm just implying that in order to really go at this without any sort of bias, one must first establish that the christian god, yeshitwa, exists and is the real only true god, because only then can the original claim "schizophrenia links to original sin" be worthy of any kind of investigation.

 

EDIT:  WIthout that first step, we'll be just as good studying the link between alcohol consumption and breaking Allah's rules.  

[directionless]

DL, since you're not a christian, do you still believe in a god?  If so, which god, and is it only one for you or are you open to the possibility that there could be 2+ gods?

I try to be an atheist. I guess I had psychosis briefly a few years ago, so I saw a lot of things that seemed to confirm the existence of spirits, magic, and so forth. I didn't know about psychosis at that time, so I assumed it meant Christianity must be true. But I've found that it's better to believe none of those things exist. It makes life simpler. But I can't honestly say that I'm an atheist all the time.

[Guest end3]

So epigenetic markers are distinct vs. routine methylation due to location?

[Orbit]

DL, it's not that I don't understand what you are trying to say; it's that what you're proposing isn't science. Science requires measurable phenomena. Sin is not physically measurable.

[Roz]

Thanks DL, I'm not trying to antagonize you.  Just wanted to see where you're coming from.  

 

You're not like End3 then.

[directionless]

And DL, the reason why I'm asking is that the christian clearly made an assertion that links natural phenomenon with his specific religion's creation myth.  This is not a deist god, an unknown god, this is yeshitwa.  

 

The christian is backpedaling away from his own specific god, but that's what christians do when they're asked to present any evidence that their god is real.  However, he tied it to his creation myth and his own specific fall of mankind myth.

 

Just from wiki, but it suffices:

"The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order"

 

I'm just implying that in order to really go at this without any sort of bias, one must first establish that the christian god, yeshitwa, exists and is the real only true god, because only then can the original claim "schizophrenia links to original sin" be worthy of any kind of investigation.

 

EDIT:  WIthout that first step, we'll be just as good studying the link between alcohol consumption and breaking Allah's rules.  

O.k. if the original claim was that "schizophrenia links to original sin" then I agree that "original sin" comes from the Christian NT books that somebody mentioned earlier. Also "original sin" only happened one time in a religious story that most scientists don't take literally. It would be hard to study like you say.

[Roz]

DL, it's not that I don't understand what you are trying to say; it's that what you're proposing isn't science. Science requires measurable phenomena. Sin is not physically measurable.

 

But orbit, Islamic sin is measured by the gravity of its consequences, so there's minor and major sins.  Thus proving Islam is real and that it's viable to link genetic predispositions to how faithful to Allah one's ancestors were!

 

About as valid as End3's original claim 

[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.

 

Ok, so please help me here. We have gene expression and gene suppression? And the function of the methylation suppresses? And through suppression we have disease?

 

I may have this incorrect and will gladly defer.

 

You took that in a different direction than I expected.  However, if you layer all the genetic possibilities on one another for multiple generations what will occur will be genetic differentiation and eventually speciation, which is, in effect how evolution works.

 

As to suppression of genes causing disease, certainly it can; but so can expression of genes.  Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) is caused by an individual having three copies of chromosome 21, or, in some cases two copies of chromosome 21 and a third part of the chromosome translocated onto another chromosome.  Either way, you have over expression of genetic material.

[Orbit]

 

DL, it's not that I don't understand what you are trying to say; it's that what you're proposing isn't science. Science requires measurable phenomena. Sin is not physically measurable.

 

But orbit, Islamic sin is measured by the gravity of its consequences, so there's minor and major sins.  Thus proving Islam is real and that it's viable to link genetic predispositions to how faithful to Allah one's ancestors were!

 

About as valid as End3's original claim.

 

I was counting on the context of my other posts about sin being a religious concept. But even if we grant sin for DL, my point is that it won't work scientifically.

[Roz]

 

And DL, the reason why I'm asking is that the christian clearly made an assertion that links natural phenomenon with his specific religion's creation myth.  This is not a deist god, an unknown god, this is yeshitwa.  

 

The christian is backpedaling away from his own specific god, but that's what christians do when they're asked to present any evidence that their god is real.  However, he tied it to his creation myth and his own specific fall of mankind myth.

 

Just from wiki, but it suffices:

"The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order"

 

I'm just implying that in order to really go at this without any sort of bias, one must first establish that the christian god, yeshitwa, exists and is the real only true god, because only then can the original claim "schizophrenia links to original sin" be worthy of any kind of investigation.

 

EDIT:  WIthout that first step, we'll be just as good studying the link between alcohol consumption and breaking Allah's rules.  

O.k. if the original claim was that "schizophrenia links to original sin" then I agree that "original sin" comes from the Christian NT books that somebody mentioned earlier. Also "original sin" only happened one time in a religious story that most scientists don't take literally. It would be hard to study like you say.

 

 

That's it.  He's on record saying:  "Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards."

 

That was his original claim, and now he's spent 16 pages backtracking because he can't prove his fallen world scenario.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

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.

 

Ok, so please help me here. We have gene expression and gene suppression? And the function of the methylation suppresses? And through suppression we have disease?

 

I may have this incorrect and will gladly defer.

 

You took that in a different direction than I expected.

 

I stayed up all night running samples....was just trying to set a trap for you...lol.

 

That's why I asked the second question that they are distinct? I'm guessing they have to be in order to make claims.

[Roz]

Why won't you ex-christians believe in Islam and be convicted of your wrongdoings against Allah?  It's clear that hereditary traits link back to your ancestors and how faithful or unfaithful they were to Allah!