Schizophrenia And Genetics

[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.  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.

 

You're losing me due to my ignorance.

[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.  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.

 

So you're saying evolution is random, that those who survive did so because of a more suitable environment?

 

But this doesn't match up in my mind with assigning cause to certain reactions. If we can assign cause, then we can alter environment and override evolution. Is this good thinking?

 

And what about other methylation. Was reading that this happens routinely but not in that specific spot? Can they make, what's the word,, causal assignments there as well?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yes, evolution is random, however those who survive do not do so because of the suitability of their environment, but rather because of their adaptability to their environment.  It's a subtle distinction, but a vital one.

 

So far as the law of causality plays into it, a special relationship (for lack of a better term) exists between the species and its environment.  A small change in the environment might result in a species being less well adapted in that environment.  In such a case, tiny mutations in the DNA of the species might allow the species to become better adapted again, so long as those mutations can be passed down the germ line for several generations.  So, in a way, environmental factors drive evolution.  But to say there is a "causative agent" at work would be untrue.  Again, evolution is random.

 

As for methylation, are you sure you're not confusing methylation of DNA with histone methylation?

[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

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.

 

 

Ohmigosh!  

 

I'm really sorry if it looked like I was talking down to you, Directionless.

That's not it at all.  I flunked almost everything in high school and never made it to college.  I'm no scientist or techno-freak.  I'm a gardener... for crying out loud!  No degrees in physics or anything else and no ability to do higher math.  I'm just passionate about astronomy and have read up on stuff, that's all.

 

Are we cool about that?

Please don't feel put down or depressed on my account.

 

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.

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.

 

 

You're... a-l-m-o-s-t ...there, Directionless.

 

Yes, science would be impossible if God actively messed with things.

But then at least the scientists involved could see that... something ...was happening.  That in itself would be a kind of result.  They could then call a news conference and announce that something unknown to science was actively interfering with their experiments.  That would be news.

 

But, No...science doesn't assume that God is mostly irrelevant.

Science works on the assumption that it's simply not equipped or able to detect or measure God's relevance/irrelevance or anything else about Him/Her/It.  

 

And again, No...science doesn't assume that only the natural world exists.

If there is anything more to reality than the natural world, science won't be of any help finding out about it.  Science can only investigate the natural world.  That's what it does.  It doesn't do anything else.  So, you can't ask it to operate outside of it's envelope.

 

So it's not a case of science actively excluding God by making certain assumptions, Directionless. Not even tacit ones.

Science is a tool for doing just one job - investigating the natural world.  It can't do anything else.  It's not designed to do anything else. If you try and make it do something else (like measuring sin) it ceases to be science and becomes nonsense.

 

Does that help?

 

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.

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.

 

 

Sorry End,

 

But I can't follow your response.  But please see my reply to Directionless.  That might be helpful.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[directionless]

Ohmigosh!  

 

I'm really sorry if it looked like I was talking down to you, Directionless.

That's not it at all.  I flunked almost everything in high school and never made it to college.  I'm no scientist or techno-freak.  I'm a gardener... for crying out loud!  No degrees in physics or anything else and no ability to do higher math.  I'm just passionate about astronomy and have read up on stuff, that's all.

 

Are we cool about that?

Please don't feel put down or depressed on my account.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

No problem, BAA. It's me that's being silly to keep getting angry at myself over mistakes I made in college a long time ago.

[bornagainathiest]

 

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.

 

 

Fyi Directionless,

 

In posts # 99 and # 107 (on the 25th) I wrote about how difficult it would be to scientifically study, 'original sin'.

Please also cast your mind back to the posts I made about water-into-wine, Aaron's staff and Malchus' ear.  In those cases, End3 (magically) had those physical samples... to hand ... in his lab, where he could throw possible test at them.  Yet, even with all those machines and instruments at his disposal, he still couldn't say HOW the supernatural changes happened.  

 

So, without any 'magic' to bring samples of Adam and Eve's DNA to us today and with only our sin-polluted DNA available to analyze and with only the sparse amount of information available from the Bible to guide us, how difficult would it be for science to study original sin?

 

Not difficult.

 

Impossible!  

 

 

 

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA

[moanareina]

Hey wow. I like the turn this conversation has taken. Respect.

 

Just for those who don't understand the concept of evolution and natural selection I thought...even though I know you all are smart enough to research that stuff on your own...I would post this link to the neat khanacademy page where Sal Khan explains it all so well.

 

Hope you have fun and hope you got the time and the guts to watch it end. And whoever is interested in science

 

http://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection

[Roz]

Christians, your god appeared to people with no problems about their "free will" being taken away.

 

http://www.immanuelapproach.com/2012/08/15/people-in-scripture-who-saw-god-appendix-5/

 

Follow that link.

 

Get it through your heads.  You christians preach that "even the devil believes" (James 2:18-20).  Does that mean that the devil is going to your heaven?  NO.

 

You christians butcher your very own theology up so badly that you trip and fall over yourselves defending it.

 

What's the real reason you guys say "believe in him?"  Believe that he exists?  NO.  You guys say "believe that he died for your sins and ACCEPT his sacrifice and FOLLOW him."  But you leave those last two parts out when you say "if he appeared then he's taking away your free will, you'll automatically believe in him!"

 

Bull fucking shit.  Yes, your argument is just like a bull fucking his own shit.  

 

Heh, actually meant to post this in another christian's thread, but hey, maybe it'll do some good to any christian lurkers here.  Stop fucking your own bullshit, christians.

[directionless]

You're... a-l-m-o-s-t ...there, Directionless.

 

Yes, science would be impossible if God actively messed with things.

But then at least the scientists involved could see that... something ...was happening.  That in itself would be a kind of result.  They could then call a news conference and announce that something unknown to science was actively interfering with their experiments.  That would be news.

 

But, No...science doesn't assume that God is mostly irrelevant.

Science works on the assumption that it's simply not equipped or able to detect or measure God's relevance/irrelevance or anything else about Him/Her/It.  

 

And again, No...science doesn't assume that only the natural world exists.

If there is anything more to reality than the natural world, science won't be of any help finding out about it.  Science can only investigate the natural world.  That's what it does.  It doesn't do anything else.  So, you can't ask it to operate outside of it's envelope.

 

So it's not a case of science actively excluding God by making certain assumptions, Directionless. Not even tacit ones.

Science is a tool for doing just one job - investigating the natural world.  It can't do anything else.  It's not designed to do anything else. If you try and make it do something else (like measuring sin) it ceases to be science and becomes nonsense.

 

Does that help?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

O.k. I see what you mean that the domain of science is the natural world, but that's not the same as saying that science tacitly assumes that only the natural world is real.

[directionless]

Fyi Directionless,

 

In posts # 99 and # 107 (on the 25th) I wrote about how difficult it would be to scientifically study, 'original sin'.

Please also cast your mind back to the posts I made about water-into-wine, Aaron's staff and Malchus' ear.  In those cases, End3 (magically) had those physical samples... to hand ... in his lab, where he could throw possible test at them.  Yet, even with all those machines and instruments at his disposal, he still couldn't say HOW the supernatural changes happened.  

 

So, without any 'magic' to bring samples of Adam and Eve's DNA to us today and with only our sin-polluted DNA available to analyze and with only the sparse amount of information available from the Bible to guide us, how difficult would it be for science to study original sin?

 

Not difficult.

 

Impossible!  

 

 

 

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA

That makes sense. I missed the fact that original sin was central to End3's idea. I thought original sin and the bible was merely providing the context for why End3 was interested in his theory - namely, that certain "bad" behaviors might be "punished" naturally through epigenetic changes to that person and possibly that person's children.

 

Has anybody brought-up natural selection? It seems like natural selection would be a force that improves the average epigenetic health of humans if we define health to be surviving long enough to raise children. So that would be another reason to doubt the idea that humans are falling further and further from an original ideal.

[directionless]

Hey wow. I like the turn this conversation has taken. Respect.

 

Just for those who don't understand the concept of evolution and natural selection I thought...even though I know you all are smart enough to research that stuff on your own...I would post this link to the neat khanacademy page where Sal Khan explains it all so well.

 

Hope you have fun and hope you got the time and the guts to watch it end. And whoever is interested in science

 

http://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection

Thanks, moanareina, that is a great link. I like the way he makes it easy to understand. I noticed he has a wide variety of subjects too.

[moanareina]

 

Hey wow. I like the turn this conversation has taken. Respect.

 

Just for those who don't understand the concept of evolution and natural selection I thought...even though I know you all are smart enough to research that stuff on your own...I would post this link to the neat khanacademy page where Sal Khan explains it all so well.

 

Hope you have fun and hope you got the time and the guts to watch it end. And whoever is interested in science

 

http://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection

Thanks, moanareina, that is a great link. I like the way he makes it easy to understand. I noticed he has a wide variety of subjects too.

 

 

Yes I love his videos and they helped me with my calculus and physics for my exams I passed in March A LOT. And man, it is all free

[bornagainathiest]

Directionless wrote..

 

"O.k. I see what you mean that the domain of science is the natural world, but that's not the same as saying that science tacitly assumes that only the natural world is real."

 

Yes, the natural world is the sole domain of science.

Imho, a good way of seeing it DL, is to think of a science as key that only unlocks one door... the door to the natural world.

 

Yes, there may well be 'other' doors in reality, doors that need different keys to unlock them. 

Maybe there is a spiritual dimension to reality?  Maybe we can open the door to the spiritual aspect of reality?  But what we most certainly can't do is use the 'key' of science to do that.  Science fits only one lock and open only one door... the door to the natural world.

 

So we shouldn't even say that science assumes that only the natural world is real.

That would be assuming there are no other doors.  That's an assumption science can't make.  The assumption isn't, "No. Only the natural world exists."  There's NO assumption to be made at all.  Once again, science is agnostic (no knowledge) about the issue of these other doors.  These other doors are unknown and unknowable to science.  That doesn't mean science tacitly assumes they don't exist.  Science is a tool for opening only one door.  It's not a tool for tacitly assuming or dismissing anything else.

 

Does that help?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

Directionless wrote..

 

"O.k. I see what you mean that the domain of science is the natural world, but that's not the same as saying that science tacitly assumes that only the natural world is real."

 

Yes, the natural world is the sole domain of science.

Imho, a good way of seeing it DL, is to think of a science as key that only unlocks one door... the door to the natural world.

 

Yes, there may well be 'other' doors in reality, doors that need different keys to unlock them. 

Maybe there is a spiritual dimension to reality?  Maybe we can open the door to the spiritual aspect of reality?  But what we most certainly can't do is use the 'key' of science to do that.  Science fits only one lock and open only one door... the door to the natural world.

 

So we shouldn't even say that science assumes that only the natural world is real.

That would be assuming there are no other doors.  That's an assumption science can't make.  The assumption isn't, "No. Only the natural world exists."  There's NO assumption to be made at all.  Once again, science is agnostic (no knowledge) about the issue of these other doors.  These other doors are unknown and unknowable to science.  That doesn't mean science tacitly assumes they don't exist.  Science is a tool for opening only one door.  It's not a tool for tacitly assuming or dismissing anything else.

 

Does that help?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

No, you absolutely can not say what you are suggesting. We have no clue that there might not be a connection (actually we do have a clue). And that is the point....taking inspiration from the Bible or any source to consider. Making said declaration is just wonderfully shortsighted.

 

That's why words like supernatural are limiting....i.e. we won't be ever able to touch the secret world of supernatural nor measure because it just can't be done.  Super is only super until it becomes natural.  I don't know that anyone is satisfied with our current level of knowledge.

 

The idea of myth is that it is an attempt at an explanation that was probably observed.....or at least that is my take.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Directionless wrote..

 

"O.k. I see what you mean that the domain of science is the natural world, but that's not the same as saying that science tacitly assumes that only the natural world is real."

 

Yes, the natural world is the sole domain of science.

Imho, a good way of seeing it DL, is to think of a science as key that only unlocks one door... the door to the natural world.

 

Yes, there may well be 'other' doors in reality, doors that need different keys to unlock them. 

Maybe there is a spiritual dimension to reality?  Maybe we can open the door to the spiritual aspect of reality?  But what we most certainly can't do is use the 'key' of science to do that.  Science fits only one lock and open only one door... the door to the natural world.

 

So we shouldn't even say that science assumes that only the natural world is real.

That would be assuming there are no other doors.  That's an assumption science can't make.  The assumption isn't, "No. Only the natural world exists."  There's NO assumption to be made at all.  Once again, science is agnostic (no knowledge) about the issue of these other doors.  These other doors are unknown and unknowable to science.  That doesn't mean science tacitly assumes they don't exist.  Science is a tool for opening only one door.  It's not a tool for tacitly assuming or dismissing anything else.

 

Does that help?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

No, you absolutely can not say what you are suggesting. We have no clue that there might not be a connection (actually we do have a clue). And that is the point....taking inspiration from the Bible or any source to consider. Making said declaration is just wonderfully shortsighted.

 

That's why words like supernatural are limiting....i.e. we won't be ever able to touch the secret world of supernatural nor measure because it just can't be done.  Super is only super until it becomes natural.  I don't know that anyone is satisfied with our current level of knowledge.

 

The idea of myth is that it is an attempt at an explanation that was probably observed.....or at least that is my take.

 

 

Your objections are duly noted, End.

 

Now, I'd like to think of myself as an open-minded, rational and reasonable man who can be persuaded by reasoned arguments.

The RedNeckProf, Roguescholar and Bhim are men of science and also seem to be open-minded, rational and reasonable.

Sdelsolray certainly seems to be the same and Directionless looks to be open to reasoned arguments too.

You work in an analysis lab and so (in theory) you should know how to think rationally and reasonably.

 

So, please persuade me.

Please present your rational and reasoned arguments why I should put any store in your objections.

 

In fact, I'll widen this...

You're in the company of people who place a great deal of store in logical, coherent and self-consistent arguments.

People who are persuaded by hard evidence and strong data.  People who are open-minded and willing to be persuaded by rationality and reason.

 

So, please persuade us.

Please present your rational and reasoned arguments why we should put any store in your objections.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

Prayer has been tested has it not?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Prayer has been tested has it not?

 

LOL.

[Roz]

BAA:

So, please persuade us.

Please present your rational and reasoned arguments why we should put any store in your objections.

 

End3:

Prayer has been tested has it not? 

 

There's your answer BAA.

[Guest end3]

It's a hypothesis that can be tested....invoking the supernatural that has real-world effects. Please explain how this is not science? Anyone, anyone at all.

[moanareina]

Prayer has been tested has it not?

 

Ummmm....oh.

 

For a tiny little moment in this 18 page thread it seemed as if you had opened up and started to do some real reasoning and looking for answers to the questions of science and all...and now this? Really? Tested?

 

So tell us how do you test prayer?

With the scientific method.

So you can really claim it has been tested.

All I can think of prayer about prayer having been tested is the placebo effect, some psychologic effect on the one praying and the one who knows has been prayed for.

 

Sorry end, but is this really all you can come up with?

I am honestly astonished.

Wow.

[Guest end3]

 

Prayer has been tested has it not?

 

Ummmm....oh.

 

For a tiny little moment in this 18 page thread it seemed as if you had opened up and started to do some real reasoning and looking for answers to the questions of science and all...and now this? Really? Tested?

 

So tell us how do you test prayer?

With the scientific method.

So you can really claim it has been tested.

All I can think of prayer about prayer having been tested is the placebo effect, some psychologic effect on the one praying and the one who knows has been prayed for.

 

Sorry end, but is this really all you can come up with?

I am honestly astonished.

Wow.

 

Jesus lady, there have been probably countless real studies to determine if prayer works. Could we speculate on a mechanism if a study showed a positive outcome. Yes, I guess.

 

Again, any of you DEFINE how this doesn't meet the science requirement.

[Orbit]

I wish I had the reference for this, but just last week I read about a double-blind test of prayer with cancer patients. Prayer did not improve the patients' outcomes, and there was no difference in outcomes between the control and experimental group. So yes, End, prayer has been tested. And failed.

[Guest end3]

And for what it's worth, I haven't even begun to look into epigenetics.....so please don't think I am anywhere close to done.