If God is

[Zaleukos]

I am asking could there be a master set where all dna originate from. And the rest of the set that is unused could be found in the dna?

For example lets say the master set is this.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

An rat may have
akmqw
The rest of the unused dna may be found in the dna somehwere else
bcdefghijlnoprstuvxyz

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "master set". The information in DNA is carried by combinations of four basic building blocks which are the same (and are decoded in the same way) for all organisms, and I guess you could consider that a common master set, in the same way as our posts have a common "master set" (the a-z alphabet) in spite of being very different in content.

"Junk DNA" is DNA that we usually can sequence (e g identify the building blocks) but whose function we dont know yet. It may have a function or it may simply be padding around the meaningful parts of the DNA. We dont know yet.

You can think of a string of dna as a long string of characters, genes as words embedded in that string, and known genes as words we've managed to understand. The "junk" is the stuff that we dont understand yet, either because of our imperfect understanding of the language or because it simply doesnt mean anything.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "master set". The information in DNA is carried by combinations of four basic building blocks which are the same (and are decoded in the same way) for all organisms, and I guess you could consider that a common master set, in the same way as our posts have a common "master set" (the a-z alphabet) in spite of being very different in content.

"Junk DNA" is DNA that we usually can sequence (e g identify the building blocks) but whose function we dont know yet. It may have a function or it may simply be padding around the meaningful parts of the DNA. We dont know yet.

You can think of a string of dna as a long string of characters, genes as words embedded in that string, and known genes as words we've managed to understand. The "junk" is the stuff that we dont understand yet, either because of our imperfect understanding of the language or because it simply doesnt mean anything.

Hope that makes sense.

What i mean by "master set" is all the possible values DNA can have. The values that are being used in the DNA is probably easy to identify. However the leftover DNA from the master set would be hard to find without deliberately looking for it in the "junk" dna because the leftover dna wont be the same for all animals and will be unique like the set of the DNA that is getting used.

For example from my previous example:

An rat may have
akmqw <- thats unique
The rest of the unused dna may be found in the dna somewhere else
bcdefghijlnoprstuvxyz <- so is this

A human being may have
bdhjlntxz <- thats unique
The left over dna:
acefgikmopqrsuvwy <- will also be unique

But unless you are deliberately looking for it in the dna it will be mumbo jumbo.

 

[Rithrandil]

I am asking could there be a master set where all dna originate from. And the rest of the set that is unused could be found in the dna?

For example lets say the master set is this.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

An rat may have
akmqw
The rest of the unused dna may be found in the dna somehwere else
bcdefghijlnoprstuvxyz

You get what i am saying? Can that happen? Can we prove one way or the other? The point is that without proper identification we wont be even able to se one way or another.

What, like is there some Master DNA sequence and then all creatures just have a part of that master sequence? No, that's not how it works.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/11067.htm

This isn't really relevant. The point of the chromosomal fusion is that we can literally show how our chromosomes and those of the apes are related, and that we can show exactly how closely we are related b/c of the chromosomal fusion.

Isnt that really a sign of an unhealthy scientific method? IMO science needs to be chekced and rechecked. How can it be done if only half the information is available to us.

Damian, I don't think you're following me -

All of the information is available to the scientists. None is available to the creationists. Creationists (or "intelligent designers") have absolutely zero facts to back up their case. Michael Behe had to admit this in a court of law. He had to admit if intelligent design (creationism) was taught as a science in class, they'd also have to teach *astrology*. Science IS checked and rechecked, Damian. Every new bit of information and data acquired has BOLSTERED evolution.

You're just not getting this. You seem to think they are equal sides with equal amounts of information, and there's room for interpretation. There's not. This is why you need to stop reading Creationist sites. Nothing they produce is peer reviewed, they twist data and facts, and they rely upon people being uneducated laymen to push their beliefs.

There's no secret cabal of "evolutionists" running biology. If creationists could actually demonstrate evidence for one of their arguments, it would be published. They like to claim no scientific journal would publish their studies. However, they rarely, if ever try to submit their papers for a peer reviewed journal. They also don't understand that if a scientific journal published a paper that *took down evolution as a theory* that it would be perhaps one of the greatest scientific events in history. That journal would generate an absurd amount of press and money.

So why aren't creationists listened to in the scientific community? Because they don't have evidence of their claims.

 

[Zaleukos]

What i mean by "master set" is all the possible values DNA can have. The values that are being used in the DNA is probably easy to identify. However the leftover DNA from the master set would be hard to find without deliberately looking for it in the "junk" dna because the leftover dna wont be the same for all animals and will be unique like the set of the DNA that is getting used.

In that case: No, there is no master set of possible values. There are only a few building blocks, but the number of possible combinations is pretty much infinite as there is no upper bound to genome size.

 

[Thrasher]

However, the difference between the DNA of many animals is very small compared the possible variations inherent in DNA. So there is much more commonality than diversity.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

What, like is there some Master DNA sequence and then all creatures just have a part of that master sequence? No, that's not how it works.

What about for atavistic genes? Surely that is an example of unused "legacy DNA" coming out of dormancy? If you can have one how come you cant have the other?

This isn't really relevant. The point of the chromosomal fusion is that we can literally show how our chromosomes and those of the apes are related, and that we can show exactly how closely we are related b/c of the chromosomal fusion.

I am showing how chromosome number is irrelevant, it is the arm length that is important. Some human beings have 47 chromosomes(the xyy gene and probably the xxy gene), a baby of robertsonain couple had 44 chromosomes. And Ken Miller makes a mistake. He says that human have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48, then he goes to show one example of chromosomal fusion, that would lead this apes ancestor to have 47 chromosomes not 46. But as i have said it is irrelevant.

Damian, I don't think you're following me -

All of the information is available to the scientists. None is available to the creationists. Creationists (or "intelligent designers") have absolutely zero facts to back up their case. Michael Behe had to admit this in a court of law. He had to admit if intelligent design (creationism) was taught as a science in class, they'd also have to teach *astrology*. Science IS checked and rechecked, Damian. Every new bit of information and data acquired has BOLSTERED evolution.

You're just not getting this. You seem to think they are equal sides with equal amounts of information, and there's room for interpretation. There's not. This is why you need to stop reading Creationist sites. Nothing they produce is peer reviewed, they twist data and facts, and they rely upon people being uneducated laymen to push their beliefs.

There's no secret cabal of "evolutionists" running biology. If creationists could actually demonstrate evidence for one of their arguments, it would be published. They like to claim no scientific journal would publish their studies. However, they rarely, if ever try to submit their papers for a peer reviewed journal. They also don't understand that if a scientific journal published a paper that *took down evolution as a theory* that it would be perhaps one of the greatest scientific events in history. That journal would generate an absurd amount of press and money.

So why aren't creationists listened to in the scientific community? Because they don't have evidence of their claims.

Even if you take creationism and intelligent design out of it, i would still argue that scientific ideas need to be constantly checked and reevaluated. I believe that is the scientific process no?

In that case: No, there is no master set of possible values. There are only a few building blocks, but the number of possible combinations is pretty much infinite as there is no upper bound to genome size.

I am not referring to the number of possible combinations however. According to what you said, there are 4 variables and each of those variables differ in size(last part is a guess).

 

[Rithrandil]

What about for atavistic genes? Surely that is an example of unused "legacy DNA" coming out of dormancy? If you can have one how come you cant have the other?

Atavistic Genes are genes that have been flipped off for whatever reason inside of a creature. There's an attempt to create a 'dinosauroid' or a Chickenasaurus by flipping off various bird genes and flipping on dinosaur genes.

You're trying to ask if there is some sort of Master DNA code and all living organisms just have a selection of it. That's not how it works. DNA changes through mutations,etc.

I am showing how chromosome number is irrelevant, it is the arm length that is important. Some human beings have 47 chromosomes(the xyy gene and probably the xxy gene), a baby of robertsonain couple had 44 chromosomes. And Ken Miller makes a mistake. He says that human have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48, then he goes to show one example of chromosomal fusion, that would lead this apes ancestor to have 47 chromosomes not 46. But as i have said it is irrelevant.

Yes, some people have more or less chromosomes. That's a genetic mutation in progress. We have twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Apes have twenty-four. Chromosome pair 2p and 2q merged in great ape ancestors that became humans - giving us human chromosome 2. That means that we have TWO LESS chromosomes than apes, because we lost one PAIR from the ape ancestors.

Miller didn't make a mistake.

Even if you take creationism and intelligent design out of it, i would still argue that scientific ideas need to be constantly checked and reevaluated. I believe that is the scientific process no?

And this is what you are missing: they are being constantly checked and evaluated. Every bit of information we have gathered has reinforced the theory, Damian.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Atavistic Genes are genes that have been flipped off for whatever reason inside of a creature. There's an attempt to create a 'dinosauroid' or a Chickenasaurus by flipping off various bird genes and flipping on dinosaur genes.

You're trying to ask if there is some sort of Master DNA code and all living organisms just have a selection of it. That's not how it works. DNA changes through mutations,etc.

Yes i am aware of that. But what if mutations recover data from the inactive remnants of the master dna? Can you prove otherwise? My point isnt that my theory is correct rather that since there is much of the DNA we dont understand to say one thing is correct no matter what is faulty, it is only correct from the information we know at the time.

Yes, some people have more or less chromosomes. That's a genetic mutation in progress. We have twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Apes have twenty-four. Chromosome pair 2p and 2q merged in great ape ancestors that became humans - giving us human chromosome 2. That means that we have TWO LESS chromosomes than apes, because we lost one PAIR from the ape ancestors.

Miller didn't make a mistake.

Ah yes thats right. My bad. Its been a while since i watched that video.

And this is what you are missing: they are being constantly checked and evaluated. Every bit of information we have gathered has reinforced the theory, Damian.

Then i have no qualms then.




P.S. Zalekous, biology is my weakest subject, maths and computer science beign my strongest. So feel free to correct me without feeling bad or whatever. As you can tell my theory is related to the JAVA programmign language.

 

[Rithrandil]

Yes i am aware of that. But what if mutations recover data from the inactive remnants of the master dna? Can you prove otherwise? My point isnt that my theory is correct rather that since there is much of the DNA we dont understand to say one thing is correct no matter what is faulty, it is only correct from the information we know at the time.

The mutations that we are talking about are adding information. There are different types of "errors" that can occur during replication.

However, some mutations can randomly flip on a deactivated gene - humans born with tails, for instance. But we're primarily talking about mutations adding new information and doing new/different things.

Ah yes thats right. My bad. Its been a while since i watched that video.

It's cool, I do stuff like that all the time. Biology isn't exactly my field.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

The mutations that we are talking about are adding information. There are different types of "errors" that can occur during replication.

However, some mutations can randomly flip on a deactivated gene - humans born with tails, for instance. But we're primarily talking about mutations adding new information and doing new/different things.

Okay. What exactly are we arguing? I thought I was arguing that DNA research is still relatively in its infancy am i wrong in that? I mean we cant predict hair colour in cloned mice yet so that is where my assumption comes from.

It's cool, I do stuff like that all the time. Biology isn't exactly my field.

Thanks.

 

[Rithrandil]

Okay. What exactly are we arguing? I thought I was arguing that DNA research is still relatively in its infancy am i wrong in that? I mean we cant predict hair colour in cloned mice yet so that is where my assumption comes from.

Ah. Well - it kind of depends what you mean by infancy. We can compare DNA and be like "this % of genes is the same in humans, chimps, and a cow" and so forth - we're really good at that.

We don't know what every single gene does (we're mainly focusing on humans for obvious reasons), and we haven't even begun to sequence the genomes of every organism we have access to.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Ah. Well - it kind of depends what you mean by infancy. We can compare DNA and be like "this % of genes is the same in humans, chimps, and a cow" and so forth - we're really good at that.

We don't know what every single gene does (we're mainly focusing on humans for obvious reasons), and we haven't even begun to sequence the genomes of every organism we have access to.

I mean what % of our DNA has been fully identified.

 

[DArtagnan]

I mean what % of our DNA has been fully identified.

Well, that's impossible to know with certainty as of now.

I acknowledge how much sense some parts of the theory of evolution makes, and I certainly consider it a likely explanation for a number of things. But I can think of few theories more misused and overly simplified to support flawed points of view - and I need only repeat the whole racial purity thing. But even today, people go around thinking that it's some kind of universal guide for optimal living - and they don't even understand that "Survival of the fittest" is not about being strong and independent. It's the core of our nature that we depend on one another, or such is my experience which I trust a hell of a lot more than the inability of the average dude to correctly interpret what Darwin was talking about.

But what I don't understand is why some people feel it rules out a god or God. I've never understood why people think of what's written in a book called the Bible in any way whatsoever defines what God is or could be. God might as well have designed all this intentionally - and for what reasons who knows. Not that I think this very likely - but I certainly can't rule it out.

For my part, I've always leaned towards some kind of will behind the existence of everything. I've always found it hard to grasp something from nothing without deliberate thought at the core, but it still wouldn't explain to me what came before this will - if time is even an actual concept and not yet another way for us to perceive the world, given our limited capacity.

 

[JemyM]

Both the racial impurity idea and "survival of the fittest" was conned before Darwin's book. Since the early 1800 you had several movements that tried to establish how they could prove that the white race was superior. The movement that came to be known as "Social Darwinism" begun several years before Darwin released his book, by a British philosopher known as Herbert Spencer. Social Darwinism was also founded more on the theories of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, not Darwin, where EARNED traits could be inherited. It was first later in which Herbert Spencer's political theory was relabeled "Social Darwinism", but even then it was founded on Lamarck more than Darwin.

It was also Herbert Spencer who coined the term "survival of the fittest", an expression that didn't enter Darwin's own work since the sixth edition. Herbert Spencer was a right-wing liberal and Social Darwinism is in fact a branch of political radical liberalism. Darwin as a natural scientist wasn't concerned with politics at all, in fact, "Origin of Species" doesn't even mention humans. This lead to a major public debate and it was in response to this debate he later wrote "Descent of Man" where Darwin point out that even sympathy for others and empathy had played an important role for humans survival.

To understand Social Darwinism one needs to understand the British people back then. They were (like most European nations were) extremely chauvinistic. This was expressed in every field of society, in religion (Calvinism assumes that lucky people are chosen by God), in economical theory and in pseudoscience such as phrenology.

Unlike Darwin's theory where all species evolve next to each other, many believed that people evolve in a kind of ladder, where less evolved lived next to the more evolved. This was also a confusion between natural science and political theory. Most theories back then were hierarchic, where it was seen as natural that someone was below and someone was above, like a stairwell. The Lamarckian part of Social Darwinism believed that "inherited badness" degenerated people so that if one were a sinner, ones grand-grand-grand children would be mentally handicapped. Mentally handicapped were thus seen as the result of extreme sin.

 

[DArtagnan]

Both the racial impurity idea and "survival of the fittest" was conned before Darwin's book. Since the early 1800 you had several movements that tried to establish how they could prove that the white race was superior. The movement that came to be known as "Social Darwinism" begun several years before Darwin released his book, by a British philosopher known as Herbert Spencer. Social Darwinism was also founded more on the theories of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, not Darwin, where EARNED traits could be inherited. It was first later in which Herbert Spencer's political theory was relabeled "Social Darwinism", but even then it was founded on Lamarck more than Darwin.

Certainly, and I'm sure it goes way back further than that. But Darwin provided something they could abuse. Actually, that much seems clear as day. People have been people for many years - afterall.

It was also Herbert Spencer who coined the term "survival of the fittest", an expression that didn't enter Darwin's own work since the sixth edition. Herbert Spencer was a right-wing liberal and Social Darwinism is in fact a branch of political radical liberalism. Darwin as a natural scientist wasn't concerned with politics at all, in fact, "Origin of Species" doesn't even mention humans. This lead to a major public debate and it was in response to this debate he later wrote "Descent of Man" where Darwin point out that even sympathy for others and empathy had played an important role for humans survival.

Yeah, but my point is exactly that Jemy. That people are not interpreting Darwin's words correctly - and survival of the fittest is what they attribute to him. It doesn't matter what he said or what he didn't say - it matters what the average human being THINKS he said. Unfortunately.

Unlike Darwin's theory where all species evolve next to each other, many believed that people evolve in a kind of ladder, where less evolved lived next to the more evolved. This was also a confusion between natural science and political theory. Most theories back then were hierarchic, where it was seen as natural that someone was below and someone was above, like a stairwell. The Lamarckian part of Social Darwinism believed that "inherited badness" degenerated people so that if one were a sinner, ones grand-grand-grand children would be mentally handicapped. Mentally handicapped were thus seen as the result of extreme sin.

Yeah, and such is the way of human nature. Ignorance is the problem, and to get rid of it - we must provide the surplus needed. I have many ideas on how to go about that, but it won't happen for hundreds of years - precisely because people are not interested or ready. Much of it is what I call willful ignorance.

It's not like I'm not ignorant - we ALL are. But I do have the surplus needed not to get stuck in rigid thinking - at least occasionally. We need to be open and we need to be tolerant to change and to each other.

Many people are like that already, but it's FAR FAR FAR from the norm - and it needs to be the norm.

 

[DArtagnan]

By the way, didn't we agree not to interact?

 

[JemyM]

What differs a real critic from a false critic is the method. Everyone can be a radical critic at any time, but to get anywhere, actually verifying what each side have to present as well as their credibility is a key difference. What the pseudoscience movements have in common is that they rely on the majority of the people exposed to their stuff to not verify their claims, and they have some kind of agenda behind doing what they do. Even if there are a few out of every handful that doesn't fall for it, if the majority does it's enough to cause major harm. This is bad, because not everyone have high enough education or a trained critical mind.

I am a member of a Swedish organization known as the science and public education association. My field just so happens to be intellectual history and psychology, not natural science itself. However, I see the abuse of science not to be a scientific problem, but a problem with society. I see the necessity to increase awareness of science to the public precisely because it's often abused by those who never took any classes in what they reject or wish to exploit. This is especially risky when a movement begins to exploit science for a political cause. No one gains from taking the postmodern position when exposed to these movements. History shows well how dangerous they can be. Currently we struggle more with truthers, vaccine conspiracy theories, quackery and the Swedish nationalists. We have been forced to tackle creationism as well though.

NOVA's documentary on the Dover trial gives a pretty good image on what's behind the movement and how it works. It's an example of a political rather than scientific movement that exploits public ignorance for a political cause. NOVA, Intelligent Design.

 

[DArtagnan]

If you insist on calling me post-modernistic - could you explain it to me? I don't even know what it means.

 

[JemyM]

The postmodernist philosophy tend to push "there are no truths". There are no authority that can be trusted. Everything is relative. It tend to be relativist, counter-enlightenment and antimodern and critiques rationalism, universalism and science.

 

[DArtagnan]

Oh, but that's not me.

I'm not saying there are no truths - I'm saying we can't know whether something is true or not.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't behave as if there were truths. We have to work with a theory and go from there, and I'm all for that.

What I'm saying is that people are too quick to use science as a flawless guide to everything, and MANY people don't have the first clue what they're talking about - they just think they do.

Science is a great tool, I'm just not one to trust in something unless it makes sense to me and even then I'm sceptical. That's all.

I know a lot of you think you know something because you've read about it somewhere, and you think you're capable of understanding things in-depth based on the words of other people. You spend your time reading and reflecting just as we all do, but we all have a limited capacity for both knowledge and understanding.

That's good for you, but I don't have that kind of faith in myself and I certainly don't have it in others.

That's why I'm always open to the possibility of what I think I know is altogether wrong. But that's not the same as going around not having an opinion or a standpoint. That's simply being open and tolerant.

So you see, you don't even understand what I'm about and yet you label me post-modernistic. That's how these things start, because we think we know something when we don't.