mrburns2012

Cool video! Evolution couldn't have possibly foreseen that coming

Here's an old but good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS9atz-pRns

No force, unless there's friction and/or there's an incline.

For Progeria, let's say there's a way to induce a mutation to the gene encoding Lamin A which not only restores the structural integrity of the nucleus, but enhances it to the point that nothing can break it down. How does that help solve problems related to shortening telomeres and other aging factors?

Thanks for the clarification.

The source of immortalized cell lines are cancer cells, like HeLa cells dervived from a woman with cervical cancer.

Anyway, if you look at our recent past, we've actually been able to extend our lives quite a bit via medical advances. But such a feat comes with a cost. For instance, we are now seeing an unprecedented rise in cases for heart disease and cancer not known to our ancestors. Whether it's better die or live as a vegetable is up for debate.

Also, you should look at the different theories on the causes of aging, like the DNA damage theory already published out there. It's thought that each has its own merit, so it's reasonable to think that immortality cannot be achieved until all of the potential causes of aging are addressed.

I think that this is a fascinating subject that needs opening up for further discussion. If it is true (and I may be wrong here) that telomeres are often shortened more as cells age, is it not possible to extend the life of these cells by using telomerase enzymes?

Yes it's possible and evident in different cancers.

I remember a few years ago, there was a guy who wanted to know how to commit the perfect murder.

You may be pleased to know there are organized groups of people dedicated to finding a solution to this question

Even BBC has a documentary exploring this very question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/perfectmurder/highlights/

Why is that if there is no selection pressure on the redundant genes?

You've provided a good summary:

- Every living organism has essential genes.

- Every living organism has lots of redundant genes.

- Essential genes cannot be removed without changing the phenotype.

- Redundant genes can be removed and do not change phenotype whatsoever.

The question is: are there's enough data in his paper (references and all) to support all (or any) of those conclusions? The answer is no. The section "Molecular switches" sounds bogus to me.

He basically claims that redundant genes KO mice show no observable phenotype throughout the paper. But when there are some, he shrugs his shoulders and pretty much says, "Well, they didn't die. That's good enough."

I agree with all that, what would you like to talk about then?

None, if not necessary.

In the meantime let me ask you this same question,

- would you describe the peculiarities that Borger refers to as "designed", like something God of Three Books of Terror would do or does it look more like some messy business of some crazy alien race interested in genetic engineering?

I don't know about the Three Books of Terror, and there's no alien race on Earth. But I can choose from only two of the choices, neither of which are valid. That's called a "false dilemma." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) That's not very different from the way creationists think. For example, they might ask: are humans monkeys, or have God molded them out of bubble gum? You see, the fact that humans are not monkeys does not suggest that humans are made out of bubble gum.

I know of better arguments, if you can first point out the part you are referring to? Meanwhile, one of the more peculiar arguments, thought not very scientific, is Credo Mutwa story, do you know about it?

 

 

My point is that this should be discussion of what is said in the paper, not anti religious Creationist-Darwinist argument, since paper does not point towards any creation described in the Bible, but describes abrupt historical alterations that just do not fit proposed theory.

 

Believe what you will, but I do not think the guy who wrote the paper believes in God himself. He is practitioner and actually did all the experiment himself, the guy is and EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES, you are free to try and find better conclusion, any idea?

 

 

And if you do not believe his experiments and observations, nor all the references, then Google it and you will see the DATA and OBSERVATIONS are true. Conclusion is up to you and me, for everyone to give a best try at it, discuss it.

1. I'm not convinced that you are concerned about the paper's content at all, so I'm not going into it.

2. It is be too easy and useless to make arguments based solely on opinion as everyone's got one. Even Credo Mutwa.

3. "The guy is and EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES." So are we.

4. I do believe that his references are credible and real. But cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) is not good science.

People, you missed the point...

 

It is not about God as a creator, but about Aliens.

 

The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created. In that respect, yes there is evidence in the code that suggest some "artificial modifications" happened at various points and can be tracked down the time line. Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa could tell you more about it if you look it up on YouTube. That is, if you wanna know where did humans get reptilian brain and what's up with lizard tail on human embryo.

Sione,

The article is being published in the "Journal of Creation," not, "Journal of Zorba the Hutt."

Courtesy of Jorba the Hutt

and...

The paper's references and credentials mean nothing if the author can't make a good argument.

There's no selection pressure to eliminate duplicate genes' date=' as far as I know.

[/Quote']

 

The idea is that neutral genes tend to diverge presumably by spontaneous mutation. So, if duplicated genes are neutral, they'll diverge. If they're harmful, they'll be removed. If they're advantageous, they'll be very conserved. Because he sees that duplicated genes appear very conserved, he argues that there must be a selective advantage - so they aren't neutral genes. But knocking out these genes doesn't kill the animals, so he argues that they're neutral genes. Conservation of neutral genes is a paradox. That's his argument.

 

EDIT: By the way, duplicated genes can be harmful. A well known disorder is Trisomy 21. People with the condition have a significantly reduced fitness.

EDIT 2: Without examining data he's using, that's a perfectly reasonable argument.

I read the article, and I thought it was an interesting read. The author seems educated; though he may be in denial, he isn't dumb. The meat of the article is basically this: because duplicated versions of genes exist, there must be some sort of natural selection to prevent them from disappearing/diverging. Yet when these same genes are knocked out on animal models, no phenotypic changes are observed (which isn't true). From these observations, the author concludes that the theory of natural selection is wrong, because natural selection isn't supposed to sustain nonfunctional genes.

With that said, his arguments are weak because he was cherry picking his data.

I personally have some level of tinnitus. But like other common conditions e.g. nearsightedness, I don't think everyone suffers from it.

Anyway, I've heard that chronic exposure to loud sound can damage the ear's "hair cells," specialized ear cells that sense vibrations, amplify and convert them to electrical signals for the brain. That somehow results in tinnitus. (There are some theories out there, but I don't know them.)

But the ear is so tiny and complex (anatomy: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/1092.htm) that abnormalities in any part of the ear like hair cells, nerves, or even the part of your brain that interprets sound may potentially induce the phantom noise.

A lot of times, tinnitus is harmless. Sometimes, it's not. Go see your doctor if you want to make sure it's not a symptom of some serious underlying issue especially if you're also experiencing additional symptoms or have a family history of some illness.

The condition you're describing sounds like tinnitus which is a relatively common symptom of a number of underlying causes (ear wax, etc...).

http://www.earinfosite.org/tinnitus.htm

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

I never claimed to percieve nothing, I said I could concieve that it existed. That still does not make it a useful description of any reality, however.

Good point I must've been under some unknown herbal influence.

so this god is fleeting...

 

that is down right dangerous for us all

Well, that would depend on whether or not I'm inherently crazy or seriously misguided in someway, wouldn't it? The difference between me and a bunch of religious nuts is that their craziness and misguidance may be amplified via the massive number of followers. The world is safe, at least from me.

I believe in science. But I also believe in some essence of a god. Not the kind of god that charges monthly payments for miracles, has a beer belly, a beard, or named Tom Cruise. But the kind of god whose image can change under different circumstances convenient for my worldly view.

Well I can conceive it. I can also conceive a great number of other not-so-well-defined things that may or may not exist in reality, branes, ghosts, and god come immediately to mind.

I disagree.

Nothing is an absence of thing.

You can't perceive nothing. If something is perceived, it becomes something you've perceived.

Branes, ghosts and god are something. They're branes, ghosts, and god .

Ideas are not nothing. They're ideas.

I know quantum mechanics is supposed to be non-deterministic. Also, many call time a dimension. However, I think these are contradictory ideas. For time to be a dimension, it would seem to me that the future would have to be predetermined rather than made up as we go. What do you folks think?

How did you come up with that connection? And if that's the case, how do you account for the other 3 dimensions?

Anyway, I believe that the future is predetermined in a different sense, ie. if there's a supreme being (like a god) that can observe and measure all possible events in the universe (or beyond), from the quantum world to macro-world without affecting them, he might be able to predict the future. (I may have heard the idea from somewhere, so it's not original.)

But in a more practical sense, I don't care whether or not the future is predeterministic as long as it is I who determine when (time) and where (place) I choose to do anything in the eyes of a human observer albeit some influence from my boss, family, etc...

hey i wasent intending to steal i just wondered if you could get it free from some site not illegaly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro/DESKTOP

"Pro/DESKTOP is no longer available for download or activation."

You probably won't find it legally anymore.

SENSITIVE MATTER WARNING

 

OK details! I've never exposed myself online before so please be gentle. I'm a transgendered MTF and I'm now 7 weeks post op full GRS. The area in question, for anyone who may have any idea, is in the opening of the Labia Majora where the scrotal graft meets the penile inversion. What I saw appeared to literaly be one of the arteries that a man would have to his penis poping through one of the suture points. It was perfectly localized to be this artery if you consider what was done to the 'parts' in general. I'm not to worried about it as ummmmmmmmmm I'm pretty sure my GP and the Surgeon are probably two of the most qualified individuals in the world:cool:. It's really to bad he wouldn't elaborate, I'm sure had I pushed the subject................. Oh well I'll be seeing another GP in a week and I'll ask him he'll know. Maybe I'll post more on what it was should it prove to be interesting..................

First off, I'm no physician so I can't offer you advice. Secondly, diagnosing health conditions online is like doing surgery without lights. Although it could be useful, it's unreliable and may be dangerous to you... but I think you probably know this already. Nevertheless, I'm still interested in hearing what your doctor might say.

wtf is the flying spagetti monster?

 

making an extra wing or finger or arm or whatever isnt the same as making a new limb. but making eyes or something is liek a human sontaneousy growing a radio , it doesn't happen

WARNING: SOME PICTURES MAY BE GRAPHIC

Ok, I'm feeling generous, so let wish come true for today. Here, I give you... new eyes: http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/130/13/2939/FIG5

If you're confused, here's what you are seeing. Those are photos of mutant fruit flies. All the reddish structures are eyes. For example, in box E, eyes can be found at the base of the antennae, wings and on multiple places on the legs.

Ok, I will admit. Those are just eyes. They're not the same as limbs. How about animals with extra limbs? Wait, animals aren't the same as humans How about humans with new limbs? http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2007/Nov/Week1/1607737.jpg

Do you watch or read the news? I'm not so convinced, but here it is anyway: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22274113/

Now, do you want proofs human can spontaneously grow a radio? If history has taught you anything so far, you know I can find it.

I see you're eager to learn something new, so here are some pictures:

Mutation makes wings:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol287/issue5461/images/medium/covermed.gif

(Here's a picture of a normal fruit fly (2 wings))

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/12/10/1474/F1.large.jpg

(Here's a picture of a fruit fly when mutations occur (box F, 4 wings))

and junk:

Polydactyly (human, x-ray): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polydactyly_01_Rhand_AP.jpg

If you don't like how scientists explain it, you are welcome to come up with a theory of your own. It'll be your job to convince us why you are right.

Good job. The only square I knew of when I was nine, was a shape with 4 equal sides.

ha, that almost rhymed.