mtDNA

[MM6]

What do you think? Didnt you read my post? Or would you like to talk about Big Bang theory or nuclear physics? (Theres a post on that as well but I cant be bothered to link it for you as you wont read it)

As I stated quite clearly ID (which is what you are talking about) is pseudoscience - now take from that what you will about my thoughts on evolution (theres your clue btw) or whether matter was created by "God" or from nothing or from the blue Martians that live in your head, but Im not about to repeat myself if you dont have the decency to read before positing the same question.

It would be interesting to hear your views - unless you dont have any.

[Guest]

Those two posts by guest(s) are very interesting. Thinking about them.

One guest.

I think it means there were 7 tribes of Eve rather than daughters, but then again Sykes has received some critical heat for this book. It's not peer reviewed as you point out and it's showing some strain in the research community.

I think I'd put the book in the "interesting, but don't quote it without collaboration" category.

Also it would make sense that such a critical function as the ancient mtDNA serves would mean small variations in the mtdna would potentially have large ramifications for the organism. It just stands to reason.

[MM6]

I think it means there were 7 tribes of Eve rather than daughters, but then again Sykes has received some critical heat for this book. It's not peer reviewed as you point out and it's showing some strain in the research community.

I think I'd put the book in the "interesting, but don't quote it without collaboration" category.

Also it would make sense that such a critical function as the ancient mtDNA serves would mean small variations in the mtdna would potentially have large ramifications for the organism. It just stands to reason

Not true at all - the mtDNA mutations do not affect the organism or cell in any way. Unlike nucleic mutations which do.

Also if you read Sykes book thoroughly he does indeed suggest 7 tribes - never does he say there would only be one Eve living at any one time - that would be ridiculous. The critical heat you refer to was quickly extinguished - again if you read the book you would know this.

The science on which the book is based has also been extensively peer reviewed - again if you read the book you would know this.

I would suggest you take your own advice and dont quote without collaboration.

[Guest]

I think it means there were 7 tribes of Eve rather than daughters, but then again Sykes has received some critical heat for this book. It's not peer reviewed as you point out and it's showing some strain in the research community.

I think I'd put the book in the "interesting, but don't quote it without collaboration" category.

Also it would make sense that such a critical function as the ancient mtDNA serves would mean small variations in the mtdna would potentially have large ramifications for the organism. It just stands to reason

Not true at all - the mtDNA mutations do not affect the organism or cell in any way. Unlike nucleic mutations which do.

Also if you read Sykes book thoroughly he does indeed suggest 7 tribes - never does he say there would only be one Eve living at any one time - that would be ridiculous. The critical heat you refer to was quickly extinguished - again if you read the book you would know this.

The science on which the book is based has also been extensively peer reviewed - again if you read the book you would know this.

I would suggest you take your own advice and dont quote without collaboration.

He calls them clans and I'd assumed they didn't live all at the same time. I read a few articles on mtDNA prior to this book coming out, particularly relating to prostrate cancer, a subject you could say I have a personal interest in. I became familiar with the concept of mtDNA causing cancers, tumors, growth and respiration defects as well as vision impairment, even if I'm much much more comfortable with other sciences, before I responded to the post.

Reviews such as "It is, beyond any doubt, as much speculative fiction as Clarke’s ape-men approaching the monolith in 2001, A Space Odyssey." doesn't make me want to go buy the book.

[MM6]

That is ridiculous - the science is watertight - it was published in respected peer reviewed journals. Base your opinion on one salacious review or understand the years of dedicated work that went into publishing the book. I know which a sensible person would choose,

If you dont have any knowledge of it and have never even read the damn book - dont comment on it. You know nothing about it which is proved by your post.

[Guest]

I couldn't judge the science MM6, whether I read the book or not. I'll butt out then.

[one_irish_rover]

I am talking about questions that science has yet to answer and maybe never will.

Do you think science will one day confirm that the universe was created from nothing, that matter came into existence from no matter and developed along such complex recognisable patterns, randomly or by chance?

Science is the only process we have to generate valid, objective knowledge and understanding - real knowledge, not myths or fables. And in its four hundred year history its answered a hell of a lot of questions. Let's give science some more time.

The rise of complexity is a huge and complex subject that can't be laid out here in any depth. I would suggest reading Eric Chaisson's COSMIC EVOLUTION: The Rise of Complexity in Nature. He's also got a new one out that's excellent, although much less technical and detailed, for non-scientists. He's probably the leading expert in cosmic evolution. If you can't read a whole book, check out his website for a more concise tutorial

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/index.html

And as a quick answer to one of your questions - we may live in a cyclic universe in which matter, energy and time are infinite, never created or destroyed. Again, the scientific process is the only way to real understanding. Making up stories and invoking a Designer is junk "understanding" - it's worthless and counterproductive. Moreover, from a purely logical standpoint, our complex universe (whose existence is so improbable) would require an infinitely more complex Designer - whose existence would be that much more improbable...infinitely improbable - to create it. You're going in the wrong direction in terms of probabilility. Natural processes are at work - very complex ones - and science is the only road to understanding them.

[Guest]

If your science is so watertight, why do you carry on so dismissively and, if I may say, rudely? Is it necessary in making your point to insult and belittle others? Only the intellectually insecure insult everyone who doesn't toe their line. If I want a lecture, I will take it from someone eminently qualified in the field. Pushing your weight around in an internet forum makes you look like a lightweight trying to impress the ignorant.

[mostirreverent]

well i'm siill upset that the govenment broke up standard oil in to Exxons and Introns

[Guest]

I am talking about questions that science has yet to answer and maybe never will.

Do you think science will one day confirm that the universe was created from nothing, that matter came into existence from no matter and developed along such complex recognisable patterns, randomly or by chance?

Science is the only process we have to generate valid, objective knowledge and understanding - real knowledge, not myths or fables. And in its four hundred year history its answered a hell of a lot of questions. Let's give science some more time.

The rise of complexity is a huge and complex subject that can't be laid out here in any depth. I would suggest reading Eric Chaisson's COSMIC EVOLUTION: The Rise of Complexity in Nature. He's also got a new one out that's excellent, although much less technical and detailed, for non-scientists. He's probably the leading expert in cosmic evolution. If you can't read a whole book, check out his website for a more concise tutorial

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/index.html

And as a quick answer to one of your questions - we may live in a cyclic universe in which matter, energy and time are infinite, never created or destroyed. Again, the scientific process is the only way to real understanding. Making up stories and invoking a Designer is junk "understanding" - it's worthless and counterproductive. Moreover, from a purely logical standpoint, our complex universe (whose existence is so improbable) would require an infinitely more complex Designer - whose existence would be that much more improbable...infinitely improbable - to create it. You're going in the wrong direction in terms of probabilility. Natural processes are at work - very complex ones - and science is the only road to understanding them.

More improbable than what? Chance and randomness? Logic would suggest that the level of ordered complexity is inversely proportional to the probability of chance and randomness being the start of it all.

Unlike MM6, at least you admit that science cannot yet answer the questions I posed.

Consider an analogy in which you travel to an uninhabited planet and see a car. The existence of the car, without anything else, supports a logical inference that human beings or other intelligent life had been on that planet at some point in time. You don't need to know who built the car, for whom it was built, who used the car and the car's purpose in order to answer the question whether humans or intelligent life had been on that planet. The car could not have appeared on that planet randomly or by chance. The car could not have built itself gradually over centuries. The existence of an 'intelligent designer' thus can be inferred without knowing the 'intelligent designer's' identity.

I never mentioned God. You and MM6 rushed to categorise my views. My interpretation of Intelligent Design does not require that the 'intelligent designer' be the the Judeo-Christian God or any other omniscient deity. The 'intelligent designer' need only be some force or entity that precludes randomness or chance.

[mostirreverent]

I am talking about questions that science has yet to answer and maybe never will.

Do you think science will one day confirm that the universe was created from nothing, that matter came into existence from no matter and developed along such complex recognisable patterns, randomly or by chance?

Science is the only process we have to generate valid, objective knowledge and understanding - real knowledge, not myths or fables. And in its four hundred year history its answered a hell of a lot of questions. Let's give science some more time.

The rise of complexity is a huge and complex subject that can't be laid out here in any depth. I would suggest reading Eric Chaisson's COSMIC EVOLUTION: The Rise of Complexity in Nature. He's also got a new one out that's excellent, although much less technical and detailed, for non-scientists. He's probably the leading expert in cosmic evolution. If you can't read a whole book, check out his website for a more concise tutorial

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/index.html

And as a quick answer to one of your questions - we may live in a cyclic universe in which matter, energy and time are infinite, never created or destroyed. Again, the scientific process is the only way to real understanding. Making up stories and invoking a Designer is junk "understanding" - it's worthless and counterproductive. Moreover, from a purely logical standpoint, our complex universe (whose existence is so improbable) would require an infinitely more complex Designer - whose existence would be that much more improbable...infinitely improbable - to create it. You're going in the wrong direction in terms of probabilility. Natural processes are at work - very complex ones - and science is the only road to understanding them.

More improbable than what? Chance and randomness? Logic would suggest that the level of ordered complexity is inversely proportional to the probability of chance and randomness being the start of it all.

Unlike MM6, at least you admit that science cannot yet answer the questions I posed.

Consider an analogy in which you travel to an uninhabited planet and see a car. The existence of the car, without anything else, supports a logical inference that human beings or other intelligent life had been on that planet at some point in time. You don't need to know who built the car, for whom it was built, who used the car and the car's purpose in order to answer the question whether humans or intelligent life had been on that planet. The car could not have appeared on that planet randomly or by chance. The car could not have built itself gradually over centuries. The existence of an 'intelligent designer' thus can be inferred without knowing the 'intelligent designer's' identity.

I never mentioned God. You and MM6 rushed to categorise my views. My interpretation of Intelligent Design does not require that the 'intelligent designer' be the the Judeo-Christian God or any other omniscient deity. The 'intelligent designer' need only be some force or entity that precludes randomness or chance.

things are not random. there are the pressures of the natural laws that force form. and in the case of the car, and forgetting the plastics for a moment, most of it is crystalline, and relatively static as apposed to the intertwining notion and motion of biomolecules. Still, it is a fun analogy

[MM6]

If your science is so watertight, why do you carry on so dismissively and, if I may say, rudely? Is it necessary in making your point to insult and belittle others? Only the intellectually insecure insult everyone who doesn't toe their line. If I want a lecture, I will take it from someone eminently qualified in the field. Pushing your weight around in an internet forum makes you look like a lightweight trying to impress the ignorant.

uumm where do I start with you ?

You are dismissing and belittling others. Read your above statement. Nowhere have I insulted anyone, dismissed them or belittled them. My replies are born of having to read ignorant statements like the ones posed by the other "Guest" about a book which he has clearly not even read. Now if you cant see the idiocy in someone posting uninformed drivel on a subject as complex as Genetic mutations of mtDNA which they obviously know nothing about, then you are truly ignorant.

Yes the science I quote is watertight. Your arguments if I can call them that are not. Nowhere do I or OIR mention the Christian god - you do. There are many religions, all of which have their own myths of a "god" who created life. ID is a fancy title creationists came up with for the god hypothesis. Try to mask this fact all you like by saying "the intelligent designer need only be some force or entity that precludes randomness or chance" but you are talking about a supernatural force whether you admit it or not.

If you want to discuss scientific theory or physics or dark matter or protons and neutrons or genetics or anything which is based on proven fact then Id gladly discuss it with you. If you want to discuss myths or supernatural forces then go to church.

[Guest]

If your science is so watertight, why do you carry on so dismissively and, if I may say, rudely? Is it necessary in making your point to insult and belittle others? Only the intellectually insecure insult everyone who doesn't toe their line. If I want a lecture, I will take it from someone eminently qualified in the field. Pushing your weight around in an internet forum makes you look like a lightweight trying to impress the ignorant.

uumm where do I start with you ?

You are dismissing and belittling others. Read your above statement. Nowhere have I insulted anyone, dismissed them or belittled them. My replies are born of having to read ignorant statements like the ones posed by the other "Guest" about a book which he has clearly not even read. Now if you cant see the idiocy in someone posting uninformed drivel on a subject as complex as Genetic mutations of mtDNA which they obviously know nothing about then you are truly ignorant.

Yes the science I quote is watertight. Your arguments if I can call them that are not. Nowhere do I or OIR mention the Christian god - you do. ID is a fancy title creationists came up with for the god hypothesis. Try to mask this fact all you like by saying "the intelligent designer need only be some force or entity that precludes randomness or chance" but you are talking about a supernatural force whether you admit it or not.

If you want to discuss scientific theory or physics or dark matter or protons and neutrons or genetics or anything which is based on proven fact then Id gladly discuss it with you. If you want to discuss myths or supernatural forces then go to church.

If I want to discuss any of the above, I would discuss them with someone who knows more about them than merely regurgitating and paraphrasing concepts they don't understand from books above their heads.

Why don't you have a go at my car analogy in my reply to the Irish guy? You can't find the answer in your books. It may take some actual independent thought. Of course you can always summarily dismiss the analogy.

[MM6]

mmmm belittling and dismissive again ?? My my you are in a twist aren't you?


I dont discuss myths. Read my reply.

[MM6]

hey !! heres a thought !! get the Irish guy on your side by complimenting him why dontcha !

Let me point this out.

Your first post to me was one of hostility. Since then you have made no contribution except to insult me or question my abilities. It seems you have an axe to grind and do not wish to discuss anything in a reasonable manner. Thats ok, it obviously makes you feel better to put me down.

Your car analogy sucks btw. Just thought Id point that out.