Amazed by Human Body

Off Topic
141

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Yeah but why does god have to be your Christian god? Why can’t he be the Muslim one? Is god even conscious? Even if he is why would he concern himself with your mortal decisions? You need to see that you are making an assumption that your god is right. I am with you that there is a god, but my idea of god is vastly different than yours.

Edit: All that I’m really trying to say in my post is that you have narrowed it down to two possibilities when there are actually at least two more. You said it’s

  1. No god, no consequences
  2. Your god, consequences

But you really have to add:

  1. Other god(s), consequences
  2. Other god(s), no consequences.

He’s trying to use Pascal’s wager.

Yeah but wouldn’t an omniscient, divine body KNOW that you are believing a religion just to escape punishment rather than actually believing it?[/quote]

Semantics are not the realm of religious discourse. You’re common sense is irrelevant.

142

Maybe I werent accurate enough and have lead your off course.

DNA molecules do two important things.

  1. The replicate, they make copies of themselves. Consider when you were first concieved, you were one single cell with 23 pairs of chromosomes, half from your father half from your father after meiosis occured. This one cell divided and kept dividing - from 1 to 2, 2 to 4 and so on - into billions. This is called mitosis.

  2. DNA codes for the manufacture protein molecules built from amino acids that are available as a raw material. These proteins exhert control over all the chemical processes inside the cell. These chemical processes cause your body to do things. You’re probably aware that Genotype + Environment → Phenotype.

So do you see the link between genes and and every process in the human body?

A chain of cause and effect leads from genes coding for proteins to chemical processes to all higher level things such as creating cells, gathering nutrients, building organs all the way to what organs do such as digesting and thinking. And different genes lead to different proteins being made and different occurances in the body – resulting in all the complexity of the human body in the end. All stems from genes coding for proteins.

You should see that the meiosis that lead up to conception in statement 1 is the result of a chain of events that started from chemical processes in the bodies of a mother and father. Again with one process leading to another all the way up to sperm and egg fusing and that new cell being made with 23 fresh pairs of chromosomes.

And mitosis is also the result of statement 2.

Mitosis and meiosis are phenotypes.

If you should agree with statement 2 like any biologist would and you see how meiosis and mitosis is just a long chain of cause and effect stemming from events described in statement 2 then surely you can see the end conclusion. That is, genes coding for protein molecules result in the genes replicating, eventually. Genotype + Environment → Phenotype.

Now on the the points you just raised.

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
The fat composition of cell membranes is determined more by diet than anything else. Even having membranes at all relies on inheriting some from your mother. There are many structures in the cell that can’t be made from scratch and rely on augmentation of existing ones instead.
[/quote]

Diet comes under environmental factors. If your environment cant provide the raw materials the chemical processes in your body wont be completed to “plan” - ie to the genetic blueprint. The genotype cannot be fully expressed in the phenotype because of the environmental factors.

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Inject someone with adrenaline and they will quickly become more alert and active, but too quickly for it to be due to changes in gene transcription. It’s a change in cellular function, but without gene involvement. Similarly, the real-time functioning of nerve cells is far too quick for genes to affect. Red blood cells have no DNA at all. The actual physiology of how a body works is more independent from the genes than you might think.
[/quote]

I never said genes go around carrying out processes. It is by cause and effect genes are involved in everything because they code for the protein molecules being made within the cell. Genes coding for certain proteins result in receptors being made that respond to the adrenaline. An adrenaline shot in the arm is a environmental factor, your body becomes alert because it has receptors and they cause a response in the nervous system to it. Again the starting block was genes with codes for protein leading to whole world of complexity.

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
The selfish gene was published in 1976. There’s been an ENORMOUS increase in knowledge of molecular biology and genes since then.
[/quote]

If you looked a bit into that book you’d learn to see evolution as being gene-centred. This is what I originally said way back when we started on this topic:

[quote]Well genes were the original lifeforms and the are just simple chains of molecules that can replicate.
[/quote]

If you knew about the “evolution” of the gene from a simple replicator to a replicator basically inside a “vehicle” (an organism such as the human body), you’d see what I’m getting at.

Another point that might interest you is how the replicators (the genes) code for forfeiting the organism for the survival of the gene. This is observed when some spider males will risk being eaten by the female after he fertilises her, very good for the genes he passed on bad for him. Anyway the book describes many points like that, it’s not about molecular biology, it’s about evolution.

143

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
spyoptic wrote:

this is all interesting.

you could take all the grains of sands on every beach of earth, and count each one a planet and that would give you an idea of our OBSERVABLE universe. If the universe is infinite - then all possible things are possible. Theres a universe out there where your twin is worshipped as their virgin God.

And the very good question of “well, theres religion everywhere so there must be a god”…
Did you know some religions don’t HAVE a God. Taoism being one. Some religions see themselves and everything around them as being the divine spirit. You’re only explaining science through a western culture’s point of view.

A God was created through cultural effervescense - the group mentality ( like monkeys, go figure) we transcended our group’s energy into a single material object - the unattainable - the perfect being that we would never be - God.

We are raised to help one another its society. Feral children - ones that grew up with no human contact - will most definately not have a need to help another Human. Thus, we are a product of our society. Each of our brains is connected in that fashion. Theres no need for a divine being to explain all of this.

Everyone has a free will. they can believe what they want. the bible gives proof about why we should believe there is a God and that he is to be worshipped. But everyone isn’t going to. However, we cannot believe that both are right. If the God of the bible does not exist, then those that believe in one will be wrong, with no consequences, outside of foregoing some of lives “pleasures”. If the God of the Bible does exist, then those that believe in evolution will be wrong, and will face the consequences laid out in the Bible.

To me, there is too much proof to say there is no God.[/quote]

Im happy for you… I envy people who actually believe this. Faith is a powerful thing - I just hope yours in bringing you peace of mind and enlightenment and not forcing you to conform to strict rules that ultimately lead everyone to think the same, act the same, and force out anyone that doesnt believe in their “One True Way”.

144

[quote]Raided wrote:

Maybe I werent accurate enough and have lead your off course.

DNA molecules do two important things.

  1. The replicate, they make copies of themselves. Consider when you were first concieved, you were one single cell with 23 pairs of chromosomes, half from your father half from your father after meiosis occured. This one cell divided and kept dividing - from 1 to 2, 2 to 4 and so on - into billions. This is called mitosis.[/quote]

Cell division involves replication of the DNA (by other molecules), but also replication of mitochondria and centrioles. These were originally inherited already made from your mother. They weren’t coded for or created by your DNA, although once you start to replicate them your proteins will become incorporated.

[quote]
2. DNA codes for the manufacture protein molecules built from amino acids that are available as a raw material. These proteins exhert control over all the chemical processes inside the cell. These chemical processes cause your body to do things. You’re probably aware that Genotype + Environment → Phenotype.[/quote]

No, the phenotype is the physical (overt) manifestation of the genotype. Environment is an additional factor.

[quote]
So do you see the link between genes and and every process in the human body?[/quote]

There’s a link, but genes don’t control every process in the body. A good example is how fingerprints are different in genetically identical twins.

[quote]
A chain of cause and effect leads from genes coding for proteins to chemical processes to all higher level things such as creating cells, gathering nutrients, building organs all the way to what organs do such as digesting and thinking. And different genes lead to different proteins being made and different occurances in the body – resulting in all the complexity of the human body in the end. All stems from genes coding for proteins.[/quote]

Development in the womb is controlled by environmental factors switching genes on and off. Genes don’t decide to be active or inactive, they are “told” to be from without.

[quote]
You should see that the meiosis that lead up to conception in statement 1 is the result of a chain of events that started from chemical processes in the bodies of a mother and father. Again with one process leading to another all the way up to sperm and egg fusing and that new cell being made with 23 fresh pairs of chromosomes. [/quote]

The DNA carried by a sperm doesn’t control that sperm. It’s packaged up and inert. The sperm is autonomous of the genes within it.

[quote]
Diet comes under environmental factors. If your environment cant provide the raw materials the chemical processes in your body wont be completed to “plan” - ie to the genetic blueprint. The genotype cannot be fully expressed in the phenotype because of the environmental factors.[/quote]

The point is the genes don’t control the fatty composition of your cell membranes because membranes aren’t coded for by genes, they’re inherited and easily altered by diet.

[quote]
I never said genes go around carrying out processes.[/quote]

You said they were replicators.

[quote]
It is by cause and effect genes are involved in everything because they code for the protein molecules being made within the cell.[/quote]

Being “involved” is true, but a watered-down version of your original position. Genes code for proteins, but once the protein is made its gene has no influence on it. A red blood cell contains proteins but not DNA, because it has no need for DNA to do its job of oxygen transport and a nucleus would just take up room that would be better taken by more haemoglobin.

Genes populate a cell with proteins, what the cell does after that depends on what the cell experiences. All your cells have the same genes, but cells come in many different types doing many different jobs. How and why different genes are activated in different cell types is where the complexity of the human body comes from.

Of course, since genes are what are passed on from parent to child. However, if your mother makes a dodgy womb, you won’t develop no matter how good your genes are. Genes are always reliant on a functioning vehicle.

[quote]
This is what I originally said way back when we started on this topic:

Well genes were the original lifeforms and the are just simple chains of molecules that can replicate.[/quote]

And I still say genes aren’t lifeforms and can’t replicate without helper systems. In the same way viruses aren’t true lifeforms, because they need other organisms to do the replication for them.

145

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
spyoptic wrote:

Yeah but why does god have to be your Christian god? Why can’t he be the Muslim one? Is god even conscious? Even if he is why would he concern himself with your mortal decisions? You need to see that you are making an assumption that your god is right. I am with you that there is a god, but my idea of god is vastly different than yours.

Edit: All that I’m really trying to say in my post is that you have narrowed it down to two possibilities when there are actually at least two more. You said it’s

  1. No god, no consequences
  2. Your god, consequences

But you really have to add:

  1. Other god(s), consequences
  2. Other god(s), no consequences.[/quote]

you are absolutely correct. i am basing my beliefs on the God of the Bible. There are many gods that people worship, and to add point 3 and 4 would no doubt be accurate. However, many people wonder why we suffer, why we die, what happens when we die, is this life all there is, does god really care about us, what is the purpose of life. To me these questions have all been answered completely and satisfyingly from the Bible. Therefore, I believe in that God. Viewing the world through THIS paradigm, leads me to leave out numbers 3 and 4.

Many people believe in evolution, which is there right and choice. However, i have noticed (in many cases but certainly not all) that their belief in that has done nothing to answer a lot of the questions that they have and they still feel lost on many issues, whether they choose to admit it to others or not.

146

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Im happy for you… I envy people who actually believe this. Faith is a powerful thing - I just hope yours in bringing you peace of mind and enlightenment and not forcing you to conform to strict rules that ultimately lead everyone to think the same, act the same, and force out anyone that doesnt believe in their “One True Way”.

[/quote]

There is no way you can get everyone to believe the same thing. The rules i follow are strict but i view them more as a seat belt and not like a straight jacket - a protection, not a restriction. To force someone to believe or to shun someone for believing something different would be hypocritical at best and dangerous and hurtful at worst. i am sorry that you haven’t found that same faith is something yet.

147

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Yeah but why does god have to be your Christian god? Why can’t he be the Muslim one? Is god even conscious? Even if he is why would he concern himself with your mortal decisions? You need to see that you are making an assumption that your god is right. I am with you that there is a god, but my idea of god is vastly different than yours.

Edit: All that I’m really trying to say in my post is that you have narrowed it down to two possibilities when there are actually at least two more. You said it’s

  1. No god, no consequences
  2. Your god, consequences

But you really have to add:

  1. Other god(s), consequences
  2. Other god(s), no consequences.

He’s trying to use Pascal’s wager.

Yeah but wouldn’t an omniscient, divine body KNOW that you are believing a religion just to escape punishment rather than actually believing it?[/quote]

yes a divine being would know if you are worshipping him just to escape punishment. he would also be wise enough (going with the assumption that he created humans) that humans need incentive to do something -at least initially. i like that point you made though.

148

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
No, the phenotype is the physical (overt) manifestation of the genotype. Environment is an additional factor.
[/quote]

Phenotype is the manifestation of genotype and environment. Those are the two factors for phenotype.

What do you think is the ultimate cause of all these things? The ultimate underlying cause is the sequence of nucleotides in your DNA. For each example you gave think about what the ultimate cause was.

The view you have of genes as just a store of information is no longer the consensus opinion. As I’ve told you before read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and you’ll get up to date on current thought.

They are. The purpose of DNA is not to supervise the building of bodies, if that was the case then why is there so much DNA that doesnt do anything. The purpose of DNA is to survive, building a body is just a way to compete.

It’s not watered down it’s just an explanation of what I mean. The body is just a machine for carrying around DNA, organisms are just a shell.

Why does the gene need to control the proteins after they’ve been made to have a influence, isnt the fact that it was made according to the DNA instruction enough for you? The existence of the body is to just to allow the DNA to replicate and the DNA codes for it.

You clearly know a bit about the red blood cell and its shape and why it doesn’t carry DNA. But where is ultimate source of its design. If it isnt the DNA you tell me where?

I see you warming to the idea of the body as a vehicle. The genes are a reliant on a functioning vehicle and their survival depends on a functioning vehicle. Ultimately the dna will die out if they vehicle malfunctions and spread if the vehicle suits the surroundings. And In the end it isn’t about the organism, the story is played out by genes, genes that cant think or plan they just are and they keep on replicating.

Seriously mate, I not making this shit up, what I’m telling you is the consensus view in genetics.

149

[quote]Raided wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:
No, the phenotype is the physical (overt) manifestation of the genotype. Environment is an additional factor.

Phenotype is the manifestation of genotype and environment. Those are the two factors for phenotype.[/quote]

Most of the definitions I find are like the following:
“Phenotype: This is the “outward, physical manifestation” of the organism. These are the physical parts, the sum of the atoms, molecules, macromolecules, cells, structures, metabolism, energy utilization, tissues, organs, reflexes and behaviors; anything that is part of the observable structure, function or behavior of a living organism.”

Environmental factors certainly affect the physical appearance, behaviour etc., but their effect is superimposed on the phenotype. In famine conditions people are shorter and thinner. That’s nothing to do with their genes and it’s not their phenotype.

[quote]
What do you think is the ultimate cause of all these things? The ultimate underlying cause is the sequence of nucleotides in your DNA. For each example you gave think about what the ultimate cause was.[/quote]

This is a “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” sort of an argument.

[quote]
The view you have of genes as just a store of information is no longer the consensus opinion. As I’ve told you before read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and you’ll get up to date on current thought.[/quote]

You can’t convince me that a thirty year old book is more up to date than biochemistry textbooks published last year. What the human genome project has made clear is that the number of genes is less important for complex life than the interactions between them and their environment. There are entire fields of research investigating the effect of maternal diet on diseases that their children develop in later life. Genetic imprinting is the big thing in biology at the moment and is a phenomenon on top of the sequence of nucleotides you have. If anything the importance of genes has been depreciating.

[quote]
The purpose of DNA is not to supervise the building of bodies, if that was the case then why is there so much DNA that doesnt do anything. [/quote]

Copying errors during replication.

DNA doesn’t have a purpose. It’s a very stable molecule that can be used as a way of storing sequences of amino acids. It doesn’t replicate without external machinery to unravel it and align complementary nucleotides.

[quote]
The body is just a machine for carrying around DNA, organisms are just a shell. [/quote]

You certainly are a Dawkins advocate.

I see it more like a cell that accumulates useful genes is more likely to survive. Bacteria regularly swap genes with each other and those that get useful genes to add to their collection will prosper over those who have just the basic set. It’s now thought that one of the earliest aerobic cells prospered because it had a bigger toolkit than the specialized bacteria around it. When conditions changed (more oxygen) it could cope where the others couldn’t.

[quote]
You clearly know a bit about the red blood cell and its shape and why it doesn’t carry DNA. But where is ultimate source of its design. If it isnt the DNA you tell me where?[/quote]

The important thing you’re undervaluing is that cells are the building blocks of life. You start from a single cell that divides many times and under the influence of external stimuli the early cells differentiate into heart, skin, bone etc. cells. They all have exactly the same DNA in them, but they look and act very differently. What controls/defines these cells isn’t their DNA. Something else is controlling the DNA and thereby the proteins the cell expresses.

During the final stage of red blood cell development the nucleus and all its genes is ejected from the cell. Massive fail on the part of that DNA in terms of survival, but a big win for the efficient functioning of the organism. Of course, better blood means that other copies of the genes in the testes are more likely to be passed on, but to claim it’s all about genes surviving is too reductionist.

[quote]
And In the end it isn’t about the organism, the story is played out by genes, genes that cant think or plan they just are and they keep on replicating.[/quote]

The story is played out by cells and tissues. Genes are along for the ride, but can help out by giving an edge. In organisms where their physiology is so good that they are more or less immortal (and who only rarely reproduce) you can see complete domination of this long-lived organism over its short-lived rapidly replicating competitors, simply because rapid replication is only a good strategy when resources aren’t limited.

150

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
spyoptic wrote:
Im happy for you… I envy people who actually believe this. Faith is a powerful thing - I just hope yours in bringing you peace of mind and enlightenment and not forcing you to conform to strict rules that ultimately lead everyone to think the same, act the same, and force out anyone that doesnt believe in their “One True Way”.

There is no way you can get everyone to believe the same thing. The rules i follow are strict but i view them more as a seat belt and not like a straight jacket - a protection, not a restriction. To force someone to believe or to shun someone for believing something different would be hypocritical at best and dangerous and hurtful at worst. i am sorry that you haven’t found that same faith is something yet.[/quote]

There are ways - look at Nazi Germany, for example. A few hundred years ago, religion was the main tool of social control. There was no organized law - if you broke God’s law (ultimately, the people’s laws) you would be banished, branded as a witch and killed. So, Gods are the symbolic, transfigured shape (the group reflection) of its society.

Its kinda like believing in Santa Claus, when you are little, you believe in him because thats what you’re told and you see presents appear on christmas when you were asleep. But as you get older, you realize its your parents… the same thing with adult, social level Gods - you feel the effects of social exchanges and processes but you do not see the cause. ( because you are metaphorically asleep)

-Dan Krier

But God IS REAL, as far as society is real.

151

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Everyone has a free will. [/quote]

  1. I tend to disagree (too tired/ don’t care enough to explain)

  1. No it doesn’t. I read it multiple times. Do tell where this proof of yours is.

  2. I’m by no means trying to attack you or your beliefs. Just trying to understand you