Richard Dawkins

[S.A.M.]

Well, Sam if you ask Lord Insane nicely - he might offer to look at your arguments .....
He is not a kind person - but at least his logic is exceptional, he sees through complicated issues in seconds (or at least minutes) - then again , he is in favour of secularism - he might be biased ..........
Then again , I think he is honest - and if you have a point , then he will agree........

Are you in love with him?

Does a separated gene have the same meaning? I suppose most carbon based life on earth is sufficiently similar that you can potentially look at a gene from an (unspecified) organism and say something useful about it. But couldn't there be an alien species with the same genes and a completely different way of processing them? (I remember reading an essay to that effect...)

So could you say: genes are only meaningful in context, but on earth there seems to be only one, ubiquitous context so we can pretty much always assume it?

Doesn't a separated gene have the same meaning?

If I am running a PCR, yes, the seperated part of a gene is very meaningful to me.

I can separate it. copy it, multiply it, insert it in a vector and put it back in a cell and see the same effects as it produces in an organism (i.e. the expression of the gene products). I can even combine it wth a completely different promoter and use transcription factors from the host cell to make gene products that are unnatural to the host cell. e.g. in luminescence studies that I do, I can guage the activity of a transcription factor by adding its promoter to a gene for luciferase. The cell will then produce the product luciferase which fluoresces, and I may use the production of luciferase to quantify the transcription factor or its activity.

Can I do this for a meme?

 

[lightgigantic]

Light, will you buy a copy of The God Delusion?

Probably not - just as you are equally unlikely to purchase any titles I care to mention

But anyway feel free to add excerpts or points that you find relevant and if I have the time I will respond

 

[lightgigantic]

Or will you watch episode 2 of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos"? I watched it last night and thought of you, LG .

At least you should come away thinking that everything currently known about evolution, genes, dna or "molecular evolution" are not guesses.

I am already quite informed on the chemical processes of information utilized by living organisms

 

[lightgigantic]

I know you do not like the idea of evolution - still it works surprisingly well in real life .....

Actually I wasn'teven contending evolution in this thread


Even if you want to accept evolution - evolution tells us nothing about human psychology and human psychology tells us nothing about the push -pull forces of physics that evolution is based upon - at least not in terms of the empirical processes that they utilize to establish their credibility

Its just like the same murky water you get in when you attempt to merge the findings of etmylogical history and fossil dating history - merging different paradigms of empiricism is an act of faith

 

[lightgigantic]

I seem to have difficulties in finding a link to the reductionist paradigm -
please provide me with a link - so that I can read all about it !!!

Anything to do with physics applied to observation (electrons,molecules etc) is the reductionist paradigm - basically it works under the premise that all observations of phenomena can be reduced to push/pull laws of electrons etc etc

 

[lightgigantic]

I am saying you cant fill a book with 'the detrimental effects of atheism on science' and remain true to such processes.

Do a web search on scientific fraud and you will find dozens of people who already have

 

[philosopher´s stone]

Are you in love with him?

Go play with your pink elephant , and let Bob have a go too !!!!!

Oooops , did I really write this

 

[(Q)]

Well, Sam if you ask Lord Insane nicely - he might offer to look at your arguments .....

Then again , I think he is honest - and if you have a point , then he will agree.......

That is correct, I would agree with anyone who could show atheism is detrimental to science.

I've pondered it, but fail to see how not believing in gods will somehow have a negative impact to science?

C'mon sam, one paragraph, if you can?

"Lord Insane" - I like that.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is correct, I would agree with anyone who could show atheism is detrimental to science.

I've pondered it, but fail to see how not believing in gods will somehow have a negative impact to science?

C'mon sam, one paragraph, if you can?

"Lord Insane" - I like that.

It really is all about you, huh?

http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=21117

 

[(Q)]

It really is all about you, huh?

It did appear he was referring to me. Sorry. My bad. An inherent problem of internet forums when quotes are not identified.

So, will that paragraph be forthcoming?

Non-belief in gods detrimental to science? I am all a quiver.

 

[S.A.M.]

I am all a quiver.

Why?

 

[(Q)]

Why? If you could actually demonstrate that not believing in the supernatural is detrimental to science, that would be an earth shattering revelation. Who wouldn't be all a quiver?

Of course, you can't even produce a paragraph let alone write a book. My quiver was not forthcoming, as was the paragraph.

*poot*

 

[S.A.M.]

Why? If you could actually demonstrate that not believing in the supernatural is detrimental to science, that would be an earth shattering revelation. Who wouldn't be all a quiver?

Of course, you can't even produce a paragraph let alone write a book. My quiver was not forthcoming, as was the paragraph.

*poot*

You need to work on your persuasion skills. *yawn*

 

[(Q)]

You need to work on your persuasion skills. *yawn*

No need to persuade you to make an a$$ of yourself, you accomplished that all on your own.

 

[S.A.M.]

No need to persuade you to make an a$$ of yourself, you accomplished that all on your own.

Always glad to be a source of amusement.

Hope you had a good time, sweets.

 

[Zephyr]

Doesn't a separated gene have the same meaning?

If I am running a PCR, yes, the seperated part of a gene is very meaningful to me.

I can separate it. copy it, multiply it, insert it in a vector and put it back in a cell and see the same effects as it produces in an organism (i.e. the expression of the gene products). I can even combine it wth a completely different promoter and use transcription factors from the host cell to make gene products that are unnatural to the host cell. e.g. in luminescence studies that I do, I can guage the activity of a transcription factor by adding its promoter to a gene for luciferase. The cell will then produce the product luciferase which fluoresces, and I may use the production of luciferase to quantify the transcription factor or its activity.

Can I do this for a meme?

Interesting. I suppose it's a more general analogy. The wikipedia article on meme says it's analogical to the "evolutionary idea of a gene as an abstract piece of biological information" or somesuch rather than the biochemist's idea of a gene.

Is evolution considered unscientific, though? I know you can experiment with the theory of "natural selection" with so-called genetic algorithms. And you can watch bacteria evolve, or at least specialise. But evolution of other species is supposed to take too long to be visible in a human lifetime, isn't it?

 

[S.A.M.]

Interesting. I suppose it's a more general analogy. The wikipedia article on meme says it's analogical to the "evolutionary idea of a gene as an abstract piece of biological information" or somesuch rather than the biochemists idea of a gene.

Is evolution considered unscientific though? I know you can experiment with the theory of "natural selection" with so-called genetic algorithms. And you can watch bacteria evolve or at least specialise. But evolution of other species is supposed to take to long to be visible in a human lifetime, isn't it?

Evolution is a theory that has gained acceptability based on available evidence which cannot be falsified.

Memes are conjecture, tying a philosophical construct to this theory.

And this is science?

 

[Zephyr]

Evolution is a theory that has gained acceptability based on available evidence which cannot be falsified.

Memes are conjecture, tying a philosophical construct to this theory.

And this is science?

Perhaps evolution is more like history - trying to work out what happened in the past. You can make rational arguments for different points of view, but you can't directly repeat or falsify history the way you would an experiment.

Or could you say evolution would've been falsified if other mammals had been discovered to have completely different DNA, rather than the huge overlap they have with humans? Hmm...

However, the theory of natural selection - "that which is more likely to exist is more likely to continue to exist" - can probably be shown rigorously given certain assumptions. Using probability theory of some sort?

 

[S.A.M.]

Perhaps evolution is more like history - trying to work out what happened in the past. You can make rational arguments for different points of view, but you can't directly repeat or falsify history the way you would an experiment.

Or could you say evolution would've been falsified if other mammals had been discovered to have completely different DNA, rather than the huge overlap they have with humans? Hmm...

However, the theory of natural selection - "that which is more likely to exist is more likely to continue to exist" - can probably be shown rigorously given certain assumptions. Using probability theory of some sort?

The presence of regions of DNA conserved across species is the best evidence of evolution. The same code produces the same products in all species ( with some fine tuning). As yet, there has been no falsification of this.

Natural selection on the other hand presupposes the existence of an environment that continues to favor the persistence of a species regardless of minor fluctuations; it also presupposes the presence of random mutations which will confer favorable traits that enable an organism (or a sub-species of a species) to survive and reproduce in the presence of these minor fluctuations. In addition these traits must be heritable to enable the survival of future offspring as well.

e.g. individuals resistant to HIV can survive an epidemic of AIDS, but if their children do not inherit this trait, then they won't.

The situation may be complicated further if the trait is regulated by several genes rather than one gene.

So the independent variables are:

the mechanism of selection
the effects of selection

And the dependent variables are:

fitness
fecundity

There is no "direction" here and success is relative.

 

[sniffy]

natural selection - fitness for purpose in an ever changing environment

change or die (out)

DNA evidence and fossil records demonstrate an ability to do this (or not)!