Do you beleave in God(Poll)

[Duke Malcolm]

Tiny as in insignificant and isolated. How many other lifeforms do you see?

I don't know what you are trying to say here...

You are mixing up collision and bonding. Two different things. Collisions are all naturally random.

We can predict collisions, you know, hence they cannot be random

Genes do no have choices. Mutation is random.

I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted.

Good and bad is relative to the situation. (See my example of insects below).

I know, I didn't say that it wasn't. In your example, the brown gene would be good, and the blue gene the bad gene.

Genes are passed along equally to the progeny with the same probability of distribution. It's called "Equal Segregation". Nothing is partial in the genetic level. The selection occurs when the genes are phenotypically expressed as a physical trait.

I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off.

Now the insects DO NOT pick where they should be brown or black. The surviving browns will thrive more because more of the 'brown color gene' will be present in the population.

Guy, you have understand that mutation is random. When the pigment gene mutates to express another color, it happens randomly and by chance.

Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God...
Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted.

Well, if you find an example or excerpt of what you're trying to say from the book, just post it.

I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws.

[doc_bean]

I voted yes, I do believe in a god, or a 'purpose' or 'design' to creation, of course I cannot prove this, but my reasoning is pretty similar to the astrophysicists; why is the universe the way it is if it was created completely random, where do the laws of physics come from ? Personally I find the idea that the universe just *was*, and the laws of physics just *are* what they are, without a reason, to be an equally ridiculous assumption as that there is a God that designed it all.

I also highly doubt that evolution, as it is viewed today, could really lead to as many different and advanced species as it did. Even biologist admit that there have been some 'leaps' in evolution, that can't really be explained.
I'm sure one day they can be explained, but isn't it a terrible coincidence that the mechanism that causes them even exists ?
It's also a fallacy to assume that being an atheist somehow makes you more intelligent than a believer. I know blue collar atheists that can barely read, yet Einstein (and a whole lot of other great scientists) believe(d) there was a God.

I don't follow any religion though, for various reasons I'm not going into here.

[Quietus]

I don't know what you are trying to say here...

We can predict collisions, you know, hence they cannot be random

Why do you insist that collisions is not random? Can anyone predict lottery numbers? The numbers are random too.

I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted.

A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.

I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off.

Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.

Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.

Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.

Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God...

Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.

Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted.

We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.

I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws.

Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to.

[Duke Malcolm]

Why do you insist that collisions is not random? Can anyone predict lottery numbers? The numbers are random too.

Collisions are not like the lottery numbers. And, hypothetically, if you knew the exact temperature of the room, weight of the balls, time between balls releasing and balls selecting, and God knows what else, one could predict the lottery numbers. Collisions can be predicted, they are not like the lottery numbers.

A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.

Yeah, I don't know what this means.

Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.

Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.

Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.

Increase the risk of cancer, then.

When I say host, I only mean the living thing to which the genes are a part, possibly like a symbiot (sp) and host, one cannot exist without the other.

The concept of a "good" gene and a "bad" gene is defined in the book, and takes about half a chapter to define, so I shall leave it to you to read.

Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.

Sorry, I meant that mutation in beings, as in survival of the most well adapted. This mutation is not random. I know that genetic mutation is random

We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.

No, that's definitely wrong. If the blue-colour gene is recessive, and two brown-coloured insects both have the blue-colour gene, then their offspring has a chanc of being blue

Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to.

I did. I would begin quoting little bitties from the book should it not be sitting on the shelf of Blackness Library.

Just out of interest, might I ask of how you are so knowledgeable in the way of genetics?

[Quietus]

Collisions are not like the lottery numbers. And, hypothetically, if you knew the exact temperature of the room, weight of the balls, time between balls releasing and balls selecting, and God knows what else, one could predict the lottery numbers. Collisions can be predicted, they are not like the lottery numbers.

1) Technically: I can't exactly remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. From what I remember, you cannot predict the location and momentum of an object at the same time. You can get close to the location at the expense of momentum You can get close to the momentum at the expense of certainty of its location.

Since momentum = mass x velocity, the bigger the mass the bigger the momentum, hence less the certainty on it's location. The smaller the mass, the less certainty on it's momentum.

2) You just said you know that genetic mutation is random.

I know that genetic mutation is random

Well, you're saying you can also predict genetic mutation, since physical collisions cause molecular changes. When I say random, I mean it happens randomly.

Yeah, I don't know what this means.

That's ok. Dna is made up of small units called nucleotides. These nucleotides are differentiated by their bases: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine.

Coding in dna works in triplets, hence the "triplet code". These triplets eventually code for a specific Amino Acids (a basic unit of protein). Say, a small chunk of dna code is this:

GCA-CAC (coding for Alanine and Histidine).

The Cytosine is replaced by Guanine. Now you have:

GCA-CAG (coding for Alanine and Glutamine). The protein is now slightly changed.

You can also have deletions and additions. As you can imagine this "frameshift" will also change the codes.

Increase the risk of cancer, then.

Definitely.

When I say host, I only mean the living thing to which the genes are a part, possibly like a symbiot (sp) and host, one cannot exist without the other.

Symbiosis means two separate organisms, but your dna is instrinsic to you as you are instrinsic to your dna.

The concept of a "good" gene and a "bad" gene is defined in the book, and takes about half a chapter to define, so I shall leave it to you to read.

The words are very broad, it can mean anything.

Sorry, I meant that mutation in beings, as in survival of the most well adapted. This mutation is not random. I know that genetic mutation is random

Mutation occurs in the genetic level, see above. The phenotypic change arising from this we can seen in the traits.

No, that's definitely wrong. If the blue-colour gene is recessive, and two brown-coloured insects both have the blue-colour gene, then their offspring has a chanc of being blue

That is correct, specifically, 25 percent chance. But, 75% brown.

[Duke Malcolm]

Thank you, Quietus, I didn't know much of that stuff about genetics. You are obviously a learned man (or woman, since I have no way of knowing over t'internet, but I assume man). I am not fit to argue genetics, since I have decided not to do Biology in school, so my knowledge of genetics is brief.

It appears that our debate over theology has become a debate about genetics, which, as I have said, I am not fit to debate (which is why I wished to know of your experience in the field).

I shall try and get this back on track to a theological debate, with a joke...

St. Peter and God were playing golf one day. Peter teed of first and hit a
pretty good shot straight down the fairway. God teed off next and hit a
terrible shot heading for the rough. Then out of the blue, a squirrel caught
the ball and ran with it to the fairway. Then a bird swooped down and
took the ball It dropped the ball in on a turtle in a water hazard. The turtle
then put the ball in the hole and God got a hole in one. Peter turned to
God and said, "Are we gonna play golf or are we gonna f@ck around?!!"

The point is that seemingly un related events may be the work of God.

[GoreBag]

St. Peter and God were playing golf one day. Peter teed of first and hit a pretty good shot straight down the fairway. God teed off next and hit a terrible shot heading for the rough. Then out of the blue, a squirrel caught the ball and ran with it to the fairway. Then a bird swooped down and took the ball It dropped the ball in on a turtle in a water hazard. The turtle then put the ball in the hole and God got a hole in one. Peter turned to God and said, "Are we gonna play golf or are we gonna f@ck around?!!"

The point is that seemingly un related events may be the work of God.

That's just as legitimate a method of reasoning as Family Guy satirising a teacher's arrest because he couldn't teach the evolutionary theory of "Einstein going back in time and ejaculating in primordial ooze", which prompted a response of "this stupid country..."

[Duke Malcolm]

Look, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God, but prove that one can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Yet.