Jesus and Epigenetics

[Psudopod]

you obviously missed it in the audio how it is that the output of the genes is what's important -- which is controlled by epigenetics. Therefore you are not a prisoner of any gene you may or may not have.

Your statement is contradictory. If it is the output of the genes that is important, how can you say that you are not a prisoner of any genes you may or may not have?

saying what...showing what. Since when does science do such experiments on the mind? They hate the mind, remember? They try to hide it.....there will never be any such studies because Big science is full of frauds and crooks.

I think a quick search on pubmed with say otherwise. You are aware of the various disciplines dealing with the mind and the brain right? Besides, you've given three names in this thread. Haven't they done any research?

 

[guzman]

Yes you are, because epigenetics influences the amount of a certain substance that is expressed. Whether you can make this substance in the first place is controlled by genes. If you do not have the gene to produce the substance, epigenetics is not going to enable you to make it. Very simple, very basic. Same way, you are not able to consciously influence the expression of a certain gene. You do not have that amount of control.


No, you use a valid concept (epigenetics) and distort it beyond all recognition. This does not mean the theory of evolution has been smoked, it only means that you have either no understanding of the process you promote or are purposefully distorting it.

yea, the gene bone is connected to the protein bone, the protein bone is connected to the cell bone, the cell bone is connected to the nervous system bone, the nervous system bone is connected to the immune system bone...the immune system bone is connected to the mind bone, the mind bone is connected to the consciousness bone, the consciousness bone is connected to the life bone.


what was your point?

 

[guzman]

Your statement is contradictory. If it is the output of the genes that is important, how can you say that you are not a prisoner of any genes you may or may not have?

?

did you not watch the video? any one gene can produce 30,000 proteins. ToE says one gene produces one protein, which supposedly produces one trait. But epigenetics contradicts that. Instead of the gene producing the trait, the trait is produced by the epigenetic (mind) interpretation. Genes are not building blocks -- they're tools...like hammers and saws and chisels --- they don't make anything by themselves....they require an artist.

You people deny the artist because of your worldview.

 

[Tomk80]

yea, the gene bone is connected to the protein bone, the protein bone is connected to the cell bone, the cell bone is connected to the nervous system bone, the nervous system bone is connected to the immune system bone...the immune system bone is connected to the mind bone, the mind bone is connected to the consciousness bone, the consciousness bone is connected to the life bone.


what was your point?

Great, so you agree that if the gene for the necessary protein doesn't exist, it is not going to be produced. See, we're already getting there.

Then, the immune system is connected to the "mind" is spurious. It is connected to the nervous system, but not everything the nervous system does is controlled by our consciousness. That's the second lesson you need to learn here. So the latter part of your connections is at best shown to be in the wrong order. It is also not supported by any evidence.

 

[Greeble]

Ever hear of Neuroscience? Psychiatry? Sciences of the brain and mind.

Btw: thought and emotion are two different things entirely. Even though they do interact. These can effect brain chemistry.

Which is not the same thing as thinking about having different traits in your children and having it come true.

 

[guzman]

Ever hear of Neuroscience? Psychiatry? .

yea but they've never been incorporated into a theory of evolutionary change.

 

[guzman]

Great, so you agree that if the gene for the necessary protein doesn't exist, it is not going to be produced. See, we're already getting there.

Then, the immune system is connected to the "mind" is spurious. .

spurious? Why? because it contradicts your worldview?

Author Dawson Church applies the insights of the new field of Epigenetics (epi=above, i.e. control above the level of the gene) to healing. Citing hundreds of scientific studies, he shows how beliefs and emotions can trigger the expression of DNA strands. He focuses on a class of genes called Immediate Early Genes or IEGs. These genes turn on within a few seconds of a stimulus. They can be triggered by thoughts or emotions ("I loved that unexpected gift of roses Bill gave me" or "I'm so mad about what Uncle John said at the Christmas party"). Many IEGs are regulatory genes turn on other genes that affect specific aspects of our immune system, such as the production of white blood cells that destroy attacking bacteria and viruses. Epigenetics thus influences our health every day.

 

[Greeble]

they've never been separated from it

 

[Tomk80]

did you not watch the video? any one gene can produce 30,000 proteins. ToE says one gene produces one protein, which supposedly produces one trait.

no, ToE does not say that. Fail.

But epigenetics contradicts that.

No, epigenetics does not contradict that. Epigenetics says very little about that. It says more about how the environment can influence the expression of genes. Introns and Exons say a lot about how one gene can produce many proteins.

Instead of the gene producing the trait, the trait is produced by the epigenetic (mind) interpretation. Genes are not building blocks -- they're tools...like hammers and saws and chisels --- they don't make anything by themselves....they require an artist.

Bull, for reasons mentioned above.

You people deny the artist because of your worldview.[/quote]

 

[guzman]

Tom: Great, so you agree that if the gene for the necessary protein doesn't exist, it is not going to be produced. See, we're already getting there.

Nice try. vary rarely does one gene code for one protein. As usually is the case, one gene codes for numerous proteins or numerous genes code for one protien. This is why the same gene or genes will have different physiological effects from one person to another -- it's because there is something else involved in producing traits -- there's a backdrop of mind behind all matter in living things that expresses itself.

 

[guzman]

Guz: ToE says one gene produces one protein, which supposedly produces one trait.no,

Tom: ToE does not say that. Fail.


your denial is cute. So tell me, if one gene does not code for one protein, which turns around and produces one trait -- what is the logic in saying that changes in the genetic code fuel evolution? If the said changes can produce 30,000 different variations (30,000 proteins, remember) then which of these 30,000 potential traits can we count on being selected?

ToE was based on the premise that a change in dna produced a specific anatomical change...if this change was beneifical, it got selected -- if not, it didn't. I have never once read how ToE says that a single change in dna could produce thousands of possibilities based on its epigenetic interpretation -- or even hundreds, or tens. Care to show me otherwise?

 

[Paconious]

yea but they've never been incorporated into a theory of evolutionary change.

Au Contraire

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

 

[Greeble]

Tom: Great, This is why the same gene or genes will have different physiological effects from one person to another -- it's because there is something else involved in producing traits -- there's a backdrop of mind behind all matter in living things that expresses itself.

There's a backdrop of a universe, an ecology, an environment, and life choices that matter.

 

[guzman]

There's a backdrop of a universe, an ecology, an environment, and life choices that matter.

Amen.

 

[guzman]

Au Contraire

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

show me where they have incorporated thoughts and emotions into ToE...more specifically the production of adaptive traits. Your link is worthless.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom: Great, so you agree that if the gene for the necessary protein doesn't exist, it is not going to be produced. See, we're already getting there.

Nice try. vary rarely does one gene code for one protein.

I never said it did.

As usually is the case, one gene codes for numerous proteins or numerous genes code for one protien.

Which still means that if the gene does not code for the necessary protein, it will not be able to produce it. Suppose a gene codes for proteins IMP1 (IMaginary Protein 1) though IMP600, but you need IMP 710. If the gene cannot recombine in such a way that it can prodcue IMP 710, you still cannot make that protein. Despite the fact that the gene can make those other 600 proteins. Fairly basic logic really.

This is why the same gene or genes will have different physiological effects from one person to another -- it's because there is something else involved in producing traits -- there's a backdrop of mind behind all matter in living things that expresses itself.

Epigenetics may be one of the reasons. However, mutations in the genes themselves are another. Non-epigenetic mutations in other regulatory regions another. You're jumping the gun here, attributing too much power to a single mechanism.

 

[Greeble]

show me where they have incorporated thoughts and emotions into ToE...more specifically the production of adaptive traits. Your link is worthless.

You still don't understand. The whole package is incorporated. Everything. The organism as well as it's species. All of it. It all counts towards or against fitness.

 

[guzman]

I never said it did.

Which still means that if the gene does not code for the necessary protein, it will not be able to produce it. Suppose a gene codes for proteins IMP1 (IMaginary Protein 1) though IMP600, but you need IMP 710. If the gene cannot recombine in such a way that it can prodcue IMP 710, you still cannot make that protein. Despite the fact that the gene can make those other 600 proteins. Fairly basic logic really.

Epigenetics may be one of the reasons. However, mutations in the genes themselves are another. Non-epigenetic mutations in other regulatory regions another. You're jumping the gun here, attributing too much power to a single mechanism.

no I'm not jumping the gun. Mutations surely happen and they surely have a physiological effect, but mutations are almost always destroyers. They degenerate organisms, not generate them. Mind, on the otherhand DOES generate organisms -- it started at conception, where the mind went about the process of expressing genes and building the person. Cells have to somehow know where to go and what to do..each cell contains the same genetic blueprint -- same dna -- so something else must be guiding them to construct the person from a non-person...aka from the sperm/egg collision.

As life continues, the mind is always in control of biological function. It uses its genes like a construction worker uses his tools. The tools don't build the structure, the mind behind the builder does. Evos deny the builder, though, in an attempt to prop up a bum theory. but if the mind indeed controls the production of adaptive traits in humans and in other animals, then ToE is good for nothing but the wastebasket.

 

[Assyrian]

"The reality is, when Jesus actually said you could renew your life with beliefs, this now in the understanding of epigenetics is profoundly true."

"The places where Jesus couldn't perform miracles were the places people didn't believe Him."

You know it seems really odd to me that a Christian would buy into a new age argument that trades the regenerative power of the Spirit of God and the miracle working power of the Son of God, replacing them with some sort of natural power of positive thinking, and all to try to score some sort of point against evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

Guz: ToE says one gene produces one protein, which supposedly produces one trait.no,

Tom: ToE does not say that. Fail.


your denial is cute. So tell me, if one gene does not code for one protein, which turns around and produces one trait -- what is the logic in saying that changes in the genetic code fuel evolution? If the said changes can produce 30,000 different variations (30,000 proteins, remember) then which of these 30,000 potential traits can we count on being selected?

The simple reason that there is still a limit to the recombination possible from a single gene.

If (IF, I do not know whether the number is really as high as you say it is) IMGX (IMaginary Gene X) can produce proteins IMP 1 (IMaginary Protein 1) through 30.000, a mutation in IMGX will mean that some of those proteins cannot be produced anymore but other can. For example IMGX M (IMaginary Gene X Mutated) may be able to produce IMP 15.000 through 45.000. The gene provides the building blocks, and those can be combined in different ways. But a mutations will change the building blocks present, leading to different possible combinations.

ToE was based on the premise that a change in dna produced a specific anatomical change...if this change was beneifical, it got selected -- if not, it didn't. I have never once read how ToE says that a single change in dna could produce thousands of possibilities based on its epigenetic interpretation -- or even hundreds, or tens. Care to show me otherwise?

I did above. By providing different building blocks a change in DNA can produce a specific anatomical change. A very obvious example of this is sickle cell anemia, where a single mutation causes the blood cells to change shape from round to sickle-shaped.

But what basically goes wrong here is your misunderstanding of the basic premise of evolution. The only point about evolution has ever been that the change is inherited from the parents. This happens with mutations regardless of whether a gene codes for 1 protein or millions.