Poah I think youre conflating the normal gene duplication/amplification/tranacription processes with abnormal events.

An insertion that did not alter gene expression would be considered a silent mutation.

oooohhhhh terminology issue here.

gene expression means DNA to RNA. insertions in the DNA sequence don't normally affect this unless its in the non-coding promoter region.

A silent mutation is one that doesn't affect the codon sequence. Other mutations include: non-sense where a stop codon is introduced; miss-sense where an amino acid change occurs.

Poah I think youre conflating the normal gene duplication/amplification/tranacription processes with abnormal events.

eh no

arghhhhh

Silent mutations are mutations in DNA that do not significantly alter the phenotype of the organism in which they occur. Silent mutations can occur in non-coding regions (outside of genes or within introns), or they may occur within exons. [b]When they occur within exons they do not result in a change to the amino acid sequence of a protein (a "synonymous substitution")[/b]

I wasn't so sure before about evolution other than slight variations but this thread has proven that macro evolution does exist.

arghhhhh

I take it you don't know I was a molecular biologist in a previous life lol

I take it you don't know I was a molecular biologist in a previous life lol

Did you evolve?

poah - Member
Tom_W1987 - Member
Duplication, insertions and deletions are all considered to be mutations.
Duplication means gaining another copy of a gene its not a mutation like the other two.

insertions can be considered a mutation if the DNA disrupts the gene

deletion can either be removing a gene or a mutation in the DNA that causes a codon change.

you can see this between humans and chimp.

*Humans have acquired 689 new gene duplicates and lost 86 since diverging from our common ancestor with chimps six million years ago. Similarly, they reckoned that chimps have lost 729 gene copies that humans still have.

Yeah, but....

god, because, you know... clouds...

Tough isn't it, woppit. Which side do folks tend to agree with? Tom or poah?

Did you evolve?

went the other way 🙁

take it you don't know I was a molecular biologist in a previous life lol

Was this before Watson and Crick lol.

Also...snap.

I'm siding with Poah ..purely on the basis that he's a bloody nice bloke actually ..and the fact that I have ridden with him twice

Was this before Watson and Crick lol.

Also...snap.

Ah but were you also a microbiologist, virologist or biophysicist lol

P.s I met Watson once

Hey, clouds are miraculous too y'know.
Completely unique never been seen before and never to be seen again.
No matter what side of faith's fence you sit, clouds are an agreed upon miracle.
The brainwashing has dulled your senses sister

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/sep/21/why-religious-belief-isnt-a-delusion-in-psychological-terms-at-least

No matter what side of faith's fence you sit, clouds are an agreed upon miracle.
The brainwashing has dulled your senses sister

Surely You're yanking our chain. You can't honestly believe that.

It's a fact from both sides of the fence.
Each cloud completely unique, billions of years to be created and will never be seen again.

They came from nothing, just like the story of jesus. We all believe in miracles you see.

Clouds are not a miracle. They are formed by a known physical reaction.

Sounds like a fart

Clouds are a miracle, you need to open your mind.. wind it back a few billion years and have a think about how that cloud you gazed at today was formed, you won't see another the same even if you live for 8000 billion and 70 years. That cloud came from nothing, like a nothingness no man can comprehend just like mazzers baby. Like I said your senses have been dulled.

WTF are you talking about.clouds don't come from nothing and the clouds in the sky were not formed billions of years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/sep/21/why-religious-belief-isnt-a-delusion-in-psychological-terms-at-least

Amusingly, I read an article a couple of days ago arguing that religious belief is a delusion. I chose not to post it cos I figured it'd be interpreted as inflammatory.

Hey, clouds are miraculous too y'know.
Completely unique never been seen before and never to be seen again.

They're random. With a sufficiently large set duplicates are unlikely but not impossible.

Clouds are a miracle, you need to open your mind.. wind it back a few billion years and have a think about how that cloud you gazed at today was formed,

From condensed water vapour evaporated from the sea yesterday.

you won't see another the same even if you live for 8000 billion and 70 years.

See above.

That cloud came from nothing, like a nothingness no man can comprehend just like mazzers baby. Like I said your senses have been dulled.

You either don't have the faintest idea about how the physical world around you works, or you're trolling.

Getting confused now, was theocb a creationist?

Narrow mindedness is not a good luck fam.
Where did the sea come from that created that cloud? every time you find an answer go back another step; keep heading back and either hit me up with some unknown scientific facts or accept they came from nothing. It's one or the other I think

Each cloud is made of a unique combination of water droplets. I think you might be talking about named formation types.. not sure if you are deliberately trolling tbh.

So, theocb, are you and old testament type creationist?

Where did the sea come from that created that cloud?

Comets, mainly.

Well, shame they closed down!

So ..what came first ..the chicken or the egg?

[i]

[b]I egged the chicken and then I ate his leg[/b]

Sorry to just throw this in to the thread and I'm sure it's nothing new... But why can't a God or omnipotent power have created the science and the physics of the universe?

Not trying to convince anyone of anything here,I just don't think that having a sense* that there could well be more to the universe than matter and energy following prescribed rules of physics and chemistry is necessary incompatible with science.

* I don't prescribe to a God in the conventional sense.

I'm just open minded and acknowledge that we know far less about the universe than we currently know. Every question we answer opens yet more questions.

Anyway, a God or no God, treat people decently as you wonder around our little chunk of the universe and the faith or doubt in a God is largely immaterial. To me anyway.

mmm, interesting poopy.
If we changed a few 'words' here and there would the 2 positions actually be very different.

A great miraculous power created the universe and all the unique things in it. Science and faith hand in hand right there buddy.

Either way, magical world out there.. check out those unicorns of the sky tomorrow.

Ah but were you also a microbiologist, virologist or biophysicist lol

I've worked in virology as well - QA now because **** staring at white walls, white coats and high containment labs for the rest of my short life on this planet. It gets depressing.

The word "mutation" is a bit of a bollocks term anyway - for undergrads and a-level students, you rarely hear the word used in an actual paper. The type of 'mutation' would be used instead - anyway, sorry if I pissed you off Poah.

But why can't a God or omnipotent power have created the science and the physics of the universe?

Because Occams Razor.

Tom_W1987 - Member
But why can't a God or omnipotent power have created the science and the physics of the universe?

Because Occams Razor

The opinion I expressed it quite simple and makes no less or more assumptions than any opposing opinion on my view.

I'm sure every opinion in this thread and on this subject generally will also seem the simplest and most logical to its exponent.

As you have just in your above post actually.

That said, your opinion is just as valid as mine. Just not more so.

Well, to me - Occams Razor means that you're introducing more questions by saying that god created the universe - if we're talking about faith, I find it logically much easier to have faith in the universe having existed for eternity. That is a much simpler, cleaner explanation.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Well, to me - Occams Razor means that you're introducing more questions by saying that god created the universe - if we're talking about faith, I find it logically much easier to have faith in the universe having existed for eternity. That is a much simpler, cleaner explanation

I agree Tom, it is the cleaner and more logical explanation. For you. Which is fine.

For myself it doesn't happen to be.

Faith is also a concept I don't really apply to how I feel about the universe and my place in it. Certainly not about the existence of a "God" either.

Hope is probably a word I prefer over faith.

Hope is probably a word I prefer over faith.

I like this.

My cynical side (outside of science) says that the universe contracts and expands in a deterministic fashion and we are doomed to repeat our mistakes over and over again ad infinitum - and that there are a multitude of universes out there all doing the same but in a slightly different way. All part of one gigantic pointless broken record of a joke.

[img] [/img]

Frankly Tom that cynical side you express about the universe is far from alien to me. Probably thought along similar lines far too much over the years. Mainly because it's a distinct possibility and that's all there is to "it all". Nothing more.

If that is the be all and end all I find it pretty scary if I'm honest. Don't mind admitting it.

For that reason alone I'll continue to remain open minded on another possibility. Nothing to lose after all. If nothing else life seems to demand a placebo effect on occasion.

Also, I've always had a particular fondness for this essay. It's deeply cynical at the end - but utterly humane at the same time.

http://www.academia.edu/882071/The_Moral_Imperative_to_Rebel_against_God

Also, you seem to be the most sensible person in this thread. More posts from poopscoop please and less rampant idiocy.

The morality of God. Yes, damned good question right there.

If regarded in a classical way I have to say that looking at the suffering I see in the world, some distant, some much closer, such a God would in many ways repel me.

Actually it's the main reason I don't really like to refer to a "God" when referring to some higher power for want of a less cliched phrase. To me that term, God and a lot of what it might mean is a human construct. I mean absolutely no offence to anyone that believes differently to that however.

If there is a "higher power" it is likely to be completely uninterested in us or to have motives we can't begin to fathom.

Hoping for the latter honestly. If it is the latter and "we" get to chat one day I'll be asking said higher power for some petty good explanations as to why suffering had to be part of this huge grand experiment.

Where did the sea come from that created that cloud

From the fusion of hydrogen and oxygen, two very common atoms in the universe.

anyway, sorry if I pissed you off Poah.

You didn't

But why can't a God or omnipotent power have created the science and the physics of the universe?

Maybe 1000's of years ago when people were ignorant and knew jack shit about physics, biology and chemistry. The idea that a god(s) exists is delusional.

Deliberately ignoring the point there pooh.

From the fusion of hydrogen and oxygen, two very common atoms in the universe.

Where did the atoms come from? I think we are getting close now...

Where did the atoms come from? I think we are getting close

Well hydrogen is made up of a proton and an electron (standard isotope). It's the most common atom in the universe. All atoms are made from it in stars. Protons are made up of 3 quarks, two up one down. For more information read up on the standard model of particle physics

Where did they come from? We could skip to the end but I'm sure you will keep dragging this out..

So if your end is where did the building blocks come from ? Answer god the next logical question is where did god come from ? May be the end point is while we measure time from the big bang that in reality there has always been matter all the way back or round time. To miss quote " its matter and physics all the way down" not the indifferent un-evidenced god of the ultimate gap.

@thocb

So... god because clouds.

And bone cancer in children?

theocb - Member
Where did they come from? We could skip to the end but I'm sure you will keep dragging this out..

Well yes actually the deeper we look the more we see, if a mystical deity construct helps you get your head round that, so be it.

I think that's about right kimbers. A mystical power created the universe.. scientists need that mystical power to get there head around the rest of it.

Where did the mystical power come from?

Take your time with the bone cancer problem...

Not knowing how something happened is simply that. Shoe-Horning in a fiction to "explain it" has no relationship whatsoever to science, although I'm sure scientists everywhere will now make great strides with their investigations following your magnificent contribution to quantum physics research...

I'm still trying to get my head around how that chicken egg survived in the big bang ..one tough shell..

The word "mutation" is a bit of a bollocks term anyway - for undergrads and a-level students, you rarely hear the word used in an actual paper. The type of 'mutation' would be used instead

So... Some genetic changes, are not mutation, Some genetic changes are not evolutionary, some evolutionary changes are not mutations. Are all evolutionary changes due to genetic change?

Indirectly, yes even a meme is dependent on genes

And bone cancer in children?

Now, I don't know the answer to that, but a few of the religious types offered an answer when Stephen Fry asked the same question. Some suggest it is a false question, based in the here and now, which is not the theist perspective.

Indirectly, yes even a meme is dependent on genes

But genetic change?

poah - Member
But why can't a God or omnipotent power have created the science and the physics of the universe?

Maybe 1000's of years ago when people were ignorant and knew jack shit about physics, biology and chemistry. The idea that a god(s) exists is delusional.

Ok, not really sure where that type of defensive comment came from but such is the nature of forums.

You consider me ignorant compared to you? ok, I'm fine with that. I'll take ignorance over arrogance.

The idea that you can't accept an opinion that is contrary to your own is "interesting" nothing more. It arguably erodes your assertions and opinions but I'll let others be the judge of that. To me it's just more an indication of persona than of opinion.

Your opinion, for that's all it is Poah, is no more considered or valid than mine or anyone else's in this thread for that matter.

All of the above said, if you are just out to attempt to try and antagonise, well ok... Just a shame you are so disinterested in a topic which is actually fascinating because people's views and opinions do vary so much on it.

Well except that his opinion is driven be considered and ordered observations of the world around him. Whereas yours is based on superstition, smart people abandoned that 100's of years ago.

An opinion is not evidence.

Amazing how this needs to be repetitively pointed out...

"Dragons because, you know, faith."

So... Some genetic changes, are not mutation

yes, you get epigenetic changes.

theocb - Member

Where did they come from? We could skip to the end but I'm sure you will keep dragging this out..

from the big bang. what caused the big bang or what happened before is beyond me and other people at the moment but it would be an argument of ignorance to say a deity.

For those who have a genuine interest in learning what others think or believe when it comes to theology, this radio show often has very good, considered and rounded discussions or debates.
[url= https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes ]Unbelievable?[/url]

Mostly it will have experts from either side of a position discussing or sharing their opinion or beliefs, not necessarily to point score, though that does happen on hot subjects, but to try and learn why others think the way they do.
It's been going for over 10 years so there should be something for most people.

Ok, not really sure where that type of defensive comment came from but such is the nature of forums.

You consider me ignorant compared to you? ok, I'm fine with that. I'll take ignorance over arrogance.

The idea that you can't accept an opinion that is contrary to your own is "interesting" nothing more. It arguably erodes your assertions and opinions but I'll let others be the judge of that. To me it's just more an indication of persona than of opinion.

Your opinion, for that's all it is Poah, is no more considered or valid than mine or anyone else's in this thread for that matter.

All of the above said, if you are just out to attempt to try and antagonise, well ok... Just a shame you are so disinterested in a topic which is actually fascinating because people's views and opinions do vary so much on it.

didn't really think I'd have to explain my comment but anyway

you are ignorant of probably a lot of things just like me and everyone else. 500 years ago we were ignorant of DNA, viruses, bacteria, electricity, nuclear power, etc etc etc So when early man who knew very little about anything, using a deity to explain things was an easy concept to understand.

This is not my opinion, this is fact. opinions are great, they ensure discussion but opinions based on ignorance, stupidity and insanity are not as justified or valid as those based on facts. It is not arrogance to say that.

There is not even one fact to suggest the universe was created by a deity.

"But it's all just so, you know, wonderful. It's all just so, you know, beautiful."

Hello birds, hello sky, hello clouds, hello necrotic fasciitis.

yes, you get epigenetic changes.

And these are heritable, reversible adaptations?

5plusn8 - Member
Well except that his opinion is driven be considered and ordered observations of the world around him. Whereas yours is based on superstition, smart people abandoned that 100's of years ago.

It would be good if you actually went back and read my posts. There's only been a few of them in this thread. Only over the last few hours too.

Could you then come back to where I am alluding to superstition?

Every comment I have made has only one single foundation. That I have an open mind.

However your blind leap to defend another poster simply as he shares your opinions is again more a testament about you than the subject you profess to be so well versed in.

Again, arrogance is no substitute for discussion.

In every post I made earlier I went out of my way to make sure others knew I neither wished to, or had a need to, convince others of my view point.

That's what's so strange in a way. Two people that profess to be so enlightened are also so determined to try to suppress any opinion or view point they disagree with.

Is the irony lost on you?

5plusn8,I take it you think I am religious from the wording of your post. Again, you might find it interesting to actually read what I posted before you comment.

And these are heritable, reversible adaptations?

you mean you didn't google it ha ha ha ha

Funny that this come just after Tom commented on the sense of Poopscoop

you mean you didn't google it ha ha ha ha

I did but I thought I would ask a microbiologist to check my understanding was correct

Every comment I have made has only one single foundation. That I have an open mind.

However your blind leap to defend another poster simply as he shares your opinions is again more a testament about you than the subject you profess to be so well versed in.

Again, arrogance is no substitute for discussion.

I have an open mind, just show me facts.

point out how my posts are arrogant?

I did but I thought I would ask a microbiologist to check my understanding was correct

anyone on here a microbiologist that can answer it for you lol

Facts are really hard to come by, data is more abundant

Be careful you don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

The universe as we know it and as future scientific developments will further allow us to see it, is the very paradigm of awesome, AFAIK.

There's absolutely no need to shoe-horn in some petty little human-generated god concept.

"Not only is the universe queerer than we think, it's queerer than we [i]can[/i] think..."

Bless, the people on here that are so sure, so utterly unshakable in their opinions and "facts" are the ones that seem the most defensive. Just why is that?

Amusingly also the most likely to resort to school yard humour in defence of their viewpoints.

Amongst all the ranting and self suredness it's just a shame that the last few posters seem unable to read further than the first paragraph of a post. Hardly a great example of the scientific method.

Mr Woppit - Member
Be careful you don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

You must be so proud bless your little cottons.

Again and regrettably having to respond in a tone you might grasp in reply toyour comment above:

No chance of your brain doing that...For two very evident reasons.

On that note, School times over. For me anyway.

It's been... such a joy.

roper - Member
For those who have a genuine interest in learning what others think or believe when it comes to theology, this radio show often has very good, considered and rounded discussions or debates.
Unbelievable?
Mostly it will have experts from either side of a position discussing or sharing their opinion or beliefs, not necessarily to point score, though that does happen on hot subjects, but to try and learn why others think the way they do.
It's been going for over 10 years so there should be something for most people.

Sorry for not replying earlier roper. Got momentarily distracted.

Will check that out, sounds interesting. Thank you for the heads up!

An example such as bone cancer in children is easy enough to explain.

A god created everything but does not have full control of what happened to it after that. If you kept control of something you would have quite the task. Controlling all genes, controlling the worlds weather systems etc,. to ensure nothing bad could ever happen anywhere. And then if you didn't let people die you would somehow have to stop new ones being created.

Looking at it that way you can start to see how even God would not be able to manage that.

kerley - Member
An example such as bone cancer in children is easy enough to explain.
A god created everything but does not have full control of what happened to it after that. If you kept control of something you would have quite the task. Controlling all genes, controlling the worlds weather systems etc,. to ensure nothing bad could ever happen anywhere. And then if you didn't let people die you would somehow have to stop new ones being created.
Looking at it that way you can start to see how even God would not be able to manage that.

I have trouble reconciling myself to that to be honest though I do see the uncomfortable logic in what you say.

However, as I said last night, it's being in a position to see some of the world's suffering that makes me ill at ease to reconcile myself with an omnipotent being/God that can allow it.

If such an entity exists I think it more likely that it simply has no comprehension of a morality as we see it. That's why I find it hard to subscribe to any classical convention of religion.

Again, don't mean to ride roughshod over anyone's beliefs as I say that. It's just his I attempt to rationalise things like this.

OK I cycled through the night. Well, 45 mins of it. Whilst clattering down a silent old cart-track under starlight I heard the distinctive 'to-WHOOoo?' of an unseen tawny owl close by.

'Who?' Said I?

'To ... who, who, who, Who'? Said the owl.

And then it struck me. Which came first - the bird, or the word? A word (to be uttered) requires a 'who'. So if the word came first, then so it follows that a 'who' was before the word.

'Which/what who?' asked I.

'Whoooooooooo?' said the owl.

At which point I guessed that the truth might well lie within this wood, but that the mystery surely lay in words? And words lie in books. Yet which books? . Maybe Paulo Coehlo or St John? Maybe Milton or Shelley? Maybe Oprah or Chopra? Hawking or Dawkin? Maybe chicken soup has already been ordered and served for my soul, so that all I need do is to take the simple decision to sit and eat? Ideally before it goes cold? And the 'proof' shall be in the tasting?

Or maybe our minds plays tricks? Maybe these words, these endless questions are mere clutter. Maybe the bird is before the word?

And then I think about my marriage, my relationships, friends etc. How verbal communication is so often a problematic feature in my/our lives. I try and imagine howt a week of marriage without words would be like? To my mind it seems as if it would be honest and true. Excoriatingly so. Why do we never do this? It would feel 'silly' to be so open? To be laid so bare without words behind which to hide.

And the internet. An overflowing of words. Like rain in tissue cups. An endless argument falling through a hole in our minds. An ego-chamber. Words without vibration. Far from Om.

'Auuuuuhmmmmmmmmmmm(?)' - Said I.

The owl was now silent. I moved on. Upwards. Nothing but the slow sound of sand and gravel crunching and pinging off the tyres. The sense of a heavy, hanging dew in the meadow below. The 'scent' of silence. Still no voice. Still: No voice.

Thanks for that Malvern. I like that on many levels.

Really ..wow!
Got me thinking if it really was an owl ..or perhaps you were mistaken and it was a cuckoo.. 😀

[b]poah, woppit, 5plusn8[/b]

I believe I owe you guys an apology. I don't think your posts deserved the tone of my replies. I made some unfair assumptions based as much on my own temperament as yours.

Above said genuinely.

Got me thinking if it really was an owl ..or perhaps you were mistaken and it was a cuckoo..

I think it's best we'll call it a typo. I made a lengthy typo 😆