0
   

Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 12:41 pm
it is indeed, kickycan............
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 01:56 pm
I've mentioned the terms genetic engineering and re-engineering. What evidence for that sort of thing might there be, you ask?? Turns out, there actually is some:


Henry Gee
Monday February 12, 2001
The Guardian

The potentially-poisonous Japanese fugu fish has achieved notoriety, at least among scientists who haven't eaten any, because it has a genome that can be best described as "concise". There is no "junk" DNA, no waste, no nonsense. You get exactly what it says on the tin. This makes its genome very easy to deal with in the laboratory: it is close
to being the perfect genetic instruction set. Take all the genes you need to make an animal and no more, stir, and you'd get fugu. Now, most people would hardly rate the fugu fish as the acme of creation. If it were, it would be eating us, and not the other way round. But here is
a paradox. The human genome probably does not contain significantly more genes than the fugu fish. What sets it apart is - and there is no more succinct way to put this - rubbish.

The human genome is more than 95% rubbish. Fewer than 5% of the 3.2bn As, Cs, Gs and Ts that make up the human genome are actually found in genes. It is more litter-strewn than any genome completely sequenced so far. It is believed to contain just under 31,780 genes, only about half as many again as found in the simple roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans (19,099 genes): yet in terms of bulk DNA content, the human genome is almost 30 times the size.A lot is just rubbish, plain and simple. But at least half the genome is
rubbish of a special kind - transposable elements. These are small segments of DNA that show signs of having once been the genomes of independent entities. Although rather small, they often contain sequences that signal cellular machinery to transcribe them (that is, to switch them on). They may also contain genetic instructions for enzymes whose function is to make copies and insert the copies elsewhere in the genome. These transposable elements litter the human genome in their hundreds of thousands. Many contain genes for an enzyme called reverse transcriptase - essential for a transposable element to integrate itself into the host DNA.

The chilling part is that reverse transcriptase is a key feature of retroviruses such as HIV-1, the human immunodeficiency virus. Much of the genome itself - at least half its bulk - may have consisted of DNA that started out, perhaps millions of years ago, as independent viruses or
virus-like entities. To make matters worse, hundreds of genes, containing instructions for at least 223 proteins, seem to have been imported directly from bacteria. Some are responsible for features of human metabolism otherwise hard to explain away as quirks of evolution - such as our ability to metabolise psychotropic drugs. Thus, monoamine oxidase is involved in metabolising alcohol.

If the import of bacterial genes for novel purposes (such as drug resistance) sounds disturbing and familiar, it should - this is precisely the thrust of much research into the genetic modification of organisms in agriculture or biotechnology.

So natural-born human beings are, indeed, genetically modified. Self-respecting eco-warriors should never let their children marry a human being, in case the population at large gets contaminated with exotic genes!One of the most common transposable elements in the human genome is called
Alu - the genome is riddled with it. What the draft genome now shows quite clearly is that copies of Alu tend to cluster where there are genes. The density of genes in the genome varies, and where there are more genes, there are more copies of Alu. Nobody knows why, yet it is consistent with the idea that Alu has a positive benefit for genomes.
To be extremely speculative, it could be that a host of very similar looking Alu sequences in gene-rich regions could facilitate the kind of gene-shuffling that peps up natural genetic variation, and with that, evolution. This ties in with the fact that human genes are, more than most,
fragmented into a series of many exons, separated by small sections of rubbish called introns - rather like segments of a TV programme being punctuated by commercials.

The gene for the protein titin, for example, is divided into a record-breaking 178 exons, all of which must be patched together by the gene-reading machinery before the finished protein can be assembled. This fragmentation allows for alternative versions of proteins to be built from
the same information, by shuffling exons around. Genomes with less fragmented genes may have a similar number of overall genes - but a smaller palette of ways to use this information. Transposable elements might have
helped unlock the potential in the human genome, and could even have contributed to the fragmentation of genes in the first place (some introns are transposable elements by another name). This, at root, may explain why human beings are far more complex than roundworms or fruit flies. If it were not for trashy transposable elements
such as Alu, it might have been more difficult to shuffle genes and parts of genes, creating alternative ways of reading the "same" genes. It is true that the human genome is mostly rubbish, but it explains what we are, and
why we are who we are, and not lying on the slab in a sushi bar.

• Deep Time by Henry Gee will be published shortly in paperback by Fourth Estate. He is a senior editor of Nature.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 01:58 pm
kickycan wrote:
This thread is both laughable and incredibly scary at the same time.


Sounding "cool" is easy. Explaining what went wrong with the fruit-fly experiments I noted above would be harder. You up to it?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 02:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But if we are accepting that as part of the argument, then every one of those things you mentioned - funnel spiders, chiggers, whatever - serve a purpose in the ecosystem, and therefore are part of the plan.

You really need to clean your logic up before you start arguing evolution.



There's no logical reason (within the context of an evolutionary framework at least) for a funnel web or black mamba to have the power to kill humans since there's no possibiility of either EATING a human. The survival chances of either would be enhanced greatly by running from humans rather than attacking them.

My own guess and it's ONLY a guess, is that those kinds of things might originally have been designed as guardians to keep humans or other large animals which they had no chance of eating out of certain areas. That would at least be logical, i.e. it would at least be logical for them to have the powers they do in such a context.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 02:11 pm
gungasnake wrote:
kickycan wrote:
This thread is both laughable and incredibly scary at the same time.


Sounding "cool" is easy. Explaining what went wrong with the fruit-fly experiments I noted above would be harder. You up to it?


I'm just wondering what your point is. That science can be disputed? Congratulations. You've convinced us all.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 02:31 pm
Gungasnake, it's not hard at all. The fruitfly is a product of millions of years and quadrillians of generations. It has reached a level of harmony with it's environment and fills a niche in the world of nature. If and when that niche no longer exists, the Fruitfly will no longer exist unless it adapts itself to a new niche.

It's possible that the fruitfly has reached a plateau in the evolution ladder.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 02:35 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Gungasnake, it's not hard at all. The fruitfly is a product of millions of years and quadrillians of generations. It has reached a level of harmony with it's environment and fills a niche in the world of nature. If and when that niche no longer exists, the Fruitfly will no longer exist unless it adapts itself to a new niche.

It's possible that the fruitfly has reached a plateau in the evolution ladder.


You're right. It's not hard to come up with wrong answers...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 02:39 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But if we are accepting that as part of the argument, then every one of those things you mentioned - funnel spiders, chiggers, whatever - serve a purpose in the ecosystem, and therefore are part of the plan.

You really need to clean your logic up before you start arguing evolution.



There's no logical reason (within the context of an evolutionary framework at least) for a funnel web or black mamba to have the power to kill humans since there's no possibiility of either EATING a human. The survival chances of either would be enhanced greatly by running from humans rather than attacking them.

My own guess and it's ONLY a guess, is that those kinds of things might originally have been designed as guardians to keep humans or other large animals which they had no chance of eating out of certain areas. That would at least be logical, i.e. it would at least be logical for them to have the powers they do in such a context.


The have a neuro-toxin in their venom used to paralyze and kill small mammals. We are large mammals (thanks to evolution) so the venom effects our nervous system. Their bitting humans is usually as a result of surprise, defense, or stupidity on the humans part.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 03:00 pm
I have a hard time believing in any demise of the fruit fly when we have a house full of them from time to time.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 03:26 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I have a hard time believing in any demise of the fruit fly when we have a house full of them from time to time.


Yeah, they're only supposed to have a lifespan of 24 hours, but it seems they make a lot of lovin' in that time....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 03:28 pm
McGentrix wrote:

Their bitting humans is usually as a result of surprise, defense, or stupidity on the humans part.


Cobras and mambas are known to chase humans down and kill them. To me, of course, that is a second ammendment issue. They still get 50K - 60K people killed in India every year as I read it, which could not happen in a country whose population was armed as ours is.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 03:34 pm
Well you have to be allowed to kill the snakes too. Aren't all critters protected species in India?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 04:31 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well you have to be allowed to kill the snakes too. Aren't all critters protected species in India?


Don't know. In theory the Hindu religion protects them, whether the law does or not I don't know.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 06:09 pm
Christian Conservatives kidnapping the Republican Party... with a self-righteous Apocalyptic ideology?!
.
It's "right" out of a Stephen King novel...
(was "Carrie"s mother a registered voter?)
:-)

Then there's the talk of "two pairs of hands"(should that be "Hands"?)... and the Creationistical eco- niche of Frogs and Fruitflies.
(Did not the Mighty JHVH create lo, the ten Plagues of Egypt?... among which were frogs and flies?)
Politics, 'snakes...
Toss lightly with the Global Climate Change issue and you've got a classic thread here.

(Ehh, what the hell, it may seem gratuitous, but we might as well toss in the obligatory "lesbian" comment for good measure... )

( like adding Parmesan to your Pasta... )
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 06:09 pm
tsk tsk the dreaded double post.
I've deleted it so you need not read it again .

"Move along, there's nothing to see here..."
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 06:16 pm
So...should I throw out the rotting bananas? They are attracting fruit flies, and I'm out of tinfoil.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 06:50 pm
Make banana bread quickly. Waste not, want not. Smile
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:29 am
cavfancier, whatever you do, do postehaste.
Exponential population growth is an amazing phenomenon. The brief lifecycle of the fruitfly provides for a rapid succession of generations... by the time you get to "Great-great grandfly"( 1 week?) your banana box can be totally infested.


Those fruitflies will then be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, unless they are kept in check by... (guess!?)
the frogs!
Of course, feeding the frogs will cause THEM to be fruitful and multiply.

Which will then attract and nourish the snakes.

Picture it... serpents everywhere, because of a bad banana.

It's a vicious cycle.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:48 pm
I have seen no one account for is the possibility of both creation and evolution.

To this date we have not found a strong enough link to evolution to say for a fact that it is real. There is no fossil record that is complete enough to support evolution. When using science to support evolution, the best that has come about is the tracking of material RNA (RIBONUCLEIC ACID). From the reports I have seen, they have been able to trace all RNA down to about 5 or 7 distinct RNA patterns.

On the side of creation, the lack of a fossil record supports creation but still doesn't explain how everything just appeared. There is no record in the bible for the fossil we do have. I refer to dinosaurs while not complete fossil pattern, does let us know that they did exist at one time. Our basic understanding of creation comes from the Torah and that is about the only explanation we have for creation.

I happen to think the 2 are linked when it comes to the current situation with humanity and animals. When you look at the human species alone, we have no idea how we got here other then the theory of creation and when it comes to evolution we have no fossil record to rely on to state we came from a single cell organism. In fact there is no fossil record to state we came from monkeys. We have found fossil of early man, but there is a gap in the record and it is incomplete. I think we were created and have evolved from what we call cave men. Do I have proof to back this up? I don't, it is just my opinion but it makes more sense then the other 2 options.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 07:36 pm
the only thing that doesn't support creationism is common sense, logic and science...........go figure.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/06/2025 at 07:27:24