RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues

RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

IgorsHand -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 3:44:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Genes are simple. The systems they produce are not so simple. That doesn't change the facts. Genes code for proteins. Figuring out how all those proteins interact is complicated. Creation is simple, that is how simple genes are. Your reductionism is meaningless, it is like saying bricks are simple but building houses aren't. Well, news for you bricks aren't simple, they just look simple. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Epigenetics are heritable characteristics independent of genes. Probably the most common form is the methylation of genes to turn off the production of that specific protein. The gene is unchanged. A chemical can suppress or change the function of a gene without changing the underlying DNA, which is epigenetics, how is that process independent of genes? It isn't because without genes there would be no epigenetics. What you are saying is whether the car has wooden tyres or rubber tyres they are independent of the car because they do not change the underlying nature of the car. Well try driving the car and see. Your reductionism gets the better of you.

IgorsHand -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 3:46:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer The solutions to such random mass-killings are very plainly political and social, not psychological, psychiatric or neurological. Yes, you are probably right, genes are probably as incidental to this mass murder as the killer having a head and a arsehole. With that. I've finished on this thread before I get sucked in any more.

DomKen -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 8:48:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IgorsHand quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Genes are simple. The systems they produce are not so simple. That doesn't change the facts. Genes code for proteins. Figuring out how all those proteins interact is complicated. Creation is simple, that is how simple genes are. Your reductionism is meaningless, it is like saying bricks are simple but building houses aren't. Well, news for you bricks aren't simple, they just look simple. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Epigenetics are heritable characteristics independent of genes. Probably the most common form is the methylation of genes to turn off the production of that specific protein. The gene is unchanged. A chemical can suppress or change the function of a gene without changing the underlying DNA, which is epigenetics, how is that process independent of genes? It isn't because without genes there would be no epigenetics. What you are saying is whether the car has wooden tyres or rubber tyres they are independent of the car because they do not change the underlying nature of the car. Well try driving the car and see. Your reductionism gets the better of you. You seem unable to comprehend this most basic fact, genes simply carry information. They are an encoding of the long chains of amino acids that form proteins. That is all there is. Some noncoding segments of DNA may have regulatory functions but that is still being studied but for genes, they carry the information for making proteins period. Epigenetics is not about the genes but about whether or not the system that transcribes the DNA to RNA or uses the RNA to build proteins works. The genes are not changed by epigenetics. epigenetics and genetics are related but independent. You can keep saying this isn't so but the facts simply do not conform to your psuedo mystical wishes. There is nothing terribly complex or beyond our understanding about genes. That's why very little research is still going on at that level. The stuff we're working on is how these proteins, almost all of which are enzymes that catalyze other chemical reactions, produce the end result, a functioning organism.

IgorsHand -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 1:52:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Epigenetics is not about the genes but about whether or not the system that transcribes the DNA to RNA or uses the RNA to build proteins works. The genes are not changed by epigenetics. epigenetics and genetics are related but independent. You can keep saying this isn't so but the facts simply do not conform to your psuedo mystical wishes. There is nothing terribly complex or beyond our understanding about genes. That's why very little research is still going on at that level. The stuff we're working on is how these proteins, almost all of which are enzymes that catalyze other chemical reactions, produce the end result, a functioning organism. DomKen you have a very deep seated need to be right, you can consider yourself right but you will always be wrong. If you read what I wrote, I said that epigenetics does not change genes, what I said in regard to epigenetics, chemicals can suppress or change function of genes ie. whether someone is born with a white skin or a black skin, blue eyes of brown eyes etc. etc, is epigenetic, as are many disorders and THE FACT is epigenetics is not independent of genes because WITHOUT GENES THERE WOULD BE NO EPIGENETICS. As for epigenetics being both related to and independent of genetics, that is just a bastardisation of the English language and current knowledge. If a process is dependent on something for its existance, it is not independent of it. There is nothing terribly complex about or beyond our understanding of genes except this discussion HASN"T BEEN ABOUT WHAT GENES ARE BUT THEIR FUNCTION AND HOW THEY INFLUENCE BEHAVIOUR and until that can be understood and many other things can be understood, to call genes simple, is simply A CONCEIT! If anyone is being mystical it is you in thinking our knowledge has solved the mystery of life, when in scientific terms we are just emerging from the cave. There is no one more ignorant than someone who claims to know it all.

DomKen -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 2:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IgorsHand There is nothing terribly complex about or beyond our understanding of genes except this discussion HASN"T BEEN ABOUT WHAT GENES ARE BUT THEIR FUNCTION AND HOW THEY INFLUENCE BEHAVIOUR and until that can be understood and many other things can be understood, to call genes simple, is simply A CONCEIT! Actually this all started with this statement by MeatCleaver quote: Because you have to know what you are looking for and since no geneticist of credit reckons they fully understand how genes work in anything but more than a general way Which as I've pointed out over and over again is utter nonsense. We know exactly how genes work.

meatcleaver -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 2:57:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually this all started with this statement by MeatCleaver Don't blame me for the nonsense you write. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We know exactly how genes work. As far as we know only 5% of genes are used for coding, the other 95% are often written off as junk or useless. Basically it is a hole in the whole science of genetics like dark matter is frustrating astro-physicists. That's how simple genes are, if we don't know what they are for, ignore them. I'll let Igorshand hit his head against a brick wall.

DomKen -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 5:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually this all started with this statement by MeatCleaver Don't blame me for the nonsense you write. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We know exactly how genes work. As far as we know only 5% of genes are used for coding, the other 95% are often written off as junk or useless. Basically it is a hole in the whole science of genetics like dark matter is frustrating astro-physicists. That's how simple genes are, if we don't know what they are for, ignore them. I'll let Igorshand hit his head against a brick wall. You're mistaken. Genes code for proteins. Noncoding DNA is not part of a gene. Some noncoding regions, those that are conserved for length or sequence, may have some function but most noncoding sections can be excised completely with no effect on the organism. And no one is ignoring the noncoding regions. About the only research going on directed at the DNA level is trying to figure out what the conserved noncoding regions do. But we've got genes licked we know what they do and how they do it.

jlf1961 -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/6/2013 5:18:29 PM)
The genetic reason people kill is in all of us, some of us manage to suppress the urge to kill, others join the military and still others just lose it and kill for the hell of it. Again, it is human nature to kill other humans. We have been doing it for 50000 years as modern humans, and a few hundred thousand years when you look at the evolutionary course that led to modern humans.

IgorsHand -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 12:21:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually this all started with this statement by MeatCleaver Don't blame me for the nonsense you write. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We know exactly how genes work. As far as we know only 5% of genes are used for coding, the other 95% are often written off as junk or useless. Basically it is a hole in the whole science of genetics like dark matter is frustrating astro-physicists. That's how simple genes are, if we don't know what they are for, ignore them. I'll let Igorshand hit his head against a brick wall. You're mistaken. Genes code for proteins. Noncoding DNA is not part of a gene. Some noncoding regions, those that are conserved for length or sequence, may have some function but most noncoding sections can be excised completely with no effect on the organism. And no one is ignoring the noncoding regions. About the only research going on directed at the DNA level is trying to figure out what the conserved noncoding regions do. But we've got genes licked we know what they do and how they do it. No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye

vincentML -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 5:09:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IgorsHand quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML These events are highly improbable but highly impactful when they occur. Statistics fail. That is why genetic studies with vastly improving techniques are justified. If statistics fail because of high improbabilty, you are by your own admission talking nonsense. I'll leave it to someoe else to explain why because coming out with such nonsense shows you aren't worth spending the time educating. Ahhh . . . let's be a little careful with the personal attacks. Some events cannot be predicted by the bell curve distribution. A primary example is the destruction of the World Trade Towers. Where pray tell did that event fall on even the normal distribution curve of terrorist activity? I suggest you read The Black Swan by Talib and enrich your education.

vincentML -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 5:18:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The genetic reason people kill is in all of us, some of us manage to suppress the urge to kill, others join the military and still others just lose it and kill for the hell of it. Again, it is human nature to kill other humans. We have been doing it for 50000 years as modern humans, and a few hundred thousand years when you look at the evolutionary course that led to modern humans. Just your opinion, jlf. I used to think the same, but no longer. Genetic aggression for mating yes, killing not so much. Contrary to the survival of the species. It is evolutionarily nonsensical to presume the species is inherently self destructive.

Moonhead -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 5:23:55 AM)
Nonsensical, but still a handy excuse for people who are keen to have something that isn't their fault to blame for their behaviour. Which is all most of the defences of a "genetic bias" for Lanza's behaviour come down to, if we're honest about it...

vincentML -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 5:27:41 AM)
quote: No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research. Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications. SOURCE

vincentML -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 5:32:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Nonsensical, but still a handy excuse for people who are keen to have something that isn't their fault to blame for their behaviour. Which is all most of the defences of a "genetic bias" for Lanza's behaviour come down to, if we're honest about it... Not really, Moon. we know that paranoid schizophrenics for example are some sorely fucked up people. Is why the Law allows for mitigating factors. Lanza's behaviour is so far outside the normal distribution of human activity it is reasonable to look elsewhere other than free will.

Moonhead -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 5:39:09 AM)
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that there's any mitigating factor on a genetic level that trumps free will. If all behaviour is down to genetic factors, then trial by jury is redundant in the first place, isn't it?

meatcleaver -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 6:15:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Not really, Moon. we know that paranoid schizophrenics for example are some sorely fucked up people. Is why the Law allows for mitigating factors. Lanza's behaviour is so far outside the normal distribution of human activity it is reasonable to look elsewhere other than free will. Most schizophrenic violence is related to drug use and not just illegal drug use and is not associated with the root cause of the disorder.

meatcleaver -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 6:17:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research. Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications. SOURCE Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong?

vincentML -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 6:28:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research. Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications. SOURCE Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong? Science and human knowledge is always ongoing. We deal with models that best fit empirical reality. To say that we don't know says nothing. In fact, should be an incentive to search further.

meatcleaver -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 6:32:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research. Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications. SOURCE Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong? Science and human knowledge is always ongoing. We deal with models that best fit empirical reality. To say that we don't know says nothing. In fact, should be an incentive to search further. The discussion is specifically about genetics Duh!

vincentML -> RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues (1/7/2013 6:38:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research. Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications. SOURCE Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong? Science and human knowledge is always ongoing. We deal with models that best fit empirical reality. To say that we don't know says nothing. In fact, should be an incentive to search further. The discussion is specifically about genetics Duh! The principle applies to all human knowledge from astrophysics to quantum mechanics.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625