quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Yes, common sense would tell you that and common sense, as so often is true would be wrong. Many organisms carry "non-coding" genes, those that have no function or have none that we are aware of (I am trying to be cautious here) For example, humans carry a great deal of virus DNA in sequence with our "coding DNA" the latter having been identified as functional to our individual development. There is a great deal of non-functional DNA in different "species" that is inherited but plays no roles as far as we know. Evolution never claimed nature is precise. Quite the contrary, nature and evolution are quite wasteful.

In addition there are non-inherited factors that act to "turn on" and "turn off" genes along the DNA strand. These are called epigenetic factors and are gained through interaction with the environment, both intra-utereal and post-partum environments. These include predominantly methyl radicals and micro-dna or micro-rna sequences. You might wish to read a book on Epigenesis, Miles. So, epi-genes which are not inherited and non-coding junk genes which are inherited wreck havoc on common sense, and not intending to be snarky here, that is the difference between a science and "common sense."

quote:

This is a holdover from the pre-molecular era of genetics, when it was at first thought that total genome size should be related to gene number, and thus to complexity.

[SNIP]


Nevertheless, one sometimes encounters arguments that there is a positive correlation between complexity and genome size, even in the scientific literature. Let me put to rest the notion that genome size is related to complexity on the broad scale of eukaryotic diversity. Here is a figure from Gregory (2005) showing the known ranges and means for more than 10,000 species of animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea (click image for larger view).

GENOMIC SIZE


And once again it seems simple common sense is drowned out by the complexity of Evolutionary reasoning.

quote:

Good grief, common sense is often wrong, I just brought it up to explain what was being talked about and you jumped on it and started riding it around like it was the last piece of the puzzle to prove everything I've ever said was wrong.

Thanks for the attempt to educate me but just because I believe we were created doesn't mean that I'm not well read on the subject.

Also all the talk about the "non-functional DNA" and "non-coding junk genes" reminded me of all the vestigial organs that one poster still believes we have but which have been found to have fundamental functions in the human body.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

fakes galore examine them

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Neither King or Ghandi had the power to be murderous tyrants.

What? Yea, right, if either of these fine examples of nonviolence had the “power” they would have quickly turned into “murderous tyrants”.
As of now my conversation with you is over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
You see, I don't do that and have never done that. Look at someone's actions, then go back and claim that because of their non-belief. So nowhere in any logic does it follow that because they didn't have power, these men of peace didn't become violent but give them power and claim their beliefs or non belief that made them murderous tyrants.

Actually, that is exactly what you just said and did.

Yes, with Atheists it is harder to determine exactly what their motivation might have been, although it does not seem like atheism was much of a hindrance to them becoming “murderous tyrants” but with the examples of the people with belief, I gave, it is relatively easy to see what their motivation was and that the very belief system they had would not have allowed power to turn them into “murderous tyrants”

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I've written, it's the psychopathy.

Yes, “it's the psychopathy” but it seems that a strong belief system can be a buttress against it.

Actually that's not what I did at all and in fact with religious butchery and murder, the culprit tells you quite willingly and in name, you now die for your refusal to believe and have faith in what we tell you to.

A strong belief system is a non-system. Either you believe something or you don't. Religion does not even register with a psychopath but however, will also...never stop the psychopath. The job of religion is to assist and even aid and abet the psychopathic leader as required.

I should have ended this "discussion" like I said I would, as soon as you implied that if both King or Ghandi had the power they would have been murderous tyrants. I can now see it was a mistake to try and give you a second chance to carry on a reasonable discussion. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter but it seems that you are just going to keep on ranting without any consideration to what has been said to you and so there is no point in saying anything more to you.

quote:

I am paying attention

quote:

Can I call you - or you dizzy?

quote:

I suggest you step outside, take a deep breath and imagine mankind and all his works gone and tell me that whoever designed this world didn't know what he was doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I still don't like such subjects in public school.

And you are completely wrong in that, as a good comparative religions course would alleviate most of the ignorance and bigotry surrounding religious beliefs. Your approach of hiding it away and leaving it to the local sky pilot who will teach only his particular variant of whatever mythological system, is in fact why we have so much ignorance and bigotry surrounding religions.

I say take religions off their pedestal and teach them like any other cultural aspect. Take the crucifixion, did you know that that is a very, very old religious idea, even Wotan got pinned to a tree. The "nailed to a piece of wood as a form of divine self-sacrifice, is one of the oldest mythological tropes in our cultural tradition. Do you not think it would be beneficial if everybody knew this?

Or the resurrection. That too is an extremely common trope in our cultural tradition. Again, do you not think it would be a good thing if we made this sort of thing clear to students, so they could evaluate religious beliefs in the proper (and factually accurate) context, rather than in utter isolation where it is presented as unassailable truth

quote:

whats say you