Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[Geriatrix]

So they come with an agenda .

I suppose a per-emptive agenda is still one in it's own right.
If I had an ounce of moon-dust for every time someone came at me with an agenda...

 

[Techne]

I suppose a per-emptive agenda is still one in it's own right.
If I had an ounce of moon-dust for every time someone came at me with an agenda...

And gave back that ounce of moon-dust every time you came with an agenda...?

 

[w1z4rd]

Nah, they just smell agendas and try to nip it in the butt early on.

 

[Ancalagon]

Scientists make discovery that leads to better understanding of evolution -> Techne posts a thread implying evolution is wrong and should be abandoned. Yet cleverly does not give an alternative, just wants to create doubt in the minds of the uninformed.

 

[Geriatrix]

And gave back that ounce of moon-dust every time you came with an agenda...?

Deal. I have only one agenda. Killing time!
Well, okay, once in a while I'm it for the lulz.

 

[w1z4rd]

Scientists make discovery that leads to better understanding of evolution -> Techne posts a thread implying evolution is wrong and should be abandoned. Yet cleverly does not give an alternative, just wants to create doubt in the minds of the uninformed.

I miss his thread where he tries to tie everything into "little machines" to fit his teleological "designer god" fantasy That was a very interesting thread

 

[Nick333]

Scientists make discovery that leads to better understanding of evolution -> Techne posts a thread implying evolution is wrong and should be abandoned. Yet cleverly does not give an alternative, just wants to create doubt in the minds of the uninformed.

It could have been aliens.

 

[Geriatrix]

It could have been aliens.

Could have been love for all we know. But, I suspect, it's over now.

 

[Techne]

Scientists make discovery that leads to better understanding of evolution -> Techne posts a thread implying evolution is wrong and should be abandoned. Yet cleverly does not give an alternative, just wants to create doubt in the minds of the uninformed.

How do you confuse "Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution" with 'Techne posts a thread implying evolution is wrong and should be abandoned."?

Deal. I have only one agenda. Killing time!
Well, okay, once in a while I'm it for the lulz.

You're going to end up with a negative balance of moon-dust :wtf:.

 

[Ancalagon]

"Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution != Discovery leads to better understanding of evolution.

You play with words, but your meaning is clear.

 

[Techne]

"Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution != Discovery leads to better understanding of evolution.

You play with words, but your meaning is clear.

What goes through your mind when this is said:

Nätt and Jensen's research may lead to a review of the important foundations for the theory of evolution.

Your confusion is all made up in your head I'm afraid. And you are wrong, a discovery that may lead to a review of the theory of evolution CAN and DOES lead to a better understanding of evolution. I don't know why you think otherwise.

 

[Swa]

Except of course that blood-letting was largely based on superstition and belief. No different to trepanning (drilling holes into heads) to let out demons, really.

You might question leeches to save limbs and poisoning people to cure disease (I assume you mean chemotherapy, again, I have to rely on interpreting based on context) but when it has verifiable and, above all, understandable, testable results and is the best method we have, then it is that method we use and it becomes justified.

And so? The "superstition" and "belief" you refer to was reinforced by the "fact" that it worked according to the method. According to current methods it doesn't work. Future methods may recognise our medicine as superstition.

By our same reasoning blood-letting was justified using the best method of the time and that too gave understandable and testable results according to the method.

Your argument essentially boils down to "Science might be wrong, therefore it can't be trusted." That's an irrational line of reasoning.

I never made that argument. Sure my belief is that science might be wrong therefor everything should be taken with a grain of salt where it matters. The last time I checked though that is rational reasoning but was still not the argument I made.

What I am saying is that we are just as sure that modern ideas of reality are right as previous generations were of their ideas. Though we belief most of our ideas to be more right there's still the real possibility that future generations will discover some of them to be completely wrong. This has been a correct prediction throughout history so nobody should be too confident that current theories are the correct ones.

There is no "insistence" anywhere. There are multiple branches of science and many scientists doing research from different angles.

There is nothing wrong with researching something with an idea in mind, but if that idea pervades your objectivity, then you are no longer... well... objective. Which is what science is about.

If that is your view then we are in agreement. There are however people who hold the view that only established ideas should be further researched and other ideas have no place in science. Of course this is a proven illogical view because it would exclude these same established ideas that were unestablished at one time from science.

"Non-believers?" You mean of intelligent design or religion or both?

You are, of course, welcome to patronise "some religious forums" instead. From what I can see, you began to froth about "dogmatic scientists" and alluding to some unknown agenda that you've only recently made apparent. I wouldn't call the "non-believers" (of which, I assume, I am a part) trolls when you've so kindly aided in provocation.

That comment would most likely be lost on the troll it was directed at that also made no contribution to the discussion besides trolling. Maybe I should have been specific when calling out one trolling statement but nowhere did I make a blanket statement of non-believers being trolls. That being said take a look at the group who in general made the most references to religion.

Though trivial the statement I made initially is true nonetheless so I don't see how you can see it as provocation. To fundamentalists (which we both know are on both sides of the camp) perhaps but not in general when I wasn't being specific.

Scientists make discovery that leads to better understanding of evolution -> Techne posts a thread implying evolution is wrong and should be abandoned. Yet cleverly does not give an alternative, just wants to create doubt in the minds of the uninformed.

Not what was posted. Assuming for the sake of argument it's wrong, why should anybody give an alternative?

/sorry for drifting off topic.

 

[Swa]

In the meantime more epigentics.

There are nucleotide bases, not just the usual 4 (ACGT).
Researchers Identify Seventh and Eighth Bases of DNA

And a new technique allows to gain more information about the sixth:
New Technique Reveals Unseen Information in DNA Code

This image shows the differences in atomic structure of the 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) molecule (left) from the 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) molecule in DNA against a background of sequences of DNA bases. Researchers at the University of Chicago, the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University of California, San Diego, and Emory University presented the first map of the 5-hmC genome at single base resolution. DNA modifications in 5-hmC play key roles in processes fundamental to life. (Credit: Chuan He)​

So all the research done on 4 bases or DNA is wrong?

Assuming this is accurate it has more to do with genetics itself than epigenetics. But it would explain alot. If 5-mC make genes less active and 5-hmC make genes more active a mutation from 5-mC to 5-hmC can cause cancer while at the same time ensure a higher replication rate like we see with cancers.

 

[Techne]

So all the research done on 4 bases or DNA is wrong?

No, just more information is added to the whole picture.

Assuming this is accurate it has more to do with genetics itself than epigenetics. But it would explain alot. If 5-mC make genes less active and 5-hmC make genes more active a mutation from 5-mC to 5-hmC can cause cancer while at the same time ensure a higher replication rate like we see with cancers.

Cytosine is the nucleic acid that gets methylated (into 5mC) and demethylated by various epigenetics-related processes. In some cancers there is an overall hypomethylation of the genome (such as breast cancer) while in others there is an over hypermethylation. The above-mentioned research is interesting in that it will add a layer in our understanding of not only the 5mC status of cancer cells but also the 5hmC status.

 

[Elimentals]

Bit late to the discussion but just a question

For me to debunk evolution you have to show.. correction prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that DNA damage gets repaired 100% in all generations following said damage/mutations/changes. If you do not repair it to its original form then evolution still exist, so in essence all they did was add another layer to it.

Am I wrong to think this, if so why?

 

[Techne]

Bit late to the discussion but just a question

For me to debunk evolution you have to show.. correction prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that DNA damage gets repaired 100% in all generations following said damage/mutations/changes. If you do not repair it to its original form then evolution still exist, so in essence all they did was add another layer to it.

Am I wrong to think this, if so why?

I don't know why you and others are under the impression that evolution may be "debunked" (whatever you think that means) by this kind of research.

A review does not necessarily imply a "debunking".

 

[Elimentals]

I don't know why you and others are under the impression that evolution may be "debunked" (whatever you think that means) by this kind of research.

A review does not necessarily imply a "debunking".

Sorry my bad then, thanx for putting me on my place.

 

[Swa]

No, just more information is added to the whole picture.


Cytosine is the nucleic acid that gets methylated (into 5mC) and demethylated by various epigenetics-related processes. In some cancers there is an overall hypomethylation of the genome (such as breast cancer) while in others there is an over hypermethylation. The above-mentioned research is interesting in that it will add a layer in our understanding of not only the 5mC status of cancer cells but also the 5hmC status.

Sorry but I don't understand. Are 5mC and 5hmC different DNA bases or not?

 

[Techne]

Sorry but I don't understand. Are 5mC and 5hmC different DNA bases or not?

You have the usual A, C, G and T. And then four more which are modified Cs.

5-methyl cytosine
5-hydroxymethyl cytosine
5-formyl cytosine
5-carboxyl cytosine

They are different, albeit modified versions of cytosine.

 

[unskinnybob]

Fine, I'll play.

And so? The "superstition" and "belief" you refer to was reinforced by the "fact" that it worked according to the method. According to current methods it doesn't work. Future methods may recognise our medicine as superstition.

Science is self correcting. As we make discoveries, we correct our mistakes. Science continually betters itself. Does religion?

Sure my belief is that science might be wrong therefor everything should be taken with a grain of salt where it matters.

Science doesn't require your "belief". It begs understanding. It doesn't claim knowledge or explanation where it has neither. Do you "believe" the bible could be wrong or do you reserve your scepticism for science?

Though we belief most of our ideas to be more right there's still the real possibility that future generations will discover some of them to be completely wrong.

Would you entertain the idea that all religion is nonsense? Or double standard again?

That comment would most likely be lost on the troll it was directed at that also made no contribution to the discussion besides trolling.

Yet another thread trying to nitpick at science in some vain effort to glorify or reinforce baseless religious belief.

Maybe I should have been specific when calling out one trolling statement but nowhere did I make a blanket statement of non-believers being trolls. That being said take a look at the group who in general made the most references to religion.

Silly argument is silly. OPs motive is well known. So - who's REALLY trolling?