I mentioned the one possible exception I know of earlier in the thread (comment 58):
1 Like
That is similar to a paper I read on increased mutation rates in derepressed genes:
The question is where else in the genome does IS5 insertion, and from my limited experience with transposon mutagenesis I would suspect that it inserts all over the place. This same mechanism would promote insertion into upregulated genes that are functioning just fine, and may even cause detrimental mutations in those genes.
This would probably fall under the banner of evolvability as @swamidass has discussed elsewhere.
2 Likes
I would agree with you IF you were more diligent in distinguishing between what Science-Without-God meant versus what Science-WITH-God means by randomness.
It seems everyone who discusses randomness with you comes away with the wrong information. Im asking you to be more careful-and-caring about what you say on a topic that is vitally important to Peaceful Science when you get it right.
Science doesnât distinguish between Science-Without-God and Science-with-God. Science is neutral on the question of God.
2 Likes
Go away. You are an atheist without any natural feeling for the topic im discussing.
No. Yes I do have natural feelings for the topic youâre discussing. Contempt, ridicule, scorn, are what comes to mindâŚ
I would also think epigenetic changes could be described as not being ENTIRELY random with respect to fitness, no?
Yes, that is right.
Outbreak of Asinine in Lane 2, Lane 2. Please hose it down.
So far, the atheists and agnostics on this thread have been very helpful. This comment was very dissapointing
2 Likes
The whole point is that I shouldnât have to distinguish between them when I simply discuss science. I think you are inserting âwithout Godâ where it doesnât belong.
What wrong information have I given? Can you give an example?
1 Like
There are many examples of epigenetic mechanisms that are not random with respect to fitness. Embryonic development is often dependent on specific sequences being methylated or demethylated at specific times. The impact of DNA methylation is very sequence dependent since it requires CpG islands near transcription start sites and proteins that change methylation patterns at specific CpG islands. Mutations in the CpG islands or proteins that affect methylation can change how methylation impacts phenotype.
It is also worth noting that there is no strong evidence for transgenerational inheritance of methylation patterns in humans, and in mammals in general if my understanding is correct. There are examples of epigenetic inheritance in some plants, such as Arabidopsis, but it doesnât appear to be a biology-wide phenomenon and is usually limited to a few phenotypes (again, if my understanding is correct). There are a few papers here and there which suggest that there might be epigenetic inheritance in humans, but the evidence is really weak and hotly contested. The reason that the evidence is weak is because they collect a bunch of data and then see if there is any correlation between any of the variables. It is really easy to find false correlations when you do this. On top of that, these studies donât evidence a mechanism, such as finding the methylation pattern responsible for the phenotype and finding evidence that this pattern is passed on in gametes.
2 Likes
Whenever you start talking about Randomness⌠if you dont identify your frame of reference (i.e. with God or without God) you unavoidably lead the reader into confusion.
1 Like
I think it is the opposite. When you entangle God or without God into a discussion about randomness and probability, it leads to confusion.
I leave it to the reader to determine for themselves how their theology fits with the science that is presented.
I doubt you would ever be able to convince @jongarvey of THAT notion!
Which leads to chaotic discussions and the misinterpretation that you are accurately representing Joshuaâs views.
Being a Stealth Atheist isnt doing any if us any favors!
I am representing my own views, and my stance is right next to my screen name.
I also think that I am following Joshuaâs views on how this forum works:
3 Likes
T_aquaticus is not stealthy at all, he has been open and clear about his non-beliefs. Stop with the anti-atheist labeling.
2 Likes
Part of the reason we have titles is to prevent stealthy nefariousness.
@gbrooks9 I see your discomfort. Rather than disputing their personal views, it will be more effective to contextualize them as personal views on how to understand science. I donât think anyone will object to this.
For the atheists/agnostics, you can help too. If @gbrooks9 or any one else comes at you, be clear what science is saying and how you personally inderstand it. Offer neutral science as the Common Ground and you will do a lot of good.
2 Likes