It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Human Genetics:Discovery to Change the Understanding of our DNA?

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 07:40 PM
Err Dont you guys have Entropy Backwards? The more Entropy you have the more disorder you have. Ice melting is an increase in Entropy going from an ordered solid state to a disordered liquid state.

From Wikipedia:
Entropy change has often been defined as a change to a more disordered state.
In recent years, entropy has been interpreted in terms of the "dispersal" of energy.

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:25 PM
polomontana, I think you have your understanding of information entropy slightly backwards. Information entropy is a measure of information gain from a random outcome. If we take your example of saying that variation in genes was 30% 2000 years ago and 10% now, then the entropy value (or information gain) of taking a random individual's genes now and inspecting them would be lower because there is less uncertainty in the outcome.

Also, information entropy doesn't always increase. Take an example of drawing randomly coloured balls from a container. If you don't replace the balls the information entropy will be less and less since there is less uncertainty about what colour ball you'll draw, until there is no uncertainty in the ball colour and the entropy value reaches zero.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:17 AM
You guys are proving my point. I explained it in a way that might have confused some. Shannon Entropy does decrease but with the increase of information things become more ordered. With entropy as it pertains to thermodynamics it increases and things become less ordered. It is believed as information increases things go from uncertain to certain, entropy as it pertains to thermodynamics doesn't decrease or things don't become more ordered. Lets take your example. Say we have 12 yellow balls and 12 orange balls in a bag. The information content that can be processed is high. Lets say you remove 3 balls of each color, then you have decreased the uncertainty and you have went from a less ordered state to a more ordered state because the uncertainty has decreased. The energy that you have used to process this information means that entropy as it pertains to thermodynamics has increased and things become more disordered. Information content is always high in a less ordered state. Again, if you have a puzzle with the pieces spread all over it's in a less ordered state than a puzzle with 2 pieces out of place. It's more information to be processed in a less ordered state and it takes energy and information to bring it into a more ordered state. So the increase of information = the increase in entropy.

Let's look at my example again. Say we go back 2,000 years and find out there was a 30% variation between genes at that time and now it's at 10%. This would be HUGE because it will prove Intelligent Design. This would mean that we are going from a less ordered state to a more ordered state. At this times science says entropy can't be reversed. They say things go from order to chaos. This would show as we process information we go from chaos to order. This would show that are collective genes were designed to work as a vast computer network that processes information. This is not a hypothesis, this is a theory that can be tested right now. If genes varied more 2,000 years ago then that would show Intelligent Design. Our genes would be the software that processes the information in the universe. Our brains would be like the CPU that processes signals from the software. Our brain could then recieve information about our arm, legs etc., just like a CPU receives information about the keybord and moniter.

This could also have implications when it comes to time, information and entropy. We know that people like Minkowski and Einstein said there is no distinction between past, present and future. So time as it pertains to relativity would be biologically designed computers processing information while the speed of light remains constant. So if you walk from your house to across the street, you are processing information within a 3-dimensional framework. Talk about the Matrix!! Your soul can actually be an informational construct that can exist in 10 different dimensions at the same time because you are just processing information. The material can exist in seperate dimensions of space-time but the construct can exist throughout all dimensions at once. This can be proven right now. We can test the variation between humans 2,000 years ago and we already have information about relativity, extra-dimensions and parallel worlds. So you could be in another dimension of space-time and in that world you are President of the United States. We would be seperated in space-time but the construct could process information in both worlds at the same time.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:13 AM
*sigh*

You're still not making sense.

Entropy has nothing to do with it, let alone information entropy. This especially pertains to Earth since it's an open system.

As I said before, your advocation for genetic homogeneity would lead to destruction of our species by viruses and bacteria that would thrive on our similarity. One might even surmise that the spread of HIV is so successful because we lack genetic diversity/variability.

Guess which sub-group of the human population is the oldest. Here's a hint: it would be the group that has lived for so long nearest to where our species originated.

That's right--it's the Africans. Why? Because that's where our species originated! How do we know this? Because Africans just so happen to sport the greatest amount of genetic variability of any human sub-group! They've had the most time of any sub-group to create this variability.

So, sorry, but if we went back 2,000 years, we'd find less variability--not more.

Remember, biodiversity is a good thing.

Also, do some research on population bottlenecks, especially the Toba catastrophe theory. Humans had a population bottleneck 70,000 years ago, and it's encoded within our genes.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:36 AM
To get this thread back on track, am I correct that Darwin's view of evolution is now wrong and Dawkins revision has been proven right by this finding. For a fuller explanation of why I think this see my above posts.

[edit on 4/12/06 by byhiniur]

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by byhiniur
To get this thread back on track, am I correct that Darwin's view of evolution is now wrong and Dawkins revision has been proven right by this finding. For a fuller explanation of why I think this see my above posts.

[edit on 4/12/06 by byhiniur]
Hmm...

I don't think "wrong" is the right word. I think "refined" would be better. It's a bit like how Einstein's theories replaced Newton's theories, but that didn't mean that Newton was wrong--just that his theories didn't apply to all cases. To put it another way, the analogy Dawkins : Darwin :: Einstein : Newton seems apropos.

[edit on 12/4/2006 by supercheetah]

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by supercheetah
To put it another way, the analogy Dawkins : Darwin :: Einstein : Newton seems apropos.

Dawkins isn't even a scientist, much less a theoretician... comparing Dawkins to Einstein is absurd. While there may be some validity to the idea that genes are the unit of evolution and selection... the view is entirely too simplistic.

But that's the point of Dawkin's simplifying and making things understandable to interested lay people for the most part. Most scientists don't take Dawkins as an authorative source on evolution. Gould, Lewontin, Shapiro, Foster, etc. All theoreticians and researchers whose ideas challenge Darwin's, but not Dawkins.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by kallikak

Originally posted by supercheetah
To put it another way, the analogy Dawkins : Darwin :: Einstein : Newton seems apropos.

Dawkins isn't even a scientist, much less a theoretician... comparing Dawkins to Einstein is absurd. While there may be some validity to the idea that genes are the unit of evolution and selection... the view is entirely too simplistic.

But that's the point of Dawkin's simplifying and making things understandable to interested lay people for the most part. Most scientists don't take Dawkins as an authorative source on evolution. Gould, Lewontin, Shapiro, Foster, etc. All theoreticians and researchers whose ideas challenge Darwin's, but not Dawkins.
He is a scientist. He's the same type of scientist as Jane Goodall--an ethologist (the study of animal behavior). A list of his work can be found here. What he isn't is an evolutionary biologist, which is probably what gets him into trouble with evolutionary biologists.

That said, he has studied evolution, and published some papers on the topic. And, resorting to his lack of credentials in evolutionary biology doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. That's nothing more than the fallacy of appealing to authority. This isn't to say that Dawkins is right in his theories. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists have had no compunction in poking holes with regards to The Selfish Gene. In fact, Gould himself was often seen in opposition to Dawkins regarding evolutionary theory, even though they were often staunch allies in defending science against pseudoscience--specifically Intelligent Design.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:49 PM
Why would we need to do all of that when we have a perfectly good fossil record, with nice fossils of anatomically modern humans, and very good dating techniques that already show us how far we go back? I think you are making this a little to complicated.

Originally posted by polomontana
I don't think this has anything to do with a selfish gene or gene survival. These genes get reproduced. What they are talking about is that 3 people can have different numbers of the same gene. I could have 4 copies, the next person 3 and the next person 2. The gene variation between human to human is a BOMBSHELL. Were not talking about gene reproduction but the copying of a gene from human to human.

This has implications for Quantum computing. This is a theory of mine that can be tested. Thermodynamics, information theory and chaos can all tie into this. I will start with an example, say you have a puzzle that has 2 pieces that's not in place. The puzzle is in an ordered state and there's a low information content that can be achieved so less energy input is needed when completing the puzzle. On the flip side, if the puzzle pieces are scattered all over the floor then it's in a less ordered state but the information that's available is much higher and it will take more energy imput to complete the puzzle. Say you go back 2000 years if my theory is correct there should be a greater gene variation between humans from that time period. That's because things like planes, cars and computers were not invented yet so they were in a less ordered state than we are but more information was present because the more chaos in a system means there's more information to be processed. This would show that are genes are actually behaving like a Quantum computer and constantly processing information. This would explain why there's a variation between each individual and this would also suggest that we are one. Many people in Spiritual circles have said we are one but we seem as though we are seperate. I think are genes are constantly computing. Also this is something to think about. Say we go back 2,000 years and there's a 30% variation between each human and now there's a 10% variation between each human. This would suggest that every thousand years we compute 10% of our information capacity. That would mean our species is 10,000 years old and we have 1,000 years before there's not any gene variation between humans. Maybe at this point we will transition from a type 0 to a type 1 civilization as theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku talks about or we will reach an Omega Point that Frank Tipler suggest and a universal computer that can simulate all of the information that has existed in our universe. This is just an example, if we were to verify that humans had a wider gene variation 2,000 years ago then there is today. Then we can calculate the rate that we process our information capacity and we can even calculate when there will not be any gene variation between us.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by polomontana]

[edit on 24-11-2006 by polomontana]

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by byhiniur
As I see it this is proof that Dawkins was correct to place the gene as the main bit of evolution... genes strive against each other, therefore it would be in their interest to replicate themselves many times in a strain of DNA in order to improve their chances of being carried on through reproduction.

I agree. But then, I'm a believer in gene-level selection myself.

And yes, like many other folk on this thread, I fail to see what all the big fuss is about. In practical terms, this discovery changes nothing; we're still the same apes we were before. It's a bit of an earthshaker for geneticists and microbiologists in general because they weren't expecting it, which probably explains the excitable tones in which they're talking about it, but until the real-world consequences and potentials become clearer I don't see why the rest of us should get our knickers in a twist.

polomontana, I don't see how this discovery can possibly have the consequences you claim for it. The context in which you make your claims -- one in which the word 'dominant' appears to have the same meaning in genetics as it does in bed -- does, however, go some way towards explaining your views.

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 05:22 AM

Originally posted by supercheetah

Originally posted by bihyniur
Am I correct that Darwin's view of evolution is now wrong...

I don't think "wrong" is the right word. I think "refined" would be better.

Just to clarify (or do I mean obfuscate?) my position, I agree with supercheetah too.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by Astyanax]

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:32 PM

Originally posted by supercheetah
[He is a scientist. He's the same type of scientist as Jane Goodall--an ethologist (the study of animal behavior). A list of his work can be found here. What he isn't is an evolutionary biologist, which is probably what gets him into trouble with evolutionary biologists.

A scientist isn't defined by the degrees they possess, they're defined by the research they do, and it's contribution to science in general. Sorry to break the news to you, but Dawkins hasn't done a lick of wet science in decades.

His position isn't even related to research science directly... he's a professor of science policy, as the reference you've linked clearly demonstrates. A professor of science policy is not a scientist. He might be if he bothered to pick up a pipette in three decades, but Dawkins is more busy using science as his personal bully pulpit.

That said, he has studied evolution, and published some papers on the topic. And, resorting to his lack of credentials in evolutionary biology doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.

It doesn't make him a scientist either.

That's nothing more than the fallacy of appealing to authority.

Ummm no it's not... it's simply pointing out that Dawkins isn't a scientist. He's a writer, plain and simple.

even though they were often staunch allies in defending science against pseudoscience--specifically Intelligent Design.

And here it is: Somehow, that Dawkins uses science to push his personal philosophical beliefs is somehow acceptable to you because you like his opinion.

I got news for you, bud. But Dawkins is just as bad as Dembski, et al., he's just on the opposite end of the spectrum. In both instances, non-RESEARCH-scientists are making not only judgements about the implications of research, but take it a step further and use it to support their personal notion of philosophic reality.

Both are equally reprehensible; because Dawkins is 'on the side of science' doesn't make it okay for him to abuse it.

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:55 PM

Originally posted by kallikak
A scientist isn't defined by the degrees they possess, they're defined by the research they do, and it's contribution to science in general. Sorry to break the news to you, but Dawkins hasn't done a lick of wet science in decades.

His position isn't even related to research science directly... he's a professor of science policy, as the reference you've linked clearly demonstrates. A professor of science policy is not a scientist. He might be if he bothered to pick up a pipette in three decades, but Dawkins is more busy using science as his personal bully pulpit.

You're right, he hasn't done much research lately, but just because he hasn't doesn't make all that education and experience just go away. Besides, that's like saying theoretical physicists aren't scientists either. His writings on evolution are as scientific as Stephen Hawking's writings on physics, who also doesn't do a lick of experimental research.

And here it is: Somehow, that Dawkins uses science to push his personal philosophical beliefs is somehow acceptable to you because you like his opinion.

I got news for you, bud. But Dawkins is just as bad as Dembski, et al., he's just on the opposite end of the spectrum. In both instances, non-RESEARCH-scientists are making not only judgements about the implications of research, but take it a step further and use it to support their personal notion of philosophic reality.

Both are equally reprehensible; because Dawkins is 'on the side of science' doesn't make it okay for him to abuse it.
Firstly, Dembski is a mathematician, which makes his background quite different from Dawkins, who would have actually had a formal education in biology as it relates to ethology/zoology. On top of that, he has also had the luxury of being published in science journals like Nature--not an easy feat, especially for Nature. Dembski's few publications are targeted at mathematicians and philosophers, not biologists, let alone other scientists.

I'm sure glad that scientists, both theoretical and experimental, make judgements about the implications of research, and then use it to "support their personal notion of philosophic reality." They, of all people, know their particular fields the best and the implications of the applications of their fields. On top of that, they're still human, and that means they understand a little bit of the human condition. No longer are scientists sitting down and letting the world destroy itself.

Is it really abuse to use science to back a philosophical position? People should do that more often. Creationists, including Dembski, don't even try.

PS Both Dawkins and Hawking do research, just not experimental (as in laboratory or observatory) research.

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:32 AM
Just a slight sidetrack, but when people say things like
"Human DNA is similar to chimpanzee DNA"
or
"Human DNA is very different from chimpanzee DNA"
this form of statement really annoys me.

Why?

Because it's a completley relative statement.

Sure, our DNA is very similar to a chimpanzee when compared to, say, a dog.

And our DNA is very different from a chimapzee when compared to a neandertol.

I know that nobody likes to write the other half of the relative statement, as it makes it long winded... but the whole statement is an oppinion until actually compared to something, and should be kept out of news, and scientific articles until they actually compare it, before saying it's like, or dislike something else.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by supercheetah
I'm sure glad that scientists, both theoretical and experimental, make judgements about the implications of research, and then use it to "support their personal notion of philosophic reality." They, of all people, know their particular fields the best and the implications of the applications of their fields. On top of that, they're still human, and that means they understand a little bit of the human condition. No longer are scientists sitting down and letting the world destroy itself.

Is it really abuse to use science to back a philosophical position?

It absolutely is abuse. Science and the scientific method are for answering science questions, not philosophical ones. Philosophical questions, by their very nature, are not testable, and fall outside of the realm of science. It's absolutely abusing your scientific credentials when you use science to support subjective philsophical ideas.

People should do that more often. Creationists, including Dembski, don't even try.

Are you insane? Perhaps... blind. Ummmm... I've got news for you... that's what Creation Science and Intelligent Design do... that's their entire purpose to offer scientific support for one's philosophical ideas. That's what makes them so reprehensible, and is indeed what makes the ideas of Dawkins, Harris, etc. so reprehensible. They do the exact same thing as Dawkins... it's just that they're on the other team. Because they're on your side doesn't make it okay.

PS Both Dawkins and Hawking do research, just not experimental (as in laboratory or observatory) research.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by supercheetah
You're right, he hasn't done much research lately, but just because he hasn't doesn't make all that education and experience just go away.

Okay then, by your standard, Jonathan Wells, The Morrises, etc. are all scientists... after all you can't take their education and training them. It apparently doesn't matter that what they publish isn't really science, after all, they did get a Ph.D.

Besides, that's like saying theoretical physicists aren't scientists either. His writings on evolution are as scientific as Stephen Hawking's writings on physics, who also doesn't do a lick of experimental research.

It's not like that at all... Theorhetical Physics is an entirely different field than biology. Indeed Stephen Hawking doesn't do any 'experimental' research. Let's all keep in mind that Stephen Hawking can't even speak, much less do bench science. Nonetheless, this hasn't prevented Stephen Hawking from delving quite deeply into the mathematical science of theorhetical physics. IOW, even if SH isn't doing 'bench science,' he is still making contributions by offering groundbreaking mathematics.

Dawkins ideas aren't groundbreaking, they're science journalism. IOW, he's a compiler, not a theorhetician.

Firstly, Dembski is a mathematician, which makes his background quite different from Dawkins, who would have actually had a formal education in biology as it relates to ethology/zoology. On top of that, he has also had the luxury of being published in science journals like Nature--not an easy feat, especially for Nature. Dembski's few publications are targeted at mathematicians and philosophers, not biologists, let alone other scientists.

Okay... so by your standard Dawkins is unqualified to evaluate molecular genetics evidence, physical chemistry, complex biochemical evidence etc. After all, he's a zoologist, and his publications and research were not focused on any of those topics.

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:41 PM

Originally posted by kallikak
It absolutely is abuse. Science and the scientific method are for answering science questions, not philosophical ones. Philosophical questions, by their very nature, are not testable, and fall outside of the realm of science. It's absolutely abusing your scientific credentials when you use science to support subjective philsophical ideas.

Philosophy gave rise to science, and helped it to progress. Why can science not help philosophy progress? Ever heard of philosophy of science? It studies how to define science, and the implications of of its findings. Sure, many philosophical positions aren't testable, but that doesn't mean that science can't give weight to one philosophical question or another. Are people who refuse blood tranfusions still considered rational?

that's what Creation Science and Intelligent Design do... that's their entire purpose to offer scientific support for one's philosophical ideas. That's what makes them so reprehensible, and is indeed what makes the ideas of Dawkins, Harris, etc. so reprehensible. They do the exact same thing as Dawkins... it's just that they're on the other team. Because they're on your side doesn't make it okay.

And the point is that Creation Science and Intelligent Design have no science behind them, and have contributed nothing to it. Dawkins and Harris can at least lay claim to using actual science.

Originally posted by kallikak
Okay then, by your standard, Jonathan Wells, The Morrises, etc. are all scientists... after all you can't take their education and training them. It apparently doesn't matter that what they publish isn't really science, after all, they did get a Ph.D.

Maybe, but that doesn't make them good scientists. Wells has two articles on PubMed. TWO! That's it, and neither have anything to do with ID. I don't know who of the Morrises you might referring to, but Henry Morris is a hydraulic engineer--a field not even related to biology--not to mention that engineers aren't always scientists.

It's not like that at all... Theorhetical Physics is an entirely different field than biology. Indeed Stephen Hawking doesn't do any 'experimental' research. Let's all keep in mind that Stephen Hawking can't even speak, much less do bench science. Nonetheless, this hasn't prevented Stephen Hawking from delving quite deeply into the mathematical science of theorhetical physics. IOW, even if SH isn't doing 'bench science,' he is still making contributions by offering groundbreaking mathematics.

Dawkins ideas aren't groundbreaking, they're science journalism. IOW, he's a compiler, not a theorhetician.

Stephen Hawking isn't the only theoretical physicist. The most influential physicist alive today, Ed Witten, is just a theoretical physicist. Indeed, theoretical physics is quite different from biology, but there are theoretical biologists who do about as much experimental work as their physics counter-parts!

Theoreticians don't need to be groundbreaking to make useful contributions. Witten has far fewer groundbreaking papers out than Hawkings, but overall, he's made far more useful contributions to physics than Hawkings has. I'm not vouching for the usefulness of Dawkins work, but some of it is far from just science journalism. The purpose of science journalism is to give non-scientists or non-specialists a high-level overview of the works of various scientists' works.

Okay... so by your standard Dawkins is unqualified to evaluate molecular genetics evidence, physical chemistry, complex biochemical evidence etc. After all, he's a zoologist, and his publications and research were not focused on any of those topics.
Quite possible, but that wasn't the argument here.

PS I admit, Dawkins can be a dick, but that doesn't mean that his work should just be dismissed.

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:59 AM
I can't access this article but I familiar with some of the research.

My understanding is that the addition of gene copies reflect a mutation process, and so potentially, evolution.

It's a mechanical explanation - part of each individual's uniqueness involves unique exposures - and exposures can cause mutations, ie., a new 'copy.'

This means that evolution is a responsive, immediate, and constantly ongoing process. ...A particularly important perspective when considering the impacts of pollution and environmental contamination.

.

new topics

top topics

0