It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Surprising Sea Slug Is Half-plant, Half-animal

page: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Last night I was angry at myself for not including this in the COP(commenting opening Post)
Please read the below article

The Art and Science of Sun Gazing - Living on Sunlight


Hira Ratan Manek (HRM), amongst others, has proven that a person can live just on solar energy for very long periods without eating any food. This has come to be known as the
HRM phenomenon.
The method is used for curing all kinds of psychosomatic and mental illnesses as well as increasing memory power and mental strength by using sunlight.

The HRM phenomenon is in fact a rediscovery of a scientific ritual, which was used to heal physical, mental, emotional and spiritual diseases in ancient times. Ancient Indians called this practice “Surya Namaskar,” (sun salutation), where ancient Egyptians and Americans called it Heliotherapy and Europeans called it Apollo therapy. In the Americas, the sun was also known as INTA.

www.scribd.com...


It's an interesting read however....



Currently, thousands are using this method and achieving results. In Brazil, Australia, Germany, more than 3000 people are practicing safe sun gazing to live on sunlight

Ummmm, anyone know if this is true?



Sungazing is a one-time practice, usually for a period of 9 months, or 44 minutes, of sun gazing. You can break up the practice into three phases: 0 to 3 months, 3-6 months and 6-9 months. After completing the sun gazing practice, you will then walk barefoot, 45 minutes daily [if you stop at 15 or 30 minutes of sungazing, you walk barefoot for the rest of your life; if you complete the full 44 minutes of sun gazing, then you walk barefoot for one year. Barefoot walking on bare earth anchors the solarized energies in your body, after which no further sun gazing or walking is required]. Food makes us commit acts of pain to others and exploit them. The practice of sun gazing entails looking at the rising OR setting sun once a day, only during the safe hours. No harm will come to your eyes during the morning and evening safe hours. Safe sun gazing hours occur anytime within the one-hour window after sunrise or anytime within the 1-hr window before sunset. It is scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that during these times, one is free from exposure to ultraviolet and infrared rays that are harmful to our eyes. To determine the time of sunrise or sunset, you can check the local newspaper, which also lists the UV Index as 0 during these times. Both times are good for practice - it depends on what is convenient for each individual. Sungazing also has the added advantage of producing vitamin D during the 1-hour safe period window. And if you sun gaze, the need for spectacles and their associated adjustments for the eye will go away. This method will provide better eyesight without glasses.


Same link

Of course not everyone should try this
But it's an interesting read nonetheless




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Really interesting stuff. I noticed they cannot yet produce the chloroplasts themselves. This will be a great one to watch for further proof of evolution because it seems in the interest of the slugs to develop the ability to make chloroplasts. Or maybe they'll incorporate the actual algae in the same way that mitochondria were incorporated.

Life gets more weird, more incredible and more inspiring with every discovery


[edit on 14-1-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by bsbray11
What determines the genes that are activated is the environment, and this is how organisms are able to evolve in direct relation to their environment. Different regulatory proteins are susceptible to different chemicals and direct EM signals, which are what trigger genes being turned "on" or "off," or whether they are actively producing proteins, or not.

And are these environmental effects not random?


Not really. Unless you call a decision to live in around a telephone pole that's giving off a lot of EM radiation "random," which maybe it would seem if you were ignorant of both facts (that the radiation exists and genes are susceptible to it). Which is why such radiation, even from cell phones, increases your risks of cancer. It also causes ionized proteins to prematurely close or open and form unnatural proteins that are not in your DNA, which also become cancer risks.

And when I say "environmental signals," I am talking about local to your actual body anyway, and local to the environment of your actual cells. Most signals that your cells are looking for to trigger genes, the most common signals, are from your own body. Which yes, you can actually control. And those include hormones and similar chemicals that are released by your brain and various ductless glands, food, etc. And when you are constantly in a negative thoughts it triggers chemical releases in your body that cause you to physically experience that feeling, and your cells also react to those chemicals as data to turn certain genes on or off. When you are constantly thinking positive thoughts, your body releases chemicals that also correspond to that, there is a physical difference (generally known as feeling "better" than in a sour mood), and your cells respond differently to that as well. I'll let you work out which is the healthier environment for the cells and which trigger more productive gene activation. Cells also respond to the chemicals you ingest from certain foods, even toxins. Virtually everything they come into contact with, they have a special receptor for it that causes a chain reaction inside the cell to activate or de-activate genes.

Things only appear random until you discover the actual order that is behind them. Why do you seem so focused on the idea that this process must be random?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What determines the genes that are activated is the environment, and this is how organisms are able to evolve in direct relation to their environment.


I believe you are specifically referring to adaption and not broadly evolution here.

Changing because the environment is known as adaptation.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I am talking about actual self-promoted changes in genetics and DNA by controlling the chemical environment of your body.

This is science that's on started to catch on since the 1980s, and we weren't taught this in high school (or at least I wasn't).



Watch the above presentation (the above video is part 1 but you can go on afterward) to get the idea.




Related (and pivotal) to this is the fact that the nucleus of the cell is not the controlling unit or "brain" of the cell. The cell membrane is. The nucleus is more equivalent to the reproductive organ of the cell which contains the blueprints for everything in the cell, and for all of the proteins which it needs to create in order to function.

The nucleus of a cell can be taken out and the cell will behave normally for up to and beyond 2 months.

The receptors on the cell membrane can be removed, however, and the cell will become totally unresponsive because it has no means to interact with the environment around it.

The membrane, and all of its receptors to outside signals, is what regulates everything that happens inside of the cell, including gene modification. Like I said, there are known self-modifier genes, and they don't modify genes only accidentally or at random, but are triggered by certain EM or chemical stimuli. There are also specific stimuli that will activate your cancer genes. The nucleus does not spontaneously decide to make all these decisions itself or at random, but is dependent upon the interactions at the cell membrane.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Unless you call a decision to live in around a telephone pole that's giving off a lot of EM radiation 'random'.

I don't think animals make decisions on where to live based on the availability of telephone poles. Animals get cancer too.

Besides, there were no telephone poles in the Cretaceous.


And when I say "environmental signals," I am talking about local to your actual body anyway, and local to the environment of your actual cells.

Surely 'the local environment of your actual cells' is influenced by signals from the external environment? Do you not agree that organisms interact with their environment, and that the nature of this interaction is defined by external stimuli?


Things only appear random until you discover the actual order that is behind them.

I am a determinist, certainly, but the world contains such a multiplicity of causes, as well as such a wealth of truly random effects (such as variations in flux density in an electromagnetic field, which pertains to your first example, and stochastic variations in the rate of decay of radioactive substances), that the external world presents itself to our senses as somewhat random and certainly unpredictable. Do you not agree?

Returning to our photosynthesizing sea-slug, here are a few things worth thinking about:
  • Gene transfer between species is quite common.

  • Our own genomes contain genes from other species, including viruses.

  • Such gene transfer may or not be naturally selected for, but the actual transfer is a random event, just as gene recombination in a cell is random.

  • That would certainly be the case with this sea-slug. The progenitor of its species would have been a mutant whose mutation enabled the incorporation of genetic material from the seaweed it ingested in this way. Since sea-slugs don't have much of a brain to think with, it's obvious that the progenitor slug didn't deliberately embark on a programme to alter its DNA. It was a random mutation; all mutations, apart from those created by human genetic engineers, are random.

I did not watch the video you posted. A popular lecture to a lay audience is worthless as science. If you have a link to any peer-reviewed publications by Lipton or his collaborators referring to this thesis, would you please post those instead? Thank you.

* * *

reply to post by sapien82
 


I still think that having a cancer gene is complete rubbish.

You are quite right. The idea is pseudoscientific nonsense. Cancer isn't one disease anyway, it's dozens. You'd need to have a gene for each kind.

[edit on 14/1/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

And when I say "environmental signals," I am talking about local to your actual body anyway, and local to the environment of your actual cells.

Surely 'the local environment of your actual cells' is influenced by signals from the external environment? Do you not agree that organisms interact with their environment, and that the nature of this interaction is defined by external stimuli?


Right. It's more like half of the determination of what a cell does is doing is determined by external stimuli at that point in time, and the other half is the genetics/DNA that it already has responding to the external stimuli as they are "programmed."


I am a determinist, certainly, but the world contains such a multiplicity of causes, as well as such a wealth of truly random effects (such as variations in flux density in an electromagnetic field, which pertains to your first example, and stochastic variations in the rate of decay of radioactive substances), that the external world presents itself to our senses as somewhat random and certainly unpredictable. Do you not agree?


It isn't really random when it is possible to discern a pattern between all various kinds of cancers and what increases risk of them, especially when we even know the exact mechanisms that lead to cells' losing functioning. Even when we can't predict instantaneous values for determining what kind of gauss is going to be around us at any given place with real certainty (because of so many sources of EM radiation around us), it still follows the general pattern that it adversely affects certain biological activities in our cells.


I did not watch the video you posted. A popular lecture to a lay audience is worthless as science.


So what are your qualifications?

The guy in the video is a Ph.D. in Developmental Cell Biology from UVA.

His papers:


Lipton, B. H. and I. R. Konigsberg 1972 A fine structural analysis of the fusion of myogenic cells. Journal of Cell Biology, 53:348-363.

Lipton, B. H. and A. G. Jacobson 1974 Analysis of normal somite development. Developmental Biology, 38:73-90.

Lipton, B. H. and A. G. Jacobson 1974 Experimental analysis of the mechanisms of somite morphogenesis. Developmental Biology, 38:91-103.

Konigsberg, U. R., B. H. Lipton and I. R. Konigsberg 1975 The regenerative response of single mature muscle fibers isolated in vitro. Developmental Biology, 45:260-275.

Phillips. M. H., M. S. Steinberg and B. H. Lipton 1977 Embryonic tissues as elastico-viscous liquids: II Direct evidence for cell slippage in centrifuged aggregates. Developmental Biology, 59:124-134.

Prior, D. J. and B. H. Lipton 1977 An ultrastructural study of peripheral neurons and associated non- neural structures in the bivalve mollusc, Spisula solidissima. Tissue and Cell, 9:223-240.

Lipton, B. H. 1977 A fine structural analysis of normal and modulated cells in myogenic culture. Developmental Biology, 60:26-47.

Lipton, B. H. 1977 Collagen synthesis by normal and bromodeoxyuridine-treated cells in myogenic culture. Developmental Biology, 61:153-165.

Schultz, E. and B. H. Lipton 1978 The effect of Marcaine on muscle and non-muscle cells in vitro. Anatomical Record, 191:351-370.

Lipton, B. H. 1979 Skeletal muscle regeneration in muscular dystrophy. Muscle Regeneration (A Mauro, et al, editors). Raven Press (New York). pp.31-40.

Lipton, B. H. and E. Schultz 1979 Developmental fate of skeletal muscle satellite cells. Science

205:1292-1924.

Emmerling, M. R., C. D. Johnson, D. F. Mosher, B. H. Lipton and J. E. Lilien 1981 Cross-linking and binding of fibronectin with asymmetric acetylcholinesterase. Biochemistry, 20:3242-3247.

Schultz, E. and B. H. Lipton 1982 Skeletal muscle satellite cells: Changes in proliferation as a function of age. Mechanisms of Aging and Development, 20:377-383.

Lipton, B. H., K. G. Bensch and M. A. Karasek 1991 Microvessel Endothelial Cell

Transdifferentiation: Phenotypic Characterization. Differentiation, 46:117-133.

Lipton, B. H, K. G. Bensch and M. A. Karasek 1992 Histamine-Modulated Transdifferentiation of Dermal Microvascular Endothelial Cells. Experimental Cell Research, 199:279-291

Lipton, B. H. 1998 The Evolving Science of Chiropractic Philosophy. Today’s Chiropractic 27(5):16-19

Lipton, B. H. 1998 Nature, Nurture and the Power of Love. Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health 13:3-10

Lipton, B. H. 1999 The Evolving Science of Chiropractic Philosophy. Part II Today’s Chiropractic, 28(6): 20-31

Lipton, B. H. 2001 Nature, Nurture and Human Development. Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health 16:167-180

Lipton, B. H. 2001 Insight into Cellular Consciousness. Bridges (ISSEEEM Org.) 12(1):5-9


www.brucelipton.com...

If you want to understand the basic ideas behind what he is saying, watch the video. I'm sure it will be no different than the technical data in those papers.


If you have a link to any peer-reviewed publications by Lipton or his collaborators referring to this thesis, would you please post those instead? Thank you.


There you go. Congratulations on being given this opportunity to expand your education; read up!


[edit on 15-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The guy in the video is a Ph.D. in Developmental Cell Biology from UVA.

That means nothing. Lots of scientists lose their marbles and go off the rails into pseudoscience. Let's have a look at the work, shall we?


By the way, the picture we're getting so far is of a not-very-inspired researcher diligently gleaning nuggets of this and that as he plods through the minutiae of cellular biology. Hardly a daring, original thinker. But let's continue; I'm sure all that will change.

In conclusion, you have helped me waste a great deal of time, and we are none the wiser. Your Dr. Lipton has not tested his ideas through experiment. He hasn't done any science since 1992; or, at any rate, he hasn't published anything since then. For all I know he may be correct when he says that cellular membranes have a strong regulatory function with respect to cellular behaviour (I wouldn't know), but nothing in his work supports the statements you were making. Clearly he lost the plot some time in the Nineties--or else he decided science was a mug's game and went on to a more lucrative career as a pseudoscientific con artist. His web site strongly suggests the latter. Well, I'm not conned.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


What is your college/university major?

I could tell from your very first response that you had no intention of learning anything new here. Of course, I am not seeing a different pattern now; you are hell-bent on discrediting this guy that you just learned about. Have you watched that YouTube presentation yet? Debunk it. There does not have to be any new research to come to the same conclusions Dr. Lipton came to.

Watch the video I linked. Not only is it relevant but he talks science the whole way through, and (surprise!) none of the research his work relies on is new. Cells can survive without a nucleus, but become unresponsive immediately when the receptors on their membranes are removed. That is a long-established biological fact demonstrated by numerous experiments. From there he simply directs his research towards functions of the cell membrane. Which includes a specific known biological process that starts at the cell membrane and results in genetic modification. If you want specifics on all of this, just watch the damned video.

This guy is trying to offer you a service as a scientist by relating this information to you, but you decided from the start that you didn't want anything to do with it even though you haven't debunked a damn thing about it. It's really baffling to me how painful it can be for some people to learn new information. It's as if new information is a threat to you that you must combat with all your energy. And don't say you're being rational because you haven't even addressed what the scientist is actually saying, you have intentionally avoided that while trying to attack him anyway.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


chloroplasts, photosynthesis.. isn't that one most smartest en most convient way to harvest energy. damm, why don't we have chloroplasts? :-( We failed lol



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I could tell from your very first response that you had no intention of learning anything new here... you are hell-bent on discrediting this guy... If you want specifics on all of this, just watch the damned video... you decided from the start that you didn't want anything to do with it... It's really baffling to me how painful it can be for some people to learn new information. It's as if new information is a threat to you... And don't say you're being rational... you haven't even addressed what the scientist is actually saying, you have intentionally avoided that while trying to attack him anyway.

Ask a question, get a rant. Or is it a lament? Hard to tell.

Rewind a bit. You said the sea slug's having integrated one plant gene and not the others into its genome showed that mutation wasn't random. I asked you how it proved that. You replied as follows:


What determines the genes that are activated is the environment, and this is how organisms are able to evolve in direct relation to their environment. Different regulatory proteins are susceptible to different chemicals and direct EM signals.

Except for the bit about electromagnetic 'signals', this is an accurate description of gene expression -- turning genes you already have on and off. Mutation, though, is a completely different process. Mutation is about changing or destroying the gene itself. And yes, it does involve electromagnetic triggers--some of the time.

Mutation is triggered by many external factors: poisons, carcinogens, electromagnetic radiation (which you mentioned earlier, but which the human body does not produce in appreciable quantities--we're not candles or radio transmitters) and so on. So I asked you, then: since the environment is full of random happenings, aren't environmental triggers random? You gave me this:


  1. Not really. Unless you call a decision to live in around a telephone pole that's giving off a lot of EM radiation "random".

  2. And when I say "environmental signals," I am talking about local to your actual body anyway, and local to the environment of your actual cells. Most signals that your cells are looking for to trigger genes, the most common signals, are from your own body.

The first point was, as we saw, easily refuted. As for the second: are you saying that some cells in your body exude chemicals that make other cells mutate? That's pretty novel. What evolutionary pressures caused nature to come up with that one, do you think?

Anyway, that was your explanation to me. It was not by any means a successful explanation, but really, that is the worst that could be said of it; one could put it all down to a slight scientific misunderstanding.

But you didn't stop there, did you?


(Signals from your body) which yes, you can actually control.

At that point, I understood that I was dealing with faith healing, not science. Had I doubted it, you then provided the confirmation:


And when you are constantly in a negative thoughts it triggers chemical releases in your body that cause you to physically experience that feeling, and your cells also react to those chemicals as data to turn certain genes on or off.

Meaning: 'negative' thoughts give you cancer. And:


When you are constantly thinking positive thoughts, your body releases chemicals that also correspond to that, there is a physical difference (generally known as feeling "better" than in a sour mood), and your cells respond differently to that as well. I'll let you work out which is the healthier environment for the cells and which trigger more productive gene activation. Cells also respond to the chemicals you ingest from certain foods, even toxins. Virtually everything they come into contact with, they have a special receptor for it that causes a chain reaction inside the cell to activate or de-activate genes.

I quote the passage in full because it shows how thoroughly you have confused gene expression with mutation. You leap nimbly from one to the other without even noticing the crevasse beneath your feet. But for all that your meaning is, simply: 'positive' thoughts keep you healthy.

Now this is all well and good, but hardly what you might call news; people have been saying stuff like this since the yogis, and it may even be true for all anyone knows to the contrary. If it was true, though, you'd expect to see wicked and miserable people living short, diseased lives, and cheery, sunny-natured bien-pensants living till the last cow comes home--but, strangely enough, you don't see that. Rupert Murdoch in all his decrepit pomp refutes, singlehandly, your hypothesis.

But never mind all that. In a spirit of--yes--open-mindedness, I asked you for some evidence. You directed me to a video originally posted in reply to someone else. So I asked you for some science. Instead of sending me something of relevance (clearly the video was your best shot there) you snowed me with your chum Dr. Lipton's entire bibliography. Now that's (1) a sign that you aren't really trying very hard to be persuasive, (2) you hope to impress or silence me with the sheer volume of material quoted, and (3) you are not a very courteous or thoughtful person. Well, I looked through your 'sources' and find that none of the peer-reviewed ones relates in the slightest way to your statements above. In other words, you tried a con job on me. It didn't work, so now you're trying Skeptic Deflection Strategy #2: accuse the questioner of narrow-mindedness and refusal to consider new ideas.

Your accusations are of no relevance to the points we are discussing. Explain to me--taking care to distinguish between gene expression and mutation--how triggers for the latter are not random. Then, if you would care to, explain (as you still have not) how the fact that a sea slug incorporates one plant gene and not another supports your explanation.

Absent any such, another hilarious outburst of j'accuse will be almost as entertaining. But I don't think it will do the line you are promoting much good.

[edit on 16/1/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
You said the sea slug's having integrated one plant gene and not the others into its genome showed that mutation wasn't random.


And how exactly would you explain a random mutation into a slug that happens to be half plant due to entirely new plant genes being incorporated into its genome? An amazing and bizarre coincidence? Do you know how much information is in a single gene?


Except for the bit about electromagnetic 'signals', this is an accurate description of gene expression -- turning genes you already have on and off.


EM radiation has been proven to influence ionized protein chains in your cells, which is exactly why cell phone usage can cause cancer.


Mutation, though, is a completely different process. Mutation is about changing or destroying the gene itself. And yes, it does involve electromagnetic triggers--some of the time.


And also very common is gene modification resulting from biological triggers within the cell.


So I asked you, then: since the environment is full of random happenings, aren't environmental triggers random? You gave me this:


  1. Not really. Unless you call a decision to live in around a telephone pole that's giving off a lot of EM radiation "random".

  2. And when I say "environmental signals," I am talking about local to your actual body anyway, and local to the environment of your actual cells. Most signals that your cells are looking for to trigger genes, the most common signals, are from your own body.

The first point was, as we saw, easily refuted.


Where did you refute that EM radiation doesn't affect genes?


"The question Is not" If cell phone radiation can cause DNA damage!
Below images prove without question it can! "The question is"
Can your body repair DNA damage without mutating genes?

Dr. Lai and Singh found double-strand DNA breaks after RF exposure similar to Cell Phone levels.

A Comet Tail Of Your DNA From RF Exposure Below Current FCC Safe Exposure Standards




www.rfsafe.com...


Dr. Henry Lai's Vienna Report on RFR Bioeffects
(October 25-28, 1998)

"As described in a later section, we found that a single episode of RFR exposure increases DNA damage in brain cells of the rat. Definitely, DNA damage in cells is cumulative. Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RFR could be a stress response [Lai, 1992; Lai et al., 1987a]. Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes when the stress persists." - From This document

"Since nerve cells do not divide and are not likely to become cancerous, more likely consequences of DNA damage in nerve cells are changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Double strand breaks, if not properly repaired, are known to lead to cell death. Indeed, we have observed an increase in apoptosis (a form of cell death) in cells exposed to RFR (unpublished results). However, another type of brain cells, the glial cells, can become cancerous, resulting from DNA damage." - From This document


www.feb.se...



As for the second: are you saying that some cells in your body exude chemicals that make other cells mutate?


Not mutate but they frequently change gene expression, and yes, that is a documented fact. It's how cells from different parts of the body "communicate" with each other to perform functions in organs or whatever the case may be. Hormones and other chemicals your body releases from various places influence many different cells in many different ways.



At that point, I understood that I was dealing with faith healing, not science.


Faith healing works and it IS documented science. It's called the "placebo effect." You will probably trash talk the placebo effect down but it is exactly what you apparently think is impossible: your body healing itself based on the belief that it is healing. It's that simple. And is the placebo effect real? Yes. And does it cause people to heal faster than control samples? Yes.



Meaning: 'negative' thoughts give you cancer.


Very, very close, actually:


Pessimism Works against Cancer Cure
by Richard Schulz, Ph.D., Jamila Bookwala, Ph.D., Judith E. Knapp, Ph.D., Michael Scheier, Ph.D. & Gail M. Williamson, Ph.D.

A study that takes a more focused approach to the possible links between psychological factors and cancer survival, looking specifically at the influence of optimism and pessimism, has identified pessimism as an important risk factor for morality in cancer patients under the age of 60.

The study, "Pessimism, Age, and Cancer Mortality," followed 238 patients with metastasized or recurrent cancer who were receiving radiation treatment for palliation of symptoms. Half of the participants were male and half were female; the vast majority were white.

The most prevalent form of cancer among them was cancer of the lung or breast, the least common were colorectal and gastrointestinal cancers. Assessments of the patients' optimism, pessimism and level of depression were taken when they entered the study and again four months and eight months later. Seventy patients had died by the eight-month follow-up.

The researchers found that while there was no significant association between optimism or depression and survival or mortality, regardless of patient age, there was a definite association between pessimism and mortality, but only for those patients under 60.

The authors note that optimism and pessimism are not the opposite sides of the same coin -- a person can lack optimism but not be pessimistic and vice-versa.

"Our findings," the authors write, "indicate that the endorsement of a pessimistic life orientation may function as an important risk factor for mortality among younger (ages 30-59) cancer patients."


www.selfhelpmagazine.com...



I quote the passage in full because it shows how thoroughly you have confused gene expression with mutation. You leap nimbly from one to the other without even noticing the crevasse beneath your feet. But for all that your meaning is, simply: 'positive' thoughts keep you healthy.


You don't have to change actual DNA to drastically change the way genes are expressed and cells function.



But never mind all that. In a spirit of--yes--open-mindedness, I asked you for some evidence. You directed me to a video originally posted in reply to someone else.


That you refused to watch. So much for open-mindedness. Even though I posted it in response to someone else it was still relevant to what you were asking.

Btw you never say in this response that you finally watched it. So I guess you still haven't. Geez, you are so damned open-minded.


So I asked you for some science. Instead of sending me something of relevance (clearly the video was your best shot there) you snowed me with your chum Dr. Lipton's entire bibliography.


That was in response to you asking for papers that he had published. I found a list and posted it. Who are you to say they're unrelated to any of his work that I am referencing? Are you an expert biologist, or what is your major again? I notice you avoided answering, and I know you didn't actually read through all of those papers. But you don't have to. What I am saying is not absurd and you can find references for most/all this stuff on Google if you spend 10 seconds doing a search.


Then, if you would care to, explain (as you still have not) how the fact that a sea slug incorporates one plant gene and not another supports your explanation.


According to you the gene mutated in its entirety in the slug randomly, so who do you think has more work cut out for them?


Absent any such, another hilarious outburst of j'accuse will be almost as entertaining. But I don't think it will do the line you are promoting much good.


You know what's really entertaining to me, is when adolescents get online to make contests out of discussions and always post with a tone like Cartman pretending he's an intellectual.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Here is something else for you all to read that comes right out of the OP's article:



The slugs accomplishment is quite a feat, and scientists aren't yet sure how the animals actually appropriate the genes they need.

"It certainly is possible that DNA from one species can get into another species, as these slugs have clearly shown," Pierce said. "But the mechanisms are still unknown."


www.livescience.com...


Different species swapping genes is known as "horizontal gene transfer":


Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g. its parent or a species from which it evolved.

Most thinking in genetics has focused upon vertical transfer, but there is a growing awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a highly significant phenomenon, and amongst single-celled organisms perhaps the dominant form of genetic transfer. Artificial horizontal gene transfer is a form of genetic engineering.


en.wikipedia.org...


With your understanding of genetics, Astyanax, by what you are arguing, would you honestly tell me that you would believe me if I told you there was an animal with plant genes, before this discovery? I don't think so. You would probably use the great wisdom you derive from known science to declare it impossible, since (1) there is no known mechanism, (2) no precedent, and (3) you apparently would rather believe all genetic manipulations that affect cell function or the organism itself are only random and never guided by higher processes in biology.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Originally posted by Astyanax
You said the sea slug's having integrated one plant gene and not the others into its genome showed that mutation wasn't random.

And how exactly would you explain a random mutation into a slug that happens to be half plant due to entirely new plant genes being incorporated into its genome? An amazing and bizarre coincidence?

'Mutation into'? Mutation 'due to entirely new genes being incorporated?' Gosh, you really don't know the first thing about evolution, do you?

If you did, you would understand easily enough how phenotypic changes in a species result from random mutation events. There is nothing to explain. I am still waiting for you to explain how it isn't random. This is the third time of asking.


EM radiation has been proven to influence ionized protein chains in your cells, which is exactly why cell phone usage can cause cancer.

You are still confusing mutation with gene expression.


And also very common is gene modification resulting from biological triggers within the cell.

Oh, so now cells give themselves cancer? In a nonrandom way? Wow.


Where did you refute that EM radiation doesn't affect genes?

I did not. You claimed that environmental effects on genes weren't random because 'the decision to live next to a telephone line' isn't random. That's the point I 'easily refuted'.

I will not comment on the off-topic piffle you posted about mobile phones and cancer. We are discussing gene transfer between species here, not your favourite pseudoscientific hobby-horse.




Originally posted by Astyanax
As for the second: are you saying that some cells in your body exude chemicals that make other cells mutate?

Not mutate but they frequently change gene expression, and yes, that is a documented fact.

It may be a documented fact, but what the devil has it got to do with mutation, the topic under discussion here?

Likewise, what have your faith-healing theories got to do with the topic, or with the questions I asked?


Who are you to say (the papers I listed in my earlier post) were unrelated to any of his work that I am referencing?


Are you an expert biologist, or what is your major again? I notice you avoided answering, and I know you didn't actually read through all of those papers.

I read the abstracts, which is all that is necessary.

You seem very curious about my qualifications. You will be delighted to learn that the towers of biological academia echoed with sighs of relief when I opted to follow an honours degree (not a 'major') in physics instead. That was nearly thirty years ago and I have since developed a very strong interest in evolutionary biology. Indeed I am no biologist, but I have quite enough knowledge to be able to read the abstracts of the papers you referenced and to comprehend them sufficiently to see that they were not relevant to the discussion. Your questioning of this reveals (rather embarrassingly for you) that you, on the other hand, do not have such knowledge and do not understand them. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question; you wouldn't have posted those references, either, because you'd have known they were irrelevant.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Then, if you would care to, explain (as you still have not) how the fact that a sea slug incorporates one plant gene and not another supports your explanation.

According to you the gene mutated in its entirety in the slug randomly, so who do you think has more work cut out for them?

Imprimis: I do not think any such thing. You are clearly quite ignorant of the mechanisms of both mutation and intraspecific gene transfer. Item: it does not matter who has 'more work cut out for them'. You made a certain assertion; I questioned it. You have yet to answer my question. The reason why is now manifest; you haven't answered it because you don't have a clue where to begin. You don't even understand the question.

* * *

Edit to add: Might as well deal with this, too, before I sign off.


Originally posted by bsbray11
With your understanding of genetics, Astyanax, by what you are arguing, would you honestly tell me that you would believe me if I told you there was an animal with plant genes, before this discovery? I don't think so.

Why not? Genetic engineers do things like this all the time, so it's obviously not impossible in practice. And if you'd bothered to look at the links I posted earlier, you'd have seen that one was about spontaneous gene transfer between bacteria both directly and via plasmids, and the second was about how our own genomes contain genetic matter from long-vanished viruses--genes incorporated by our proto-human ancestors before mankind even came to be.


You apparently would rather believe all genetic manipulations that affect cell function or the organism itself are only random and never guided by higher processes in biology.

I never said that, or anything remotely like it. Take the blinkers off your hobby-horse and try to understand my words as they are written, instead of reading your own concerns and prejudices into them. What I said is that mutation is caused by random external events. And so it is. Genetic engineering is the only exception to the rule, though from the viewpoint of the genome being engineered, it is still a random, external event.

And here, I am sorry to say, is where our conversation ends. I have been very patient with you, but my patience is not infinite.

[edit on 17/1/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


this sort of reminds Me of the Godzilla opponent Biolante,who was part flowering plant and part Godzilla.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by MDSJR1967]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
'Mutation into'? Mutation 'due to entirely new genes being incorporated?' Gosh, you really don't know the first thing about evolution, do you?

If you did, you would understand easily enough how phenotypic changes in a species result from random mutation events. There is nothing to explain. I am still waiting for you to explain how it isn't random. This is the third time of asking.


So in other words, no, you can't explain how a random mutation just happens to perfectly match plant genes. I guess you are saying it's just a coincidence that it happened to mutate into plant genetics?



EM radiation has been proven to influence ionized protein chains in your cells, which is exactly why cell phone usage can cause cancer.

You are still confusing mutation with gene expression.


The phenomenon affects both genes and the DNA itself. If you're not going to bother to read the sources I post then there is not much use trying to have a discussion with you in the first place. I am seeing way too much selective reading and responding here.



Where did you refute that EM radiation doesn't affect genes?

I did not. You claimed that environmental effects on genes weren't random because 'the decision to live next to a telephone line' isn't random. That's the point I 'easily refuted'.


You might want to think about how easy your refutation was considering there is a definitive association between increased cancer rates and exposure to a increasing amounts of of EM radiation. If you see those kinds of measurable risks as "random" then there's not much I can do to further illustrate the patterns here. There is a source for any environmental effect. Randomness does not have a pattern.


I will not comment on the off-topic piffle you posted about mobile phones and cancer. We are discussing gene transfer between species here, not your favourite pseudoscientific hobby-horse.


You won't comment on it because it shows what EM radiation does to DNA with photos, and you can't argue with them? When I post something that is relevant and does illustrate something I am talking about (effects of EM radiation on genetics), you refuse to even respond to it. At some point you have to come clean with yourself and realize you are not being open-minded or intellectually honest by skipping and ignoring these things.



Not mutate but they frequently change gene expression, and yes, that is a documented fact.

It may be a documented fact, but what the devil has it got to do with mutation, the topic under discussion here?


You were the one that asked if I meant chemical exchanges between cells resulted in mutation. I said no.


Likewise, what have your faith-healing theories got to do with the topic, or with the questions I asked?


You were the one to bring it up first with "At that point, I understood that I was dealing with faith healing, not science." Thus the digression. You have a lot of preconceptions, and I am addressing them all at once, because in your mind they all reinforce each other as wrong as they may be individually. You think there is nothing to "faith healing" yet the placebo effect proves otherwise. It is all about belief, simply believing the sugar pill is working.



Who are you to say (the papers I listed in my earlier post) were unrelated to any of his work that I am referencing?


Are you an expert biologist, or what is your major again? I notice you avoided answering, and I know you didn't actually read through all of those papers.

I read the abstracts, which is all that is necessary.


Which is all that is necessary for what? An extremely vague understanding? You still haven't told me what your qualifications in biology are in the first place that you can definitively state what is and is not related to Dr. Lipton's work and research.


Indeed I am no biologist, but I have quite enough knowledge to be able to read the abstracts of the papers you referenced and to comprehend them sufficiently to see that they were not relevant to the discussion. Your questioning of this reveals (rather embarrassingly for you) that you, on the other hand, do not have such knowledge and do not understand them. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question; you wouldn't have posted those references, either, because you'd have known they were irrelevant.


I honestly did not even read through the titles of the papers, I just found the list on his website and pasted it because I happened to know that this guy has actually done research with various institutions and he references his work when he is talking about what he talks about (I assume thus far that you still have not watched his presentation). But even if all of those papers are irrelevant to this work, it is also therefore irrelevant to whether or not the work in question is valid. So you might as well drop it because you aren't going to prove him wrong by repeatedly telling me that none of those papers have anything to do with his work.


Imprimis: I do not think any such thing. You are clearly quite ignorant of the mechanisms of both mutation and intraspecific gene transfer.


Then how exactly do YOU think this happened?

This will be interesting considering even the scientist in the article said we don't know the answer to that question.


Item: it does not matter who has 'more work cut out for them'.


It does when you want to measure your theory up to mine.


You made a certain assertion; I questioned it. You have yet to answer my question. The reason why is now manifest; you haven't answered it because you don't have a clue where to begin. You don't even understand the question.


You're right, I don't even know what your "question" is, so it goes without saying I would not answer it. Your first question was answered but that led on to all of this and you are really having fun with the rhetoric in your posts. You keep posting like I don't know what the difference is between mutation and genetic expression yet "mutation" (DNA change as I have been referring to it) is exactly what happened to this slug, yet to say it was completely random is say that it was an enormous coincidence.



Originally posted by bsbray11
With your understanding of genetics, Astyanax, by what you are arguing, would you honestly tell me that you would believe me if I told you there was an animal with plant genes, before this discovery? I don't think so.

Why not? Genetic engineers do things like this all the time, so it's obviously not impossible in practice.


This was not genetically engineered, it was found in nature, so I take it that is your own back-handed way of admitting that you wouldn't otherwise believe such a thing.


And if you'd bothered to look at the links I posted earlier, you'd have seen that one was about spontaneous gene transfer between bacteria both directly and via plasmids, and the second was about how our own genomes contain genetic matter from long-vanished viruses--genes incorporated by our proto-human ancestors before mankind even came to be.


And was this DNA modification random or resulting from biological processes?


I never said that, or anything remotely like it. Take the blinkers off your hobby-horse and try to understand my words as they are written, instead of reading your own concerns and prejudices into them. What I said is that mutation is caused by random external events. And so it is. Genetic engineering is the only exception to the rule, though from the viewpoint of the genome being engineered, it is still a random, external event.


I'm not talking about spontaneous, random mutations in regard to the slug and I'm not talking about genetic engineering either. But the DNA sequence itself was still changed.

As far as the rest you can just watch the presentation and tell me what problems you have with it. If you still refuse to even watch it, when all it is, is a scientist presenting new research and theories of biology, then that should tell you something.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I honestly did not even read through the titles of the papers, I just found the list on his website and pasted it.

That pretty much sums up the level of intellectual rigour you have demonstrated throughout. Have a nice day.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


And once again you demonstrate that your modus operandi of addressing my posts has been selectively reading and completely ignoring most of what I post.



To summarize:

1) This slug's DNA sequence was changed when it became "half animal/half plant."

2) The DNA sequence was changed by incorporating entire plant genes into its own genome.

3) You cannot explain how such a thing is a "random mutation" aside from an astronomical coincidence and neither does the article the OP posted support such an idea. Yet the DNA sequence itself was changed, by some biological process, though the OP article also admits the process is still unknown.

4) Also, EM radiation affects DNA chains and genes, as demonstrated in images above, which should be common sense considering what an EM field is and what ionized proteins are that make up your cells. However I am not saying this has anything to do with the slug, you just felt like arguing with me about the general idea.


I will have a wonderful day.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again you demonstrate that your modus operandi of addressing my posts has been selectively reading and completely ignoring most of what I post.

That is because most of what you post is irrelevant. We are not talking about gene expression in this thread. We are not talking about faith healing. We are not talking about cures for cancer.

We are talking about mutation.

You stated that the sea slug's incorporation of plant genes into its own genome 'destroys the idea that genetic mutation is random.' I asked you how it did that. Your replies have not addressed the question. Instead, you talk about gene expression (something completely different from mutation), the effects of electromagnetic radiation on animal cells, faith healing and other off-topic matters.

Your only relevant response to my question is that useful mutation looks too unlikely to be random. And here you are, repeating it again:


This slug's DNA sequence was changed... by incorporating entire plant genes into its own genome. You cannot explain how such a thing is a 'random mutation' aside from an astronomical coincidence.

At least this response is on topic. But it is also wrong. It is the sort of claim a Biblical creationist would make.

If you really had any idea of how natural selection works, you would know it was wrong. The coincidence is not astronomical. Mutation is a random process but evolution is not. And I'm sorry, but I will not explain that any further. There is nothing exotic about it, just standard evolutionary theory. If you are curious about it, read a book.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated. Mutation is a random process, and this applies as well to photosynthesizing sea-slugs as it does to anything else.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again you demonstrate that your modus operandi of addressing my posts has been selectively reading and completely ignoring most of what I post.

That is because most of what you post is irrelevant. We are not talking about gene expression in this thread. We are not talking about faith healing. We are not talking about cures for cancer.


I have already responded to this. YOU were the first one to mention faith healing and derail onto a number of other topics to which I then responded. You only call it irrelevant once I correct you and you don't want to mention anything else about it, ie "faith healing" being real and falling under the science of "placebo effect." Now that it's self-obvious that the "placebo effect" works on simply BELIEVING you are healing, and there is no way to logically dispute this, you don't want to hear about it anymore. It's like you're allergic to it now. It may be irrelevant, but you brought it up, and it just goes to demonstrate how you plug your ears immediately when you are shown information you don't want to see, or connections are made that you don't want to see made, that cripple your pre-conceptions about "faith healing" or etc.


We are talking about mutation.


You were also the first one to bring up "mutation." I am talking about DNA changes that are still not understood according to the OP's article. Do you understand THAT? (No, didn't think so.)


You stated that the sea slug's incorporation of plant genes into its own genome 'destroys the idea that genetic mutation is random.' I asked you how it did that. Your replies have not addressed the question.


If that's what you think then let me repeat myself again so maybe this time you will catch my response (I can only cross my fingers, right?). You are suggesting that a slug RANDOMLY incorporated plant genes into genome. Which is to say, no ordered biological process involved, no plants involved, just a MUTATION of the DNA sequence that resulted in the slug having plant multiple genes. This is my response to your assertion. First of all, the scientists in the OP don't agree with you. They say the mechanism in question here is still unknown to them. Secondly, the chances of a DNA sequence mutating exactly genes known to us as "plant genes" completely at random is severely astronomically improbable. Maybe you don't realize how much information is encoded into even a single gene. You have repeatedly IGNORED these statements when I make them.

Would you like to demonstrate how an animal can RANDOMLY MUTATE (on its own) genes into its genome from other species? (Again, no, not expecting a straight answer to this at all....)


Instead, you talk about gene expression (something completely different from mutation), the effects of electromagnetic radiation on animal cells, faith healing and other off-topic matters.


And for the upteenth time, YOU brought up faith healing and the argument about EM radiation not effecting genes. Now you say they are irrelevant because you realize your assumptions ('faith healing can't work,' 'EM radiation can't effect genes/DNA') were wrong, not only are you erroneously complaining about me being "irrelevant," but you're using that to avoid addressing what the OP is about, and being relevant in the first place.

Is a slug incorporating plant genes a form of GENE EXPRESSION?

The obvious answer is "no." Because it entailed the actual DNA sequence changing, ie the ADDITION of new plant genes.

This is easy enough for an elementary schooler to understand, so I wonder how long you will keep weaseling around these unpleasant facts or whether you will just admit this is an unknown mechanism and NOT random mutation. It must take too much of a man to stop mid-stream in this conversation and admit error, or just not really knowing the answer here. The scientists in the OP did not say this was a random mutation and you have yet to demonstrate how this could be a random mutation. You have only said you didn't need to demonstrate it, it just goes without saying, which is total bull and a logical fallacy. It's no different than a Christian using circular logic saying they don't have to prove the legitimacy of the Bible because the Bible proves it itself. So it's funny you brought up Christianity because you are projecting your own "logic." Not even the scientists in the OP agree with you so that should be your first clue that it is NOT self-evident that this was a "random mutation." First clue. Real scientists aren't seeing your logic, as obvious as it "should" be.


If you really had any idea of how natural selection works, you would know it was wrong. The coincidence is not astronomical. Mutation is a random process but evolution is not. And I'm sorry, but I will not explain that any further. There is nothing exotic about it, just standard evolutionary theory. If you are curious about it, read a book.


Then why don't the scientists in the OP say it was random mutation?

Why do they say they still don't understand the mechanism involved?

Telling me to go read a book, and that I don't even understand the basics of what you're talking about, when REAL SCIENTISTS don't even agree with what you're saying, you have no room to just say you're right and leave it at that. There is NOTHING to suggest this was a random mutation except your pre-conceived beliefs which mean nothing and are NOT based on real science. You know what? You need to go read a book.
You're just wrong. You don't even understand the basics. See how easy it is to do what you're doing? It's also immature.


Your claim remains unsubstantiated. Mutation is a random process, and this applies as well to photosynthesizing sea-slugs as it does to anything else.


Too bad the OP's article never says anything about that. Again, they say this is a completely unknown mechanism to them. I guess they don't understand the basics either and need to go read a book? Hmmm. Who do you REALLY think is left out and clueless here: the scientists in the OP who honestly have no idea how this happened, or you, who think you already know it all?



The slugs accomplishment is quite a feat, and scientists aren't yet sure how the animals actually appropriate the genes they need.

"It certainly is possible that DNA from one species can get into another species, as these slugs have clearly shown," Pierce said. "But the mechanisms are still unknown."


www.livescience.com...

You can read all the books you want, but science is going to keep changing as information grows and we learn more and more. If you can't keep up with it, you have no reason to say you know anything about this at all. Keep up with the times, learn to adapt to new information, or at least learn to use LOGIC when introduced with this kind of information. Referring me back to some unknown scientific Bible of yours and refusing to validate it is just closing your own doors through blind faith in past theories.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join