Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Lifestyle and diet 'change DNA over generations'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 June 2008
A NEW study has added to growing evidence that diet and lifestyle can play a direct role in altering a person's DNA, impacting on later generations.
The findings also suggests a possible connection with ailments of ageing, such as heart disease and cancer.

Scientists know that while the genetic code is fixed, it can be affected by chemical "switches" controlled by environmental factors.

They can turn genes on or off, with implications for health and susceptibility to disease. Evidence from animal experiments and some human studies suggests these "epigenetic" effects can be inherited.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health in Baltimore, US, looked at DNA from 600 people taking part in an investigation in Iceland.





The full article contains 124 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 June 2008 10:13 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Carolyn 1,

25/06/2008 00:04:49
This study is proof that Creation and life is not evolution, but selective, intelligent design.
2

Benjamin,

Dresden 25/06/2008 02:40:56
#1, how?
3

CaliforniaBhoy,

25/06/2008 05:52:19
#1 Huh! How do you figure that? Oh, I know, your American and you watch TV evangelists!
4

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 05:54:34
1 - and there's fairies at the bottom of the gairden as well.

5

Guga II,

Rockall 25/06/2008 06:12:07
#1 This is merely a restatement of the fact that environmental factors have an effect on evolution. But we knew that anyway.

Take Pilrig's advice, and away and count the faeries at the bottom of your garden.
6

Dáithí,

San Jose 25/06/2008 06:12:47
#3 - CaliforniaBhoy (?)

>"Oh, I know, your American .."

I see. And you're not, apparently. Just another troll.
7

CaliforniaBhoy,

25/06/2008 06:31:48
DAHEE, I'm not! I have 2 passports and none of them are US ones.
8

CaliforniaBhoy,

25/06/2008 06:42:55
My money's on American Evangelical though. The Earth was formed 6000 years ago, in six days and on the seventh, He rested!

Dinosaur bones aren't real-just a snraky wee test devised by God to test our faith.

How any rational thinking, carbon-based, bi-pod could even imagine that the article, in any way, demonstrated the reality of Creation is beyond my, admittedly high, I.Q..

It does tend to lend proof to Evolution!

She could be Southern Baptist though!
9

CaliforniaBhoy,

25/06/2008 06:49:36
They don't seem to evolve!
10

CaliforniaBhoy,

25/06/2008 06:50:01
But, evolve they will!
11

hertscot,

25/06/2008 08:29:52
Oh look another non story in the Scotsman
#1 Intellegent Design? F8cking B0ll0cks
12

hertscot,

25/06/2008 08:35:44
#1
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

~ BERTRAND RUSSELL

13

GlenB,

25/06/2008 10:11:39
"The findings also suggests a possible connection with ailments of ageing, such as heart disease and cancer."

So I suppose we could call it an example of degeneration.

Interestingly the Biblical description of creation is one of initial perfection and subsequent degeneration as a result of mankinds rebellion against God.
It would appear that this research supports the Biblical account.
14

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 25/06/2008 10:24:00
13
GlenB,
25/06/2008 10:11:39

You've misunderstood a part of the findings. Epigenetic effects don't alter the dna as such. So, if someone who has had been given a predisposition to "ailments of ageing, such as heart disease and cancer" in this way lives a healthier lifestyle than his parents, then the epigenetics go the other way again for his children.

What you got wrong was to think that such changes in the way someone's dna expesses itself would last down all the following generations. That is potentially true of damage to the dna itself caused by radioactivity, both background ("natural") or man-distributed, but not of the epigenetic effects they're writing about.
15

Boy Wonder,

25/06/2008 10:24:40
Oh god ... save us from bible-thumpers, deists, flat-earthers and intelligent design believers!
16

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 25/06/2008 10:29:56
There is one biblical comment that is corroborated by this finding though - the one about the sins of the parents damaging the children to the third and fourth generation. Though that comment's truth comes probably even more from learnt 'unskillful' (to use the Bhuddist term for 'sinful') behaviour taking several generations
to stop having bad consequences for descendants.
17

GlenB,

25/06/2008 11:04:34
The Wilkman #14

Thanks - I was aware of that, however the potential for the negative effect to be switched on in subsequent generations remains because the dna has not changed.

This means that the dna itself has the capacity for a deleterious outcome in future generations. Which by my reckoning doesn't alter my contention that the observed "evolution" of our dna has been degenerative.

If we started with perfect, fully functioning dna followed by degeneration this is what we would expect to see.(remembering that in the biblical account all of the creation was made fully functioning and mutually supportive and the degeneration affecting all elements, compounds, organisms etc. and the interaction between them)

18

Neil,

Glasgow 25/06/2008 11:17:07
This doctrine used to be known as Lysenkoism & was considered very politically correct in some circles between 1930 & 1960.

Who would have thought that a survey of a massive 600 people would be reported in Scottish newspapers in a way that makes it appear to seriously challenge Mr Darwin's theory.
19

Schot,

25/06/2008 11:25:15
Evolution is driven by mutation, and that is just difference not 'degeneration'. The Christians here trying to see an orginal purity in what we'd call the primordial soup.

It is okay to have spiritual beliefs but once you start imposing them on scientific results then you are merely highlighting your own flaws.
20

GlenB,

25/06/2008 11:37:36
Schot #19

"It is okay to have spiritual beliefs but once you start imposing them on scientific results then you are merely highlighting your own flaws."

The theory of evolution is not based on "scientific results" but on a number of presuppositions which are in fact beliefs as they are unproveable through repeatable experimentation. The whole of the theory of evolution is dependent on the imposition of those beliefs on the observations and interpretations of the evidence. Unfortunately many do not see the flaws.
21

G,

dundy 25/06/2008 12:29:39
The gods always make pefect worlds. Then they take no repsobsibility for what happens. Maybe they don't exist????
22

hertscot,

25/06/2008 12:51:12
GlenB,

I think you should give up the religious/creationist diatribe, you are beginning to sound like a fool.

1- Evolution is not a belief system, it is based on scientific data gathered from freely available physical evidence that can be examined and interpreted, scientific interpretation is not 'belief', and is contestable which allows critical examination to be carried out and the interpretation to be modified as new evidence comes to light, this is science at work.

You are using the common argument along with 'evolution is only a theory' that creationists/ID proponents use when the futility of their argument becomes apparent to them.

Evolution does not plan a future, as you suggest (by some sort of pre planned measured deterioration), only changes which provide an advantage will progress and proliferate.

You probably think it a bad thing that the human race is here since we evolved from the primordial slime and therefore by your argument must have been imperfect since the creation of god.

Ignorance is Bliss, the Faithful are truly Blissful!
23

GlenB,

25/06/2008 13:57:24
#22 Hertscot

1 I did not say evolution was a belief system.

I did say that the theory is based on some presuppositions. These presuppositions are used to examine the evidence and make the interpretations. If the interpretations are made in the belief that the presuppositions are true then one has based the theory on a belief because the presupposition cannot be tested.
But if the interpretations are used to support the presuppositions then one has a circular argument not a verifiable conclusion.

"Evolution does not plan a future, as you suggest (by some sort of pre planned measured deterioration)"

I said nothing of the sort.Read more carefully.

"You probably think it a bad thing that the human race is here since we evolved..."

Don't presume to know what I believe without any evidence.
24

Schot,

25/06/2008 14:17:29
"The theory of evolution is not based on "scientific results" but on a number of presuppositions which are in fact beliefs as they are unproveable through repeatable experimentation."

What in gods name ( Yahweh ) are you talking about ? Evolution is observable for anyone who has a microscope. Or are you one of those Christians that still tortures people with optical devices ?

Our understanding of the world is based on rationalising and recognising presuppositions. We apply 'scientific method' to avoid superstition and sentiment.

I can't prove that there isn't a god, you can't prove there is but we could say the same thing about the tooth fairy or Bugs Bunny.
25

hertscot,

25/06/2008 14:34:18
GlenB
'Don't presume to know what I believe without any evidence.'

Strange, you invoke a god without any evidence.

'"Evolution does not plan a future, as you suggest (by some sort of pre planned measured deterioration)"

I said nothing of the sort.Read more carefully.'

GlenB, you wrote,
"Interestingly the Biblical description of creation is one of initial perfection and subsequent degeneration as a result of mankinds rebellion against God."

Therefore since god is omniescent the degeneration must have been planned and measurable, since this god would already know the rate of rebellion against it. Or was the god slapdash in his creations, were they borne out of ill concieved blueprints, or made from poor materials.
Why would a god create something to destroy it, perhaps it was bored?

Evolution is a science and one which is tested time after time, and with each piece of 'new' evidence it can be critically appraised and if necessary updated to take EVIDENCE into account, This does not create a circular argument but a constuctive open minded approach to the evalution and fitness for purpose of the theory.

The theory of evolution is there to be disproved, and after 150 years no faith based argument has provided evidence to the contrary, other than "god made us because we've been saying that longer than your theory has been around".
ID is in it's final throes, as its pseudoscience is stripped away to reveal it as nothing more than religious dogma with odd bits of science thrown in to dress up the same myths with the appearance of validity.

"The habit of religion is oppressive, an easy way out of thought."

~ PETER USTINOV


26

GlenB,

25/06/2008 15:48:28

#25 Hertscot
quote-
'"Evolution does not plan a future, as you suggest (by some sort of pre planned measured deterioration)"

I said nothing of the sort.Read more carefully.'

GlenB, you wrote,
"Interestingly the Biblical description of creation is one of initial perfection and subsequent degeneration as a result of mankinds rebellion against God."

Thank you for making it very clear for everyone to see that what you said I said was not in fact what I actually said.

#24 Schot

"Our understanding of the world is based on rationalising and recognising presuppositions.We apply 'scientific method' to avoid superstition and sentiment."

I presume that is why you need to refer to the tooth fairy and bugs bunny and unnecessary reference to "Christians that still tortures people with optical devices" to support your case.

27

Stuart Hall,

25/06/2008 16:35:14
Bored now, Hootsmon!

Why cant we comment on the 'Gay anger as Heinz pulls out of kiss' story????

...a cracking opportunity for 'man's mayonaisse' gags wasted!
28

ThePeter,

Glasgae 25/06/2008 18:05:37
Is everyone missing the point?
Six generations of deep fat fried mars bars, Buckfast and drugs - no wonder the Neds only bear the slightest resemblence to modern human beings.
If there DNA is changed, can we say they are not human and exterminate Ned vermin?
29

Carolyn 1,

25/06/2008 23:55:13
Intelligent design is not Bible thumping.

What I am saying is creation and life requires intelligence, and it requires design.
If we were dumb and stupid and incapable of learning we could not have created the environment in which we live; we would not have learned from our mistakes. Without intelligence we could not possibly have become the human beings we are. Without design we would be living in chaos and disorder and randomness- instead we live intelligently. Creativity, order,and the ability to learn and live and work, that is intelligent design.

Choosing to beat a disease such as removing cancer from an organ and surviving to have children, is that evolution, selection, or is that intelligent design?
Answer: intelligent design
30

Fanling,

Switzerland 26/06/2008 03:13:29
#29 Carolyn 1
"If we were dumb and stupid and incapable of learning we could not have created the environment in which we live; we would not have learned from our mistakes. Without intelligence we could not possibly have become the human beings we are ..."

That's evolution (the intelligent, credible theory), neatly described then, thank you. Blind Biblical believers, however, like the pat answer as in your assertive conclusion above: ("Answer: intelligent design"). No contest. Don't question it. The pat answer that doesn't have to examine the science in depth. The creationist answer is always "right" because you "believe". Dream away.
31

Saoghal Beag,

26/06/2008 07:31:54
18 Neil, Lysenkoism is actually more a political stand point and was politically acceptable in Stalinist Russia. The evolutionary theory which he supported was Michurinism wich is a derivative of Lamarkism. The headline reeks of Lamarkism but the article tells a different story, if you have the knowledge to read through the amateur journalism, as Wilkman does.
32

Saoghal Beag,

26/06/2008 07:36:47
29 Carolyn, rampant anthropomorphism. How on earth do you define intelligence? where does intelligence apply in the evolution of ginko, tuatara, or eyebrow mites?
33

hertscot,

26/06/2008 09:45:37
GlenB

Evidently you interpret posts the way you read the bible, miss out the relevant parts, hype the the parts which support your particular position.

However at least on this thread other posters can actually see and read what is written. If you can't work with critisism of your position, it frankly reduces your argument to the same religious mumbojumbo that that has been peddled since mankind tried to explain the environment and our position in it. It isn't that, science doesn't know, it just doesn't know YET.
The reason peddlars of faith are afraid of new scientific discoveries, is that each one erodes the need for a supernatural controller/designer. The more intellecgent of us are prepared to accept the ancient "truths" are erroneous, the power hungry, control freak churches are afraid of losing power, money and influence.

Most religions don't actually last very long in real terms, 2000 years in comparison to to the age of the earth is nothing, christianity will die out, islam will die out hinduism will die out, this is not a matter of if, but rather of when.

Any new religion will only arrive when it identifies and exploits genuine fears that science, philosophy and education haven't yet addressed.

There is no need for you to be afraid of these things, there is no god in control of us, there is no hell, you don't need personal suffering to get into heaven ( evidence, every church leader and it's priests don't seem to be starving/naked aor in pain). I know you'll argue against this, but it has been an argument against science for 150 years and against reason since the dawn of intelligent man.

And now I cant believe I feel sorry for a fool.
34

Nuttered,

Earth 26/06/2008 12:37:44
hahhaahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!
religious people are soooooo funny!!
thanks for the laughs... you really made my day!!!
LMAO!!!
I do like the bible though, it is a good story....fiction that is :P
I must thank the Holy Roman Emporer Justinian for compiling the old testament and leaving out all the other stories HE didn't like.... a good book, but not as good as the Hindu ones.. they at least they have flying moneky gods and stuff in there story.
mean while keep up the comedy!
35

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 13:41:59
Lamarckism explains in part how the generations that followed survive and improve, but I attribute the survival more to intelligent survival based choices than to a randomness of Darwin.
We all make choices, some stupid and some brilliant, and the result of the choices manifests in what degree of success we survive and make stable the environment for the next generation.
The more intelligent our choices, the better it is for the next generation.
That is not a Darwinian evolution.
That's is intelligent design.
And sorry guys- I do not own a Bible or thump it but my brain works just fine without bias.
36

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 13:56:13
*should say That's intelligent design.

@32
As for anthropomorphism:
everything on this planet is part of the universe, everything developed and grew from a seed of the universe. How could it not?
Together these many parts collectively add up to make the whole, each as an individual entity but part of the bigger entirety.
It would be naively foolish to think that these various parts, which include everything- rocks, tree, fish and man, do not share some of the same characteristics- which is the theory of rock tree fish.


Intelligence is what you make of it.
37

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 14:02:54
Intelligent design and learning from experience explains why humans have the largest brain and the highest intelligence and the greatest ability to manipulate the intelligence to our own benefit.
That in no way is possible under a Darwinian theory of evolution.

Intelligence is no accident.
38

hertscot,

26/06/2008 14:47:15
Carolyn 1,

Can I just say that you appear to have a rather skewed grasp of the concept of intellegent design and almost no grasp of the Darwinian description of evolution.

We only started making choices in recent times, the human race evolved through a series of random uncontrolled genetic changes, those changes which offered humans an advantaged remained, those that were not advantageous were removed by natural selection.

The evolution of intellegence is not accidental since the development of intellegence offered an advantage to the human race in terms of survival.

However the fact that intellegence appeared in the first place was 'accidental'.

Humans were not designed as intellegent beings, we evolved selectively, via a series of small genetic mutations to reach this stage.

Face it we evolved from the primordial slime, and several billion years and genetic mutations later we have got to this point.
39

Gere,

Scotland 26/06/2008 15:51:26
The appearance of MRSA is demonstrable evidence of the evolutionary process.

Recently, there was an article published about Garter snakes in the USA. A certain amphibian contains a chemical substance that is fatal to ordinary Garter snakes if ingested.

Observations were made that some Garter snakes in a certain area were able to eat the amphibian, the name of which escapes me. On examination it was found that the snales able to ingest the amphibian had undergone a mutation on a strand of their DNA. Snakes with this mutation will eventually outnumber snakes withou it because the mutation gives them an the ability to take advantage of a food suply denied the snakes without the mutation.

Random selection rules in nature!
40

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 15:59:57
hertscot
I do grasp Darwin; I am not a devoted fan and have 'evolved' beyond its naive simplicity.

First, scientists have yet to show how life could have started from the primordial soup.

Second, if not for intelligence we would still be primordial slime.

Third, intelligence has become more and more intelligent and always existed. 'Intelligence' is the elusive 'everything' that cosmologists have yet to put a math formula to.
As Hawkins says, the math has yet to be invented to prove the everything theory.
41

Saoghal Beag,

26/06/2008 17:28:28
40 Corlyn, first go read oridon of species.

second so the roses in the garden are not primordial slime because they have "intelligence"

third, that's an excuse for saying i have a faith committment and i believe in intelligent design.

Fourth. Intelligent design, as you are portraying it is so human orientated that it is arrogant and reeks of a sense of misguided superiority. Isn't this some sort of credos from the white supremists in the states?
42

Saoghal Beag,

26/06/2008 17:29:16
ok that should have been Carolyn and origon.
43

2dogs in D.C.,

26/06/2008 17:42:04
Well, what about Frisbeetarianism? You die, your soul gets stuck on the roof for all time. And don't forget the Flying Spagetti Monster-Lots of Pastafarians out there. Don't make 'em mad,now.
44

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 18:44:24
41 Saoghal Beag,

second: roses do have the intelligence to reach for the sky and grow strong. Are they intelligent or are they instinctive?

Third, My theories are actually based on physics, chemistry and math; I've studied the chemicals, and the expansion of them, the big bang, etc. Whatever you think I have as faith or as an excuse...
dunno... you tell me...I'm constantly exploring new truths in reference to the 'everything' principle

Fourth, I agree that there are times that I think the dog and the cat know exactly what they're doing, - they've got a pretty good thing going living in luxury and without working for it. Me- I'm slaving away in an office.
Who's the more intelligent- me or the cat?
Who's more superior? Most pet owners know the cat is.
45

Saoghal Beag,

26/06/2008 19:51:28
44 perfectly apparent you haven't had much of a bioscience education then. physics, chemistry and maths a foundation for the biosciences. That is why you have gone down the line of attempting to attribute "intelligence" to all organisms.

fitting an eco-niche is nothing to do with intelligence which infers choice, and everything to do with those organisms most adapted to that niche surviving. if we were truly intelligent and capable of making choices in our evolution, why can't we fly, that would be handy, why can't we swim through the oceans holding our breath for hours on end.

you are confusing inteliigence with natural selection, go read the origon of species.
46

flavonoid,

uk 26/06/2008 19:55:29
Carolyn will probably scramble this as she has the rest of the science, but some of you may have missed Dean Ornish's most recent paper in which he showed (to most people's satisfaction) that lifestyle change alters the expression of a whole array of genes, in the prostate and presumably elsewhere in the body also (Ornish et al Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jun 17;105(24):8369-74.) Welcome to epi-genetics Mk 2! (btw, C, your case contains more assumptions than any of the rationalist contributors whose comments you seeks to undermine - there is no difference between faith and bad faith).
47

hertscot,

26/06/2008 20:19:51
Carolyn 1,

You understand neither evolution nor ID, and you probably dismiss Neo Darwinism (evolutionary genetics) as something that just isn't true. You need to read origin of the species,genesis and the blind watchmaker. Then come back and argue your case based on informed rationale rather than what seems like some ill concieved personal system of belief. Or are you one of the pick'n'mix religious types, only choosing to believe what fits in with your current lifestyle choices.
48

Saoghal Beag,

26/06/2008 20:36:40
hertscot, or a white supremists as her persumptions are based on the superiority of humans, which in evolutionary terms is at the very least mis-guided.
49

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 21:45:02
hertscot

I have a full understanding of Darwin as was taught, back in my pre-med days. Behavorial Sink. Lamarkism, etc. Despite understanding and grasping those theories I'm not a lemming, (Darwinian or otherwise).
As I stated previously, the math, physics and chemistry of the universe is the foundation of my belief in an Intelligent Universe.

You seem to understand neither string nor quantum nor chemistry nor intelligence; it isn't as easy as being a lemming, but it's learnable and fascinating.

Thank you also for the reading advice but my reading list is filled and I have no idea who or what a blind watchmaker is anyways. No pick and mix religious type either. If you could read with intelligence you would realize I already said I don't own a Bible, or anything religious. And nope, studying and writing cosmology is not a 'lifestyle,' but it is a job.
50

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 21:56:54
#45
Some of the recent (bio) research that fascinates me is in the area of regeneration: I live in Woods Hole, Massachuestts, a research center. We're working with zebra fish.
Spines regenerate. hearts regenerate:)))
!!!! :)))
MBL is certainly Darwinian, but I just can't agree that the zebra fish regenerating its spinal nerves in is Darwinian, selective or oragnic. I believe it's more connected to neurology and the electromagnetism that connects us to a collective intelligence which is interwoven in the electromagnetivity of the universe.

By the way, we can fly.
We can swim for hours.

Origin in spelled origin
51

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 22:07:36
flavonoid,uk

You're right I am not fluent in epigentics but it is very interesting that we all probably have the 'gene' for stomach cancer but we all do not get stomach cancer. We all could become obese, but do not. Why is it the gene is activated in some people and not others? Is it Darwinian? No. Is it Environment, selection, or hereditary? Or, as I assert, have certain people learned how to keep certain gene 'switched off' and remembered it? (Neurologically)
52

Carolyn 1,

26/06/2008 22:12:56
* should be-
MBL is certainly Darwinian, but I just can't agree that the zebra fish regenerating its spinal nerves is Darwinian, selective or organic.

Sorry, about the bad spelling, but it's the end of a four long and hard work days.
53

Saoghal Beag,

26/06/2008 22:50:11
carolyn, darwinism and a belief in a higher being, call it God or whatever, is not mutually exclusive. it's just a basis of faith and understanding.

you are trying to place explanations to fit your faith, granted you have not reverted to creationism. However your basis still hangs more on lamarkism than darwinism. lamarkism has been largely debunked for way too many years.

we may not all become fat, yet the proportion of the population becoming fat is increasing in western society, what adavantage is there in being clinically of morbidly obese? If there is an "intellligent" control on our evolutionary progress why is it allowing this to happen?

Why are there more people suffering from diabetes?

Why are people contracting cancer?

AN intelligence as you suggest would have equiped us with the immune system of cartillagenous fish.

yes we can fly, duh, in big machines, but only in the post 150 years or so, took us an awful long time to get there, surely your intellignece would have intervened.

regeneration in zebra fish is not unique, but why equip an organism so less blessed with intelligence than ourselves and not us.

i think you must recognise your faith and science and find a more rational means of seperating them, or uniting them.
54

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 26/06/2008 23:15:30
53 Saoghal Beag,

Sorry.
I'm not a creationist. I'm not religious. As to why you think I am- are you taking stupid pills?

I study quantum, physics, chemistry and electromagnetism. I'm current with local bio and genetic research. No religion.

Good Night.



55

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 06:50:45
54 Nor did i say you are a creationist.
56

hertscot,

27/06/2008 09:29:12
Carolyn 1
" study quantum, physics, chemistry and electromagnetism."

Yes but you don't seem to have an understanding of any of them, and your views on interactions between different species borders on the cheap hippy sh!t spouted by those who can't explain what they see, and cant understand why the world doesn't fit into their firmly held belief.

Speaking for myself (and probably Saoghal Beag and other rational posters) if evidence is presented to me which contradicts my current understanding of a subject, I consider it and update my understanding, oh...'evolution' of ideas (not intellegence, intellectual capacity to understand, rationalise and explain)! I have no problem that you hold a different point of view, but you provide no evidence that it may be correct and hence no rational thinker will take your postulations seriously.

Also the universe doesn't think, it has no intellegence it is simply now reacting to a given bundle of physical laws which were set in motion about 14-15 billion years ago, it 'does not' and 'cannot' think.
It never has and never will.

As to people controlling their own genes, you really need to think about environmental requirements for genetic traits, as you clearly haven't.

As to your study, if your posts were presented as an essay
Effort- A
Content- C
Understanding- F
Argument F-

Essentially you are letting your point of view drive your science, when it should be the other way around.
57

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 13:17:29
hertscot, sounds liek she is revertting to eye of frog and toe of newt!

she can not seperate faith/belief and religion.
She attributes "intelligence" where none exists.
She fails to even begin to understand evolutionary selection.
She obvioulsy has no understanding of biosciences and but attempts to explain to us where we ahve gone wrong.

I have no problem with quantum physics coming up with a suggestion that we are all linked at some sub-molecular level, but as you point out at the molecualr, cellular and organism levels we are bound by other constraints.

She might at least afford the world the dignity of reading the origin of species, probably Gaia theory and the blind watchmaker too and reviewing her believes in light of these. Fat chance though.
58

Carolyn 1,

27/06/2008 13:51:37
56 hertscot,

Evidently you took an Overdose of Stupid Pills. When will you learn to not swallow everthing that is shoveled to you?
Here's back to you: F8cking B0ll0cks
59

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 15:21:03
58, that a constructive and well thought out response.

sounds that you should get back on your medication and sak those nice people to tie the sleeves of your jacket behind you, save us all from any more insane mutterings of the deluded.
60

Schot,

27/06/2008 16:20:27
GlenB,

I presume that is why you need to refer to the tooth fairy and bugs bunny and unnecessary reference to "Christians that still tortures people with optical devices" to support your case."

Yes. I will refrain from calling you evil when you are simply ignorant to a damaging degree. Your complaince to a middle-eastern mythology is your own failing, but when you try to impose that on others then you pose a danger to society.

My reference to optical devices is tribute to Gallileo, who was tortured for exposing the churchs nonsense using a telescope. Of course the people who tortured him were ignorant savages living in the dark ages. You however have no such excuse.

Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-
But Im just a poor boy and nobody loves me-
Hes just a poor boy from a poor family-
Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-
Bismillah! no-,we will not let you go-let him go
61

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachuetts, USA 27/06/2008 21:49:32
59 Saoghal Beag
"Here's back to you: F8cking B0ll0cks"- was Hertscot's response to me in comment #11.- not mine.

I studied this stuff a long time and enjoy the debate, and feel that every debate brings up new issues to delve into, this one no different; however I will not debate the snark attacks. I will not debate if I have to repeat in every comment that the intelligence theory is not linked to a God or religion, the intelligence theory is grounded and linked to math, chemistry and neurological studies.
62

hertscot,

28/06/2008 07:52:04
Carolyn 1,

F8cking B0ll0cks - was actually my description of intellegent design, not only are you an analytical free zone you obviously can't interpret a comment.

And the occasional stupid pill is alot better than a premanent implant of blind ignorance.
63

hertscot,

28/06/2008 08:48:51
Carolyn 1,

I've just spoken to one of my colleagues (A senior lecturer in Biological Development, and an exceptionally open minded woman), and it would appear you don't understand Intelligence Theory either.

No surprises their then!
64

Saoghal Beag,

28/06/2008 12:45:22
Carolyn you confuse faith and religion, they are not the same thing. You have faith in a concept that links us all in an intangible manner, curretnly not provable.

However intelligent design is dependent on a higher being directed evolution. Intelligent design is a modification of creationism, it simply does not name the driver as God, but nevertheless is wholly dependent on that higher power. without having a faith in the existence of a being of higher intelligence you can not follow intelligent design.

if you believe we are linked and goverened by electromagentic forces, quantum effects or such ilk then these are all physically defined forces. A ball does not choose to fall to the ground, it does so because the force of gravity makes it do so.

if you have put so much effort into the study of this i wonder why you have never read origin of species, the seminal text. i believe darwinism, all be it modified, is by far the most convincing theory but i didn't come to that conclusion by only reading darwin.

ratehr than intelligent design perhaps your ideas are closer to gaia theory on a universal scale.
65

Carolyn 1,

28/06/2008 17:32:37
#63
I'm not a Darwinian biologist, and if she is, then it explains why she hasn't worked in neurological research
#64
In reference to the repeated ORDERING of me to read Origin of Species,
1.) I don't appreciate being ordered and insulted
2)I said this in comment #40: "I have a full understanding of Darwin as was taught, back in my pre-med days. Behavorial Sink. Lamarkism, etc."
3) in comment #49 I said:
hertscot
I do grasp Darwin;
First, scientists have yet to show how life could have started from the primordial soup.


I 'assumed' you wordsmiths were smart enough to understand that I read and studied more than ONE Darwinian book if I was PRE-MED and stated that I grasped the theory of evolution.

I never said everything is intelligent.


66

Carolyn 1,

28/06/2008 17:37:21
I can't make it simpler than this:
Electromagnetism carries intelligence.
Proof:

1. A radio searches and finds, links, transmits, procesess and translates electcromagnetism on various frequencies.

2. The radio is a container with an outer skin that contains a lot of stuff inside; the stuff inside, according to how you tune it, comes alive with intelligent and orderly music, comunication, information, news, etc.

3. Humans are also filled with electromagnetism and have various frequencies. Humans are also a contaner with a lot of stuff inside, and depending on how we are built and use the many components we also carry, receive and transmit intelligence and communication.


4. We agree that the radio gives us a news report from a reporter far away, and we never question it. Humans have the same thing, we receive information ,process it and communicate and come alive.

5. A brain is loaded with neurological EM activity. (EKG, MRI etc are proof of that.)

6. The universe is loaded with EM

7. Electromagnetism is the origin of the universe.


I simply believe that by being 'STUCK' on Darwin we have limited ourselves in our medical research.
This EM is a huge factor in everything to do with the balance of the planet within the universe.
The EM has tremendous significance in our body functions, our thoughts, our intelligence, longevity, etc.



67

hertscot,

28/06/2008 20:25:14
Carolyn 1,

1 & 2, Radios are man made, no matter how you phrase your argument, they are not alive and have no intelligence, their transmissions are from a biological source, i.e. humans.

3 humans evolved from non intelligent beginnings, we are not designed ansd have occurred due to random changes in DNA. There is no proof otherwise. Hence the enlightned of us at the present time believe that Darwin was correct, you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

4 1st, question everything, it's what scientists do, 2nd everything on the planet recieves information of some description, it doesn't necessarily bring life, e.g. rocks.

5 & 6 correct.

7 Stephen Hawking would probably like you to explain your theory, as would I, because again you provide no evidence for your assertion.

Scientists are not 'stuck' on Darwin, at the present time his theory on the ascent of man provides a clear evidence based appraisal of how we came to be what we are. You have prvided no evidence for your theory on the effect of electromagnetism.

Your last 2 comments smack of pseudo hippy explanations for human development,if this is what you truly believe, then fine, but don't try to pass it off as scientifically valid, it is conjecture, a belief you have, for which you have not and cannot provide evidence.

I look forward to your expanded explanation, and if I am honest, I would like you to convince Saoghal Beag and myself. Then you would really have achieved something.

68

Carolyn 1,

28/06/2008 20:50:24
Ah, so the Hertscot foulmouth jerk is brilliant and soon to be holding the Nobel Prize. I didn't know that!
Please explain to me, Oh Brilliant one, how life came to be from the primordial soup, because where I live, we don't know the answer. We're still working on the problems with RNA and replication. Enlighten us please.


By the way, people ARE made by man, at least I am. I don't know about you- maybe you're as artificial as the radio box. Irregardless, both people and radios are alive on the inside with EM which carries our intelligent data.
Really, I'm so much more advanced than you. Try studying the Big Bang Theories, String, etc. and then come back and we'll debate.
69

hertscot,

28/06/2008 21:05:17
Carolyn 1,

OK so you have no explanation for your assertions, and your really bad at insults, you are an oceanographer(?), I am an analytical chemist.
You need to provide evidence for your position - you cannot, I can.

Radio boxes are not alive. they are inanimate, have no 'life spark',they cannot reproduce or express individual thought. EM is simply a conduit it is a means to an end, not a cause.

I am pretty au fait with the big bang theory, string theory and multiverse theory, thank for your your suggestion.

You don't need to read the origin of the species, you need to read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins.

70

Saoghal Beag,

28/06/2008 21:07:44
68 oh carolyn, drop the abuse please there is no need.

i didn't say you must read orgin of species, but i do think you would benefit from reading it. it's a sugestion.

i believe in the invisible pink unicorn.....where does that get me?

Intelligent design is an apoligist and underhand alternative to creationism. Attempts to teach inscools in the US have been challenged and upheld in american courts, attempts in the uk had it thrown out on the basis of pseudo-science. ultimately your commitement to intelligent design is depenednt on a higher intelligent being directing evolution. it does not answer how that higher being cqame into existence though.

you did say roses are intelligent cos they grow towards the light, a ridiculous and misgiuded statement that no biologist would ever utter.
71

hertscot,

28/06/2008 21:16:52
Good evening SB!
72

hertscot,

28/06/2008 21:41:36
Carolyn,

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

~ CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

73

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, US 28/06/2008 22:41:36
I am amazed how thick you both are in being unable to recall correctly what I have said.
For the fourth time- I read and studied Darwin in pre-med school. I'm current on most bio research. I read some of Dawkins but think he's a guy who's recyled news and found a way to make money. NOAA is down the street from me and I read a lot of climate change, because we research it here, but I am not an oceanographer.
Yes, MBL has fired researchers who do not research under the theory of Darwin. I think this is a travesty to the much needed research that we need to get done. We must look at every angle and not be limited to Darwinism. Darwin answers some questions of evolution but it is a theory that can not be proven because it will always be a theory and nothing more. It is stunting us.
I will repeat a previous comment and that will be the last. After that you can pay $25. for my book.
from my earlier comment: "I simply believe that by being 'STUCK' on Darwin we have limited ourselves in our medical research.
This EM is a huge factor in everything to do with the balance of the planet within the universe.
The EM has tremendous significance in our body functions, our thoughts, our intelligence, longevity, etc."


Hitchens is referring to religion. I am not.
If you're a chemist, please tell me how the planet got salt because it is everywhere.
DO you think its possible the effects of EM expanding rapidly somehow created salt in the Big Bang?

As a chemist, then you understand why they talk about a lightening strike that started life: if lightening struck the primordial puddle to start life, the lightening is electricty which is a component of EM. This EM carries information. That is how the RNA, DNA was converted from slime nothingness to slime something.
EM was one of the three elements that started the universe in case you didn't know that either.




74

hertscot,

28/06/2008 23:26:20
Carolyn,
The Hitchens quote was made specifically about religion but can be applied to any hypothesis, you still have not provided evidence, even circumstantial.

Big bang - energy- fundemental particles-gravity- colissions- bigger particles -atoms- reactions-molecules. expansion - collision- gasses- liquids-solids- star formation- satellite formation- more reactions-complex molecules.
I don't know what started life, I don't have to know, evolution through natural selection doesn't need to know how life started.

If you believe that a lightning strike started life, provide evidence, you can't and I can't provide any to the contrary.

You wrote"
We must look at every angle and not be limited to Darwinism. Darwin answers some questions of evolution but it is a theory that can not be proven because it will always be a theory and nothing more."

Gravity is a theory!

Yes em was one of the forces (not elements) that was present immediately after the big bang. That does not mean that it has intelligence or carries information, why not ascribe the same attributes to gravity.

You're are looking to explain something you or I don't fully understand, we have opposing views, accept it.

If you provide evidence I will change my mind, and if your book is so important and insightful it is already be in my library.

Your argument has become rather tiresome, you offer nothing to debate other than to restate what you have said before. Just because you say something often doesnt mean it is true, you have to provide evidence.

I know your not an oceanographer, your not a scientist at all.
You have a rather ingrained belief that you cannot explain or prove, it is you that is stunted!


75

Saoghal Beag,

29/06/2008 09:05:41
carolyn, you said you studied darwin, not the same as reading the text itself. you have read interpretations of his work.

Yours is a concept, theory that is unprovable. Intelligent design, no matter what you say is creationism without specifying God as the designer. or are you actually attributing intelligence to a force?

evolution does not require an explanation of why there is salt, carbon, oxygen. completely irrelevant.
76

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, USA 29/06/2008 18:17:29
Generally, what separates humans from 'things' and other species is our degree of intelligence and our ability to store and transmit information/intelligence.
Some of us are more advanced than others. We have various abilties of intelligence and specialties and talents.
Porpoises are also intelligentl they transmit and receive information from humans and each other with mind thoughts, or picture transfers. This is also proof of the EM connects us all and carries intelligence.

"Radio waves can be made to carry INFORMATION by varying a combination of the amplitude, frequency and phase of the wave within a frequency band."

"Microwaves are good for transmitting INFORMATION from one place to another" (NASA)

NASA for kids:

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/radio.html
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/waves3.html
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/micro.html

this talks about Einstein's theories, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

The universe started as cold empty and filled with electro-magnetism. Our human bodies are filled with electro-magnetism. We at some point evolved under its influence, and became capable of storing and repeating information and communication. We became intelligent.

This vast amount of information, intelligence and the transference of it, is carried on various EM waves, within our body and thought patterns, and everywhere throughout the unvserse.

We as humans, remain connected to this EM flow of vast amounts of information. We choose what we want to connect to and process, not unlike the dial on the radio.

I call EM orderly intelligence. Many people continue to call it God. Many people choose to believe God and or intelligence doesn't exist although proof is inequivocable of its existence.

You two are in the stone age.

Yes, Virginia, Intelligent Design is provable.

We just aren't psycholgically ready to prove it or accept it.

As for salt; you bein
77

Carolyn 1,

29/06/2008 18:18:31


As for salt being everywhere; you being a 'chemist' - I thought you could explain that to me. Guess you can't or maybe you're not a chemist.

78

Saoghal Beag,

29/06/2008 20:20:29
caroilyn i am not a chemist and do not, nor ever have claimed to be so. My foundation is in the biosciences.

i see no difference in the question why is salt everywhere as to why is carbon, oxygen, nitrogen os sulphur everywhere. But as a biosceintist that is merely somehting that allows us to be and not a question that needs developed as it has restricted evolutionary implications.

i certainly do not question the ability of EM to carry informatiopn, that does not however confer on it any level of intelligence, in exactly the same way that a piece of paper can convey something worthwhile or a heap of keich. the paper regardless possess no level of intelligence. Microwaves are what our mobile phones use and after 15 mins on the phone we register a +1C increase in brain temperature. this is suficient reason for me to avoid excessive and prolonged use of a mobile as i believe it impacts on the the bonds within our neurological protiens.

How do termites fit into your plan, their communication is almost wholly though chemicals, or bees and their waggle dance, neither rely on EM?
79

hertscot,

30/06/2008 08:58:52
Carolyn,

Where does all this salt come from?

Well, when it gets wet on land the water dissolves the salts in rocks and this runs down to the sea. That is why it appears everywhere, for a more precise answer to this, you should ask a geologist.

But that doesn't tell me how salt is formed?

When seawater is evaporated, salts will form and settle to the bottom. The first salt will form (precipitate) after about 75% of the water has evaporated. This first salt is calcite or calcium carbonate (CaCO3). As evaporation continues, gypsum (CaSO4 · 2H2O) is the next salt to form. This continues until about 90% of the water is evaporated. At this point, sodium chloride (NaCl) will form and will continue to form until 96-97% of the water has evaporated. There are still elements dissolved in the water and they will form more salts if all the water is evaporated. Sodium chloride makes up most of the salts that are formed.


How does it get concentrated in the sea?

Solar evaporation of seawater is the most common geological answer.
Apparently, there may be a much more dynamic and widespread process that can account for most of the salt on our planet. A hydrothermal process, again you would need to ask a geologist.

@77 You wrote
"I call EM orderly intelligence. Many people continue to call it God. Many people choose to believe God and or intelligence doesn't exist although proof is inequivocable of its existence."

I now understand where your argument is coming from, you believe in ID and know that it'll not be accepted if it even hints at a religious base. Hence you're denial of belief in an all powerful deity.

You also wrote
"Yes, Virginia, Intelligent Design is provable.

We just aren't psycholgically ready to prove it or accept it."
.
Why aren't you pschologically ready to prove it?
Can I suggest that you haven't brainwashed enough of the gullible masses for your 'proof' to hold sway.
And it is they whom you believe not to be mentally prepare
80

hertscot,

30/06/2008 09:13:33
#79 cont.

And it is they whom you believe not to be mentally prepared.

You can't hide your religious belief anymore, you've just changed god to em. Are you one of the people who are trying to get this into US public schools?

It also explains why you cannot provide any evidence/references for your assertions. Because no evidence exists.
And it explains your anti Darwin stance, and fasilure to have understood what he wrote.
Your an ID fraudster, aren't you?

I expect these and other questions to remain unanswered in your next post!
81

Saoghal Beag,

30/06/2008 09:27:10
hertscot, just another right wing evangelistic creationist. try changing EM to invisible pink unicorn, works the same. ofcourse she is now doomed as she believes that all knowledge and power folws with EM since she has told lies (like not being a creationist) These lies will act like anti-matter in the EM fields and she will simply explode one afternoon over a cup of coffee and a cream cake.
82

hertscot,

30/06/2008 09:34:38
SB, just goes to show how isidious and devious these people are, it's time for my morning coffe and cream cake the back to the grind stone.
Keep up the good fight. Or if she explodes - food fight!
83

Saoghal Beag,

30/06/2008 19:44:02
hertscot she seems to have gone to ground, shame i was having fun, or she could have gone off like another hiroshima, fingers crossed. got a chinese carry out and a report to work through....need to prioritise..
84

hertscot,

01/07/2008 08:14:49
Saoghal Beag,
She can't convert the posters on this site, but she'll be back. Prioritising coffee now.
85

Saoghal Beag,

01/07/2008 19:33:28
what a shame, she really has gone to ground. ah well, she is more ceann beag than saoghal beag, but hey it takes all sorts.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.