Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Here's some woo for you

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 9 posts ] 
Here's some woo for you
Author Message
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 4985Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Here's some woo for you

I was sent this the other day. Not sure why, but I suspect it's to convince me that we shape the universe with thought or something. Feel free to use it as target practice.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:37 am
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4235Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

I got to Lamarckian evolution and my brain said "That's enough.".
Image
Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:18 am
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

I've got some scorn I can pour all over it.

Give me an hour or two.
Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:38 am
WWW
Your Funny UncleUser avatarPosts: 556Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 11:38 amLocation: UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

I can tell it's legit by the totally legit ads down the right hand side.

Having read the article, it seems that it's following the usual woo-monger pattern of taking a real change in scientific understanding (in this case epigenetics) and extrapolating wildly...
“I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.” - Isaac Asimov
Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:04 pm
WWW
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 4985Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

Frenger wrote:I've got some scorn I can pour all over it.

Give me an hour or two.


You got it ;)
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:13 pm
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

Using my new and fancy watch, I am still well within my "hour or two" allotted time.

So, here we go.

wake-up world wrote:The central dogma is the doctrine that information in our cells flows only in one direction – from DNA to RNA to proteins. Simply put, it is a dogmatic belief in absolute determinism.


This is, as far as I understand it still true, although your man is going to go on to say it isn't. Epigenetics, which is the hook for which this man tries to hang his silly hat on, really only says that the same code of DNA can be transcribed in many different ways. Although, they are not particularly different, a length of code that can be transcribed for eye colour or weight, can't magically be transcribed to give a man a shoe for a head.

The way in which DNA is coded in variant ways in largely due (but not completely) to a process called methylation where a methyl group is added or substituted to or for cytosine (most commonly). This can also occur on proteins, most commonly arginine and lysine.

Let’s take a quick look at its history. Back in 1990, a huge, international research program began – the human genome project. Its stated goals were to map out all human genes and their interactions using computer software and then to convert that knowledge into (profitable) “benefits” for mankind, such as finding cures for the most horrible diseases.


Not strictly true, the goals were, according to the project itself;

human genome project wrote:Project goals were to

identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
store this information in databases,
improve tools for data analysis,
transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.


Source

In essence, what the central dogma says is that since it is proteins that carry out the essential life-processes inside our cells, and their functions can only do what our genes say (this is what the medical establishment and certain fanatical branches of evolution theory want us to believe), then we humans are nothing more than the calculated, deterministic expression of our genes. We’re little robots whose biology, emotions, health and beliefs are not of our choosing. We’re humatons!

This is the theory that is being taught in medical schools and universities all over the world today. Fortunately for all conscious people, this disempowering belief has been proven to be false.


I could pour a whole vat of scorn over this, but I just want to concentrate on one part, that being that we are "humatons". Of course genes play a huge part in our make-up and behavior, but also our nurture and surroundings play a huge part too.

Recently I heard Matt Ridley (on a tv program so sorry it's not cited) say "the reason you don't hear about a nature or nurture debate is because there isn't one, it appears to be equally both".

Fifty years before the publication of Darwin’s The Origin Of Species, frenchman Jean Baptiste Lamarque postulated that living beings must have an innate perception of their environment in order to evolve, and that they evolve in response to changes in their surroundings.

The response of the “scientific community” at the time was not favourable. They ridiculed Lamarque’s theory and eliminated him from the history books, giving Darwin the sole credit for discovering evolution, even though, in reality, Darwin published his book fifty years after Lamarque and his book based a lot of its theory on the work of yet another man, Alfred Russel Wallace, many of whose ideas Darwin copied.


Basic history lesson here would do. Darwin didn't copy Russel's ideas, they published a joint paper.....

According to Lamarque, there is an interplay of forces between living beings and their environments. According to the Darwinian model, evolution is strictly deterministic and is based on random mutations.

So, who got closer to the truth? Luckily for us, Lamarque was right about at least one thing: cells have consciousness


Cells of course, don't have consciousness. They have chemical interactions.

Plenty of highly intelligent biologists have proven beyond a doubt that the determinism of the central dogma is false. Genes do not determine human outcomes – it is our responses to our environment that actually determine the expression of our genes.


Well, as long as they are highly intelligent, we should leave this bit be.

Saying that, it doesn't ring any bells with me, and I've read at least 3 books by highly intelligent biologists.

Basically your man has, like your funny uncle said earlier, taken the point too far.

I'm not at home right now, so don't have access to the study, but there was a group of Danes (I believe) who were highly malnourished following a food blockade in WW2. The woman who later gave birth (who were underfed during the war) began to show patterns in their offspring, relating to weight. Depending on the stage of their pregnancy and their calorie intake, the offspring would sometimes come out overweight or underweight with a high degree of correlation. This would then effect their weight later in life.

This suggests that the environment can influence certain traits in offspring. It was largely done to triggers in methylation which altered certain proteins (the details of which I can't recall right now).

This of course, does not mean all or most of our genes are coded for like this, which it seems like chappy is implying.

This was proven definitively in 1988 by British molecular biologist John Cairns. Cairns took bacteria whose genes did not allow them to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest milk sugar, and placed them in petri dishes where the only food present was lactase. Much to his astonishment, within a few days, all of the petri dishes had been colonized by the bacteria and they were eating lactose. The bacterial DNA had changed in response to its environment.


Meh, this does look good on the face of it, but there is a problem, as Wiki will go on to say;

wiki wiki waaaaa wrote:There is however a serious flaw in this experiment, as Cairns does not distinguish between selection and detection of LacZ revertants. If he is testing to see if the presence of lactose as the selective agent causes mutations that confer the ability to eat lactose, then he should not detect this mutation with lactose present (i.e. looking for cells that grow with lactose as the only carbon source.) He will never know, in this case, if cells have acquired this ability without the presence of lactose – a possibility that his theory cannot reconcile. In fact, the acknowledgment of fundamental limitations on our ability to separate between mutation selection and detection has led Vasily Ogryzko to suggest that for the proper description of the Cairns' experiments, the formalism of quantum theory would be required, with the phenomenon of adaptive mutations naturally following from such an approach


Our beliefs can change our biology. We have the power to heal ourselves, increase our feelings of self-worth and improve our emotional state. Every aspect of our lives can be improved with the right intention.


Our boy babbles on for a bit so I won't rebut everything, he seems to be leading to the above so I shall concentrate on that.

I like the sentiment, it involves trying to feel better about ourselves through positive thinking, and that may (although I would need to see evidence) lead to an increase in serotonin, Oxycontin and so on. But he suggests that we can change our actual biological make-up just by willing it.

"We have the power to heal ourselves" he tells us. I wonder if he could re-grow a leg if he really believes he can.
Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:58 pm
WWW
malicious_blokeUser avatarPosts: 305Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:12 pmLocation: Proper Westcountry Gender: Male

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

Thanks for bringing that back into the realms of sanity.

I got halfway down the page and it gave me sinusitis :facepalm:
[sarcasm ][/sarcasm ]

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it
Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:14 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

malicious_bloke wrote:I got halfway down the page and it gave me sinusitis :facepalm:


I made it three sentences before I stopped, went out to my car, drove to Mickey D's, and bought myself a shake - just because I needed to find a better use of my time.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:13 pm
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Here's some woo for you

malicious_bloke wrote:Thanks for bringing that back into the realms of sanity.

I got halfway down the page and it gave me sinusitis :facepalm:


Not a problem, when you got passed all the nonsense it was actually rather.....oh. Errrr. No, it was just nonsense.
Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:14 pm
WWW
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 9 posts ] 
Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest