| The genetics of aging - elusive? |  |  | |
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: jesse ® 05/21/2002, 03:48:30 Author Profile Mail author |
The genetics of aging. The search for it should be purely a scientific endeavor. Yet with all the scientific knowledge available and all the smart scientist around no one is even hoping to tract down the genetics of it. Why? I'm not saying I'm hoping for it to be found. I believe that God has put a limit on the time we can live. (just as is stated in the scriptures). And the mere fact that the scientists we have today are so wise or at least give the impression that they are, and are seemingly stuck here, makes one wonder. How smart are these scientist? Well let's see. They know exactly how life got started in a primordial pool several billion years ago. They know how everything evolved since then. They tell me that I JUST HAPPENED -- regardless of how long it took, I JUST HAPPENED. . They know exactly how this universe got started --- from nothing - all by itself. They are 100% sure of these things. They have mapped the complete genome of the human makeup and are selling it for big money. I'm sure all smart scientists would like to live several hundred years at least to enjoy the fruits of their labor - or at least to do much more research. Are they quietly humbled by this elusive information?
The aging process is supposed to 100% natural process, capable of being tracked down and stopped by smart scientist. Albert E's theory of relativity should have been a far bigger deal than tracking down our reason for aging. Is there a secret limit to their knowledge and capability? Aside:
Modified by jesse at Tue, May 21, 2002, 22:27:28 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Absolute certainty Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/21/2002, 06:10:48
Author Profile Mail author
Some here are so knowledgeable that they are absolutely sure about certain precepts that most of the world is still pondering over. You make this observation in the context of describing scientists, or perhaps other scientifically aware people, perhaps even someone like me. (Don't worry. I know you meant no insult.) But my observation, both on this forum and elsewhere, is that the attribute of absolute certainty is more common among the faithful than the skeptical. I am confident in a lot of modern science's insights, some of them quite uncongenial to my former way of thinking as a theist. But I have given up being absolutely certain about anything.
I cannot say the same about my parents, for example. They are humble, wonderful people who are absolutely certain that the Restored Gospel is true. They are lauded in their circle for this certainty, but I have come to see it as no virtue. I seek truth, but I have acquired rather late in life a new modesty about my understanding. I don't claim to Know much of anything.
You mention the beginning of the universe, that it started from nothing, ALL BY ITSELF. I don't know how it started, just that it started. That is a gap in our understanding of the universe. You can fill in the gap with God, if you like. But all you are doing is replacing one unexplainable fact with another. Okay, the universe was started by God. So who started God? (And for Mormons, who started the God before that, etc.?) I prefer an unexplained natural phenomenon to an unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
I don't know how far we can extend the human lifespan, but the average life expectancy has already nearly doubled in the last century. Does this strike you as hubris? If scientific arrogance bothers you, by all means, drink contaminated water and forsake the comforts of modern medicine. Your doctor doesn't usually make his or her diagnoses with absolute certainty. Perhaps you would be better served by someone who has abandoned the messy uncertainties of modern, scientific medicine and embraced more certain means.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Absolute certainty Re: Absolute certainty -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
05/21/2002, 23:02:19
Author Profile Mail author
The doubling of our life span has nothing to do with the genetics of aging. It has to do with healthy living, improved medicine, generally improved health care and life style and so on.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Precisely Re: Re: Absolute certainty -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/21/2002, 23:23:01
Author Profile Mail author
Genetics is a comparatively young science. The sciences of epidemiology, microbiology, and other areas related to human health are somewhat older, so the benefits of their discoveries are being reaped sooner in the general population. I have no doubt that astonishing benefits will accrue as genetics matures. Again, this is science, an arena where absolute certainty is elusive.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
In answer to your question... Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/21/2002, 08:39:56
Author Profile Mail author
First of all, if we didn't die, then we would have to compete with our offspring. It would not be a good thing if everyone lived forever. Does that answer your question?
Secondly, while it is an amazing idea that this complex world could spontaneously come into existence without an intelligent creator, it would be even more amazing and unlikely for an omnipotent, omniscient being to spontaneously come into existence before that. It has to start somewhere. Why couldn't it have started with us?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Post modified. NT. Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
05/21/2002, 22:31:47
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/22/2002, 04:01:45
Author Profile Mail author
First of all Jesse, the scientific community has a totally different attitude about knowledge then what you are expressing. The very nature of science is investigation, which excludes absolutes... If there is a phenomenon which contradicts well known and accepted physical law or theory, there is no hesitancy for science to change its views completely. In essence the dogmatism that you find in people's belief systems cannot survive in the scientific community. Having said that I will also say that individual scientists often are stubborn and protective of the knowledge they have, perhaps because of the great cost of learning it... but in general the community is REWARDED by finding fault in established theory, and for new discoveries.
As to the aging thing... the simple fact that we have knowledge about genetics doesn't mean that everythig is clear about it... IMO, the "genetic clocks" that trigger the degerative processes we call aging are many, and probably not linked to one gene. Further, there may be a connection, or a network of various factors that bring about this result... the genes together with the body.
Various chemicals act as triggers for the activation and inhibition of genes... it is likely that the process of aging follows this method. The biological clock has many parts to it, in other words, and not just a single spring, or battery... If you think we have enough information to decipher this puzzle you are wrong. This science is not even in its adolescence, and with politicians like our good old GWB who opposes scientific discovery because of his bigotted, misinformed, if not politically motivated ethical issues, we are ever more distant from the accomplishments you assume we should already have achieved.
Good grief those who discovered the structure of DNA are still alive! Does anything induce you to believe these discoveries will happen in your life time?
If Bill Gates is interested in immortality, his best bet would be to instruct his people to deep freeze his brain for future generations to revive him through cloning and cerebral programming...
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Only some religious folk are 100% certain! Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/22/2002, 09:49:26
Author Profile Mail author
jesse, You are simply not being fair and reasonable in your post.
Let's put the simplest issue to rest right now. Jesse, if you were the world's greatest expert on growing corn, say, would it follow that you would also know everything there is to know about growing roses? Or building skyscrapers? Or neurosurgery? Or the spectral analysis of supernovae? Of course not! So it is manifestly unfair and even silly of you to suggest that because science understands one thing extremely well, it must understand EVERYTHING to the same degree!
Now I'd like to comment on your false and/or unfair and biased claims about scientific knowledge. You write: "How smart are these scientist? Well let's see. They know exactly how life got started in a primordial pool several billion years ago."
No, they don't! In fact, we know very, very little about abiogenesis! We can't even be certain it actually occurred on Earth. It is unfair of you to insinuate such an obviously religious-political sarcasm into your statements.
You continue: "They know how everything evolved since then. They tell me that I JUST HAPPENED -- regardless of how long it took, I JUST HAPPENED."
Again, a sarcastic assertion based on your religious views and your lack of knowledge.
You then write: "they know exactly how this universe got started --- from nothing - all by itself."
Another sarcastic, religiously dictated exaggeration.
You then conclude constructing your sarcastic strawman by alleging: "They are 100% sure of these things."
Your statements are 180 degrees out of phase with reality, Jesse. IT IS YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU who assert they have 100% absolutely perfect knowledge derived from your ancient scriptures and your own personal religious belief system, NOT SCIENTISTS! If you're looking for someone to accuse of extreme arrogance in holding things to be 100% undeniably certain, look in a mirror, Jesse!
- - -
As for death, nature has provided perhaps a billion ways to ensure our deaths. Some of them are known to be present in our genes. An excellent example is cancer, in which the body literally overgrows itself to death. I hope you are not so naive as to think all cancers are caused by external factors!
The body decays, Jesse. Just as everything else does. This is as true for animals as it is for our own species! If, as you suggest, "God" took away the ability for human bodies to live forever, why did "God" take this away from the animals, as well? Is your conception of "God" that evil and despicable, Jesse?
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Only some religious folk are 100% certain! Re: Only some religious folk are 100% certain! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
05/22/2002, 23:13:12
Author Profile Mail author
I'm somewhat surprised at some of your observations about my statements. That's because they are based on what I've learned from people like yourself, the Vines and rcpman. For example when I had that post about the inflationary theory from Alan Guth, rcpman's response he inferred that there was no guessing there, that it was already established and there was no such thing as speculation on the matter. In the Vines' and your responses to previous evolution discourses, you have made it seem that everything was established and done with and proven. The Vines even stated that the only reason evolution was still referred to as a theory (and not as proven fact) was because of the certain opposing elements in the establishment.
Human physiological scientific sources have established that there is no known reason why the human body cannot continue to live on, were it not for the onset of the aging process. In other words, besides diseases, we are equipped to live much, much longer (again, were it not for the aging trigger in us).
So my understanding that God designed humans to live on and on fits perfectly with such scientific info.
Other animals were not designed to live on and on. Scientific physiological research has not shown this for them (unlike for humans)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
05/22/2002, 13:02:17
Author Profile Mail author
Jesse,
A few points:
1. Science is not under the illusion that scientists are infinitly wise or infallible. Neither is science under the illusion that it ever has "100% truth".
Richard Feynman, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Karl Popper, "I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a "body of knowledge", but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticiptations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are "true".
2. Science by nature is empirical. For this reason alone, origin of life models are necessarily theories only and it will probably be a long time before any responsible scientist would say otherwise. As noted above, all scientific knowledge is open to falsification, with theories, we especially expect to see change.
Does this mean that all theories are equally good? From a scientific standpoint, absolutely not. For instance, to be a scientific hypothesis, a proposition must be potentially testable and falsifiable. For instance, life originating from non-life may not be a currently testable proposition, but this is due to constraints beyond principle.
To compare, take the propositions: "God created life", or "God removed the genetic code from humans that stops aging" These are not scientific hypothesis because they are niether testable or falsifiable in principle. This is why, for instance, creationism is not science.
3. Research is expensive. It's better to put our resources into problems that are most likely solvable within the scope of our current knowledge and technology to study. Also keep in mind that science mostly progresses through mundane experimentation and research; its very seldom that we have earth-shaking breakthroughs. Its simply more practical today to put our money into research directed toward say, producing a better anti-biotic then toward genetically engineering immortal humans.
-
Now is it possible that religion is right and science wrong on issues such as the origin of life (to whatever extent science actually holds a position on the issue)? Sure. But what are you going to use for your argument? Here are a few possibilities:
-Science can't answer all our big questions with satisfaction so religion must be right.
-Through philosophical regress arguments, we argue that ultimately we can't justify knowledge, therefore religious experience and speculation is just as valid as science (as every form of inquiry would be equally valid to every other).
-Personal faith and experience.
One more thing to think about. While science may seem to progress slowly, consider what it has to offer as a body of knowledge (I'm saying this btw fully aware of the Popper quote above) compared to religion. In the last two thousand years, how much has humanity learned about anything, including matters of theology due to religion? After two thousand years, Christianity still hasn't resolved anything in reguard to the trinity, nature of salvation, immortality, or any number of other "big questions" to which it claims to have a monopoly on the answers.
One more thing to think about: When Christians with opposing viewpoints reach an impasse bearing testimony to each other, where do they turn to resolve their differences?
Modified by someone at Wed, May 22, 2002, 13:14:08
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Exactly Re: Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/22/2002, 13:21:45
Author Profile Mail author
"Science is by definition fallible--and look at its history of failures where certainty held the day!
"Hence what my religion or metaphysics has taught me will be vindicated some day given the limits of science."
Skepticism about this inference is important, however common the inference is. I enjoyed your post, especially this aspect of it.
Modified by Cal at Wed, May 22, 2002, 13:23:21
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You are a voice of reason. Re: Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
05/22/2002, 23:32:33
Author Profile Mail author
But you must know that statements I make about scientist are based on what I keep hearing from them. I guess they make such statements to shut up less knowledgeable people like me (when we question their pronouncements), feeling that if they say that something has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt, we who are less scientifically informed (I have reasonable scientific knowledge, but not anything compared to some here) will back off. I've experienced this many times here on this forum.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: You are a voice of reason. Re: You are a voice of reason. -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
05/23/2002, 06:13:30
Author Profile Mail author
On this forum, I'm not sure who all would count as scientists, I actually don't think many here would consider themselves scientists.
I'm not sure what specific situations you have in mind so its difficult for me to comment. Scientists are human, and it is entirely possible that many of them would argue the credibility of a given theory over and above what it deserves. Since most of the stuff your probably reading (as I ) is filtred through journalists, the likelyhood of unjustified rhetoric is that much greater.
One thing to keep in mind, if your arguing things like the origin of the universe, well, I'm not sure how many opinions I'd trust on the subject. In fact, the pre-requisit subject matter is advanced enough that you probably don't have the background to really formulate a thoughtful opinion. That goes for me too by the way, I'm not being critical of you. I don't argue about the origins of the universe (from a scientific perspective) because I simply don't know enough.
Quick story, a couple years back I went to a bunch of science bullitin boards to get the answer to a fairly tricky, but really straightforward question involving classical mechanics only. These guys were debating things like wormholes, multi-universe quantum models, all this shit that is way over my head. Yet these guys not only 'understood' it, but understood it enough to debate at length (and call each other idiots etc.). Well, I posed my simple little question; no one could answer it correctly nor did their intuition into the problem even come close. It took me some time to really find an answer that I was satisfied with through my own efforts, but the point is, none of these guys had any clue whatsoever (I have little doubt that my problem would have taken no more then 15 seconds for a professional physicist to solve). If your going to argue theoretical physics, its far too easy to get in over your head.
So what I'm saying is; take what people say with a grain of salt, don't just assume that any one person's opinion represents "science" or "scientists", and take a very humble attitude towards learning science. Any scientific principle is certainly open to falsification, but your off the cuff opinion based on your read somewhere Discover magizine probably won't be good enough to overturn the best ideas of the day.
Modified by someone at Thu, May 23, 2002, 06:16:20
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I am skeptical Re: Re: You are a voice of reason. -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/24/2002, 18:31:32
Author Profile Mail author
Dear someone, You wrote: "Quick story, a couple years back I went to a bunch of science bullitin boards to get the answer to a fairly tricky, but really straightforward question involving classical mechanics only. These guys were debating things like wormholes, multi-universe quantum models, all this shit that is way over my head. Yet these guys not only 'understood' it, but understood it enough to debate at length (and call each other idiots etc.)."
That sounds like my favorite haunt of a few years ago, the site from the University of Bristol named Dr. Neutrino! It was populated mostly by physics doctorates and grad students, and even though a significant portion of what was discussed was way over my head as well, I didn't find it very difficult at all to keep up with most of the threads and arguments, even those discussing quantum theory or gravitation or plasma physics or Einstein-Bose condensates (sorry if that sounds like I'm flattering myself, but in truth such subjects are not as difficult as you appear to think). Anyway, a great number of my favorite threads saw people calling each other idiots. There's nothing like fierce debate for learning all the ins and outs of an issue! And for having a great deal of fun, too.
Do you recall if you did indeed post your inquiry to Dr. Neutrino?
In any event, I find it extremely difficult to accept that your question could have been "simple" or "straightforward" as you claim if there was the kind of utterly baffled disagreement you describe over the answer! In my experience at Dr. Neutrino and other physics sites, simple and straightfoward questions were answered simply and straightfowardly with very little disagreement at all.
My guess is that you only imagined that your question was simple when it most probably was not! Didn't you say it took you a lot of work to discover the answer?
Either that, or you posted it to complete non-physicists or something.
In any case, I'm sure we're all grateful that you have tried (as so many of us have attempted already) to temper Jesse's vaunted and grossly exaggerated self-opinions of what he thinks of as "science".
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, May 24, 2002, 18:34:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I am skeptical Re: I am skeptical -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
05/25/2002, 00:58:30
Author Profile Mail author
"Either that, or you posted it to complete non-physicists or something."
Thats probably closer to it; my point was these guys were way in over the heads, they just didn't know it. My opinion, is that there are a number of poeple out there who know very little about science but yet love to speculate wildly on subjects that are even speculatory in nature for those who have advanced knowledge in the field. This same class of individuals may find their time better spent getting a grasp on the basics. I think anyone who legitimately understands advanced astrophysics would have solved my question very quickly (or at least they're responses wouldn't have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of more basic physics).
When I asked my questions, I had never posted on a bullitin board before, I got to the sites by keyword searches. I can only imagine there are much better boards out there.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Nonsense! Re: You are a voice of reason. -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/24/2002, 18:38:55
Author Profile Mail author
Jesse writes: "I have reasonable scientific knowledge..." I'm sorry, Jesse, but you most emphatically do not! That is the very crux of the problem! You have quite unreasonable ideas about science and scientific findings!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The genetics of aging Re: The genetics of aging - elusive? -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: duckboy ®
05/22/2002, 18:15:37
Author Profile Mail author
Jesse,
If you are going to challenge science about an issue and then say scientists don't even have an idea about a possible answer, then at least choose an issue where we are clueless (and doubtless there are many). But the genetics of aging is certainly not one of those issues.
Martin and others have already refuted your unbelievable claim that scientists tell you exactly what to believe so I will just refer you to their posts. I will stick to the science you are challenging. So here goes.
All genes have "caps" on their ends which are called telomeres. These are thousands of short base sequences, TTAGGG, repeated over and over again. These kind of act like protective caps for the genes. Each time a gene is replicated, the genetic machinery is unable to copy each and every TTAGGG repeat. Therefore each time a gene is copied the telomere becomes shorter. Thus as a person becomes older their telomeres become shorter. At some point the telomeres become too short for the cell to survive any longer. And thus the senescence, or mortality, of our somatic cell lines. Normal cells die after 40-60 cycles of replication.
Interestingly there is a complex of proteins and RNA called telomerase which acts by synthesizing TTAGGG repeats on the ends of chromosomes. Therefore telomerase replaces those repeats that are lost in the process of replication and aging. Normal cells DO NOT have telomerase. So there is your answer of how to prevent aging. Find a way to introduce telomerase into cells. This would prevent the shortening of the telomeres and allow genes to continue replicating and thus make them immune to the process of aging and therefore immortal.
But there is one problem. Lo and behold it has been found that cancer cells that replicate in an uncontrolled fashion DO have telomerase present. And this allows for the immortality of these cancer cells. In fact there are studies occurring now that try to detect telomerase activity in urine and stool specimens as a way to screen for cancer. Therefore it is not just as simple as putting telomerase into cells to prevent aging.
This is a brief description of the current understanding of the genetics of aging and I am admittedly not an expert on the subject. You may refer to this link for further details if you are interested http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/telomerase/delange.shl.
I am not saying that this is absolutely the end-all-be-all of our understanding of aging and genetics. It is simply a theory based on scientific inquiry. It is not a matter of a circular argument like religion tends to put forth: How do you know? "Because the Bible says so", but how do you know the Bible is right? "Because it is the word of God", But how do you know it is the word of God? "Because the Bible says so."
My main point, Jesse, is to advise you to have an idea of what you are talking about when you make posts such as this. Your challenging of the science of aging is only one of the many asinine statements you started this thread with.
duckboy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
This is not a challenge to science. Re: The genetics of aging -- duckboy Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
05/22/2002, 23:51:50
Author Profile Mail author
It is a challenge to dogmatic scientist who
1. try to belittle those less knowledgeable in their field, when they question some of their statements (theories/hypothesis/Etc).
2. try to give the impression that whatever they tell us (less knowledgeable) should not be questioned/challenged.
(here, I'm not talking about things proven by the scientific method).
I've experienced this many times since I started hanging here.So if you are not one of them. Then it's not to do with you.
By the way, thanks for the aging info.
By the way, I don't use words like "Because the Bible says so" here. I'm not one of those. Most I would say is what I BELIEVE based on whatever.
Modified by jesse at Wed, May 22, 2002, 23:55:27
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: This is not a challenge to science. Re: This is not a challenge to science. -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: samantha ®
05/23/2002, 11:52:37
Author Profile Mail author
If this is not a challenge to science, then what is it? There is a beautiful explanation above describing the current research in the genetics of aging-so YES the scientific community does know a little (very little) about the possible mechanisms of aging and will probably know more in the next 10,20 30 etc. years. What gave you the impression that the scientific community knows 100% about the origins of the world and man and 0% on aging? What journals have you been reading? Whether or not you embrace the "scientific method", making such assumptions is certainly not in line with scientific or honest inquiry.
In regards to those "dogmatic scientists", number one: who are they? and number two: are they belittling or challenging? Somehow my friend I think you may be confusing these two things. If anyone calling themselves a "scientist" stoops to belittling in order to defend a hypothesis/theory etc. when challenged with a legitamate, well thought out question, they do not deserve such a title.
Again, if anyone gives you the impression that a theory/hypothesis should be accepted without question ESPECIALLY if it did not experience the rigors of the scientific method, this is not science. Go to church if you want to put up with that sort of discourse.
So, why do you believe?
By the way, where is that list of scientists that believe the theory of evolultion is a farce?
Sam
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Not a challenge? Re: This is not a challenge to science. -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: duckboy ®
05/23/2002, 17:13:00
Author Profile Mail author
Jesse,
Not a challenge to science? In the opening of this thread you say:
The genetics of aging. The search for it should be purely a scientific endeavor. Yet with all the scientific knowledge available and all the smart scientist around no one is even hoping to tract down the genetics of it.
Well, if this is not a challenge, it is at the very least an uninformed, unsubstantiated, false accusation. You very clearly are claiming that science doesn't have a clue about this specific topic. Then when I give you evidence to the contrary you say the point of this thread isn't to challenge science, but:
Is a challenge to dogmatic scientist
The fact that you obviously don't know what you are talking about when saying that no scientist even has a clue about the genetics of aging severely hurts the credibility of the rest of your statements. And as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, theories and hypotheses are subject to change if compelling evidence is presented. Thus no one can say that they are 100% sure of the Big Bang theory, or the theory of evolution, or the telomere in aging theory. They can only say that the bulk of available information supports that theory. If you are able to give compelling evidence to the contrary then that theory may change. This is a major difference in science and religion. Good, substantiated information can be given to someone such as yourself, Jesse, and it will not change your mind because YOU are 100% sure based on "whatever" (see below).
I mentioned the circular logic that is often used to defend religious beliefs. Your response to that was:
By the way, I don't use words like "Because the Bible says so" here. I'm not one of those. Most I would say is what I BELIEVE based on whatever.
"Whatever"? Oh Jesse, let me take you back to the opening of this thread when you said:
I believe that God has put a limit on the time we can live. (just as is stated in the scriptures)
Oh my goodness! So you just stated a belief (i.e. that God has put a limit on the time we can live) and you defend that belief by saying "just as is stated in the scriptures" (i.e. Because the Bible says so). So let me ask you why you believe the scriptures to be true? I have a feeling we are coming to that circular logic I was talking about.
I hope you either do a little research or simply ask about a topic in the future rather than making uninformed accusations. You could have just asked about the current thought on the subject of genetics and aging and not have looked quite so silly.
By the way. You're welcome for the aging info. Pretty cool stuff, huh?
duckboy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The difference is Re: Not a challenge? -- duckboy Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
05/23/2002, 23:49:52
Author Profile Mail author
The difference is, that is my belief. I don't think that anyone else is a fool or stupid not to believe the same. Whereas, some science oriented persons I've encountered here (over a period of time) make it clear that if you don't subscribe to certain scientific theories it's because you are lacking in knowledge or you are stupid. In other words if the whole world were well educated in science, no one would believe in God. I don't know if you follow.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I don't know if I follow either Re: The difference is -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: duckboy ®
05/24/2002, 17:14:51
Author Profile Mail author
The difference is, that is my belief. I don't think that anyone else is a fool or stupid not to believe the same.
This is because you have no more evidence to back it up than to say "as is stated in the scriptures." Do you feel like that should be enough to change my mind and for me to believe the same? Of course not. You have no idea who even wrote the scriptures down. Was it a scholar who had good intentions of passing along what he felt was the word of God? Sure, it could have been. Was it someone employed or enslaved by a ruthless King who wanted his subjects to be a kinder, gentler people and therefore easier to rule over and manipulate? Sure, it could have been. Was it by a schizophrenic who "heard" God talking to him and wrote down what he heard? Absolutely, it could have been. Was it God himself who channeled his vision through a human being and allowed them to be his heavenly scribe? This is certainly the least likely possibility but the only one that would lend some weight to the scriptures. And therefore this is what you are basing your belief upon. The least likely possibility of all that are possible.
Science, on the other hand, offers data that can be proven or disproven. Just as I described the genetics of aging and telomeres. This can be confirmed by future studies or it can be disproven. At this point in time, I believe that considering the weight of available evidence that telomere shortening is responsible for the aging process. There is pretty good objective data to back me up on this belief. So unless you can present a theory that is also supported by a reasonable amount of objective data, then yes, I think you would be a fool or stupid not to believe the same. (Note, I am not saying you don't believe in this particular theory). Does this mean that I am right? No of course not. Does this mean that more studies should not be done? No of course not. It just means that a reasonable person would believe this as well. And I am sure that there are reasonable people out there who do not believe this theory, but they must have objective evidence to the contrary to keep the "reasonable" title. Thus the "reasonable" title generally does not rest with you since you are usually lacking in objective data.
So to summarize. The way beliefs are defended:
Religion: the least likely possibility of all that are possible.
Science: the most likely possibility of all that are possible.
duckboy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Please stop flattering yourself, Jesse Re: The difference is -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/24/2002, 18:55:20
Author Profile Mail author
Jesse, Your assertions are manifestly disingenuous!
Where you have been strenuously challenged (even belittled) is in cases such as where you claim with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY such things as that "time is infinite" and "space is infinite"!
One can ONLY hold such views out of ignorance! And once being informed that such statements are scientifically indefensible, to continue as you did to make those claims with your typical ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY is, in fact, stupid.
You made your absolute pronouncements about spacio-temporal infinity specifically to butress your absurd argument that no one can dispute the idea that "God is infinite"!
You have also claimed that legitimate, well evidenced scientific theories such as the inflationary Big Bang model CANNOT be correct!
So just who are you trying to kid??
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Hooray for duckboy! Re: The genetics of aging -- duckboy Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/24/2002, 18:43:28
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you, duckboy, for an excellent post! I am also quite appreciative of your link. Thanks.
I think I speak for most of us here that I would very much like to hear more from you!
Well done.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Ditto. Please stick around, duckboy Re: Hooray for duckboy! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/25/2002, 10:10:16
Author Profile Mail author
I never thought I'd ever write, "Please stick around, duckboy," but there it is.
I also have a question. There's a recent one-time poster called "phishhead" who has a tone and outlook similar to yours. Are you one and the same? If not, I hope both of you stick around.
Cal
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I am not phishhead Re: Ditto. Please stick around, duckboy -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: duckboy ®
05/25/2002, 15:33:38
Author Profile Mail author
Cal,
Thanks to you and Martin for the welcome. I have been lurking for several months and have been making random, infrequent posts recently. I have enjoyed learning from all of the thoughtful conversations taking place on this board and finally decided to try to make some contributions.
In answer to your question, no, I am not phishhead and haven't posted under that name. So that must be someone else.
I do want to clear one thing up from the beginning, so there are no crazy things going on later. I actually started following this board after I found it for my wife. We were both raised Catholic and she has always had problems with the inconsistent explanations given to her probing questions (she went to Catholic school as a child and has a questioning nature) and was having some conflict with her beliefs. Based on our experiences and most of the people we know, she felt like she was crazy for questioning the existence of God since most of the people we are acquainted with are Christians and it is almost expected that we would be believers too. I just happened upon this site by chance and it was very comforting for her to find a group of intelligent people who feel similar to the way she feels about religion. I also found myself becoming very interested in the threads and found myself questioning the things I was taught as I was growing up.
Anyway, I say all that just to put it in the open that my wife is samantha, also a lurker and infrequent poster. I say this because we will probably be posting from the same computer and I just don't want another wildlauriepork debacle in the future. Our opinions might be similar (especially in regards to our responses to Jesse - nothing personal, Jesse), but I assure you we are two independently thinking individuals. And as you will see, our posting styles are pretty different. So rpcman, if you're out there, WE ARE NOT WILDLAURIEPORK!
By the way, as best I can tell rpcman is the master of this domain. So I would just like to say thanks for a great site.
duckboy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Duckboy and Samantha, sitting in a tree... Re: I am not phishhead -- duckboy Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/25/2002, 21:14:24
Author Profile Mail author
We've had husband/wife posters here before. (Are you still lurking, Nigel and Emma? Best regards!) I don't think any suspicions would be aroused unless you followed each other around saying things like, "I totally agree with my alter-ego. And boy, what a babe/hunk you are!" rpcman is indeed the master of this domain. He is a benign deity who tolerates sin, disloyalty, and outright rebellion within his kingdom. Which is more than I can say for some touchy, adolescent gods whose names come up here from time to time.
Modified by Alf Omega at Sat, May 25, 2002, 21:15:03
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Touchy, adolescent gods... Re: Duckboy and Samantha, sitting in a tree... -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/26/2002, 17:52:16
Author Profile Mail author
Well, Alf, The only one I can think of that fits that description is Yahweh!
I'm sure that's who you must have been referring to... ;)
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Question. Re: The genetics of aging -- duckboy Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jesse ®
05/24/2002, 23:22:52
Author Profile Mail author
At what age (roughly) does telomeres start shorting?
Is it right after birth? Or at say 18 (when the individual stops growing) Etc?
Because if it does not begin getting shorter right from the start, then there must be genetic influence that decides that it should start shortening sometime. And if that's the case, that is, in a nutshell, what I would be talking about when I mention "elusive". Why that specific time?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
At birth Re: Question. -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: duckboy ®
05/25/2002, 16:21:37
Author Profile Mail author
Jesse,
I don't know the answer to this for sure, but I'll give you an answer based on what I know about genetics and the body. Therefore, I guess this would be my theory based on some of my knowledge in other fields. And this can certainly be refuted by anyone who might have better info.
All of the cells in the body have different life spans. A red blood cell for instance survives 120 days before it dies and is replaced. Cells lining the gut also don't survive terribly long and have a fairly high rate of turnover. These cells have a means of being replaced such as hematopoetic stem cells for the red blood cells (note this is different from the stem cell that was the big media topic recently). So I think that those cells with high rates of metabolism and high rates of turnover also go through gene replication more frequently - remember 40-60 cycles of replication in a normal cell.
But some cells are not replaced when they die (i.e. heart, brain, kidney). Once they are gone, they are gone. Presumably these cells do not go through gene replication as often as the above mentioned blood cells. Instead of replicating every 2 days, maybe the genes only replicate every 2 years. Therefore the limit put on the lifespan of an individual is dependent upon the essential organ that goes through gene replication the fastest - my guess would be that organ is the heart. Thus the ultimate answer according to this theory is that telomere shortening begins as soon as gene replication begins, which would be soon after birth.
Note this would mean the telomere length is not the same in all of the cellsof a given individuals's body. It depends on how often genes are replicated in a given cell type.
A major problem with my theory as stated above is that mature red blood cells don't have a nucleus and therefore shouldn't have genes that go through replication. I use blood cells as an example only because I happen to know their life span is 120 days and it is in contrast to the much longer life span of cells of the major organs. I am sure there are cells with nuclei who have life spans intermediate between these examples.
Once again this is my theory based on previous knowledge and I am opening myself up to challenge, especially since I am reaching the limits of my knowledge regarding the specifics of genetics. If anybody knows differently I would like to know. Note, Jesse, this is the way that science works. Start out with an idea, and if good evidence contradicts your idea, then change your thinking. I am certainly willing to change my way of thinking on the above stated information if there is information available that contradicts it (which there likely is).
duckboy
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: At birth Re: At birth -- duckboy Top of thread Archive
Posted by: samantha ® duckboy
05/26/2002, 14:02:37
Author Profile Mail author
I believe this process actually starts at conception. As soon as you exist, you start aging having lost millions of base pairs from your telomeres by the time of birth.
Sam
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
