What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

Post #913.

Thanks. I didn't look quite that many posts back!

I can see from where MindWalk's confusion arose: it was based on the idea that a genome describes the high level structure of the chromosomes (such as what proteins are coded for), whereas in fact it is the sequences of codons - like the sequence of characters in a book, with no parsing for grammar, words, or meaning.

It can't really be taken to be anything else, since most of the DNA is non-coding, and even the function of coding DNA is not always so simple as chunks of coding codons between a start codon and a stop codon (as was once thought) if I understand correctly.

[In addition, the meaning of the term gene has broadened: it once referred pretty much exclusively to such a bracketed piece of coding DNA (mapping to some peptide or protein), but these days the non-coding DNA is known to have phenotypic effects (and of course is inherited) and as a consequence is subject to natural selection and evolves. Dawkins uses the term for any portion of DNA which satisfies these requirements, making it very general. This is equivalent to the first sentence of the wikipedia article "A gene is the molecular unit of heredity of a living organism", but broader than the second, in my opinion - "It is used extensively by the scientific community as a name given to some stretches of deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) and ribonucleic acids (RNA) that code for a polypeptide or for an RNA chain that has a function in the organism. ". I believe DNA can have phenotypic effects even if it fails to meet these requirements, for example if it influences the expression of the DNA directly adjacent to it.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVXIfIPyf_c

A great video. The song itself brings back memories of T.Rex. The group, not the dinosaur.

I think what is confusing me is that although it makes sense to sequence the genome of an individual--*a* genome--*the* genome of a *species* seems often to be spoken of. But the genes of individuals of the same species differ; what counts as "the genome of a species"? Is a genome a mapping of genetic loci rather than of particular alleles?

kstevens67 "I think we can all agree that "Love thy neighbor", with 'neighbor' meaning anyone, is the right path."

   Say, what, dude? How can you say "we can all agree"? You don't speak for 7 billion people, do you?

   And I would qualify that "anyone". There are some truly nasty neighborhoods where you wouldn't want to walk down the street, particularly at nightfall.

   So, no. I will choose whom I will love, be neutral to most others and be very, very defensive against the few.

   This fits in with freethinking existentialism very nicely, thank you.

"Love thy neighbor" is probably the best thing in the Bible. I wholeheartedly endorse it. But we should understand what it does and does not mean. It does not mean "Smile at your neighbor." It does not mean "Hug your neighbor." It's fine if you and your neighbor want to smile at and hug each other, of course. But what "Love thy neighbor" means is that you and your neighbor help each other out when either of you needs the help. Your neighbor broke his leg and can't do his own grocery shopping? You do it for him.

And I want society to built in such a way that the maxim "Love thy neighbor" is put into practice. That's one reason I vote Democratic: because I want to see lawmakers and policymakers elected who want to enact laws and policies and create agencies to help the people who need it. I don't worry about the rich and powerful--they'll be fine. But we, as a society, should do all the things required to "love our neighbors."

None of this entails respecting silly beliefs, however. The people who hold them? Sure. But the beliefs? No.

The only legitimate place for religion in this discussion is in relation to the way in which people arrive at their beliefs.

That's a great point. Of course there is a great deal of commonality between the genomes of human beings - that's the nature of a species. But there are also both:

1. a huge number of relatively rare variations and 
2. many minor (or less minor) variations where one genotype is not the large majority - eg genes relating to skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, blood group and several other phenotypic effects.

In the former case there is a "normal" version of the DNA which is in most people and mutant versions in a few. In the latter case, it is inappropriate to take any one variant as canonical. But these sorts of variation are a tiny fraction of the genome. The "genome of the species" can be reasonably taken to include those parts which are common to the large majority of the species, but footnotes need to be added for the common variants (eg blood groups). I think it's about 99.9% of the autosomal coding DNA that is common to all humans, and about 99.5% of the autosomal DNA.

Looking into variation in the Y-chromosome, I was struck by the fascinating facts extracted from the literature in the wikipedia article on the Y-chromosome. One is that although over its entire history, the Y-chromosome has lost over 90% of its genes, the comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes shows that it has lost exactly zero of the more than 200 coding genes found in the lines from the common ancestor of the two primates! Apparently only one gene has been lost even back to an earlier common ancestor of all primates 26 million years ago. This is more extraordinary to me because the mutation rate of the Y-chromosome is far higher than that of autosomal DNA. I would infer that the very limited genes remaining are those where there would be a fitness disadvantage to have them in both genders, or for them to be lost entirely.

Not sure about that. You want things to change. That's legitimate. But is starting from a position of disrespect going to have a positive or negative effect? ;)

I think MindWalk means there is no reason to respect beliefs that are simply false. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have false respect for geocentrism, flat-Earthism, not believing HIV causes AIDs, or any of the wide range of other disproven beliefs.

But to drag this back on topic, wikipedia elaborates the point I made that there not all open reading frames are coding DNA.

And having religious belief is "simply false"? Or maybe I misunderstood.

ksteve, my short anser is: whatever.

   I stand by what I said. You are obviously not a rational, critical thinker but, instead, a warm and fuzzy thinker. No insult intended. I think you are a warm and fuzzy guy and an all-around decent person.

   This really gave me a chuckle: Would you believe this World would be a better place if we all just loved one another? 

   Are you talking about the 1960ies, hippies, beatniks, unwashed, flower-power, pot and communes, Jane Fonda, tie-dye shirts, free love, long hair?

   Yeah...you are. I suspect that you are too young to have been around in that era. I was. It was all a lot of lazy bums. Didn't work. Bunch of losers. Me? I was in the military about half of that decade. And no, I didn't shoot babies.

   President Obama started out with world peace in mind. Too bad that that failed as well. If you have a plan to accomplish world peace and every one loving everyone...I'd sure like to hear about it.

   You sound young and have been listening to too many liberal teachers and are living in a delusional utopia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06X5HYynP5E

Edit: I see that you were born July 1967. Yeah, you missed out. You would have fit right in with the hippies of that era.

Well, I can't be sure what MindWalk was thinking, but some beliefs are simply false. Having a stamp of religiosity cannot change that.

However, you are making the mistake of overgeneralisation to assume all religious beliefs are contradicted by hard facts. Many lack any direct contradiction with any known facts. [On the other hand, this does not make them necessarily true.]

Since I can't post in the other thread I'll have to ask a question here I would prefer to ask there.

I have seen several hundred posts by Iluvsmetuna and can honestly say I have never seen a single one that reveals any significant knowledge or understanding of anything. Can anyone point out a counterexample to this general rule?

Ok, I guess we'll just wait for Mindwalk. I just know that some atheists like to throw about phrases like "silly beliefs" for things that are a bit more open or just don't fit into the little materialist perspective.

Also religious belief is of course always held more dearly than belief in anything else, it almost becomes part of a person. Spitting on it obviously does nothing but entrench; Yet some can't see past "but it's false", rather than engaging some actual human qualities to accomplish something.

Yes!

She posts everything so confidentlty! That means she must know something, right?

From that nice neighbor who posted this:Why on earth are you even commenting on this? You do not know what you are talking about. You have no earthly idea whether it is opinion or not.

As if we unevolved neanderthals should feel honored, someone as enlightened as HP, would take time out of his valuable day, to share his wisdom with us.

roflmao!

btw...Peace on Earth and good will to all men. Each of us, here and now, should today give a man-hug to everyone that we meet during this day.