evangelicals trying to hide hominid fossils

Scubascott

gue_barium wrote:

Thanks for the info. I can't use it, but thanks anyway.

No worries. You never know when it might come in handy. . .

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Yes. . . .That's what I'm saying.

You can have two copies of any particular gene. Sometimes there are different versions of the same gene. These are called alleles. In the context of sickle-cell anaemia, there are two possible alleles, the normal one, and the mutation.

If you have two copies of the normal allele, you have normal haemoglobin and normal blood cells. If you have one normal copy, and one mutated copy, you produce both normal haemoglobin, and the mutated form. You can still survive, because you enough of the normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen in your blood, but at high altitude, the effect of the abnormal haemoglobin is manifested as anaemia, and you die (or get pretty sick at least). If you have two copies of the mutant allele, and no normal copy, you're pretty well fucked. You don't have any normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen, so you die.

The advantage of having one copy of each allele (the normal one and the mutant one) is that you get more resistance to malaria (not sure about the mechanism of this). The disadvantage is that you can't go to high altitudes. So its only a positive change if you live near sea level, in the tropics. Otherwise it kinda sucks.

Dude, I know what an allele is.

I just wasn't sure if there were other side-effects of only having one.

Thanks for the info

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

Dude, I know what an allele is.

I just wasn't sure if there were other side-effects of only having one.

Thanks for the info

Sorry. I just realised that my first post was pretty confusing. Just trying to make it clearer.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Sorry. I just realised that my first post was pretty confusing. Just trying to make it clearer.

No it's cool, I didn't mean to come across as a jerk.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I find it kind of ironic that if I make a false statement the board jumps all over me. But since you've repeated this false statement countless times, only one or two people have challenged you. It may be some kind of indication then that no one besides you has challenged me on this.

Keep in mind that it was you who was saying my understanding of empiricism was false. I've personally known that BOTH my interpretation and yours fall under the umbrella of "emprical" all along. Therefore you are the one challenging me. The only one, might I add. Well, and you're also challenging your own dictionary source and the meaning it gave, and dictionary.com and wikipedia, too. And since no one has proven wikipedia, your dictionary source, dictionary.com or myself to be incorrect in this case, it looks like your challenge has fallen through. I'm merely pointing out how your direct points in the challenge are logically and factually inaccurate, and that they represent a lack in your understanding.

Ahnimus wrote:

I find it kind of ironic that I was criticized for not making my own statements, but rather quoting facts. In the end, I have to quote facts to get my point across.

Just to be clear. The criticsm towards you regarding facts was about you believing your opinions to be facts when opinions are not fact. Also, my criticisms towards you are about when you present a lack of facts as a response, instead using low-blows and degradation. If you were able to disprove something with facts people would support that 100%. However if I bring up a fact, you disagree and bring up a new line of thought in order to make your case, and while you might make a case, the only way you can disprove the original statement you disagree with is by disproving it, not just by creating an alternate case. An alternate case leaves us with two standing cases. So when you do this as an effort to "refute" what you disagree with, it does not effectively refute or disprove anything, it only creates an alternate view.

Ahnimus

I may be too tired to understand what you just said Angelica.

Determinism is fact though. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I just think it takes an open-mind.

There are thousands of ways to deceive a person, through change-blindness, sleight of hand, suggestion, etc..

Our perceptions, behaviors and concepts of "self" are dependent on determinants. So, when you exercise volition, it's based on your concept of "self", moral values and percepts. Those are dependent on various determinants.

It's so cut and dry. I can't see how that eludes some people. But to each is own I guess.

Scubascott

angelica wrote:

Therefore you are the one challenging me. The only one, might I add.

Could that possibly be because its a silly argument about semantics, and nobody else cares?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I may be too tired to understand what you just said Angelica.

Determinism is fact though. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I just think it takes an open-mind.

There are thousands of ways to deceive a person, through change-blindness, sleight of hand, suggestion, etc..

Our perceptions, behaviors and concepts of "self" are dependent on determinants. So, when you exercise volition, it's based on your concept of "self", moral values and percepts. Those are dependent on various determinants.

It's so cut and dry. I can't see how that eludes some people. But to each is own I guess.

I understand that cause and effect is very real within a linear context. I understand how we can prove causality. I understand how people arrive at ideas such as determinism. For me that does not disprove free will. Particularly when we cannot prove/disprove an opinion or a belief. Opinions and beliefs are not scientific or factual--they merely are what they are. One way or the other.

angelica

Scubascott wrote:

Could that possibly be because its a silly argument about semantics, and nobody else cares?

Whatever the reason, it's a fact that one person challenged that point.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I understand that cause and effect is very real within a linear context. I understand how we can prove causality. I understand how people arrive at ideas such as determinism. For me that does not disprove free will. Particularly when we cannot prove/disprove an opinion or a belief. Opinions and beliefs are not scientific or factual--they merely are what they are. One way or the other.

We can dig out a big chunk of their brain and that limits their "free-will" quite drastically.

NMyTree

Ahnimus wrote:

Determinism is fact though.

No, it is not.

It is your opinion, that it is fact.

In fact, there's nothing cut and dry about it.

No proof, whatsoever to support your opinions based on other's opinions and theories. None whatsoever.

angelica

I said a wayyy while back that the typical idea of free will--of being able to make any choice in any moment--is an illusion. I'm well aware that we can only make free choice given the circumstances, which include very far-reaching variables beneath the surface that most people can't begin to comprehend. I am well aware that I am one with my life. I am not outside of my life.

RainDog

Ahnimus wrote:

Dude, I know what an allele is.

I just wasn't sure if there were other side-effects of only having one.

Thanks for the info

Another major drawback for having one mutated allele is that you are many times more likely to pass that allele on to your offspring. Even in malaria prone areas of the world, this can be a problem. If an environment is "selecting" (i know its not conscious selection - but you get me) for the allele due to a high rate of malaria, then the likelyhood of most people having it is high. And, if most people have it, when two mate they are far more likely to have a child where the allele is paired with another mutated allele - giving the child sickle-cell anemia.

Malaria was (is) essentially keeping the mutation "alive" - where normally such a mutation would be bred out of a population. In fact, it's not a particularly good mutation to have at all. The anti-malaria effect (simply put - mosquitoes don't like this kind of blood) is really the only benefit - and in a modern society, you really don't want it at all.