You dont expect me to believe that??

SunDog

newmug wrote: »

What is ac?

Air conditioning

steddyeddy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't see what's wrong with being sceptical about anthropogenic climate change. It hasn't been proven that global warming is being caused by human activity. There's a lot of knee-jerkedness around this aspect of science to be honest. Any who see it differently are labelled with term 'climate change denier' which has unpleasant and offensive connotations with those who deny the occurrence of the holocaust.

Hey Kaiser. I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical either. Thats why I started the thread not to have a go at any particular group or lump skeptics in with creationists ect.

There's a lot of knee-jerkedness

That's something I would agree with. Personally I accept evolution and human accelerated climate change but I hate with a passion the attitude that these should never be questioned (by the way Im not lumping you in with creationists). Everyone has the right to be skeptical. When people are unable to question science without people making ad hominin attacks on them science becomes dogma.

steddyeddy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't think it's reasonable to equate creationists with people who are concerned about the criminal behaviour of Monsanto.
People concerned about GMO's are supported by science which indicates that GMO genetics can be easily dispersed into wider crops.
You are being more than disingenuous by slyly seeking to equate that concern with demonstrable idiocies.

I'm not. I'm personally concerned with Monsanto but I dont think GMOs are a bad idea in general.

Cavehill Red

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not. I'm personally concerned with Monsanto but I dont think GMOs are a bad idea in general.

You are still being disingenuous by seeking to equate Creationists with people who are concerned with GMO proliferation.

steddyeddy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You are still being disingenuous by seeking to equate Creationists with people who are concerned with GMO proliferation.

It wasnt deliberate nor is that the intention of this thread. I'd be happy never to mention gmos again in this thread.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again with the semantics?

The purpose of language is communication; if you can get your idea across to someone, there's no need to get hung up on semantics. Unfortunately in science it's not possible to trust that people have gotten the jist - I would argue that semantics are incredibly important in science.

For example you said that some people don't think that GMOs are safe. They're by no means proven to be safe from an ecological standpoint concerning the wild gene pool. They also seem to be unsafe with regards to protecting struggling farmers being taken advantage of. In other ways they certainly seem safe, but the idea of "GMOs are safe" is very ambiguous. The validity of the phrase can be true, false or inconclusive depending on what you mean by it, and in science, you have to state what you mean or it's meaningless - you can't trust people to be on the same wavelength as you.

steddyeddy

true-or-false wrote: »

The purpose of language is communication; if you can get your idea across to someone, there's no need to get hung up on semantics. Unfortunately in science it's not possible to trust that people have gotten the jist - I would argue that semantics are incredibly important in science.

For example you said that some people don't think that GMOs are safe. They're by no means proven to be safe from an ecological standpoint concerning the wild gene pool. They also seem to be unsafe with regards to protecting struggling farmers being taken advantage of. In other ways they certainly seem safe, but the idea of "GMOs are safe" is very ambiguous. The validity of the phrase can be true, false or inconclusive depending on what you mean by it, and in science, you have to state what you mean or it's meaningless - you can't trust people to be on the same wavelength as you.

Yes getting ones point across is important. Semantics would be important if I were writing a paper on IVF ect but basing an entire argument on the semantics of a post on a internet forum is not something that has merit. Attacking someones scientific thinking based on semantics is'nt something that I have come across in my career either.

As regards saftey I was referring to IVF. I personally think it's likely that there is an increased risk of congenital birth defects from IVF treatment. My thinking relates to the lack of thought given to the reprogramming of non genetic elements and their effect on gene expression.

Finally this is after hours I dont think it's a good idea to make a thread comprised entirely of scientific langague.

PizzamanIRL

steddyeddy wrote: »

On boards lately we have seen an increase in the number of people who dont accept some of the current scientific thinking. Some for example dont believe we're evolved from a common anscestor with the apes, others dont accept that GMOs (genetically modified organisims) are safe and some dont accept global warming (well human accelerated global warming anyway).

I'm a scientist and I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical about current scientific thinking. As long as you can back up your argument. If people cant challenge current scientific thinking thats not science thats dogma.

So is there any current scientific thinking you dont accept? Personally I dont think ivf is as safe as some people think but in fairness some studies are starting to agree with me. What science doubts do you hold and do you think the increasing distrust of scientists and science is warranted?

What's the point in abbreviating something if you're going to type out the whole thing anyway? Just saying.

latenia

I think advanced theoretical physics is just as much a load of bollox as any religion- it's just mathematical masturbation by dorks.

This means that if one studied supergravity on an eleven-dimensional spacetime that looks like the product of a ten-dimensional spacetime with another very small one-dimensional manifold, one gets the Type IIA supergravity theory. (And the Type IIB supergravity theory can be obtained by using T-duality.) However, eleven-dimensional supergravity is not consistent on its own — it does not make sense at extremely high energy, and likely requires some form of completion. It seems plausible, then, that there is some quantum theory — which Witten dubbed M-theory — in eleven-dimensions which gives rise at low energies to eleven-dimensional supergravity, and is related to ten-dimensional string theory by dimensional reduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

steddyeddy

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

What's the point in abbreviating something if you're going to type out the whole thing anyway? Just saying.

Becuase not everyone knows what GMOs are. Typing out the abbreviation and full meaning now means I can use the abbreviation in later posts without worry.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

As regards saftey I was referring to IVF.

I was referring to:

steddyeddy wrote: »

others dont accept that GMOs (genetically modified organisims) are safe

Anyway, I've no interest in IVF issues so I'm out!

endacl

Senna wrote: »

Its better to be skeptical than except everything your told.

Surely excepting everything you're told takes skepticism to a whole new level?!?

Or were you thinking of accepting?

steddyeddy

true-or-false wrote: »

I was referring to:


Anyway, I've no interest in IVF issues so I'm out!

Well I have heard others claim everything from GMOs are ecological unsafe to GMOs being the cause of tumors.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I have heard others claim everything from GMOs are ecological unsafe to GMOs being the cause of tumors.

Well GMOs are something I'd have a vague interest in, and while I don't know much about them, I do know that they have many drawbacks. It's vital that we keep moving forward with genetic research and the creation of new and better crops, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many bad consequences to using them. We can't afford to wait until we know absolutely every consequence of GMO use, so we are leaping into the somewhat unknown. Either way, regardless of what we know, there is still much we don't know and that leaves enough room for people to be as skeptical as they like.

steddyeddy

true-or-false wrote: »

Well GMOs are something I'd have a vague interest in, and while I don't know much about them, I do know that they have many drawbacks. It's vital that we keep moving forward with genetic research and the creation of new and better crops, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many bad consequences to using them. We can't afford to wait until we know absolutely every consequence of GMO use, so we are leaping into the somewhat unknown. Either way, regardless of what we know, there is still much we don't know and that leaves enough room for people to be as skeptical as they like.

Well yes that's fair enough. I would ask people who make tumour claims to back them up though or at least propose a mechanisim for it.

Pottler

I'll go along with the climate change mob when they start speaking sense. CO2 levels are lower than during Victorian times and way lower than at many periods in the earths history.

They also conveniently never mention Jet aircraft emmisions when criticising emisions, despite the fact that jets belch out higher levels of burnt hydrocarbons than all the other forms of IC transport combined and do so high in the atmosphere along with vapour trails that spread to kilometers wide and are white, which traps heat causing temperature rises and produces a form of permacloud in the atmosphere.

I'll also start trusting GMOs when I start trusting the manufacturers, which may be never. Also evolution...pfft:D

Monty Burnz

latenia wrote: »

I think advanced theoretical physics is just as much a load of bollox as any religion- it's just mathematical masturbation by dorks.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Of course, this is probably what they said when Arabic numbers or the number zero was introduced to Western civilisation. Let's not confuse something that's bloody complicated with something that is not true.

Icepick

steddyeddy wrote: »

On boards lately we have seen an increase in the number of people who dont accept some of the current scientific thinking.

There aren't more morons, just more morons with access to the Internet.

Monty Burnz

Icepick wrote: »

There aren't more morons, just more morons with access to the Internet.

God bless scientific progress.

dirtyden

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes getting ones point across is important. Semantics would be important if I were writing a paper on IVF ect but basing an entire argument on the semantics of a post on a internet forum is not something that has merit. Attacking someones scientific thinking based on semantics is'nt something that I have come across in my career either.

As regards saftey I was referring to IVF. I personally think it's likely that there is an increased risk of congenital birth defects from IVF treatment. My thinking relates to the lack of thought given to the reprogramming of non genetic elements and their effect on gene expression.

Finally this is after hours I dont think it's a good idea to make a thread comprised entirely of scientific langague.

You claim to be a scientist but you don't believe semantics are important?

If you leave something open to mis-interpretation it will be mis-interpreted. Scientific statements should be clear and unambiguous. This is pretty basic stuff in any GMP/GLP/GXP driven work place. Your original post is riddled with ambiguity and open ended statements without anything backing it up apart from the very un-scientific 'some people'. Your opening post does not suggest any kind of scientific mindset.

I find it hard to believe you would defend your original post as a scientist by saying semantics (that is the meaning of what you were trying to say is not important).

steddyeddy

dirtyden wrote: »

You claim to be a scientist but you don't believe semantics are important?

If you leave something open to mis-interpretation it will be mis-interpreted. Scientific statements should be clear and unambiguous. This is pretty basic stuff in any GMP/GLP/GXP driven work place. Your original post is riddled with ambiguity and open ended statements without anything backing it up apart from the very un-scientific 'some people'. Your opening post does not suggest any kind of scientific mindset.

I find it hard to believe you would defend your original post as a scientist by saying semantics (that is the meaning of what you were trying to say is not important).

My opening post was detailing claims made by others which I dont personally think are legit. "GMOs are unsafe" is something thats continually brought up again and again as a blanket statement. I was giving an example of the type of things that have been said in relation to certain things.

In terms of the semantics of my views about IVF I dont think it would be a good idea to go into the biochemical terms in my first post but I have no problem in doing so now.

Semantics are important in every aspect of science but I fail to see some of my wording has resulted in my scientific abiltiy being attacked. It would be highly unusual and unprofessional to attack a scientist on semantics alone.

steddyeddy

Piliger wrote: »

Coming from the Science industry and having working in Chemistry research,

And you'r seriously attacking my use of words?

I am simply challenging you on your posts and the language and thinking you use, which is thoroughly non scientific.

You were challenging me based on false perceptions of my scientific viewpoints. You then repeatedly claim that you know my thinking, which apparantly is non-scientific. You base that all on the langauge I used which at times maybe isnt crystal clear but It doesnt display a lack of scientific thinking.

I would be happy to debate your ideas but you need to tighten up your concepts.

If you are going to deabte my ideas you would need to understand my concepts.

steddyeddy

I think the reprogramming capability of non-genetic elements is underestimated in both male and female gametes during In vitro fertilisation. I think that lack of normal cellular context could increase risk of congenital birth defects by a modification of non-genetic components of the epigenome . IVF treatments should in my opinion take these potential problems into stronger consideration.

Pottler

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the reprogramming capability of non-genetic elements is underestimated in both male and female gametes during In vitro fertilisation. I think that lack of normal cellular context could increase risk of congenital birth defects by a modification of non-genetic components of the epigenome . IVF treatments should in my opinion take these potential problems into stronger consideration.

Sorry, but scientifically speaking, that's just b0llox using big words. "The reprogramming capability", ie the genetic mutability is unnaffected as the only varyation is the supporting structures which have no influence beyond the make-up of the amniotic fluid. "The cellular context" is again, gibberish - what context exactly?? It's an egg and a sperm in some fluid. What has context got to do with it?? What's missing? Barry White on CD?

"Non-genetic components of the epigenome" - would you ever pull the other one, no-one with a brain is doing anything but laughing at that one, and basically, you're talking dung and calling it faeces.:)

westendgirlie

The term 'current scientific thinking' has been mentioned 48 times on this thread.

That's a fact!

Sonics2k

irish-stew wrote: »

Well they never went back for a start. Where's all this talk of moon bases and jump/relay points for further travel that we were promised.

12 people have walked on the moon, we just remember Neil and Buzz as they were the first.

After that, NASA lost its funding to go back.

latenia

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Of course, this is probably what they said when Arabic numbers or the number zero was introduced to Western civilisation. Let's not confuse something that's bloody complicated with something that is not true.

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of this field of science is as faith based as religion - making your theories work mathematically doesn't prove anything. Have you ever looked at some Catholic theology works? They can be ridiculously complicated; a lot of them would require a doctorate to comprehend properly, but they're still bollox.

Monty Burnz

latenia wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of this field of science is as faith based as religion - making your theories work mathematically doesn't prove anything. Have you ever looked at some Catholic theology works? They can be ridiculously complicated; a lot of them would require a doctorate to comprehend properly, but they're still bollox.

The difference I guess is that theoretical physics can be definitively falsified - as much of it no doubt will be. But other stuff will be proved to be bang on the money.

steddyeddy

Pottler wrote: »

Sorry, but scientifically speaking, that's just b0llox using big words. "The reprogramming capability", ie the genetic mutability is unnaffected as the only varyation is the supporting structures which have no influence beyond the make-up of the amniotic fluid. "The cellular context" is again, gibberish - what context exactly?? It's an egg and a sperm in some fluid. What has context got to do with it?? What's missing? Barry White on CD?

"Non-genetic components of the epigenome" - would you ever pull the other one, no-one with a brain is doing anything but laughing at that one, and basically, you're talking dung and calling it faeces.:)

Now that's an argument I can appreciate! You attacked the science and that gives me something to reply with. Thank you. Now I'll deal with your points.

As regards the bit in bold I can safely say you haven’t been doing your homework. The variation you talk about i.e. cellular context is a pretty big variation. Cellular context is extremely important.

Cellular context is one of the biggest obstacles to cloning extinct animals using related species, E.G cloning a mammoth using DNA and the womb of a modern Asian or African elephant. You may be able to insert the mammoth’s DNA into a zygote and implant it into an elephant but you probably won’t get a mammoth. The reason for that is cellular context, no not Barry white music and the romance element as you seem to be implying but the context of the cell and the signalling it receives from its host organism.


You see years ago when we mapped the whole genome (I refer to the human race and not you and me personally. Anyhow we mapped the genome and what was discovered was that the amount of genes can’t possibly account for the complexity of diseases in the world. There must have been something else going on and indeed there was. As well as a genetic code we have an epigenetic code. Our DNA i.e. ATC and G nucleotides comprise our genetic code (when in intron). What is also understood is that certain genes can be turned on and off like a light switch during various stages of development. Part of the method for gene expression and silencing is the use of epigenetic markers. These markers might be the addition of a methyl group (CH3) to a Cytosine nucleotide. Or they could be the acetylation, methylation or phosphorylation of the histone octamers which are found in the nucleosome within the chromatin.


These epigenetic markers can influence higher order chromatin remodelling and ultimately affect gene expression
Epigenetic markers are strongly connected with environmental conditions. Certain environmental conditions cause methylation and some remove methylation. These epigenetic markers are in part “programmed” in response to cellular signalling. What wasn’t known is that there can be Trans generational epigenetic effects seen in organisms. Previously it was thought that the DNA in a woman’s eggs is locked away and only affected by genetic recombination but now it is thought that signalling from the mother can cause epigenetic markers to be placed on certain genes in the eggs in response to certain environmental conditions the mother is exposed to.


In IVF treatment the egg and sperm are place in a culture medium for roughly 17-20 hours (mostly it’s for 18 hours). It is this stage where epigenetic reprogramming can take place in my opinion (It’s not just mine there are other people who hold that view too). In fact there are studies showing an increase in cases of beckwith-wiedemann syndrome and angelman syndrome in IVF treatments. The two syndromes are strongly associated with genomic imprinting. Genomic imprinting in this case refers to the phenomenon where genes in the zygote are imprinted so that they retain and imprint from either the mother or the father. The two syndromes have a similar mechanism except one arises from a paternal imprint and the other from a maternal imprint. Another paper states “Considerable evidence in animal studies has demonstrated alteration in gene imprinting of embryos cultured in vitro”.

Pottler

steddyeddy wrote: »

Now that's an argument I can appreciate! You attacked the science and that gives me something to reply with. Thank you. Now I'll deal with your points.

As regards the bit in bold I can safely say you haven’t been doing your homework. The variation you talk about i.e. cellular context is a pretty big variation. Cellular context is extremely important.

Cellular context is one of the biggest obstacles to cloning extinct animals using related species, E.G cloning a mammoth using DNA and the womb of a modern Asian or African elephant. You may be able to insert the mammoth’s DNA into a zygote and implant it into an elephant but you probably won’t get a mammoth. The reason for that is cellular context, no not Barry white music and the romance element as you seem to be implying but the context of the cell and the signalling it receives from its host organism.


You see years ago when we mapped the whole genome (I refer to the human race and not you and me personally. Anyhow we mapped the genome and what was discovered was that the amount of genes can’t possibly account for the complexity of diseases in the world. There must have been something else going on and indeed there was. As well as a genetic code we have an epigenetic code. Our DNA i.e. ATC and G nucleotides comprise our genetic code (when in intron). What is also understood is that certain genes can be turned on and off like a light switch during various stages of development. Part of the method for gene expression and silencing is the use of epigenetic markers. These markers might be the addition of a methyl group (CH3) to a Cytosine nucleotide. Or they could be the acetylation, methylation or phosphorylation of the histone octamers which are found in the nucleosome within the chromatin.


These epigenetic markers can influence higher order chromatin remodelling and ultimately affect gene expression
Epigenetic markers are strongly connected with environmental conditions. Certain environmental conditions cause methylation and some remove methylation. These epigenetic markers are in part “programmed” in response to cellular signalling. What wasn’t known is that there can be Trans generational epigenetic effects seen in organisms. Previously it was thought that the DNA in a woman’s eggs is locked away and only affected by genetic recombination but now it is thought that signalling from the mother can cause epigenetic markers to be placed on certain genes in the eggs in response to certain environmental conditions the mother is exposed to.


In IVF treatment the egg and sperm are place in a culture medium for roughly 17-20 hours (mostly it’s for 18 hours). It is this stage where epigenetic reprogramming can take place in my opinion (It’s not just mine there are other people who hold that view too). In fact there are studies showing an increase in cases of beckwith-wiedemann syndrome and angelman syndrome in IVF treatments. The two syndromes are strongly associated with genomic imprinting. Genomic imprinting in this case refers to the phenomenon where genes in the zygote are imprinted so that they retain and imprint from either the mother or the father. The two syndromes have a similar mechanism except one arises from a paternal imprint and the other from a maternal imprint. Another paper states “Considerable evidence in animal studies has demonstrated alteration in gene imprinting of embryos cultured in vitro”.

Steddy, you've changed the feckin pitch, never mind the goalposts.:D You're now talking about cloning extinct animals throught the medium of foreign host IVF, which is a bit of a stretch from regular IVF. You're talking Jurassic park as an argument against Brige and Barry going down the fertility clinic, a process that is so hit and miss that to suggest we aim for a deliberately cultured bias to one parents genome as opposed to the other is taking it a bit far. If Brige is a babe and Barry has a squinty eye, I doubt that we're going to see too many IVF clinics offering to "bring out the Brige" through genetic manipulation for another while yet, though no doubt advances are well along and soon we'll be able to pick hair colour etc from a catalog.
I'll introduce the technical drawbacks of timetravel when attempting to re-construct a fractured tibia shortly and we can argue about that for a bit.:)

galwayrush

westendgirlie wrote: »

The term 'current scientific thinking' has been mentioned 48 times on this thread.

That's a fact!

Was than a + 1 post?

--Kaiser--

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's something I would agree with. Personally I accept evolution and human accelerated climate change but I hate with a passion the attitude that these should never be questioned

Evolution is a verifiable fact though. Question all you want, you won't get very far
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"