Evolution and Pashtun nationalism...

[erlangner]

Akbar Khan, pitty about started thread about evolution and nationalism. If you say, monkey pshtuns, or pashtun monkey, then it really means you dont know about alphabets of evolution.
Evolution theory is theory so it may be wrong but it is supported by strong arguments, so it may have more chances to be proved right by geneomic proofs, however scientists are working and may be will know in the next few years.

Why animals are not punished and humans are punsihed for crimes and sins, is another debate, because human is called social animal, and society can be run only by punsih and reward theory.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

.

[akbarkhan]

Akbarkhan Gula, for someone with such a lacking background in science, of course you'd think that evolution doesn't make any sense. You haven't even defined evolution, remember? And your first two sentences in your first post tell us you don't know what it is because, like the average human who doesn't know much science or biology, you believe that evolution teaches that we came form monkeys. Ask any evolutionist, biologist, or any other kind of scientist and tell me which one tells you that that's what evolution teaches. In fact, that's the most common misconception about evolution -- which most scientists now consider a FACT, by the way, because we have too much evidence for it to be "just" a theory. Even if it were "just" a theory, it's the closest thing to a fact and it becomes a fact with much glaring evidence -- as in the case of evolution. Keep up with science, will ya :D

You are a scientist and you claim to have studied evolution for many years. This should be an easy one for you, please enlighten us.

What triggers the homeotic gene?

[akbarkhan]

wrora, that is some pathetic discourse above. Rape and dog sex. Which mexican brothel did you visit on tableegh.

The theory of evolution, is a scientific theory, based on fossil records. That means it predicts survival of the fittest over geological times (thousands of years for traits that are saved in fossils). Genetic studies show similar trends but is not available over long enough time to call it a done deal. Now if you want to apply that to the fluctuations of the stock market on a day to day basis, or why you have much fewer neurons compared to Qrrantugai, than that is your stupidity not the theory's.

The human genome has no fancy god proving algorithms, so stop yapping about algorithms. If we share 97% of our genome with a dog, so what. If it was 99.9% or 9% a human would still be human and a dog, dog.

Fossil records only deal with phenotype, on a genotype level the theory fails, if you believe otherwise then try and prove me wrong through scientific hypothesis, not ad hominems!

Sure the human genome doesn't have any fancy God proving algorithms, but algorithms deal with random variate generation which is exactly what the theory of evolution should be doing on a genotype level. So the onus is on you 'scientists' to explain the stochastic processes of evolution through a mathematical algorithm.

[akbarkhan]

Evolution theory is theory so it may be wrong but it is supported by strong arguments, so it may have more chances to be proved right by geneomic proofs, however scientists are working and may be will know in the next few years.

Again, arguments based on the phenotype, not genotype. So yes until they deal with the elephant in the room which is the human genome, evolution is a scientific joke.

Why animals are not punished and humans are punsihed for crimes and sins, is another debate, because human is called social animal, and society can be run only by punsih and reward theory.

It is not another debate at all, the reason you are suggesting that it is another debate is because evolution totally overlooks the social aspects of human life. According to evolution, you were not a Pashtun a few thousand years ago and you will not be a Pashtun in thousand years to come as you are constantly evolving.

If we have all evoluted from single cell organisms then what exactly makes us 'social animals' and where does 'crime' and 'sins' fit in a evolutionary world? In a evolutionary world where you live only once, there should be not rights or wrongs, remember it is all a coincidence!?

[akbarkhan]

I don't want to engage in pseudoscience. Someone dealing with the subject will debunk your copy-pasted claim very soon.

When did mathematical algorithms in biomedicine become pseudoscience?

Genome sequencing technology and algorithms

Intelligent Algorithms in Ambient and Biomedical Computing Philips Research Book Series: Amazon.co.uk: Wim Verhaegh, Emile Aarts, Jan Korst: Books

Seriously, stop uttering nonsense.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

akbarkhan,

Again, arguments based on the phenotype, not genotype. So yes until they deal with the elephant in the room which is the human genome, evolution is a scientific joke.

I don't know why you keep going about the genome. Because as far as the scientific community is concerned (of which I am no part but I read the stuff they publish sometimes), DNA, genetics and the human genome actually proved evolution. They were elated when DNA-based research started.

In any case, let's see what the scientific journals and people from academia have to say about monsieur elephant:

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds - National Geographic

Creation, Evolution and the Human Genome - Yale

I can post a hundred more.

abkarkhan, can you post any article from a scientific journal or publication that says that the study of the human genome disproves evolution?

I've Googled some Christian polytheist kufr zinah websites that are putting up the "omg it couldn't have happened by chance" theory.

It is not another debate at all, the reason you are suggesting that it is another debate is because evolution totally overlooks the social aspects of human life.

Because the laws of gravity totally overlook the social aspects of human life.

Because Pythagoras' theorem totally overlooks the social aspects of human life.

And so on and so forth.

If we have all evoluted from single cell organisms then what exactly makes us 'social animals' and where does 'crime' and 'sins' fit in a evolutionary world? In a evolutionary world where you live only once, there should be not rights or wrongs, remember it is all a coincidence!?

akbarkhan, there were rights and wrongs for 3,000 years before the arrival of the trinity of the Abrahamic religions. The Assyrians, Sumerians, Hittites, the people of 'Great Zimbabwe' and many other ancient peoples had their own self-created rules. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights was 'authored', among others, by John Peters Humphrey, a secular legal expert and not a theologian.

When did mathematical algorithms in biomedicine become pseudoscience?

Genome sequencing technology and algorithms

Intelligent Algorithms in Ambient and Biomedical Computing Philips Research Book Series: Amazon.co.uk: Wim Verhaegh, Emile Aarts, Jan Korst: Books

Seriously, stop uttering nonsense.

What I meant was that if I tried to answer something very technically scientific, it would end up becoming pseudoscience, the sort that religious scholars on television promote.

Now if you would be kind enough to entertain the rest of my post.

[akbarkhan]

akbarkhan,
DNA, genetics and the human genome actually proved evolution. They were elated when DNA-based research started.

Really? What triggers the homeotic gene then?

abkarkhan, can you post any article from a scientific journal or publication that says that the study of the human genome disproves evolution?

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.4749v2.pdf

What I meant was that if I tried to answer something very technically scientific, it would end up becoming pseudoscience, the sort that religious scholars on television promote.

You got jokes. Clearly, the subject matter is not your area of expertise, spew your intellectual diarrhoea elsewhere.

[Baygham]

Again, arguments based on the phenotype, not genotype. So yes until they deal with the elephant in the room which is the human genome, evolution is a scientific joke.



It is not another debate at all, the reason you are suggesting that it is another debate is because evolution totally overlooks the social aspects of human life. According to evolution, you were not a Pashtun a few thousand years ago and you will not be a Pashtun in thousand years to come as you are constantly evolving.

If we have all evoluted from single cell organisms then what exactly makes us 'social animals' and where does 'crime' and 'sins' fit in a evolutionary world? In a evolutionary world where you live only once, there should be not rights or wrongs, remember it is all a coincidence!?

And we were not muslims a few hundred years ago and wont be muslims a few hundred years down the line, Gods will change, muhammads will come and go. Forget a hundred years, the salafi gods of todays ardent defenders of islam were not present in pakhtunland in any meaningfull numbers only 35 years ago.

In a trillion years, may be my atoms will be part of another star, who cares. Its the now and here. My life span is not a million years, the average age in pakhtunkhwa is 56 years, and the pakhtun land, in comparison to the whole universe is again very very tiny, not measured in light years but in kilometers.

Human intellect deals with our time and spatial constraints (a few years and a a few killometers accross). Now if events on distant Quasers gizzillions of light years away cause unsettled emotional pangs and you soothe those pangs with a tincture of 'Allah', good for you. It doesnot bother everyone that way.

And I said it above, the theory of evolution deals with vast times, in fossil records(meanings shape and markings of your bones, which are preserved in rock etc, not flesh, not blood, not DNA, not your emotions or intellect,) not on genomes, heck darwin did not even know what DNA is.

I probably share 99.999% genes with you, but what does that mean, nothing, we are miles apart not just from that 0.001%, but from a multitude of factors that let us develop (and in some cases arrest) our intellect.

[akbarkhan]

And we were not muslims a few hundred years ago and wont be muslims a few hundred years down the line, Gods will change, muhammads will come and go. Forget a hundred years, the salafi gods of todays ardent defenders of islam were not present in pakhtunland in any meaningfull numbers only 35 years ago.

Have I mentioned religion anywhere in this thread? No, I haven't!

Human intellect deals with our time and spatial constraints (a few years and a a few killometers accross). Now if events on distant Quasers gizzillions of light years away cause unsettled emotional pangs and you soothe those pangs with a tincture of 'Allah', good for you. It doesnot bother everyone that way.

And I said it above, the theory of evolution deals with vast times, in fossil records, not on genomes, heck darwin did not even know what DNA is.

LOL

[Baygham]

Have I mentioned religion anywhere in this thread? No, I haven't!



LOL

lol

ALM

XYZ

[Baygham]

.......................It is not another debate at all, the reason you are suggesting that it is another debate is because evolution totally overlooks the social aspects of human life. According to evolution, you were not a Pashtun a few thousand years ago and you will not be a Pashtun in thousand years to come as you are constantly evolving. .......................

Now I understand your dilemma, you are doing what the british did in the 19th century. They took Darwins fossil record and made it into 'the white mans burden', meaning the origin of social Darwinism.

Being a pashtoon, or american or hindu, salafi, deobandi or shia has very little to do with my genes. And very little to do with genetic evolution.

Is there a gene for american. Well if you build a wall around america for 1 million years and have no outside interactions (like animals on madagaskar) than some genetic variations may seperate them from pashtoon in afghanistan.

Languages, cultures and belief systems dont need this much time. American is a 250 year old concept, pashtoon somewhat longer. But this is a entity that resides in the global and individual psyche, not in our genes.

A phenotypic expression is different than a cognitive expression. Take your preoccupation for instance. Your Salafi God Allah was also prayed to by pagan beduins as the moon God Allah, Muhammad morphed that image of a polythiest entity to a single entity, later he combined it with judeo-christhen monothism and now you have 'Allah' an entity that did not exist in the present form prior to 600 AD.

Should we say allah evolved because muhammad changed his genome. No it was an idea and the idea was changed not in the physical world but in our individual and collective psyche. So if you can accept a changing, evolving Allah, you should have no qualms above the changing face of pashtoon nationalism or other evolving ideas of our times and stop looking at bones (fossils) for answers, that is not where ideas are stored.

[khyaal]

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evol...yma.html?print


Perhaps the above link could explaiin the changes in genotype which lead to the creation of new species.

[PFgulalai]

What triggers the homeotic gene?

The homeobox cluster of genes (e.g. HOX genes) codes for a protein domain called homeodmain (a group of proteins) to direct the body segmentation of eukaryotic organisms. The HOX genes are activated/regulated by a number of transcription factors which bind to various enhancer elements on the homedomain and regulate the various signaling cascades for the morphogenetic segmentation of developing embryo. Although the HOX genes cluster is highly conserved across the organisms but it has evolved to adapt to the various locomotory activities of different organisms.Therefore, the triggering or the activation of specific Enhancer Elements by specifc Transcription Factors for this highly conserved genetic element vary across the Eukaryotic kingdom.Also, within an organism a multitude of regulatory factors are involved in the activation and repression of the Hox genes. For example, bicoid and nanos, also known as maternal-effect genes in Drosophila melanogaster code maternal mRNA which regulate GAP genes.Gap genes segment fly embryo along the anterior/posterior axis and also activates the PAIR-RULE genes which leads to further segmentation.These genes activate SEGMENT POLARITY genes which continues the process of morphogentic segmentation. The role of homeotic genes in the entire process is to direct the development and morphogenesis of particular segments into wings, legs, and antennae in fly. Mutations in Hox genes can result in morphological abnormalities in fly characterized by the misplacement of antennae and legs (Antennapedia). The human and fruti fly homeotic regulatory pathways share homology but can have many different regulatory factors (there are many!!!!!). Retinoic Acid is one of the recent triggering molecules for the regulation of Human Hox genes.

Fossil records only deal with phenotype, on a genotype level the theory fails, if you believe otherwise then try and prove me wrong through scientific hypothesis, not ad hominems!

Before the advent of genomic sciences, fossil records provided more phenotypic information than genotypic. However, the recent advancement in highthroughput-genomic sequencing techniques together with bioinfomatics (a science which combines molecular biology, computer science, statisitics and mathematics) software programs have helped in the understanding of molecular phylogenetics.We now can find the father of King Tut through DNA sequencing.

Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647.
Context The New Kingdom in ancient Egypt, comprising the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties, spanned the mid-16th to the early 11th centuries BC. The late 18th dynasty, which included the reigns of pharaohs Akhenaten and Tutankhamun, was an extraordinary time. The identification of a number of royal mummies from this era, the exact relationships between some members of the royal family, and possible illnesses and causes of death have been matters of debate.
Objectives To introduce a new approach to molecular and medical Egyptology, to determine familial relationships among 11 royal mummies of the New Kingdom, and to search for pathological features attributable to possible murder, consanguinity, inherited disorders, and infectious diseases.
Design From September 2007 to October 2009, royal mummies underwent detailed anthropological, radiological, and genetic studies as part of the King Tutankhamun Family Project. Mummies distinct from Tutankhamun's immediate lineage served as the genetic and morphological reference. To authenticate DNA results, analytical steps were repeated and independently replicated in a second ancient DNA laboratory staffed by a separate group of personnel. Eleven royal mummies dating from circa 1410-1324 BC and suspected of being kindred of Tutankhamun and 5 royal mummies dating to an earlier period, circa 1550-1479 BC, were examined.
Main Outcome Measures Microsatellite-based haplotypes in the mummies, generational segregation of alleles within possible pedigree variants, and correlation of identified diseases with individual age, archeological evidence, and the written historical record.
Results Genetic fingerprinting allowed the construction of a 5-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun's immediate lineage. The KV55 mummy and KV35YL were identified as the parents of Tutankhamun. No signs of gynecomastia and craniosynostoses (eg, Antley-Bixler syndrome) or Marfan syndrome were found, but an accumulation of malformations in Tutankhamun's family was evident. Several pathologies including Köhler disease II were diagnosed in Tutankhamun; none alone would have caused death. Genetic testing for STEVOR, AMA1, or MSP1 genes specific for Plasmodium falciparum revealed indications of malaria tropica in 4 mummies, including Tutankhamun’s. These results suggest avascular bone necrosis in conjunction with the malarial infection as the most likely cause of death in Tutankhamun. Walking impairment and malarial disease sustained by Tutankhamun is supported by the discovery of canes and an afterlife pharmacy in his tomb. Conclusion Using a multidisciplinary scientific approach, we showed the feasibility of gathering data on Pharaonic kinship and diseases and speculated about individual causes of death

.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

.

Lol..Do you know the people of Discovery Institute believe that the intelligent designer is the Christian God? Anyway,Intelligent Design (ID) is based on creationism and has been termed as pseudoscience or more precisely "junk science",and is followed by only few people like Stephen Meyer, whose article (the one you have cited above) was blatantly disavowed by the publisher of the journal (the council od the biological society of Washington which published his article) because of its ourtrageous scientific irrationality:

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer,"The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://web.archive.org/web/200709262.../1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

The ID is presently considered not less than a hoax in scientific community. The scientific plausibility of a particular theory could be hardly based on some random pseudoscience coming from people like S.Meyer waking up in the middle of night and crying "Eureka!Eureka! I found a new theory, ID". Just type the term "intelligent design" in PUBMED (the online repository of peer-reviewed journals in biological and medical sciences) and you get 956 hits. Conversely, if you type "evolution", you get 272689 hits!! Frankly speaking, the number of peer-reviewed publications on evolutionary biology in a week is more than the entire number of ID peer-review publications. Even if we ignore the issue of refusal of ID by majority of the scientists, the question remains WHY THERE ARE FEW peer-reviewed articles on ID??? Is it because Stephen Meyer is not interested in conducting his own research to prove his false claims that he made in his book (the one you cited)? It is so ridiculous the way he used the existing information of evolutionary sciences developed by evolutionary and molecular biologists to prove his ID concepts rather than actually coming with original research of his own to prove his claims.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.4749v2.pdf

You joke too,lol. Seriously?

If we have all evoluted from single cell organisms then what exactly makes us 'social animals' and where does 'crime' and 'sins' fit in a evolutionary world? In a evolutionary world where you live only once, there should be not rights or wrongs, remember it is all a coincidence!?

What motivates a criminal to do crime? Is it a "crime gene", a "criminal behavioral pattern", a "coincidence of being born to a murderer mother in a jail", or "genetic predisposition to schizophrenia"? With the growing amount of information on the interplay between genes and our environment, we do not hold any biologically deterministic view of genes to be directly modifying human social behavior in strict sense.Similarly, environmental determinism is no longer plausible in the present post-genomic era when we can establish a link between our social upbringing and the genetic predisposition to some extent with our present knowledge.Note that till this date we do not have any genes for "Pashtun nationalism", "adultery", or "likeness for blue color over black", but we have observed in 85% of the severely maltreated children who has a gene for low activity of enzyme Monoamine oxidase (MAOA) developed antisocial behavior, for instance a violent criminal behavior.On the other hand, people who have low activity of MAOA but did not suffer child abuse are nine times less likely to engage in antisocial behavior.

[akbarkhan]

The homeobox cluster of genes (e.g. HOX genes) codes for a protein domain called homeodmain (a group of proteins) to direct the body segmentation of eukaryotic organisms. The HOX genes are activated/regulated by a number of transcription factors which bind to various enhancer elements on the homedomain and regulate the various signaling cascades for the morphogenetic segmentation of developing embryo. Although the HOX genes cluster is highly conserved across the organisms but it has evolved to adapt to the various locomotory activities of different organisms.Therefore, the triggering or the activation of specific Enhancer Elements by specifc Transcription Factors for this highly conserved genetic element vary across the Eukaryotic kingdom.Also, within an organism a multitude of regulatory factors are involved in the activation and repression of the Hox genes. For example, bicoid and nanos, also known as maternal-effect genes in Drosophila melanogaster code maternal mRNA which regulate GAP genes.Gap genes segment fly embryo along the anterior/posterior axis and also activates the PAIR-RULE genes which leads to further segmentation.These genes activate SEGMENT POLARITY genes which continues the process of morphogentic segmentation. The role of homeotic genes in the entire process is to direct the development and morphogenesis of particular segments into wings, legs, and antennae in fly. Mutations in Hox genes can result in morphological abnormalities in fly characterized by the misplacement of antennae and legs (Antennapedia). The human and fruti fly homeotic regulatory pathways share homology but can have many different regulatory factors (there are many!!!!!). Retinoic Acid is one of the recent triggering molecules for the regulation of Human Hox genes.

Before the advent of genomic sciences, fossil records provided more phenotypic information than genotypic. However, the recent advancement in highthroughput-genomic sequencing techniques together with bioinfomatics (a science which combines molecular biology, computer science, statisitics and mathematics) software programs have helped in the understanding of molecular phylogenetics.We now can find the father of King Tut through DNA sequencing.

Exactly! How can you postulate that in a stochastic process the random variable in an infinite array of genetic code can produce a homeodomain that determines segmentation properly, how probable is it according to mathematics? A minor misplacement of letters in the genetic code of a homeodomain and you will end up having your eyes in your buttocks and you finger nails in your ears!

Yes I know it has to do with bioinformatics and that is exactly why I presented it using a class with array generation methods and random variate function, please go ahead and explain its cellular automata according to probability.

private void addGenes(Gene a_gene) {
Gene[] genes = new Gene[m_geneArray.length + 1];
life.arraycopy(m_geneArray, 0, genes, 0, m_geneArray.length);
genes[m_geneArray.length] = a_gene;
m_geneArray = genes;
}

private void alleleMethod(a_superAllele) {
if (m_geneArray.length < 1) {

return;
}
Object[] a = (Object[]) a_superAllele;
if (a.length != m_geneArray.length) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Record length, " + a.length
+ " not equal to "
+ m_genes.length);
}
for (int i = 0; i < m_genes.length; i++) {
m_genes[i].setAllele(a[i]);
}
}

private void randomMutation(final int a_index, final double a_percentage) {

if (a_index < m_immutableVector.length) {
if (m_immutableVector[a_index] != null) {
synchronized (m_immutableVector) {
if (m_immutableVector[a_index].contains(this)) {
return;
}
}
}
}

Lol..Do you know the people of Discovery Institute believe that the intelligent designer is the Christian God?

I have not brought God into this debate, besides the question here is of science and not of religious belief. Even if those scientists are Christians, Jews or Sabians that doesn't matter because they are making their arguments based on science, not scripture! Infact, they are using the exact same methodology as Darwin himself to deduce ID.

If you ever get some spare time read a book called The Privilaged Planet, its authors are outright atheists but they admit that ID is more factual than E.

environmental determinism is no longer plausible in the present post-genomic era when we can establish a link between our social upbringing and the genetic predisposition to some extent with our present knowledge.Note that till this date we do not have any genes for "Pashtun nationalism".

I agree, but no matter what your personal beliefs are, nationalism proves to be a farce.