Genes in conflict - would an intelligent designer do this?

Dec 8, 2007 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

The weird part is, strictly speaking, the conflict is not between mother and fetus, but rather between genes within the same individual.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of151
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Got Science?”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 8, 2007
 
I know a subset of people go into a rage whenever these topics come up but I think open ended questions of human ecology like this are important to consider.

I got no dog at all in the evolution/religion debate but he makes a good point. This is crazy behavior so it sounds more like a random mistake than anything anyone would set out to do intentionally.
allthumbs

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 8, 2007
 
I'm a theory of evolution guy and not an intelligent design advocate. Even so, one would need to have a complete understanding of the processes involved in order to pass judgment on the intelligence of their design. We're a long way from that level of understanding. To question from a position of relative ignorance is a reason for ongoing investigation and not for value judgment. There may be good, undiscovered reasons for this stuff.
Dorothy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 8, 2007
 
I think that scientist needs to dig a little deeper into the functions of the various genes and the chemicals they regulate in both the fetus and the mother.

On the other hand, perhaps this is just a divinely inspired way to limit the number of babies born to any one mother at a time when the earth is becoming overcrowded and natural resources are becoming scarce.

I can find absolutely no contradictions between TRUE science and TRUE religion. I think evolution is a marvelous plan, and certainly well within the power of an all-powerful God.
Jeromin

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 8, 2007
 
Just because it appears -at this moment and at current levels of understanding of our genetic components- that some things don't make any sense does not mean they don't have a specific reason to exist. I am not advocating the reality of an intelligent designer -much to the contrary; I don't believe in "magic"- All I am saying is that our little brain is not ready to comprehend the incredible complexities of our environment without much more time, study and caution that we had devoted so far to these subjects. Maybe we will never finish to understand and own all this knowledge. It is like trying to put all the water of the Atlantic Ocean into a small hole dug by hand in the sands of the beach. Our brains are not that big; the hole can not contain so much water.
Lenape

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 8, 2007
 
There is no intelligent designer. Case closed.

Since: Nov 07

North Bend, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 8, 2007
 
i wonder if the diet of the mother plays a part (as a trigger mechanism) in this?
Algernon Sidney

San Marino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 8, 2007
 
Cash wrote:
This is crazy behavior so it sounds more like a random mistake than anything anyone would set out to do intentionally.
It could be a mistake only if the activity were under the control of an intelligent designer. Of course, since we do not know or understand everything, it is not certain that it was a mistake.
dalaohu

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 8, 2007
 
Did anyone else note that this was written by an EVILutionary biologist?
Vox

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 8, 2007
 
Good comments here, especially the ones by, well, most of you.
I personally don't want to set a limit to what I think we can eventually learn. If there is a limit, that is the case, but if there isn't, then we need to pursue all knowledge we can.
I rather suspect that may be why we have a brain.
Again, I appreciate some excellent comments here.
R Rivera

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 8, 2007
 
Take the time to notice and you will find many other flaws in the so-called intelligent design. You might give the not so intelligent designer a D at best if you are generous. Life on this planet could not have been this poorly designed on purpose. Congress and the bush administration could not have done worse job.
JOHN

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 8, 2007
 
I've often wondered the same when it comes to numerous birth defects. The Christain right will admit that birth defects take place in the womb, but ask them about homosexuality. They'll scream and say God would never allow that to happen. Oh?
Then why does He allow other types of birth defects to occurr? If, as they claim, homosexuality is a chosen life style, then I have to ask them the following question. Do they remember the day they sit down and had to decide which sex they were going to get all warm and fuzzy about? There have always been numerous birth defects, and I think this is just one of them.
Shaft-O Eng

Rozet, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 8, 2007
 
I can not see where the rel/evo debate would influence me if i had to make medical decisions based on the text.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 8, 2007
 
Cash wrote:
...
I got no dog at all in the evolution/religion debate but he makes a good point. This is crazy behavior so it sounds more like a random mistake than anything anyone would set out to do intentionally.
We all have a dog in that fight.(By the way, it is evolution versus creationism, not religion. Many religious people are fine with the concept of evolution.) Creationism is all about replacing science with myth and superstition. Frankly, I like living in a country where doctors and medical researchers are thoroughly grounded in the realities of biology.
Shaft-O Eng

Rozet, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 8, 2007
 
All of the problems of mankind..well...there is always the apple.
A god isn't responsible..we are?

“Proper Fool”

Since: Dec 07

Thw 'Wack

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 8, 2007
 
I kinda thought the article was a bit presumptuous. That the gene does this or that by virtue of it's own being is a bit of projection. Insulin is not for down-regulating sugars. It's for metabolizing sugars. So if there were more sugars in Mom's blood, then it would make sense that if both wanted to take advantage of said sugars, they'd both produce more insulin in order to do so. The article's assertion was akin to saying it's a defect to develop two lungs instead of just one so as to set out one day steal the Mother's oxygen. So, I reiterate: If they both want the benefit of Mom's increased sugar production, they'll both produce appropriate amounts of insulin. Or maybe I completely misead that article.
Tim

Davis, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 8, 2007
 
The article's conclusion is a shameless display of arrogance for at least two reasons:

1. This only casts doubt on an intelligent designer if you make the following assumption:
If the universe were designed perfectly by a sovereign being, then it would match MY definition of perfection.

2. As people have posted above, so little is known even about the natural processes at work here. Any experienced researcher should know better than to make such sweeping conclusions (i.e., no intelligent designer) about such a little-known thing.

I'll let God defend Himself here:
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?"
Romans 11:33,34

“Proper Fool”

Since: Dec 07

Thw 'Wack

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 8, 2007
 
Corp_se wrote:
I kinda thought the article was a bit presumptuous. That the gene does this or that by virtue of it's own being is a bit of projection. Insulin is not for down-regulating sugars. It's for metabolizing sugars. So if there were more sugars in Mom's blood, then it would make sense that if both wanted to take advantage of said sugars, they'd both produce more insulin in order to do so. The article's assertion was akin to saying it's a defect to develop two lungs instead of just one so as to set out one day steal the Mother's oxygen. So, I reiterate: If they both want the benefit of Mom's increased sugar production, they'll both produce appropriate amounts of insulin. Or maybe I completely misead that article.
Having said that, God is Dead. We have proof. Here is his tiny jacket.

“Proper Fool”

Since: Dec 07

Thw 'Wack

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 8, 2007
 

“Proper Fool”

Since: Dec 07

Thw 'Wack

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 8, 2007
 
dalaohu wrote:
Did anyone else note that this was written by an EVILutionary biologist?
What, in their secret lair? You know, they prolly have an Igor or evil Alfred type-sidekick, as well. Doing their nefarious bidding. And the hiding of the sainted bodies.

Cause it's no secret that to a Christian that if you don't claim ad nauseum that you got more fancy light than another, you're evil... Right???

Stop sucking up to your creator and looking at the prize. In this crappy crappy crappy world that so and so created, I have yet to see one iota of God manning up and making him/her/itself frigging accountable. If God exists, he a bureaucrat dealing in souls, hiding behind middle men and fakers.

“Got Science?”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 8, 2007
 
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have a dog in that fight.(By the way, it is evolution versus creationism, not religion. Many religious people are fine with the concept of evolution.) Creationism is all about replacing science with myth and superstition. Frankly, I like living in a country where doctors and medical researchers are thoroughly grounded in the realities of biology.
You make a fine point but the conflict is almost exclusively between religious people and scientists, of which creationists and intelligent design proponents are a subset. If we start to get picky, it's easy to find lots of creationists ( 10,000 scientists and religious leaders signed a petition) that believe in evolution, while intelligent design believes in evolution just fine.

The crux is the origin of life, of course, where the poles of each camp refuse to give any ground to each other. That's why I said science and religion. It's not all scientists or all religious people but it's all part of those two groups.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of151
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

31 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
One, two, three ... Blast off 13 min Free Kwame 1
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 20 min One way or another 171,375
Australia is drying out thanks to our emissions 3 hr SpaceBlues 145
Hou to recover deleted contacts or SMS from iPh... (Apr '13) 3 hr davewest9876 39
After update to iOS6 how to recover iphone 4s ... (Mar '13) 4 hr Gera1 18
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 6 hr shinningelectr0n 5,052
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 7 hr SoE 26,942
•••
•••