Prime Example of Junk Science

[ALB]

Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/atheists-dying-out-contraception-claims-study-a7626846.html

As if ideas such as whether or not a god or gods exist can be inherited genetically.

[Dave B]

I suppose the more refined argument would go along the lines that people with ‘genetic’ a propensity for religious beliefs and ergo be against contraception would outbreed the rest.  There was a kind of parallel argument in the 19th century that the uncultured and less religious working class were more productive than the ruling class and would end up taking over the world. And they were even jealous of their survival rate and ‘rude’ health of the ‘stock’.  There was a kind eugenics thesis that the pampered ‘unfit’ children of the ruling class went on to survive ‘when they were never meant to’.  On sex, religion and procreation etc; that wasn’t always the case eg the cathars which was part of the Marcion tradition which itself was a major current in early Christianity. Thus; Basic Cathar Tenetsled to some surprising logical implications. For example they largely regarded men and women as equals, and had no doctrinal objection to contraception, euthanasia or suicide. In some respects the Cathar and Catholic Churches were polar opposites. For example the Cathar Church taught that all non-procreative sex was better than any procreative sex. http://www.cathar.info/  The Cathars thought all the material world was a ‘Matrix’ like illusion; created by Satan basically. Which you might expect as a kind of rationalisation from people who thought the world was shit.  I suppose it is entertaining what goes around comes around as at least part of the ‘idea’ has returned in science. Digital Physics Meets Idealism???????? Eg the retro causality experiment about 18 minutes in.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U

[Capitalist Pig]

ALB wrote:

Here:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/atheists-dying-out-contraception-claims-study-a7626846.htmlAs if ideas such as whether or not a god or gods exist can be inherited genetically.

that is not what they are stating, they are stating a fact that religious people have more babies therefore will outpopulate athiest families

[ALB]

No, Pig, that's just the sociological fact that's the "study" is trying to explain. It's the "explanation" they come up with that is the junk science. They are claiming that there are genes both for a belief in god(s) and for atheism and that because those who have the supposed gene for religion are outbreeding those who have the supposed gene for atheism it is atheism that will eventually die out.

Quote:

Atheism is as natural as religion, study suggestsIt may seem obvious that how you’re brought up will influence your worldview, but it turns out there’s a genetic base too.Those with a higher capacity to believe in a god have certain genes.The researchers of the study explain that before the 19th century, there was probably little difference in reproduction rates regardless of whether you had the genes or not.However this then changed: “By the mid-19th century, scientific discoveries had moved to a point that human reproduction was sufficiently well understood that fertility rates began to be impacted, especially in the emerging industrial countries,” the scientists explain.And just as the discovery of evolution was made, the genes that make someone more likely to be religious “gained a reproductive advantage – and were better able to spread through the population,”  The Times reports.

It's all based on the presupposition that there are genes for religion and for atheism. But this is absurd. People's ideas are not what genes govern (its anatomy and physiology). These are influenced by society and culture.If I'd been the supervisors of these "researchers" I'd have sent them away for regurgitating arguments that went out, as Dave B has pointed out, with the eugenicists and told them to start again.

[Capitalist Pig]

ALB wrote:

No, Pig, that's just the sociological fact that's the "study" is trying to explain. It's the "explanation" they come up with that is the junk science. They are claiming that there are genes both for a belief in god(s) and for atheism and that because those who have the supposed gene for religion are outbreeding those who have the supposed gene for atheism it is atheism that will eventually die out.

Quote:

Atheism is as natural as religion, study suggestsIt may seem obvious that how you’re brought up will influence your worldview, but it turns out there’s a genetic base too.Those with a higher capacity to believe in a god have certain genes.The researchers of the study explain that before the 19th century, there was probably little difference in reproduction rates regardless of whether you had the genes or not.However this then changed: “By the mid-19th century, scientific discoveries had moved to a point that human reproduction was sufficiently well understood that fertility rates began to be impacted, especially in the emerging industrial countries,” the scientists explain.And just as the discovery of evolution was made, the genes that make someone more likely to be religious “gained a reproductive advantage – and were better able to spread through the population,”  The Times reports.

It's all based on the presupposition that there are genes for religion and for atheism. But this is absurd. People's ideas are not what genes govern (its anatomy and physiology). These are influenced by society and culture.If I'd been the supervisors of these "researchers" I'd have sent them away for regurgitating arguments that went out, as Dave B has pointed out, with the eugenicists and told them to start again.

the article was so full of advertisments i just read part of it they annoy me -_- but you havn't disproved that your beliefs can be influenced by the genetics of your ancestors.

[ALB]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

you havn't disproved that your beliefs can be influenced by the genetics of your ancestors.

It is not up to us to disprove that view. It's up to those who advance it to do produce the evidence for it, e.g which particular gene or combinations of genes govern beliefs and where they are situated on the chromosome.  In view of what biology knows about genes and what sociology and culture know about ideas we can say that the view "our beliefs can be influenced by the genetics of our ancestors" is pretty implausible. More on this in our pamphlets Are We Prisoners of Our Genes?  It doesn't contain any adverts so should be easy to read. Here's an extract:

Quote:

… there is no argument about the principle that genes govern the physical anatomy of an organism via the instructions they transmit to the cells of which all living things are composed. An organism's basic structure and the way it is maintained is inherited even if the precise way it is expressed can vary depending on the environment. For instance, if a plant gets more of what is required for growth it will grow bigger than one, other things being equal, that gets less.All organisms react to stimuli they receive from their environment—this, in fact, is what "behaviour" means in the biological sense. This is not always an automatic, reflex or knee-jerk reaction. It is in plants, insects and bacteria and in some of the behaviour of all animals. However, those animals that have a more developed nervous system including a brain have the capacity to react—to behave—in the light of their previous experience. Such behaviour cannot be said to be governed by their genes; what is gene-governed in such cases is the capacity to react from previous experience, not the reaction itself.The extent of such non-gene-governed behaviour in a particular species depends on the level of development of its nervous system and brain. The less developed this is, the less the scope that the organisms of the species have for such behaviour. On the other hand, the more developed the brain—the more space it has for storing and retrieving experiences as memory—the greater is the scope for non-gene governed, or "acquired", behaviour.Of all animals humans have the most developed brains, which means that we have a greater capacity—a far greater capacity, in fact—for acquired behaviour than any other animal; which in turn means that human behaviour, as the reaction of members of our species to the environments in which they find themselves having to live, is able to be much more versatile than that of all other animals. This capacity of humans for adapting their behaviour to the environment that they happened to have been brought up in is what distinguishes us as an animal species—this biologically-inherited capacity must, in fact, be a key feature of any adequate definition of the term "human nature".That members of our species are able to adapt to different environments does indeed have a biological basis, in our biologically evolved and inherited brains. What genes determine in humans are the physical characteristics and mode of functioning of this brain, but not the actual behaviour and behaviour patterns these brains enable us to engage in and which we actually do engage in.

This applies even more so to the ideas we hold which have varied immensely over the time humans have existed.

[alanjjohnstone]

…once more your arguments have been shot down in flames, CP.Don't you think it maybe time to concede that you are on a discussion list that is to be respected for its high standard of discussion and trying to score debating points doesn't work.Why not simply use this site for self-education and then challenge those in your own camp and see if they can reply as eruditely as ALB. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…once more your arguments have been shot down in flames, CP.Don't you think it maybe time to concede that you are on a discussion list that is to be respected for its high standard of discussion and trying to score debating points doesn't work.Why not simply use this site for self-education and then challenge those in your own camp and see if they can reply as eruditely as ALB. 

Many come to this forum like teachers,  and then, they become students. The best way to learn new ideas is to have the courage to recognize  that you are wrong. Even more,  left wingers come here to learn too because they also have wrong conceptions. The best way to understand real socialist conceptions is by breaking away from the bourgoise ideology 

[Capitalist Pig]

it is supported within the scientific community that our actions and our thought patterns can turn on and off certain genes. Its called neurplactisity. sorry if you think you know everything that is to be known because of your 'enlightenment'. I'm not here to conform to your beliefs like a cult but to discuss different ideas but if you view any idea or theory that is not on your party line as 'unscientific' then you can't really discuss anything other than what was been 'confirmed' by your organization. That is not the diversity of ideas in which you preech about but the opposite, collectivism.

[ALB]

Alan, I think you've misunderstood the reason for continuing to argue with critics like Pig. It's not to convince them (some of them are pretty pig-headed) but to deal with the arguments and prejudices they put forward as these are held by others who might be more amenable, as well of course to inform ourselves and hone our arguments.Anyway, to return to the subject.

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it is supported within the scientific community that our actions and our thought patterns can turn on and off certain genes. Its called neurplactisity.

Are you sure that this is what "neoplasticity" means?  As far as I can see, it actually argues the opposite of the view that we are prisoners of our genes. The clue is in the name itself: neuroplasticity. which would suggest that the brain is "plastic", i.e. not "hardwired".  Take this passage from the wikipedia article on it:

Quote:

The adult brain is not entirely "hard-wired" with fixed neuronal circuits. There are many instances of cortical and subcortical rewiring of neuronal circuits in response to training as well as in response to injury.

In any event, this is the opposite of your original claim that genes influence what we think. "Turning on and off" genes (if that's what happens) would not alter the fact that what genes govern is our anatomy and physiology, in this case that of the brain, not what sort of ideas we hold..

[Capitalist Pig]

ALB wrote:

Alan, I think you've misunderstood the reason for continuing to argue with critics like Pig. It's not to convince them (some of them are pretty pig-headed) but to deal with the arguments and prejudices they put forward as these are held by others who might be more amenable, as well of course to inform ourselves and hone our arguments.Anyway, to return to the subject.

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it is supported within the scientific community that our actions and our thought patterns can turn on and off certain genes. Its called neurplactisity.

Are you sure that this is what "neoplasticity" means?  As far as I can see, it actually argues the opposite of the view that we are prisoners of our genes. The clue is in the name itself: neuroplasticity. which would suggest that the brain is "plastic", i.e. not "hardwired".  Take this passage from the wikipedia article on it:

Quote:

The adult brain is not entirely "hard-wired" with fixed neuronal circuits. There are many instances of cortical and subcortical rewiring of neuronal circuits in response to training as well as in response to injury.

In any event, this is the opposite of your original claim that genes influence what we think. "Turning on and off" genes (if that's what happens) would not alter the fact that what genes govern is our anatomy and physiology, in this case that of the brain, not what sort of ideas we hold..

the actions and thoughts of a person can change the way genes are expressed making the appearance of a religious gene. I'm not a neuroscientist but this is pretty easy to understand.

[ALB]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

the actions and thoughts of a person can change the way genes are expressed making the appearance of a religious gene.

Which particular gene is that?

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I'm not a neuroscientist but this is pretty easy to understand.

That you're not a neuroscientist is very easy to understand. How thoughts could create a new gene is not. In fact, if you can demonstrate this you will be a sure bet for a Nobel Prize. At the moment you are only in the running for the Junk Science Prize.In any event ,you need to decide what your argument is — whether genes determine thoughts or that thought determines genes — but you don'r seem to know what a gene is or does. Here's one definition to help you get started:

Quote:

Microscopic, yet powerful, a gene is segment of DNA, the molecule that stores the code for building living bodies.A gene is a single unit of genetic information, stored on twisting strands in every cell of every living being. In sexual reproduction, the parents' genes mix together to make the child. Although people would like to think that genes code for discrete traits, like friendliness or mathematical genius, that's not the case. Genes control the color of your eyes and the shape of your toes, not your weird personality.

In other words, genes determine how a living organism is structured and how it functions. In humans they don't — and can't — determine what ideas we have, these are derived from society.This might help too:http://kidshealth.org/en/kids/what-is-gene.html 

[Bijou Drains]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

ALB wrote:

Alan, I think you've misunderstood the reason for continuing to argue with critics like Pig. It's not to convince them (some of them are pretty pig-headed) but to deal with the arguments and prejudices they put forward as these are held by others who might be more amenable, as well of course to inform ourselves and hone our arguments.Anyway, to return to the subject.

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it is supported within the scientific community that our actions and our thought patterns can turn on and off certain genes. Its called neurplactisity.

Are you sure that this is what "neoplasticity" means?  As far as I can see, it actually argues the opposite of the view that we are prisoners of our genes. The clue is in the name itself: neuroplasticity. which would suggest that the brain is "plastic", i.e. not "hardwired".  Take this passage from the wikipedia article on it:

Quote:

The adult brain is not entirely "hard-wired" with fixed neuronal circuits. There are many instances of cortical and subcortical rewiring of neuronal circuits in response to training as well as in response to injury.

In any event, this is the opposite of your original claim that genes influence what we think. "Turning on and off" genes (if that's what happens) would not alter the fact that what genes govern is our anatomy and physiology, in this case that of the brain, not what sort of ideas we hold..

the actions and thoughts of a person can change the way genes are expressed making the appearance of a religious gene. I'm not a neuroscientist but this is pretty easy to understand.

Didn't think it was possible for one person to get so much wrong and destroy his own argument in so few words. Well done CP, you deserve some kind of award for this feat.Neuroplasticity is the ability of the nerves and brain to alter and replace functions in response to environmental factors. For instance it has been noted that in people who have sufffered head injury or stroke that areas of the brain that have been damaged or lost may have their functions taken over by areas of the brain that previously provide other functions. A similar process has been noted around the work done with infants with cerebal palsy through a process that became known as conductive education. What this means is effectively the precise opposite of the argument you are attempting to support., i.e.. that the brain is somehow hard wired to perfom in a particular "genetically predetrmined" way. This would mean that individuals and their brains would not be influenced by external factors such as the ideas of others, the development of its own understanding of the world, its own thought processes, etc.I will try and keep this simple for you.The argument you are putting forwrd is that some "genetic" predisposition exists which exists which makes it more likely that children born to (and not necessarily brought up by) religious parents, will be predisposed to religious thoughts. As these religious people are more fecund (which is debateable in itself) they will out reproduce athiests (who are claimed to be less fecund)The contra argument (which you are putting ironically through your mis use of the concept of neuroplasticity) is that this detreminist "we are controlled by our genes" approach is not iin keeping with reality.What might be called the "Central Dogma" of simple molecular biology, (which is more or less the crude view taken in the bad science article quoted}, states that biological information is transferred sequentially and only in one direction (from DNA to RNA to proteins). The logical consequence of this approach is that it leads to belief in absolute determinism, which leaves you utterly powerless to do anything about the health of your body, your thought processes, your behavious, etc.  it's all driven by your genetic code, which you were born with.However, scientistific research has completely shattered the base premis of this argument, it appears we actually have  control over  how your genetic traits are expressed (and this is the key word here) this may range from how you think, how the environment and experience influence what you think, to what you eat and the environment you live in.The Human Genome Project set out to map out all human genes and their interactions, which would (acording to the central dogma of simple molecular biology) than serve as the basis for curing virtually any disease, including diseases of the mind. however, not only did they discovered that the human body consists of far fewer genes than previously believed, they also discovered that these genes do not operate as the central dogma would have predicted.A simple example of the way that environmental factors can impact on the expressino of genes is the experiment carried out by John Cairns, a British molecular biologist which produced evidence that our responses to our environment determine the expression of our genes. Cairns took bacteria whose genes did not allow them to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest milk sugar, and placed them in petri dishes where the only food present was lactase. Much to his astonishment, within a few days, all of the petri dishes had been colonized by the bacteria and they were eating lactose. The bacterial DNA had changed in response to its environment. So, information flows in both directions, from DNA to proteins and from proteins to DNA, contradicting the "central dogma."Not only that, the central argument of the article is also very questionable. In many deprived areas of the UK the level of child birth is extremely high, but the level of religious observance is virtually zero. In Northern Ireland, the level of reproduction in the catholic population has been outstripping that of the protestant population for many years, however the level of religious observence is falling drastically in both communities. if we are genetically pre ordained to have religious beliefs by our ancestors, how is it that levels of religious belief of falling in many parts of the world?

[Anonymous]

I guess the big bad wolf has blown the little piggies house down. But then it was built with rather flimsy material: ignorance.Next pig will have to build an argument made with sterner stuff

[Capitalist Pig]

wow very snotty responces. reread my post a couple more times and don't impose your own interpretations.

[Author]

Posts