Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 61 of 238 (285069)
02-08-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 3:28 PM


Re: Preaching to the Choir
Evopeach writes:
What connotation do you give to advantageous vs deletereous other than good or bad?
The mutation may be advantageous or deleterious depending on the environment in which it is expressed. For example, sickle cell anemia can equip a carrier of one sickle cell gene and one normal hemoglobin gene to survive malaria, which is both deleterious and advantageous in malaria-ridden areas--because while the sickle cell gene will almost certainly shorten the individual lifespan, it also allows the individual to survive long enough to reproduce.
This phenomenon is not "unknown, undefined, unquantifiable, unmeasureable." Do your own homework if you want the statistical analysis of variance between malaria-ridden and malaria-free regions of the world.
Of course, in a malaria-free environment, it serves no useful purpose at all and could be called purely deleterious in that environment. Here's some basic info from Harvard: search for "balanced polymorphism" or "heterozygote" if you want to zoom in on more details. Sickle Cell Anemia and Malaria.
Evopeach writes:
I thought evolution referred to the gene pool in a large population rather than individuals. Thus the P53 gene and other causes for BC are ubiquitious throughout the female population by definition since about 16% of women will have BC by age 70.
Selection works on the individual; evolution occurs in the population.
Ubiquitous? Not all cancers are caused by the P53 mutation, so if the incidence of breast cancer in women by the age of 70 is 16%, the subset of cases caused by P53 is lower than that, hardly what I would describe as "existing or being everywhere at the same time." Most incidents of breast cancer are not caused by DNA mutations but by environmental or lifestyle factors--unlike the sickle cell allele, there are no benefits that would cause the gene to be selected for in the population.
So, do we see this pattern elsewhere in DNA mutation linked breast cancers? Note the ages highlighted in the BRCA1 mutation breakdown:
Dr. Sandhya Pruthi, MD, a Breast Health Specialist at the Mayo Clinic, estimates that 20% of women who carry BRCA1 mutations will develop breast cancer by age forty, 51% by age fifty, and 87% by age sixty.
Evopeach writes:
So unless some unknown, undefined, unquantifiable, unmeasureable, constantly varying genetically related incidence of death causing mutation "threshold of frequency before reproducing" is crossed the mutation would not be selected against.
The phenomenon was precisely described, EP, however much you wave your rhetorical hands or seek to create strawmen. How many young girls die of breast cancer? Very, very few. Why? Because genes which kill before the individual carrying them reaches reproductive age are not conserved in the genome, since they cannot be passed by that individual to the next generation.
Gosh I just love hard science. LOL
Well, I know it's hard--hang in there, though, you'll get it eventually.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 3:28 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 7:57 PM Omnivorous has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 62 of 238 (285073)
02-08-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 5:37 PM


Re: Hey, can I play?
Sorry, Evopeach, I don't see anything I can respond to there. I can tell you believe that natural processes are insufficient because you also believe that seven sigma quality is too challenging without intelligence, but these are only your beliefs. You argue them from a position of personal incredulity ("how could anyone logically believe...") rather than from tightly argued logic. I can't tell how you're tying your various assertions together, and so there's nothing concrete to respond to.
If you want to believe seven sigma marks the deathknell for evolution, go ahead. But if you want to convince others to believe it, too, then you'll need a little more.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 5:37 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 7:49 PM Percy has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 63 of 238 (285079)
02-08-2006 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
02-08-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Hey, can I play?
Sorry Percy,
You realize that your stament is open to interpretation":
An inability to present a case for the seven sigma quality of the genomic operation other than an assertion.
Most theories are able to explain and experimentally demonstrate their premises to be hightly factual but of course such is not the case in this instance, other wise it would be forthcoming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 02-08-2006 7:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 02-08-2006 8:54 PM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 64 of 238 (285080)
02-08-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Omnivorous
02-08-2006 7:05 PM


Re: Preaching to the Choir
So if the mutation rate of 1 in a billion base pairs was contant over eons then it was indifferent to changes to the environment?
If it was changing over time then evolution proceeded more rapidly than at other times?
Is there a quantifiable threshhold of mutation rates caused by all these effects you nominate below which evolution does'nt occur and if its too high every organism so effected dies to soon to pass on the effected genome?
I've heard this before.
My soup is too hot.. Mine is too cold.. mine is just right.
Ah! The Goldilocks theory of evolution.
I just knew it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2006 7:05 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2006 8:42 PM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 65 of 238 (285081)
02-08-2006 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Chiroptera
02-08-2006 5:40 PM


Re: Red Herring Master
I accept with humility your most accurate description of the communications issue.
Six Sigma is the goal of a long march toward quality processes in human endeavor. It is possible because of the use of enourmous intellectual and dollar resources.
The 1,000 fold improvement in quality of operation observed in the genome replication is assumed to be the result of an incremental process of random variation in the raw materials preserved through natural selection.
Six Sigma can be demonstrated theoretically, shown to be factual by repeated experimental results, real world operational results and predictions made and varified; all by the use of intelligence, design, analysis and the scientific method.
Evolution cannot demonstrate the incremental improvements in quality from say a pre rna entity extremely error prone to the present performance by its theoretical construct, how it started, how it proceeded. It has never been demonstrated.
This message has been edited by Evopeach, 02-08-2006 08:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2006 5:40 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 66 of 238 (285083)
02-08-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 7:57 PM


Re: Preaching to the Choir
So if the mutation rate of 1 in a billion base pairs was contant over eons then it was indifferent to changes to the environment?
If I understand the question correctly, it is a tautology. What does the constancy or inconstancy of the mutational rate have to do with the expression of the mutation and the contingency of its "reception" by the environments in which it occurs?
Here's another example for your amusement. Red-green color blindness is awkward for the men who have it in our stoplight world, though not a serious hindrance. However, in a rain forest environment, male hunters with red-green color blindness reap a benefit from their altered vision: they enjoy a much finer discrimination in the green-brown (khaki range), useful for distinguishing prey camouflaged in branches and leaves.
This perceptual advantage has been recently confirmed by studies comparing the ability of such color blind men in khaki shade discrimination, and at last explains why red-green color blindness has persisted in the genome. Not very useful at traffic lights, is it? But it's just killer in the hunter-gatherer environment.
What difference would the mutational rate make in the scenario above? Red-green color blindness is inheritable. It runs in families. It does not occur de novo with each individual.
By the way, some controversial research has suggested that, in fact, the mutational rate is not indifferent to the environment, but it is not definitive. Interestingly, that research is most often cited here by opponents of the theory of evolution.
If it was changing over time then evolution proceeded more rapidly than at other times?
I haven't suggested the mutational rate changed over time, nor is it a logical implication of any assertion of mine. Do you believe it did? That would make an interesting topic.
Is there a quantifiable threshhold of mutation rates caused by all these effects you nominate below which evolution does'nt occur and if its too high every organism so effected dies to soon to pass on the effected genome?
I have not posited any effects that vary mutational rates. I have pointed out that some mutations confer benefit, some confer harm, and some confer both, all of these conferrals contingent upon the environment in which the mutation is expressed. The sickle cell gene persists in the human genome because, in the heterozygotic form, it confers sufficient benefit to allow reproduction. The red-green color blindness persists because it conferred exactly the color acuity a hunter needed in one of our ancestral environments. If that were not so, if the sickle cell gene invariably caused death before reproductive age, there would be far fewer individuals carrying the gene, and red-green color blindness would not have become so common. What does any of that have to do with mutational rates?
Are you supposing that the sickle cell mutation, or the P53 mutation, or color blindness, are in each case de novo events? They are certainly not--they are inheritable changes in DNA, which is why family histories of illness are useful indicators of risk, allowing for DNA tests which yield information useful for treatment.
Perhaps you could quote the passages in my message that seem to suggest my point was about mutational rates. I know that makes it more difficult to construct and burn a strawman, but I've found quotes are conducive to honest debate.
I've heard this before.
My soup is too hot.. Mine is too cold.. mine is just right.
Ah! The Goldilocks theory of evolution.
I just knew it!
Apparently, you didn't understand it then, either.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-08-2006 08:43 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 7:57 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 11:08 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 67 of 238 (285086)
02-08-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 7:49 PM


Re: Hey, can I play?
evopeach writes:
You realize that your stament is open to interpretation":
An inability to present a case for the seven sigma quality of the genomic operation other than an assertion.
I haven't even seen you make a case for why this is a problem. If you feel further clarification is unnecessary then I guess we're done.
evopeach writes:
Most theories are able to explain and experimentally demonstrate their premises to be hightly factual but of course such is not the case in this instance, other wise it would be forthcoming.
Evolutionary theory has no premise about mutation rates. This is a measured quantity, not a theoretical one. The mutation rates do not derive from theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 7:49 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 11:02 PM Percy has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 68 of 238 (285103)
02-08-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
02-08-2006 8:54 PM


Re: Hey, can I play?
PLease there are innumerable claims about divergence of species based on mutation ESTIMATES over eons to predict the so called last common ancestor. Who measured those non-theoretical mutation rates?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 02-08-2006 8:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2006 11:15 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 8:11 AM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 69 of 238 (285104)
02-08-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Omnivorous
02-08-2006 8:42 PM


Re: Preaching to the Choir
In my case there was not a single instance of breast cancer in either side of my wifes family for four generations on each side. And longevity extended well into the seventies and eighties in several cases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2006 8:42 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 70 of 238 (285106)
02-08-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 11:02 PM


Re: Hey, can I play?
Evopeach now writes:
PLease there are innumerable claims about divergence of species based on mutation ESTIMATES over eons to predict the so called last common ancestor. Who measured those non-theoretical mutation rates?
Well, here's one part of the answer:
Evopeach previously writes:
The absolutely agreed upon error rate for copying the 3 plus billion base pairs in the human genome is 1 per billion. This is so well documented as to be ludicrous to even discuss.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 11:02 PM Evopeach has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 71 of 238 (285116)
02-09-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 2:03 PM


Re: Six Sigma isn't a good comparison
Relevant because you proclaim Sidny Fox' protenoids , and soap bubbles to life replicators when Shapiro destroys any efficacy (and many othere have as well) of his work to real cell and replication.
It may be the case that Shapiro is right, I've not read his work, but it would seem that not all authorities on the subject agree with him on that.
My shaving lather has bubbles that meld, bud etc. its not related to biologic cells.
Does your shaving lather produce ATP, polypeptides and nucleic acids? Does it show signs of anything similar to cyclosis?
Actually , I went theough the Black and Decker Sig Sigma class and am in charge of a Six Sigma blended learning program at my college although I do not teach it I made it happen.
I'm not aware of the Black and Decker class, is that related to the tool company?
Your assumption of superior knowledge is unjustified as with all evo super egos.
I didn't assume anything. I asked a question 'I take it you you haven't worked in any six sigma programs?' and continued with why I would think such a thing:
quote:
One doesn't go to a company, count all the defects, all the opportunities and leave it at that. You look at individual scenarios. Airline fatality is one thing. If each fatality costs the airline $x (both directly (Compensation) and indirectly (losing customers) it would be wise to keep those figures down and measure it using DPMO.
I think I was pretty justified in thinking that you might have limited experience in the field based on what ou were saying. I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd ask. Your assumption that I was assuming superior knowledge is unjustified as with all creationists martyr complexes. Anyone can say stuff like that Evopeach.
So back to my point: A system that has self error-correcting mechanisms such as computer programs or DNA replication cannot be compared with systems that don't. Indeed, we know that if we design a self error-correcting replicating program it will have a higher sigma success than DNA replication. Why is DNA's error correction as bad as it is if it was designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 2:03 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:00 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 75 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:17 AM Modulous has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 72 of 238 (285132)
02-09-2006 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 11:02 PM


Re: Hey, can I play?
Evopeach writes:
PLease there are innumerable claims about divergence of species based on mutation ESTIMATES over eons to predict the so called last common ancestor. Who measured those non-theoretical mutation rates?
I'm afraid you're going to have to connect the dots for me. How does this tie in to seven sigma?
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 02-09-2006 08:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 11:02 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:13 AM Percy has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 73 of 238 (285146)
02-09-2006 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
02-09-2006 1:32 AM


Re: Six Sigma isn't a good comparison
Your premise is wrong. The IBM family of OS for mainframes as well as everyother OS in teh last 25 years has error correcting code and yet the average number of patches to fix bugs is about 25 per month.
Ever hear of the Blue Screen. Of course if you write 100% perfect code that never has a bug... I'd like to introduce you to Bill Gates.. because he sure as he-- doesn't.
The error rate in generated code or hand written code is much greater than one error in a billion operations.
Again I spent 25 years in that business so please don't feed me that sort of cr--.
One answer is that the original creation and design were perfect and then it was corrupted by say the introduction of mutation causing agents or by a slight alteration to the copying apparatus so it became imperfect. (In fact that was the claim made in Genesis)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 1:32 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 9:23 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 78 by ramoss, posted 02-09-2006 9:34 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 10:06 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 103 by Kapyong, posted 02-09-2006 5:57 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 74 of 238 (285148)
02-09-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
02-09-2006 8:11 AM


Re: Hey, can I play?
It relates by correcting someones erroneous try for an endrun.
Evolutionary theory has no premise about mutation rates. This is a measured quantity, not a theoretical one. The mutation rates do not derive from theory.
Mutation is the only mechanism evolution has as raw material for changing the genome from the current pre-rna first replicator which would have been highly error prone step by step pair by pair into the genome and cellular machinery that operates at the 7 sigma level.
How quickly did the evolutionary mechanism get from a very high error rate to the near perfect current error rate?
Quickly enough to be consistent with the trilobite eye in fast forward evolutionary time?
Are the assumptions of evolutionary mutation rates and the so called fossil record of evolving organisms internally consistant in consideration of avail time periods?
If so, how unless the rates are estimatred or assumed constant or undefined so they can be set to whatever is required to explain what is observed in evolutionary terms.
Dot Dot Dot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 8:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 10:30 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2006 1:11 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 75 of 238 (285150)
02-09-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
02-09-2006 1:32 AM


Re: Six Sigma isn't a good comparison
PLease no proteinoid or any Fox stuff ever resembled a cell, made deoxyribose, DNA, RNA or anything else.
You're normally pretty realistic but this is over the top inaccurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 1:32 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 9:27 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 96 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2006 1:06 PM Evopeach has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024