Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   evidence that intelligent design can't explain
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 50 (15270)
08-12-2002 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by peter borger
08-08-2002 9:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter,
You state:
"Random in the sense of ToE means we don't know when it will
happen. It is not a direct response to the environment, but
a happy circumstance if it's a benefit."
I say:
'When' and 'where' are completely different questions. I say that a mechanism introduces the mutations observed in the 1G5 gene (and maybe also in other genes). It maybe in response to the environment (this answers the when question).
For instance.
Q: WHEN do antibody genes start to mutate to improve affinity?
A: When the immune cells (B cells) that produce the immunoglobulins encounter antigen that can be bound by the antibody.
Elucidating the underlying mechanism will answer the WHERE question. But at present it is certain that it is protein mediated and therefor cannot be at random.
Peter

So there is a natural process behind it ... and that falsifies
NDT in what way?
PS:: Sorry if another post of mine suggests you haven't responded
to this question ... read another thread first.
Added this by edit 'cause it just ocurred to me::
Even if there is a mechanism that allows a mutation in response to
environmental change ... the environmental change cannot be
predicted in advance so the 'when' is still a random event ...
isn't it?
That's my understanding of random in connection with ToE.
Also ... finding that there is some mechanism for enabling
some mutations does not equate to ALL mutations being effected
in this manner.
I believe you are suffering from over-simplistic thinking.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 08-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by peter borger, posted 08-08-2002 9:22 PM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 47 of 50 (15413)
08-14-2002 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by wj
08-10-2002 11:11 AM


Dear WI,
You say:
"Let me get some clarification on Peter Borger's frequent self-aggrandizing declarations in various threads about the demise of NDT. Does his whole argument boil down to
unequal frequency of mutations at all loci = non-random mutation = directed mutation by mechanism unknown = genomes designed to mutate in (enhancing) response to external evnironmental factors = evidence for intelligent design by designer unknown (don't say god) = demise of NDT ?"
I consider this a pretty concise summary, with a conclusion I don't object to,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by wj, posted 08-10-2002 11:11 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Mammuthus, posted 08-14-2002 9:38 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 48 of 50 (15425)
08-14-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by peter borger
08-14-2002 3:55 AM


Dear WI,
You say:
"Let me get some clarification on Peter Borger's frequent self-aggrandizing declarations in various threads about the demise of NDT. Does his whole argument boil down to
unequal frequency of mutations at all loci = non-random mutation = directed mutation by mechanism unknown = genomes designed to mutate in (enhancing) response to external evnironmental factors = evidence for intelligent design by designer unknown (don't say god) = demise of NDT ?"
I consider this a pretty concise summary, with a conclusion I don't object to,
Peter
Interesting, so whenever Peter does not understand how a mechanism works (and tells everyone else they don't either) it must be because of a designer a la Behe. So the other examples of things that must be designed are gravity and why sometimes you throw socks in the washing machine and one magically disappears.
So over the years as more nturalistic phenomenon are understood at the mechanistic level the intelligent designers will have to move their god to the level of whatever is not fully understood at that time period...god/ID/Elvis is god/etc etc insert favoritediety is shrinking for you guys...but science continues to grow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 3:55 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 49 of 50 (15430)
08-14-2002 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by peter borger
07-23-2002 2:43 AM


I will leave much of the post alone as others have already addressed those points. I would however like to correct a few errors that you have made w.r.t. ascorbic acid biosynthesis and how it makes portions of your arguement invalid.
quote:
I checked one claim about the GLO pseudogene (the gene that catalyses the final step in vitamin c synthesis) that has been inactivated in the same spot in primates and is taken as proof for common ancestry. And, indeed a superficial look would immediately convince any evolutionist. However, if you have a careful look at the presented sequences you will discover that the replacement of nucleotides is not at random between the distinct species.
OK, leaving aside your rather spurious dig concerning the ability of the evolutionists on this board to properly read data, I have to say that you are in error here. Ohta's paper clearly shows RANDOM mutations (other than the frame shift) in exon X between four species. I would like to see a fuller sequencing so that this gene could be used in the construction of a phylogenic tree for comparison to other phylogenic trees as internal controls.
quote:
Secondly, you will discover that it does not make a difference for the mutation rate of this gene whether it is functional or not, in contrast to what evolution theory would predict.
Did you get this from another reference. I do not remember it from Ohta's paper.
quote:
Thirdly, it violates population genetics: why would the inactivated gene become fixed in the entire population, while the active gene conveys longivity.
This error is based on a misconception of Hardy-Weinburg genetics. A gene which is environmentally silent, as this one is in most primate populations due to a diet which circumnavegates the genetic and phenotypic flaw, can spread through drift. Genetic bottlenecks then often do the redt.
quote:
In addition, evolution never compensated for vitamin C uptake in the gut,
I doubt that this is or would be neccessary. The only papers that I have on hand indicate to me that this is not neccessary, in humans at least:
Just a moment...
Please note that the bioavailability is roughly 100% at ranges sufficient to prevent scurvy. This is expected for nutrients takeup by sodium co-ports
Flavonoid inhibition of sodium-dependent vitamin C transporter 1 (SVCT1) and glucose transporter isoform 2 (GLUT2), intestinal transporters for vitamin C and Glucose - PubMed
and
PubMed
quote:
and, finally, the gene is redundant anyway since the third step in vit c synthesis already yields vitamin C by spontenaous oxidation and is sufficient to avoid vit c deficiency.
Sorry but this is flat out wrong, at least in its implications in deficiency. While the conversion of L-xylo-hex-3-ulonolactone to L-ascorbate is spontaneous the missing enzyme causes the conversion of L-gulonolactone to L-xylo-hex-3-ulonolactone concurrent with the reduction of oxygen to hydrogen peroxide. This step requires an enzyme and is not spontaneous. It is simple, no enzyme, no vitamin C biosynthesis.
quote:
Also not unimportant, at least 2 primates are able to synthesise vitamin c in the liver, indicating the presence of an intact GLO gene .
I would like a reference for this one for two reasons,1) so I can compare these "primates" to a phylogenetic tree and 2) to ensure that what was being observed was not just storage of ascorbate as the liver is the bodies reservoir for ascorbate for ALL primates.
quote:
(I once had a discussion about this gene with Dr D. Theobald (Talk Origin) so I know a bit about pseudogenes
Oh, and I used to work in a lab which did ascorbate nutritional studies so everything I have said is pretty much accurate (I left that lab about 7 years ago to work in industry so I may have forgotten a few things).
At least with respect to vitamin C the data here supports NS or descent with modification in the neo-darwinian sense far more than it does ID.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 08-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 07-23-2002 2:43 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by peter borger, posted 09-06-2002 2:24 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 50 of 50 (16718)
09-06-2002 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
08-14-2002 11:38 AM


dear Taz,
I invite you to read all my mail to Mark24, since there I addressed all your comments.
And you say:
"Did you get this from another reference. I do not remember it from Ohta's paper"
No, Ohta did not show it but the data he showed are sufficient to get the mutations rates before and after inactivation of the gene. Sometimes it pays off to do a bit of research yourself with data that are present in literature anyway.
best wishes
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-14-2002 11:38 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus 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