|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It was also pointed out that the criticisms had been addressed by later work. Did you forget that ?
quote: Then you are uninformed. The "controversy" is almost entirely from creationists (started by Jonathan Wells).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Curiously, I didn't say it wasn't evolution, just that it was not an example of a mutation arising that shows a benefit -- the mutation was already extant in the population, and the melanic variety was known about well before hand. There are actually a variety of genes that lead to the melanic form; and these will arise by spontaneous mutation from time to time - a fact which is likely to be partiarly responsible for the maintainance of the melanic form in normal populations - so it is also likely that some of the melanic forms selected during the industrial period arise by new mutation during that period so both you and Greyseal are partially correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
As I remember It wasn't creationists debating whether or not they were stuck on trees but rather it was a debate going on betweeen everyone else. So yes, it was a bit controversial even between evolutionists. This isn't really the case. The main proponents of the strongest 'fraud' interpretation of Kettlewell's work were Judith Hooper, a journalist, and Jonathan Wells, a vigorous creationist/ID proponent. One is a journalist rather than a scientist and the other a 'scientist' with a very determined ideological bias. The actual scientific debate between people like Jerry Coyne and Michael Majerus, such as it was, was blown up out of all proportion by creationists and Judith Hooper's controversial book. See Majerus's own account of the matter at Page not found | Department of Genetics by looking at either his powerpoint to the humanist association or to the ESAB in Sweden. In terms of actual research Majerus is essentially both the harshest legitimate critic and the strongest defender of Kettlewell's work. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
A point mutation changes a letter, and the whole sentance becomes meaningless, nevermind just the mutated word. How do we interpret the result of this? This isn't really true though. A single typo may in a very strict sense make the sentence nonsense, but it is unlikely to actually stop anyone from understanding it. You may remember a well publicised bit of research a few years ago had a press release as follows ...
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. Clearly this is technically nonsense but I very much doubt that you can't understand what it says.
If the mutation is in an instruction code binary string, it will simply change it to another instruction and something will still happen. With DNA point mutations in coding sections, amino acids will still be selected, proteins will still be built, things will still happen - whatever they happen to be... Would you agree? I definitely agree with this description. To try and abstract the actual function/information from the biochemistry of the actual molecules is to lose sight of what is actually happening in reality. This is what leads to views like Drews and Smooth operators based on the assumption that ...
The information inside DNA must be specified with little margin for error. When for the most part we have no ideas what the allowable margins for error are because we don't know what the functional effects of most possible mutations on a protein/sequence would be. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4432 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
I meant here on the forum, not elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I'd still say you were wrong. Greyseal first brought up the melanic moth as an example of natural selection in Message 163 to which LucyTheApe, a creationist, replied ...
Oh, yes, good science that, stapling moths onto trees to try prove a world view. RAZD then corrected some of Greyeal's misapprehensions concerning Kettlewell's research, for which Greyseal thanked him. RAZD also thinks the melanic moth is a good example of natural selection. Where is the 'controversial' debate between evolutionists around this topic on this thread/site? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I liked the way you framed the language analogy, with each child receiving the message performing selection according to whether it made sense. In this analogy mutations occur at the level of words, or at least syllables.
Your press release example is a different analogy. I haven't found this approach very useful in the past, I think because to creationists it seems too obviously like gradual degeneration of information. I don't know if Cavediver was already aware of this when he introduced the computer instruction analogy, but this is a common approach to artificial life. My memory may be off, but I think Tierra and Avida may be examples of this approach. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I'm not trying to start another round of debate. I am attempting to learn through comments and inquiry with this post.
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. Wounded King: Clearly this is technically nonsense but I very much doubt that you can't understand what it says. We can understand the above because I think we know the English language enough to be able to discern the meanings. It is sort of a pattern recognition ability that we have. So the question becomes, does the machinery in the cell have pattern recognition abilities in spite of serious misplacements and errors? If it does, it would seem to me it would have limited utility. I think that because I am considering the genetic information injected by viruses.
When for the most part we have no ideas what the allowable margins for error are because we don't know what the functional effects of most possible mutations on a protein/sequence would be. I don't understand that because mutations within RNA could be transcribed in different ways depending on where they fall. It seems to me the mutations in the first or second positions of each codon can have larger effects than mutations at the third position of a codon. Of course this understanding hinges on pattern recognition and an a possible ID answer for it. I may never understand the complex machinery in the cell. Stephen Meyer has made references to its incredible machinery. I just heard one of his interviews he did with George Noory on You Tube. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I could be entirely off base here, but as I understand the whole "Chinese whispers/telephone" or "DNA as a language" side topics, one poster had said that substituting a wrong letter in a sentence turns the whole sentence to gibberish, whereas substituting one base in a strand of DNA won't make it gibberish, it will just have some (whether small or large) effect on the protein that is made, and will therefore have an impact on that protein's ability to carry out it's "intended" function. As you point out, if the mutation is in the third spot of a codon, it may have no effect at all.
The Cambridge University study was referenced merely to refute the idea that changing one letter in a sentence m akes the sentence gibberish since we can still understand the sentence as it was written. Likewise, no matter what you do to change the order of DNA bases, there will still be some protein created, and that protein will have some effect in the cell, whether good or bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All that I was saying was that as many of you have pointed out already, some aspects of the research were dodgy. Can we agree on that. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
We can understand the above because I think we know the English language enough to be able to discern the meanings. It is sort of a pattern recognition ability that we have. I wasn't using that as an analogy to genetic mutation, I was just countering Cavediver's contention that a single 'point mutation' in a sentence would render it meaningless.
So the question becomes, does the machinery in the cell have pattern recognition abilities in spite of serious misplacements and errors? If it does, it would seem to me it would have limited utility. I think that because I am considering the genetic information injected by viruses. I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying that viruses can only propagate because animal cells share an almost universal machinery of transcription and translation? As Cavediver said, a cell will just produce the protein that is encoded, if there are mutations in the genetic sequence it will carry out the synthesis according to that sequence. The functionality of the resulting protein will depend upon the precise mutation.
I don't understand that because mutations within RNA could be transcribed in different ways depending on where they fall.
I think you mean mutations in DNA since rna is highly transient and a mistranscription from DNA to RNA is unlikely to have a long term effect, certainly not outwith the cell in which it occurs. I also think you are thinking of errors in translation since they could be translated in different ways depending on reading frame, but not really transcribed in different ways. If you were talking about mutations outwith coding regions affecting transcription levels due to regulatory effects that is an interesting question, but from what you say I don't think that is what you mean.
It seems to me the mutations in the first or second positions of each codon can have larger effects than mutations at the third position of a codon. Of course this understanding hinges on pattern recognition and an a possible ID answer for it. Well changes in the 1st and 2nd position within a codon are more likely to result in non-synonymous mutations certainly. Whether this makes them mutations with larger effects depends largely on the specific mutation. Some substitutions will have absoloutely no functional effect on a protein, because they do not change the proreins overall structural form and physicochemistry. We can make some predictions on changes to structure and function in terms of well chracterised functional sequences, but in general the best way to find out what effect a mutation has is to study it in action. As an aside the 3rd base redundancy does mean that we can theoretically change at least 30% of any coding sequence without expecting any functional changes in the protein. Although as Percy highlighted, there is research suggesting it could affect the rate at which the protein was produced. There is plenty of non ID based research into the genetic code and transfer RNAs, which are where any pattern recognition involved is surely occurring. I'm not sure where your ID answer becomes neccessary, there is a well developed understanding of the processes involved and several plausible theories for the evolution of the genetic code. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't understand that [...] I may never understand ... Ah, yes, creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Likewise, no matter what you do to change the order of DNA bases, there will still be some protein created, and that protein will have some effect in the cell, whether good or bad. You were doing well up until here. There are a number of forms of mutation which could in fact stop a protein being created. The most obvious is a mutation which removes the start codon for the gene. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
You were doing well up until here. There are a number of forms of mutation which could in fact stop a protein being created. The most ovious is a mutation which removes the start codon for the gene. Yeah, I thought about putting in the explanation of the start and the stop codon. (If the stop codon was placed directly after the start codon, nothing would be produced, correct?) But thanks for clearing up any miscommunication on my part. That's one of the great things about this forum, we actually have people in the fields who know what the hell they're talking about rather than a bunch of lay people with an interest who will mangle the actualities left and right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
traderdrew writes: So the question becomes, does the machinery in the cell have pattern recognition abilities in spite of serious misplacements and errors? If it does, it would seem to me it would have limited utility. I think that because I am considering the genetic information injected by viruses. viruses have evolved to get around and subvert the machinery. It's what they do. *ID fluff snipped*
traderdrew writes: I may never understand the complex machinery in the cell. Stephen Meyer has made references to its incredible machinery. I just heard one of his interviews he did with George Noory on You Tube. And just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean somebody else doesn't. Saying "godidit" because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so. One scientist with a will and the means can unlock this "machinery", a thousand ID apologists who don't want to know never will. Sorry.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024