molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
And I am not jumping the gun, that is what evolutionists do.

---

But you ARE jumping the gun. You don't know why hot spots exist, yet they are evidence of design????? How?"Evolutionists" haven't jumped the gun because they have observed hot spots, & haven't yet enough evidence to attribute a cause.See the difference?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

dear mark,You wonder:
"But you ARE jumping the gun. You don't know why hot spots exist, yet they are evidence of design????? How?"If mutations are (environmentally) directed than the information to do this was already present in the genome. (See also Fred's letters.)Question: How do evolutionist's conceive hotspots?Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mark,

​

You wonder:
"But you ARE jumping the gun. You don't know why hot spots exist, yet they are evidence of design????? How?"

​

If mutations are (environmentally) directed than the information to do this was already present in the genome. (See also Fred's letters.)

​

Question: How do evolutionist's conceive hotspots?

​

Peter

---

They don't conceive them, they describe them. Without further evidence, they would be jumping the gun.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-26-2002]

Dear Mark,You say about hot spots:
"They don't conceive them, they describe them. Without further evidence, they would be jumping the gun."Mutational hot spots imply non-randomness. And non-randomness suggests (at least) the involvement of a mechanism. Either protein or RNA mediated. It is proof against NDT, since the primary tenet of NDT is random mutation.
Best wishes
Peter

Peter,
Just to clarify your position on this, do you subscribe to the fluid genome model instead then? Or something else?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mark,

​

You say about hot spots:
"They don't conceive them, they describe them. Without further evidence, they would be jumping the gun."

​

Mutational hot spots imply non-randomness. And non-randomness suggests (at least) the involvement of a mechanism. Either protein or RNA mediated. It is proof against NDT, since the primary tenet of NDT is random mutation.
Best wishes
Peter

​

---

If you divided a year up into 1 minute time slots, then measured precipiation at a particular point on land, you would find that precipitation is non-random. Does that mean God makes it rain? By your logic it does.A genetic example would be the formation of chiasmata for crossing over as recombination occurs. This isn’t random either, it happens more often in GC rich parts of the genome. However, we know this, so is this evidence of design, or just something that happens naturally? How do you tell the difference? It comes back to the ID argument. How can you tell the difference between a naturally occurring object/system/mechanism, & a designed one?Without further evidence of hot spot causation, you are jumping the gun stating hot spots were designed. You don’t even know WHY there are hot spots for chrissakes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

Either protein or RNA mediated. It is proof against NDT, since the primary tenet of NDT is random mutation.

---

This is getting tedious, though I don’t know why I’m surprised. This is an anti-evolutionary staple, to change definitions in order to claim a falsification. All you have done is to introduce a definition of random that is different than intended.Here’s what D. Futuyma writes on the subject.

quote:

---

Mutation as a Random Process

​

Mutations occur at random. It is extremely important to understand what this statement does & does not mean. It does not mean that all conceivable mutations are equally likely to occur, because, as we have noted, the developmental foundations for some imaginable transformations do not exist. It does not mean that all loci, or regions within a locus, are equally mutable, for geneticists have described differences in mutation rates, at both the phenotypic & molecular levels, among & within loci (Woodruff et al. 1983; Wolf et al. 1989). It does not mean that environmental factors cannot influence mutation rates: ultraviolet & other radiation, as well as various chemical mutagens & poor nutrition, do indeed increase rates of mutation.

​

Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous

---

(Evolutionary Biology 2nd Edition, Douglas Futuyma p281-2)So, you’ve really set fire to that strawman!
Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

dear Mark,Thanks for your summary of what Futuyma has to say on the subject:"Mutations occur at random." Indeed here it says: "RANDOM!!!!!"but next...:"It is extremely important to understand (WELL I DO NOT, SINCE THE FORTHCOMING IS CONTRADICTING THE PREVIOUS!!!)what this statement does & does not mean. It does not mean that all conceivable mutations are equally likely to occur, because, as we have noted, the developmental foundations for some imaginable transformations do not exist. It does not mean that all loci, or regions within a locus, are equally mutable, for geneticists have described differences in mutation rates, at both the phenotypic & molecular levels, among & within loci (Woodruff et al. 1983; Wolf et al. 1989)."...it says: "but not really RANDOM"So, what he says is that mutations are random but not really. Come on, I do not buy a theory that says: Something is but not really. Open up your eyes, Mark, don't you see that he set up a theory that cannot be falsified (And still the 1G5 gene falsifies the theory).AND:
"It does not mean that environmental factors cannot influence mutation rates: ultraviolet & other radiation, as well as various chemical mutagens & poor nutrition, do indeed increase rates of mutation."I agree to this."Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous"These are axiomata of NDT. It does not have to be true.Have a nice day,Peter

dear mark,You say:
"If you divided a year up into 1 minute time slots, then measured precipiation at a particular point on land, you would find that precipitation is non-random. Does that mean God makes it rain? By your logic it does."I say:
Distortion of my words, and also a fallacy. In logic this type of reasoning is called an "extension", and belongs to the type of "faulty analogies". A faulty analogy is an inappropriate comparison or an attempt to compare two or more dissimilar things.
So, this can never be used as an argument.You say:
"A genetic example would be the formation of chiasmata for crossing over as recombination occurs. This isn’t random either, it happens more often in GC rich parts of the genome."I say:
Excellent example. It demonstrates that a mechanism is operating and thus the process is NON-RANDOM.And:
"However, we know this, so is this evidence of design."Yes, since the variation that is generated by this mechanism is already present and encoded in the DNA.Peter

[QUOTE][B]Distortion of my words, and also a fallacy.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually it's called an analogy. [QUOTE][B]In logic this type of reasoning is called an "extension", and belongs to the type of "faulty analogies". A faulty analogy is an inappropriate comparison or an attempt to compare two or more dissimilar things.[/QUOTE][/B]From: Forbidden [QUOTE][B]Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property[/QUOTE][/B]Your argument is that, if the location on the genome where mutations occur are stastically weighted, they are necessarily encoded by God.His argument is that if something "random" but statistically weighted is necessarily from God, as you assert, then precipitation is necessarily from God because it is statistically weighted in a very similar manner. The property (weighted probability) exists in both the subject and the analogy, therefore the analogy is a good one. The faulty argument that mutations must be from God because of weighted probability has been adequately refuted, unless you can follow the proof I quoted above and find that property that distinguishes the subject from the analogy.

Dear Gene,You say:
"Your argument is that, if the location on the genome where mutations occur are stastically weighted, they are necessarily encoded by God."Not only statitically weighted, but the mechanism that introduces the mutations is present in the genome and, therefore, has been encoded by the programmer.And:
"His argument is that if something "random" but statistically weighted is necessarily from God, as you assert, then precipitation is necessarily from God because it is statistically weighted in a very similar manner."This is not true. The introduction of mutations is NOT random since it seems to be introduced by some sort of mechanism that has been programmed in the DNA. This is what I am trying to convey. Likewise, the degradation of a protein (encoded in the DNA) by a protease also (encoded in the DNA) is non-random (this is a proper analogy). Therefore, you are not allowed to compare non-random protein-mediated (?) mutation with random --though statitically weighted-- precipitation.Peter

borger, an article on hotspots you might like to read:http://kimura.tau.ac.il/~ron/Chap4/Chap4.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

​

And:
"His argument is that if something "random" but statistically weighted is necessarily from God, as you assert, then precipitation is necessarily from God because it is statistically weighted in a very similar manner."

​

This is not true. The introduction of mutations is NOT random since it seems to be introduced by some sort of mechanism that has been programmed in the DNA.

---

Precipitation in my example above is non random, nor is precipitation at different sites around the world random. So when it rains & where, is designed by your logic.Your entire argument depends on the impossibility of naturally occurring non-random events, I have shown that events CAN be non-random & natural.It once again comes down to being able to tell the difference between naturally occurring systems, & non-naturally occurring ones, how do you tell them apart? If you can’t answer this, ID is dead.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

has anyone posted this article yet?Large Number of Replacement Polymorphisms in Rapidly Evolving Genes of Drosophila: Implications for Genome-Wide Surveys of DNA Polymorphism | Genetics | Oxford Academici've only skim read it, it mentions something about why higher mutation rate isn't a plausible explanation for the rapidly evolving genes.

Mutational hotspots are hotspots for very simple reasons. It has to do with the sequence. Certain stretches of DNA are prone to exposure to mutagens, for instance.It is all very simple chemistry, but the creationist will always try to make sand castles out of single grains of sand.Creationists also seem to have odd ideas about randomness. One creationist insisted that because there is enzymatic control of the insertion of some retrotransposons that the entire process is non-random, despite the fact that there is no control over WHERE these elements get inserted.You simply cannot make headway talking to a wall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Mark,

​

Thanks for your summary of what Futuyma has to say on the subject:

​

"Mutations occur at random." Indeed here it says: "RANDOM!!!!!"

---

You are aware that there is more than one definition of random, aren’t you? & that you are gainsaying the meaning that is intended? Here, random means, quite clearly, that you cannot pre-determine the locus that the next mutation will take place etc. You are also aware that the contentious issue is the definition of random, as intended by the author. So saying Indeed here it says: "RANDOM!!!!! just makes you look childish. Because, what is patently clear to me, & everyone else, is that Futuyma isn’t using a strict statistical definition (it's the whole point of the passage), as he is going to great pains to describe to you. So when he says "random", you need to take it in the context of the authors meaning, not your own rigid, a priori meaning, OK?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

but next...:

​

"It is extremely important to understand (WELL I DO NOT, SINCE THE FORTHCOMING IS CONTRADICTING THE PREVIOUS!!!)what this statement does & does not mean. It does not mean that all conceivable mutations are equally likely to occur, because, as we have noted, the developmental foundations for some imaginable transformations do not exist. It does not mean that all loci, or regions within a locus, are equally mutable, for geneticists have described differences in mutation rates, at both the phenotypic & molecular levels, among & within loci (Woodruff et al. 1983; Wolf et al. 1989)."

​

...it says: "but not really RANDOM"

---

No, it doesn’t. He is separating the statistical all sites have equal probability meaning, from it cannot be determined where the next mutation will occur meaning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

So, what he says is that mutations are random but not really. Come on, I do not buy a theory that says: Something is but not really.

---

You are beginning to look silly, Peter.Futuyma has clearly set out what random means in the context of RM&NS. Using THAT DEFINITION OF RANDOM, mutations at hotspots ARE random in the sense that the locus for any particular mutation cannot be deterministically predicted, OK? It’s not a difficult concept. So, no, the NDT isn’t expecting you to buy something that is random but not really. IF YOU APPLY THE GIVEN DEFINITION, AND THAT DEFINITION ONLY!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

Open up your eyes, Mark, don't you see that he set up a theory that cannot be falsified (And still the 1G5 gene falsifies the theory).

---

Then, according to you, he didn’t set up a theory that cannot be falsified. Jeez you wan’t it HOW many ways?You’re beginning to lose credibility, mate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

"Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous"

​

These are axiomata of NDT. It does not have to be true.

​

---

Doesn’t have to be true? What doesn’t?The meaning that Futuyma gave to random is as valid as any, what’s not true about it?You have attempted to apply a meaning to random that was never intended by the authors, and in showing that your definition actually contravenes observed incidences of mutation, you have created a strawman.You have destroyed a meaning of random mutation that never pertained to evolution. Well done.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-09-2002]