|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: More non-random evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear Quetzal,
You say:Actually, I'm getting a bit tired of the hotspot argument. You're off-base, Peter. I say:So, because you are tired of this argument I am off base? I really do not see the logical link between these statements. You say:Here's one article that specifically directly links a human cancer mutational hotspot at codon 12 of K-ras to preferential DNA damage and poor repair: I say:That's a mechanism isn't it? I already proposed a similar mechanism in another mail. Your ref:Denissenko, M., Pao, A., Pfeifer, G. and Tang, M-s. Slow repair of preferentially formed benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide DNA adducts at the mutational hotspots in the human p53 gene. Oncogene 16:1241-1249 (1998) I say:What does it say about mutational hotspots? I mean how are they introduced in the same spot? Nothing, except that they are slowly repaired. You 2nd ref:And here's another one (on line for all you cheapskates): Hatahet, Z., M Zhou, LJ Reha-Krantz, SW Morrical and SS Wallace. 1998. In search of a mutational hotspot PNAS 95: 8556-8561. Hotspots are caused by structural susceptibility at specific points on the DNA to specific mutagens. All evidence suggests that that it is simply a structural defect, and that location and surrounding codons have a major impact on whether a particular DNA site is a "hotspot" or "coldspot". IOW, Peter, there's no god/designer diddling with DNA - just a statistically higher likelihood of mutation caused chemical/structural idiosyncracies and crappy repair. I say:Whether or not these hotspots where designed cannot be concluded from the manucripts. However, the article shows that location and surrounding codons may have a decisive role in the outcome of the mutation. If so, than these mutations are non-random (hotspots), and since it may involve specific codons it clearly suggests a mechanism. Therefore, the alignment of mutations observed in related species may be due to such common mechanisms, instead of common descent. And if you thought that in my opinion a designer was diddling with DNA as a directly measurable force than you didn't understand me properly. I rather use the genetic redundancies as an argument for design. The non-random mutations can be used to invalidate NDT and common descent. You say:I guess that's one more god/designer of the gaps argument down the toilet. I say:Don't forget to wipe. You say:For those interested, here's the full PNAS article referenced in the OP: Natural radioactivity and human mitochondrial DNA mutations. Oddly enough, the article also talks about hotspots being more susceptible, and provides a neat comparison between evolutionary mutations and radiation-induced mutations at the same locus. I say:Apparently, hotspots are associated with a repair mechanism. The same repair mechanisms can be found in all primates, so what's the point? I say:Thanks for the contribution, Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
PB, your evidence for non-random, directed mutation is flimsy because the same data can be better explained by coventional evolutionary theory. The "why" questions relate to the discrepency between your "explanation" and observations.
Using your non-random, directed mutation hypothesis some predictions can be made. One prediction would be that, if the common primate "stop" codon mutation in the GLO pseudogene is the result of directed, non-random mutation then the mechanism which has produced this mutation should also operate in other genomes and produce the same result. However the vast majority of mammalian genomes have not suffered lethal mutation of the GLO gene - they have functional GLO genes. Conventional evolutionary theory explains this pattern by a common ancestor for all primates - your hypothesis does not explain the pattern except by relegating it to an unknown mechanism operating identically in most primate genomes but not operating effectively in most mammals. Why not test your hyothesis and evolutionary theory on another set of data? IIRC guinea pigs and some bats also have non-functional GLO pseudogenes. Your hypothesis would predict that the common primate mutation would also be expected to occur in those other pseudogenes because there is a non-random mutation mechanism acting. Evolutionary theory would predict that the fatal mutations in the other GLO pseudogenes have occured at random and are unlikely to be the same as the common primate mutation because there is no close common ancestor of the primates, guinea pig and bats. Therefore, if the common primate mutation is found in the other groups then this would be more supportive of your hypothesis; if the common primate mutation does not occur in the other groups then this would be strong evidence against your hypothesis and consistent with evolutionary theory. PB, I fear that you are simply using a new incarnation of the god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know precisely why certain mutations occur more frequently than other mutations therefore there is a directed mechanism which we haven't found therefore there is inteligent design of the mechanism therefore there is a creator. BTW it's WJ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear WJ,
You say:PB, your evidence for non-random, directed mutation is flimsy because the same data can be better explained by coventional evolutionary theory. The "why" questions relate to the discrepency between your "explanation" and observations. I say:No, that's not the reason why it is flimsy. The reason is that only 5 primates have been scrutinised for the mutation in the GLO gene. As demonstrated for the 1G5 gene, the more sequence analysis the less likely common descent is because of shared non-random mutations. I explained this in letter #184, while you explicitly askes for it. Similarly, and as mentioned before, what I like to see are several sequences of several subpopulations of all primates? That would give compelling evidence. You say:Using your non-random, directed mutation hypothesis some predictions can be made. One prediction would be that, if the common primate "stop" codon mutation in the GLO pseudogene is the result of directed, non-random mutation then the mechanism which has produced this mutation should also operate in other genomes and produce the same result. However the vast majority of mammalian genomes have not suffered lethal mutation of the GLO gene - they have functional GLO genes. I say:It can be reasoned that these mechanisms are specific for primates, not for other families of mammals. You say:Conventional evolutionary theory explains this pattern by a common ancestor for all primates - your hypothesis does not explain the pattern except by relegating it to an unknown mechanism operating identically in most primate genomes but not operating effectively in most mammals. I say:All but --at least-- two primates. You say:Why not test your hyothesis and evolutionary theory on another set of data? IIRC guinea pigs and some bats also have non-functional GLO pseudogenes. Your hypothesis would predict that the common primate mutation would also be expected to occur in those other pseudogenes because there is a non-random mutation mechanism acting. I say:If guinea pigs have the same hotspots it would be found, indeed. However, I am afraid that they don't have the same hotspots. The guinea pig homologue of exon X demonstrates a huge deletion, so it is not tracable anymore. Yes, I am setting up a non-falsifiable theory of creation. You say:Evolutionary theory would predict that the fatal mutations in the other GLO pseudogenes have occured at random and are unlikely to be the same as the common primate mutation because there is no close common ancestor of the primates, guinea pig and bats. I say:The group of the bats is very interesting, since they comprise also one family and I predict that within a family a similar mechanism is operable in all genomes that introduced non-random mutations. The sequencing of several (related) bats and subpopulations of them will provide compelling evidence. You say:Therefore, if the common primate mutation is found in the other groups then this would be more supportive of your hypothesis; if the common primate mutation does not occur in the other groups then this would be strong evidence against your hypothesis and consistent with evolutionary theory. I say:Strong evidence? Of course not, in distinct families there may be distinct hotspots, since hotspots are determined by the surrounding DNA sequence. So, different sequence different hotspots. You say:PB, I fear that you are simply using a new incarnation of the god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know precisely why certain mutations occur more frequently than other mutations therefore there is a directed mechanism which we haven't found therefore there is inteligent design of the mechanism therefore there is a creator. I say:O yes, we do know. I gave already a couple of possible explanations. I don't need the god of the gaps to proof design. Let me reiterate the argument of "genetic redundancies". It is clear evidence that genes are in the genome without selective constraint, so there is no evolutionary argument how they could have evolved by mutation and selection. The major part of the protein coding genes in any organism is redundant. Like it or not, it points in the direction of design, not evolutionism. The rest is non-random mutation in a multipurpose genome. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seebs Inactive Member |
quote: I think you're misunderstanding the use of the term "random". If I roll two dice, and add them, I get 7 more often than 12. This doesn't mean the dice aren't random; it means that there is a structure within which these random events are being pooled. Imagine that you have an object which is weaker in some places and stronger in others. Now, hit it at a random point, and it may or may not break... Keep hitting it at random points. It is more likely that it will break at a weak place than a strong place, even though the places you hit it are random. This doesn't imply planning, design, or volition; it just recognizes that some structures break more easily than others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Seebs,
You say:"This doesn't imply planning, design, or volition; it just recognizes that some structures break more easily than others." I say:"Exactly, and that may contribute to the alignment of mutations in DNA. Such mutations may look like common descent." best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seebs Inactive Member |
quote: I don't think so at all. Imagine that any of a dozen mutations can occur at a given point. It would be *VERY* suspicious to claim that two creatures (A and B) each have the same sequence for the first 11 of them, and B and C have only 2 in common, but A and B don't have a common ancestor, they just *HAPPENED* to have such an unlikely sequence happen. If I deal two bridge hands, and someone ends up with the same set of cards both times, it's pretty hard to claim that the two starting sets of cards weren't similar. I think I see where you're going, and if there were only one suspiciously similar sequence of genes in one related species, it'd be a good enough argument to cast it into doubt. When instead we have hundreds upon hundreds of sequences across hundreds of species... That's different. It should be easy enough to test. Give one set of people access to a nicely detailed summary of the fossil record for a given chunk of the tree. Ask them to guess at relationships. Now give another people a set of gene maps, and ask them to guess at the relationships. If they come up with similar trees, we've got pretty good evidence that that's the best model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Nice irrelevancy. Actually, I’m simply tired of the way you consistently misinterpret and misunderstand the concept of randomness as relates to the existence of mutational hotspots. You are off-base because you are wrong.
quote: No, you didn’t. You merely asserted that an idiosyncratic definition of non-randomness falsifies the theory of evolution. The only mechanism you’ve provided deals with undetectable morphogenetic fields that somehow magically transpose DNA elements from one spot on the genome to another and/or mystically change DNA structure in response to undefined environmental triggers. Not much of a mechanism.
quote: Somehow I doubt that you read the article. It looks like all you did was pick up something out of the title. If you HAD read the article, you would know the answer to your question, because that’s precisely what the article talks about. However, for clarity: the BPDE mutagen (for example, from cigarette smoke), preferentially effects a specific spot — actually a single codon — in the p53 gene which controls proliferation, growth, and differentiation of normal cells. A mutation in this gene is one of the key factors determining whether other cell damage causes malignancy. The paper discusses how the mutagen effects the DNA strand. What’s most interesting to this discussion is the discovery that BPDE preferentially acts on a particular spot on the codon based on its location and the surrounding codons, rather than effecting the entire codon equally. This indicates that this particular spot has a chemical or structural weakness and that the normal cellular repair mechanisms are unequipped to repair it rapidly enough to prevent negative effects in all cases.
quote: The mechanism that you keep harping on is a chemical/structural failure at that spot. It is no different than a rope with a flaw preferentially breaking at that flaw under strain. Environmental factors such as chemical mutagens are the strain that effects the DNA strand. Whereas the strain will be applied across the strand, only the weak point will be effected (or at least, will be effected first). It remains random (although statistically more probable) because it is impossible to predict a) when the mutation will occur; b) whether or not the particular mutagen WILL in fact effect the hotspot — it’s not guaranteed that simply the presence of the mutagen will have any effect at all; and c) whether or not the mutation will have any effect on the organism once it occurs — often it simply kills the cell. Hotspots DO NOT provide any support for your ridiculous assertion concerning non-randomness falsifying evolutionary theory, for the simple reason that a mutation at a specific hotspot remains random under the definition of the term as used in biology and genetics. Your continual attempts to redefine what random means are specious, at best. As far as common descent goes, mutational hotspots — weaknesses in the DNA rope — CAN be used if and only if the specific sequence that creates the hotspot is present in some organisms and not others. On the other hand, they DON’T provide support for common design for the same reason — the exact sequences aren’t present in every organism.
quote: No, you prefer the supernatural morphogenetic field idea. Again, all you’re doing is redefining random as understood in evolutionary theory, then arguing against the Peter Borger Theory of Randomness. This is called the strawman fallacy. You have no evidence. You have no supporting documentation. You’re simply wrong, Peter, as every single one of the papers I and others have shown you proves.
quote: My point was that the article lends additional weight to what I said about hotspots being points on the DNA strand that are more susceptible to particular environmental effects (in this case ionizing radiation). What’s YOUR point about repair mechanisms and primates? Your statement is a complete non-sequitur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi Quetzal,
If you go to the "Endosymbiotic theory wrong" thread, Peter has fleshed out a bit more of his hypothesis, though the spurious defintion he uses of "non random" persists. Just to give you a heads up. The posting traffic here is increasing and it is getting harder (for me at least) to keep up with the various threads. Cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
If I understand you you are saying that a preferential
mutation mechanism could be responsible for the apparent similiarity in primate genomes. So there was no common ancestor, but each kind of primateevolved the same way due to this mechanism. This mechanism, however, operates differently in differentkinds of animals. So primates are more closely related to one another thanto bovines. Does this mean that you believe that diverse groups of primatesare all evolving to a common end point? How does the presence of such a mechanism allow forthe diversity that we see in primates (let alone life on Earth)? It seems to me that your arguments support common ancestry betterthan any concepts of design. We have a group of creatures (the primates) that at some timein the past were all so similar that they have genomic hotspots in the same areas, that have changed in similar ways. They also must have hotspots in different areas to one another, and these have changed in different ways. At best this devolves to the same difficulty that Tranquility Basepoints out that common descent and common design are hard to differentiate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1903 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I am still waiting for you to explain why all gene trees are supposed to be identical.
Afterall, someone with such an in depth knowledge of genomics and gene activity should be able to explain off the top of his head...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
peter borger writes: Always? That would be wildly improbable. In the human genome there are literally thousands and thousands of places where a mutation might be more likely to occur than the average for loci across the whole genome. All you can say is that some loci are more likely than others to experience a mutation. Mutations can still occur at unlikely locations. Going back to the earthquake analogy, the stronger building is less likely to fall than other buildings, but it is still possible for it to fall while other weaker buildings remain standing. There are no certainties with earthquakes and radiation, only probabilities.
There are a wide variety of mutation types, and this only covers one of them. Limiting my comments only to nucleotide substitution, I could accept a tendency toward the same nucleotides being introduced, but saying "usually the same nucleotides are introduced" feels a bit too strong to me. This tendency has two natural origins:
In order to add a supernatural possibility to this list you have to show that at least some mutational tendencies are not explained by these two possibilities.
I don't think you mean to say that it "brings down the strongest argument for molecular evolution." Didn't you mean to say it brings down the strongest argument for common descent? Anyway, it is only non-random in the sense that what happens is limited by natural laws. When I throw a rock repeatedly into the air at precisely the same angle and speed, the time it takes to fall is non-random, because gravity always acts the same way. When you subject the same biochemical repeatedly to the identical situation, what happens is always the same thing and is non-random, because the laws governing chemical reactions are always the same. Only if you repeated the same biochemical experiment over and over again getting different results each time might it be considered evidence of divine direction. And of course, radiation is the wildcard in this mix. How it "knocks out" a chemcial bond is random, dependent upon precisely where the radiation strikes.
I hope that the inductions made about the descent of human sub-groups were not made by following single mutational lines. The fewer mutational lines used to determine descent pathways, the less likely they are to be correct, precisely for the reasons you mention, that for a single mutational line it would not necessarily be possible to differentiate between common descent and common mechanism. But I don't want to lose sight of your original point when you began this thread, which cited an article about radiation causing increased mutational rates at genomic "hotspots". There is nothing non-random about this. Once again revisiting the earthquake scenario, you shake a city harder and the rate at which the weaker buildings fall increases. You radiationally bombard a genome harder, and the rate at which the weaker loci mutate increases. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1903 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Shame for Peter that there are TESTED methodologies employed to distinguish between homoplasy and phylogenetic signal. But you must know that, being as well read as you are...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3244 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: That is true,a lthough you also mentioned that it contained directed mutations (which no one else appeared to see) so it is somewhat relevant.
quote: I should be in the NIH library Monday, I was going to go today but I did not feel like trudging through the rain carrying a stack of papers.
quote: OK, I need to call you on this one. Please see your posts 101 and 105 hereEvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) you were making claims that went against every single thing ever published concerning ascorbic acid metabolism, which I then pointed out to you. quote: This is in error. If your claims concerning the mutation of the lactonase gene and the chemical conversion of the first hydroxyl were correct, and they do not appear to be as you have provided absolutely no suporting data while I have provided a few references that are contrary to your assertions, than yes it would be redundant. However, they are not, and if you had read the PNAS paper that I posted to you concerning the bioavailability study you would have noted that, after a long lag period where ascorbic acid stored in the liver was slowley released into the system, that thepatients suffered a precipitous drop in serum ascorbate levels indicating the onset of real scurvy. A long storage is not equivalent to a lack of requirement. GLO is not and never has been redundent. In primates it is lacking which is different.
quote: OK, I can see one of a pair of redundent genes having more mutations due to the selective constraint, however this STILL does not point to directed mutation. It points to a filtering process. And you still do not seem to understand hot spots. There is a MASSIVE difference between an increased probability of a specific event and a directed event. Your examples appear to me (I still need to check 1G5) to be far better explained bythe former than the latter. By the way, you did not give a source for your mutational accumulation rates concerning rat and primate GLO genes that you posted in the other thread (the one that I cited earlier). Care to share? ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Dr Page,
If you like to educate me, go ahead and provide me with the refernces and I will have a look at the methodology.Convince me that you are right and try to overcome your condescending attitude. (And, I am still waiting for your apologies w.r.t to your false accusation). Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Quetzal,
YOU wrote: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Actually, I'm getting a bit tired of the hotspot argument. You're off-base, Peter. PB: So, because you are tired of this argument I am off base? I really do not see the logical link between these statements. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nice irrelevancy. Actually, I’m simply tired of the way you consistently misinterpret and misunderstand the concept of randomness as relates to the existence of mutational hotspots. You are off-base because you are wrong. MY RESPONSE:Since my discovery of non-random mutations I checked some sequences and indeed there is non-random mutation with respect to nucleotide and position. So, let's redefine what a mean by non-randomness of mutations. By non-random mutations I mean non-random with respect to i) type of nucleotide and ii) position where it is introduced. Whether or not there is a mechanism involved is at this point not relevant. This non-randomness can also be demonstrated for mtDNA (PNAS 2001, 98:537-542). A careful look shows non-random mutations on several position of the analyzed mtDNA fragment of 309 base pairs. To be exact, nucleotide positions 107, 184, 201, 223, 263, 264, 301, 307, 362, and 387 involve all this principle of non-random mutation: same nucleotide introduced on same spot, even in bonobo, neanderthaler and human subspecies. Now you have to give me a very good reason to insist on random mutation. MtDNA does not have histons, and I already checked for 5-methyl-cysteine hotspots. Some of them are, the majority isn't. YOU:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Here's one article that specifically directly links a human cancer mutational hotspot at codon 12 of K-ras to preferential DNA damage and poor repair: PB: That's a mechanism isn't it? I already proposed a similar mechanism in another mail. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, you didn’t. You merely asserted that an idiosyncratic definition of non-randomness falsifies the theory of evolution. The only mechanism you’ve provided deals with undetectable morphogenetic fields that somehow magically transpose DNA elements from one spot on the genome to another and/or mystically change DNA structure in response to undefined environmental triggers. Not much of a mechanism. MY RESPONSE:I already gave a possible explanation in a previous letter. It was something like this: In response to DNA damage an SOS repair mechanism is activated that mends the DNA thereby introducing the same mutations on the same spot. Since the same families have the same repair mechanism and related DNA sequences the nucleotides are non-randomly replaced, and that may give the illusion of common descent. And, you have misunderstood my assumption of morphogenetic fields. By this I mean ‘creaton (virtual particles) interaction with matter in a morphogenetic field (earth) that give rise to genes’. It merely explains the sudden appearance of new gene families in organism during ‘evolution’. You may abbreviate it to ‘creaton interaction’ or ‘creat-ion’ (pronounce: creation), if you like. I don’t need this mechanism to explain shared mutations between related species. YOU:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denissenko, M., Pao, A., Pfeifer, G. and Tang, M-s. Slow repair of preferentially formed benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide DNA adducts at the mutational hotspots in the human p53 gene. Oncogene 16:1241-1249 (1998) PB: What does it say about mutational hotspots? I mean how are they introduced in the same spot? Nothing, except that they are slowly repaired. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Somehow I doubt that you read the article. It looks like all you did was pick up something out of the title. If you HAD read the article, you would know the answer to your question, because that’s precisely what the article talks about. However, for clarity: the BPDE mutagen (for example, from cigarette smoke), preferentially effects a specific spot — actually a single codon — in the p53 gene which controls proliferation, growth, and differentiation of normal cells. A mutation in this gene is one of the key factors determining whether other cell damage causes malignancy. The paper discusses how the mutagen effects the DNA strand. What’s most interesting to this discussion is the discovery that BPDE preferentially acts on a particular spot on the codon based on its location and the surrounding codons, rather than effecting the entire codon equally. This indicates that this particular spot has a chemical or structural weakness and that the normal cellular repair mechanisms are unequipped to repair it rapidly enough to prevent negative effects in all cases. MY RESPONSE:I didn’t read them yet, but I though ‘why not respond for the sake of discussion’. Today, I looked them up and will read them over the weekend. YOU:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: And here's another one (on line for all you cheapskates): Hatahet, Z., M Zhou, LJ Reha-Krantz, SW Morrical and SS Wallace. 1998. In search of a mutational hotspot PNAS 95: 8556-8561. Hotspots are caused by structural susceptibility at specific points on the DNA to specific mutagens. All evidence suggests that that it is simply a structural defect, and that location and surrounding codons have a major impact on whether a particular DNA site is a "hotspot" or "coldspot". IOW, Peter, there's no god/designer diddling with DNA - just a statistically higher likelihood of mutation caused chemical/structural idiosyncracies and crappy repair. PB: Whether or not these hotspots where designed cannot be concluded from the manucripts. However, the article shows that location and surrounding codons may have a decisive role in the outcome of the mutation. If so, than these mutations are non-random (hotspots), and since it may involve specific codons it clearly suggests a mechanism. Therefore, the alignment of mutations observed in related species may be due to such common mechanisms, instead of common descent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The mechanism that you keep harping on is a chemical/structural failure at that spot. It is no different than a rope with a flaw preferentially breaking at that flaw under strain. MY RESPONSE:The mutations I talk about are NON-random with respect to nucleotide and position. YOU:Environmental factors such as chemical mutagens are the strain that effects the DNA strand. Whereas the strain will be applied across the strand, only the weak point will be effected (or at least, will be effected first). It remains random (although statistically more probable) because it is impossible to predict a) when the mutation will occur; b) whether or not the particular mutagen WILL in fact effect the hotspot — it’s not guaranteed that simply the presence of the mutagen will have any effect at all; and c) whether or not the mutation will have any effect on the organism once it occurs — often it simply kills the cell. Hotspots DO NOT provide any support for your ridiculous assertion concerning non-randomness falsifying evolutionary theory, for the simple reason that a mutation at a specific hotspot remains random under the definition of the term as used in biology and genetics. Your continual attempts to redefine what random means are specious, at best. MY RESPONSE:Apparently, hotspots introduced by these mutagens have a different repair mechanisms. Questions: do you think that these mutagens induce only hotspot-mutations in the p53 gene or also in other genes? Randomly? Or dependent on DNA sequence? YOU:As far as common descent goes, mutational hotspots — weaknesses in the DNA rope — CAN be used if and only if the specific sequence that creates the hotspot is present in some organisms and not others. On the other hand, they DON’T provide support for common design for the same reason — the exact sequences aren’t present in every organism. MY RESPONSE:But the could be present in the same kind of organisms. Family level or even higher levels. YOU:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And if you thought that in my opinion a designer was diddling with DNA as a directly measurable force than you didn't understand me properly. I rather use the genetic redundancies as an argument for design. The non-random mutations can be used to invalidate NDT and common descent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, you prefer the supernatural morphogenetic field idea. Again, all you’re doing is redefining random as understood in evolutionary theory, then arguing against the Peter Borger Theory of Randomness. This is called the strawman fallacy. You have no evidence. You have no supporting documentation. You’re simply wrong, Peter, as every single one of the papers I and others have shown you proves. MY RESPONSE:I gave you my definition of nonrandomness above. I do not need the ‘creation hypothesis’, as lined out above. YOU:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: For those interested, here's the full PNAS article referenced in the OP: Natural radioactivity and human mitochondrial DNA mutations. Oddly enough, the article also talks about hotspots being more susceptible, and provides a neat comparison between evolutionary mutations and radiation-induced mutations at the same locus. PB: Apparently, hotspots are associated with a repair mechanism. The same repair mechanisms can be found in all primates, so what's the point? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point was that the article lends additional weight to what I said about hotspots being points on the DNA strand that are more susceptible to particular environmental effects (in this case ionizing radiation). MY RESPONSE:Apparently the hotspots are induced by a specific external chemical and induced a particular repair response. I will elaborate on this matter next week, first spell out the article on this topic. YOU:What’s YOUR point about repair mechanisms and primates? Your statement is a complete non-sequitur. MY RESPONSE:If the hotspots are associated with repair mechanism and these repair mechanism are similar/same in all primates, than I also expect the mutagen to induce the same kind of mutations in --let’s say-- human, chimps, bonobo’s. Best wishes,Pet
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024