|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Mutations | |||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
I described population genetics as a "smokescreen" in the Manifesto, a position I still hold. All genetic changes originate in single cells in single organisms. Get used to it!. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I described population genetics as a "smokescreen" in the Manifesto, a position I still hold. All genetic changes originate in single cells in single organisms. Get used to it!. salty
M....and mutations in the germ cells of individuals who reproduce are spread in the population i.e. population genetics (unless you believe you are unrelated to your parents) and all mutations in an individuals somatic cells are irrelevant as they will not be passed on...selection acts on mutations that confer a benefit or decrease fitness...learn about it!..it's called genetics...oh yeah, forgot that you claim you don't read....your entire Manifesto is a "smokescreen" for your incredible ignorance... By the way salty, you now hold the record for the most posts with no content I have ever seen on any forum on any subject...do you actually have anything to say or are you just addicted to seeing your words in type? cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Quetzal: After all, the objective is to come up with a definition that covers the wide range of possible mutations while at the same time restricting things to something that the creationist can't weasel out of...
This is the best you can do? I provided (over the course of several posts) four references specifically refuting various assertions of yours. All you are capable of is picking one out-of-context, off-the-cuff remark from a post that wasn't even addressed to you? For someone who makes the remark:
Phospho: Interesting, "Q". Therefore, you are not interested here in debating what the facts are of the debate, all you want to do is corner me and try to make me look like I do not know what I am talking about. Poor sportsmanship, very poor. You show your true colors, and they have nothing to do with science. Honestly, I thought that I would meet people on this board that would be interested in sitting down and talking about the facts, not coming here to play games. I am not like your "run-of-the-mill" anti-evolutionist. At one time I believed, but after having a desire to actually know what all the fuss was about, I left my bias at the front door and began to actively search for the facts on the subject, and only the facts. you have made a very poor showing. After all, you have been given substantive rebuttals to your assertions, but are completely unwilling to even acknowledge them. Whether or not you are more than the average creationist, your tactics to date have been quintissentially typical, run-of-the-mill creationist: to wit, unable to counter or even discuss the evidence brought forward counter to your position, you fall back on insult and denigration followed by a change of subject or a re-assertion of your original point. This is NOT the attitude of someone who is not "playing games". Would you care to try again, or are you merely bluffing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I will be deleting non-substantive posts in this thread from now on.
--------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1905 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I just made an observation. You may have noticed that I asked PGL a few questions and made some pertinent comments, unlike the vacuous back-patting from the resident crackpot. You want to complain, complain to him. added in edit:I just read the rest of the thread thus far. Looks like I am right... again... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi Admin
Please feel absolutely free to delete all my posts to salty in this thread...but please leave my replies to Phospho as I would like to continue the debate with him. Thanks. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
[Non-substantive post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
[Non-substantive post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok, Duly noted. Thanks for the cordiality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Though this thread has ground to a halt..here is a spanking new article on the nature of some mutations:
Published online before print April 25, 2003, 10.1073/pnas.0931463100;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 100, Issue 10, 5873-5878, May 13, 2003 Evolution Adaptive evolution of cytochrome c oxidase subunit VIII in anthropoid primates Allon Goldberg*,, Derek E. Wildman*, Timothy R. Schmidt*, Maik Httemann*, Morris Goodman*,, Mark L. Weiss, and Lawrence I. Grossman*, * Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics and Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201; Department of Anthropology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202; and National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230 Contributed by Morris Goodman, March 12, 2003 Cytochrome c oxidase (COX) is a 13-subunit protein complex that catalyzes the last step in mitochondrial electron transfer in mammals. Of the 10 subunits encoded by nuclear DNA (three are mtDNA products), some are expressed as tissue- and/or development-specific isoforms. For COX subunit VIII, previous work showed that expression of the contractile muscle-specific isoform gene, COX8H, is absent in humans and Old World monkeys, and the other isoform gene, COX8L, is expressed ubiquitously. Here, we show that COX8H is transcribed in most primate clades, but its expression is absent in catarrhines, that is, in Old World monkeys and hominids (apes, including humans), having become a pseudogene in the stem of the catarrhines. The ubiquitously expressed isoform, COX8L, underwent nonsynonymous rate acceleration and elevation in the ratio of nonsynonymous/synonymous changes in the stem of anthropoid primates (New World monkeys and catarrhines), possibly setting the stage for loss of the heart-type (H) isoform. The most rapidly evolving region of VIII-L is one that interacts with COX I, suggesting that the changes are functionally coadaptive. Because accelerated rates of nonsynonymous substitutions in anthropoids such as observed for COX8L are also shown by genes for at least 13 other electron transport chain components, these encoded amino acid replacements may be viewed as part of a series of coadaptive changes that optimized the anthropoid biochemical machinery for aerobic energy metabolism. We argue that these changes were linked to the evolution of an expanded neocortex in anthropoid primates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1905 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Who would have thought...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Didnt you work with Goodman i.e. you published with him?
I predict (if he comes back) PLG will say that none of this indicates beneficial mutations or evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1905 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Yes and I agree...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I think I can suss out what the abstract is saying. But could you translate it a bit just to be sure? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Before my recent hip replacement surgery I was keeping score on this thread on the points raised by PhospholipidGen in Message 52. Trying to resume now, I add to my previous comments and rescore the discussion:
Phospho has a paragraph of general argument at the end of Message 108, and while it bears generally on the topic of mutations, I could not see how to apply it to the specifics of the above mutations. Score: Phospho 0, evolutionists 4 --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024