|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4514 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adding information to the genome. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Kaichos Man,
You're making several errors. As we keep telling you, you're misinterpreting most of your Kimura quotes. You can't provide quotes you've misinterpreted to support your position because they don't mean what you think they mean. Natural selection is not a source of variation. All biologists, including Kimura, understand that natural selection is not a source of variation. Kimura could not differ with other biologists about this because they all agree. Dawkins understands this too, and so there is no "dawkins-weasel-style building of variation through natural selection." No biologist believes or has ever believed that natural selection is a source of variation. Not Darwin. Not Huxley. Not Haldane. Not Haeckel. Not Gould. Not Dawkins. Not Kimura. Kimura did not deny a role for natural selection. He merely wanted to add another player onto the stage of evolution. You're appear to not even be reading your own quotes:
Kaichos Man quoting Kimura writes: "I think chance plays a much greater part in evolution, and natural selection a lesser part, than biologists supposed a few years ago."(BBC documentary transcript) See where it says "natural selection a lesser part"? Do you understand what "lesser part" means? Do you understand that it doesn't mean "no part at all?" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Careful now, they are pulling out all stops with the "go read a text book" and "you don't know what you are talking about" arguments.
17 pages, 250+ posts and has anyone even come close to trying to actually answer your question by providing good clarification of how information can be significantly increased in the genome? Even clarification of anything would be a start. Admittedly I haven't read every single post, but I think any reasonable man of medium patience and tolerance can only stand reading so much diffusion and obfuscating. Anytime you can get multiple posts from Dr.A inserting his template distractions, you must be doing something right. I admire your perseverance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I find it very funny and ironic that you are the one complaining about obfuscation. I remember a certain thread where only after about 100 posts or so it became clear you actually wanted to talk about something different then what you had asked in your OP.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I find it very impressive that after 100 posts something could become clear to you....that's sounds premature for you.
Care to explain how YOU believe new information can be added to the genome, or did you just come here to moan?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
I can tell what the current knowledge about how variation enters the genome is. That is that it is due to mutations. Care to explain how YOU believe new information can be added to the genome, or did you just come here to moan? I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Bolder-dash,
If you'd like to discuss the topic then please join us, by all means, but if you only have meta comments then could you please take them to the Peanut Gallery? Thanks. About how information can be added to the genome, gene duplication is the one most recently mentioned. If you have questions just ask. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Careful now, they are pulling out all stops with the "go read a text book" and "you don't know what you are talking about" arguments. Has it not occurred to you that we're ... right? That he is in fact making half-assed blunders which he could avoid by making the effort to find out what he's talking about? Anyone who can write gibberish like this:
No careful, credible, step-by-step, dawkins-weasel-style building of variation through natural selection. Kimura understood that that was impossible. Selection needs something to select, and that had to be generated by a stochastic process. Duplicate genes cobbled into something useful by drift alone. Pure chance. The hopeful monster. ... does indeed need to go back to basics and find out what he's taking about.
17 pages, 250+ posts and has anyone even come close to trying to actually answer your question by providing good clarification of how information can be significantly increased in the genome? Yes.
Anytime you can get multiple posts from Dr.A inserting his template distractions, you must be doing something right. "Template distractions"? You mean like providing him with a link to the scientific literature reporting an observation of gene duplication being favored by natural selection, as I did in my last post? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
You mean I can join the discussion in the manner of Dr.A? Like I can just say, "When I read gibberish like this, I thoroughly understand why thinking people believe all evolutionists are stupid and wrong."
post#39 Is that how I should contribute? Edited by Bolder-dash, : edited to demonstrate the inconsistent application of your standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Bolder-dash,
Again, if you'd like to discuss the topic then please join us, by all means. Meta comments about the discussion should be taken to the Peanut Gallery. Reports of problems in discussion threads should be taken to Report discussion problems here: No.2. I can remove your posting privileges for this forum if need be. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Percy,
If you are going to be the moderator in a thread where you are not even the moderator, perhaps you could at least do so in a fair and unbiased manner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I can remove your posting privileges for this forum if need be. Percy, I don't think his comment warranted the threat of removing his posting privileges. But now since I have put myself into the mix here.... How about HGT (horizontal gene transfers) between organisms? This seems to be something that I could explore further. Huntard believes one type of mutation called frameshift mutations can add information to the genome. Some of you might be wondering which side I am on. I am on the intelligent design side. There is that issue of coherence. I also ask, how much of these theoretical evolutionary advancements are happening in labs across the world? There is that issue of shedding unnecessary information out of organisms. Whether Darwinism is true on a grand scale or not, I don't think there was a steady linear increase of information in the genome since some 3.5 billion years ago. The world shouts chaos to me. The Cambrian explosion was an example of a rapid increase of information for new phyla.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I don't think his comment warranted the threat of removing his posting privileges. I think they are pretty clearly off-topic metacomments, given what bolder-dash did in his own thread it doesn't seem unreasonable to discourage him doing the same thing to someone else's thread.
How about HGT (horizontal gene transfers) between organisms? HGT has already been brought up in this thread and it was pointed out that while horizontal gene transfer can allow the introduction of genetic information from one genome to another it does not create novel genetic information. It simply pushes the question of how the functional genetic information originated back a step.
There is that issue of coherence. I also ask, how much of these theoretical evolutionary advancements are happening in labs across the world? As far as coherence goes this fails somewhat, could you maybe rephrase your question and make it a bit clearer what you actually want to know?
I don't think there was a steady linear increase of information in the genome since some 3.5 billion years ago. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone in evolutionary biology who claimed this was the case. That is leaving aside that the most common genomes by far on Earth are still bacterial ones. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You mean I can join the discussion in the manner of Dr.A? Like I can just say, "When I read gibberish like this, I thoroughly understand why thinking people believe all evolutionists are stupid and wrong." Someone who maintains that two threes are four is not in fact arguing "in the manner" of someone who maintains that two twos are four. In this present case, I maintain that Kaichos Man (rather like yourself) lacks the knowledge of basic biological facts and even terminology to carry on a coherent discussion of evolutionary theory. If you were to say the same thing about "evolutionists", I should point you to, for example, the 72 Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who acted as amici curiae in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, and ask you if you really meant to maintain that they were speaking out of ignorance of basic scientific concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Hi Wounded King,
I was reading some of our old debate the other day and I had the impression you were having fun with me. That is OK. I respect your knowledge as a scientist. If I could do it again, I think I would concentrate on a slower one on one debate instead of dividing my mental abilities among you and others who gang up on me in this forum. Coherence is something (in my current state of mind) where the codons (not condons :-) 'from an old debate where W.K. corrected me.') generate appropriate function. I would think you don't necessarily need the entire protein to have specific codons, with little margin of error, to perform a "specific function" since I have noticed only a small part of an enzyme can perform a function. There is also coherence where proteins bind to each other and act as teams.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I'd be happy to have a debate in [forum=-8] forum, if we could agree on a clear enough topic.
TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024