|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
|
| |
| popoi | |
| Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days)  Posts: 6117 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member  Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wounded King Member  Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3DSOC Junior Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member  Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days)  Posts: 630 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For the trillionth time - ALL KNOWN FUNCTIONS -. All the way back in Message 108 you wrote:
quote: But this mess with PaulK all started in Message 118: Here's all your guys's one liners from, like, 50 messages:
What's certain is that you can't on average change the protein beyond 20%. Anything else is a complete loss of function.
Actually that isn't certain in this case. Especially when one of the proteins can be entirely absent.
Yes, and on average, the change is 20%, all changes included.
For enzymatic activity.
Which is what is going on when proteins interact with other chemicals.
Which isn't relevant to structural uses of proteins.
The only problem is that it is the most important thing. The enzymatic activity obviously depends on the structure of enzymes.
It isn't the most important thing to a flagellum !
Than what is?
I would think that the structural elements are rather important.
Structural elements are the proteins which function by the laws of biochemistry. When the structure of proteins gets changed enough their biochemical properties change too. Which leads to loss of biological functions. Which is what Axe's work shows.
So what you are saying is that the actual structure of the flagellum has no relevance beyond it's ability to catalyse chemical reactions.
Relevance to what?
To the functioning of the flagellum in allowing the bacterium to move. Isn't that obvious ?
Are you really going to tell me that the whip is catalysing chemical reactions rather than acting as a propellor ? The propellers motion is a subset of catalysing chemicals. How the hell do you think the flagellum get's it's power?
Even if they work by catalysis (and I would want to research that !) the proteins which provide the power are not in the whip.
It doesn't matter where they are. They are doing their job soemhow and are providing power to the flagellum.
That doesn't even make sense. The proteins that make up the whip don't have the job of providing power to the flagellum, any more than the blades of a propellor have the job of providing power to the propellor.
I never said they do. But the flagellum is powered by something.
Unfortunately you did say that. Remember that you are arguing that ALL of the proteins in the flagellum act as enzymes, and must act as enzymes for the flagellum to work. We're still waiting to see some sensible argument for that - let alone any evidence.
Enzymatic activity is a subset of protein activity. Enzymatic activity depends on teh structure of the proteins. Therefore, if we know what amount of change will affect the catalysis, the same amount will affect whatever the flagellum is doing.
Of course we can't know anything of the sort. Different properties may be tolerant of differing amounts of change.
We know that if we change enough of the structure, the proteins become worthless in any way.
No, we don't because Axe didn't test for all possible functions. Worse still your claim is that you know HOW MUCH you can change the structure by without even considering what the function is.
He mutated the Beta lactamase protein to se when will it lose it's function. What other functions does it have except this one?
I don't know. And neither do you. Nor do you know if the mutated versions developed other functions. And the reason that you don't know is that Axe didn't do the tests to find out.
It ws totally useless. It didn't do anyting. If it did, that we would have seen some changes.
How exactly can you "see" functions without testing for them ?
Some kind of function would be noticed. A catalisys or something similar.
How exactly would it be noticed without even attempting to measure it ?
You don't measure it, you notice a process that is going on.
And how exactly can you do that without testing for it ?
The same way Nobel discovered dynamite. You don't test for it because you don't know what you are looking for. It blows up in your face when you get it right.
In other words only functions that produce a violent and obvious reaction under Axe's working conditions would be noticed.
Unless you got evidence for it, don't claim that it exists. That's how science works.
I didn't claim that anything existed. I pointed out that YOU didn't have the evidence to back up YOUR claim.
My claim is that the enzyme lost it's functiona fter it was been mutated for long enough. What's wrong about that?
What's wrong about it is that it isn't the claim we were talking about. What we are talking about is your assertion that the mutated enzymes did not have any function.
It's not my problem you simply asset that it could have gained a new function in that experiment. Nobody said it did gain it. So we have no reason to think it did. All we know it lost one.
In other words you claim that you don't need evidence to support your assertions.
If somebody claims there is an invisible pink unicorn hiding in his closet than he better show some evidence first. I simply said that enzymes in Axe's experiment lost their function. You on the other side are claiming that they gained one. Well, fine, show me, what they gained.
False. You claimed that they had lost ALL function. I pointed out that you did not know that - and you have conceded that point.
That is becasue that was the only function they had.
In fact you don't even know that. Many enzymes will work with a number of different chemicals. Degrading the function for one could improve the function for another.
Yes, we do know that. It was a Beta-Lactamase enzyme. It was the only function it had.
No, you don't know that. Was it tested for other functions ?
It has only one fuction from the start LOL!
 WTF are you talking about???As I already pointed out enzymes are not restricted to reacting with a single chemical. It's hardly unusual for an enzyme to react with a number of similar organic compounds.
Well good for you. In this case, this was the only known function the enzyme had. And it lost it. Now, if you wish to claim, that it also gained one. Than feel free to show me where it says that.
I'll stick with the claim that we don't know if the mutated version had any function or not.
But what we clearly do know, is that the one that it had is now lost.
Which, of course, I did not argue against.
Than what's your point? That the enzyme got a new function, but that we do not know about it?
My point is that we do not know whether the mutated enzyme had no function or if it did. That is what I said. Perhaps you should try harder to remember just what you are arguing against ?
We know it lost one. It's an observable, empirical, fact! And we are going to stick with that. Unless you think we should invent imaginary functions just for the sake of the argument?
That is not in contention. The question is whether the mutated version had NO function. And we do not know that.
No, that's not the question. That was not the point of the experiment. The point was to show how much mutational load can a enzyme take before it loses it's function. The one function that was known to exist was measured. And it went away after some time. So now we know how much changes can there be on average before a certain function is lost.
I am afraid that you are incorrect again. You claimed that it had lost all function. I claimed that you did not know that. And as we have seen I was right, although it took an amazingly long series of posts for you to realise it. quote:Well we're not doing that. quote:That's illogical. Why can't you just admit that we don't know ? quote:And nobody has challenged that. So all it means is that you have put a lot of effort into arguing against a fact that you say doesn't matter. Well, why bother ? Why not just accept it and move on ? quote:Than what are we doing? I know I'm not. But it seems you are by trying to say that the enzyme didn't lose all it's functions. We onlyknow of the one it had and it lost it. quote:I'm talking about the know functions. We know for that one it had. And as I said, it lost it. So we know how much you have to mutate that enzyme for it to lose the function we knew about. quote:No, I was arguing from the start that this experiment shows how many mutations does it take for an average enzyme to lose it's known function. quote:I am saying that we DON'T KNOW if it lost all function. How hard is that to understand ? quote:Hello! Nobody disagreed with that ! This argument is over whether we KNOW that it lost ALL function. And it seems that you concede that we don't, but you go on arguing and arguing about nothing. quote:We know it lost all KNOWN functions. That is the only thing I'm interested in anyway. Like I said before, it may very well be that it's useful for something else. I'm not disputing that. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But what we do know, is that now we know how many mutations it takes for an enzyme to lose it's known function. quote:Umm... no. I don't care if it lost all function, even those we do not know if it might had. Because they were not tested for anyway. quote:I will only comment that you were interested enough in the claim that it had lost ALL function to try to dispute the point. You did change your position... Now back to your original quote:
quote: If it doesn't loose all function but just the known ones, the can we know which sequences would corespond to the original working specification.?? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Hide very deep nested quote (thanks for testing the software). Click on peek to see it. Edited by Admin, : Replace hide with de-nested quotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days)  Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Aghhh, what have you done??? You've broken ***EVERYTHING***
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
