Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
38 online now:
Heathen, Hyroglyphx, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (6 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,368 Year: 18,404/19,786 Month: 824/1,705 Week: 76/518 Day: 2/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 346 of 752 (580413)
09-08-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by crashfrog
09-08-2010 10:02 AM


Re: What's the problem?
quote:
Losing a stop codon doesn't really matter. A frameshift might introduce a spurious stop codon, however, and that will have a drastic effect on the protein product.

Wait. What??? I was under the impression that mRNA needs to have the ribosome recognize the 'start and stop' of the codon sequences, and it needs to tell the ribosome when it comes to the end of the protein it is producing. How are starts and stops not important (minus your point of creating a new stop codon that prematurely ends the sequence).

quote:
Most of your genome is information with no functional purpose. Well over 98% of the human genome is sequence with no regulatory or protein-encoding function at all.

Does that suggest to you, perhaps, that the human genome is the result of mutation?


Hmmm. It's possible, but unlikely. I'll concede that much.

quote:
It's not possible to produce "nonsense" codons because all possible codons code for something;

quote:
Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

My arguement has never been that codons produce nothing, but the informational content is non functional. Certain orders of codons are required to produce functional information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 10:02 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 12:21 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 347 of 752 (580415)
09-08-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by crashfrog
09-08-2010 11:04 PM


Re: Claims
quote:
Kind of cuts the information available by half, doesn't it, if Eve is Adam's parthenogenetic clone?

If ID were correct, or rather, christianity, it would be impossible to know for sure. But even if this were true, no one would know the total informational content in Adam. This I don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 11:04 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 12:26 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 348 of 752 (580419)
09-09-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by jar
09-08-2010 11:06 PM


Re: Claims
quote:
Of course neither the account of Adam or the Biblical Flood are factual.

quote:
Two earlier studies of Ötzi's mtDNA were done. The first used a small part of Ötzi's mtDNA; as a result of it, many people came to believe they were his descendants. But a second study (October 2008) that analyzed his complete mtDNA sequence suggested that he has no living descendants...as far as we now know.
http://www.mummytombs.com/otzi/dna.htm

If he has no living decendants, this would support the theory of a flood, since all of mankind today would have been decendants of Noah. If a global flood did happen (though this is not currently the subject of debate), the levels of pollen would have changed dramatically, as well as altering any other samples used to give him his supposed age. Though the number may be correct, I don't think it's fair to say they know for sure how old he was when he died. Global flood aside even, the levels of any natural substance changes over time, and no one could possibly know what those were over 5000 years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:06 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Vacate, posted 09-09-2010 12:09 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 351 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2010 12:14 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 364 by jar, posted 09-09-2010 8:40 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 349 of 752 (580420)
09-09-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Vacate
09-08-2010 11:20 PM


Re: Claims
quote:
And short legs is not dwarfism.

Dwarfism is a condition affecting the conversion of cartilage to bone.

quote:
A gene associated with dwarfism in mice, the study reports, appears to mediate variations in dog breed size and weight. Small-size breeds, like Dachshund, Beagle, Jack Russell Terrier, and Brittany have enormous differentiation in this gene, compared to larger-size breeds.
http://www.labspaces.net/...paw_prints_of_selective_breeding

Do what your name says if you don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Vacate, posted 09-08-2010 11:20 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Vacate, posted 09-09-2010 12:37 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 350 of 752 (580423)
09-09-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by dennis780
09-09-2010 12:03 AM


Re: Claims
If he has no living decendants, this would support the theory of a flood

Or that he died before having kids, or his kids got hit by a truck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 12:03 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 351 of 752 (580424)
09-09-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by dennis780
09-09-2010 12:03 AM


Flood disproved by science
Global flood aside even, the levels of any natural substance changes over time, and no one could possibly know what those were over 5000 years ago.

Not so. In my own archaeological research I tested a site recently that was dominated by a component we dated at about 5,600 years ago.

From that component I was able to recover a lot of archaeological data, but also pollen, macrofloral remains, protein remains from various stone tools and the soil, a large number of bones (mammal, bird, and fish), and shellfish, as well as human remains--all from a time before the purported flood. From that evidence we could tell a great deal about the environment at about 5,600 years ago. And we could tell a great deal about how the people who lived there were making their living.

And, the mtDNA from one of the skeletons matched the mtDNA of individuals still living in the same area. That disproves the flood right there.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 12:03 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by dennis780, posted 09-12-2010 7:09 PM Coyote has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 352 of 752 (580425)
09-09-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by dennis780
09-08-2010 11:38 PM


Re: What's the problem?
I was under the impression that mRNA needs to have the ribosome recognize the 'start and stop' of the codon sequences, and it needs to tell the ribosome when it comes to the end of the protein it is producing.

Canonically, perhaps, but the real world of organisms is more complex than that. Organisms have evolved safeguards to mediate ribosome dissociation and residue release when the stop codon is absent. And, of course, we're talking about chemical reactions, so sometimes a stalled ribosome will just drop off on its own.

How are starts and stops not important (minus your point of creating a new stop codon that prematurely ends the sequence).

Oh, they're quite important, but organisms have evolved ways to deal with their absence under some conditions.

My arguement has never been that codons produce nothing, but the informational content is non functional.

But again, that's not accurate. Every possible codon that isn't a stop codon is used, and has an amino acid equivalent. Any combination of nucleotide bases that gets transcribed to mRNA and fed through a ribosome is going to be translated into a protein. Every single one.

There are no "nonsense" combinations of bases, the way that you can combine letters to make nonsense "words." Any combination of nucleotides is going to be able to be translated into a protein. Organisms can even ignore stop codons that are the result of frameshifts, by mutating one of the tRNA's to recognize that codon.

Now, not every protein is going to have function. But a lot of them do. A calculation in my Lehninger textbook (an undergraduate biochemistry text) estimates that 1% of randomly-generated polypeptides exhibits kinase activity. The individual contribution to protein function and structure by any particular single amino acid residue is quite minimal, unless the residue is part of the reaction mechanism. (That's usually only a handful of residues, three or four, throughout a hundred or two hundred residue protein.)

If you want to make an argument that any mutation at all to a protein is going to result in diminished function, you can try, but that argument is certainly wrong; there's an enormous amount of evidence that mutation rarely alters protein function at all, and many proteins have not been under enormous selection pressure to optimize, so there's much room for mutational improvement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:38 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Annafan, posted 09-09-2010 5:53 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 752 (580426)
09-09-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by dennis780
09-08-2010 11:45 PM


Re: Claims
But even if this were true, no one would know the total informational content in Adam.

No, we know exactly how much information Adam would have contained, because Adam was a human being. He had to be, since all his progeny were, and organisms only reproduce after their own kind, right?

Adam can't be genetically incompatible with any of his descendants, because then we would be from a different kind than he, and that's the one thing you're adamant (if you will) that can't happen, remember?

So we know everything about your Adam's genetics, because he has to have human genetics. And we know that the most copies of any allele a human can have at any given locus is 2, because humans are a diploid species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:45 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 354 of 752 (580429)
09-09-2010 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by dennis780
09-09-2010 12:06 AM


Re: Claims
Dwarfism is a condition affecting the conversion of cartilage to bone.

Yes.

Do what your name says if you don't know.

Its in your best interest to not make assumptions about people whom you have not clue about. Now you could assume that I have never heard of; or worked with clients who have; or read about dwarfism. You could assume that.

Or you could assume that I wanted you to back up your assertions while I was making a completely accurate statement, I said "And short legs is not dwarfism." . Same that just because I am taller than my wife does not mean I have gigantism while she is a dwarf, we just happen to have longer and shorter legs. I guess you could have assumed I simply didn't know something while you attempt to not be an ass about linking to your evidence. Thanks for the link though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 12:06 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

caffeine
Member
Posts: 1702
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 355 of 752 (580442)
09-09-2010 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by dennis780
09-08-2010 11:17 PM


More than one way to hydrolyse a glycerophosphate
As I said before, the odds of two separate experiments getting 2,374,484, would be extremely unlikely. Unless the experiment was repeated millions of times, you should not see the SAME RANDOM mutation take place, since the odds are extremely against this.

And, yet again, this is wholly irrelevant, because the same random mutation did not occur in both experiments. Rather, different mutations occured which had similar (but not identical) phenotypic effects.

The papers are here, here and here. You're asking for us to link to 15 examples of mutations producing new information, but first it might be an idea for you to read the ones people have already linked to.

Edited by caffeine, : Typo, and that's a much better title


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:17 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Annafan
Member (Idle past 2861 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 356 of 752 (580448)
09-09-2010 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by crashfrog
09-09-2010 12:21 AM


Re: What's the problem?
If you want to make an argument that any mutation at all to a protein is going to result in diminished function, you can try, but that argument is certainly wrong; there's an enormous amount of evidence that mutation rarely alters protein function at all, and many proteins have not been under enormous selection pressure to optimize, so there's much room for mutational improvement.

I think this is an example of an extremely important point here, which is generally overlooked, and the ultimate source of a lot of disbelief in the workability of the mechanism of mutation and selection: the make-up and workings of DNA and proteins are very, very messy. This is not somekind of extremely finely tuned, highly optimized mechanism that is inevitably degraded significantly by random mutations. Rather, in their very processes they have a lot of tolerance built-in. The secret to the processes of life is not perfection, but flexibility. The trade-off is that there is a certain degree of sub-optimality: life is rather "good enough" than "perfectly tuned".

One needs to appreciate this before being able to grasp how a constant bombardment of random mutations does not necessarilly immediately cripple the whole thing, and *can* be the basis of constructive effects in the longer term.

But this seems to be a very hard concept to grasp for people who have problems with continuum (non-discrete) thinking in general, and who have difficulty appreciating the fuzzynes of species, of life/non-life, of personhood/non-personhood, of good/bad...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 12:21 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2377 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 357 of 752 (580449)
09-09-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by dennis780
09-08-2010 11:17 PM


Re: What's the problem?
I'll make you a deal. If you find me 15 examples of genetic mutation of new functional DNA (coding for any protien, trait, or physical attribute that was not present in past organisms of the species)

No problem, you just give me the exhaustive data of all proteins traits or physical attributes for all past organisms for some nice quickly reproducing species/organism with well understood genetics and I'll get right on it. I'd suggest E. coli or Drosophila as good candidates.

Is this just another way of ignoring the wealth of experimental data where we know that novel functional mutations have arisen in an originally clonal culture?

By asking for eivdence that such a trait has never existed before in the entire history of the species you are just tagging on a totally unreasonable and irrelevant rider. We can know that the ancestral genome of a clonal culture didn't have the trait, how is it relevant if the trait evolved separately in another bacterium 50 years ago?

quote:
Incorrect - you've failed to understand what "random" means.

Oh? I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 3 million. Guess what it is. I'll give you one hundred tries. If you are correct, within 100 tries, you should get the same result as me. GO!

If you think people guessing or choosing numbers is random then you are just demonstrating that Caffeine is correct.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:17 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 577 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 358 of 752 (580452)
09-09-2010 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by dennis780
09-08-2010 11:17 PM


Re: What's the problem?
dennis780 writes:

I'll make you a deal. If you find me 15 examples of genetic mutation of new functional DNA (coding for any protien, trait, or physical attribute that was not present in past organisms of the species), I will concede the genetic arguement.


1. The short legs of the dachshund. A physical atribute not present in it's ancestors, gained by an insertion in it's DNA.

14 left.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:17 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by frako, posted 09-09-2010 7:12 AM Huntard has responded
 Message 363 by Nij, posted 09-09-2010 8:06 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 359 of 752 (580454)
09-09-2010 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Huntard
09-09-2010 7:03 AM


Re: What's the problem?
2. Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-skink-live-birth-eggs

13 left


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2010 7:03 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2010 7:27 AM frako has responded
 Message 361 by Vacate, posted 09-09-2010 7:35 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 577 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 360 of 752 (580457)
09-09-2010 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by frako
09-09-2010 7:12 AM


Re: What's the problem?
3. Lizards develop cecal valve to help digest plants. A physical atribute not present in thier ancestors.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

12 left.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by frako, posted 09-09-2010 7:12 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by frako, posted 09-09-2010 7:37 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019