Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Introduction to Genetics
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 182 of 236 (719994)
02-19-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by herebedragons
02-19-2014 10:14 AM


Re: Intro to genetics...
While I agree that this thread is not an introduction to genetics, I also have great doubts that such a thread is going to change my orientation in the first post as snapdragon thinks. Because I HAVE read basic descriptions of DNA and how it works, have watched animations showing the replication processes and so on. I don't see how a review of all this is going to redirect my questions. I'm sure it would include lots of information I'm not up on, but it isn't going to change my understanding of the basic framework of how DNA works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by herebedragons, posted 02-19-2014 10:14 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 236 (719995)
02-19-2014 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Taq
02-19-2014 2:55 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
That's scary.
But the question does remain: what do those non-lethal mutations actually DO and if they don't do anything of benefit at all what is the point of even counting them as an increase in genetic variability?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 2:55 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 3:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 236 (719997)
02-19-2014 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Taq
02-19-2014 2:55 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
The only artificiality is dividing DNA into DNA you care about and DNA you don't care about.
Well I'd put it "DNA that actually affects the organism for good versus not so good or doesn't do anything at all."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 2:55 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 5:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 236 (720000)
02-19-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Taq
02-19-2014 3:00 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
These mutations will improve fitness, reduce fitness, or not change fitness at all, just as they always have.
But that too sounds like an article of faith that it does what alleles do, and "fitness" is way past where I am in this discussion anyway. I'm trying to talk about the formation of new observable phenotypes from new gene/allele frequencies in a new daughter population, that mostly just change the "look" of the population, without "fitness" entering into it. And again, where's your EVIDENCE that your mutations affect fitness (ABE: For the better I mean of course /ABE)or anything else? All this just sounds like the Evo Creed over and over: the ToE SAYS it affects fitness, therefore it affects fitness. .
What is the point of talking about genetic variability if you ignore genetic variability?
Right, IF mutations WERE functioning genetic alternatives you'd have a point. AND if you could SHOW that they DO anything in my daughter population.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 3:00 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 3:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 189 of 236 (720010)
02-19-2014 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by saab93f
02-19-2014 8:00 AM


Re: Paradigm clash
I believe you are simply CALLING normal functioning alleles "mutations." You are not giving evidence that that is actually what they are, this supposedl reality you keep claiming it is. It's just the usual word game, the definitional "evidence" of the ToE which isn't evidence at all.
Mrs Know-it-All. Have you ever thought that the people who have actually studied genetics might know more about it than you AND that they do not have an underlying agenda.
It would be really nice to get this sorted out if possible. The reason I started this thread is that I DON'T know much about how the genome functions. I know the basics about DNA but all the stuff that goes into the daily work that's done on the genome I know nothing, like what they are actually looking at and everything else. I'm completely in the dark. I have a rudimentary understanding of how DNA functions, replicates and all that, and from this thread I've learned that "junk DNA" is scattered throughout the genome. It's valuable to me to learn anything about these things.
But I"M A CREATIONIST, and the reason I come here is that I'm trying out various creationist ideas and they are of course NOT the same ideas that geneticists work under. I don't suspect any "underlying agenda," but when you are working within a particular scientific paradigm you simply always interpret the facts in accord with that paradigm.
And that's all I'm doing too. Mutations are not to a creationist what they are to an evolutionist. And when I say it looks like this or that is simply assumed, I think it's clear that it is simply assumed. Functioning mutations are ASSUMED. All alleles in the genome are assumed to have been originally mutations. That's an assumption based on the ToE, it hasn't been proved and it can't be proved, and what is actually known about mutations, that gets described here, doesn't offer any evidence to back that assumption. So I answer with my creationist point of view that it IS just an assumption, and they are simply CALLING functioning alleles mutations because that's what the theory requires. You don't need an "underlying agenda," you just need to believe in your paradigm.
You OTOH have an preconception that the Bible is true and are willing to distort anything and everything to conform to it.
What you call "distortion" really ought to be understood as my different paradigm. I'm always talking from my different model. It's different from the ToE model. Most of the time all I can do is describe it. That can sound like being a know it all, but I'm simply spelling out the creationist system in answer to the ToE system. I want to keep it on the table. I have some ideas about how to prove aspects of it, but I'm not in any position to do the necessary tests. Meanwhile I can at least counter the ToE with the YEC view. OF COURSE it changes things. Sometimes I just repeat it so that it will become familiar and not just get buried in the usual ToE assumptions.
I have to gieve you credit that you have read quite a lot - enough at least that you can write stuff that almost sounds scientific. That is more that can be said of most cretins. That does not mean that there was an ounce of honesty or reality or truthfulness in anything youve wrote.
If I describe a whole different way of looking at these questions than the ToE does I keep getting called a liar, but all I'm doing is spelling out my different model. Only your commitment to YOUR model makes mine a lie, but rightly you should see what I'm trying to do as presenting a different interpretation of some of the facts I am up on. It has nothing to do with lying, it has to do with a different theory.
Scientists have a very good grasp on how DNA works and how everything we see in reality supports the ToE very nicely. They have not been brainwashed but adhere to the scientific method in which evidence leads to deduction, hypothesis and theories.
I have no doubt they know how DNA works, ABE: that's why I'm asking questions, I do expect to get true answers to my questions /ABE but that doesn't guarantee that the support you find in the DNA for the ToE is not skewed by your commitment to your paradigm. Whenever interpretation of data is involved you can be wrong and not see your error. This has nothing to do with lying or having an agenda.
All you are really saying is that I don't have a right to think differently about the facts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by saab93f, posted 02-19-2014 8:00 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by saab93f, posted 02-20-2014 1:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 190 of 236 (720012)
02-19-2014 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
02-19-2014 3:28 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Compare the fitness of humans and chimps in an arboreal or savanna environment. The mutations that have given humans their species specific morphology is beneficial in an open savanna. The mutations that chimps have give them increased fitness in an forest setting. That is the evidence, the observed and beneficial differences in the two genomes caused by mutations.
You don't even seem to know all you are doing is reciting your theory. You're assuming that mutations are alleles as I've said. If the actual mutations do not actually contribute anything to the fitness of the chimpanzee you wouldn't know that because you are assuming that all functioning alleles are mutations. You have no proof of this, it is simply an article of faith in the ToE although you are specifically denying this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 3:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 4:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 236 (720016)
02-19-2014 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Taq
02-19-2014 4:37 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
You've never presented any evidence that supports your claim that all the alleles were originally mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 4:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 5:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 236 (720032)
02-19-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Taq
02-19-2014 5:06 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
It isn't artificial if it's true.
But it IS an artificial position to take to pronounce it all normal alleles if it isn't -- again, an assumption, an article of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 5:06 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 02-20-2014 10:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 236 (720033)
02-19-2014 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Taq
02-19-2014 5:06 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Just skimming it I see no "smoking gun."
Please don't expect me to read long technical papers. Much as I might want to at some other time I'm trying to cope with this thread with a minimum of convoluted side tracks. It's so much better if you just put the answer into your own words as briefly as possible.
The evidence appears to be all circumstantial, not at all "smoking gun" as you say. Similarities, similarities, similarities. That's what fuels the entire ToE. This organism is most similar to that one, therefore we infer genetic descent, [abe] and they are close on your charts too. Then we have the fact that this eye is similar to that one which is similar to another which is similar to the human eye, although they are very far from each other on the charts of relatedness, but nevertheless we can rank them in such a way as to make it *certain* that the human eye evolved. [/abe] You can never prove genetic descent [abe] (except of course where it is known from observation), [/abe] it all remains theory and assumption.
ABE: But this reminds me that ERVs should be a topic on this thread. I never intended to get into my own theories here, I wanted this thread to be a place to get answers from the experts. Yes, truly. So I put up that question about pseudogenes and now it seems it would be a good idea to get some basic stuff about ERVs. I've read Wikipedia on it, I've skimmed this article, but both ASSUME ALL THE USUAL EVO STUFF. Maybe there's no way to avoid that it's so ingrained in you all. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : to add last paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Taq, posted 02-19-2014 5:06 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 9:23 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 236 (720041)
02-19-2014 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Coyote
02-19-2014 9:23 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
But I'm not saying assumptions are wrong. The point is that assumptions are assumptions, unproven, the assumptions in this case are based on the expectations from the ToE, and yet although they ARE but assumptions they are treated as fact and not as assumptions. This is NOT good scientific procedure.
I think it's time that it was fairly recognized that since creationists do keep raising these issues that maybe there is something to them that you should all consider for a change. We aren't lying, we aren't stupid, and we are persistent on the point that the ToE is scientifically wanting.
ABE: I'm not ignorant of your views on "proof" and so on, in fact I've answered them before here. I consider such pedantries to be the usual definitional manipulations, with no real substance to them, that have no useful effect except to interfere with clear thinking. And the answer is that the hard sciences DO have something close to proof and it is hairsplitting to claim they don't, while the historical/interpretive sciences CAN'T have anything close to proof and that's why you like to emphasize this point as you do. It is intended to support the false claim that lthere is no difference between the methods of science or their reliability between the hard and the interpreteive sciences. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 9:23 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 9:49 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 236 (720045)
02-19-2014 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Coyote
02-19-2014 9:49 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
The assumptions in question are NOT supported by evidence, that's the whole point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 9:49 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 236 (720055)
02-19-2014 11:40 PM


Just some examples of assumptive mystification versus genuine science
Been skipping around reading about viruses and retroviruses. Just want to report some examples of what I mean about the difference between real science and pseudoscience that is nothing but a bunch of unproved assumptions. I should take a whole example and identify each part of it but unfortunately my eyes are hurting too much for that right now; maybe later. Meanwhile just FYI:
THIS is science: The discovery of the first human retrovirus: HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 | Retrovirology | Full Text
This is ALL fact, evidence, reasoning that can be followed and checked out in context. It's in narrative form rather than the form of a technical presentation and maybe that's why there's nothing in it that smacks of evo mystification. Not that I'd expect a technical paper to read like this, I'm merely pointing out that there's nothing in it that's evo fantasy.
THIS on the other hand is science mixed with pseudoscience:
Endogenous viral element - Wikipedia
Most of it is science. The paragraph about paleovirology is where the pseudoscience comes in, where the data is crammed into the ToE's Old Earth assumption of millions of years for this or that. It purports to give the actual history of "germline integration events" as if it were possible to know anything about events in the genome millions of years ago. Such things are always asserted as fact, never evidenced. Real science discusses the facts in a way that can draw you into the reasoning process (although of course there are some reports that are too technical for some of us nevertheless); the pseudoscience just hits you with a preposterous assertion without bothering to try to defend it; It's pure mystification. What we used to call "mind-rape" or an even grungier term.
This next one is the one Taq linked. Since it's about finding phylogenetic markers it's bound to get into the pseudoscience territory, and reading stuff like this is a horrific struggle for me, being a combo of unsupportable assumptions with genuine scientific facts, and of course some terminological struggles as well, but that part I'm not faulting:
Just a moment...

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 02-20-2014 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 203 of 236 (720056)
02-19-2014 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Coyote
02-19-2014 11:17 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
No, the belief is yours because these are naked assumptions without evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:17 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 205 of 236 (720061)
02-20-2014 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Coyote
02-19-2014 11:48 PM


Re: Just some examples of assumptive mystification versus genuine science
Far as I can see I answered all your posts. What exactly are you claiming I ignored?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:48 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 207 of 236 (720070)
02-20-2014 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Coyote
02-19-2014 11:48 PM


Re: Just some examples of assumptive mystification versus genuine science
unproved assumptions???
It just occurred to me that you're probably complaining that I used the word "unproved" after you told me how I'm supposed to think about it? I did answer that, it's the most natural word that comes to mind, but if it matters so much, would you prefer it if I said "unverified" or "unconfirmed" assumptions or something along those lines?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:48 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Coyote, posted 02-20-2014 10:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024