|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm not Richard. My apologies.
You hammered that down to between 1 and infinity. Such a scientist you are. And I was right, despite your self-serving bogus mathematics.
What information are you seeing there? Dense as a stump. The information is the sequence of the nucleobases. If you can't understand what that means then take a semester of beginning genetics.
And what is the difference in the information from one sequence of nucleobases to another? The difference in the sequence *is* the difference in the information. You got a real strong handle on this don't ya.
Are you saying that any sequences of bases has information in it? If you understood how DNA relates to genetics you would know the answer to that question. Right now we're not relating the information to the chemical operations. We're only establishing that the sequence is the information and that changes to the sequence is mutation.
Again, I'm not Richard. Again my apologies. This message isn't for you. I'll wait for Dr. Wang to respond.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
provide evidences that POINT mutations can produce genetic mutations. What's this fixation on point mutations? There are a whole big number of vectors to genetic mutations, point mutations being but one. Or is it you think a point mutation is not a mutation at all? It doesn't count? It doesn't change the genetic information? An example of a point mutation might be changing a thymine in place of an adenine. That might change a resultant codon from AGA to AGT. That would change the resultant RNA codon from AGA to AGU. That would change the amino acid designated from arginine to serine. That one point mutation changed the genetic information resulting in a different protein being produced. By definition the gene has been changed by the point mutation. The resulting protein differs from the one made before the change. Whether that different protein has any kind of effect on the phenotype is a matter for a myriad of other processes in combination with this new change to determine.
Yep, those are mutations, but can you provide evidences that those mutations resulted from POINT mutations? What does it matter if these mutations were all point mutations, some of them point mutations or very few of them were point mutations? Whether a mutation is the result of a point mutation or a viral insertion or a frame shift, the genetic information has changed and the cumulative result of all these genetic changes is the difference between human and chimp.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
While all other mutations such as translocation are non-random. What makes you think ANY mutation is non-random? Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Have you provided evidence to show that POINT mutations can produce new genes, new enzymes ... Yes. Message 385 A point mutation changes the gene. In English that is called a "new" gene. Depending on the specifics of the nucleobase changed and where, a point mutation has the capability of altering the sequence of the amino acids used in forming the protein. A difference in amino structure means a difference in protein fold which means a difference in electrochemical properties which *can* mean a novel function. And if the function of the protein is to catalyze other reactions then this new protein is a new enzyme. So, yes, Richard, a point mutation does make a novel gene and may make a novel protein and the evidence you asked for has been provided.
... improved traits, or even new species? As for making new traits or species, the genetics involved in larger phenotypic changes is dependent on the complex interplay of more than a few genes. And some point mutation or series of point mutations needs to be assessed in regard to the larger system. Point mutations in HOX and other control genes can have significant effects on phenotype depending on the interplay of that change with the rest of the developmental environment. Asking for proof that point mutations create new species shows a lack of knowledge in the way genetics and evolution work.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What are the EXPERIMENTAL evidences? Are you serious? "A point mutation changes the gene." Are you saying a point mutation does *not* change the gene? Do you really need a lab result to evidence this? Changing a letter changes the word. Do you really need a 3rd grade class exercise to show this as well? Are you really so lost and so desperate as to deny the obvious? Also, did you not understand the protein example? Are you, again, going to try to deny the obvious? Step up your intellectual game. You're not an idiot.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
molecular evolution of new antifreeze protein gene. So how does this show non-random mutations? Do you think the duplication step was deliberate? Destined? By what evidence? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Although insertion sites can be spread all over the genome, they cannot be any site on the genome. The choice of insertion site of the trypsinogen’s copy is controlled by the condition that it cannot damage the original genome. Therefore, this is not a random process. Of course the insertion site can be anywhere in the genome. It is *not* limited to only specific sites where "it cannot damage the original genome." If the insertion damages the genome then most probably the fish doesn't live to breed. We're not talking "random in respect to benefit" but "random in respect to fitness". Gene duplication and insertion, regardless of where the duplicate ends up, is random. Same with massive codon copy repetition. This mutation is known to happen all over the genome, is involved in some breast cancers, and some highly repetitive intergenic regions. A mutation of a small stretch of 40+- repeated codons in some section of a gene is not unknown. Do to the mechanism that creates the repeat it could go on for dozens, even hundreds, of nucleotides and is one random mutation in total. The nucleotide sequence may be highly repetitive but is due to a single random repetitive insertion error. You still cannot show any non-random genetic mutation. Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This got me wondering, are retro-viral insertions considered to be mutations? And are their insertion points random? Viral insertions are mutations since the genome changed. And they are random as far as I can tell. I don't know of any mechanism that would make those insertions non-random. As far as I know a virus does not intend to leave anything behind. The host cell is supposed to lyse spilling its content. HIV and some of the herpes viruses do incorporate their DNAs into the host and lay dormant for a bit. Eventually the cell kicks off a campaign of virus making then lyses. I imagine an insertion is caused by some error in the process. CRISPER induced mutations are not random since the lab, if they have their stuff together, have specific target sites in mind for CRISPER to modify. However, recent studies seem to indicate that CRISPER may introduce unintended changes in areas around the target. CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem. Not a good thing. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Don’t you think your ideas are more convincing than the Neo-Darwinian concept of mutation randomness? Why don’t you argue the concept of mutation randomness with Neo-Darwinists, so as to replace the Neo-Darwinian concept of mutation randomness with yours? There is no difference between the concepts. They are one in the same. The rest of your post is equally as wrong. Mutations are random with respect to fitness. That's what the really smart guys have been telling us for the last 100+- years and no one, certainly not you or Kleinman, have ever been able to show anything different regardless of how you fake and fiddle the math.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The really smart guys have deceived the whole society through this Neo-Darwinists’ special definition of randomness for decades. The greatest tool in science is mathematics. There is a reason the study of any science requires first the study of mathematics. Scientists understand the requirements of math and choose their math terms very rigorously. We really don't give a damn about any religious implications. Random with respect to fitness has a very specific meaning in genetics that is crafted to further the understanding of the reality. It is not chosen as a deception to facilitate some weird conspiracy to further a prized philosophy. That is just stupid talk that comes from stupid people. It is the religiously motivated acolyte who must fold, spindle and mutilate standard scientific terms and mathematical concepts trying to gain some linguistic advantage thinking this gains them some philosophical advantage and debating points. It does neither. All such manipulations show of the acolyte is their ignorance of both the science and the mathematics.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Sixteen days later, haven't you got the answer yet? No. And you're not going to get one. You're a crackpot who is taking a well defined and established concept in science and trying to twist and obfuscate its meaning to fit an untenable position. You are like those physics genius wannabes who insist they can disprove Special Relativity by redefining Einstein's postulates on Lorentz transformations with their own half-assed coordinate systems. There is nothing to answer here.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024