Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

MrHambre: DNAunion, Thanks ever so much for calling me a Nazi and asking if I can read.

---

No, no, no, MrHambre...thank you ever so much for first (1) calling me a Creationist and (2) completely mangling my statements, which you clearly did as a means of launching a personl attack.Please learn the difference between an action and a REaction.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-22-2004]

quote:

---

MrHambre: However, we've also read that you ascribe my [charge] that you're an ID creationist to my 'stupidity,' my 'delusion,' and my inability to read.

---

Which does appear to be the case, now doesn't it. Or do you have another explanation for your completely "whack" response? Didn't think so.Or do you have any real evidence to present that demonstrates that I am a Creationist? Nope, you don't. You can't, because I am not a Creationist.You lose...but thanks for playing. Better luck next time.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-22-2004]

quote:

---

MrHambre: As expected, you have answered the charge that you are an ID creationist with the mere assertion that you are not one.

---

As expected, you have "supported" your charge that I am a creationist with nothing: all we have is your assertion, which goes AGAINST the obvious facts on the table, and your stupid and easily refuted "logic".You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

quote:

---

MrHambre: I guess nobody should wonder why you go to such great lengths to defend an ID creationist like Behe...

---

You're right...they shouldn't. If I defend a black person from unfair cricisims does that make me a black person? Nope. If I defend a woman against unfair criticisms does that make me a woman? Nope."Logic" refuted. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

quote:

---

MrHambre: ... or why you only seem able to give credit to undirected processes for evolution from the first organisms onward, and not for the origin of life itself.

---

Where have I said that it requires God to create life? Nowhere. In fact, as I already pointed out in this thread, when I used to be an IDist I pushed the idea of ETIs, not God.Besides, what's wrong with "I don't know"? How would that make me a Creationist?"Logic" refuted. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

quote:

---

MrHambre: The only thing I've lost is the interest in making you clarify your position.

---

Oh no, you lost lots, like respect. You have shown us all how illogical, irrational, underhanded, and biased you can be. Thanks!You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]

quote:

---

Ooo: I'll try and make it clearer for you:

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DNAunion: Uhm, dude, I already made a very clear statement about my position on HOW the information that IS in DNA today got there: common descent by undirected evolution. Can you read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

That it is not what I asked you.

---

Yes, it is. Let me make it clear for you. Here’s the original exchange.

quote:

---

DNAunion: Remember, my point in these threads was never about HOW the information got into DNA, just that it IS there.

---

quote:

---

Oook: I think the how question is the one that most people would like to see your position on, and if you could clarify it, maybe it would stop the jumping to conclusions that so riles you.

---

Your question, based on my statement, is how the information that IS in DNA got there. In case you didn't know this, IS is present tense. And I already answered how the information that IS in DNA got there, through undirected evolution.Now, if you meant to ask a different question, then it’s your fault that you didn’t.Is that clear enough for you Oook?

quote:

---

Ooook: I accept that you have made this perfectly clear, and agree that you have stated it a number of times,

---

So why did you ask me to explaint it again?

quote:

---

Oook: What I asked you is where you think the information that was in the common ancestor(s) came from.

---

No, that is NOT what you asked me.See, you're confused. You claim that you didn't ask me what you did in fact ask, and you also claim that you asked me what you in fact did not.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]

quote:

---

Biological Molecules and Cell Control
How does a cell store and use genetic information? The cell stores information in the form of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The DNA molecule contains a linear sequence of components called nucleotides. In all cells this sequence of nucleotides serves as a code that specified the amino acid sequence (primary structure) in proteins. By specifying the structure of enzymes and other proteins, DNA directs the metabolism of the cell. (Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R Berg, and Diana W Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p91)

---

quote:

---

DNAunion: Uhm, there are reasons to think that mutations aren’t truly random: for example, genomes can have hotspots where mutations occur at a higher rate. In such genomes, because the mutations are not evenly distributed, technically, they are not random. There are plenty of debates at sites such as this one that are based on what the word random really means and I didn’t want to get bogged down in such.

---

quote:

---

Peter: I agree that we shouldn't get borged down on this one ..

---

And yet you responded as if I were wrong!?!?

quote:

---

Peter: You don't need even distribution (spatially) for the mutations to be random ...

---

Why are you addressing a statement I didn't make?Now, let’s take a look to see if uneven distribution can legitimately be taken to mean that something is not random.First, from Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

quote:

---

random b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <~ sampling>

---

and then

​

quote:

---

Pincus and Singer built on the observation that all possible digits are represented about equally in a perfectly random stream of numbers. For example, the binary sequences 01101100 and 01010101 — each with four 1s and four 0s — pass this test. But the researchers also noted that when the digits are taken two at a time, a random sequence should have an equal number of all possible pairs: 00, 01, 10, and 11, in this case. (New Test Sized Up Randomness, Charles Seife, Science, Volume 276, Number 5312, Issue of 25 Apr 1997, p532)

---

​

Here’s another.

​

quote:

---

Nat Genet. 2002 Oct;32(2):296-9. Epub 2002 Sep 16.

​

An initiation site for meiotic crossing-over and gene conversion in the mouse.

​

Guillon H, de Massy B.

​

Institut de Genetique Humaine, UPR1142/CNRS, 141 rue de la Cardonille 34396 Montpellier cedex 05, France.

​

During meiosis, the reductional segregation of homologous chromosomes at the first meiotic division requires reciprocal exchange (crossing over) between homologs. The number of crossovers is tightly regulated (one to two per homolog in mice), and their distribution in the genome is not random-recombination 'hot' and 'cold' regions can be identified. We developed a molecular assay to study these events directly in mouse germ cells. This analysis was developed with reference to the proteosome subunit beta type 9 (Psmb9, previously called Lmp2) hot-spot region identified through genetic analysis. Here we show that this hot spot is an initiation site of meiotic recombination on the basis of two observations: (i) crossover density is maximal in an interval of 210 bp and decreases on both sides of this region; (ii) a high frequency of gene conversion is found in the region of highest crossover density. We then used this strategy to carry out the first temporal analysis of meiotic recombination in mouse spermatogenesis and demonstrate that crossover events occur during the pachytene stage of meiotic prophase. (emphasis added, An initiation site for meiotic crossing-over and gene conversion in the mouse - PubMed)

---

And another that links nonrandom to uneven distribution

quote:

---

A highly statistically significant nonrandom sequence distribution was observed readily in the pool of selected molecules (Table 1) but not in the control samples (data not shown). Although samples containing the consensus 5'-(N)ARAR are a subset of those containing 5'-(N)A, their observed frequency in the pool of the latter sequence (12/45) was much higher than expected by random distribution ( 2 = 30), suggesting that they were selected independently. Furthermore, only 11 mutations at 2 sites were scored where C was the nearest neighbor on both sides of the mutations, and 2 mutations at one site were surrounded by Ts (representing random distribution in the first case and significant underrepresentation in the second) (Just a moment...)

---

and

quote:

---

Spontaneous deaminations are not found in random locations. It is clear that HOTSPOTS exist at which the frequencies of mutation are much greater than usual. (Page Not Found | We cannot find your page (404 Error) | Memorial University of Newfoundland)

---

So if something’s distribution is far from being equal, it can correctly be said to be nonrandom. Thus, it can be correctly stated that genomes with hotspots — mutations that are clearly not evenly distributed throughout the genome - have mutations that are not truly random.But, by all means, let's not get bogged down with this! :-)[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]

quote:

---

DNAunion: So if something’s distribution is far from being equal, it can correctly be said to be nonrandom. Thus, it can be correctly stated that genomes with hotspots — mutations that are clearly not evenly distributed throughout the genome - have mutations that are not truly random.

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: Just curious: By extension, when I go to the Indian casino up the road and shoot craps, does the fact that the craps roll only happens at the craps table and never in the lobby or by the Bingo games - that is to say, not "equally spacially distributed" - mean that the craps roll is nonrandom?

---

A "counter" so ridiculous it doesn't deserve my - or anyone else's - time.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]

quote:

---

Oook: You know the question now so why not answer it ?

---

And you now know you were the cause of the miscommunication, so why not admit it?

quote:

---

Oook: I know I it put it very clearly last time...

---

Why not the FIRST time?

quote:

---

Oook: ... so quit stalling. I'll ask it again if you want

​

Where do you think the information that was in the common ancestor cell(s) came from?

---

So why didn't you ask that originally? Too hard for you to think of? Too lazy?Oh, and I have a surprise for you when I do answer that question.

quote:

---

Oook: That is the question you have not answered

---

That is the question you didn't ask when you pretended that you had.

quote:

---

Oook: - notice the past tense.

---

You finally got something right! Hooray!

quote:

---

Oook: If you want to answer it this time, then great!

---

Okay, so what's my position on how the information got into the common ancestor...undirected evolution, of course. The LUCA is believed to have existed long after life originated: long after "random" mutation and natural selection were operating on living entities.Gee, did you ask the wrong question again! LOL!

Your question was completely ridiculous: any rational and honest person knows that. You moved from the original topic to an analogy that didn't maintain correspondence to the original: you changed one or more key factors which makes the analogy invalid.In fact, this is typical of you...you use strawmen against me, in just about every exchange between us (then you turn around and call me an asshole). You substitute your much weaker replacements, of your own conjuring, and then attack those substitutes, and in doing so pretend to have suceeded in knocking down my original.So Crashfrog, it's your argument - you have the burden of proof to show that it is legitimate...so go ahead.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-25-2004]

quote:

---

Your question was completely ridiculous: any rational and honest person knows that. You moved from the original topic to an analogy that didn't maintain correspondence to the original: you changed one or more key factors which makes the analogy invalid.

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: So explain how.

---

Not my job. You offered something ridiculous. You think it’s notdemonstrate that it’s not.

quote:

---

Crashfrog: You haven't even come close to defending your interpretation of random, yet.

---

You can’t read, can you. I have supported my position (I guess because some of the words have more than 4 letters you couldn't understand what was being said).And here’s more.I remembered one of the most anti-Creationist, hard core evolutionists — Richard Dawkins — saying that mutations weren’t technically random in some respects, but had sold off all of my books by him (and many others). So I used Google on Dawkins mutation not random and got this hit. I’m trusting that the person who quoted Dawkins did so legitimately.

quote:

---

We can now see that the question of whether mutation is really
random is not a trivial question. Its answer depends on what we
understand random to mean. If you take 'random mutation' to mean
that mutations are not influenced by external events, then X-rays
disprove the contention that mutation is random. If you think
'random mutation' implies that all genes are equally likely to
mutate, then hot spots show that mutation is not random. If you
think 'random mutation' implies that at all chromosomal loci the
mutation pressure is zero, then once again mutation is not random.
It is only if you define 'random' as meaning 'no general bias towards
bodily improvement' that mutation is truly random." (Dawkins R.,
"The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p307)

---

quote:

---

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been non-random. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was
systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's
adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has
ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come
about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect,
that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random.
Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive
improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that
could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth
sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage,
although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. It is
selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions
that are non- random with respect to advantage." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p312)

---

As I said, there are reasons to consider mutations not to be random, even when they are not directed by intelligence. And, we shouldn't be getting bogged down in this anyway as the original complaint about my putting "random" in quotes is bogus and refuted.

quote:

---

Peter: I agree though -- any analogy can be useful so long as it is relevent.

---

And as long as it maintains correspondence to the original...something Crashfrog clearly doesn't understand.

quote:

---

DNAunion: And yet you responded as if I were wrong!?!?

---

quote:

---

Peter: On a grammatical point it should read:
'And yet you responded as if I was wrong'

---

No, it should read exactly as I stated it. When something is contrary to fact, you use the subjunctive mood..here, "were" instead of "was".

quote:

---

unless, of course, the possibility of you being wrong
is zero.

---

I've shown that your implication that I was wrong was contrary to fact. So my phrasing is correct and yours is wrong.

quote:

---

Peter: What's the matter, can't you write or something

---

Clearly better than you!

quote:

---

Peter: You don't need even distribution (spatially) for the mutations to be random ...

​

DNA asks:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you addressing a statement I didn't make?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

DNA wrote:-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In such genomes, because the mutations are not evenly distributed, technically, they are not random.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Peter: Didn't you write that?

---

Yep sure did, and if you could read and understand English you would see that what I said and what you said are not the same. Hence, I correctly pointed out that you were addressing something I didn’t say. Simple, really.Since you aren’t very sharp, let me explain the underlying logic here.There are multiple ways to view mutations in regards to being random/nonrandom — Richard Dawkins states this rather explicitly in the quotes I just posted today. Here you go, read this one...I’ve added some emphasis for you.

quote:

---

We can now see that the question of whether mutation is really random is not a trivial question. Its answer depends on what we understand random to mean. If you take 'random mutation' to mean that mutations are not influenced by external events, then X-rays disprove the contention that mutation is random. If you think 'random mutation' implies that all genes are equally likely to mutate, then hot spots show that mutation is not random. If you think 'random mutation' implies that at all chromosomal loci the mutation pressure is zero, then once again mutation is not random. It is only if you define 'random' as meaning 'no general bias towards bodily improvement' that mutation is truly random." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p307)

---

So I am correct to say that hotspots show mutation to not be random in one respect.Now, if someone comes along and looks at random from some other perspective, then an even spatial distribution would not be required for the mutations to be considered random, but that person would not be addressing what I was addressing. Get it yet?

quote:

---

Peter: Everything else you posted is irrelevant

---

Don’t you wish!

quote:

---

because:

​

ANY location on a DNA strand CAN suffer a mutation. Hotspots don't always suffer mutations.

---

So?????The fact remains that the distribution of mutations in such genomes is not even - it's concentrated in some regions and lower in others - and as the strongly anti-Creationist and "hardcore" evolutinoist Richard Dawkins himself states, that means one can legitimately state that those mutations are not random. It depends upon what one means by random mutation - a topic I already stated has been debated at great length at sites like these and that we shouldn't be getting bogged down in.

quote:

---

Peter: I have a suggestion for you, before you post any more quotations consider whether they add or subtract from the message you are giving, and whether they support your position or not.

---

I always do, and they always do. If you understood what was being said maybe you’d see that.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-25-2004]

quote:

---

Peter: I think Ooook asked your opinion on the origin or
information in THE common ancestor (i.e. the first ever 'This is definitely life' cell).

---

And if you understood what that meant you would see that he asked the wrong question.He explicitly stated CELL when he asked about the common ancestor. The CELL that would have been the common ancestor to all extant life is thought not to have arisen until long after the origin of life had occurred...just as I stated. So my belief is that the information got into that cell by undirected evolution, just as I stated, and just as I was asked.

quote:

---

Peter: So you are avoiding the question ...

---

No, I answered both the questions that I was asked.

quote:

---

Peter: besides you KNOW what is being asked so failing to provide an answer even if that answer is 'I don't want to say.') is
reprehensible.

---

If that jab didn't come from someone too ignorant to follow the exchanges between me and Oook and between the two of us, it might mean something.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-25-2004]

It might help if you were a little more explicit. For example, would you be talking about this:

quote:

---

MrHambre: Anybody get the feeling DNAunion didn't get enough attention as a child?

---

No, that was yesterday, and no admin whined about things from yesterday. So I guess it's fine to act like a immature bully and devote a whole post to nothing but a childish insult, not adding anything of worth to the discussion.Gee, I guess the admins need to specify exactly what jabs are legitimate and which are not.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-25-2004]