|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genetic Redundancy and Natural Selection | |||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: If this is a case of mis-quoting (and it appears it is) then Borger should have been more careful to notate his modification to the quote.
quote: It is doubtful Borger is trying to mislead. Based on the context it is clear Borger is speaking about non-synonymous mutations. And what makes you think that Gibson, T.J. and Spring, J are referring to a subset of non-synonymous mutations? All non-synonymous mutations "damage" the protein (though in many cases for non-SRC genes this still results in a valid phenotype). Maybe I'm wrong though - I can't read the article myself so perhaps they specify this more clearly. I'm not sure why you think Borger should address a polyploidy origin. It seems a pretty weak hypothesis considering the SRC genes are located at different spots on different chromosomes. Again, I don't have access to the cited article - so maybe they explain this?
quote: Thanks - I'm reading through it and finding it interesting. I'm a bit disappointed by Borger's arrogant and wild claims at the start - but it seems he shapes up a bit once you get a little further into the conversation. Edited by BobTHJ, : a bunch of typographical goofs
|
|||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Because you said so it must be true?
quote: I'm sorry you disagree. I find the notion that humans are wise and good enough to divorce themselves from their Creator to be arrogant, unhealthy, and foolish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I'm not sure how you got from my statement regarding a degenerating genome to this. Care to explain? What does fast replication have to do with my statement? And no - I don't have evidence - but I'm sure somewhere someone is keeping statistics on this stuff. This is a prediction for the baranome hypothesis - and it can likely be proven true or false to some degree of accuracy within the next 50 years or so (though environmental agents such as carcinogens as well as medical efforts to prevent disease do rather complicate the recordkeeping).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Try reading what I wrote again. Note the words "...at the cellular level." I did note them. This is why I quoted them, when I wrote:
On the cellular level, we do not see: (a) Massive complexes of laboratories to design organisms on a world-wide scale about 6000 years ago. (b) Significant infrastructure for world travel about 6000 years ago. (c) A major genetic bottleneck affecting all species about 6000 years ago. Your logic is flawed. I could see you arguing this line of reasoning if you could demonstrate piece by piece the reversal of a process without the destruction of the functionary (still not sure I'd agree - but at least you'd have a logical argument). However, you are suggesting that since a single piece of a system can be removed and the system will still function then it must not be irreducibly complex - this argument has no merit. This argument is true by definition of "irreducible complexity". According to Michael Behe, who coined the phrase, an irreducibly complex system is:
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. --- Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box I'm not sure whether the SRC genes fit the first clause of that definition, but according to your own post they do not fit the second clause, since it is possible to knock out entire SRC genes and still be left with a functioning system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And no - I don't have evidence - but I'm sure somewhere someone is keeping statistics on this stuff. People are indeed keeping records --- they're called "scientists". They can watch organisms becoming better adapted to their environments. If they are bacteria, we can even directly compare their fitness against that of their ancestors by putting them into direct competition, since it is possible to freeze samples of the ancestral generations. What we do not see is the sort of genetic degeneration that is the stuff of creationist fantasy.
This is a prediction for the baranome hypothesis - and it can likely be proven true or false to some degree of accuracy within the next 50 years or so (though environmental agents such as carcinogens as well as medical efforts to prevent disease do rather complicate the recordkeeping). Perhaps instead of looking at one of the few species (humans) for which you have an excuse for increased or stable phenotypic fitness, you should be looking at species for which you have no such excuse, such as bacteria. You could, for example, look up the Lenski experiment. So consider your hypothesis falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I'm not sure why you think Borger should address a polyploidy origin. It seems a pretty weak hypothesis considering the SRC genes are located at different spots on different chromosomes. Again, I don't have access to the cited article - so maybe they explain this? I dunno, because the source he's citing gives it as their explanation. It's pretty bizarre to think a source is perfectly good on one point, while ignoring their explanation for the very thing you're looking at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Bob,
You repeated Borger's claim that single non-synonymous point mutations in the SRC gene family are fatal because they cause cancer. I requested support for this statement, but I also provided a response just "for the sake of discussion." So you addressed that response but provided no evidence for Borger's claim about the SRC gene being so sensitive to mutations, and WK had this to say in Message 17:
As Percy says, it is very hard to find anything that actually backs up this statement. Certainly we do know about mutations that produce constitutively active forms of SRC especially, since it has massive historical importance in our understanding of cancer and oncogenes, but to turn that into a blanket statement about many more mutations in all of the SRC family genes extends well beyond where the evidence takes us. In other words, the available evidence does not support Borger's claim.
quote: Funny you should mention that - because that is exactly what we see at the cellular level. Intensely complex machinery working in synchronization, operating from a set of coded instructions that code multiple tasks simultaneously, and a self-regulating self-repairing, redundant system to carry it all out. The complexity far exceeds the limits of mechanics or computer science. Gee, you completely dodged the question, what a surprise! So again, if life was designed, where are the 6000 year-old remains of the necessary massive infrastructure, not only for design, but also for production and world-wide distribution. Where is the 4350 year-old genetic bottleneck?
You mean, other than the irreducible complexity I eluded to above? Nope that's it. See what you want to see. The originator of the idea of irreducible complexity is Michael Behe of Lehigh University, and neither he nor anyone else has published or even submitted a scientific paper on the topic. Instead he publishes books in the popular press for creationists. There's no scientific support for the idea. It should be apparent to you by now that every time you've referenced a scientific paper cited by Wile or Borger or AIG or ICR that it doesn't support their antievolutionary claims. How could they since the papers are all produced by the community of scientists who accept evolution based on the available evidence? Do you really believe that scientific papers containing meaningful evidence against evolution are buried in old issues of scientific journals? Scientific evidence calling evolution into question would find space on the front page of the New York Times, likely in the right most column and above the fold. The people and groups from whom you're drawing your "evidence" are not speaking to the community of scientists, but to people like you who need hope that science is wrong where it differs with their Biblical interpretations. The people you're discussing with are not anti-religion. Many of us are religious or at least spiritual. We're united primarily by the threat to science education presented by the creationist movement. If creationists didn't keep showing up at school board meetings or conducting national campaigns of "Teach the Controversy" and so forth then websites like this wouldn't exist. People like you would keep your religious beliefs in your churches and out of our classrooms and we would all go our merry way almost completely unaware of each other. As others have already noted, you're arguing that some things we have good evidence for are completely misunderstood, misinterpreted, or even unknowable, while simultaneously arguing that other things we have no evidence for are likely true. I think if you restricted yourself to arguing only for those things for which you have evidence that the nature of your arguments would change. Remember that your starting point is that the Bible is correct, not that people like Wile or Borger or organizations like ICR or AIG are correct, and they don't all believe the same things about what the Bible says. When you finally achieve a community of conservative Christian scientists all backing the same set of consistent hypotheses, in other words when there's a positive consensus around ideas instead of just the unity of a common cause against evolution, then you'll probably find it's because they're taking their lead from real world evidence instead of Biblical revelation. Real world evidence can't be ignored, and that's why real scientists are able to develop meaningful consensus, something that never happens in religion and whose diverse nature also characterizes the creationist movement. In science consensus happens because we've studied some aspect of the real world in sufficient detail that the same implications are apparent to many people. In religion consensus only happens through intimidation (e.g., the Spanish Inquisition), and only on the surface. The pattern of religion throughout history is continuous evolution of beliefs concurrent with the creation of new sects. A consistent set of scientific ideas is not going to emerge from what is fundamentally a spiritual search for meaning. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024