Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
31 online now:
PaulK, Son Goku, Tangle (3 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 571 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(3)
Message 243 of 293 (805435)
04-18-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by forexhr
04-18-2017 12:41 PM


Transposons have nothing to do with neither randomness nor evolution. Barbara McClintock who was awarded with the Nobel Prize for her discovery of transposable elements said that transposable elements are controlling elements.

Read up on your molecular biology. Transposable elements can regulate nearby genes by virtue of methylation properties, etc., but transposons that "jump" into gene sequences are a form of mutation and are not regulating elements.

Control and randomness are opposite concepts.

There's often a happy medium between control and randomness in genomics, and they are both exploited by selection to "drive" the evolution of species.

As we can see, besides being uneducated about evolution, biology, mathematics, logic and linguistic you've also shown yourself to be a lier.

Why do you feel the need to insult people here?

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 12:41 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 3:43 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 571 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 248 of 293 (805530)
04-19-2017 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by forexhr
04-18-2017 3:43 PM


Yes, landing inside a gene can affect its potential protein-coding capacity, but from that it does not follow that the "jump" in the genome of the peppered moth was not pre-programmed...

Pre-programmed by what? You can't just drop the word "pre-programmed" around and let that take care of your problems. What do you hypothesize pre-programmed this class II transposon to jump specifically into the intron sequence that it did?

Introns have a ton of sequences. The inverted repeats of transposable elements consist of very short nucleotide sequences, so there's a huge number of possible intronic sites that the transposon could be ligated to.

So where's your evidence that this insertion mutation was pre-programmed in a meaningful way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 3:43 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 7:23 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 571 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 250 of 293 (805533)
04-19-2017 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by forexhr
04-19-2017 7:23 AM


Given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome.

Why does that indicate that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome? Your logic doesn't add up. And what is the biochemical mechanism of this pre-programming? Describe it to me.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 7:23 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 8:08 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 571 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(3)
Message 253 of 293 (805542)
04-19-2017 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by forexhr
04-19-2017 8:08 AM


I am not an expert in this area...

It shows.

...but Barbara McClintock, who was, said that the occurrence of the movement and placement of transposable elements is non-random.

So what's her exact quote?

It's only non-random insofar as the inverted repeats in the transposon sequence restricts the reposition of that transposon to genomic locations with complementary sequences; but given that the inverted repeat regions of transposons consist of only a small number of nucleotides, there are many, many regions in the genome which would have complementary sequences.

I believe that these elements are used by cells to regulate specific coding regions of the genome in response to a certain environmental factor. How this happens, exactly, I don’t know.

Blargh. It gets frustrating when the people who claim to be refuting a theory held by the vast majority of molecular biologists don't take the time to, like, actually study molecular biology. We're not talking about how transposable elements regulate genes; we're talking about why you think that the act of a transposon jumping into another genomic region is a pre-programmed act. So describe to me the pre-programming mechanism that makes you think that the insertion in this moth's genome doesn't count as a beneficial mutation.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 8:08 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 9:29 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 571 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 274 of 293 (805690)
04-20-2017 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by forexhr
04-19-2017 9:29 AM


Transposons and Beneficial Mutations
So, you are an “expert” at every single level of biology?

Didn't say I was. What I am suggesting, and will continue to emphasize, is that your lack of knowledge of the relevant biological disciplines shows itself repeatedly. There's a certain suspicious arrogance on your part wherein you have the audacity to critique well-evidenced theory without deeply understanding really anything about the relevant biology -- whether it's genomics, molecular biology, biochemistry, or population genetics.

There is no quote, you need to read her papers.

I was familiar with the discoveries and experimental approaches of Barbara McClintock's research when I was a sophomore in high school. I have rather extensively read her notable publications, probably more so than you have or ever will. But, idk, maybe you could cite which paper in particular supports your assertion that the transposition mechanism is pre-programmed in such a way that insertions shouldn't count as beneficial mutations.

It's only non-random insofar as the inverted repeats in the transposon sequence restricts the reposition of that transposon to genomic locations with complementary sequences; but given that the inverted repeat regions of transposons consist of only a small number of nucleotides, there are many, many regions in the genome which would have complementary sequences.

This is non sequitur. We're talking about the causes of the jumps, and not about the characteristics of transposable elements.

Then you don't know how to think experimentally. To understand the causes of the jumps, it is immensely useful to examine the characteristics of transposable elements. The above observations, coupled to reams of experimental research on transposons, indicate that transopson insertions are mutations which are just as stochastic and just as forceful a driver of evolution as substitution mutations (e.g., consider that the transposition rate in bacteria is similar to the spontaneous mutation rate).

Blargh. It gets frustrating when the people who claim to be refuting a theory held by the vast majority of molecular biologists don't take the time to, like, actually study molecular biology.

WOW. What an ignorance. Using an authority as evidence against an argument belongs to the category of logical fallacies.

And an incapacity for verbal comprehension belongs in a number of categories, as well. I am not making an appeal to authority in the above quote; I'm stressing, again, the absurdity of someone trying to argue about molecular biology while having only a rudimentary-at-best understanding of that field.

Also, the ToE has nothing to do with biology, but it is a concept, a human mental construct about unseen past events that is contradicted by every instance of observation in biology.

...says the individual who doesn't understand much about, like, any of the relevant scientific disciplines.

I already said why I think so: "given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome." Hence, simple probability.

Yeah, reading that made me almost spit out my coffee on my computer screen. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome any more than substitution mutations are. There is, however, a large amount of experimental research which shows that transposon insertions are stochastic, and so the peppered moth example is an excellent example of a beneficial mutation. I bet if BLASTed the peppered moth's transposon insertion sequence, I'd find a ton of homologs in the moth's genome -- and the distribution of these homologs would be random and non-predictable. What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 9:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 571 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 287 of 293 (805947)
04-21-2017 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by forexhr
04-21-2017 6:03 AM


But, darwinists in this thread completely ignored this important issue, either via non sequiturs, red herrings, appeals to authority, ad hominems and various others pseudoscientific techniques.

If you spent as much time studying biology as you do learning Latin words, then you'd be in a much better position to assess the nature of biological reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by forexhr, posted 04-21-2017 6:03 AM forexhr 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 © 2020