why creation "science" isn't science

Joz beat me to it in message 5. Regarding the bias part of the definition of science."Science- [b]any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws." http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htmYou don't have to read it all, just note what is number one criteria for establishing baramins."GuidelinesIn accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.2. Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern genetics.3. Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.4. Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.5. Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments.7. Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things."JP, even using a definition of your own choice, creation "science" still doesn't pass the test.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Jimlad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, JP, but don't you claim that creationism is merely interpreting scientific findings in light of Genesis? In what way does this constitute an 'unbiased observation'?

​

John Paul:
It's as 'unbiased' as interpretting scientific findings in light of materialistic naturalism.

​

---

What other framework would you REASONABLY expect to show scientific findings in? The supernatural, that has never, ever been observed. Or
materialistic naturalism that has been shown to account for everything, where mechanisms are known.It is not that anyone is biased towards materialistic naturalism, they are biased towards REASON. To infer the never observed supernatural, over the only observed materialistic naturalism, is by definition, unreasonable.You seem to infer the supernatural as a result of evidence. Actually, you are inferring the supernatural because of a lack of evidence. Science can't prove this, can't prove that, etc...... God of the gaps.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Creationists do not submit papers to peer-reviewed publications. They do not do research. They spend most of their time trying to poke holes in real sceintist's research when it disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible. Evidence which seems to agree with their interpretation is eagerly accepted and praised.

​

---

Actually,creationists do submit papers to scientific journals, but........"A 3 year database search of 4,000 publications -- Focussing on the names of people associated with the ICR & on phrases & keywords such as "creationism"-- Didn't turn up a single paper. A follow up study of 68 journals found only 18 of 135,000 total manuscript submissions concerned scientific creationism, & all 18 were rejected. Reasons cited included "flawed arguments", "ramblings," & a "high scholl theme quality." "(Creation & Earth History, Arthur N Strahler 1999 p.526)Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually,creationists do submit papers to scientific journals"
--Just wondering, what journals? And wheres the quote from.

​

-------------

​

---

TC,I should have referenced properly, my mistake. The ORIGINAL source is from the sept 1985, issue of Science, (vol. 6, no.7, p.11). So these figures only hold true until then.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I should have referenced properly, my mistake. The ORIGINAL source is from the sept 1985, issue of Science, (vol. 6, no.7, p.11). So these figures only hold true until then."
--IC, though this is relevant to a degree and it seems at the same time irrelevant. I think the 'Creation bomb' first started exploding and reaching the globe per se in 1983 and then it jumped again in the later 1980's and is continually rising in the 2000's. Is this based on creationist paper submitions to 'Science' mag? or Science and other mags?

​

---------------

​

---

TC,Are there any creation science papers submitted to, & accepted by, scientific journals since 1985?Also, the quote does give numbers of publications checked, though not the the journals specifically. It couldn't have been in "science" only, unless they publish 4 times a day (4,000 over 3 years)Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

# 2

​

"Therefore, since common descent is a genealogical process, common descent should produce organisms that can be organized into objective nested hierarchies."

​

CONFIRMATION: Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme.

​

FALSIFICATION: It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.

​

As for the confirmation, I don't find it a big suprise. On a side note, Linneaus was a Christian (which you probably knew).

​

As for the falsification, firstly I doubt evolutionists would stop considering macroevolution fact if some mammals had wings. Secondly, I don't see why scientists think God would of done it any other way! Anyways, this point is another moot one because it fits a Creation model.

​

---

Bats are mammals, have wings, & are not intermediate between birds & mammals.Presumably you are saying that chimpanzees have similar gene sequencies, protein similarities because God would design similar organisms in similar ways?Not necessarily so. There is no reason Chimps particularly need to have similar gene sequences to us, in the same chromosomal positions. Firstly, molecules like cytochrome c in other living organisms can be very different from chimps & humans, so why are chimps & humans cytochrome c identical? God used many variations, but made humans & chimps identical? He made all other molecules very similar too? He never had to, all these molecules work in exactly the same way in other organisms but vary in the exact amino acid sequece. Curiously, these molecules vary the more distantly related (from paleontological evidence) the organisms are. This is consistent with mutation over time, by common descent.There only need be one type of cytochome c, one type of haemoglobin, fibrinogen, etc. Found in any organism that has those molecules. But there are many, all varying in magnitude with genetic distance, entirely in corroberation with paleontological evidences.Since you presume the chimp is unrelated to humans, God could have put ALL gene sequences in different orders, made the genes code for completely different but workable molecules, given the control genes a nip & tuck for ordering, & hey presto! A chimp with very little genetic similarity to humans! ...............But he didn't.So, either Gods out to fool us, or He was never involved. Remember, humans & chimps AREN'T related according to creation "science". So why does evidence point to common descent?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

I challenge any of you to create (your own) evolutionary model which explains everything from the beginning of time (naturalism). Don't go into details, just a broad overview.

​

---

The Tuberculotic Phlegm Theory:The Galactic Goat created the universe, when He sneezed.The Galactic Goat isn’t subject to laws of physics, & that snotty bubble ended up being a lot larger than the goat itself. All the matter in the universe today was created in the first instant that the GG breathed into the mucus bubble (within which the known universe is contained). A rapid period of expansion followed as the GG emptied His tuberculotic lungs into the snot ball.The hugeness of the universe was created at that time, & the KNOWN universe merely expands within it. The reason the known universe is actually accelerating in its expansion, is because it is gravitationally attracted to the phlegm walls that contain it.Some nasal hairs of the GG are actually DNA, these were liberally deposited within the universe during the big sneeze, thus solving the genesis of life.Now, Cobra, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to apply a method to determine the relative truth of theories?This method is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.My broad outline is as good as the broad Christian model. So, how can you possibly test mine to see if it has merit? If you quiz me on it, I’ll just waterproof it, like Christians did with the convenient unobservable, outside-our-universe God.This is exactly why there is a scientific method, to sort out the bullshit from the facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

Also, you claim my theory doesn't have the three things you deem necessary to be a theory:

​

1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications

​

---

Well, conveniently, neither does mine. It cannot be tested, it has no evidence, & there is absolutely no way anyone can prove it wrong .This is the difference between a theory, & a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.Why testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, & potential falsifications? It keeps people focussed on the observed, & allows a framework from which hypothesis' can become theories, can be falsified & replaced by better theories. All the while becoming closer to the facts. There is no other method that allows this. Just saying use "common sense" is meaningless. What makes sense to you, doesn't to me, & vice versa, so the scientific method has been formalised.Let's be honest, anyone can theorise any old crap, but so what? It has no real merit until the scientific method has been applied to it.If you don’t like that, Cobra, then just try & disprove "The Tuberculotic Phlegm Theory".This is why creationists are are continually asked to provide a hypothesis that meets the standards of the scientific method, that they can't do this means only one thing. The creation "model" is a theory, but not a scientific one. It is the difference between Galactic Goats & the Big Bang.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well mark24, while I'm sure you're insult of the Creationist idea may be funny to you, but it seems to me that you're post DOESN'T include a model for the evolutionary explanation of existence. Nor does it contain (in your own words) reasons why the theory meets all three of your requirements. Mockery is not a very good debate tactic. I know that you consider this an analogy, but mockery was surely intended. However, you have no right to insult my idea of a designer without first answering my previous questions.

​

---

It was not mockery. I invented a light hearted "theory" to show you why there is such a thing as the scientific method. So stop feigning insult & please deal with the message in my post.Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?If not please address any points of misunderstanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

From: mark24
"Not necessarily so. There is no reason Chimps particularly need to have similar gene sequences to us, in the same chromosomal positions. Firstly, molecules like cytochrome c in other living organisms can be very different from chimps & humans, so why are chimps & humans cytochrome c identical? God used many variations, but made humans & chimps identical? He made all other molecules very similar too? He never had to, all these molecules work in exactly the same way in other organisms but vary in the exact amino acid sequece. Curiously, these molecules vary the more distantly related (from paleontological evidence) the organisms are. This is consistent with mutation over time, by common descent."

​

Well you can play God all you want, but I don't see what objection you have with God using similar methods to create largely different species.

​

From: mark24
"So, either Gods out to fool us, or He was never involved. Remember, humans & chimps AREN'T related according to creation "science". So why does evidence point to common descent?"

​

This looks an awful lot like a baseless assertion. God is not trying to fool you, you're doing a fine job of that yourself! Evidence points to common descent based on an interpretation. Another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is common designer. I don't see the point debating with you if you can't accept this simple idea.

​

---

"Evidence points to common descent based on an interpretation. Another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is common designer."Except there is no evidence of a "common designer", but there is evidence for common descent. We're back to testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, & potential falsifications again. So, if you're not bothering with the above, neither will I.The Galactic Goat theory stands.What was baseless assertion in my post? I presented the molecular evidence. There's more evidence than just molecular, the evidences corroborate, that's all.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?"

​

Actually, I have understood the difference for a long time. And this is not the first time that a story like this was used in attempt to make me realize how stupid my idea is. However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree. If you were to post your own theory of evolution I may be able to show you what I mean.

---

But I’m not sure you do understand the difference, you wouldn’t ask the following otherwise..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Also, you claim my theory doesn't have the three things you deem necessary to be a theory:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications
I must first ask, where did you get these requirements?

---

1/ Before we go any further, it is important that we agree on a method to distinguish between any made up toosh, & something that has merit.What would you suggest?2/ The Galactic Goat contains inferences from the past as well.3/ The ToE falsifications have been presented to you. Take your rebuttal to no.1 for example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
/B]

---

ONE TRUE POLYGENIC TREE. This means similar genetic material. So, finding a different type of genetic material would be a falsification. This has nothing to do with God, it stands alone. It falsifies the observation. Whether you want to falsify it or not.Incidentally, there’s no reason God had to use DNA/RNA with all life. So discovery of a different genetic material would be a plus point to creationism.That you don’t like the falsifications is irrelevant. The falsifications directly contradict the predictions/observations of their pertinent theories. That is WHY they are falsifications.4/ Big Bang etc., etc is inferred from evidence. But it is important to distinguish what can be reasonably inferred from evidence.A/ The natural mechanistic framework is responsible for everything we see, bar none. DNA replicates, stars burn, cars combust. All natural.B/ Supernatural framework isn’t known to be responsible for anything.There is absolutely no reason abiogenesis can’t occur from non living molecules, given amino acids, nucleotides, ribose sugars etc. are non living. The problem science faces, is how?That given, which framework, A or B is a reasonable inference?If you answer B/ , then the Galactic Goat is as good a theory as yours, & I refer you to point 1/ , above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

By the way; what does falsified mean? Does it mean disproven completely or made to seem unlikely. Please verify.

​

---

I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning when you say ToE, the ToE only deals with organic evolution, no big bangs or abiogenesis. You need to find a different word or phrase as this is misleading.Falsified......When a scientific theory is formulated, potential events are identified that, should they prove to be true, falsify that hypothethis/theory. That is to say, that hyptothesis, as it stands, is no longer entirely true. It may mean it has been completely overturned, & something else is needed, or, in the case of well supported theories, revision will be necessary.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rookie:
You bring some great points to the table! I'm still learning about both evolution and creation myself. So I'm pretty neutral. You did say that creation requires faith to be believable if I"m not mistaken. But I respectfully ask that doesn't evolution require faith? I mean evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. I'm not attacking any side. I'm just asking honest questions to learn. Thanks for your time.

​

[This message has been edited by Rookie, 01-29-2002]

---

Hi, Rookie, & welcome. Faith, for the purposes of this argument means "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". Now, there are other meanings of faith, but this is the contextual meaning of religious faith. It is creationists who say that evolution requires faith, what they are attempting to conflate is the meaning I gave above, with "faith" that the earth will turn tomorrow. This faith is based on observation, & IS NOT the same thing. They are trying to imply that evolution has no proof, when it does.Tell me, what would you expect if a car hit you at 150 mph? Death, right? You probably have never seen someone be hit by a car at 150mph, but based on evidence (road safety tests, safety videos etc.), know that it is a very bad thing. So, do you have faith, in a religious context that you will die in this scenario? No, of course not. You are basing the premise on your own observations. But this is exactly the word game that is being played by creationists. They are taking two meanings of the same word & trying to roll them into one.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I already have on the big bang or big dud thread...

​

I asked for a creationist model of the universes expansion that made incorperated both the Hubble red shift AND creation ex nihilo X thousand years ago (where X is of the close order of 10)...

​

Is that specific enough?

​

---

TC,Not to barge in on Joz's baby, but that extra galactic light has absorbtion lines, so your model needs to account for these as well.In fact, it needs to account for equal to or more observations than the current BB.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Faith, for the purposes of this argument means "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". Now, there are other meanings of faith, but this is the contextual meaning of religious faith."
--Slightly correct in the religious boundary, ie including a supernatural entity in your calculation or hypothesis to prove it at the least feasable, but this does not apply to the evolution/creation discussion unless you are asking for the Creationists theory on the Origins of life and the Universe, as this requires faith obviously, as does the naturalistic causes of the universe and life, as since we know next to nothing on how it can happen, it requires a degree in faith. As for Evolutionary doctrine that simply states that all forms of life have a commen ancestor, this requires a degree in faith, no matter the evidence whether contredictory or supportive, there is faith somewhere in there, on a level of faith being used as a synonym (does look like my spelling is correct ) for a belief, as you must have to believe in quite a number of things for your explination to be logical.

​

"It is creationists who say that evolution requires faith, what they are attempting to conflate is the meaning I gave above, with "faith" that the earth will turn tomorrow. This faith is based on observation, & IS NOT the same thing. They are trying to imply that evolution has no proof, when it does."
--It simply has no proof of it actually happening, it has proof in different aspects I would believe for it to be possible, but nothing more.

​

"Tell me, what would you expect if a car hit you at 150 mph? Death, right? You probably have never seen someone be hit by a car at 150mph, but based on evidence (road safety tests, safety videos etc.), know that it is a very bad thing. So, do you have faith, in a religious context that you will die in this scenario? No, of course not. You are basing the premise on your own observations. But this is exactly the word game that is being played by creationists. They are taking two meanings of the same word & trying to roll them into one."
--Then if this is the problem, we need to discuss the meaning of faith, and how it applies to aspects on evolution and its origins as along with creationism and creation science.

​

---

Isn't that what I said?When the word faith is applied to creationism it means "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof".When creationists apply it to evolution they mean "strongly held belief or theory".The two meanings are different (both taken from New Oxford Dictionary), & are conflated by creationists, in the hope that a casual reader will take the meaning of faith re. evolution as "strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof".If not, whats the point in saying so?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i do not see the point of this topic. can someone explain in laymen's terms for a "young whippersnapper". i did however notice that you are all trying to use others opinions and actions to prove the opposite side's opinion wrong and that doesnt get you anywhere.

​

---

Except to show creation science isn't science, of course.Creation "science" is an attempt to legitimise the bible with science, in order that it can be taught in schools (US) alongside & equal to science.Fine, but creation "science" either meets the scientific method, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it isn't science, if it does, it is.So, can you show an example of a creation, or flood theory that meets the scientific method?If not, the bible isn't legitimised by science.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated? they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere, which is what we do. were the caretakers of the earth and god gave us the ability rational thought so that all existence wouldnt end. without us the nothing has a chance for survival over an extended amount of time.

​

---

I think I know what you mean, http://www.leohome.com/ladybugs/Workshts/worksht2.htmIf there are a lot of predators, they will diminish the prey population. As the prey population diminishes, life gets tough for the predators, & they begin to suffer starvation. As the predator numbers drop off, the prey population can boom again. As the prey population booms again, life gets easier for the predators , & so their population increases..... ad infinitum.Basically you get a graph similar to one in the link.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Well, I have stated earlier in this post that beneficial mutations are the exception and not the rule. And yes, natural selection does indeed slow down the process of genetic burden. But negative mutations are generally recessive traits, and therefore are not as likely to kill or hurt a species. the problem with this is that if you start off with one recessive gene, you can eventually end up with great-grandchildren that actually have the defect, even though the person that started never had it.
(Here, D stands for dominant gene and r stands for recessive gene)
Dr---DD
'
--------
' ' '
Dr DD Dr
'
------------
' ' ' '
DD DD DD Dr------Dr
'
----------
' ' ' '
DD Dr Dr rr
It doesn't take too long for the reccesive gene to become active, but it is still rare. When the rare rr occurs, natural selection should weed it out, but the problem of the reccessive gene still continues to affect a member of the family every now and then.
The species can still be well fit (due to change in allelic frequency), but the species will have an increased genetic burden.

---

Cobra, congratulations on a great post, this is the type of debate we should be having!
Just to add a bit to Quetzals reply.
Take for example the recessive genes responsible for cystic fibrosis. There are two alleles, one is the recessive mutant. Using mendelian genetics 1 in 4 people SHOULD get cf, globally. However, this is not the case. Why? The recessive genes are selected against, when they are homozygous. Ie the genes are removed from the gene pool when two recessive genes are present. This has the effect of reducing the frequency of the recessive allele. Unfortunately, any one of us could carry the mutant gene, but because we are heterozygous (we have the good, dominant allele that prevents the expression of the recessive mutant one), natural selection doesn’t work against it. What this means is, that the mutant (assuming it started with the same frequency of the healthy allele) would rapidly be selected against, as 1 in 4 of the population had cf. As it became less frequent, the lower the likelyhood of getting 2 recessive genes together, so the rate of elimination decreases. If plotted on a graph, you would get an exponential decay type curve. To the point where it is a minor factor in the populations fitness as a whole. In fact, in Europe the allele is more frequent in the north east, & declines the further south west you go.
So, harmful recessive genes are selected againt, & the frequency of those alleles ends up being much lower than the healthy type. This example is of course using a two allele model, in many cases lots of alleles are extant, making the recessive problem even less likely.Now, on to neutral mutations. http://psyche.uthct.edu/shaun/SBlack/geneticd.htmlYou're better off looking at the table in the link. Since I am totally unable to get pics in the post, & I apologise for making such a huge gap in the page with mostly space TTT Phe
TTC Phe
TTA Leu
TTG Leu
TCT Ser
TCC Ser
TCA Ser
TCG Ser
TAT Tyr
TAC Tyr
TAA Ter
TAG Ter
TGT Cys
TGC Cys
TGA Ter
TGG TrpCTT Leu
CTC Leu
CTA Leu
CTG Leu
CCT Pro
CCC Pro
CCA Pro
CCG Pro
CAT His
CAC His
CAA Gln
CAG Gln
CGT Arg
CGC Arg
CGA Arg
CGG ArgATT Ile
ATC Ile
ATA Ile
ATG Met
ACT Thr
ACC Thr
ACA Thr
ACG Thr
AAT Asn
AAC Asn
AAA Lys
AAG Lys
AGT Ser
AGC Ser
AGA Arg
AGG ArgGTT Val
GTC Val
GTA Val
GTG Val
GCT Ala
GCC Ala
GCA Ala
GCG Ala
GAT Asp
GAC Asp
GAA Glu
GAG Glu
GGT Gly
GGC Gly
GGA Gly
GGG GlyAlanine Ala
Arginine Arg
Asparagine Asn
Aspartic Acid Asp
Cysteine Cys
Glutamic Acid Glu
Glutamine Gln
Glycine Gly
Histidine His
Isoleucine Ile
Leucine Leu
Lysine Lys
Methionine Met
Phenylalanine Phe
Proline Pro
Serine Ser
Threonine Thr
Tryptophan Trp
Tyrosine Tyr
Valine ValIn the table is the twenty amino acids & their nucleotide triplet code.For example, take Valine. It is coded for GTA, GTC, GTT, GTA. So, a substitution in the third nucleotide makes no change to the coded amino acid. Arginine is similar, coded by CGA, CGT, CGC, CGG. In fact, all but two acids, methionine & Tryptophan, can be conserved with a nucleotide substitution in this way. So, any substitutions at these codon position are entirely neutral (I realise that that is not the majority of cases, but bear with me). http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199505-10/0930.htmlMutagenesis studies on proteins of the past 15 years has shown that they
are amazingly resilient to many different substitutions. (This happens to
be my own area of biochemical research. I study the effect of changing the
sequence on changing the fold or structure of the protein.) We and others
doing this sort of research find that for many (if not most) positions you
can substitute several different amino acids in that given position. In
many cases you can substitute every amino acid in particular position. Of
the mutants that have been studied nearly all of them are still functional
in addition to folded because function is selected for or assayed for. Bob
Sauer's group at MIT have systematically substituted every amino acid into
every position into the ~100 residue lambda repressor. They conclude that
there are 10^55 (yes, that's fifty-fifth) different sequences that produce
the functional lambda repressor fold (Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer). The
results of the Brian Matthews lab, our lab and others with T4 lysozyme is
similar.So, most amino acids in a protein don’t mind what they are, & still retain functionality. The most sensitive part of a protein are its active sites, & these are more highly conserved sequences than the non-active parts of the protein.Just using nucleotide substitutions I hope to have shown that most mutations are in fact, neutral.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.