Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Information and Genetics
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 78 of 262 (53451)
09-02-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by fredsr
09-01-2003 2:30 PM


Re: An artist signs his work
Hi Fred,
Most of the "junk DNA" are ancient proviral integrations, and classes of repetitive elements like LINES and SINES which can copy themselves and reintegrate into the genome thus increasing in number over time. 9% of the human genome is composed of so called humen endogenous retroviruses and their broken genomes.
In addition to ncbi..you could look in REPBASE for information on junk DNA here http://www.girinst.org/
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by fredsr, posted 09-01-2003 2:30 PM fredsr has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 89 of 262 (53805)
09-04-2003 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 8:12 PM


Re: Information
quote:
They are quite a bit different. There is no syntax or semantics with tree rings. We can only glean clues as to what patterns might point to, but we cannot be absolutely certain of our interpretation of the evidence. A code on the other hand provides concrete, 100% repeatable validation as to what the syntax and semantics are providing. When we decipher a codon, we know with 100% certainty its corresponding amino acid.
bzzzzz wrong....there is no 100% certainty with codons...
Life. 2003 Apr-May;55(4-5):227-33. Related Articles, Links
Diversity and evolution of mitochondrial RNA editing systems.
Gray MW.
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 1X5, Canada. M.W.Gray@Dal.Ca
'RNA editing' describes the programmed alteration of the nucleotide sequence of an RNA species, relative to the sequence of the encoding DNA. The phenomenon encompasses two generic patterns of nucleotide change, 'insertion/deletion' and 'substitution', defined on the basis of whether the sequence of the edited RNA is colinear with the DNA sequence that encodes it. RNA editing is mediated by a variety of pathways that are mechanistically and evolutionarily unrelated. Messenger, ribosomal, transfer and viral RNAs all undergo editing in different systems, but well-documented cases of this phenomenon have so far been described only in eukaryotes, and most often in mitochondria. Editing of mRNA changes the identity of encoded amino acids and may create translation initiation and termination codons. The existence of RNA editing violates one of the long-accepted tenets of genetic information flow, namely, that the amino acid sequence of a protein can be directly predicted from the corresponding gene sequence. Particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution, which argues that such systems are derived within specific eukaryotic lineages, rather than representing traits that ultimately trace to a common ancestor of eukaryotes, or even further back in evolution. The derived nature of RNA editing raises intriguing questions about how and why RNA editing systems arise, and how they become fixed as additional, essential steps in genetic information transfer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 8:12 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Fred Williams, posted 09-04-2003 1:13 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 103 of 262 (53975)
09-05-2003 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Fred Williams
09-04-2003 1:13 PM


Re: More problems for evolution...
Glad you are interested. I was addressing your point of 100% ability to determine the protein sequence from the codons when RNA editing shows that the RNA may not be co-linear with DNA.
In any case, some more references....if you decide this is an interesting enough topic in itself let me know and I will start a new thread..reading some of the other posts I already see it does not fit here particularly well.
J Mol Evol. 2001 Oct-Nov;53(4-5):327-32. Related Articles, Links
Comparative analysis of RNA editing sites in higher plant chloroplasts.
Tsudzuki T, Wakasugi T, Sugiura M.
Computer Center, Aichi-Gakuin University, Araike 12, Iwasaki, Nisshin 470-0795, Japan.
Transcripts of land plant chloroplast genomes undergo C-to-U RNA editing. Systematic search disclosed 31 editing sites in tobacco, 27 in maize, and 21 in rice. Based on these identified sites, potential editing sites have been predicted in the transcripts from four angiosperm chloroplast genomes which have been completely sequenced. Most RNA editing events occur in internal codons, which result in amino-acid substitutions. The initiation codon AUG was found to be created from ACG by RNA editing in the transcripts from rpl2, psbL, and ndhD genes. Comparison of editing patterns raises a possibility that many editing sites were acquired in the evolution of angiosperms.
RNA. 2000 Oct;6(10):1339-46. Related Articles, Links
Evolution of four types of RNA editing in myxomycetes.
Horton TL, Landweber LF.
Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, New Jersey 08544, USA.
The myxomycete Physarum polycephalum requires extensive RNA editing to create functional mitochondrial transcripts. The cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (col) transcript exhibits a combination of editing forms not found together in any other eukaryotic RNA: 66 insertions of ribonucleotides (59 Cs, a single U, and three mixed dinucleotides) as well as base conversion of four Cs to Us (Gott et al., J Biol Chem, 1993, 268:25483-25486). Through a phylogenetic survey of col DNA genes and RNA transcripts in representative myxomycetes, we have decoupled the four types of editing in this lineage. Some myxomycetes share insertional editing with P. polycephalum, yet lack C--> U conversion, consistent with previous reports of separation of insertional and base conversion editing in P. polycephalum extracts (Visomirski-Robic & Gott, RNA, 1995, 3:821-837). Most remarkably, we detect unique evolutionary histories of the three different types of insertional editing, though these have been indistinguishable in vitro. For example, Clastoderma debaryanum exhibits insertions of Us, but not Cs or dinucleotides.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20;97(13):6986-93. Related Articles, Links
Evolution of RNA editing in trypanosome mitochondria.
Simpson L, Thiemann OH, Savill NJ, Alfonzo JD, Maslov DA.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Simpson@hhmi.ucla.edu
Two different RNA editing systems have been described in the kinetoplast-mitochondrion of trypanosomatid protists. The first involves the precise insertion and deletion of U residues mostly within the coding regions of maxicircle-encoded mRNAs to produce open reading frames. This editing is mediated by short overlapping complementary guide RNAs encoded in both the maxicircle and the minicircle molecules and involves a series of enzymatic cleavage-ligation steps. The second editing system is a C(34) to U(34) modification in the anticodon of the imported tRNA(Trp), thereby permitting the decoding of the UGA stop codon as tryptophan. U-insertion editing probably originated in an ancestor of the kinetoplastid lineage and appears to have evolved in some cases by the replacement of the original pan-edited cryptogene with a partially edited cDNA. The driving force for the evolutionary fixation of these retroposition events was postulated to be the stochastic loss of entire minicircle sequence classes and their encoded guide RNAs upon segregation of the single kinetoplast DNA network into daughter cells at cell division. A large plasticity in the relative abundance of minicircle sequence classes has been observed during cell culture in the laboratory. Computer simulations provide theoretical evidence for this plasticity if a random distribution and segregation model of minicircles is assumed. The possible evolutionary relationship of the C to U and U-insertion editing systems is discussed.
There are more but most RNA editing is found in the mitochondrial genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Fred Williams, posted 09-04-2003 1:13 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 137 of 262 (54323)
09-07-2003 7:06 AM


mark24 mentioned this but was ignored by both Fred and dillan so I will paraphrase and re-iterate
Since both Fred and dillan are claiming that DNA is a code with an intelligent purpose
please do the following
1. provide a testable hypothesis that DNA is a code that was created by intelligence.
2. Explain how your hyothesis is falsifiable
3. provide supporting evidence for your hypothesis
4. demonstrate how it better explains both natural and laboratory observations/experiments than competing hypotheses or theories.
If you are unable to do this simple task then you are not engaging in anything remotely scientific.

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by dillan, posted 09-07-2003 1:23 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 159 of 262 (54428)
09-08-2003 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by dillan
09-07-2003 1:23 PM


Hi dillan,
I understand that you are interested in this specific topic and are getting a bit overwhelmed with responses. I will post my original question to you and your answers in the Intelligent Design forum and if you have time you can address my rebuttals there. Keep in mind, I was not picking on you for not answering but the question was directed at both you and Fred Williams. I have asked this same question repeatedly of creationists and intelligent design proponents and you are the first to make an effort to respond so thank you for doing so.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by dillan, posted 09-07-2003 1:23 PM dillan has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 215 of 262 (58702)
09-30-2003 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Fred Williams
09-29-2003 7:52 PM


What do creationists know?
quote:
There is something else we need to get on the table. The following is a completely honest assessment of the debate and is not intended to tick anyone off, though it is the usual response (but not always). First, I realize that dedicated evolutionists object to evolution being called a religion, but this is exactly how 99% of dedicated creationists (including myself) view evolution (when I say dedicated, I refer to those who are actively involved in the origins debate). On the other hand, 99% of dedicated evolutionists believe YECs hold foolish, religious beliefs and also are not going to be convinced by reason. We too object and say that while we do believe in a Deity who created ex nihilio (ie religion), we also believe the overwhelming historical & empirical evidence supports our beliefs. Probably 99% of committed evolutionists scoff at such nonsense. All of this is simply a reality of the debate.
So, for you to hope that progress will be made by either of us on such an immovable argument as to whether or not evolution is falsifiable, is a wasted hope! I am 100% convinced evolution is either falsified or not falsifiable. From your perspective you are perhaps at or near 100% the other way. So we need to face the reality behind this immovable object of creation vs molecules-to-man evolution. I talk to fellow creationists all the time. I have never met a dedicated creationist who does not believe that evidence has absolutely nothing to do with why dedicated evolutionists believe in evolution. In your circle of dedicated evolutionist friends I very much suspect you believe the same of creationists. Both of us think the other’s mind is made up despite the evidence! So we should just be honest with each other about this.
Fred, I would like to point out that I have never met a creationist who actually knew anything about evolution, had taken the time to read Darwin other than quote mining, had any background in biology particularly key disciplines like genetics, or had ever picked up a primary literature article on modern molecular evolution. Even Peter Borger's grasp of basic molecular biology (not evolution per se) was atrociously poor. You and your compadres view evolution as a religion because it allows you to avoid actually thinking or learning. How do you think it looks when you claim that transposons refute evolution when you cannot even spell transposon properly and claimed that your conclusion is based on skimming a review article in a lay person publication? I am under no false pretense that creationists will suddenly forfeit the intellectual sloth they so frequently display and actually learn what the theory of evolution actually is, why it is different from abiogenesis, and what the primary literature (much of which is open to the public for their own analysis) actually demonstrates...but it is hardly accurate to describe creationist dogma based on a non apparent diety based on a book written by multiple authors and full of errors as in anyway comparable to science which actually describes the world as accurately as possible as opposed to ignoring the parts that contradict dogma.
I agree with you that nobody here will change their minds. Creationists fear the unknown and cling to a big Daddy figure, scientists embrace the unknown and want to learn so that the unknown becomes smaller...you can stay in the dark...but it is a pity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Fred Williams, posted 09-29-2003 7:52 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 230 of 262 (58921)
10-01-2003 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Fred Williams
09-30-2003 6:36 PM


Re: Engineering special: take whatever it has at that point.
quote:
Two comments to Mammuthus: Most creation scientists I know used to be evolutionist scientists. Two authored college evolutionary textbooks (Kenyon, Parker). Regarding transposons, I did not misspell it. I mistyped it. I’m sorry you can’t see the difference. This type of trivial attack is not productive, don’t you agree?
You name a grand total of 2? And 99% of biologists named Steve accept the theory of evolution. The vast majority of creationists are not scientists and those that are usually have degrees in fields completely unrelated to genetics or evolution. For example, your two examples of evolutionists that became creationists, Kenyon studies biophysics, not evolution, and Gary Parker was always a creationist and apparently fabricated the story of his "conversion" from evolution to creationsm http://www.theistic-evolution.com/parkerdebate.html
Regarding transposons, I am not particularly on your case because of your misspelling of the word, that can happen to anyone. But the entire argument you presented was extremely sloppy for someone on a high horse about how erudite and scholarly creationists are. You claimed that you read something you could not specify on transposons that somehow presented a problem for evolution. I rebutted the argument and presented a heap of citations (no mine was not among them) that you duly ignored. I did not claim all creationists are stupid. I claim that the vast majority are so poorly informed about the subject of evolution that they by default have to rely on their religious dogma or the regurgitation of fallacies posted by organizations like ARN or your own website in order to debate...that is why there is such a mind numblingy consistent pattern to the questions and comments from new creationists that log on here and on other sites. If you want to be anti-evolution, by all means, but be that way because you actually know what it is and disagree with it for intellectual reasons (like some of the IDists..at least semi intellectual reasons)...but not because of a knowledge deficit and fear of pissing off your religious communities values.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Fred Williams, posted 09-30-2003 6:36 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Fred Williams, posted 10-07-2003 8:10 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 245 of 262 (60145)
10-08-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Fred Williams
10-07-2003 8:10 PM


Re: Engineering special: take whatever it has at that point.
quote:
So for the record, are you prepared to claim that such an accomplished individual who wrote a standard college textbook that dealt with evolution does not know anything about evolution?
yes I am prepared to say he does not given what he currently writes...guess conversions to religion make you forgetful...and by the way, why is writing a textbook particularly a sign of a huge accomplishment? I wrote a chapter of a textbook..I guess I am also "such an accomplished individual"...you may now grovel at my feet...but I wont VOUCH FOR THE ODOR
quote:
You rely/trust an internet hack for your information? I perused his page and found what I expected, the usual poor scholarship nonsense full of unsubstantiated, hazy innuendo from a Talk.Origins wacko. I have met Gary Parker, and I trust his version, some of which you’ll find here:
You are an internet hack and I dont trust you. If the school and those in attendance deny what he said why should I trust him? Why should I trust you either? Given your record of distortion and sloppy research I have no reason to take your word. You only accept what he says because to do otherwise would weaken your original fallacious point that lots of creationists were evolutionary biologists to start with...but why let a little thing like honesty get in the way of your agenda?
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Fred Williams, posted 10-07-2003 8:10 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:39 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 253 of 262 (60418)
10-10-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Fred Williams
10-08-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Mammuthus must be mad about Arnold...
and I chuckle at people like you who make claims about suppression in the scientific establishment when you don't know anything about science, have never been to a scientific meeting, have never had any interactions with real scientists outside of internet forums yet make claims about other peoples supposed sloppy research "tranposon disproves evolution" guy...great research on that one...show me the creationist literature where I can find which tRNA primes reverse transcripition of HERV-L class retroelements and how they are related to foamy viruses?
I am not committed to any religion as I am an atheist. However, your dim witted defense "notably not of the two supposed converters to creationism (boy what a huge number of conversions)" shows that you in fact don't know if there are huge numbers of evolutionists getting lobotomies and suddenly believing in creationism. Neither can you support your claim that people who believe in intelligent design or other controversial ideas are living in "funding fear". Your "some guy me so therefore there is a huge conspiracy" suggests you should team up with Oliver Stone and make a movie about Jimmy Hoffa's murder...or the death of Robert Kennedy.
Considering your own website is an example of misinformation, distortion, and the poorest possible scholarship you are really in no position to make any claims about science...go learn what it is and how it works before shooting off your mouth....if you are defining elitism as actually knowing what one is talking about then it is hard to understand that you are so against elitism....on the other hand you certainly are not among the elite...and don't you know, creationists only impress their own kind? Even if they cannot tell you what a "kind" is?
by the way, this is one of the best examples of projecting I have seen from you yet
quote:
The final irony is your boast of relying on a careful, meticulous approach to science, yet at the same time relies on the word of an internet hack with an agenda. You go guy!
Now, do you have anything substantive to say?
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-10-2003]
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Fred Williams, posted 10-08-2003 6:39 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6505 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 254 of 262 (60419)
10-10-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Wounded King
10-09-2003 7:21 AM


Re: Mammuthus must be mad about Arnold...
dont bother WK, Fred defines facts and evidence as lies he hopes will be overlooked when he bails out of the thread for extended periods...maybe he could use Syamsu's tactic and say things and then in the next post deny he said them?
however, the most outspokenly religious person of the HGP is Francis Collins..and he is hardly out there condemning evolutionary research but is one of the main forces promoting it...there goes Fred's conspiracy theory...I'll try to get him Oliver Stone's phone number.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 10-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Wounded King, posted 10-09-2003 7:21 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024