|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I've asked similar questions about linked genes in the
other Peter Borger threads, and he's so far ignored them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Please do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Does a fish contain more information than a frog (or a man) inyour opinion (and under your definition(s) of information content in critters) ? [Added by edit] Just re-read this and Fred does say 'add or increase' so thatanswers my question I think. Sorry. [This message has been edited by Peter, 07-23-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Is it possible that genetic repair mechanisms could
'partially' repair a copying error ? That is not completely correct the copy error, butmitigate it so that a functional protein 'close' to the original is formed. Just a thought ... I'm not a micro-biologist
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I was wondering about the possibility that while the
occurence of copy errors might be random, that the possible substitutions that occur are not, but are mitigated by the copy-repair mechanism. This seems even more likely in light of the need to foldcorrectly. Could this create a functionally similar protein, yet onethat has an effect on the phenotype. It would still be random in the sense of when and where, butmight have an apparent adaptive feature due to repair.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Large chunks of physics aren't applicable at the atomic
level ... does that mean they are wrong ? I think you need to be less reductionist in your approaches. Evolution is a systems problem, and systems have emergentproperties that cannot be directly tied to individual components. I don't actually think that anything you have presented is evidenceagainst NDT. I'd say why, but you'll probably dismiss it as story telling. You keep saying you are going to refute natural selection ... there'sa thread about 'Falsifying NS' so maybe you could put forward your tale there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Sorry to butt in ...
quote: I think you may be missing the subtle shift the PB has been usingin terms of randomness. Random for ToE simply means we do not know when a mutationwill occur. The existence of regions of the genome which have a highertendency to mutate does not make any actual mutation non-random. It just means that there may be some as yet unknown mechanism involvedwhen mutations do occur. DNA in the brain cells and immune cells is deliberatelyre-arranged in response to dunno-what(in the brain possibly some memory storage ... New Scientst article on it a while back) and for immune cells in response to foreign chemicals. Perhaps it's just a hang-on from that mechanism. Doesn't necessarily mean that the mutation is deterministic though,just governed (perhaps) and by that I mean mechanistically. quote: Again, this is problem with PB's assertions ... how can youclaim redundancy when you cannot say 100% that a sequence has no function? Maybe there are 'data' and 'code' regions in DNA????
quote: I think you lost me here ... or are you still using a differentvariation on the term random? Any mutation could be beneficial, non-beneficial, or detrimentalit all depends on expression and how that expression interacts with the environment surrounding the cell/organism.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Does this mean you are suggesting that there is a mechanismwhich would cause any genetic sequence at a particular locus to become the same genetic sequence given enough time? Normally one would expect that for a mechanism (or process) toproduce the same output(s), that the initial conditions would also have to be the same.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: This is a strange comment ... what would you expect by chance? If it's 'by chance' pretty much any possible outcome should beexpected, surely.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Does this mean that road traffic accidents (RTA's) are directed? There are certain sections of road which are more proneto accidents than others, therefore the accidents which occur are not random instances ??????? Does that sound like logical reasoning to you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The difference which I was attempting (again) to elaborate isthe meaning of 'random' in the context of evolution. Disproving 'random mutation' is not about finding that somelocii are more likely to undergo copy errors. In the same way that the random nature of RTA's is nothing to do with black-spots per-se. In an evolutionary context, random means we do not know: When the mutation will occur.What the mutation will effect/cause in the phenotype. How that mutation will effect fitness. The higher tendency of some areas to undergo copy errors wouldbetter be described as a chemical property, surely.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Hot spots do not fit the definition of non-random you havestated above. When a mutation occurs (i.e. a copy error) it may or may notoccur at a hot spot. It is more likely (statistically), but not certain. Your definition would require that the location of any copy erroron any copy can be predicted in advance -- it cannot, to the best of my knowledge -- and thus is random by the definition of non-random that you give.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1802 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
What provokes these non-random mutations?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025