|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Peter, The statistical definition of "random", as it pertains to nucleotide sequences, is specifically that each site has an equal chance of mutation. Since there are hot spots where the chance of mutation is higher, mutations are therefore non-random where hot-spots exist. However, every site does have a chance of mutation, & you cannot predict where the next mutation will occur, so it is random in that sense. You seem to be claiming that mutations are non-random in the statistical sense, then dropping the statistical definition for a more colloquial one, meaning non-random is deliberate, rather than just not-of-an-equal-chance. You cannot conflate the two definitions to suit yourself. There isn't a random chance that a car of a particular colour will be next to drive down my road, does that therefore infer that a creator is "deciding" what colour car will be next down my street? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 07-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Why? Given we don't understand what causes hotspots, don't you think you are jumping the gun? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: But you ARE jumping the gun. You don't know why hot spots exist, yet they are evidence of design????? How? "Evolutionists" haven't jumped the gun because they have observed hot spots, & haven't yet enough evidence to attribute a cause. See the difference? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: They don't conceive them, they describe them. Without further evidence, they would be jumping the gun. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 07-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: If you divided a year up into 1 minute time slots, then measured precipiation at a particular point on land, you would find that precipitation is non-random. Does that mean God makes it rain? By your logic it does. A genetic example would be the formation of chiasmata for crossing over as recombination occurs. This isn’t random either, it happens more often in GC rich parts of the genome. However, we know this, so is this evidence of design, or just something that happens naturally? How do you tell the difference? It comes back to the ID argument. How can you tell the difference between a naturally occurring object/system/mechanism, & a designed one? Without further evidence of hot spot causation, you are jumping the gun stating hot spots were designed. You don’t even know WHY there are hot spots for chrissakes.
quote: This is getting tedious, though I don’t know why I’m surprised. This is an anti-evolutionary staple, to change definitions in order to claim a falsification. All you have done is to introduce a definition of random that is different than intended. Here’s what D. Futuyma writes on the subject.
quote: (Evolutionary Biology 2nd Edition, Douglas Futuyma p281-2) So, you’ve really set fire to that strawman!Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Precipitation in my example above is non random, nor is precipitation at different sites around the world random. So when it rains & where, is designed by your logic. Your entire argument depends on the impossibility of naturally occurring non-random events, I have shown that events CAN be non-random & natural. It once again comes down to being able to tell the difference between naturally occurring systems, & non-naturally occurring ones, how do you tell them apart? If you can’t answer this, ID is dead. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: You are aware that there is more than one definition of random, aren’t you? & that you are gainsaying the meaning that is intended? Here, random means, quite clearly, that you cannot pre-determine the locus that the next mutation will take place etc. You are also aware that the contentious issue is the definition of random, as intended by the author. So saying Indeed here it says: "RANDOM!!!!! just makes you look childish. Because, what is patently clear to me, & everyone else, is that Futuyma isn’t using a strict statistical definition (it's the whole point of the passage), as he is going to great pains to describe to you. So when he says "random", you need to take it in the context of the authors meaning, not your own rigid, a priori meaning, OK?
quote: No, it doesn’t. He is separating the statistical all sites have equal probability meaning, from it cannot be determined where the next mutation will occur meaning.
quote: You are beginning to look silly, Peter. Futuyma has clearly set out what random means in the context of RM&NS. Using THAT DEFINITION OF RANDOM, mutations at hotspots ARE random in the sense that the locus for any particular mutation cannot be deterministically predicted, OK? It’s not a difficult concept. So, no, the NDT isn’t expecting you to buy something that is random but not really. IF YOU APPLY THE GIVEN DEFINITION, AND THAT DEFINITION ONLY!!!!!!!!
quote: Then, according to you, he didn’t set up a theory that cannot be falsified. Jeez you wan’t it HOW many ways? You’re beginning to lose credibility, mate.
quote: Doesn’t have to be true? What doesn’t? The meaning that Futuyma gave to random is as valid as any, what’s not true about it? You have attempted to apply a meaning to random that was never intended by the authors, and in showing that your definition actually contravenes observed incidences of mutation, you have created a strawman. You have destroyed a meaning of random mutation that never pertained to evolution. Well done. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Cites please for directed evolution. Now the first tenet is randomness independent from the environment, I do wish you’d make up your mind! Directed evolution hasn’t been accepted by the scientific community. Regardless, under Futuymas meaning of random, even alleged directed evolution is random, because individual mutations cannot be deterministically predicted. You still haven’t falsified random mutation, but attempted a goalpost move to directed evolution.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B] As soon as the mechanism is elucidated we will be able to predict where mutations are introduced. For clarity's sake, imagine the time before the discovery of the genetic code. How was DNA related to protein? Nobody knew, since the mechanism was unknown. Now we know the relationship between DNA and protein since we know the mechanisms involved (including the code, transcription and translation) [/quote] [/b] We know the mechanism that causes evaporation & rainfall, yet we still cannot predict when & where it will rain. We know that chiasmata prefer high GC concentrations, yet still cannot deterministically predict where the next chiasmata will occur. I’m very sorry, Peter, but you will NEVER be able to deterministically predict where a given mutation will occur. Take any sequence you like, there are both (statistically) random & non-random loci. Assume you understand everything that is possible to know about mutations. Q/ At what loci will the next substitution occur? You have no idea, mate. The best you can do is make a prediction based on stochastically derived probability, this is not the same as a deterministic prediction. It is random. Think about it, every loci in a sequence has a probability of mutation. Therefore, regardless of your degree of knowledge on the subject, you cannot make a deterministic prediction about the next mutation.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B] For the rest you keep repeating yourself that mutations are random since they cannot be predicted. I simply state that as soon as we know the underlying mechanism, i.e. if we know how the specific proteins integrate/replace nucleotides in the 1G5 gene (and other genes) we will be able to know where they occur and maybe we will also know when these proteins are induced. [/quote] [/b] See above, re. Random mutation & your hope that you will be able to predict mutations.
quote: Yes they do!!!!!!!!!! Good grief, man. What have I been labouring this past week? Nucleotide substitutions are random in the intended evolutionary meaning of random. See Futuyma’s meaning in my previous post. That you don’t like Futuymas definition is tough. It’s like having a conversation about transport, where I define transport as anything that moves people about. You then say that you have falsified my contention that slaves were transported across the Atlantic, because YOUR definition of transport is the motor car. And they don’t float.
quote: Because Futuyma is taking the time to describe the meaning of random as it pertains to evolution. That is the intended meaning, & I will stick to it. I’m sure you will stick to the statistical defintion of random, despite it NOT being the intended meaning.
quote: Neither have you provided me with one. Nor would you expect him to in a passage where he describes the word random. It is enough that he points out that a mutation is random if it cannot be deterministically predicted, only probabilistically predicted. In summary (again), you have tried to falsify the NDT by claiming a definition of random that was never intended to pertain to evolution. In doing so you have created a strawman. Even if you could show that Futuymas definition is wrong, it would merely force a redefinition. If all loci are subject to the probability of mutation, & such changes are heritable, & therefore subject to genetic drift & natural selection, what really changes? Adaptive evolution is caused by random mutation culled by natural selection. Becomes.. Adaptive evolution is caused by all loci being subject to the probability of mutation, that mutation being culled by natural selection. So what? It’s hardly falsified, is it? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
wj,
Since you alerted me to the GLO/scurvy genes-should-get-turned-back-on argument over on Cre v Evo, I wondered if my asthma was going to get better anytime soon....... Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: But why should the non-random mutations be restricted to my sperm? Why can't I have systemic somatic mutations that cure me? Similarly, what good is GLO pseudogene that allows you to get scurvy & doesn't get switched back on? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: I not unaware of such occurrences, especially in children. But what's the point of such somatic mutations if it doesn't affect everyone? Perhaps you have a basis of that testable hypothesis, now? Make a prediction, feel lucky, punk? ![]() Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 10-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Fred,
quote: Something to do with a rib, surely? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025