Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,865 Year: 4,122/9,624 Month: 993/974 Week: 320/286 Day: 41/40 Hour: 7/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How well do we understand DNA?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 98 (182343)
02-01-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheLiteralist
01-31-2005 4:52 PM


quote:
I wouldn't really know the mechanisms involved. I get this whole idea from some reading about how the immune system works (in Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box--his point was the irreducible complexity of the system, but that is not my point here). The t-cells or b-cells (or some kind of cells) can do some neat DNA shuffling just to try out different binding sites (if I remember how it works...forgive the vagueness).
Ok, I think I know where you are trying to go with this.
The b-cells are responsible for producing antibodies. When a b-cell matures it rearranges a set of genes. Those genes make up the antigen binding portion (ie the portion that binds to the germs) of the antibody. That mature b-cell can only express that antibody for the entirety of it's life span. The immune system works by creating a bank of these b-cells that all have a randomly created antigen binding site. During an infection, the b-cells that bind antigen are turned on. They then start dividing and pumping out large volumes of this antibody. In some ways, the immune system uses the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection to produce antibodies that are specific to certain antigens. There is absolutely no foresight into which combination of genes goes into each antibody. Rather, the b-cells are selected for by the ability to bind antigen.
This is very similar to how evolution occurs, where the mutations are not created with foresight but are actually selected for by the environment. In the same way, the DNA replication system is allowed to be somewhat sloppy to allow for mutations to occur, although mutations will always happen. For example, humans have mutated the enzymes involved in DNA replication and some of those mutants are actually better at copying DNA without errors. There are also bacteria that live on x-ray equipment. These bacteria have extensive DNA repair mechanisms. From this we know that the DNA repair mechanisms and DNA replication systems are allowed to be a little less accurate than they could be.
However, this is a trait that would be selected for. If mutations were not allowed to happen, or were extremely rare, that species would not be able to adapt to new environments as quickly as they do now. It is always a balancing act between the production of detrimental mutations and the production of beneficial mutations. There is a "sweet spot" where the mutation rate produces detrimental mutations at a rate where natural selection can remove them without harming the overall population.
I always like analogies, so I thought up one for this situation. Let's equate the mutation rate with highway speed limits. On the highways we always balance two things, the ability to get somewhere fast and safety. The faster you can travel the quicker you get somewhere, but there is also an increase in the chances of serious car accidents. The speed is the mutation rate. The ability to get somewhere quickly is the occurrence of beneficial mutations. The accident rate is the occurrence of detrimental mutations. So the balancing act is having a "highway speed" that is both beneficial and poses an acceptable rate of accidents.
This "highway speed" is then selected for by the environment, no need for a intelligent designer to program it in. Those species that do not mutate quickly enough will be outcompeted for new niches. Those species that mutate too quickly will be too unhealthy to adapt to new environments because of the occurrence of too many detrimental mutations. The "Goldylocks" species will have a mutation rate that is "just right".
So random mutations can arise naturally without the need for an intelligent designer to insert the mechanism for creating them. The pattern of mutations shows us that no foresight is involved, even in the case of b-cells and the immune system. For me, we could conclude that a Designer was possibly involved if the same mutation appeared in 10% of the population in one generation. This would show that mutations are not random and that they are produced through foresight. However, this is not seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-31-2005 4:52 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-02-2005 2:15 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 42 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-02-2005 2:23 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 98 (182604)
02-02-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by TheLiteralist
02-02-2005 2:06 PM


Re: RANDOM and MUTATION
quote:
You are almost right, I think. At the beginning I asked how could we tell the difference between what I am proposing and what is now called random mutations. The distinction would not be easy, and may not be possible at all.
From current observations I think it would be impossible to determine the root of randomness with respect to mutations. As an analogy, let's pretend that there are two separate throws of two dice each (ie craps). From the outcome of the roll, could we determine if the roller was human or if the dice merely fell off of a shelf? I don't think we could. This is the same thing that we see in random mutations. Are mutations due to a preset condition or was it due to the selective advantage of having slightly sloppy DNA replication/repair mechanisms? Until there is separate evidence of an Intelligent Designer, we have to go with the observations that we have at hand, namely the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
quote:
The main point is that WHERE and HOW the sloppiness occurs is somewhat controlled and would, therefore, be limited to what changes could takes place due to THIS mechanism.
The "sloppiness" is controlled by the DNA sequence that codes for the proteins involved in DNA repair and replication. Therefore, these replication and repair systems are susceptible to mutation and natural selection as well.
What "could take place" is random, much like the outcome of a roll of dice. Even if I intend to roll a pair of dice, that intention does not make the outcome non-random. Again, as noted above, we simply can't start with the outcome and look back at intention unless we can specifically observe that intention. For ID, this is a problem since we have no observations that would allow us to ascribe intention to a Designer. For evolution, we do have intention, the survival of the species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-02-2005 2:06 PM TheLiteralist 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