It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Discussing the gaps in evolution theory

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

That sounds good and all but it's the mutations that affect the copying... And that's not a good thing...
But what you said is false or at least rather misleading...
While I am sure replication errors occur I believe it is because of other variables such as radiation for example which hinder the natural process... Like a virus causing problems in the code leading to abnormal function and improper performance and function... Or in other words causing a mutation from the norm...
edit on 26-7-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word




posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: [post=21048560]Barcs[ aroun/post]


That sounds good and all but it's the mutations that affect the copying... And that's not a good thing...
But what you said is false or at least rather misleading...


Incorrect. It is replication errors that result in mutations. Not the other way around.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Mutations are not automatically "bad" they are just different. Its a common argument from evolution deniers that there is no such thing as a good mutation. That is a moral judgement, and has no place in science



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Are mutations still considered to be "errors from copying" if they are neutral or beneficial to the organism?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

An error in replication is not good...
Perhaps an error in replication can cause a positive mutation... I just don't know what that might be...
I don't hear about mutations causing people to have superhuman abilities....
But I hear lots about the problems they cause...



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Around 5000 years ago, members of certain groups of Homo sapiens, gained the mutation to digest lactose (a sugar) as adults. This is generally thought to be positive. WE can date this using the molecular clocks we've examined in DNA.

You don't have to believe this, it does not mean that it is not so.

Similarly bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics, you may have heard of that. Its beneficial for the bacterium.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Around 5000 years ago a tolerance was gained by ingesting copious amounts of lactose...
Bacteria have gained a tolerance to antibiotics because of inept scientists...
Those are not examples for replication errors in DNA though are they?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

They are the result of mutation. Mutation is a change in DNA, be it a single amino acid different, or be it several.

So yes, it is the result of what would be considered a replication error.

You are playing semantics in an area you don't know very well.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

When one tries to grossly oversimplify a complex idea, one looses resolution. Your explanation is about as resolved as an 8bit picture.



Do you have corroborating references for your hypothesis? If so, please post them - I'd be very interested to see who agrees with you.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




We were looking for a synthetic lethal sequence


And the sequence coded for a lethal form of cancer? What a concept!! A code!! Damn...........



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle

They are the result of mutation. Mutation is a change in DNA, be it a single amino acid different, or be it several.

So yes, it is the result of what would be considered a replication error.

You are playing semantics in an area you don't know very well.


DNA stores information. A mutation in a single amino acid would require a mutation in the sequence that codes for that amino acid.

So what was the outcome? Did you identify and characterize the mutation? If the mutation occurred only in the amino acid, then why sequence the nucleotides?????

You're losing it, I'm afraid.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle

They are the result of mutation.


So yes, it is the result of what would be considered a replication error.

You are playing semantics in an area you don't know very well.





Mutation is a change in DNA, be it a single amino acid different,


DNA does not contain amino acids! Where are you getting this stuff from???



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You really can't read.

DNA, generally codes for proteins. Thus a mutation in DNA will usually result in different amino acids being made.

Look at Sickle Cell anemia. An A is changed to a T, in the area which codes for a glutamic acid, and replaces it with a valine. These are vastly different amino acids when it comes to properties.

So where am I getting this? Biochemistry. First year biochemistry in the commonwealth.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You are using code in the wrong way neighbor. Synthetic lethals are not something your write a lot of code for. They are synergistic relationships between genes, you look for something which will switch on cellular apoptosis. You look for high levels of statistical significance, then you hope you actually found something meaningful, and not coincidental.

Again, you are oversimplifying things. Which illustrates you don't get it.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

What part of propitiatory do yo not get?

As for loosing it? Not even slightly. You persist in trying to argue based on computer information theory. It holds no sway over how information is transmitted in life. That would be chemically, not digitally. Its more than 1's and 0s.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

You really can't read.

DNA, generally codes for proteins. Thus a mutation in DNA will usually result in different amino acids being made.

Look at Sickle Cell anemia. An A is changed to a T, in the area which codes for a glutamic acid, and replaces it with a valine. These are vastly different amino acids when it comes to properties.

So where am I getting this? Biochemistry. First year biochemistry in the commonwealth.


You know you should really go back and read what you wrote. You're contradicting yourself frequently - because I don't think you ever even sat in a biochem class - or you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding the mechanism.

"Synthetic lethals"?????? I thought you were sequencing to find the anomaly that caused the "lethal"???

You lost it. I'm done.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You clearly do not know what a synthetic lethal is.
www.nature.com...

viz "Synthetic lethality arises when a combination of mutations in two or more genes leads to cell death, whereas a mutation in only one of these genes does not, and by itself is said to be viable.[1] "
en.wikipedia.org...

Cell death = cellular apoptosis.

Again you saying I am not understanding something, does not mean that I do not. Rather you appear to be Pee Wee Hermin saying "I know what you are, but what am I".

You've yet to explain a single term, idea, etc in your own words.

Rather you are posting ideas, that the creationist crowd seem enamored with. I am not saying you are a creationist, or an IDer, rather that you seem very taken with some ideas. In particular, that Information Theory is involved in the viability of evolution. Otherwise you'd not be so set on "DNA is code"



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

Around 5000 years ago a tolerance was gained by ingesting copious amounts of lactose...
Bacteria have gained a tolerance to antibiotics because of inept scientists...
Those are not examples for replication errors in DNA though are they?


No. It was a genetic mutation not a tolerance derived from drinking dairy. Everyone is born with the ability to digest lactose until 2-4 years of age. This is a result of the enzyme lactase being present in the gut. The mutation is referred to as lactase persistence and is most prevalent in people of N. European descent and arose when agriculture became the dominant lifestyle. Not only did some
Of us develop the mutation for lactase persistence into adulthood but the dairy cattle that was being domesticated also developed a mutation that made their milk more tolerable to those who were ingesting the milk.

www.nature.com...


Lactase nonpersistence is the ancestral state, and lactase persistence only became advantageous after the invention of agriculture, when milk from domesticated animals became available for adults to drink. As expected, lactase persistence is strongly correlated with the dairying history of the population. This genetic ability to digest milk has been regarded as a classic example of gene-culture co-evolution, where the culture of dairying creates a strong selective advantage to those who can drink milk as adults, for only they can nutritionally benefit from the milk. A recent paper confirmed this link by analysing the diversity in bovine milk protein genes and showing that the highest gene diversity (and by implication the largest historical population size) is in cows from areas of the world where dairy farming is practised and the people are lactose tolerant.2 In humans, epidemiological analysis has shown that the cultural development of dairying preceded selection for lactase persistence.3 Since dairying is thought to have originated around 10 000 years ago, the selective pressure has been only for the past 400 generations. Despite this short time, there is suggestive evidence of recent positive selection: lactase persistence is associated with one haplotype, which is very common only in northern Europeans, and is distant from the ancestral haplotype.4, 5 Discovery of the possible molecular basis of this polymorphism – a single nucleotide change 14 kb away from the gene, has allowed further analysis of genetic variation associated with lactase persistence/nonpersistence.6, 7, 8



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden

So yes, it is the result of what would be considered a replication error.


A replication error as in a mistake in copying. This is assuming then, that DNA is supposed to replicate with perfect fidelity. Where did this idea come from?
edit on 26-7-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect



Where exactly is it ever stated DNA will replicate with perfect fidelity. The mechanisms in cells, to maintain the fidelity of genetic material, are flawed, because it is a natural process. So anyone who states "DNA is supposed to remain perfectly the same" has never moved away from models, and looked at reality.

Generally you get about 0.03 mutations per genome, per generation. Meaning about 64 new mutations per generation of Homo Sapiens.

Again this is why you can't use information theory to properly model DNA. For one, have you ever seen computer code that self replicates, as a consequence of its chemsitry? Oh wait no you have not. Back to the fact, DNA is more than Data, it is chemical potential. It by its very nature replicates.

"Rates of spontaneous mutation". Genetics 148 (4): 1667–86
edit on 26-7-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join