you are really starting to sound more like a proper molecular geneticist. and you are coming much closer to the actual crux of the debate.
Originally posted by tauristercus
...when you're using such sloppy estimations ?....
..."functionality" is NEVER a dubious concept as far as nature is concerned....
the sloppy estimations that were given are the currently accepted consensus postulates for that time period. as was shown in the language analogy,
the very first "bootstrap" symbols were extremely crude (pointing and grunting). bootstrapping is a huge problem for any sufficiently complex set
of symbols. but once ANY type of symbol (of dubious functionality) is capable of perpetuating behavior (linking form and function), the complexity of
the system proceeds exponentially. you would do well to get some knowledge of information systems
under your belt.
posted by tgidkp: at this point we still have not established a causal relationship between DNA and proteins
the above statement is in relation to my original hypothetical. yes, at some point a causal relationship between these two symbol sets was
Taken from Evolution 101 - Berkely
in this drawing, what is shown as insertion is called a "simple tandem repeat" (tggTGG). this is generated by, as discussed earlier, a malfunction
of the higher level processing. ANY single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), which is the concept you are trying to invoke, must ultimately be
considered to be a result of a mistake of the higher level functionality. even if the mutation arises from UV irradiation in a single pair of
nucleotides: if the mutation persists, it is because of a failure of the repair mechanisms.
...Now as I've pointed out so many times before, a simple 153 base protein such as insulin has odds of 10^92 against a successful creation ...
it is no longer necessary to continue pointing this out. i understand your meaning and application perfectly.
...lets give nature a break by picking an easy task and assume that by some fluke, there exists a strand of base sequences EXACTLY 153
bases in length and that is ALMOST 90% identical in sequence
now you're talkin'. so, lets wrap this up, shall we?
add to what you have stated above the following:
astute post by Maslo.
- silent mutations due to degeneracy of the genetic code.
- and a more detailed understanding of protein folding as a result of polypeptide sequence. all amino acids are not created equal. this leads to a
"higher level functionality" of the genetic code itself. in a similar way as i detailed before, the functionality is passed to a higher level of
interpretation. these are your new dice
. the drawing below shows an approximate value of each amino acid to protein fold.
taken from an article located HERE
that should be about it!
the message you should be taking from this is that the dice are continually passed upwards to higher level integrated systems. it never ends....as
far as i can tell. there is ABSOLUTELY no sense at all in muddling about in the lower raw levels. if you wish to continue to do so, you can
officially count me out.
I hope that is a little more clear to you now.
it is. and i thank you. you have made a magnificent refinement of your argument.