Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The book Darwin Devolves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Spoil sport. I was going to ask him to explain what he thinks "relaxes the dichotomy" means in this context.
    You can ask him tomorrow. He will have forgotten all the science in the conversation by then.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      All right, I didn't realize they were looking at genomes, not just mutations.


      Source: Wapinski et. al.

      Whole-genome duplication circumvents this constraint and relaxes the dichotomy, resulting in an expanded functional scope of gene duplication.

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source


      And there was a whole-genome duplication event, which as implied above, skews the dichotomy.
      How, exactly, do you think we can detect a whole genome duplication without looking at genomes?

      And I'll ask anyway: please explain what you think the dichotomy is in "skews the dichotomy".
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        How, exactly, do you think we can detect a whole genome duplication without looking at genomes?
        Well, it would make the genome weigh twice as much, so maybe they used scales.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Hemoglobin is a protein, however.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          However?!?!? How is this relevant.

          Hemoglobin is globular protein with an embedded hemi group and not simply a protein.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            My emphasis:So the authors say whole-genome duplication relaxes the dichotomy, i.e. decreases the difference - and (since "skew" means bias or distort) Dory seems to think they mean the difference increases.
            Sorry I misspoke, I should have said it decreases the difference.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              I suggest we stop on that high note.
              Sorry, but that one was pure gold! I suggest creationism has now outclassed all its competitors! NeoDarwinism can't get a hold on it! LMAO

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                Sorry, but that one was pure gold! I suggest creationism has now outclassed all its competitors! NeoDarwinism can't get a hold on it! LMAO
                If this is over the top sarcasm, than nice shot.

                The contemporary science of abiogenesis and evolution are not based on Neo-Darwinism, whatever that is.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Behe has the first part of a response out, to his Lehigh colleagues:

                  Source: Evolution News

                  A laboratory is not nature, but we do lab experiments to understand how nature behaves. Lab evolution experiments show that whenever the environment changes, microorganisms will adjust with whatever helpful mutations come along first. Both simple math and relevant experiments indicate that by far those will be degradative mutations.

                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  He does say that the sickle-cell mutation is non-degrative, which I still find a little puzzling.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    If this is over the top sarcasm, than nice shot.

                    The contemporary science of abiogenesis and evolution are not based on Neo-Darwinism, whatever that is.
                    So they're based on what? I always thought they were based on the Modern Synthesis (formed in the 1950's).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Sorry I misspoke, I should have said it decreases the difference.
                      Still waiting for you to explain what the dichotomy at issue here is.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        Still waiting for you to explain what the dichotomy at issue here is.
                        I gather that they meant the dichotomy between mutations that degrade or disable genes and those that add to the genome.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Behe has the first part of a response out, to his Lehigh colleagues.
                          And, as you'd expect based on past behavior, it's pretty bad, in that he undercuts his own argument. He's trying to suggest that lab based experiments reproduce the spectrum of mutations that we see in uncontrolled environments. But then he goes on to point out that Lenski's seen a number of mutations that damage the DNA repair systems, which causes an elevated mutation rate - something that's helpful when they're desperately trying to adapt to the lab conditions. What Behe doesn't mention is that DNA repair systems are nearly uniform throughout all life forms, indicating that these mutations are not typical of those that occur outside of lab conditions.

                          In other words, no, the spectrum of mutations picked up in these experiments is not the same as you see in naturally evolving populations.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                            So they're based on what? I always thought they were based on the Modern Synthesis (formed in the 1950's).
                            No, we have come along way since the 1950's. The science of evolution has advanced in many areas particularly genetics. In the modern concept evolution 'natural selection still acts on genetic mutations and genetic diversity for evolution to take place in adaptation to changing environments, but this evolution takes place in populations, and not individuals.

                            The biggest change is the old beliefs in randomness in nature and evolution no longer apply except in outcome of individual events. It is the Laws of Nature and the changing environment that determine ultimate outcome of chains of cause and effect events are constrained by the Laws, like those involved in evolution and Nature in general. The morphological genesis self-determination was described in terms of fractal math was described in detail in a paper by Alan Turing.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              No, we have come along way since the 1950's. The science of evolution has advanced in many areas particularly genetics. In the modern concept evolution 'natural selection still acts on genetic mutations and genetic diversity for evolution to take place in adaptation to changing environments, but this evolution takes place in populations, and not individuals.

                              The biggest change is the old beliefs in randomness in nature and evolution no longer apply except in outcome of individual events. It is the Laws of Nature and the changing environment that determine ultimate outcome of chains of cause and effect events are constrained by the Laws, like those involved in evolution and Nature in general. The morphological genesis self-determination was described in terms of fractal math was described in detail in a paper by Alan Turing.
                              I don't know why I thought the MS started in the 1950's. I must have read that misinformation somewhere.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                I gather that they meant the dichotomy between mutations that degrade or disable genes and those that add to the genome.
                                I figured that was the case, which is why i pressed you on this issue. You only saw it that way because that's what you wanted to see. Read it again - it's referencing something else entirely, namely the topic of the previous sentence: the difference in duplications between stress and growth related genes.
                                In particular, stress-related genes exhibit many duplications and losses, whereas growth-related genes show selection against such changes. Whole-genome duplication circumvents this constraint and relaxes the dichotomy, resulting in an expanded functional scope of gene duplication.
                                Once you realize that, please take a few moments to think about how many of your other misunderstandings are the result of your tendency to interpret everything you see as supporting your position, even if they're completely irrelevant.

                                Once you're done with that, take a moment to consider what the rest of us had to deal with when we're trying to have a discussion about mutation frequencies, and you're making a big deal out of a phrase that refers to growth vs. stress responses. By being careless about things like this, you're forcing everyone else in this discussion to try to figure out what you actually mean using the seemingly incoherent things you write.

                                Do you feel bad about any of that? I know i sure would.


                                EDITS: added quote to make it clear to everyone.
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X