Adaptations only occur from *sets* of genetic information, not from individual mutes

[Gottservant]

There is something fundamental here, that I am constrained to explain by way of principle and acceptance, as I am not the funded scientist I was never born to be anyway. That's not to say my discoveries won't go down in the history books, I have at least two that I can say with a hundred percent certainty will be remembered or recorded for the rest of time. I don't deem you worthy, to share them with you, at this stage (you could easily discover them yourself if God were willing), but suffice it to say, I do at a minimum have a concept of the integrity needed to be meaningfully sustained by the people - I hope someone can say the same about you.

Now, for the purposes of this thread, I wish to explain something very simple: adaptations come from sets of genetic information, not from individual mutations.

First consider that the genetic string, is a combination of genetic codes. This means that the information is not just morse code. You cannot just hold on to some part of it, and alter it indefinitely over time, by refusing to let go. Make sense?

Second consider that the living organism, is differentiated among a number of working parts. Even the cell has a nuclei. This means that as an adaptive creature, new information (which doesn't come from mutations any way - thank you Creation science) for the creature has to be assembled from a number of sources. This can only be done if the information assembled, is consistent across its sources and assembled solely for the purpose of the integrity of the creature. Make sense?

Third consider that the redunancy of cells in a living organism, require new interpretation, from information copy to information copy, for each cell, which will integrate the information anew. This cannot happen, if there is dispute about which interpretation to base subsequent interpretations on - variations on a theme do not come from free choice of theme, once the variations have begun. This means that mutations, which cannot produce new information, nor develop consistency, are actually antagonistic to the ongoing definition of the organism and it's integrity, as has already been determined. Make sense?

Right, now consider these three steps and tell me that you can possibly attribute a radical state future to past alterations. You say "but they are all alterations!" You have not been listening. These steps are phases in the development of an organism that weed out the possibility of radicalisation. The imaginary expectation of radicalisation has already been identified scientifically as impossible (see Sign in to read: Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits - opinion - 03 February 2010 - New Scientist ) There is no miracle DNA.

There is no miracle DNA.

Thanks be to God for the strength, abilty and ingenuity to create this coherent, precise and accessible treatment of the illusion of radicalisation.

 

[sfs]

There is something fundamental here, that I am constrained to explain by way of principle and acceptance, as I am not the funded scientist I was never born to be anyway. That's not to say my discoveries won't go down in the history books, I have at least two that I can say with a hundred percent certainty will be remembered or recorded for the rest of time. I don't deem you worthy, to share them with you, at this stage (you could easily discover them yourself if God were willing), but suffice it to say, I do at a minimum have a concept of the integrity needed to be meaningfully sustained by the people - I hope someone can say the same about you.

Your sense of self-importance may be entirely accurate or it may be delusional. What is certain is that it is irrelevant.

Now, for the purposes of this thread, I wish to explain something very simple: adaptations come from sets of genetic information, not from individual mutations.

First consider that the genetic string, is a combination of genetic codes. This means that the information is not just morse code. You cannot just hold on to some part of it, and alter it indefinitely over time, by refusing to let go. Make sense?

No, that makes little sense, and to the extent that it makes sense, it's wrong. Organisms do indeed hold onto parts of their genetic information while other parts change. That is simply a fact.

Second consider that the living organism, is differentiated among a number of working parts. Even the cell has a nuclei. This means that as an adaptive creature, new information (which doesn't come from mutations any way - thank you Creation science)

Of course new information comes from mutations, under any consistent definition of "information" that has ever been proposed. That it doesn't is a lie promulgated by creationists, for which they should not be thanked.

for the creature has to be assembled from a number of sources. This can only be done if the information assembled, is consistent across its sources and assembled solely for the purpose of the integrity of the creature. Make sense?

Again, the little sense it makes is incorrect. Genetic information for an animal comes from the single copy of its genes in the fertilized egg, and is consistent across the body of the organism. Mutations in the information can and do affect all or part of the body, compared to the organism's ancestors.

Third consider that the redunancy of cells in a living organism, require new interpretation, from information copy to information copy, for each cell, which will integrate the information anew. This cannot happen, if there is dispute about which interpretation to base subsequent interpretations on - variations on a theme do not come from free choice of theme, once the variations have begun. This means that mutations, which cannot produce new information, nor develop consistency, are actually antagonistic to the ongoing definition of the organism and it's integrity, as has already been determined. Make sense?

Germline mutations, which are the ones relevant to evolution, are present in all cells, and therefore consistent. In real organisms, real mutations do occur and do change the organism, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. So whatever argument you think you're making -- it has to be incorrect.

Right, now consider these three steps and tell me that you can possibly attribute a radical state future to past alterations. You say "but they are all alterations!" You have not been listening. These steps are phases in the development of an organism that weed out the possibility of radicalisation.

Organisms do not change radically in one generation. They do change, however, every generation, and those change do all of the things you think they can't.

The imaginary expectation of radicalisation has already been identified scientifically as impossible (see Sign in to read: Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits - opinion - 03 February 2010 - New Scientist ) There is no miracle DNA.

If you're going to rely on Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini for your knowledge of evolution, you will forever remain ignorant. They don't understand the basics of the theory they criticize.

Thanks be to God for the strength, abilty and ingenuity to create this coherent, precise and accessible treatment of the illusion of radicalisation.

<boggle>

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Google, so you might want to check it out soon. A lot of people are using it these days.

single genetic mutations - Google Scholar

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, for the purposes of this thread, I wish to explain something very simple: adaptations come from sets of genetic information, not from individual mutations.

False. Adaptations can and do come from single mutations:

"We report a novel mutation, C1066U in 16S rRNA which was selected for resistance to spectinomycin, an antibiotic which inhibits ribosomal translocation."
A new mutation in 16S rRNA of Escherichia coli conferring spectinomycin resistance

A mutation changing a cytosine to a uracil resulted in adaptation to spectinomycin.

First consider that the genetic string, is a combination of genetic codes. This means that the information is not just morse code. You cannot just hold on to some part of it, and alter it indefinitely over time, by refusing to let go. Make sense?

No, it doesn't. Each base is independent of the others where it concerns mutations. If a base changes in one place in the genome the rest of the genome is capable of staying the same.

Second consider that the living organism, is differentiated among a number of working parts. Even the cell has a nuclei. This means that as an adaptive creature, new information (which doesn't come from mutations any way - thank you Creation science) for the creature has to be assembled from a number of sources.

Each mutation produces new information.

Third consider that the redunancy of cells in a living organism, require new interpretation, from information copy to information copy, for each cell, which will integrate the information anew.

What does this even mean?

Make sense?

No, it doesn't.

Right, now consider these three steps and tell me that you can possibly attribute a radical state future to past alterations.

That statement makes no sense at all.

You say "but they are all alterations!" You have not been listening. These steps are phases in the development of an organism that weed out the possibility of radicalisation.

That makes no sense.

There is no miracle DNA.

Why would you need miracle DNA?

Thanks be to God for the strength, abilty and ingenuity to create this coherent, precise and accessible treatment of the illusion of radicalisation.

Seriously?

 

[Gottservant]

Mutations must at least assimilate themselves, before they can be assimilated.

 

[Radagast]

Mutations must at least assimilate themselves, before they can be assimilated.

I have no idea what, if anything, that sentence means.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mutations must at least assimilate themselves, before they can be assimilated.

Mutations are not the Borg.

 

[SkyWriting]

This means that mutations, which cannot produce new information, nor develop consistency, are actually antagonistic to the ongoing definition of the organism and it's integrity, as has already been determined. Make sense?

To an extent. DNA is programmed to mutate in certain ways. That latitude gives us genetic variation so that you don't look exactly like your sister, but with less curves. Mutations do exist outside those boundaries and we resist the urge to drown some of them.

 

[sfs]

To an extent. DNA is programmed to mutate in certain ways.

What ways is DNA programmed to mutate in?

 

[SkyWriting]

What ways is DNA programmed to mutate in?

Compare that picture with your sister. Hopefully, your sister is a proper mutant, not like the picture.

 

[Radagast]

Compare that picture with your sister. Hopefully, your sister is a proper mutant, not like the picture.

:o

Let's try and leave people's sisters out of it, huh?

 

[sfs]

Compare that picture with your sister. Hopefully, your sister is a proper mutant, not like the picture.

Try answering the question: in what ways in DNA programmed to mutate? What's the difference between one of your programmed mutations and a disastrous mutation?

 

[Loudmouth]

To an extent. DNA is programmed to mutate in certain ways.

The physical properties of DNA make certain mutations more probable than others. If memory serves, CpG islands are more prone to mutations. However, these mutations are still random with respect to fitness.

We also observe that polymerases (the proteins that replicate DNA) are more prone to error than they need to be:

Probing the active site tightness o... [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

In that paper they discuss how the polymerase in the study had a "loose" active site that allowed the wrong base to be used on occasion. If the active site were tighter it would improve the fidelity of the enzyme. Therefore, polymerases are sloppier than they could be.

 

[Loudmouth]

Compare that picture with your sister. Hopefully, your sister is a proper mutant, not like the picture.

We are all mutants. All of us carry 50 to 100 mutations that are specific to us. The DNA differences that separate us from other apes are also mutations.

 

[sfs]

Compare that picture with your sister. Hopefully, your sister is a proper mutant, not like the picture.

Based on your complete failure to support your claim about mutations, is it fair to conclude that you had no idea what you were talking about?

 

[SkyWriting]

We are all mutants. All of us carry 50 to 100 mutations that are specific to us.

That's natural background variation. Most of it is within spec. That's why you look different from your siblings but not like this:

 

[SkyWriting]

Try answering the question: in what ways in DNA programmed to mutate? What's the difference between one of your programmed mutations and a disastrous mutation?

"Discuss the biological significance of hypermutation and programmed mutations"
Mutation, Repair and Recombination - Genomes - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[SkyWriting]

Based on your complete failure to support your claim about mutations, is it fair to conclude that you had no idea what you were talking about?

I can support my idea and still not be able to teach it in a forum.

" Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. "
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10995.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120503

 

[sfs]

"Discuss the biological significance of hypermutation and programmed mutations"
Mutation, Repair and Recombination - Genomes - NCBI Bookshelf

Not support for your statement, I'm afraid. You said that there were programmed mutations, which yield useful variation in a population, and also non-programmed mutation that leads to bad stuff. That breakdown is simply not consistent with what is known about genetics. What the (rather out of date) book you cited is talking about is an increase in all kinds of mutations, good and bad, when bacteria are placed under stress. This is now a well-established phenomenon; see here and here for reviews. What you're talking about would be news indeed but is not, alas, true.

 

[sfs]

I can support my idea and still not be able to teach it in a forum.

" Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. "
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10995.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120503

This is more relevant than your other citation but it still doesn't support your claim. This paper describes evidence that mutation rates are lower in critical genes, reducing the rate of deleterious mutations. It's quite interesting, but not really all that surprising -- there is broader evidence for evolution of mutation rates, and the structure of the genetic code itself is well known to make deleterious mutations less likely.

What the paper doesn't do is make your claim, which is that some mutations are programmed because they are potentially useful and that deleterious mutations are not programmed. Rather, they find that rates of all mutations, good and bad, are higher in some regions and lower in others. In fact, it specifically rejects the possibility that mutation rates are higher where new variation would be useful, noting that antigen-producing genes (where variation is very useful for evading host immune systems) do not have elevated mutation rates. Instead, what seems to be happening is that there is strong selection against having mutations in certain genes, since they're almost always deleterious, and that mechanisms have therefore evolved to keep mutation rates unusually low there.