A code needs a coder.

[-57]

I think you miss the point.

Not having a remedial understanding of a nuanced topic, in a field where tens of thousands of people the world over conduct research -only on DNA- none whom assert what this Muppet is saying. It's a bit like a three year old telling a neurosurgeon he's doing it wrong.

Tell that to Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos.
Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

In addition to Stamatoyannopoulos, the research team included Andrew B. Stergachis, Eric Haugen, Anthony Shafer, Wenqing Fu, Benjamin Vernot, Alex Reynolds, and Joshua M. Akey, all from the UW Department of Genome Sciences, Anthony Raubitschek of the UW Department of Immunology and Benaroya Research Institute, Steven Ziegler of Benaroya Research Institute, and Emily M. LeProust, formerly of Agilent Technologists and now with Twist Bioscience.
So, you were saying??????

rest of article.

 

[-57]

Wrong. We KNOW that it can happen.

If you say so.

NEXT

 

[-57]

The question is whether a continuous-time Markov process can produce a specified degree of Kolmgorov complexity. You asserted that it cannot. The source of variation needs to be gone into, but it was not the substance of your assertion. If you can prove your point mathematically, then the source of variation is irrelevant.

I'm trying to use math...but you refuse to give me a number from your side of the fence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Tell that to Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos.
Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

In addition to Stamatoyannopoulos, the research team included Andrew B. Stergachis, Eric Haugen, Anthony Shafer, Wenqing Fu, Benjamin Vernot, Alex Reynolds, and Joshua M. Akey, all from the UW Department of Genome Sciences, Anthony Raubitschek of the UW Department of Immunology and Benaroya Research Institute, Steven Ziegler of Benaroya Research Institute, and Emily M. LeProust, formerly of Agilent Technologists and now with Twist Bioscience.
So, you were saying??????

rest of article.

Nah, I'll let him tell you...

"More than 17% of single-nucleotide variants within duons directly alter TF binding. Pervasive dual encoding of amino acid and regulatory information appears to be a fundamental feature of genome evolution."

 

[Speedwell]

I'm trying to use math...but you refuse to give me a number from your side of the fence.

The only number you need is the Kolmgorov complexity of DNA, and you can calculate that for yourself from the equations I gave you. The question is purely a mathematical one as you have framed it and the source of the random variation which drives the Markov process is irrelevant to it. If you want to discuss the sources of variation instead, start another thread.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you say so.

NEXT

Not so fast skippy, today's lesson includes you actually reading the study you listed.

It doesn't support what you think it does.

 

[-57]

Nah, I'll let him tell you...

"More than 17% of single-nucleotide variants within duons directly alter TF binding. Pervasive dual encoding of amino acid and regulatory information appears to be a fundamental feature of genome evolution."

The quote says "appears to be" not "is". Then again they never showed how this extra level of complexity in the DNA code evolved.

UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What may evolutionist don't know is that DNA has a code within the code.
Start at 11:31
12:50 talks about codons....A codon can act as one of the instructions on how to build a protein...also simultaneously the codon would also act as one step in an instruction on how to control genes.

Don't assume that what is news to you is news to others. DNA is often called a code because codons (etymology: 'code'+'on') 'code for' amino acids (via mRNA). There are 20 amino acids used in biological proteins and the codons can 'code for' 61, so there are redundancies - more than one codon 'codes for' a particular amino acid.

Proteins are many amino acids strung together. This is why, when a mutation changes a codon in a gene, it sometimes has no effect at all because it changes to a codon that codes for the same amino acid; and when it does have an effect, it most often just makes a small change to the protein, for example, slightly changes the way it folds up, making it a little more or less effective. So it is generally fairly resilient to mutation - as you'd expect from an evolved system.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Typical atheist propaganda.

Lol. It's nothing to do with atheism - it's about science; and it's not propaganda - it's how science works.

Where is your evidence that DNA could evolve?

Seriously? You haven't heard of population genetics? it's an entire discipline devoted to studying how DNA evolves and putting numbers to the changes.

.. what I presented in post 224 as well as post 199 clearly, and let me say it again....clearly...show your hypothesis can't work.

All I see there is an argument from incredulity (that's a fallacy, btw).

 

[HitchSlap]

The quote says "appears to be" not "is". Then again they never showed how this extra level of complexity in the DNA code evolved.

UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

LOL.

"So, you're sayin' there's a chance."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

Scientists were surprised to discover epigenetic regulation too; it's a human reaction to unexpected discoveries.

 

[-57]

The only number you need is the Kolmgorov complexity of DNA, and you can calculate that for yourself from the equations I gave you. The question is purely a mathematical one as you have framed it and the source of the random variation which drives the Markov process is irrelevant to it. If you want to discuss the sources of variation instead, start another thread.

The Kolmgorov complexity number of DNA....is probably impossible to determine. There is way to much DNA code to reduce.

 

[-57]

Don't assume that what is news to you is news to others. DNA is often called a code because codons (etymology: 'code'+'on') 'code for' amino acids (via mRNA). There are 20 amino acids used in biological proteins and the codons can 'code for' 61, so there are redundancies - more than one codon 'codes for' a particular amino acid.

Proteins are many amino acids strung together. This is why, when a mutation changes a codon in a gene, it sometimes has no effect at all because it changes to a codon that codes for the same amino acid; and when it does have an effect, it most often just makes a small change to the protein, for example, slightly changes the way it folds up, making it a little more or less effective. So it is generally fairly resilient to mutation - as you'd expect from an evolved system.

Lets say your mutation made this small change...what are the odds of a second, third, fourth etc coming along and adding to your small change?

 

[-57]

Lol. It's nothing to do with atheism - it's about science; and it's not propaganda - it's how science works.

Seriously? You haven't heard of population genetics? it's an entire discipline devoted to studying how DNA evolves and putting numbers to the changes.

All I see there is an argument from incredulity (that's a fallacy, btw).

I'm still getting..talk, names, theories...but no hows. (honestly I didn't really expect any.)

 

[loveofourlord]

For your scenario to work you'll need beneficial mutations occurring at a rate that is enormous.....scientist understand that is not the case.

No you don't, thats just the thing, bad are weeded out by death mostly before birth,neutral stay in the DNA, beneficial have pressures for them, heck most beneficial mutations are going to be netural at the start, untill there is a pressure for them. There is nothing in evolution that requires some imaginary massive change, again most differences between other apes and humans are minor and allow for slow progression, nothing structurally between humans and apes that requires new genes or things, just changes to existing ones, changing how the bones and skin form and for how long and so on. Okay except maybe the knee about it heh :>

Most changes even things like venom, is just changes to existing things, snake venom is found in lizards, and is secreted by saliva glands where there was a gene duplication that inserted a copy of a gene that later mutated, for snakes it was part of the ciculartory system, platypus it was the imune system. We know these things because we can examine and compare the DNA and see where it leads. The scientists doing the studies know that it's the case that enough beneficial mutations happen to allow for evolution. You have around 14 mutations in your DNA, and you are likly fine, most if not all of those changes were neutral with small chance for beneficial that won't be noticed. But some day could be beneficial, maybe if you got the bublonic plague you be better suited to survive it and so on.

This is elementary school level genetics here.

 

[loveofourlord]

OK, supply me with your numbers....what percentage of mutations are considered as beneficial? Lets use your numbers.

irevelevant, being a beneficial mutation also requires the need for it, you could have a beneficial mutation that protects you again from bublonic plague but if it never occurs again or you never get it, it wouldn't be considered beneficial. A mutation that changes the pigments of a animal is beneficial or harmful depending on where the animal lives, herbivores that produce venom in their saliva glands isn't going to be beneficial, and could be harmful, but could benefit a predator and be harmful too.

 

[loveofourlord]

OK, supply me with your numbers....what percentage of mutations are considered as beneficial? Lets use your numbers.

Also what counts as beneficial, is sickle celled anemia beneficial or harmful? In africa it benefits, jsut about anywhere else it's harmful, what about white skin, it's beneficial in northern regions, but less in africa and so on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Considering most mutations are harmful, whils some considered as neutral....

False. Most mutations are neutral.
Every human has some 50-ish mutations. If most of these would be harmfull, humans (and all other species, for that matter) would have mutated to extinction a long long time ago.

and considering even the evo scientist admitt so-called beneficial mutations are extremely rare...you coloring book description fails.

"admit"?
There is nothing to "admit". It's not a secret that beneficial mutations are not that common. Nore is it a problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Lets say your mutation made this small change...what are the odds of a second, third, fourth etc coming along and adding to your small change?

That depends on a huge number of variables, and there are many different kinds of mutation - if the first is a duplication mutation, it might involve a large chunk of DNA, making another mutation within that chunk far more likely than otherwise; or if the new mutation might affect a regulator for that gene; or it might affect a different gene that produces a protein involved in the same physiological functions.

Neutral and nearly neutral mutations can persist in a population a long time, with genetic drift providing a continually varying pool of changes on which further mutations can act synergistically.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm still getting..talk, names, theories...but no hows. (honestly I didn't really expect any.)

If you really wanted to know, you could easily find out. This isn't the place for an introductory course in genetics.