CHALLENGE!

[tas8831]

Please check out the following quote, the source of which is irrelevant to this challenge:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

And answer this simple question:

Does the provided quote mean that mating/hybridization creates new alleles? Yes/No

 

[cfyahoo08]

Please check out the following quote, the source of which is irrelevant to this challenge:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

And answer this simple question:

Does the provided quote mean that mating/hybridization creates new alleles? Yes/No

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

What came first the chicken or the egg. (more on this later)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Please check out the following quote, the source of which is irrelevant to this challenge:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

And answer this simple question:

Does the provided quote mean that mating/hybridization creates new alleles? Yes/No

I would say no, new alleles are not created. New combinations could be however. I'm not seeing that the quote really addresses the question though, but rather is addressing their opinion about the likely source of positive genetic changes.

 

[pitabread]

Does the provided quote mean that mating/hybridization creates new alleles? Yes/No

If we're talking about introducing an allele from one population into another (via hybridization) then that is not the creation of a new allele. New alleles are created via mutation (which also occurs during mating).

 

[SkyWriting]

Please check out the following quote, the source of which is irrelevant to this challenge:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

And answer this simple question:

Does the provided quote mean that mating/hybridization creates new alleles? Yes/No

There is no such thing as "random" so the quote is nonsense at it's foundation.
It's intention is to legitimize the myth of randomness.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is no such thing as "random" so the quote is nonsense at it's foundation.
It's intention is to legitimize the myth of randomness.

-_- I've mentioned before that mutations are not truly random by virtue of the fact that some sequences are more prone to mutating than others (for mutations to be truly random, all mutations would have to be equally likely). However, they aren't directed either. Every nucleotide in DNA has some potential to mutate, even the ones that kill the organism if they change (commonly associated with miscarriage and severe genetic diseases). Just because mutations aren't a representation of true randomness doesn't mean that they have much in the way of predictability when it comes to genomes as large as our own.

 

[Shemjaza]

Please check out the following quote, the source of which is irrelevant to this challenge:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

And answer this simple question:

Does the provided quote mean that mating/hybridization creates new alleles? Yes/No

What if instead of answering, I just talk about foxes, mix breed dogs, Africans and Asians... do I win the argument then?

 

[tas8831]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

What came first the chicken or the egg. (more on this later)

Thanks for trying, sort of.

 

[tas8831]

I would say no, new alleles are not created. New combinations could be however.

Indeed.

I'm not seeing that the quote really addresses the question though, but rather is addressing their opinion about the likely source of positive genetic changes.

Agreed - however, that quote has been claimed as support for the notion that interbreeding creates new alleles.

 

[tas8831]

There is no such thing as "random" so the quote is nonsense at it's foundation.
It's intention is to legitimize the myth of randomness.

Thanks for trying. Buy yourself a lollipop.

 

[dgiharris]

-_- I've mentioned before that mutations are not truly random by virtue of the fact that some sequences are more prone to mutating than others (for mutations to be truly random, all mutations would have to be equally likely). However, they aren't directed either. Every nucleotide in DNA has some potential to mutate, even the ones that kill the organism if they change (commonly associated with miscarriage and severe genetic diseases). Just because mutations aren't a representation of true randomness doesn't mean that they have much in the way of predictability when it comes to genomes as large as our own.

I do NOT have expertise in biology, but I do have some expertise in math and physics and I feel the bolded part is not true.

Sure, mathematically when you talk about randomness, like a random number generator, then all outputs are equally likely. However, when you are talking about physical processes that may not always be the case.

For the sake of argument, lets say that "random" genetic mutations are a function of radiation or cosmic rays striking genes and effecting DNA. It stands to reason that certain genes and/or certain areas of DNA will have stronger bonds than other areas. Therefore, the areas that have stronger bonds will have a lower frequency of change/alteration than the areas that have weaker bonds. The end result will be a probability curve that fits the "strength curve" of the various bonds within the DNA. So you'd end up with a "random" process however that process adheres to a probability curve.

Kinda like rolling two six sided die. The actual rolls are random, however, the net result will produce a probability curve simply because some number combinations (like a 7) are more probable than others (like a 2). So the actual rolls are random but the results adhere to a probability curve.

So I'd intuitively argue that something similar would occur with "random" genetic mutations.

Again, I confess to having very little knowledge/expertise in biology. So I ask you big brained bio peoples, does the above argument hold water?

 

[tas8831]

I do NOT have expertise in biology, but I do have some expertise in math and physics and I feel the bolded part is not true.

Sure, mathematically when you talk about randomness, like a random number generator, then all outputs are equally likely. However, when you are talking about physical processes that may not always be the case.

For the sake of argument, lets say that "random" genetic mutations are a function of radiation or cosmic rays striking genes and effecting DNA. It stands to reason that certain genes and/or certain areas of DNA will have stronger bonds than other areas. Therefore, the areas that have stronger bonds will have a lower frequency of change/alteration than the areas that have weaker bonds. The end result will be a probability curve that fits the "strength curve" of the various bonds within the DNA. So you'd end up with a "random" process however that process adheres to a probability curve.

Kinda like rolling two six sided die. The actual rolls are random, however, the net result will produce a probability curve simply because some number combinations (like a 7) are more probable than others (like a 2). So the actual rolls are random but the results adhere to a probability curve.

So I'd intuitively argue that something similar would occur with "random" genetic mutations.

Again, I confess to having very little knowledge/expertise in biology. So I ask you big brained bio peoples, does the above argument hold water?

It looks to me like despite your initial statement that the bolded part of psycho's post was not true, that your expanded discussion actually seemed draw the same conclusion.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Indeed.

Agreed - however, that quote has been claimed as support for the notion that interbreeding creates new alleles.

That's one reason I usually stay out of such discussions.

I don't blame people for trying despite not having the tools perhaps to fully analyze what they try to understand. From what I've seen it strikes at the core beliefs of many on both (all?) sides of the debates.

But some of the statements put forth make me cringe and would serve their cause better if they were never made.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thanks for trying. Buy yourself a lollipop.

That about the depth of rebuttal possible.

Why is there no such thing as random data in computers?

There is no such thing as a Random Number Generator (RNG)

Is quantum mechanics really random? Is it possible that there are ...

Does random mean that there is no pattern?

Can a computer generate a truly random number? - MIT School of ..

 

[SkyWriting]

-_- I've mentioned before that mutations are not truly random by virtue of the fact that some sequences are more prone to mutating than others (for mutations to be truly random, all mutations would have to be equally likely). However, they aren't directed either. Every nucleotide in DNA has some potential to mutate, even the ones that kill the organism if they change (commonly associated with miscarriage and severe genetic diseases). Just because mutations aren't a representation of true randomness doesn't mean that they have much in the way of predictability when it comes to genomes as large as our own.

I understand that randomness is a lack of information.
But just becasue we don't know why variations occur
in no way confirms they are random. It only confirms
that we are ignorant.

 

[tas8831]

That about the depth of rebuttal possible.

Why is there no such thing as random data in computers?

There is no such thing as a Random Number Generator (RNG)

Is quantum mechanics really random? Is it possible that there are ...

Does random mean that there is no pattern?

Can a computer generate a truly random number? - MIT School of ..

Can a creationist respond even once to a post and remain on topic?

Here, let me help you, since you seem to be having a hard time understanding what the OP was even about - you see, a certain creationist thinks that all alleles (variants of a gene) were 'created' in Adam and that they were always in existence. To support that evidence-free claim, this creationist provides the following quote as "support" - I will add some bold and some notation to help you follow along:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization [here they are referring to 'new' alleles created via mutation in a species, as opposed to an allele obtained via interbreeding]. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection) [here, they are explaining that the "new" alleles obtained via interbreeding were created via mutation and dealt with by natural selection BEFORE it was introduced to the next species via interbreeding]. Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

You see, this was not even about 'random' (nice diversion out of desperation, though) - it was about where alleles come from.

Get it now?

Or shall you employ a new diversion?

 

[Speedwell]

I understand that randomness is a lack of information.
But just becasue we don't know why variations occur
in no way confirms they are random. It only confirms
that we are ignorant.

That makes no sense at all. If we had the information, the event would be predictable and thus no longer random.

 

[dgiharris]

It looks to me like despite your initial statement that the bolded part of psycho's post was not true, that your expanded discussion actually seemed draw the same conclusion.

Opps, I bolded the wrong part of his post. I meant to bold when he said, "for mutations to be truly random, all mutations would have to be equally likely"

that was the part of his post that I was addressing with my post about randomness...

sorry about the miscommunication. Perhaps in a longwinded way I'm agreeing with him... but I meant to say that randomness does not necessarily mean all processes are equally likely to occur. You can still have randomness with some processes having a greater frequency of occurrence than other processes. That is what i Meant to say...

 

[tas8831]

Opps, I bolded the wrong part of his post. I meant to bold when he said, "for mutations to be truly random, all mutations would have to be equally likely"

that was the part of his post that I was addressing with my post about randomness...

sorry about the miscommunication. Perhaps in a longwinded way I'm agreeing with him... but I meant to say that randomness does not necessarily mean all processes are equally likely to occur. You can still have randomness with some processes having a greater frequency of occurrence than other processes. That is what i Meant to say...

That makes more sense - agree completely.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I understand that randomness is a lack of information.

That's not what random means at all. Random is a description of the method by which something comes to be or an event happens, it has nothing to do with whether or not the outcome is meaningful to anyone.

But just becasue we don't know why variations occur
in no way confirms they are random.

We do know why variation exists within populations: mutation. Changing the DNA is the only method by which variable traits can both be acquired and passed down consistently to the next generation. Any variation that is a product of the environment alone is not stable within a population.

It only confirms
that we are ignorant.

Why are you assuming we know less than we actually do? Mutation is the known source of different alleles; it's measurably the source of the variation.

I also don't know why you are spacing out your sentences as if you are writing a poem when your post has no traits associated with poems.