Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
rmwilliamsll said:YECist since the flood propose evolution works within kinds 10000 times faster than any modern science would predict..... just imagine.
Notto is right, a lot has been discovered about how genes are expressed in the past 30 years. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with just the basics at the sites below (expression is different for the two basic types of cells, prokaryotic cells vs eukaryotic cells).notto said:'One Gene One Trait' hasn't been accepted for quite some time. Something else that is taught in just about every college level biology or genetics class.supersport said:http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
95% of DNA does NOT code for protein!! How do you like them apples Tom and everyone else?
You are caught in some kind of late 60's, early 70's time warp or something.
EXCERPT
The extent of this unseen genome is not yet clear, but at least two layers of information exist outside the traditionally recognized genes. [....]Above and beyond the DNA sequence there is another, much more malleable, layer of information in the chromosomes. "Epigenetic" marks, embedded in a melange of proteins and chemicals that surround, support and stick to DNA, operate through cryptic codes and mysterious machinery. Unlike genes, epigenetic marks are routinely laid down, erased and rewritten on the fly. So whereas mutations last a lifetime, epigenetic mistakes-implicated in a growing list of birth defects, cancers and other diseases-may be reversible with drugs. In fact, doctors are already testing such experimental treatments on leukemia patients.
JD may play a role in regulating translation of proteinsFrom Junk Throws up Precious Secret Researchers inspecting the genetic code of rats, mice and humans were surprised to find they shared many identical chunks of apparently "junk" DNA.
[*]
This implies the code is so vital that even 75 million years of evolution in these mammals could not tinker with it.
[*]
But what the DNA does, and how, is a puzzle, the journal Science reports.
. . . .
The regions largely matched up with chicken, dog and fish sequences, too; but are absent from sea squirt and fruit flies. (NOTE: We wouldn't expect to find such conserved sequences in organisms so far removed from the vertebrates mentioned)
. . . .
The really interesting thing is that many of these "ultra-conserved" regions do not appear to code for protein. If it was not for the fact that they popped up in so many different species, they might have been dismissed as useless "padding".
We know this because ever since rodents, humans, chickens and fish shared an ancestor - about 400 million years ago - these sequences have resisted change. This strongly suggests that any alteration would have damaged the animals' ability to survive.
[*]
"These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said. He thinks the most likely scenario is that they control the activity of indispensable genes and embryo development.
[*]
Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA - the chemical cousin of DNA involved in protein production - into different forms, Professor Haussler believes.
The conserved elements that do not actually overlap with genes tend to cluster next to genes that play a role in embryonic development.
"The fact that the conserved elements are hanging around the most important development genes, suggests they have some role in regulating the process of development and differentiation," said Professor Haussler.
From “Junk DNA” Creates Novel Proteins
DNA sequences long considered genomic garbage are finally getting a little respect. Researchers have figured out how short stretches of DNA that do not normally code for proteins worm their way into genes.
[*]
This can result in the production of abnormal proteins and lead to genetic diseases, such as Alport Syndrome, a rare kidney disease. But the sequences, sometimes called “junk DNA,” have also allowed humans and other species to create new proteins in a process that has dramatically influenced evolution.
[*]
Gil Ast and his colleagues at Tel Aviv University in Israel have figured out how the sequences, known as Alu elements, are incorporated into genes to create novel proteins. More than 300,000 sequences are poised for insertion into genes—all that’s needed is a single mutation.
Through a process called alternative splicing, humans create multiple versions of a gene and, consequently, multiple proteins. It’s a way of constructing a new protein, while keeping a backup copy of the original version.
supersport said:See what you evolutionists don't get is this:
You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA. Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.
The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.
The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.
supersport said:See what you evolutionists don't get is this:
You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA. Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.
The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.
The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.
Nathan Poe said:You really don't understand a word of any of this, do you?
Dangerous? To whom? Yourself? Certainly not to science in general or evolutionary theory in particular. Nothing you have said is any sort of threat to anything to do with evolution.supersport said:try me....I understand just enough to be dangerous.
Electric Skeptic said:Dangerous? To whom? Yourself? Certainly not to science in general or evolutionary theory in particular. Nothing you have said is any sort of threat to anything to do with evolution.
No, it's because nothing you say regarding evolution is accurate.supersport said:that's because whatever I say cannot effect the figment that's in your imagination. I would never claim to be that powerful. S
Electric Skeptic said:No, it's because nothing you say regarding evolution is accurate.
No, nothing you say is accurate. You don't understand the difference between 'accurate' and 'relevant'? The 'facts' you post are constantly corrected; what you say is FALSE.supersport said:what you mean to say is that nothing I say is relevent to the figment in your imagination. However, what I say is relevent to real life.
supersport said:See what you evolutionists don't get is this:
You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA. Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.
The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.
The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.
No, we really only mean that you do not understand genetics, nor do you understand evolution, and that your ignorance in these subject makes you look like a fool.supersport said:what you mean to say is that nothing I say is relevent to the figment in your imagination. However, what I say is relevent to real life.
supersport said:You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins
supersport said:....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA.
No, there's no conscious "selection" by the body (whatever that means). There's no "intelligence" that does the "selecting". Earlier you posted this deceptive little quote-mine (I can see why you are so clueless).supersport said:Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.
The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.
The problem with this is that it was plucked from a one-page OPINION which SPECULATES on possible scenarios that MIGHT be used by bacteria. First, opinion pages aren't evidence for anything, especially ones that are now nearly 20 years old. I can't give a direct link to the pdf file from Science (you would need a subscription to view this reference ==>R Lewin. A heresy in evolutionary biology. Science 16 September 1988 241: 1431 [DOI: 10.1126/science.3047870] )supersport said:In Post #70
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf060/sf060p07.htm
One seemingly unassailable dogma of evolutionary biology insists that natural selection involves, first, the continuous, random, environment-independent generation of genetic mutations; and, second, the subsequent fixation of those mutations that are favored by prevailing conditions. In other works, the genetic mutations cannot be influenced by external events and conditions. But in recent experiments with bacteria (E. coli), J. Cairns et al, at the Harvard School of Public Health, find they actually do produce mutations in direct response to changes in their environment. The adjective "purposeful" has even been applied to the action of these bacteria! Can anything be more heretical?
Cairns and his colleague speculate on a mechanism by which mutation might be directed by external circumstances. Suppose, as a result of sloppy transcription, an organism makes a variable set of messenger RNAs from any one of its genes; and suppose the organism is equipped to test the efficacy of the different protein variants produced; it then selects the best messenger for continued translation and at the same time, using reverse transcriptase, makes a DNA copy, which is slotted into the genome. The result would be a mutant produced as a consequence of the environment to which the organism was exposed. If such a system were to exist "you would expect it to become widespread, because the organisms carrying it would be so successful," says Hall.
Are spontaneous mutations targeted? We can rationalize how and why mutation rates might be dependent on growth conditions, but it has also been proposed that there might be situations where not only are mutations rates increased, but the mutations are targeted to regions of the genome in which advantageous mutations might be created. The initial notion involved the ebg story of Cairns (Nat335:142[88]) and a similar argument, based on a rather different assay, was made by Hall (Genet120:887[88]). In each case, the claim was not greatly different from what was described in the immediately preceding section, though mechanisms were not obvious at that time.
The Cairns paper also alluded to the more radical issue of mutations being targeted to specific regions, as did another paper (Genet126:5[90]). Models for this very radical notion are discussed at some length in Genet126:5[90] and included: reverse transcriptase (though probably not a major factor in bacteria), targeted failure-to-repair, and targeted mutation generation. The generally accepted term for this class of mutations was “adaptive.” Now, I am skipping a few of the ugly details here, because at least some of the original Cairn’s phenomenon happened to depend on the fact that the genes were on a plasmids (?!?!) and it is clear that there are several different possibilities at play. However, I don’t believe that there was ever a particularly compelling model on how mutations would be targeted to specific regions. For those interested in the general issue, the following references should bring you up to date: (JBact182:2993[00], JBact179:1550[97], EMBOJ16:3303[97], Genet148:1453[98], Genet148:1559[98], Genet154:1427[00]).
More recently, another hypothesis to explain the possibility of targeting phenomenon has been proposed. This model notes that the original mutation used in the Cairns experiments was a leaky frameshift and proposes that duplication/amplification of this region increased the level of functional product in the cell, supporting some growth. The amplification necessarily resulted in homologous recombination, which in turn induced the SOS response, leading to general mutagenesis (Genet161:945[02]). This simpler hypothesis seems completely compatible with the available data on the phenomenon and has the charm of not requiring the invocation of new regulated mechanisms for transient mutagenesis of portions of a bacterial population.
There doesn't look like there's any mechanism for animals like the Arctic fox or any other multicellular organism to simply break out their DNA at will and generate the needed proteins on "demand" in the manner you have been flogging here.From the Lewin piece:
But would it operate in multicellular organisms, thus underpinning the notion of inheritance of acquired characteristics? Probably not, guesses Hall, at least not beyond a very limited extent. The reason is because in bacteria there can be very rapid feedback between exposure to a new environment, expression of a favorable protein, and permanent genetic change: it is a feedback between chemicals in the environment and enzymes required to process them. In multicellular organisms, where the process of embryological development interposes itself between expression of the genetic blueprint and the mature, anatomically complex organism, the potential for feedback is snapped, except perhaps for the simplest of physiological systems. In addition, of course, the germline is effectively isolated from the cells in the rest of the organism. Nevertheless, cautions Cairns, "we shouldn't be thinking about multicellular organisms
supersport said:The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly
Now the above is an assertion that you have YET to present any data to support. There is nothing about differential expression that falsifies any aspect of ToE. Do tell us WHY differential expression would "put the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism".supersport said:...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.
Who are you trying to kid? You only listen to what agrees with your preconceived beliefs and you reject anything that conflicts with your preconceived belief system.notto said:If you can, it might actually show that we should listen to you as someone who might have a credible contribution. If you can't, it just shows that you are making this up as you go along and apparently really don't know wha the heck you are talking about..
What is Darwinism other then the theory of Natural Selection?gladiatrix said:"put the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?