A scientific prediction from a creationist
zoe_althrop
seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern. And since I have no
intention of getting into a discussion with Bjoern until he learns to
communicate on a level higher than "liar" and "you're lying," I guess
I'll just move on. (Of course, Bjoern, you can choose to apologize
and maybe we could then have some fruitful discussions.)
Meanwhile, for those who insist that creationists can only say,
"Goddidit," here's a scientific prediction in regards to the existence
of a genetic program in species that sets boundaries and limits to
their ability to speciate.
I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
genetic code. Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect, not
stupidity.
I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
the organism. No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
influences, nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
sequence for specific needs. The genetic code is like the alphabet,
(64 "letters" instead of 26) that can vary its codons in their
sequences so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
the changing influences of its environment.
This is not just speculation. What is the evidence for the influence
of introns on exons?
http://www.psp.org/research_center/brainstorming.asp
This link has to do with research being conducted on progressive
supranuclear palsy, with particular interest in the tau gene.
"Healthy brains have tau in an equal mixture of three-repeat and
four-repeat, but in PSP, it's nearly all four-repeat."
The clue seems to lie in the direction of alternate splicing. "To
produce the four-repeat form of tau, exon 10 must be included from the
alternative splicing plan."
The trail becomes hotter when it is noted that the problem seems to
emanate from the introns, not the exons.
"But a defect in alternative splicing would probably not arise not
from a "misspelling" in an exon as occurs in most genetic diseases,
but from a more profound error in the instructions that regulate
alternative splicing. These instructions are found in the areas
between the exons, called introns."
Granted, there is appeal made to the evolutionary worldview in this
article, but an appeal can also be reasonably made to the creationist
worldview -- that the instructions for alternative splicing in introns
didn't just happen to accumulate willy-nilly, but were purposely
installed to give direction to the exons.
It is also predicted that there will be found a correlation between
number and/or length of introns to codons and the increasing
complexity of life forms. The more complex the organism, the more
instructions are programmed into it. (I am dealing now only with the
physical aspects of life forms, not the mental -- a whole 'nother
field of study.)
This prediction is already supported by the evidence that introns are
longer and/or more frequent in genes of organisms of higher complexity
than in simpler life forms such as yeast or bacteria. Such a pattern
implies purposeful planning or intent. Random activity will not
produce this kind of ranking, where prokaryotic genes tend to be small
and lack introns, and eukaryotic genes tend to be large and contain
introns.
It should be noted that increase in gene size is a result of increased
intron length, not increased length of protein-coding exons. The
average gene length of S.cerevisiae is 1.6, the average gene length of
fungi is 1.5, AGL of C.elegans is 4.0, AGL of a chicken is 13.9, and
the AGL of mammals is 16.6. The exons range, from 1, 3, 4, 9 and 7
exons respectively.
The link for the above information no longer works, so I can't give
it, and that means researching the same data elsewhere -- tomorrow's
another day.
Also, humans have the greatest number of introns, says "Nature, Volume
409, 15 February 2001."
I predict that we are just beginning to discover a program that has
been placed in life forms by their Creator.
For more contributing data, see:
http://bich431.tamu.edu/hu/23splicing.shtml
"In yeast, most genes don't have introns. In humans, individual genes
Can have >100 introns"
Going even further, I would say that even within similar organisms,
there will be a correlation between complexity and introns. See:
http://www.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc731/transcript/transcript4.htm
"The amount and size of introns varies greatly. The mammalian DHFR has
6 exons that total about 2000 bases, yet the gene is 31,000 bases.
Likewise, the alpha-collagen has 50 exons that range from 45-249 bases
and the gene is about 40,000 bases. Clearly two genes of the same size
can have different number of introns, and introns that vary in size"
I submit that the reason for the difference in number and lengths of
introns is due to the increasing complexity of the organism and/or the
increasing complexity of the instructions needed to perform a
specified function within specific areas of an organism, and depending
on environmental influences of the moment.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/new-biological-database.html
Alternative gene splicing is another clue that should lead to evidence
for the instructional capacities of introns.
"Split genes have a remarkable property: their exons can be added or
deleted, giving rise to different proteins from the same gene. This
alternative splicing plays a vital role in most higher organisms; in
the development of the fruit fly, a single split gene arranged one way
eventually produces a female, but if arranged another way produces a
male.
"Split genes are also important in generating the numerous "impromptu"
variations of antibodies produced by the human immune system in
response to novel infectious agents. And splicing variations have been
found to result in some cancers as well. Alternative splicing in
humans is not rare--almost a third of human genes are subject to it."
This next link is written with an evolutionary perspective, but the
data is subject to interpretation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/expl_05_introns.html
The following quote contributes to my prediction on introns.
"Less complex organisms such as yeast tend not to have introns. The
function of introns, if any, is unknown, although geneticists now
wonder whether the splicing together of exons required by the presence
of introns allows the human genome to generate more complexity than
its mere 30,000 genes would suggest."
Okay, that's it for now. I'm heading out the door for an evening in
the real world. Rigor will have to wait...or be shaped by the more
scientific minds on this forum.
And, hey, my prediction might be right, it might be wrong, but let it
never again be said that the only thing that creationists can say in
the science field is: "Goddidit" (even if He DID do it.) :-) It is
left up to us to figure out HOW He did it. That is true science.
----
zoe
Simply I
On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999% of the
Atheists/Evolutionists posting are die hard fundies.
I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing because it
shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot with a
background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for Scholastic
achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a paradox because of
their simple minds and blindness.
The truth is the most intelligent people in this field of evoluion are
creationists.
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ef4e0ec....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
Boikat
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:T58Ja.69$S32.1...@news.uswest.net...
> Zoe,
> On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999% of the
> Atheists/Evolutionists posting are die hard fundies.
> I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing because it
> shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
> The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot with
a
> background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for
Scholastic
> achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a paradox because of
> their simple minds and blindness.
> The truth is the most intelligent people in this field of evoluion are
> creationists.
If you consider "theistic evolutionist" as "creationists. However, they,
unlike you, are smart enough to keep their religious beliefs separate from
their science. You are just an ignorant poarrot.
Boikat
Bobby D. Bryant
> The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot
> with a background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for
> Scholastic achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a
> paradox because of their simple minds and blindness.
Tell us more about your background in computer science.
And why should a pilot have a scientific world view?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Simply I
"Boikat" <Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Y48Ja.4475$mS2....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
Simply I
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
>
Pilot is simply a carrer and not what I am as an individual.
Simple enough huh?
Tell me And why should a man named Bob Bryant from Texas have a scientific
world view?
Boikat
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
1) Learn to post properly.
2) Why would anyone worship a lying troll with delusions of grandure?
3) Don't you have a toilet to scrub?
Boikat
> >
>
Harlequin
news:3ef4e0ec....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
[snip]
> Meanwhile, for those who insist that creationists can only say,
> "Goddidit," here's a scientific prediction in regards to the existence
> of a genetic program in species that sets boundaries and limits to
> their ability to speciate.
>
> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
> genetic code.
Zoe, did everyone utterly waste their time trying to tell you
what the genetic code is? Or are you simply going to ignore
what the phrase "genetic code" means? Introns have nothing
to do with the genetic code. Indeed introns are cut out
BEFORE translation.
> Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
> logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
You need to clarify what you are saying.
> Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
> mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect,
Regulatory function of introns or anything else is not evidence
for for a "mind."
> not stupidity.
Stupidity refers to an intellect. Consider using a different
phrase.
Are you saying an intron will change the codon AAC to something
besides asparagine (for example)?
> I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
> the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
> amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
> the organism.
If that is your prediction, you have ALREADY been proven wrong.
If one knows the sequence of the exon then you know the
sequence of the amino acids.
> No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
> series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
> influences,
This is an assertion. You need to actually give us a reason for it.
> nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
> sequence for specific needs. The genetic code is like the alphabet,
> (64 "letters" instead of 26)
Four letters, NOT 26. The number 64 refers to the number of codons which
is somewhat analogous to the word if one uses a language analogy.
> that can vary its codons in their
> sequences
False. Zoe before engaging in endless speculation it might help to
learn the material.
> so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
> the changing influences of its environment.
>
> This is not just speculation. What is the evidence for the influence
> of introns on exons?
>
> http://www.psp.org/research_center/brainstorming.asp
[snip]
I just read it. Your legendary lack of reading comprehension
is at work again. It did not help that they also used the
term "genetic code" incorrectly. But then again this is
not a scientific publication. The improper use of "genetic
code" is simply rampant in many sources.
Zoe, no one here is surprised that introns are involved with
regulation. And I most of the people debating you are fully aware
of exon shuffling. Indeed it is an important mechanism for biochemical
evolution.
But in the end there was ZERO varying of codons in that article.
What was being discussed was mRNA processing. Recall that
unprocessed mRNA is transcribed from DNA. After that, it is
processed. That includes such thing as removal of introns.
We now that the way introns get removed is always the same
and the introns are often involved. After the mRNA is processed
_then_ it can be translated into a protein at the ribosomes. That
is were the genetic code takes place.
> Granted, there is appeal made to the evolutionary worldview in this
> article, but an appeal can also be reasonably made to the creationist
> worldview -- that the instructions for alternative splicing in introns
> didn't just happen to accumulate willy-nilly, but were purposely
> installed to give direction to the exons.
All this alternative splicing is simply chemistry. You have not
given us any reason to suppose otherwise.
> It is also predicted that there will be found a correlation between
> number and/or length of introns to codons and the increasing
> complexity of life forms. The more complex the organism, the more
> instructions are programmed into it.
And you would still be wrong while there are some general trends
there is no absolute rules here.
But just one dumb question Zoe. Do you really need to be a creationist
to understand that a more complex organism is likely to have more
"instructions"?
> (I am dealing now only with the
> physical aspects of life forms, not the mental -- a whole 'nother
> field of study.)
Why is it another field of study?
> This prediction is already supported by the evidence that introns are
> longer and/or more frequent in genes of organisms of higher complexity
> than in simpler life forms such as yeast or bacteria. Such a pattern
> implies purposeful planning or intent. Random activity will not
> produce this kind of ranking, where prokaryotic genes tend to be small
> and lack introns, and eukaryotic genes tend to be large and contain
> introns.
>
> It should be noted that increase in gene size is a result of increased
> intron length, not increased length of protein-coding exons. The
> average gene length of S.cerevisiae is 1.6, the average gene length of
> fungi is 1.5, AGL of C.elegans is 4.0, AGL of a chicken is 13.9, and
> the AGL of mammals is 16.6. The exons range, from 1, 3, 4, 9 and 7
> exons respectively.
>
> The link for the above information no longer works, so I can't give
> it,
Give it anyways. That is what the Way Back Machine at www.archive.org
> and that means researching the same data elsewhere -- tomorrow's
> another day.
>
> Also, humans have the greatest number of introns, says "Nature, Volume
> 409, 15 February 2001."
That is not a reference.
And Zoe, I will make something very clear to you. If you say
that xxx says yyy, then it is an outright claim that you
have personally checked xxx. If you copy a reference from elsewhere
you must ALWAYS give the real source of the information.
Note added later. I used a google search and found that Zoe's misreading
was corrected in 2001 in message 9rrq91$iib$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu
by Howard Hershey. Zoe do you ever learn anything?
[long snip; other references, etc.]
>
> And, hey, my prediction might be right, it might be wrong, but let it
> never again be said that the only thing that creationists can say in
> the science field is: "Goddidit" (even if He DID do it.) :-) It is
> left up to us to figure out HOW He did it. That is true science.
The funny thing is that in this entire post I don't see any
prediction from creationism. I only see you misunderstanding
of genetics and a desperate hope that it is all wrong.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Simply I
>What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?
What, chimpanzee school did you attend FREAK!!! Quick, someone put boikat in
isolation before anyone gets contaminated!!!
Boikat
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
Well, you do seem to be stuck on yourself.
> What, chimpanzee school did you attend FREAK!!! Quick, someone put boikat
in
> isolation before anyone gets contaminated!!!
How's the toilet cleaning going?
Boikat
>
>
Oghier Ghislain
> Zoe,
> On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999% of the
> Atheists/Evolutionists posting are die hard fundies.
> I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing because it
> shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
> The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot with a
> background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for Scholastic
> achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a paradox because of
> their simple minds and blindness.
Wow!
With all the background in biology necessary to fly an aircraft,
that's amazing!
Seriously ... why should the fact that you're a pilot make you more
knowledgeable vis-a-vis a biological discipline than, say, a submarine
commander or an architect?
Hint - It doesn't.
I'm a UNIX/HP9000 consultant, but you don't hear me gloating as if
that matters one damn bit when discussing the field of biology.
Sheeesh ...
You might as well tell the Shakespeare Society that you're a pilot and
expect them to be awed, then beg you to give your opinion of Romeo And
Juliet.
OG
Susan S
<I...@Here.com>:
>Zoe,
>On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999% of the
>Atheists/Evolutionists posting are die hard fundies.
>I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing because it
>shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
>The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot with a
>background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for Scholastic
>achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a paradox because of
>their simple minds and blindness.
>The truth is the most intelligent people in this field of evoluion are
>creationists.
Well, actually, no. You are, maybe, a commercial pilot whose
background is in computer science and was on the Kellogg list for
scholastic treatment who, when it comes to science, is ignorant
and pigheaded. No paradox at all. Intelligence simply gives one
the tools to learn the truth; it doesn't force it upon a person.
Susan Silberstein
(BigDiscusser)
axons"--- Jesus did this as it says in Colossians Chap. 1 v 16 & 17.
True science should keep on trying to find out how Goddidit. God
bless, Jo Jean
I am an 81 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
John Chap 1 v 3
Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY
Pithecanthropus erectus
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
>
> "Boikat" <Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ClbJa.4934$mS2....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
> > news:zY8Ja.82$S32.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > >
> > > "Boikat" <Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Y48Ja.4475$mS2....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:T58Ja.69$S32.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > > > Zoe,
> > > > > On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999%
of
> > the
> > > > > Atheists/Evolutionists posting are die hard fundies.
> > > > > I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing
> > because
> > > it
> > > > > shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
<qt>
What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?
What, chimpanzee school did you attend FREAK!!! Quick, someone put boikat in
isolation before anyone gets contaminated!!!
<quit>
Quick quiz to see if you are paying attention -
Who posted this?
<qt>
And I realized that Anastasia is in all probability nothing more than an
uneducated post-op transsexual with an inability to debate seriously.
She killfiles anyone that is a threat to her foundational beliefs....no
great loss on my end.
<quit>
or this?
<qt>
Did you know that your teeth are brighter than you are?
<quit>
The question remains whether or not you have even posted a single original
proposition that is not an insult, or whether you have ever posted any
defense of the quotes you cut and paste and slap into talk.origins.
One can almost hear you singing "Why do the heathens rage?" with your
fingers jammed in your ears
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/03
White Raven
> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
> genetic code. Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
> logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
> Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
> mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect, not
> stupidity.
What does "logic" (or "programmed logic") mean in this sense? The
existence of a situation that is conducive to an outcome is not what
we normally think of as logic.
What you are seeing is a state or situation that tends to bring about
other states and effects. There is no logical way to conclude that
this indicates the involvement of intellect. You say "logic" but
really this is the same age-old argument that order implies intent and
purpose and intellect. That dog won't hunt. Order (or so called
"logic" but really logic is a thought process, not something you can
observe in a physical situation. That is, you may perhaps conclude
that logic was involved in the intelligent design of something, but
that thing in and of itself does not have "logic" as a trait)… uh,
anyway, order does not require intellect. Just because you think
something looks designed doesn't mean it is. The only way to know
something is designed (or created by intent) is to observe the process
or observe sufficiently similar processes. We know cars are designed…
we can observe the process. Cars are not by any stretch of the
imagination similar enough to genes to allow us to apply that
knowledge to concluding that genes are designed.
In short, concluding that the interesting and useful features of genes
must have been designed, basically because they ARE useful and
interesting, is not rational. There is no actual evidence of design.
By the way, stupidity was a poor word choice. Stupidity denotes the
(low) quality of an intellect... it is not the absence of intellect. A
rock is not stupid, it is incapable of thought. Dumb could *possibly*
be construed as including things which can not think but it would be a
stretch.
Your misuse of the term logic and contrasting intellect with stupidity
really doesn't help your credibility.
White Raven
Who am I to blow against the wind?
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
> "Healthy brains have tau in an equal mixture of three-repeat and
> four-repeat, but in PSP, it's nearly all four-repeat."
If I short-circuit a bus in a common CPU, it will no longer function
properly. Hence the logic of the CPU is made up of polluted silicon? No?
Why not?
CPU's with production faults (which is a fair share of the production) do
not function properly. Faults can be traced back (in many instances) to
surface imperfections on the wafer (a grain of dust, a tiny scratch,
whatever).
Hence the logic of the CPU is made up of a perfectly smooth and clean
surface of the wafer? if not, why not?
<snip garbage>
> "In yeast, most genes don't have introns. In humans, individual genes
> Can have >100 introns"
Which indicates to my inexpert mind that (on a molecular level) H. Sapiens
is a lot more complicated than yeast.
Now tell me something I did *not* know.
<snip more garbage>
I have not read anything I would consider a valid argument for 'the brain
being programmed', least of all by some intelligence. You have utterly
failed to indicate a connection between the functioning (at a logical
level) of the brain and any 'introns' apart from what I would call
'hardware faults' resulting in a loss of functionality (as you would
expect).
--
Woart oe vuur leu dee moar een beukske kent.
Kleuskes & Moos
> Bravo Zoe: "Introns were purposely installed to give direction to the
> axons"--- Jesus did this as it says in Colossians Chap. 1 v 16 & 17.
Aaahhhh.... (you have a machine that goes 'ping!')
Please explain how Plato ould think and write up all those nice dialogs if
Jesus introduced the 'introns' we need for our 'logic'.
> True science should keep on trying to find out how Goddidit.
Please provide some evidence of the existence of your 'god'.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>Well, it is obvious that my discussion with John Harshman has ended,
Only if you are running away.
>seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern.
What the hell does that mean? How can he do such a thing on Usenet?
And how do you interpret his several messages that you have not
answered as "ducking behind Bjoern"?
For the record, what's happened is that you have stopped responding to
John Harshman. I see at least five recent messages from him in the "
John Harshman's question -- again" thread to which you have not
responded:
<http://tinyurl.com/ey8z> (or
<http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3EF2E821...@pacbell.net&lr=&hl=en>)
<http://tinyurl.com/ey92> (or
<http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3EF062EE...@pacbell.net&lr=&hl=en>)
<http://tinyurl.com/ey95> (or
<http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3EEE38E7...@pacbell.net&lr=&hl=en>)
<http://tinyurl.com/ey98> (or
<http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3EEE407C...@pacbell.net&lr=&hl=en>)
<http://tinyurl.com/ey9b> (or
<http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3EEE42E1...@pacbell.net&lr=&hl=en>)
<snip>
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Lenny Flank
> Zoe,
> On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999% of the
> Atheists/Evolutionists
I'm not an atheist.
posting are die hard fundies.
> I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing because it
> shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
> The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot with a
> background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for Scholastic
> achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a paradox because of
> their simple minds and blindness.
> The truth is the most intelligent people in this field of evoluion are
> creationists.
I'm not sure why an airline pilot/computer programmer's opinion on
evolutionary biology would be any more valuable than that of a
weatherman or a hairdresser or a pizza delivery guy, but anyway,
congratulations on your intellectual brilliance. Since you're such a
well-educated genius, perhaps you can answer a simple question I've
been asking creationists for years now, without any intelligible
answer:
*ahem*
All I want to know is this: what is the scientific theory of creation
(or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific
method?
I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly
inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely
irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I
want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing----the
one you want taught in public school science classes, the one that
creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath
in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT
based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of this
discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely
totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine.
Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific
theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's
see this superior "science" of yours.
Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide
answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the
current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in
these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.
Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to
give testible answers to other questions: (1) what is the Intelligent
Designer, where is it, why is it THIS proposed Designer instead of
THAT one, and what establishes that there is just ONE Intelligent
Designer and not, say, ten or a hundred of them working in committee,
(2) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (3) what
mechanisms did the Designer(s) use and where can we see these
mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use
to determine what entities are "intelligently designed" and what
entities aren't.
If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these
questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to
scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform,
in principle, to answer these questions.
Also, since any scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable,
tell me what experimental results or data would, in principle, falsify
the scientific theory of creation or intelligent design.
I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories".
Unless, of course, there AREN'T any . . . . .
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
Boikat
"(BigDiscusser)" <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29598-3EF...@storefull-2312.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Bravo Zoe: "Introns were purposely installed to give direction to the
> axons"--- Jesus did this as it says in Colossians Chap. 1 v 16 & 17.
Dear church lady:
Tose verses do not specifically say that. Those verses, especially v 16,
are all encompasing, and therfore, are pretty much meaningless when it comes
to specific claims. Not to mention the circular reasoning involved.
> True science should keep on trying to find out how Goddidit. God
> bless, Jo Jean
And at the same time, true science does not cite God unless direct, testable
evidence for the existance of God is found. Oddly enough, this has not
happened yet.
Boikat
Oghier Ghislain
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.06.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:00:48 +0000, Simply I wrote:
> >
> > > The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot
> > > with a background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for
> > > Scholastic achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a
> > > paradox because of their simple minds and blindness.
> >
> > Tell us more about your background in computer science.
> >
> > And why should a pilot have a scientific world view?
> >
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Austin, Texas
>
> >
> Pilot is simply a carrer and not what I am as an individual.
One then wonders why you feel compelled to hold it up as
authoritative.
> Simple enough huh?
> Tell me And why should a man named Bob Bryant from Texas have a scientific
> world view?
Why not? The difference is that the person in question doesn't say,
"Just watch those creationists when I tell them 'I'm a guy from Texas
named Bobby!". You, however, are regalling us with this supposed awe
you're accorded when you reveal to the ignorant masses that you're
capable of piloting an aircraft.
Bobby Bryant intelligently articulates his position, which really
isn't all that hard when one's position is hard scientific fact.
You? You gloat, "I'm a pilot!".
You do the math, genius.
OG
danarchist
> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
> genetic code. Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
> logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
> Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
> mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect, not
> stupidity.
>
> I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
> the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
> amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
> the organism.
Hmm... I though the genetic code was determined by the specificity of
aminoacyl tRNA synthetases for their substrates ... isn't that so?
That is, there are moleules which "recognize" a particular tRNA and a
particular amino acid and bind them together, so that when the
ribosome is doing translation, the right charged tRNAs are available.
> No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
> series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
> influences, nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
> sequence for specific needs. The genetic code is like the alphabet,
> (64 "letters" instead of 26) that can vary its codons in their
> sequences so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
> the changing influences of its environment.
What?
Dan Ensign
<snip>
Charlie Wagner
I think you're right on the money. I've held this opinion for a long
time, and while I don't share your religious beliefs, I'm fully
convinced that there is a higher intelligence responsible for the
genetic code. I don't know what the nature of that intelligence is, but
it's clear to me that the genetic code is an algorithm, a set of
instructions, that could not have assembled itself by any random or
accidental process.
I found your ideas interesting and your refernces informative. I
think that your ideas about the importance of the non-coding DNA,
especially introns and their functions will be confirmed and will prove
to be startling and unexpected. Each day I see new evidence to support
the idea that the genome is dynamic, interactive and responsive and that
these functions are built into it's structure in a very basic way.
"Junk DNA?"...Hah!!
--
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip zoe's blather>
> I think you're right on the money. I've held this opinion for a long
> time, and while I don't share your religious beliefs, I'm fully
> convinced that there is a higher intelligence responsible for the
> genetic code.
Which you've been unable to show, sofar. A coded version of 'Published under
the GOD Public License' would suffice (in hebrew, if need be). And by all
reasonable definition, the genome of any organism is open source. At least
you'd expect some kind of public license...
Something like
"All these worlds are yours, except Europa, attempt no landings there..."
or
"We apologize for the inconvenience"
or something like that.
If you *predict* the code, that is, on some rational ground. Brute force
decoding would (i think) be able to find a proper codesystem to retrieve
any message out of any series of random bits.
There should be a theorem (regarding 'decoding' as a function with a limited
range over a limited domain) on that, but i'm not sure which. If memory
serves, of course. Cryptography is not my strong suit.
> I don't know what the nature of that intelligence is, but
> it's clear to me that the genetic code is an algorithm, a set of
> instructions, that could not have assembled itself by any random or
> accidental process.
Interesting. I deal with algorithms on a professional basis. I use
heuristics, too (if all else fails).
Now, explain a simple programmer, who knows the difference between
algorithms and heuristics, what (or indeed where) the algorithm is.
You *do* know what an 'algorithm' is, don't you? And you *are* familiar with
the work of John Koza?
> I found your ideas interesting and your refernces informative.
Well that makes one of us,
> I
> think that your ideas about the importance of the non-coding DNA,
> especially introns and their functions will be confirmed and will prove
> to be startling and unexpected.
I do not doubt many 'startling and unexpected' things will turn up. I very
much doubt wether they will show that 'introns' have anything to do with
'intelligence'.
> Each day I see new evidence to support
> the idea that the genome is dynamic, interactive and responsive and that
> these functions are built into it's structure in a very basic way.
Would you care to highten my intellectual level (being just the humblest of
programmers) by citing some work done in that area? I hope you are not
offended very much if I were to say your sayso does not suffice to quench
my doubts.
Your sayso does not suffice to quench my doubts.
Rodjk
> seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern. And since I have no
> intention of getting into a discussion with Bjoern until he learns to
> communicate on a level higher than "liar" and "you're lying," I guess
> I'll just move on. (Of course, Bjoern, you can choose to apologize
> and maybe we could then have some fruitful discussions.)
Hmmm. Maybe if you paid better attention, you would see his responses.
Maybe if you stopped lying so much people would stop calling you a
liar.
Personally, I think you are just so fucking stupid that you don't even
realise how stupid you are. But I'm nice that way.
Rodjk #613
Charles Wagner
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> Charlie Wagner wrote:
>
> <snip zoe's blather>
Speaking on Zoe's behalf, I don't think you should be referring to her
ideas as "blather". You're entitled to your informed opinion, but you're
not entitled to be disrespectful to another person's views in such a
manner. I don't hear you responding substantively to anything she said.
>
>> I think you're right on the money. I've held this opinion for a long
>>time, and while I don't share your religious beliefs, I'm fully
>>convinced that there is a higher intelligence responsible for the
>>genetic code.
>
>
> Which you've been unable to show, sofar. A coded version of
'Published under
> the GOD Public License' would suffice (in hebrew, if need be). And by all
> reasonable definition, the genome of any organism is open source. At
least
> you'd expect some kind of public license...
I don't need to know who is responsible for my operating system to come
to the conclusion that it had an author. It is self evident that
functional computer code does not generate itself from the random
assembly of bits floating around in cyberspace.
>
> Something like
>
> "All these worlds are yours, except Europa, attempt no landings there..."
>
> or
>
> "We apologize for the inconvenience"
>
> or something like that.
>
> If you *predict* the code, that is, on some rational ground. Brute force
> decoding would (i think) be able to find a proper codesystem to retrieve
> any message out of any series of random bits.
>
> There should be a theorem (regarding 'decoding' as a function with a
limited
> range over a limited domain) on that, but i'm not sure which. If memory
> serves, of course. Cryptography is not my strong suit.
Now that just sounds like a bunch of "blather" to me. Any moron can look
at the genome and see that it contains instructions directing the
synthesis and assembly of proteins into processes, structures and
organisms. This is, by any informed definition, an algorithm.
>
>
>>I don't know what the nature of that intelligence is, but
>>it's clear to me that the genetic code is an algorithm, a set of
>>instructions, that could not have assembled itself by any random or
>>accidental process.
>
>
> Interesting. I deal with algorithms on a professional basis. I use
> heuristics, too (if all else fails).
>
> Now, explain a simple programmer, who knows the difference between
> algorithms and heuristics, what (or indeed where) the algorithm is.
As you well know, an algorithm is a step-by-step problem-solving
procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure
for solving a problem in a finite number of steps. The problem is to
guide the assembly and growth of a living organisms. The information in
the genome constitutes the step-by-step procedure by which this is
accomplished. The fact that the organisms gets assembled properly from
raw materials into a functional entity is proof that an algorithm
exists. Absent these step-by-step procedures, no function would emerge.
The genome also probably uses *both* algorithmic and heuristic
processes. While most of the step-by-step instructions are specified,
the genome may employ problem-solving techniques in which alternate
solutions are selected at various points depending on current
conditions, feedback, etc. This is a more complex and higher order
functioning than would be found in either algorithmic or heuristic
applications alone, leading to the conclusion that the higher-order the
function is, the more likely it is the result of intelligent design.
>
> You *do* know what an 'algorithm' is, don't you? And you *are*
familiar with
> the work of John Koza?
Yeah, he's a GA guy at Stamford. So what? His work supports the notion
that computer algorithms are the result of intelligent guidance. None of
the GP's that he creates could have existed without the intelligent
guidance of the user and the careful step-by-step preparation that
preceeds the program. He's laboring under the illusion that he's getting
the computer to do something without telling it what to do, but the fact
is that the human user must deliver a high-level problem statement,
specify the independent variables, random constants and zero-argument
functions, specify the set of primitive functions for each branch of the
emerging program, determine the fitness measure and set the parameters
for the run and specify the termination criteria and the method for
designating the end of the run. Does he really believe that he's not
"telling the computer what to do?" Does he think that these GP's would
ever emerge without the intelligent guidance of the programmer? He may
think he's using "principles of Darwinian selection", but only as they
exist in the minds of evolutionists. Nothing that he's doing has
anything at all to do with what's actually happening in nature.
>
>
>> I found your ideas interesting and your refernces informative.
>
>
> Well that makes one of us,
You should try to curb your need to make these kinds of comments,
they're profoundly unuseful.
>
>
>>I
>>think that your ideas about the importance of the non-coding DNA,
>>especially introns and their functions will be confirmed and will prove
>>to be startling and unexpected.
>
>
> I do not doubt many 'startling and unexpected' things will turn up. I
very
> much doubt wether they will show that 'introns' have anything to do with
> 'intelligence'.
What is the basis for that claim? Do you have some information that the
rest of us don't have? You might as well claim that the instructions for
baking chocolate chip cookies have nothing to do with intelligence. What
exactly do you think intelligence is?
>
>
>>Each day I see new evidence to support
>>the idea that the genome is dynamic, interactive and responsive and that
>>these functions are built into it's structure in a very basic way.
>
>
> Would you care to highten my intellectual level (being just the
humblest of
> programmers) by citing some work done in that area? I hope you are not
> offended very much if I were to say your sayso does not suffice to quench
> my doubts.
I recently posted dozens of references to recent work on introns and
"junk DNA". If you do a search in Google, you just might find them. Or,
you could go to the literature and do a search on "introns" or "gene
regulation".
Victor Eijkhout
> > > > "Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:T58Ja.69$S32.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > > > I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing
>What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?
> What, chimpanzee school did you attend FREAK!!!
You were saying?
V.
--
mail me at lastname at cs utk edu
Kleuskes & Moos
>
>
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> > Charlie Wagner wrote:
> >
> > <snip zoe's blather>
>
> Speaking on Zoe's behalf, I don't think you should be referring to her
> ideas as "blather". You're entitled to your informed opinion, but you're
> not entitled to be disrespectful to another person's views in such a
> manner. I don't hear you responding substantively to anything she said.
I can't be bothered. I'll stick to the 'blather', thankyouverymuch.
>
> >
> >> I think you're right on the money. I've held this opinion for a
> >> long
> >>time, and while I don't share your religious beliefs, I'm fully
> >>convinced that there is a higher intelligence responsible for the
> >>genetic code.
> >
> >
> > Which you've been unable to show, sofar. A coded version of
> 'Published under
> > the GOD Public License' would suffice (in hebrew, if need be). And by
> > all reasonable definition, the genome of any organism is open source.
> > At
> least
> > you'd expect some kind of public license...
>
> I don't need to know who is responsible for my operating system to come
> to the conclusion that it had an author.
You would be wrong. It usually has *many* authors.
> It is self evident that
> functional computer code does not generate itself from the random
> assembly of bits floating around in cyberspace.
That is where you are mistaken. Do you *really* want me to go into genetic
algorithms again?
>
> >
> > Something like
> >
> > "All these worlds are yours, except Europa, attempt no landings
> > there..."
> >
> > or
> >
> > "We apologize for the inconvenience"
> >
> > or something like that.
> >
> > If you *predict* the code, that is, on some rational ground. Brute
> > force decoding would (i think) be able to find a proper codesystem to
> > retrieve any message out of any series of random bits.
> >
> > There should be a theorem (regarding 'decoding' as a function with a
> limited
> > range over a limited domain) on that, but i'm not sure which. If memory
> > serves, of course. Cryptography is not my strong suit.
>
> Now that just sounds like a bunch of "blather" to me.
> Any moron can look at the genome and see that it contains instructions
> directing the synthesis and assembly of proteins into processes,
> structures and organisms.
Ah... DNA does *not* code for any 'processes' It codes for proteins. No
more, no less.
So where did you get the 'processes' from? What exactly 'codes for
structures' and what is responsable for 'coding organisms' in that sequence
of A, T, C and G.
And if a moron can see it, why do those with informed opinions (like my
beloved brother, who'se a microbiologist) tell me DNA codes for proteins.
Not processes, not structures, not organisms... Proteins.
> This is, by any informed definition, an algorithm.
Not by my definition.
1) Algorithm's are finite and fixed.
2) Algorithms deliver an answer to a specific mathematical problem in a
specific way.
3) Algorithms can be specified formally and analyzed mathematically. See
'The art of computer programming' by Donald Knuth for some examples.
4) Algorithms are deterministic. Given the same inputs, the same output will
result in exactly the same number of steps.
In his definition (and who am I to argue with Knuth on the subject of
algorithm's) they need to satify these conditions:
a) they must be finite. The algorithm should terminate after a finite number
of steps.
b) they must be definite. Each step in the algorithm should be precisely
defined.
c) they must have input. There must be some way of expressing the values to
operate on.
d) they must have output. There must be some way of expressing the outcome
of the algorithm.
e) they must be effective. The algorithm should minimize the number of steps
needed to arrive at the answer and the answer, of course, needs to be
correct.
(paraphrasing D. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, part I 'Fundamental
algorithm's).
I suspect you do *not* know what an algorithm is? Hint: a series of bytes is
*not* an algorithm, eventhough it may implement some.
> >>I don't know what the nature of that intelligence is, but
> >>it's clear to me that the genetic code is an algorithm, a set of
> >>instructions, that could not have assembled itself by any random or
> >>accidental process.
> >
> >
> > Interesting. I deal with algorithms on a professional basis. I use
> > heuristics, too (if all else fails).
> >
> > Now, explain a simple programmer, who knows the difference between
> > algorithms and heuristics, what (or indeed where) the algorithm is.
>
> As you well know, an algorithm is a step-by-step problem-solving
> procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure
> for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
Yess.. That's webster speaking there. Nice to know you looked it up. Webster
is *not* de definite source of mathematical wisdom, though,
<quote webster on algorithms>
Main Entry: al*go*rithm
Pronunciation: 'al-g&-"ri-[th]&m
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of Middle English algorisme, from Old French &
Medieval Latin; Old French, from Medieval Latin algorismus, from Arabic
al-khuwArizmi, from al-KhwArizmI fl A.D. 825 Arabian mathematician
Date: circa 1894
: a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the
greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently
involves repetition of an operation; broadly : a step-by-step procedure for
solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer
- al*go*rith*mic /"al-g&-'ri[th]-mik/ adjective
- al*go*rith*mi*cal*ly /-mi-k(&-)lE/ adverb
</quote>
> The problem is to guide the assembly and growth of a living organisms.
Ok. Now define that in mathematical terms, please. What are your
preconditions (all algorithm's have preconditions), what are your
postconditions (which all algorithm's have, too), what are the side-effects
and how are 'steps needed to solve a mathematical problem' defined in DNA.
To my knowledge, the functionality of genes is *not* finite. As evidence I
cite our continued presence on this globe. The DNA algorithm does not
terminate, it seems, nor does it deliver 'an answer'.
You *are* slinging the jargon, so I suppose you know what that jargon
*means*.
> The information in the genome constitutes the step-by-step procedure by
> which this is accomplished.
Ah... Now treat me like a simpleminded Lisp-junkie, a Prolog-addict earning
a living as a C-prostitute (havent stooped to COBOL yet).
How does the genome (coding for nothing but proteins) constitute this 'step
by-step' procedure? Where, using *what* bits of DNA is 'the procedure'
coded?
If I code C (or rather Pascal in a fit of sentimentality) I basically say to
my computer what to do when and how. Like in
void blather(const char* bla)
{
printf("Bla, ");
for(i=0; i<MAX_BLATHER; i++)
printf("bla, ");
printf("bla.");
}
Now *that's* an algorithm. It solves a mathematical problem by describing a
number of things to do. How is DNA a 'mathematical recepe for solving a
problem'? Where exactly does DNA state 'do this' or 'do that'?
Now again, where does DNA tell *anything* what to do?
Mind you, VHDL isn't an algorithmic language, nor is Prolog. Algol is, C is
(usually). Pascal is. Lisp only up to a point. But *not* Prolog or VHDL.
Strange, ain't it?
Do you know why?
> The fact that the organisms gets assembled properly from
> raw materials into a functional entity is proof that an algorithm
> exists.
Nope. It shows no sign of being a procedure or in any way procedural. At the
very best, i'd consider it something akin to markup language (with
reservations). And markup languages are not algorithmic either.
> Absent these step-by-step procedures, no function would emerge.
Why should they be step-by-step? What 'procedures'? Do you know what a
procedure is?
As far as i'm aware, the cellular metabolism work in parallel and in a
rather analog fashion.
Woud you please identify the 'if-then-else' construct? 'do-while'?
'repeat-until'? You know... The basic stuff we define algorithms with.
> The genome also probably uses *both* algorithmic and heuristic
> processes.
Ah... Yes... Heuristics...
Did you know that something is *either* algorithmic *or* heuristic?
For the sake of the lurkers, Algorithms are specified ways of arriving at an
anwer. Algorithms are *guaranteed* to work.
Heuristics represents knowledge from past expirience. Things that *usually*
work. In most cases, generally. But they are *not* guaranteed. Hence my
view is intelligence as a bunch of heuristics.
> While most of the step-by-step instructions are specified,
Once again, I ask my question: what 'instructions' does the genome
specify?
> the genome may employ problem-solving techniques in which alternate
> solutions are selected at various points depending on current
> conditions, feedback, etc.
Aye. Etc means you cannot have it both ways, pal. All those 'problem solving
techniques' and 'feedback, etc.' fly in the face of both Knuth's
definition, websters and mine.
Allowing for 'problem-solving techniques' rather destroys the essence of 'a
finite series of definite steps', doesn't it?
> This is a more complex and higher order
> functioning than would be found in either algorithmic or heuristic
> applications alone,
Have you *any* idea what you mean by 'algorithmic or heuristic
applications'? If so, please explain.
> leading to the conclusion that the higher-order the
> function is, the more likely it is the result of intelligent design.
Sure. I would classify that as a non-sequitur of gigantic proportions.
> > You *do* know what an 'algorithm' is, don't you? And you *are*
> familiar with
> > the work of John Koza?
>
> Yeah, he's a GA guy at Stamford.
He's not 'a GA guy'. More like 'the GA guy'.
> So what? His work supports the notion that computer algorithms are the
> result of intelligent guidance.
Nope. Attacking is *not* the best form of defence. If it did, It owuld
rather defeat the nature of his work which explicitly involves evolving
programs (implementations of algorithm's) by pure chance and a bit of
selections.
Before we go of into fitness functions consult
http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/ for programs that evolve without the need
for any fitness function.
> None of
> the GP's that he creates could have existed without the intelligent
> guidance of the user and the careful step-by-step preparation that
> preceeds the program.
preparation is something different than 'execution of a finite series of
prescribed steps'. Of course you need to prepare the environment, computer
hardware demands that.
The programs evolve by random chance and pure selection.
> He's laboring under the illusion that he's getting
> the computer to do something without telling it what to do, but the fact
> is that the human user must deliver a high-level problem statement,
> specify the independent variables, random constants and zero-argument
> functions, specify the set of primitive functions for each branch of the
> emerging program, determine the fitness measure and set the parameters
> for the run and specify the termination criteria and the method for
> designating the end of the run.
Yes. If you want an answer, it is usually reccomendable to specify the
problem. However, in the case of Avida, we have programs evolving without
any of those preparations.
The steps you describe are neccesary since GA's are generally employed to
solve *specific* problems. And many firms are making good money out of
that.
> Does he really believe that he's not "telling the computer what to do?"
Notonly does he believe that, he can proof it mathematically.
See "Genetetic Programming II, Automatic discover of reusable programs", Mit
Press, Camebridge Massachussets for details. Peer-reviewed, published in
reputable journals, and put to work by numerous engineers.
Now I now engineers. If something don't work as advertised, they'll chuck it
aside. Tell me... I *am* an engineer.
> Does he think that these GP's would ever emerge without the intelligent
> guidance of the programmer?
Not the GA's, their results. A lot of work goes into designing the optimal
GA. A lot less in specifying the problem to solve and the GA does all the
'solving' (searching of solution-space).
> He may
> think he's using "principles of Darwinian selection", but only as they
> exist in the minds of evolutionists.
Yeah... And guess what? It *works*. The Santaclaus effect delivers. Do you
have an alternative?
> Nothing that he's doing has anything at all to do with what's actually
> happening in nature.
Same principle applies.
> >> I found your ideas interesting and your refernces informative.
> >
> >
> > Well that makes one of us,
>
> You should try to curb your need to make these kinds of comments,
> they're profoundly unuseful.
What You think I should or should not do is of little relevance to me. I
think you are just blathering without having a clue what it is you are
discussing.
> >>I
> >>think that your ideas about the importance of the non-coding DNA,
> >>especially introns and their functions will be confirmed and will prove
> >>to be startling and unexpected.
> >
> >
> > I do not doubt many 'startling and unexpected' things will turn up. I
> very
> > much doubt wether they will show that 'introns' have anything to do
> > with 'intelligence'.
>
> What is the basis for that claim?
Introspection. I feel that doubt very clearly. Who are you to dispute wether
or not I have doubts?
> Do you have some information that the rest of us don't have?
Yes. Plenty. I've got my telephone number, for instance. You don't. I know
where I live, you don't.
> You might as well claim that the instructions for
> baking chocolate chip cookies have nothing to do with intelligence.
Well... Do they?
> What exactly do you think intelligence is?
Dunno. I'm just a humble programmer, remember.
> >>Each day I see new evidence to support
> >>the idea that the genome is dynamic, interactive and responsive and
> >>that these functions are built into it's structure in a very basic way.
> >
> >
> > Would you care to highten my intellectual level (being just the
> humblest of
> > programmers) by citing some work done in that area? I hope you are not
> > offended very much if I were to say your sayso does not suffice to
> > quench my doubts.
>
>
> I recently posted dozens of references to recent work on introns and
> "junk DNA". If you do a search in Google, you just might find them. Or,
> you could go to the literature and do a search on "introns" or "gene
> regulation".
I have. I even wrote a something to much the same effect. What I am not
agreeing to is the fact that the genome is (in whatever form) algorithmic.
And yes. I know about 'gene regulation'. Now you point out an exampe of an
algorithm.
You made the claim, remember?
Frank J
Now what do you think of her challenges to the isochron method? Or her
old-earth-young-man model?
Charlie Wagner
Frank J wrote:
> Charlie Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message news:<3EF5F376...@charliewagner.com>...
>
<SNIP>
>
>
> Now what do you think of her challenges to the isochron method? Or her
> old-earth-young-man model?
I'm embarrassed to say that I usually don't read Zoe's posts. I don't
know what she has to say on those matters. Perhaps I should pay more
attention to her.
Kleuskes & Moos
>
>
> Frank J wrote:
>> Charlie Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3EF5F376...@charliewagner.com>...
>>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Now what do you think of her challenges to the isochron method? Or her
>> old-earth-young-man model?
>
> I'm embarrassed to say that I usually don't read Zoe's posts. I don't
> know what she has to say on those matters. Perhaps I should pay more
> attention to her.
>
XLAT: how can I stay tactfull and not loose *all* credibility.
Andy Groves
> seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern. And since I have no
> intention of getting into a discussion with Bjoern until he learns to
> communicate on a level higher than "liar" and "you're lying," I guess
> I'll just move on. (Of course, Bjoern, you can choose to apologize
> and maybe we could then have some fruitful discussions.)
>
> Meanwhile, for those who insist that creationists can only say,
> "Goddidit," here's a scientific prediction in regards to the existence
> of a genetic program in species that sets boundaries and limits to
> their ability to speciate.
>
> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
> genetic code.
1. Introns have nothing to do with the genetic code.
2. Some organisms do not have introns.
Andy
AC
Another astonishing demonstration of your intellect.
Still can't figure out that newsreader, eh?
--
Aaron Clausen
Cubist
[snippin' all over]
> I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
> the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
> amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
> the organism. No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
> series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
> influences, nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
> sequence for specific needs. The genetic code is like the alphabet,
> (64 "letters" instead of 26) that can vary its codons in their
> sequences so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
> the changing influences of its environment.
Okay, let's see if I've got this straight...
In any one specific organism, the amino acid that's coded for by
nucleotides X, Y, and Z will *vary* -- sometimes you end up with amino
acid A, sometimes amino acid B, sometimes C or D or whatever --
according to whichever environment the organism happens to be in at
the time. Is this an accurate presentation of your theory, Zoe? And if
not, where does it go wrong?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern.
He has done nothing like that!
> And since I have no
> intention of getting into a discussion with Bjoern until he learns to
> communicate on a level higher than "liar" and "you're lying,"
Oh, Zoe, what a great excuse! I present pages upon pages of arguments
against your strange assertions, and you duck out of a response by
whining that I sometimes call you a liar! (BTW, I only do these in
cases where it's obvious to anyone that you lie - in cases where you
repeat arguments which have been refuted for about 200 times, for
example)
> I guess
> I'll just move on.
Right. As usual, you flee the thread when you can't answer the
rebuttals any more.
> (Of course, Bjoern, you can choose to apologize
> and maybe we could then have some fruitful discussions.)
I apologize that I'm sometimes a bit rude to you. Is this enough?
> Meanwhile, for those who insist that creationists can only say,
> "Goddidit," here's a scientific prediction in regards to the existence
> of a genetic program in species that sets boundaries and limits to
> their ability to speciate.
>
> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
> genetic code.
Zoe, predictions are usually based on a theory. And theories are
usually built on evidence. So, where is your evidence that life was
designed by supernatural means? You presented five pieces of what you
consider evidence for this - all five pieces were thoroughly refuted,
and (big surprise!) you fled that subthread. And where is your theory,
derived from observations and evidence, how this creation works and
was done?
> Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
> logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
Why do you think so? What's your evidence for this?
How do you explain the ugly fact that if you take out the introns of a
bacterium, it lives on and reproduces quite happily?
> Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
> mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect, not
> stupidity.
Well, where is this evidence? Where is even the evidence that the
introns are necessary for survival and/or reproduction? (yes, I know
that they are, for example, useful for alternate splicing - but what
has this to do with a program?)
And how is this program processed? How does all of this work?
> I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
> the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
> amino acids will be,
This sentence makes no sense. Care to rephrase it?
The "translation" of the genetic sequences to the amino acids works by
chemistry. There is no program needed for this!
> depending on the current and changing needs of the organism.
Zoe, it has been demonstrated by *experiments* that changes in the
genetic code do *not* happen because of the need of an organism to
adapt to the environment.
How long do you plan to ignore *OBSERVATIONS* which contradict your
ideas?
> No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
> series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
> influences,
Why not? Ever heard of "natural selection"?
> nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
> sequence for specific needs.
This, again, makes no sense at all.
> The genetic code is like the alphabet,
> (64 "letters" instead of 26) that can vary its codons in their
> sequences so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
> the changing influences of its environment.
Vaguely right.
> This is not just speculation. What is the evidence for the influence
> of introns on exons?
>
> http://www.psp.org/research_center/brainstorming.asp
>
> This link has to do with research being conducted on progressive
> supranuclear palsy, with particular interest in the tau gene.
>
> "Healthy brains have tau in an equal mixture of three-repeat and
> four-repeat, but in PSP, it's nearly all four-repeat."
>
> The clue seems to lie in the direction of alternate splicing. "To
> produce the four-repeat form of tau, exon 10 must be included from the
> alternative splicing plan."
>
> The trail becomes hotter when it is noted that the problem seems to
> emanate from the introns, not the exons.
>
> "But a defect in alternative splicing would probably not arise not
> from a "misspelling" in an exon as occurs in most genetic diseases,
> but from a more profound error in the instructions that regulate
> alternative splicing. These instructions are found in the areas
> between the exons, called introns."
That's wrong, AFAIK. The introns don't contain such instructions.
[snip]
> It is also predicted that there will be found a correlation between
> number and/or length of introns to codons and the increasing
> complexity of life forms.
Zoe, there was already data presented to you which contradicts this.
Why do you keep ignoring this?
> The more complex the organism, the more
> instructions are programmed into it. (I am dealing now only with the
> physical aspects of life forms, not the mental -- a whole 'nother
> field of study.)
>
> This prediction is already supported by the evidence that introns are
> longer and/or more frequent in genes of organisms of higher complexity
> than in simpler life forms such as yeast or bacteria.
And it is contradicted by evidence which shows the reverse. As usual,
you choose to ignore the counterevidence.
> Such a pattern
> implies purposeful planning or intent.
Well, the pattern isn't there.
> Random activity will not
> produce this kind of ranking, where prokaryotic genes tend to be small
> and lack introns, and eukaryotic genes tend to be large and contain
> introns.
Why not?
> It should be noted that increase in gene size is a result of increased
> intron length, not increased length of protein-coding exons.
That's only sometimes true. As usual, you ignore the counterevidence.
> The
> average gene length of S.cerevisiae is 1.6, the average gene length of
> fungi is 1.5, AGL of C.elegans is 4.0, AGL of a chicken is 13.9, and
> the AGL of mammals is 16.6. The exons range, from 1, 3, 4, 9 and 7
> exons respectively.
Measured in what units?
> The link for the above information no longer works, so I can't give
> it, and that means researching the same data elsewhere -- tomorrow's
> another day.
>
> Also, humans have the greatest number of introns, says "Nature, Volume
> 409, 15 February 2001."
Care to give the page number, too?
IIRC, we have been over this before (for example, in the thread "ToC -
evidence" - see Google), and the Nature article does *NOT* say this.
> I predict that we are just beginning to discover a program that has
> been placed in life forms by their Creator.
>
> For more contributing data, see:
>
> http://bich431.tamu.edu/hu/23splicing.shtml
>
> "In yeast, most genes don't have introns. In humans, individual genes
> Can have >100 introns"
So what? AFAIK, there are lots of organisms which you would consider
more simple than humans which nevertheless have even more introns!
(and don't start whining about "exceptions to the rule" again!)
> Going even further, I would say that even within similar organisms,
> there will be a correlation between complexity and introns. See:
>
> http://www.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc731/transcript/transcript4.htm
>
> "The amount and size of introns varies greatly. The mammalian DHFR has
> 6 exons that total about 2000 bases, yet the gene is 31,000 bases.
> Likewise, the alpha-collagen has 50 exons that range from 45-249 bases
> and the gene is about 40,000 bases. Clearly two genes of the same size
> can have different number of introns, and introns that vary in size"
Whatd does this tell you about complexity?
> I submit that the reason for the difference in number and lengths of
> introns is due to the increasing complexity of the organism and/or the
> increasing complexity of the instructions needed to perform a
> specified function within specific areas of an organism, and depending
> on environmental influences of the moment.
How does this hypothesis explain the example above?
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/new-biological-database.html
>
> Alternative gene splicing is another clue that should lead to evidence
> for the instructional capacities of introns.
Why?
And why do you call this "another clue"? You have already mentioned
alternative splicing above!
> "Split genes have a remarkable property: their exons can be added or
> deleted, giving rise to different proteins from the same gene. This
> alternative splicing plays a vital role in most higher organisms; in
> the development of the fruit fly, a single split gene arranged one way
> eventually produces a female, but if arranged another way produces a
> male.
>
> "Split genes are also important in generating the numerous "impromptu"
> variations of antibodies produced by the human immune system in
> response to novel infectious agents. And splicing variations have been
> found to result in some cancers as well. Alternative splicing in
> humans is not rare--almost a third of human genes are subject to it."
Nice. So what?
> This next link is written with an evolutionary perspective, but the
> data is subject to interpretation.
As usual...
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/expl_05_introns.html
>
> The following quote contributes to my prediction on introns.
>
> "Less complex organisms such as yeast tend not to have introns.
Notice the "tend". This is not a general rule on which one could build
a theory - only a rough rule of thumb!
> The function of introns, if any, is unknown, although geneticists now
> wonder whether the splicing together of exons required by the presence
> of introns allows the human genome to generate more complexity than
> its mere 30,000 genes would suggest."
Yes, the introns allow for alternative splicing. So what? Why does
this show that they contain a program???
> Okay, that's it for now. I'm heading out the door for an evening in
> the real world. Rigor will have to wait...or be shaped by the more
> scientific minds on this forum.
>
> And, hey, my prediction might be right, it might be wrong, but let it
> never again be said that the only thing that creationists can say in
> the science field is: "Goddidit" (even if He DID do it.) :-) It is
> left up to us to figure out HOW He did it. That is true science.
Right, Zoe. You are above most other creationist in talk.origins in
that you *really* try to get some scientific evidence for your views.
The only problem is: you are lacking even the most basic knowledge in
all areas you talk about, and you refuse to acknowledge that...
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip all]
Oh, hi, Charlie, there you are again! So, apparently you have again
time for posting, right? So, care to give some comments on Ned
Wright's page where he debunks Lerner's cosmology? Care to explain why
it is wrong?
You have said time and time again that you don't have the time to
discuss Big Bang cosmology with me, and that's o.k with me. I don't
want to have a long discussion - I only would like to see why you
think that Ned Wright is wrong, and Lerner is right. What's your
problem with Wright's arguments?
Bye,
Bjoern
Rodjk
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> > Charlie Wagner wrote:
> >
> > <snip zoe's blather>
>
> Speaking on Zoe's behalf, I don't think you should be referring to her
> ideas as "blather". You're entitled to your informed opinion, but you're
> not entitled to be disrespectful to another person's views in such a
> manner. I don't hear you responding substantively to anything she said.
I agree. I refered to her as "fucking stupid".
As for you, you do not get that much respect.
>
> >
> >> I think you're right on the money. I've held this opinion for a long
> >>time, and while I don't share your religious beliefs, I'm fully
> >>convinced that there is a higher intelligence responsible for the
> >>genetic code.
> >
> >
> > Which you've been unable to show, sofar. A coded version of
> 'Published under
> > the GOD Public License' would suffice (in hebrew, if need be). And by all
> > reasonable definition, the genome of any organism is open source. At
> least
> > you'd expect some kind of public license...
>
> I don't need to know who is responsible for my operating system to come
> to the conclusion that it had an author.
Perhaps the fact that you bought it at a store? With a trademark on
it?
>It is self evident that
> functional computer code does not generate itself from the random
> assembly of bits floating around in cyberspace.
You should rethink this...
>
> >
> > Something like
> >
> > "All these worlds are yours, except Europa, attempt no landings there..."
> >
> > or
> >
> > "We apologize for the inconvenience"
> >
> > or something like that.
> >
> > If you *predict* the code, that is, on some rational ground. Brute force
> > decoding would (i think) be able to find a proper codesystem to retrieve
> > any message out of any series of random bits.
> >
> > There should be a theorem (regarding 'decoding' as a function with a
> limited
> > range over a limited domain) on that, but i'm not sure which. If memory
> > serves, of course. Cryptography is not my strong suit.
>
> Now that just sounds like a bunch of "blather" to me. Any moron can look
> at the genome and see that it contains instructions directing the
> synthesis and assembly of proteins into processes, structures and
> organisms. This is, by any informed definition, an algorithm.
And? Did you have a point?
>
> >
> >
> >>I don't know what the nature of that intelligence is, but
> >>it's clear to me that the genetic code is an algorithm, a set of
> >>instructions, that could not have assembled itself by any random or
> >>accidental process.
> >
> >
> > Interesting. I deal with algorithms on a professional basis. I use
> > heuristics, too (if all else fails).
> >
> > Now, explain a simple programmer, who knows the difference between
> > algorithms and heuristics, what (or indeed where) the algorithm is.
>
> As you well know, an algorithm is a step-by-step problem-solving
> procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure
> for solving a problem in a finite number of steps. The problem is to
> guide the assembly and growth of a living organisms. The information in
> the genome constitutes the step-by-step procedure by which this is
> accomplished. The fact that the organisms gets assembled properly from
> raw materials into a functional entity is proof that an algorithm
> exists. Absent these step-by-step procedures, no function would emerge.
> The genome also probably uses *both* algorithmic and heuristic
> processes. While most of the step-by-step instructions are specified,
> the genome may employ problem-solving techniques in which alternate
> solutions are selected at various points depending on current
> conditions, feedback, etc. This is a more complex and higher order
> functioning than would be found in either algorithmic or heuristic
> applications alone, leading to the conclusion that the higher-order the
> function is, the more likely it is the result of intelligent design.
Unless it shows the waste, disorginization and junk that dna does.
Your ID is not very good at his job.
>
> >
> > You *do* know what an 'algorithm' is, don't you? And you *are*
> familiar with
> > the work of John Koza?
>
> Yeah, he's a GA guy at Stamford. So what? His work supports the notion
> that computer algorithms are the result of intelligent guidance. None of
> the GP's that he creates could have existed without the intelligent
> guidance of the user and the careful step-by-step preparation that
> preceeds the program. He's laboring under the illusion that he's getting
> the computer to do something without telling it what to do, but the fact
> is that the human user must deliver a high-level problem statement,
> specify the independent variables, random constants and zero-argument
> functions, specify the set of primitive functions for each branch of the
> emerging program, determine the fitness measure and set the parameters
> for the run and specify the termination criteria and the method for
> designating the end of the run. Does he really believe that he's not
> "telling the computer what to do?" Does he think that these GP's would
> ever emerge without the intelligent guidance of the programmer? He may
> think he's using "principles of Darwinian selection", but only as they
> exist in the minds of evolutionists. Nothing that he's doing has
> anything at all to do with what's actually happening in nature.
So nature has nothing to do with ID. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> >
> >
> >> I found your ideas interesting and your refernces informative.
> >
> >
> > Well that makes one of us,
>
> You should try to curb your need to make these kinds of comments,
> they're profoundly unuseful.
He is right.
>
> >
> >
> >>I
> >>think that your ideas about the importance of the non-coding DNA,
> >>especially introns and their functions will be confirmed and will prove
> >>to be startling and unexpected.
> >
> >
> > I do not doubt many 'startling and unexpected' things will turn up. I
> very
> > much doubt wether they will show that 'introns' have anything to do with
> > 'intelligence'.
>
> What is the basis for that claim? Do you have some information that the
> rest of us don't have? You might as well claim that the instructions for
> baking chocolate chip cookies have nothing to do with intelligence. What
> exactly do you think intelligence is?
>
> >
> >
> >>Each day I see new evidence to support
> >>the idea that the genome is dynamic, interactive and responsive and that
> >>these functions are built into it's structure in a very basic way.
> >
> >
> > Would you care to highten my intellectual level (being just the
> humblest of
> > programmers) by citing some work done in that area? I hope you are not
> > offended very much if I were to say your sayso does not suffice to quench
> > my doubts.
>
>
> I recently posted dozens of references to recent work on introns and
> "junk DNA". If you do a search in Google, you just might find them. Or,
> you could go to the literature and do a search on "introns" or "gene
> regulation".
Charlie was a schoolteacher who spent years screwing up science
education for the kids.
Rodjk #613
Andrew Arensburger
> Bravo Zoe: "Introns were purposely installed to give direction to the
> axons"
I thought axons were coded for by exons, just like every other
cell part.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Don't even TRY to think without the proper tools.
Frank J
> Frank J wrote:
> > Charlie Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message news:<3EF5F376...@charliewagner.com>...
> >
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Now what do you think of her challenges to the isochron method? Or her
> > old-earth-young-man model?
>
> I'm embarrassed to say that I usually don't read Zoe's posts. I don't
> know what she has to say on those matters. Perhaps I should pay more
> attention to her.
Coninuing yesaterday's trend of saying nice things about
anti-evolutionists, her posts are actually interesting compared to the
ones by SI, RR, AJ, etc.
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>Zoe,
>On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999% of the
>Atheists/Evolutionists posting are die hard fundies.
>I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing because it
>shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
>The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot with a
>background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for Scholastic
>achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a paradox because of
>their simple minds and blindness.
>The truth is the most intelligent people in this field of evoluion are
>creationists.
Simply I, why would you get a kick out of seeing people show their
weaknesses? And what enjoyment is there in taunting and mocking your
fellow humans? Besides, there are a lot of intelligent people on this
forum, and they AREN'T creationists -- they just have issues -- so I
wouldn't make such sweeping statements, if I were you.
I do respect your ability as a pilot, and you seem very intelligent,
but please try to remember that other people are as valuable as you
are, regardless of what they believe. Okay?
(end of soapbox, I promise.)
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
(\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>Bravo Zoe:
Jo Jean! Hello! Hope you're in good health these days. Stay strong,
okay?
>"Introns were purposely installed to give direction to the
>axons"--- Jesus did this as it says in Colossians Chap. 1 v 16 & 17.
>True science should keep on trying to find out how Goddidit. God
>bless, Jo Jean
I like that verse: "In Him all things hold together." To figure out
HOW Jesus-God did it is a fascinating challenge, isn't it?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>In article <3ef4e0ec....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com
>[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>>
>>Well, it is obvious that my discussion with John Harshman has ended,
>
>Because you can't or you won't answer him? Why not just
>admit you were mistaken about chromosomes [and "kinds"]?
>
>>seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern.
>
>How has he ducked anywhere?
My last set of posts went unanswered by John. Instead he chose to
piggyback on one of Bjoern's posts, only to say he has not seen the
post to which Bjoern was replying to -- as if something was stopping
him from replying to my post through Bjoern's post. Instead, he
decided that Bjoern's answers were "spot on" and he had nothing to say
himself. Well, that's a strong signal to me that he's not interested
in the discussion anymore. Right, John?
>The one hiding seems to
>be you. There are still a bunch of unanswered responses
>to you in those earlier threads. Go take a look...
>
>Message-ID: <BB13F335.B660%hers...@indiana.edu>
>Message-ID: <bcn67t$4gj$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>Message-ID: <4bb90092.03061...@posting.google.com>
>Message-ID: <3EF2E821...@pacbell.net>
>Message-ID: <BB18FC28.C113%hers...@indiana.edu>
>Message-ID: <bcsqck$gh5$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>Message-ID: <bcteok$oi6$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>Message-ID: <3EF062EE...@pacbell.net>
>Message-ID: <BB164E11.BAF0%hers...@indiana.edu>
>Message-ID: <bcni9q$5vc$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>Message-ID: <3EEE38E7...@pacbell.net>
>Message-ID: <Xns939CD1C52AAA1u...@68.12.19.6>
>Message-ID: <3EEE3CE4...@pacbell.net>
>Message-ID: <BB138A4C.B5A9%hers...@indiana.edu>
>Message-ID: <3EEE407C...@pacbell.net>
>Message-ID: <3EEE42E1...@pacbell.net>
this proves nothing, Mel. I answer what I find the time to answer,
and that means there will be posts left unanswered. The fact is that
I answered several of John's posts, and he could have responded to
THOSE most recent ones. He didn't, so I guess the discussion is over.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
(zoe_althrop) wrote:
snip>
>> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
>> genetic code.
>
>Zoe, did everyone utterly waste their time trying to tell you
>what the genetic code is? Or are you simply going to ignore
>what the phrase "genetic code" means? Introns have nothing
>to do with the genetic code. Indeed introns are cut out
>BEFORE translation.
the genetic code, from what I've been taught here, is the "alphabet"
of the genome. Or do I have that wrong again? If this is not
incorrect, then introns are indeed part of the genetic code's
sequencing. The fact that they are cut out before translation does
not mean they have nothing to do with how the genetic code is
sequenced, or more specifically, how the amino acids (which are
represented by the genetic code's codons) are sequenced.
So tell me again, what's wrong now with what I just said?
>> Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
>> logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
>
>You need to clarify what you are saying.
>
>> Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
>> mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect,
>
>Regulatory function of introns or anything else is not evidence
>for for a "mind."
instructions that guide the splicing of exons (in a manner requisite
to meeting external demands) don't "just happen." It takes purpose
and planning -- attributes that indicate intelligence.
>> not stupidity.
>
>Stupidity refers to an intellect. Consider using a different
>phrase.
any suggestions? I was using it in the sense of irrational, lacking
the power to reason, which is an attribute of natural selection and
mutations. I meant "stupid" in the sense of contrary to reason,
senseless, unreasonable, absurd. Situations can be this way without
any reason to invoke an intellect.
>Are you saying an intron will change the codon AAC to something
>besides asparagine (for example)?
no. The codons remain the same, all 64 of them. It is the sequence
of the codons that determine what kind of protein will be created.
Or am I still expressing it incorrectly? I know what I want to say,
but I'm afraid I don't get it out very well to meet your rigorous
minds.
>> I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
>> the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
>> amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
>> the organism.
>
>If that is your prediction, you have ALREADY been proven wrong.
>If one knows the sequence of the exon then you know the
>sequence of the amino acids.
the instructions of the introns, I predict, will be where the
flexibility and variability of the species resides. I will attempt to
provide you more research on this subject, but not tonight. It's
getting late, and I'm probably going to have to skim the rest of the
posts.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
snip>
>I apologize that I'm sometimes a bit rude to you. Is this enough?
why, hello, there, Bjoern. How are you doing? Yes, this is enough.
I look forward to having some interesting and fruitful discussions
with you in the future, but not tonight. It's late and sleep calls.
Maybe you can remind me to return to your post another day?
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote:
snip>
> I think you're right on the money. I've held this opinion for a long
>time, and while I don't share your religious beliefs, I'm fully
>convinced that there is a higher intelligence responsible for the
>genetic code.
thank you, Charlie, for the courageous support. I took some time to
read up a bit on your posting history. I'm impressed that you're
willing to risk your reputation (in this part of cyberworld, anyway)
by daring to agree with a creationist, especially as you are not of
the same persuasion yourself. You do seem to hold some uniquely
creative ideas, regardless of the majority opinion on TO, and I really
admire such strength of independence.
>I don't know what the nature of that intelligence is, but
>it's clear to me that the genetic code is an algorithm, a set of
>instructions, that could not have assembled itself by any random or
>accidental process.
I think this is a conclusion that anyone would come to if there
weren't "issues" in the way.
> I found your ideas interesting and your refernces informative. I
>think that your ideas about the importance of the non-coding DNA,
>especially introns and their functions will be confirmed and will prove
>to be startling and unexpected. Each day I see new evidence to support
>the idea that the genome is dynamic, interactive and responsive and that
>these functions are built into it's structure in a very basic way.
> "Junk DNA?"...Hah!!
yes, I read a little on your position on junk DNA. It makes perfect
sense to me. I hope we can learn from each other, even though we come
from different worldviews. :-)
----
zoe
mel turner
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:38:12 +0000 (UTC),
>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>
>>In article <3ef4e0ec....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com
>>[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>>>
>>>Well, it is obvious that my discussion with John Harshman has ended,
>>
>>Because you can't or you won't answer him? Why not just
>>admit you were mistaken about chromosomes [and "kinds"]?
>>
>>>seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern.
>>
>>How has he ducked anywhere?
>
>My last set of posts went unanswered by John. Instead he chose to
>piggyback on one of Bjoern's posts, only to say he has not seen the
>post to which Bjoern was replying to -- as if something was stopping
>him from replying to my post through Bjoern's post.
I thought that one was explaining why he was replying through
Bjoern's post instead of directly?
Instead, he
>decided that Bjoern's answers were "spot on" and he had nothing to say
>himself. Well, that's a strong signal to me that he's not interested
>in the discussion anymore. Right, John?
If he thought Bjoern's answers were "spot on", why not reply to
them as though they were from John, and also to John's added
comments?
Or answer instead some of the more interesting other posts:
>>The one hiding seems to
>>be you. There are still a bunch of unanswered responses
>>to you in those earlier threads. Go take a look...
>>
>>Message-ID: <BB13F335.B660%hers...@indiana.edu>
>>Message-ID: <bcn67t$4gj$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>>Message-ID: <4bb90092.03061...@posting.google.com>
>>Message-ID: <3EF2E821...@pacbell.net>
>>Message-ID: <BB18FC28.C113%hers...@indiana.edu>
>>Message-ID: <bcsqck$gh5$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>>Message-ID: <bcteok$oi6$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>>Message-ID: <3EF062EE...@pacbell.net>
>>Message-ID: <BB164E11.BAF0%hers...@indiana.edu>
>>Message-ID: <bcni9q$5vc$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
>>Message-ID: <3EEE38E7...@pacbell.net>
>>Message-ID: <Xns939CD1C52AAA1u...@68.12.19.6>
>>Message-ID: <3EEE3CE4...@pacbell.net>
>>Message-ID: <BB138A4C.B5A9%hers...@indiana.edu>
>>Message-ID: <3EEE407C...@pacbell.net>
>>Message-ID: <3EEE42E1...@pacbell.net>
>
>this proves nothing, Mel. I answer what I find the time to answer,
Fair enough, but I thought there were some interesting points of
discussion being left unanswered. A pity, perhaps.
>and that means there will be posts left unanswered. The fact is that
>I answered several of John's posts, and he could have responded to
>THOSE most recent ones. He didn't, so I guess the discussion is over.
Which ones didn't he answer? Maybe he missed them at that time--
he did after all say that his newsfeed was being erratic and that
he was missing posts.
Anyway, I thought the "kinds" and chromosomes stuff was more
interesting than this "scientific prediction" of yours, about DNA,
but perhaps that can change.
cheers
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:58:48 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
> <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
>
> (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
>>> genetic code.
>>
>>Zoe, did everyone utterly waste their time trying to tell you
>>what the genetic code is? Or are you simply going to ignore
>>what the phrase "genetic code" means? Introns have nothing
>>to do with the genetic code. Indeed introns are cut out
>>BEFORE translation.
>
> the genetic code, from what I've been taught here, is the "alphabet"
> of the genome. Or do I have that wrong again?
Yes you have done it wrong again. I have seen no one here
saying that the genetic code is the "alphabet."
> If this is not
> incorrect, then introns are indeed part of the genetic code's
> sequencing.
Introns have NOTHING to do with the genetic code.
Repeat: the genetic code is nothing but a table with 64 entries:
UUU - Phenylalanine and 63 other entries. If you use the
phrase "the genetic code" to refer to anything besides that
table then you are using incorrect terminology.
The genetic code is not the alphabet as has already been pointed
out to you. The "alphabet" for DNA is: G, C, T, and A. The
"alphabet" for RNA is G, C, U, and A. The "alphabet" for
proteins is amino acids which make them up.
In any event, what introns do is done before translation.
When mRNA is processed the introns are _removed_. Then the
mRNA is sent to the ribosomes where translation occures.
The genetic code is only relevent to process of translation.
> The fact that they are cut out before translation does
> not mean they have nothing to do with how the genetic code is
> sequenced, or more specifically, how the amino acids (which are
> represented by the genetic code's codons) are sequenced.
>
> So tell me again, what's wrong now with what I just said?
The genetic code is not sequenced.
>>> Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
>>> logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
>>
>>You need to clarify what you are saying.
>>
>>> Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
>>> mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect,
>>
>>Regulatory function of introns or anything else is not evidence
>>for for a "mind."
>
> instructions that guide the splicing of exons (in a manner requisite
> to meeting external demands) don't "just happen." It takes purpose
> and planning -- attributes that indicate intelligence.
You are only assuming what you are "proving."
You will need to show that the splicing of exons requires planning.
You have not even remotely done that. Maybe you can start with saying
what form do those instructions that guide the splicing of the
exons come in? And be specific. Then when you answered that you
will need to show why that mechanism requires planning. That it
is complex or that you don't know how it works is not a reason.
>>> not stupidity.
>>
>>Stupidity refers to an intellect. Consider using a different
>>phrase.
>
> any suggestions? I was using it in the sense of irrational,
Even the the word "irrational" implies an intellect.
> lacking
> the power to reason, which is an attribute of natural selection and
> mutations. I meant "stupid" in the sense of contrary to reason,
> senseless, unreasonable, absurd.
You clearly don't want to use the words any of these words
though senseless is the least objectionable. Maybe
non-goal-directed or non-teleological. (Nitpickers, I use
the word "teleological" in its strongest sense implying
a conscious goal here.)
> Situations can be this way without
> any reason to invoke an intellect.
>
>>Are you saying an intron will change the codon AAC to something
>>besides asparagine (for example)?
>
> no. The codons remain the same, all 64 of them.
Then the genetic code is unchanged by definition.
> It is the sequence
> of the codons that determine what kind of protein will be created.
>
> Or am I still expressing it incorrectly? I know what I want to say,
> but I'm afraid I don't get it out very well to meet your rigorous
> minds.
If alternative splicing occures one will have a different mRNA during
translation and hense a different protein. There is nothing
particualarly mysterious about all that.
>>> I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
>>> the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
>>> amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
>>> the organism.
>>
>>If that is your prediction, you have ALREADY been proven wrong.
>>If one knows the sequence of the exon then you know the
>>sequence of the amino acids.
>
> the instructions of the introns, I predict, will be where the
> flexibility and variability of the species resides.
There is no doubt that alternative splicing is an important
biochemical mechanism for generating the much of the different
types of protein that exist.
If you are merely refering to alternative splicing of introns from
mRNA to produce different processed mRNAs which are then translated
to different proteins then you are simple not doing
anything that can be called "prediction." You simple saw it or read
in some sort of news report. And then got this silly idea
that is was somehow contrary to evolution.
In any event why is any of this a prediction of creationism?
Be specific. God could have done it any way.
> I will attempt to
> provide you more research on this subject, but not tonight. It's
> getting late, and I'm probably going to have to skim the rest of the
> posts.
Zoe, you are not capable of doing any "research" on this subject.
You will not be able to until you bother to learn the vocabulary
and the basics. Until you learn the vocabulary and the basics
you will simple misunderstand most everything you read. It much the
same reason why people learn to count to ten before they are given
calculus books, lean how to make simple notes before being
asked to perform in a symphany orchestra, etc.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
John McKendry
Zoe, you are a classy dame. Stubborn as, um, well, something *really*
stubborn, but a classy dame.
John
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:32:41 +0000 (UTC), JOJ...@webtv.net
> (\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>
> >Bravo Zoe:
>
> Jo Jean! Hello! Hope you're in good health these days. Stay strong,
> okay?
Zoe, apparently you and Jo Jean get along with each other quite well,
right? So, could you please ask her a question, which she always
ignores when one of
us, the "evilutionists", asks it?
She said a few months ago that she whispered "Jesus loves you" into
the ears of dying patients (she was a nurse). The question is: Did she
whisper this into the ears of patients she knew not to be Christians,
too?
Could you please ask her this for us?
> >"Introns were purposely installed to give direction to the
> >axons"--- Jesus did this as it says in Colossians Chap. 1 v 16 & 17.
> >True science should keep on trying to find out how Goddidit. God
> >bless, Jo Jean
>
> I like that verse: "In Him all things hold together." To figure out
> HOW Jesus-God did it is a fascinating challenge, isn't it?
Well, thousands of Christian biologists think they have already
figured that out.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:51:10 +0000 (UTC),
> feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >I apologize that I'm sometimes a bit rude to you. Is this enough?
>
> why, hello, there, Bjoern. How are you doing?
Nice, thank you. Only a bit of stress - tomorrow I will defend my
dissertation...
> Yes, this is enough.
Thanks. You are really generous!
> I look forward to having some interesting and fruitful discussions
> with you in the future, but not tonight.
You could start by answering my isochron challenge... Or do you want
to discuss biology only now?
> It's late and sleep calls.
> Maybe you can remind me to return to your post another day?
Well, I'll be away for a few days.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:19:33 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Wagner
> <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote:
> snip>
>
> > I think you're right on the money. I've held this opinion for a long
> >time, and while I don't share your religious beliefs, I'm fully
> >convinced that there is a higher intelligence responsible for the
> >genetic code.
>
> thank you, Charlie, for the courageous support.
Please notice that Charlie doesn't call himself a creationist - he
doesn't
say that there is a God, but makes only some vague references to an
Intelligent Designer. Please notice, too, that Charlie, despite having
been a school teacher, has no clue about the 2nd law of thermodynamics
and the Big Bang theory. (and, BTW, this says someone who will defend
his PhD thesis in theoretical physics tomorrow)
> I took some time to
> read up a bit on your posting history. I'm impressed that you're
> willing to risk your reputation (in this part of cyberworld, anyway)
> by daring to agree with a creationist, especially as you are not of
> the same persuasion yourself.
Well, that's not clear. Although Charlie insists that he isn't a
creationist, he uses the same debating techniques (evasion, moving the
goal posts and so on),
and is equally ignorant about most stuff he critizes.
> You do seem to hold some uniquely
> creative ideas, regardless of the majority opinion on TO, and I really
> admire such strength of independence.
I would call Charlie's attitude "stubbornness"...
> >I don't know what the nature of that intelligence is, but
> >it's clear to me that the genetic code is an algorithm, a set of
> >instructions, that could not have assembled itself by any random or
> >accidental process.
>
> I think this is a conclusion that anyone would come to if there
> weren't "issues" in the way.
What issues?
> > I found your ideas interesting and your refernces informative. I
> >think that your ideas about the importance of the non-coding DNA,
> >especially introns and their functions will be confirmed and will prove
> >to be startling and unexpected. Each day I see new evidence to support
> >the idea that the genome is dynamic, interactive and responsive and that
> >these functions are built into it's structure in a very basic way.
> > "Junk DNA?"...Hah!!
>
> yes, I read a little on your position on junk DNA. It makes perfect
> sense to me.
Nice for you two. Now, what about presenting some evidence for your
views?
> I hope we can learn from each other, even though we come
> from different worldviews. :-)
And *I* hope that you will someday sit down, take a basic biology book
and learn something from *that*!
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:38:12 +0000 (UTC),
> mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>
> >In article <3ef4e0ec....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com
> >[zoe_althrop] wrote...
> >>
> >>Well, it is obvious that my discussion with John Harshman has ended,
> >
> >Because you can't or you won't answer him? Why not just
> >admit you were mistaken about chromosomes [and "kinds"]?
> >
> >>seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern.
> >
> >How has he ducked anywhere?
>
> My last set of posts went unanswered by John.
Not true.
> Instead he chose to
> piggyback on one of Bjoern's posts, only to say he has not seen the
> post to which Bjoern was replying to
Wrong. He didn't simply "piggyback" - he inserted some comments on his
own, too.
Try looking at the message again!
> -- as if something was stopping
> him from replying to my post through Bjoern's post.
Well, he *did* reply to some points in your post. Look again!
> Instead, he
> decided that Bjoern's answers were "spot on" and he had nothing to say
> himself.
Wrong. Look again.
> Well, that's a strong signal to me that he's not interested
> in the discussion anymore. Right, John?
Wrong.
He even said that because of his problems with the newsgroup, you
could start echoing your response by mail to him! This doesn't sound
to me like he isn't interested in discussion any more!
> >The one hiding seems to
> >be you. There are still a bunch of unanswered responses
> >to you in those earlier threads. Go take a look...
> >
> >Message-ID: <BB13F335.B660%hers...@indiana.edu>
> >Message-ID: <bcn67t$4gj$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
> >Message-ID: <4bb90092.03061...@posting.google.com>
> >Message-ID: <3EF2E821...@pacbell.net>
> >Message-ID: <BB18FC28.C113%hers...@indiana.edu>
> >Message-ID: <bcsqck$gh5$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
> >Message-ID: <bcteok$oi6$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
> >Message-ID: <3EF062EE...@pacbell.net>
> >Message-ID: <BB164E11.BAF0%hers...@indiana.edu>
> >Message-ID: <bcni9q$5vc$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>
> >Message-ID: <3EEE38E7...@pacbell.net>
> >Message-ID: <Xns939CD1C52AAA1u...@68.12.19.6>
> >Message-ID: <3EEE3CE4...@pacbell.net>
> >Message-ID: <BB138A4C.B5A9%hers...@indiana.edu>
> >Message-ID: <3EEE407C...@pacbell.net>
> >Message-ID: <3EEE42E1...@pacbell.net>
>
> this proves nothing, Mel. I answer what I find the time to answer,
> and that means there will be posts left unanswered. The fact is that
> I answered several of John's posts, and he could have responded to
> THOSE most recent ones. He didn't, so I guess the discussion is over.
He did, hence the discussion is *NOT* over.
Bye,
Bjoern
Kleuskes & Moos
> muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in message
> news:<3ef7cedf...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:51:10 +0000 (UTC),
>> feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>> >I apologize that I'm sometimes a bit rude to you. Is this enough?
>>
>> why, hello, there, Bjoern. How are you doing?
>
> Nice, thank you. Only a bit of stress - tomorrow I will defend my
> dissertation...
:o) Hals- und beinbruch. Just think it's zoe.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:00:48 +0000 (UTC), "Simply I" <I...@Here.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Zoe,
> >On thing I have discovered after my arrival here is that 99.999% of the
> >Atheists/Evolutionists posting are die hard fundies.
> >I get a huge kick out of their name calling and finger pointing because it
> >shows the desperation of their weak positioning.
> >The minute I let the cat out of the bag that I am a Commercial Pilot with a
> >background in Computer Science and being on the Kellogg list for Scholastic
> >achievement and a *creationist* they find that to be a paradox because of
> >their simple minds and blindness.
> >The truth is the most intelligent people in this field of evoluion are
> >creationists.
>
> Simply I, why would you get a kick out of seeing people show their
> weaknesses? And what enjoyment is there in taunting and mocking your
> fellow humans? Besides, there are a lot of intelligent people on this
> forum, and they AREN'T creationists -- they just have issues -- so I
> wouldn't make such sweeping statements, if I were you.
Thanks, Zoe! There are way to many creationists here who have nothing
more to say than insults; it's nice that even you as a fellow
creationists doesn't approve of this.
> I do respect your ability as a pilot, and you seem very intelligent,
Err, Zoe, look at his posting history. His posts can be grouped into
two groups:
1) copy-and-pastes from creationist websites
2) insults.
Where do you see intelligence in his posts?
> but please try to remember that other people are as valuable as you
> are, regardless of what they believe. Okay?
Thanks again.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:58:48 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
> <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
>
> (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
> >> genetic code.
> >
> >Zoe, did everyone utterly waste their time trying to tell you
> >what the genetic code is? Or are you simply going to ignore
> >what the phrase "genetic code" means? Introns have nothing
> >to do with the genetic code. Indeed introns are cut out
> >BEFORE translation.
>
> the genetic code, from what I've been taught here, is the "alphabet"
> of the genome.
Wrong. It's the translation table, the dictionary.
> Or do I have that wrong again?
Yes.
> If this is not
> incorrect, then introns are indeed part of the genetic code's
> sequencing.
But it is incorrect.
> The fact that they are cut out before translation does
> not mean they have nothing to do with how the genetic code is
> sequenced, or more specifically, how the amino acids (which are
> represented by the genetic code's codons) are sequenced.
What do you mean by "sequenced" here?
> So tell me again, what's wrong now with what I just said?
See above.
> >> Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
> >> logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
> >
> >You need to clarify what you are saying.
> >
> >> Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
> >> mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect,
> >
> >Regulatory function of introns or anything else is not evidence
> >for for a "mind."
>
> instructions that guide the splicing of exons (in a manner requisite
> to meeting external demands) don't "just happen."
Why not?
> It takes purpose
> and planning -- attributes that indicate intelligence.
Please present evidence that purpose and planning is required instead
of simply asserting this.
> >> not stupidity.
> >
> >Stupidity refers to an intellect. Consider using a different
> >phrase.
>
> any suggestions? I was using it in the sense of irrational, lacking
> the power to reason, which is an attribute of natural selection and
> mutations.
Well, what about "mindless"?
[snip]
> >Are you saying an intron will change the codon AAC to something
> >besides asparagine (for example)?
>
> no. The codons remain the same, all 64 of them. It is the sequence
> of the codons that determine what kind of protein will be created.
>
> Or am I still expressing it incorrectly? I know what I want to say,
> but I'm afraid I don't get it out very well to meet your rigorous
> minds.
Sounds right to me (but IANA biologist). Nevertheless, you still
haven't presented the slightest bit of evidence that there is a
program in the introns. The only thing you have given so far is an
argument from incredulity: "I don't see how it could work if there
weren't a program, hence there is one!"
> >> I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
> >> the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
> >> amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
> >> the organism.
> >
> >If that is your prediction, you have ALREADY been proven wrong.
> >If one knows the sequence of the exon then you know the
> >sequence of the amino acids.
>
> the instructions of the introns, I predict, will be where the
> flexibility and variability of the species resides.
How do these instructions look like, in your opinion? And how are they
processed? How do the introns regulate the splicing?
[snip rest]
Bye,
Bjoern
TomS
<4bb90092.0306...@posting.google.com>,
feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de stated..."[...snip...]
>> Simply I, why would you get a kick out of seeing people show their
>> weaknesses? And what enjoyment is there in taunting and mocking your
>> fellow humans? Besides, there are a lot of intelligent people on this
>> forum, and they AREN'T creationists -- they just have issues -- so I
>> wouldn't make such sweeping statements, if I were you.
>
>Thanks, Zoe! There are way to many creationists here who have nothing
>more to say than insults; it's nice that even you as a fellow
>creationists doesn't approve of this.
May I add my own word of thanks.
I must admit that I have long ago given up on bothering with
threads involving Zoe, so I only saw this response from Bjoern. So
I want to reply, also, in hope that others will see this.
With the one brief paragraph, my opinion of Zoe is much higher.
Tom Scharle
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:58:48 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
><use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
>
>(zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>> I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
>>> genetic code.
>>
>>Zoe, did everyone utterly waste their time trying to tell you
>>what the genetic code is? Or are you simply going to ignore
>>what the phrase "genetic code" means? Introns have nothing
>>to do with the genetic code. Indeed introns are cut out
>>BEFORE translation.
>
>the genetic code, from what I've been taught here, is the "alphabet"
>of the genome. Or do I have that wrong again? If this is not
>incorrect, then introns are indeed part of the genetic code's
>sequencing. The fact that they are cut out before translation does
>not mean they have nothing to do with how the genetic code is
>sequenced, or more specifically, how the amino acids (which are
>represented by the genetic code's codons) are sequenced.
[SNIP]
Maybe this can help.
Think of the Morse code (The International Morse Code). In itself it is
merely a translation table from our common alphabet to an alphabet more
suitable for transmission via telegraph wire, continuous wave carrier,
optically, etc. There is no real information in the Morse code itself
other than the correspondence between the two alphabets. Now think of a
message copied by a telegrapher. It contains a message specific to that
contact. The analogy would be:
Morse code -> Genetic code
Specific message in Morse code -> Genome of a distinct species.
It is the genome itself that contains the information on how to build
proteins for the organism. It is the genetic code that the organism
uses to translate the genome to proteins just as a railroad telegrapher
uses the Morse code to translate the dots and dashes to English. "The
Genome (of an organism)" and "The Genetic Code" are distinct and
separate concepts.
Genome != (not equal to) Genetic code
just as
Message sent in dots and dashes != The International Morse code.
Hope this helps.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE Dept. of Biological Sciences
who...@siue.edu
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Richard Uhrich
....
> tomorrow I will defend my
> dissertation...
>
.....
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
>
>
Good luck!
H,R.Gruemm
> muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in message news:<3ef7cedf...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:51:10 +0000 (UTC),
> > feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
> >
> > snip>
> >
> > >I apologize that I'm sometimes a bit rude to you. Is this enough?
> >
> > why, hello, there, Bjoern. How are you doing?
>
> Nice, thank you. Only a bit of stress - tomorrow I will defend my
> dissertation...
Hi Björn! My best wishes (und ich halte fest die Daumen ...)
Alles Gute und viel Erfolg,
HRG.
Howard Hershey
cha...@charliewagner.com wrote on 6/22/03 11:27 PM:
>
>
> Frank J wrote:
>> Charlie Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3EF5F376...@charliewagner.com>...
>>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Now what do you think of her challenges to the isochron method? Or her
>> old-earth-young-man model?
>
> I'm embarrassed to say that I usually don't read Zoe's posts. I don't
> know what she has to say on those matters. Perhaps I should pay more
> attention to her.
Yes. You two make a loverly couple.
John Wilkins
Might I suggest a slightly different metaphor? The genetic code is liek
the ASCII code - in one medium (RNA/Binary numbers) there is a
"representation" of objects in another medium (proteins/alphabet). Just
as coding for letters doesn't give you sensible sentences on its own,
coding for proteins doesn't give you meaningful traits. Sure, proteins
are the alphabet of body parts, but they get assembled according to
rules that are *not* genetic, but developmental, just as letters form
sentences according to rules that are not in themselves, literate.
Now just as the rules for constructing sentences can be passed on by a
combination of meaningful written sentences in grammar textbooks, the
rules for constructing body parts in bodies can be passed on using
genetic means. There is no chicken or egg here - its both, or nothing
happens.
[This metaphor breaks down because language is not just transmitted in
written form, while so far as we know, genes are always transmitted by
genes + developmental processes, though.]
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Von Smith
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:51:10 +0000 (UTC),
> > feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
> >
> > snip>
> >
> > >I apologize that I'm sometimes a bit rude to you. Is this enough?
> >
> > why, hello, there, Bjoern. How are you doing?
>
> Nice, thank you. Only a bit of stress - tomorrow I will defend my
> dissertation...
Drueck' die Daumen, Hals- und Beinbruch and all that.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Matt Silberstein
<cha...@charliewagner.com>:
>
>
>Frank J wrote:
>> Charlie Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message news:<3EF5F376...@charliewagner.com>...
>>
><SNIP>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Now what do you think of her challenges to the isochron method? Or her
>> old-earth-young-man model?
>
>I'm embarrassed to say that I usually don't read Zoe's posts. I don't
>know what she has to say on those matters. Perhaps I should pay more
>attention to her.
You should. She has had real trouble understanding that there are
problems with 5/0. She thinks that 5/0 = 0.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>Well, it is obvious that my discussion with John Harshman has ended,
>intention of getting into a discussion with Bjoern until he learns to
>communicate on a level higher than "liar" and "you're lying," I guess
>I'll just move on. (Of course, Bjoern, you can choose to apologize
>and maybe we could then have some fruitful discussions.)
>
>Meanwhile, for those who insist that creationists can only say,
>"Goddidit," here's a scientific prediction in regards to the existence
>of a genetic program in species that sets boundaries and limits to
>their ability to speciate.
>
>I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
>logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
>stupidity.
Stupidity? I suppose this is a pejorative stab at the evolutionary
alternative? With regard to your comments above about Björn I direct
you to Matthew 7 vs. 1-5. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
Your prediction has already failed. Group I introns have been
exhaustively studied since they were first discovered in 1977 (1). The
process by which they are excised from the mRNA is well documented (2).
The base sequence (except at the donor/acceptor regions) is known to not
affect the function of the genes from which they are excised; therefore,
they cannot contain any higher information. Their base sequence has
been experimentally altered(3) and shown not to affect the overall
excision process, nor have any discernible affect on the organism as a
whole. Once excised, the intron RNA is usually broken down and recycled
for later use in DNA -> RNA transcription.
>
>I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
>the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
>amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
>the organism.
As mentioned above, the sequence of an intron is not important to
the process and therefore cannot contribute any instructions to the
cellular machinery. There are the rarer Group II introns which have
catalytic activity (not unexpected and evidence supporting RNA world
hypotheses(4)) and can add even effect the DNA of the host cell (5);
however, there is no evidence that this is in any way directed by the
needs of the cell and/or organism and, of course, not transferable to
germ line cells and thus not heritable. Some gp. II introns, once
excised, can even go on to form proteins, but again, there is no
surprise here since it is viable RNA derived from the DNA template and
thus subject to evolutionary mechanisms just like tRNA.
> No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
>series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
>influences, nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
>sequence for specific needs. The genetic code is like the alphabet,
>(64 "letters" instead of 26) that can vary its codons in their
>sequences so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
>the changing influences of its environment.
You're confusing terms (and probably concepts) here, but I think you are
proposing some sort of neo-lamarckian type of inheritance mechanism.
Surely even you know that Lamarckian evolution has been shown false by
numerous observations and experiments.
>
>This is not just speculation. What is the evidence for the influence
>of introns on exons?
>
>http://www.psp.org/research_center/brainstorming.asp
>
>This link has to do with research being conducted on progressive
>supranuclear palsy, with particular interest in the tau gene.
>
>"Healthy brains have tau in an equal mixture of three-repeat and
>four-repeat, but in PSP, it's nearly all four-repeat."
>
>The clue seems to lie in the direction of alternate splicing. "To
>produce the four-repeat form of tau, exon 10 must be included from the
>alternative splicing plan."
>
>The trail becomes hotter when it is noted that the problem seems to
>emanate from the introns, not the exons.
>
>"But a defect in alternative splicing would probably not arise not
>from a "misspelling" in an exon as occurs in most genetic diseases,
>but from a more profound error in the instructions that regulate
>alternative splicing. These instructions are found in the areas
>between the exons, called introns."
>
>Granted, there is appeal made to the evolutionary worldview in this
>article, but an appeal can also be reasonably made to the creationist
>worldview -- that the instructions for alternative splicing in introns
>didn't just happen to accumulate willy-nilly, but were purposely
>installed to give direction to the exons.
Your going to have to try a lot harder with your appeal. First of
all, alternative splicing in intron excision is nothing new. It
appears to be random with respect to the cell/organisms needs and
evolutionary speaking is just another form of random alteration to the
genome (mutation) and subject to evolutionary pressures just like any
other mutation. Second, contrary to your "theory," these alternative
splicings have nothing to do with the sequence of the intron (wherein
you claim this "master program" resides)(6). As with any other change
from the norm in DNA -> RNA -> protein mechanisms, this one is caused by
mutation and hence subject to evolutionary mechanisms.
>
>It is also predicted that there will be found a correlation between
>number and/or length of introns to codons and the increasing
>complexity of life forms. The more complex the organism, the more
>instructions are programmed into it. (I am dealing now only with the
>physical aspects of life forms, not the mental -- a whole 'nother
>field of study.)
>
>This prediction is already supported by the evidence that introns are
>longer and/or more frequent in genes of organisms of higher complexity
>than in simpler life forms such as yeast or bacteria. Such a pattern
>implies purposeful planning or intent. Random activity will not
>produce this kind of ranking, where prokaryotic genes tend to be small
>and lack introns, and eukaryotic genes tend to be large and contain
>introns.
You can assert this all you want, but you're going to have to come up
with a more convincing argument that "complexity implies intelligence"
as that argument has been unconvincing to most scientists since Darwin
proposed his theory.
>
>
>It should be noted that increase in gene size is a result of increased
>intron length, not increased length of protein-coding exons. The
>average gene length of S.cerevisiae is 1.6, the average gene length of
>fungi is 1.5, AGL of C.elegans is 4.0, AGL of a chicken is 13.9, and
>the AGL of mammals is 16.6. The exons range, from 1, 3, 4, 9 and 7
>exons respectively.
>
>The link for the above information no longer works, so I can't give
>it, and that means researching the same data elsewhere -- tomorrow's
>another day.
>
>Also, humans have the greatest number of introns, says "Nature, Volume
>409, 15 February 2001."
>
>I predict that we are just beginning to discover a program that has
>been placed in life forms by their Creator.
>
>For more contributing data, see:
>
>http://bich431.tamu.edu/hu/23splicing.shtml
Where does this article present evidence of a creator? I couldn't
find it. All I can see is that you think that you've hit upon some
new information that has scientists baffled, and that because it seems
very complex to you, it must be designed. It is, indeed, complex;
however, it is neither new nor damning to the current evolutionary
paradigm. Introns have been studied since 1977. We've learned much
since then, but to those of us in the field, the processes surrounding
intron/exon splicing/shuffling, etc; just look like more evolutionary
baggage which if designed, could only have been designed by a drunkard
or an idiot. The majority of introns are of the Group I type, and
are just an unnecessary step in the production of proteins. They've
been around in cells for eons and since they don't adversely affect
the normal cellular processes, they face little selective pressure for
removal. In fact, due to the fact that introns are not evolutionarily
constrained by sequence, comparative genomics studies are possible
based on the higher mutation rates of introns compared to other more
conserved sequences(7). That introns have been mutating for so long, it
is no surprise that they should not have evolved into the less common
Group II introns and, as mutations, they can be neutral, detrimental
(as your reference above regarding Progressive Supranuclear Palsy), or
beneficial(8).
>
>"In yeast, most genes don't have introns. In humans, individual genes
>Can have >100 introns"
>
>Going even further, I would say that even within similar organisms,
>there will be a correlation between complexity and introns. See:
>
>http://www.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc731/transcript/transcript4.htm
>
>"The amount and size of introns varies greatly. The mammalian DHFR has
>6 exons that total about 2000 bases, yet the gene is 31,000 bases.
>Likewise, the alpha-collagen has 50 exons that range from 45-249 bases
>and the gene is about 40,000 bases. Clearly two genes of the same size
>can have different number of introns, and introns that vary in size"
>
>I submit that the reason for the difference in number and lengths of
>introns is due to the increasing complexity of the organism and/or the
>increasing complexity of the instructions needed to perform a
>specified function within specific areas of an organism, and depending
>on environmental influences of the moment.
>
>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/new-biological-database.html
>
>Alternative gene splicing is another clue that should lead to evidence
>for the instructional capacities of introns.
>
>"Split genes have a remarkable property: their exons can be added or
>deleted, giving rise to different proteins from the same gene. This
>alternative splicing plays a vital role in most higher organisms; in
>the development of the fruit fly, a single split gene arranged one way
>eventually produces a female, but if arranged another way produces a
>male.
>
>"Split genes are also important in generating the numerous "impromptu"
>variations of antibodies produced by the human immune system in
>response to novel infectious agents. And splicing variations have been
>found to result in some cancers as well. Alternative splicing in
>humans is not rare--almost a third of human genes are subject to it."
>
>This next link is written with an evolutionary perspective, but the
>data is subject to interpretation.
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/expl_05_introns.html
>
>The following quote contributes to my prediction on introns.
>
>"Less complex organisms such as yeast tend not to have introns. The
>function of introns, if any, is unknown, although geneticists now
>wonder whether the splicing together of exons required by the presence
>of introns allows the human genome to generate more complexity than
>its mere 30,000 genes would suggest."
>
>Okay, that's it for now. I'm heading out the door for an evening in
>the real world. Rigor will have to wait...or be shaped by the more
>scientific minds on this forum.
>
>And, hey, my prediction might be right, it might be wrong, but let it
>never again be said that the only thing that creationists can say in
>the science field is: "Goddidit" (even if He DID do it.) :-) It is
>left up to us to figure out HOW He did it. That is true science.
The evidence strongly suggests that you are wrong. I predict that this
will have no effect on your stubborn insistence that there must be some
master plan, some deliberate supernatural interference, anything but
evolution; controlling life and development.
We already have a very good idea of how God did it; an idea supported by
mountains of evidence: evolution.
>
>----
>zoe
>
References:
1. Crick F. Split genes and RNA splicing. Science 204:264-271, 1979.
2. Gozani O, Patton J, Reed R. A novel set of spliceosome-associated
proteins and the essential splicing factor PSF bind stably to pre-mRNA
prior to catalytic step II of the splicing reaction. European Molecular
Biology Organization 13:3356-3367, 1994.
3. Perry R. RNA processing comes of age. J Cell Biol. 1981 Dec;91(3 Pt
2):28s-38s.
4. Gesteland R, Cech T, Atkins J. The RNA World, 2nd Edition. Cold
Spring Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, p 735. 1999.
5. Ichiyanagi K, Beauregard A, Lawrence S, Smith D, Cousineau B,
Belfort M. Retrotransposition of the Ll.LtrB group II intron proceeds
predominantly via reverse splicing into DNA targets. Mol Microbiol. 2002
Dec;46(5):1259-72.
6. Schmid CW. Alu: structure, origin, evolution, significance
and function of one-tenth of human DNA. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol
Biol. 1996;53:283-319.
7. Zdobnov, Evgeny M., von Mering, Christian, Letunic, Ivica,
Torrents, David, Suyama, Mikita, Copley, Richard R., Christophides,
George K., Thomasova, Dana, Holt, Robert A., Subramanian, G. Mani,
Mueller, Hans-Michael, Dimopoulos, George, Law, John H., Wells,
Michael A., Birney, Ewan, Charlab, Rosane, Halpern, Aaron L., Kokoza,
Elena, Kraft, Cheryl L., Lai, Zhongwu, Lewis, Suzanna, Louis,
Christos, Barillas-Mury, Carolina, Nusskern, Deborah, Rubin, Gerald
M., Salzberg, Steven L., Sutton, Granger G., Topalis, Pantelis, Wides,
Ron, Wincker, Patrick, Yandell, Mark, Collins, Frank H., Ribeiro,
Jose, Gelbart, William M., Kafatos, Fotis C., Bork, Peer. Comparative
genome and proteome analysis of anopheles gambiae and drosophila
melanogaster. Science 2002 298: 149-159
8. Courseaux A, Nahon JL. Birth of two chimeric genes in the Hominidae
lineage. Science. 2001 Feb 16;291(5507):1293-7.
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
A better analogy, I concede, but I thought the ubiquity of the Morse
code, plus the fact that it contains the word "code" (whereas "ASCII",
probably as often as not, does not appear attached to the word "code"),
made it an easier analogy to grasp.
>
>Now just as the rules for constructing sentences can be passed on by a
>combination of meaningful written sentences in grammar textbooks, the
>rules for constructing body parts in bodies can be passed on using
>genetic means. There is no chicken or egg here - its both, or nothing
>happens.
>
>[This metaphor breaks down because language is not just transmitted in
>written form, while so far as we know, genes are always transmitted by
>genes + developmental processes, though.]
They both break down when you recognize that DNA -> RNA -> Protein is a
one-way process (for the most part. See my response to Zoe's original
post) whereas both ASCII and Morse codes can translate each way.
I probably should have attached that caveat to begin with as Zoe almost
always takes any analogy to an unreasonable extreme.
>--
>John Wilkins
>"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
>
zoe_althrop
feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
snip>
>Zoe, apparently you and Jo Jean get along with each other quite well,
>right? So, could you please ask her a question, which she always
>ignores when one of
>us, the "evilutionists", asks it?
sorry, Bjoern, but Jo Jean is well able to take care of herself. If
she doesn't want to answer you, so be it.
>She said a few months ago that she whispered "Jesus loves you" into
>the ears of dying patients (she was a nurse). The question is: Did she
>whisper this into the ears of patients she knew not to be Christians,
>too?
does it matter? Come on now, does it really matter? This sounds like
serious paranoia. What do you have against love? She didn't say
"Believe or you're going to hell, you dying bag of bones" nor did she
say, "Jesus is going to GET you, whooohooowooohoowooo." She simply
shared her belief that Jesus loves the patient. What's wrong with
that -- unless a person is laboring under such a guilty conscience
that any such sharing of LOVE drives him/her to the kind of rage I've
seen on that thread? If you don't believe Jesus is real, then there's
no harm in humoring the "misguided" one, right? On the other hand, if
you do believe that Jesus is real, then what harm is there in knowing
that He loves you?
So, tell me again, what's your problem with Jo Jean?
>Could you please ask her this for us?
nope. If she chooses not to answer, more power to her. She clearly
has the wisdom to know that there is a time to speak and a time to be
silent.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>My last set of posts went unanswered by John. Instead he chose to
>>piggyback on one of Bjoern's posts, only to say he has not seen the
>>post to which Bjoern was replying to -- as if something was stopping
>>him from replying to my post through Bjoern's post.
>
>I thought that one was explaining why he was replying through
>Bjoern's post instead of directly?
yes, but he did not respond to any of my points in the post. It's no
excuse to say you didn't get my post, but yet you're there
piggybacking on someone else's post to say so. Why not use that
piggybacked post to respond if the original post has not come through
on your news server -- huh, John?
> Instead, he
>>decided that Bjoern's answers were "spot on" and he had nothing to say
>>himself. Well, that's a strong signal to me that he's not interested
>>in the discussion anymore. Right, John?
>
>If he thought Bjoern's answers were "spot on", why not reply to
>them as though they were from John, and also to John's added
>comments?
there were no added comments, to start with. And besides, the thread
was addressed to John Harshman, in the first place, and I did not
expect Bjoern to become his spokesman.
>Or answer instead some of the more interesting other posts:
I did in some cases, but I really was trying to have a one-on-one
discussion with John Harshman this time.
snip>
>Anyway, I thought the "kinds" and chromosomes stuff was more
>interesting than this "scientific prediction" of yours, about DNA,
>but perhaps that can change.
well, this "scientific prediction" does have to do with kinds and
chromosomes. I expect that genetic research and comparative genome
mapping of chromosomes will demonstrate that there are limits to
speciation and will give evidence that every kind of life form has
boundaries. But I'm still working on the foundation, if you can wait.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
snip>
>. tomorrow I will defend my
>dissertation...
judging from your tenacious performance on TO, I expect you will
defend it well. What is the subject?
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> the genetic code, from what I've been taught here, is the "alphabet"
>> of the genome. Or do I have that wrong again?
>
>Yes you have done it wrong again. I have seen no one here
>saying that the genetic code is the "alphabet."
well, "alphabet" might be my word, but I have been led here to that
understanding -- 64 units in the alphabet, each unit consisting of a
sub-alphabet of bases, guanine, adenine, cytosine, thymine (uracil).
Just as the letters of the alphabet do not, in themselves mean
anything, but in combination with other letters, they form words, and
the words form sentences with meaning, so the "letters" of the genetic
code, the amino acids, by themselves have no meaning, but in
combination with other amino acids, they form proteins (sentences)
with meaning. There is even a sequence provided for punctuation.
This is evidence for a language, and language is a sign of
intelligence.
>> If this is not
>> incorrect, then introns are indeed part of the genetic code's
>> sequencing.
>
>Introns have NOTHING to do with the genetic code.
>
>Repeat: the genetic code is nothing but a table with 64 entries:
>UUU - Phenylalanine and 63 other entries. If you use the
>phrase "the genetic code" to refer to anything besides that
>table then you are using incorrect terminology.
I didn't say the introns were part of the genetic code. I said it was
part of the genetic code's SEQUENCING. There's a difference.
>The genetic code is not the alphabet as has already been pointed
>out to you. The "alphabet" for DNA is: G, C, T, and A.
I would consider the bases of CGAT to be structural outlines of the
alphabet -- outlines that, when arranged, create amino-acid letters.
So I would consider the bases to be the scaffolding of the alphabet.
>The
>"alphabet" for RNA is G, C, U, and A. The "alphabet" for
>proteins is amino acids which make them up.
I can agree with that. The alphabet for proteins is the amino acids.
And these amino acids are the genetic code. So when I say the genetic
code is the alphabet, I think I am saying the same thing you are.
>In any event, what introns do is done before translation.
so? The introns do their work of instruction and then they are cut
out. What instructions exactly do they give, and how were the
particular instructions triggered for each protein that is required to
meet environmental needs? Therein lies my prediction.
>When mRNA is processed the introns are _removed_. Then the
>mRNA is sent to the ribosomes where translation occures.
>The genetic code is only relevent to process of translation.
how does the body know what to produce in order to meet environmental
needs? Something goes on before the translation process in order for
the translation itself to provide the proteins that are needed.
>> The fact that they are cut out before translation does
>> not mean they have nothing to do with how the genetic code is
>> sequenced, or more specifically, how the amino acids (which are
>> represented by the genetic code's codons) are sequenced.
>>
>> So tell me again, what's wrong now with what I just said?
>
>The genetic code is not sequenced.
the amino acids that comprise the genetic code are most certainly
sequenced. Depending on their sequences, you get different types of
protein. So why is that not a case of the genetic code being
sequenced?
snip>
>> instructions that guide the splicing of exons (in a manner requisite
>> to meeting external demands) don't "just happen." It takes purpose
>> and planning -- attributes that indicate intelligence.
>
>You are only assuming what you are "proving."
>
>You will need to show that the splicing of exons requires planning.
>You have not even remotely done that. Maybe you can start with saying
>what form do those instructions that guide the splicing of the
>exons come in?
I predict that the instructions that guide the splicing come from the
introns, and/or probably even further back. My present hypothetical
guess is that they probably originate in the brain of the organism,
which would take us into the electro-chemical area of the life form.
But that would need research. As for the simpler life forms that do
not have brains, I would expect their programs to be based on less
than intelligence, on less than instinct, and more likely on a small,
mindless program that is less flexible to environmental influences
than organisms with brains.
> And be specific.
I can only be as specific as the research that I've dug up so far.
I've only just begun.
>Then when you answered that you
>will need to show why that mechanism requires planning.
mechanisms that meet the changing circumstances of environment require
planning. Left to the whim of random processes, the life form will
self destruct, since there is no consistency or reliability to the
mechanism in meeting with external influences.
> That it
>is complex or that you don't know how it works is not a reason.
>
>>>> not stupidity.
>>>
>>>Stupidity refers to an intellect. Consider using a different
>>>phrase.
>>
>> any suggestions? I was using it in the sense of irrational,
>
>Even the the word "irrational" implies an intellect.
"rational" implies intellect. "Not rational" (irrational) implies
lack of intellect.
>> lacking
>> the power to reason, which is an attribute of natural selection and
>> mutations. I meant "stupid" in the sense of contrary to reason,
>> senseless, unreasonable, absurd.
>
>You clearly don't want to use the words any of these words
>though senseless is the least objectionable. Maybe
>non-goal-directed or non-teleological. (Nitpickers, I use
>the word "teleological" in its strongest sense implying
>a conscious goal here.)
applying the term "non-goal-oriented" to systems that obviously have
goals doesn't make sense, does it? This is what evolution does, tries
to label goal-orientation as non-goal-orientation. It calls black
white and white black, and is happiest when gray reigns.
>> Situations can be this way without
>> any reason to invoke an intellect.
>>
>>>Are you saying an intron will change the codon AAC to something
>>>besides asparagine (for example)?
>>
>> no. The codons remain the same, all 64 of them.
>
>Then the genetic code is unchanged by definition.
I don't think I've said the genetic code changes, did I? If I did, I
was once again expressing myself unclearly. Let me try to phrase it
more clearly.
The sequences of the genetic code can change to produce 200,000 plus
proteins in a life form. THAT is flexibility and inherent ability to
vary.
>> It is the sequence
>> of the codons that determine what kind of protein will be created.
>>
>> Or am I still expressing it incorrectly? I know what I want to say,
>> but I'm afraid I don't get it out very well to meet your rigorous
>> minds.
>
>If alternative splicing occures one will have a different mRNA during
>translation and hense a different protein. There is nothing
>particualarly mysterious about all that.
learning how nature works does not mean that now we can dispense with
the Maker of nature. If, in learning how nature works, we see
evidence of intelligent planning, then we conclude that nature has a
Creator. Nothing unreasonable about that. It should be a natural
conclusion -- unless there are issues at stake.
snip>
>> the instructions of the introns, I predict, will be where the
>> flexibility and variability of the species resides.
>
>There is no doubt that alternative splicing is an important
>biochemical mechanism for generating the much of the different
>types of protein that exist.
>
>If you are merely refering to alternative splicing of introns from
>mRNA to produce different processed mRNAs which are then translated
>to different proteins then you are simple not doing
>anything that can be called "prediction." You simple saw it or read
>in some sort of news report. And then got this silly idea
>that is was somehow contrary to evolution.
alternative splicing is an indication that instructions are coming
from some source outside of the genetic code. My prediction is that
it can be found in the introns, and tracing further back, will be
found in a program (more sophisticated than any computer program) that
instructs for the flexibility and variation in life forms.
>In any event why is any of this a prediction of creationism?
>Be specific. God could have done it any way.
God could have done it any way, but not to optimum results. He
apparently has done it the best way possible, and there is no better
way to do it. That is why the laws of the universe (as with the moral
laws) are unchanging. They are perfect, cannot be improved upon. And
that is why salvation is a science, not some sentimental stage show on
a cross. There is a solid, scientific reason why God had to die if we
are to be given back our life in eternity.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
>>genetic code. Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
>>logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
>>Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
>>mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect, not
>>stupidity.
>
>Stupidity? I suppose this is a pejorative stab at the evolutionary
>alternative? With regard to your comments above about Björn I direct
>you to Matthew 7 vs. 1-5. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
you would do well to be in better control of yourself, don't you
think? And your scriptural cite does not apply. I have never called
Bjoern a liar, so there's no beam in my eye on that score. Want to
start over?
>Your prediction has already failed. Group I introns have been
>exhaustively studied since they were first discovered in 1977 (1).
1. They have been studied from an evolutionary point of view,
meaning, the possibility of intelligence was not a consideration.
That angle should be investigated instead of being dismissed out of
hand.
>The
>process by which they are excised from the mRNA is well documented (2).
2. Of course, it is well documented. The PROCESS of excision is well
documented. I am NOT talking about the process of excision. I am
talking about the causes for variation in sequences from protein to
protein. How does the body KNOW? Introns is one hypothesis.
>The base sequence (except at the donor/acceptor regions) is known to not
>affect the function of the genes from which they are excised;
and how do you know that the function of the gene has not already been
established by the instructions from the introns BEFORE excision? And
that at the time of excision, the function is already set and that is
why the introns are considered to be no longer needed in the process?
>therefore,
>they cannot contain any higher information.
not so fast. No "therefore" yet. You need to first demonstrate if
there would be a difference in function if there were no introns to
begin with, versus introns that are removed. Is there a way to test
for that? I am not referring to removal of introns already in place,
but somehow being able to join amino acids without any presence of
introns, period.
>Their base sequence has
>been experimentally altered(3)
3. Have they been altered and then translated? And in which life
forms was this performed? And, please, not bacteria, which are known
to have so few introns that I'm betting that not much of a change will
occur either way.
You know, you really should quote from your sources. Why aren't you
doing so?
>and shown not to affect the overall
>excision process,
the overall excision process? That is not what I am addressing. I am
questioning the effect. How do introns affect the function of the
organism?
>nor have any discernible affect on the organism as a
>whole.
this is sloppy argument, Wayne. And high-handed, too. If you have
access to the sources you are citing, then you should quote directly
from them for my benefit and the benefit of those who read your post.
Anybody can give an opinion and slap a source onto it to give it
authority.
>Once excised, the intron RNA is usually broken down and recycled
>for later use in DNA -> RNA transcription.
I have no problem with that. The excision process itself is not what
I am interested in at the moment.
>>I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
>>the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
>>amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
>>the organism.
>
>As mentioned above, the sequence of an intron is not important to
>the process and therefore cannot contribute any instructions to the
>cellular machinery.
I think you are premature in that conclusion. And please for direct
quotes from your sources. I don't intend to take your word for it.
And don't tell me to go to a library and look them up, or I'll do the
same to you with my sources. I have been quoting my sources. So can
you.
>There are the rarer Group II introns which have
>catalytic activity
you mean the self-splicing introns? I've been reading about them.
>(not unexpected and evidence supporting RNA world
>hypotheses(4))
4. The RNA world hypothesis has a lot of holes, and you know that
there is disagreement about it, so don't present it as the last word.
>and can add even effect the DNA of the host cell (5);
5. I don't know what you're saying here. "Can add even effect"? Or
do you mean AFFECT the DNA? Even so, I don't know what "add even"
means.
>however, there is no evidence that this is in any way directed by the
>needs of the cell and/or organism and, of course, not transferable to
>germ line cells and thus not heritable.
you're losing me. What is not heritable? The catalytic activity of
Group II introns? Or is it your strange "add even effect" that is not
heritable? I think you need to restate.
>Some gp. II introns, once
>excised, can even go on to form proteins, but again, there is no
>surprise here since it is viable RNA derived from the DNA template and
>thus subject to evolutionary mechanisms just like tRNA.
that's one hypothesis to be tested. What I am predicting, though, is
that as organisms become more complex, the length of introns increase,
demonstrating that it is not age that accumulates junk DNA, per the
evolutionary theory, but increasing complexity. If accumulation of
junk over billions of years were to occur, you would find the
supposedly earliest life forms with far more junk than the supposedly
more recent. This is not the case.
>> No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
>>series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
>>influences, nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
>>sequence for specific needs. The genetic code is like the alphabet,
>>(64 "letters" instead of 26) that can vary its codons in their
>>sequences so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
>>the changing influences of its environment.
>
>You're confusing terms (and probably concepts) here, but I think you are
>proposing some sort of neo-lamarckian type of inheritance mechanism.
>Surely even you know that Lamarckian evolution has been shown false by
>numerous observations and experiments.
no, Lamarckian evolution says stuff like if a giraffe stretches higher
for food during its lifetime, it's neck will grow longer and then its
offspring will have longer necks. That is definitely NOT what I am
saying. I am saying that the environment, chemically and
electro-chemically, can prompt certain responses within the cells that
trigger (I predict) relevant instructions that cause the translation
of the proper sequence of amino acids to create the precise type of
protein needed in response to environmental demands. This would be an
indication of intelligent, purposeful planning having been done for
the life form.
snip>
>>Granted, there is appeal made to the evolutionary worldview in this
>>article, but an appeal can also be reasonably made to the creationist
>>worldview -- that the instructions for alternative splicing in introns
>>didn't just happen to accumulate willy-nilly, but were purposely
>>installed to give direction to the exons.
>
>Your going to have to try a lot harder with your appeal. First of
>all, alternative splicing in intron excision is nothing new.
except that is NOT what I am addressing. Alternative splicing has
been observed, but the cause for the splicing, the patterns of
stimulus and response, the cause of SELF-splicing, these are areas
that I predict will reveal purposeful planning.
>It
>appears to be random with respect to the cell/organisms needs and
>evolutionary speaking is just another form of random alteration to the
>genome (mutation) and subject to evolutionary pressures just like any
>other mutation.
as I said before, the possibility of intelligence is not even
considered, so of course any signs leading in that direction are
interpreted as random. Not necessarily so.
>Second, contrary to your "theory," these alternative
>splicings have nothing to do with the sequence of the intron (wherein
>you claim this "master program" resides)(6).
Wayne, your footnotes are useless. You make a statement of your own
opinion and then try to lend it authority with an
authoritative-sounding footnote. Not good. You need to quote from
your source because I am not prepared to take your word for it. And
don't send me to look up your sources. If you have access to them,
you need to quote from them. If you took the time to look up the
articles and textbooks in order to place them in your post, then you
should quote from them right here within your post.
>As with any other change
>from the norm in DNA -> RNA -> protein mechanisms, this one is caused by
>mutation and hence subject to evolutionary mechanisms.
that is your say-so. Not strong enough.
How would you feel if I provided you sources that I am presently
studying, and make a point, without quoting, and expect you to go find
my point in them?
Here:
http://acg.media.mit.edu/people/fry/ex/icp/chr21-detail.jpg
http://acg.media.mit.edu/people/fry/ex/icp/all-detail.jpg
I could give you the above links after stating firmly that introns
give evidence of a program. I bet you would demand a quote from my
sources that would support my conclusions. Well, I expect you to
quote from your sources instead of giving your opinion and then
backing it up with some general mention of a source.
snip>
>>It should be noted that increase in gene size is a result of increased
>>intron length, not increased length of protein-coding exons. The
>>average gene length of S.cerevisiae is 1.6, the average gene length of
>>fungi is 1.5, AGL of C.elegans is 4.0, AGL of a chicken is 13.9, and
>>the AGL of mammals is 16.6. The exons range, from 1, 3, 4, 9 and 7
>>exons respectively.
>>
>>The link for the above information no longer works, so I can't give
>>it, and that means researching the same data elsewhere -- tomorrow's
>>another day.
>>
>>Also, humans have the greatest number of introns, says "Nature, Volume
>>409, 15 February 2001."
>>
>>I predict that we are just beginning to discover a program that has
>>been placed in life forms by their Creator.
>>
>>For more contributing data, see:
>>
>>http://bich431.tamu.edu/hu/23splicing.shtml
>
>Where does this article present evidence of a creator? I couldn't
>find it.
aha, see how it feels? Go look for it. It's in there. Just like you
think your opinions above should be accepted because you have given
sources without quotes.
>All I can see is that you think that you've hit upon some
>new information that has scientists baffled, and that because it seems
>very complex to you, it must be designed. It is, indeed, complex;
>however, it is neither new nor damning to the current evolutionary
>paradigm. Introns have been studied since 1977. We've learned much
>since then, but to those of us in the field, the processes surrounding
>intron/exon splicing/shuffling, etc; just look like more evolutionary
>baggage which if designed, could only have been designed by a drunkard
>or an idiot.
you do recognize that you have restricted your research to a narrow
paradigm, and as a result, you will never learn anything beyond your
predetermined evolutionary perspective because you have already
decided that all data will point in this direction.
>The majority of introns are of the Group I type, and
>are just an unnecessary step in the production of proteins. They've
>been around in cells for eons and since they don't adversely affect
>the normal cellular processes, they face little selective pressure for
>removal. In fact, due to the fact that introns are not evolutionarily
>constrained by sequence, comparative genomics studies are possible
>based on the higher mutation rates of introns compared to other more
>conserved sequences(7).
7. Yeah, right, another unquoted source. I'm impressed.
>That introns have been mutating for so long, it
>is no surprise that they should not have evolved into the less common
>Group II introns and, as mutations, they can be neutral, detrimental
>(as your reference above regarding Progressive Supranuclear Palsy), or
>beneficial(8).
8. You do recognize that your prejudice is coloring your
interpretation of the data? Besides, my reference to PSP above
mentions instructions in the introns. Did you miss that?
snip my QUOTED sources>
>>And, hey, my prediction might be right, it might be wrong, but let it
>>never again be said that the only thing that creationists can say in
>>the science field is: "Goddidit" (even if He DID do it.) :-) It is
>>left up to us to figure out HOW He did it. That is true science.
>
>The evidence strongly suggests that you are wrong. I predict that this
>will have no effect on your stubborn insistence that there must be some
>master plan, some deliberate supernatural interference, anything but
>evolution; controlling life and development.
and having ruled out this possibility, your scientific investigation
now follows a narrow little path determined by your prejudices. Too
bad for the breadth and depth of your scientific research.
<snip references used as an appeal to authority in order to back up
personal opinions. I await your quotes from your sources. Thank
you.>
----
zoe
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:14:26 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
> <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
>>> the genetic code, from what I've been taught here, is the "alphabet"
>>> of the genome. Or do I have that wrong again?
>>
>>Yes you have done it wrong again. I have seen no one here
>>saying that the genetic code is the "alphabet."
>
> well, "alphabet" might be my word, but I have been led here to that
> understanding -- 64 units in the alphabet, each unit consisting of a
> sub-alphabet of bases, guanine, adenine, cytosine, thymine (uracil).
> Just as the letters of the alphabet do not, in themselves mean
> anything, but in combination with other letters, they form words, and
> the words form sentences with meaning, so the "letters" of the genetic
> code, the amino acids, by themselves have no meaning, but in
> combination with other amino acids, they form proteins (sentences)
> with meaning. There is even a sequence provided for punctuation.
> This is evidence for a language, and language is a sign of
> intelligence.
Sub-alphabet?
Why do you think "punctuation" which is extremely minimal (only
"stop") is evidence for language? Starting and stoping point
is necessary is is hardly something too "complex" to have evolved.
Why do proteins have meaning? I am serious. Or maybe I should
phrase the question: why do proteins have meaning beyond that of
any other molecule?
>>> If this is not
>>> incorrect, then introns are indeed part of the genetic code's
>>> sequencing.
>>
>>Introns have NOTHING to do with the genetic code.
>>
>>Repeat: the genetic code is nothing but a table with 64 entries:
>>UUU - Phenylalanine and 63 other entries. If you use the
>>phrase "the genetic code" to refer to anything besides that
>>table then you are using incorrect terminology.
>
> I didn't say the introns were part of the genetic code. I said it was
> part of the genetic code's SEQUENCING. There's a difference.
And it is still 100% wrong. The genetic code has _NO_ sequencing.
It is just a table of 64 codons and the amino acids (or stop) which
they code for AND NOTHING ELSE.
Introns do not in any way change the genetic code.
Of course you would know that if you had yet to figure out
what the genetic code is.
>>The genetic code is not the alphabet as has already been pointed
>>out to you. The "alphabet" for DNA is: G, C, T, and A.
>
> I would consider the bases of CGAT to be structural outlines of the
> alphabet -- outlines that, when arranged, create amino-acid letters.
> So I would consider the bases to be the scaffolding of the alphabet.
>
>>The
>>"alphabet" for RNA is G, C, U, and A. The "alphabet" for
>>proteins is amino acids which make them up.
>
> I can agree with that. The alphabet for proteins is the amino acids.
> And these amino acids are the genetic code.
Those amino acids are NOT the genetic code. Neither are the codons.
Nor are the nucleotide sequences. Nor are introns. Nor
is mRNA. Nor nor exons.
The genetic code for
the million time (or so it seems) is just a table that says
what codon "codes" for what amino acid (or stop) during translation.
> So when I say the genetic
> code is the alphabet, I think I am saying the same thing you are.
Not even close. THe genetic code is not an "alphabet" either.
>>In any event, what introns do is done before translation.
>
> so? The introns do their work of instruction and then they are cut
> out.
False. They are just cut out. Now they might in _some_ cases have the
"information" where to do the cutting, but once they are cut out there
role is over. In any event no matter what the mRNA is sent to
translation, no matter what its sequence is, no matter whether or
not translation is done or not, etc.: the genetic code stays the
same.
And see the post which I nominated Post of the Month. It
described the fact that scientists had deliberately changed
the content of many introns and the result was:
no change.
> What instructions exactly do they give, and how were the
> particular instructions triggered for each protein that is required to
> meet environmental needs? Therein lies my prediction.
>
>>When mRNA is processed the introns are _removed_. Then the
>>mRNA is sent to the ribosomes where translation occures.
>>The genetic code is only relevent to process of translation.
>
> how does the body know what to produce in order to meet environmental
> needs? Something goes on before the translation process in order for
> the translation itself to provide the proteins that are needed.
There are many known ways for this to happen. You are decades
behind. Indeed quite a bit about that is known. And the
mechanism for its evolution have been directly observed.
>>> The fact that they are cut out before translation does
>>> not mean they have nothing to do with how the genetic code is
>>> sequenced, or more specifically, how the amino acids (which are
>>> represented by the genetic code's codons) are sequenced.
>>>
>>> So tell me again, what's wrong now with what I just said?
>>
>>The genetic code is not sequenced.
>
> the amino acids that comprise the genetic code are most certainly
> sequenced. Depending on their sequences, you get different types of
> protein. So why is that not a case of the genetic code being
> sequenced?
Because the nothing is EVER done to the genetic code. Your genetic
code NEVER changes. And if it ever does you will die very quickly.
Your genetic code is identical to mine genetic code and is identical
to a chimps, etc.
But maybe it would help you understand if I said that in reality there
is no genetic code in any cell. Print out that table of codons and
the amino acids they code for I provided earlier in the thread. That
table -- that piece of paper -- is the genetic code. There is not
structure, no sequence, or anything thing physical in your body that
is the genetic code. The genetic code is a mere abstractions: a
summary we humans make to describe what happens in translation.
It is nonsense to say you sequence the "genetic code." Just as one
does not sequence Morris code. Morris code is just a table too.
Go see a telegraph (probably in some museum) and you will find no
part of it labed "Morris code." Nor is any part of its operation
labled "Morris code." All Morris code is is a table which tells
you when the operator hears a combination of dots and dashes what
letter he will write down.
> snip>
>
>>> instructions that guide the splicing of exons (in a manner requisite
>>> to meeting external demands) don't "just happen." It takes purpose
>>> and planning -- attributes that indicate intelligence.
>>
>>You are only assuming what you are "proving."
>>
>>You will need to show that the splicing of exons requires planning.
>>You have not even remotely done that. Maybe you can start with saying
>>what form do those instructions that guide the splicing of the
>>exons come in?
>
> I predict that the instructions that guide the splicing come from the
> introns, and/or probably even further back.
Again you did not predict this, you read it. And how does "intelligent
design" predict any of this? God did not have to use introns or
anything else?
And do not that while sometimes introns guide their own cutting out,
sometimes they do not.
> My present hypothetical
> guess is that they probably originate in the brain of the organism,
Chez Watt worthy comment. Introns do not leave the cell or enter it.
> which would take us into the electro-chemical area of the life form.
> But that would need research. As for the simpler life forms that do
> not have brains, I would expect their programs to be based on less
> than intelligence, on less than instinct, and more likely on a small,
> mindless program that is less flexible to environmental influences
> than organisms with brains.
If this is your hypothesis then scientists already know enough to
say it is false.
>> And be specific.
>
> I can only be as specific as the research that I've dug up so far.
> I've only just begun.
>
>>Then when you answered that you
>>will need to show why that mechanism requires planning.
>
> mechanisms that meet the changing circumstances of environment require
> planning.
This sort of thing has been shown to evolved in laborator experiments.
> Left to the whim of random processes, the life form will
> self destruct, since there is no consistency or reliability to the
> mechanism in meeting with external influences.
More assertions without proof. You are again assuming what you want
to prove.
>> That it
>>is complex or that you don't know how it works is not a reason.
>>
>>>>> not stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>Stupidity refers to an intellect. Consider using a different
>>>>phrase.
>>>
>>> any suggestions? I was using it in the sense of irrational,
>>
>>Even the the word "irrational" implies an intellect.
>
> "rational" implies intellect. "Not rational" (irrational) implies
> lack of intellect.
Your vocabulary is rather bad. "irrational" does not mean a lack
of intellect. It means an intellect that believes or acts in
a manner which is not rational. Maybe we can coin a new word
for you: arational. This is analous to moral, immoral, an
a moral. A rock lacks morality but it is not immoral
as a man who lacked morality would be but is rather amoral.
>>> lacking
>>> the power to reason, which is an attribute of natural selection and
>>> mutations. I meant "stupid" in the sense of contrary to reason,
>>> senseless, unreasonable, absurd.
>>
>>You clearly don't want to use the words any of these words
>>though senseless is the least objectionable. Maybe
>>non-goal-directed or non-teleological. (Nitpickers, I use
>>the word "teleological" in its strongest sense implying
>>a conscious goal here.)
>
> applying the term "non-goal-oriented" to systems that obviously have
> goals doesn't make sense, does it?
Your reading comprehension again. Evolution is "non-goal-oriented."
>This is what evolution does, tries
> to label goal-orientation as non-goal-orientation. It calls black
> white and white black, and is happiest when gray reigns.
If you think that life has a grand (and literal) plan then you
will need to show it. You seem not to comprehend that you really
can't assume it.
>
>>> Situations can be this way without
>>> any reason to invoke an intellect.
>>>
>>>>Are you saying an intron will change the codon AAC to something
>>>>besides asparagine (for example)?
>>>
>>> no. The codons remain the same, all 64 of them.
>>
>>Then the genetic code is unchanged by definition.
>
> I don't think I've said the genetic code changes, did I? If I did, I
> was once again expressing myself unclearly. Let me try to phrase it
> more clearly.
>
> The sequences of the genetic code can change to produce 200,000 plus
> proteins in a life form.
The genetic code has NO sequences. NEVER refer to the genetic
code to refer to anything besides that piece of paper (or whatever)
with the table on it. It is equivalent to saying the telegrams
of the Morris code which is, of course, an oxymoron. The Morris code
has no novels, not messages, no articles, so sequences, or anything
else: the Morris code is just a table.
> THAT is flexibility and inherent ability to
> vary.
It is not _that_ flexible.
>>> It is the sequence
>>> of the codons that determine what kind of protein will be created.
>>>
>>> Or am I still expressing it incorrectly? I know what I want to say,
>>> but I'm afraid I don't get it out very well to meet your rigorous
>>> minds.
>>
>>If alternative splicing occures one will have a different mRNA during
>>translation and hense a different protein. There is nothing
>>particualarly mysterious about all that.
>
> learning how nature works does not mean that now we can dispense with
> the Maker of nature. If, in learning how nature works, we see
> evidence of intelligent planning,
But that is the whole point: you have not presented any evidence for
intelligent planning. You have presented many assumptions of it though.
> then we conclude that nature has a
> Creator. Nothing unreasonable about that. It should be a natural
> conclusion -- unless there are issues at stake.
>
> snip>
>
>>> the instructions of the introns, I predict, will be where the
>>> flexibility and variability of the species resides.
>>
>>There is no doubt that alternative splicing is an important
>>biochemical mechanism for generating the much of the different
>>types of protein that exist.
>>
>>If you are merely refering to alternative splicing of introns from
>>mRNA to produce different processed mRNAs which are then translated
>>to different proteins then you are simple not doing
>>anything that can be called "prediction." You simple saw it or read
>>in some sort of news report. And then got this silly idea
>>that is was somehow contrary to evolution.
>
> alternative splicing is an indication that instructions are coming
> from some source outside of the genetic code. My prediction is that
> it can be found in the introns, and tracing further back, will be
> found in a program (more sophisticated than any computer program) that
> instructs for the flexibility and variation in life forms.
>
>>In any event why is any of this a prediction of creationism?
>>Be specific. God could have done it any way.
>
> God could have done it any way, but not to optimum results.
If you are saying that creationism predicts optimum results then
creationism is disprove a thousand times over. This system
is not optimum and there are many wildly un-optimum systems
in nature.
> He
> apparently has done it the best way possible, and there is no better
> way to do it.
Yeah right.
> That is why the laws of the universe (as with the moral
> laws) are unchanging.
If the laws of the universe change then by definition they
cannot be laws.
> They are perfect, cannot be improved upon.
Assumption without proof.
> And
> that is why salvation is a science, not some sentimental stage show on
> a cross. There is a solid, scientific reason why God had to die if we
> are to be given back our life in eternity.
You are the first creationist I have ever seen who has ever called
any of this "scientific."
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
> You know, you really should quote from your sources. Why aren't you
> doing so?
Chez Watt nomination
J Yossarian
<snip stuff>
> Not by my definition.
>
> 1) Algorithm's are finite and fixed.
>
> 2) Algorithms deliver an answer to a specific mathematical problem in a
> specific way.
>
> 3) Algorithms can be specified formally and analyzed mathematically. See
> 'The art of computer programming' by Donald Knuth for some examples.
>
> 4) Algorithms are deterministic. Given the same inputs, the same output will
> result in exactly the same number of steps.
>
> In his definition (and who am I to argue with Knuth on the subject of
> algorithm's) they need to satify these conditions:
>
> a) they must be finite. The algorithm should terminate after a finite number
> of steps.
>
> b) they must be definite. Each step in the algorithm should be precisely
> defined.
>
> c) they must have input. There must be some way of expressing the values to
> operate on.
>
> d) they must have output. There must be some way of expressing the outcome
> of the algorithm.
>
> e) they must be effective. The algorithm should minimize the number of steps
> needed to arrive at the answer and the answer, of course, needs to be
> correct.
(OT and minor dispute)
What does 'minimize the number of steps' mean? That the candidate
algorithm must be optimal to be an actual algorithm? This would imply
to me that (for example) bubblesort, which is O n^2, isn't an
algorithm, because there exist algorithms that are O n log n. Or is
there some other meaning for 'minimize the number of steps'.
>
> (paraphrasing D. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, part I 'Fundamental
> algorithm's).
<snip>
> Mind you, VHDL isn't an algorithmic language, nor is Prolog. Algol is, C is
> (usually). Pascal is. Lisp only up to a point. But *not* Prolog or VHDL.
> Strange, ain't it?
>
(another minor, OT point)
What defines a language as algorithmic? My assumption would be (and
is perhaps wrong) that any language that is (abstractly) equivalent to
a Turing machine (or the lambda calculus, or a Von Neumann machine) is
algorithmic. This would include all the languages you list except
VHDL.
Cheers,
J
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:38:12 +0000 (UTC),
> mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3ef4e0ec....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com
>>[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>>
>>>Well, it is obvious that my discussion with John Harshman has ended,
>>>
>>Because you can't or you won't answer him? Why not just
>>admit you were mistaken about chromosomes [and "kinds"]?
>>
>>
>>>seeing that he has ducked behind Bjoern.
>>>
>>How has he ducked anywhere?
>>
>
> My last set of posts went unanswered by John. Instead he chose to
> piggyback on one of Bjoern's posts, only to say he has not seen the
> post to which Bjoern was replying to -- as if something was stopping
> him from replying to my post through Bjoern's post. Instead, he
> decided that Bjoern's answers were "spot on" and he had nothing to say
> himself. Well, that's a strong signal to me that he's not interested
> in the discussion anymore. Right, John?
No, I'm still interested. But first, I've been away for a week (at the
Evolution meeting in Chico). And second, I seem to be having problems,
because I can't see your post that Mel was replying to.
>>The one hiding seems to
>>be you. There are still a bunch of unanswered responses
>>to you in those earlier threads. Go take a look...
>>
[snip list]
>
> this proves nothing, Mel. I answer what I find the time to answer,
> and that means there will be posts left unanswered. The fact is that
> I answered several of John's posts, and he could have responded to
> THOSE most recent ones. He didn't, so I guess the discussion is over.
I know of no posts of yours that I haven't responded to. I know of many
posts of mine that you haven't responded to. It may be that propagation
is so spotty that I can't see much of what you have posted, but of
course I can't tell that.
As for the Bjoern thing, why don't you just respond to his post while
pretending that I wrote it? That should be good enough, and I'll be
happy to take up where Bjoern left off.
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:14:26 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
> <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
>
>>>the genetic code, from what I've been taught here, is the "alphabet"
>>>of the genome. Or do I have that wrong again?
>>>
>>Yes you have done it wrong again. I have seen no one here
>>saying that the genetic code is the "alphabet."
>>
>
> well, "alphabet" might be my word, but I have been led here to that
> understanding -- 64 units in the alphabet, each unit consisting of a
> sub-alphabet of bases, guanine, adenine, cytosine, thymine (uracil).
> Just as the letters of the alphabet do not, in themselves mean
> anything, but in combination with other letters, they form words, and
> the words form sentences with meaning, so the "letters" of the genetic
> code, the amino acids, by themselves have no meaning, but in
> combination with other amino acids, they form proteins (sentences)
> with meaning. There is even a sequence provided for punctuation.
> This is evidence for a language, and language is a sign of
> intelligence.
Had to jump in here. Harlequin and others have explained to you at
excruciating length that your definitions are all wrong. Please stop
using "genetic code" to mean something other than the correspondence
between codons and amino acids. And your little analogies are useless.
Even you can't keep them straight: at various times you have said that
DNA bases, codons, and amino acids are the letters in your "alphabet".
>>>If this is not
>>>incorrect, then introns are indeed part of the genetic code's
>>>sequencing.
>>>
>>Introns have NOTHING to do with the genetic code.
>>
>>Repeat: the genetic code is nothing but a table with 64 entries:
>>UUU - Phenylalanine and 63 other entries. If you use the
>>phrase "the genetic code" to refer to anything besides that
>>table then you are using incorrect terminology.
>
> I didn't say the introns were part of the genetic code. I said it was
> part of the genetic code's SEQUENCING. There's a difference.
The genetic code doesn't have a sequence. You mean introns are part of a
gene's or organism's DNA sequence.
>>The genetic code is not the alphabet as has already been pointed
>>out to you. The "alphabet" for DNA is: G, C, T, and A.
>
> I would consider the bases of CGAT to be structural outlines of the
> alphabet -- outlines that, when arranged, create amino-acid letters.
> So I would consider the bases to be the scaffolding of the alphabet.
As far as I can tell, there seems to be no point at all to this analogy,
since it illuminates nothing; in fact it only seems to be increasing
your confusion. Dump it.
>>The
>>"alphabet" for RNA is G, C, U, and A. The "alphabet" for
>>proteins is amino acids which make them up.
>
> I can agree with that. The alphabet for proteins is the amino acids.
> And these amino acids are the genetic code. So when I say the genetic
> code is the alphabet, I think I am saying the same thing you are.
No, no, no, no, no. Amino acids are not, not, not the genetic code. The
genetic code is the list of correspondences between codons and amino
acids. Codons are not the code. Amino acids are not the code.
Relationships between codons and amino acids are the code. [Makes Marge
Simpson noise deep in throat.]
>>In any event, what introns do is done before translation.
>
> so? The introns do their work of instruction and then they are cut
> out. What instructions exactly do they give, and how were the
> particular instructions triggered for each protein that is required to
> meet environmental needs? Therein lies my prediction.
This prediction makes no sense. Since the only thing that determines a
protein's nature is its sequence, and the only thing that determines a
protein's sequence is the sequence of codons in the mRNA used to make
it, your theory requires a belief that introns do something to change
the sequence of mRNAs before they are excised. However, we know that not
to be true. The sequence of a mature mRNA is identical to the sequence
of that part of the gene from which they are transcribed. No influence
of introns, or anything else, occurs to change this.
>>When mRNA is processed the introns are _removed_. Then the
>>mRNA is sent to the ribosomes where translation occures.
>>The genetic code is only relevent to process of translation.
>
> how does the body know what to produce in order to meet environmental
> needs? Something goes on before the translation process in order for
> the translation itself to provide the proteins that are needed.
Right. But this has nothing to do with translation. Mostly it has to do
with transcription rate or (less important generally) with the rate of
destruction of mRNAs. Transcription rate is the rate at which mRNAs are
produced from the gene that codes for them. This in turn is influenced
(plus or minus) by proteins called transcription factors. These in turn
are controlled by a whole network of other molecules in complex feedback
loops that often include molecules that transfer signals from outside
the cell. Introns have absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>>The fact that they are cut out before translation does
>>>not mean they have nothing to do with how the genetic code is
>>>sequenced, or more specifically, how the amino acids (which are
>>>represented by the genetic code's codons) are sequenced.
>>>
>>>So tell me again, what's wrong now with what I just said?
>>>
>>The genetic code is not sequenced.
>
> the amino acids that comprise the genetic code are most certainly
> sequenced. Depending on their sequences, you get different types of
> protein. So why is that not a case of the genetic code being
> sequenced?
Amino acids are not the genetic code. Nucleotides are not the genetic
code. Nucleotide triplets are not the genetic code. Your understanding
of this simple term is for some reason faulty.
> snip>
>
>>>instructions that guide the splicing of exons (in a manner requisite
>>>to meeting external demands) don't "just happen." It takes purpose
>>>and planning -- attributes that indicate intelligence.
>>>
>>You are only assuming what you are "proving."
>>
>>You will need to show that the splicing of exons requires planning.
>>You have not even remotely done that. Maybe you can start with saying
>>what form do those instructions that guide the splicing of the
>>exons come in?
>
> I predict that the instructions that guide the splicing come from the
> introns,
In many cases this is true. Introns provide the information that informs
their own excision. But it's pretty simple information: all it says is
"remove me", and the intron is frequently the only agent that hears this
message, since it removes itself.
> and/or probably even further back. My present hypothetical
> guess is that they probably originate in the brain of the organism,
> which would take us into the electro-chemical area of the life form.
No. First, a large majority of organisms don't have brains. Second, most
splicing is automatic and only happens one way.
> But that would need research. As for the simpler life forms that do
> not have brains, I would expect their programs to be based on less
> than intelligence, on less than instinct, and more likely on a small,
> mindless program that is less flexible to environmental influences
> than organisms with brains.
There's a teeny little bit of truth here. Brains can produce or
stimulate the production of chemical messengers of various sorts. These
messengers diffuse through the body and can bind to specific receptors
on particular cell surfaces, which by a series of intermediate molecules
end up communicating with the nucleus, generally with the end of the
chain being a transcription factor, which thus increases or decreases
the rate of production of some protein. We know about many systems of
this type. What you think it means is unclear. But introns have nothing
to do with it.
>>And be specific.
>
> I can only be as specific as the research that I've dug up so far.
> I've only just begun.
I'm afraid you misunderstand most of what you read, and so have formed
some meaningless or absurd theories about how things work.
>>Then when you answered that you
>>will need to show why that mechanism requires planning.
>
> mechanisms that meet the changing circumstances of environment require
> planning. Left to the whim of random processes, the life form will
> self destruct, since there is no consistency or reliability to the
> mechanism in meeting with external influences.
No, all that's required is some form of feedback. How all this feedback
arose originally is an interesting question, but it's quite different
from the question of how the system operates in the present. Your
misconceptions about how it works now make any questions about how it
came to be that way pointless.
>>That it
>>is complex or that you don't know how it works is not a reason.
>>
>>
>>>>>not stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>Stupidity refers to an intellect. Consider using a different
>>>>phrase.
>>>>
>>>any suggestions? I was using it in the sense of irrational,
>>>
>>Even the the word "irrational" implies an intellect.
>
> "rational" implies intellect. "Not rational" (irrational) implies
> lack of intellect.
Semantic goo. You are just trying to attach pejorative phrases to the
conventional scientific explanations.
>>>lacking
>>>the power to reason, which is an attribute of natural selection and
>>>mutations. I meant "stupid" in the sense of contrary to reason,
>>>senseless, unreasonable, absurd.
>>>
>>You clearly don't want to use the words any of these words
>>though senseless is the least objectionable. Maybe
>>non-goal-directed or non-teleological. (Nitpickers, I use
>>the word "teleological" in its strongest sense implying
>>a conscious goal here.)
>
> applying the term "non-goal-oriented" to systems that obviously have
> goals doesn't make sense, does it? This is what evolution does, tries
> to label goal-orientation as non-goal-orientation. It calls black
> white and white black, and is happiest when gray reigns.
Unfortunately, gray is a major part of nature. If you're going to use
language just to insult the opposition, feel free. But it hardly
advances communication.
>>>Situations can be this way without
>>>any reason to invoke an intellect.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you saying an intron will change the codon AAC to something
>>>>besides asparagine (for example)?
>>>>
>>>no. The codons remain the same, all 64 of them.
>>>
>>Then the genetic code is unchanged by definition.
>
> I don't think I've said the genetic code changes, did I? If I did, I
> was once again expressing myself unclearly. Let me try to phrase it
> more clearly.
>
> The sequences of the genetic code can change to produce 200,000 plus
> proteins in a life form. THAT is flexibility and inherent ability to
> vary.
The genetic code has no sequence. You mean the sequences of the DNA.
However, these sequences do *not* change to produce the various
proteins. You can get different proteins from the same locus by a couple
of methods. First, different parts of the sequence can be removed either
by starting transcription at different points (under the influence of
different transcription factors) or by splicing out parts of exons from
the pre-mRNA, also generally done by proteins. Second, in rare
instances, notably in the immune system, exons can be shuffled in their
order to create new proteins. However, this doesn't happen on demand: it
happens at random. Third, some loci can be read in two directions; but
that's not a regulatory function.
>>>It is the sequence
>>>of the codons that determine what kind of protein will be created.
>>>
>>>Or am I still expressing it incorrectly? I know what I want to say,
>>>but I'm afraid I don't get it out very well to meet your rigorous
>>>minds.
>>>
>>If alternative splicing occures one will have a different mRNA during
>>translation and hense a different protein. There is nothing
>>particualarly mysterious about all that.
>
> learning how nature works does not mean that now we can dispense with
> the Maker of nature. If, in learning how nature works, we see
> evidence of intelligent planning, then we conclude that nature has a
> Creator. Nothing unreasonable about that. It should be a natural
> conclusion -- unless there are issues at stake.
How would we go about distinguishing the results of intelligent planning
from the results of a long period of natural evolution?
>>>the instructions of the introns, I predict, will be where the
>>>flexibility and variability of the species resides.
>>>
>>There is no doubt that alternative splicing is an important
>>biochemical mechanism for generating the much of the different
>>types of protein that exist.
>>
>>If you are merely refering to alternative splicing of introns from
>>mRNA to produce different processed mRNAs which are then translated
>>to different proteins then you are simple not doing
>>anything that can be called "prediction." You simple saw it or read
>>in some sort of news report. And then got this silly idea
>>that is was somehow contrary to evolution.
>
> alternative splicing is an indication that instructions are coming
> from some source outside of the genetic code. My prediction is that
> it can be found in the introns, and tracing further back, will be
> found in a program (more sophisticated than any computer program) that
> instructs for the flexibility and variation in life forms.
Again, your odd use of "genetic code" obscures whatever you are trying
to say. And your prediction is wrong. The reasons for alternate splicing
are known for many genes, and the introns are not making any decisions.
>>In any event why is any of this a prediction of creationism?
>>Be specific. God could have done it any way.
>
> God could have done it any way, but not to optimum results. He
> apparently has done it the best way possible, and there is no better
> way to do it.
Can we change your name to Zoe Pangloss?
> That is why the laws of the universe (as with the moral
> laws) are unchanging. They are perfect, cannot be improved upon. And
> that is why salvation is a science, not some sentimental stage show on
> a cross. There is a solid, scientific reason why God had to die if we
> are to be given back our life in eternity.
I have my doubts about that, but it's off topic here anyway.
Richard Uhrich
I like it! Pangloss, besides the phictional filosopher, could be
translated "all shine" or "flash in the pan."
>
>
>> That is why the laws of the universe (as with the moral
>>laws) are unchanging. They are perfect, cannot be improved upon. And
>>that is why salvation is a science, not some sentimental stage show on
>>a cross. There is a solid, scientific reason why God had to die if we
>>are to be given back our life in eternity.
>>
>
>
> I have my doubts about that, but it's off topic here anyway.
>
>
--
Richard Uhrich
---
An unfortunate corollary of having a small minority knowing more and
more about less and less is a large majority knowing less and less about
more and more. --- Mike Gazzaniga, "The Mind's Past"
Sven Axelsson
news:Xns93A5EE72452EAu...@68.12.19.6:
> It is nonsense to say you sequence the "genetic code." Just as one
> does not sequence Morris code. Morris code is just a table too.
> Go see a telegraph (probably in some museum) and you will find no
> part of it labed "Morris code." Nor is any part of its operation
> labled "Morris code." All Morris code is is a table which tells
> you when the operator hears a combination of dots and dashes what
> letter he will write down.
Minor nit: I believe you mean Morse code.
/sven
KelvynT
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:46:34 +0000 (UTC),
>feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Could you please ask her this for us?
>
>nope. If she chooses not to answer, more power to her. She clearly
>has the wisdom to know that there is a time to speak and a time to be
>silent.
Possibly, but unfortunately she keeps forgetting which comes when.
Kelvyn
>snip>
>
>----
>zoe
Eric
> ...What I am predicting, though,
> is that as organisms become more complex, the length of introns
> increase, demonstrating that it is not age that accumulates junk
> DNA, per the evolutionary theory, but increasing complexity. If
> accumulation of junk over billions of years were to occur, you
> would find the supposedly earliest life forms with far more junk
> than the supposedly more recent.
Zoe, Zoe, Zoe...
Do you think these things through before posting?
I can never tell if you just throw these things
together and don't read through them before posting
or if you have some wierd misunderstanding of the subject
which if it _were_ true would make your statements make
sense.
According to the theory of common descent all life forms
are descended from an original population of simple cells
and therefore have the same length of evolutionary history!
Our lineage has had 3.5 billion years in which to accumulate
junk DNA, just as long as the "lowly" bacteria.
Our ancestors 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000, 2,000 or 3,500 million
years ago may not have been human but they were still our
ancestors and as such they passed their DNA on to us, junk and all.
(Though not unchanged of course.)
How can you expect to forge a great theory to bring down the
evolutionary paradigm if you can't even get a simple thing
like that right?
It's been said before but it's still true, you really, really,
_really_ need to learn something about things before you start
critisizing them or you just end up looking stupid.
>This is not the case.
Of course not!
The only way that could be the case is if different life forms
were created ex nihilo at different points in time.
Eric
<My domain is rixtele>
Harlequin
news:Xns93A6D16C2F024...@195.54.106.227:
You are right. Ikes...
John Harshman
Eric wrote:
> From: muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop):
>
>
>>...What I am predicting, though,
>>is that as organisms become more complex, the length of introns
>>increase, demonstrating that it is not age that accumulates junk
>>DNA, per the evolutionary theory, but increasing complexity. If
>>accumulation of junk over billions of years were to occur, you
>>would find the supposedly earliest life forms with far more junk
>>than the supposedly more recent.
>
> Zoe, Zoe, Zoe...
> Do you think these things through before posting?
> I can never tell if you just throw these things
> together and don't read through them before posting
> or if you have some wierd misunderstanding of the subject
> which if it _were_ true would make your statements make
> sense.
A little of both, I think. Some of what she says does make more sense if
you use her private definitions for some words. But most of it isn't
very well considered and doesn't make sense with any coding.
> According to the theory of common descent all life forms
> are descended from an original population of simple cells
> and therefore have the same length of evolutionary history!
>
> Our lineage has had 3.5 billion years in which to accumulate
> junk DNA, just as long as the "lowly" bacteria.
>
> Our ancestors 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000, 2,000 or 3,500 million
> years ago may not have been human but they were still our
> ancestors and as such they passed their DNA on to us, junk and all.
> (Though not unchanged of course.)
>
> How can you expect to forge a great theory to bring down the
> evolutionary paradigm if you can't even get a simple thing
> like that right?
>
> It's been said before but it's still true, you really, really,
> _really_ need to learn something about things before you start
> critisizing them or you just end up looking stupid.
>
>
>>This is not the case.
>>
>
> Of course not!
> The only way that could be the case is if different life forms
> were created ex nihilo at different points in time.
I don't know how this relates to Zoe's "prediction", but introns, at
least in birds, seem to be getting shorter over time, in that deletions
are both longer and more frequent, on average, than insertions. I wonder
if that's so in other taxa too.
John Wilkins
> Sven Axelsson <sven...@bredSPAMband.net> wrote in
> news:Xns93A6D16C2F024...@195.54.106.227:
>
> > Harlequin <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote in
> > news:Xns93A5EE72452EAu...@68.12.19.6:
> >
> >> It is nonsense to say you sequence the "genetic code." Just as one
> >> does not sequence Morris code. Morris code is just a table too.
> >> Go see a telegraph (probably in some museum) and you will find no
> >> part of it labed "Morris code." Nor is any part of its operation
> >> labled "Morris code." All Morris code is is a table which tells
> >> you when the operator hears a combination of dots and dashes what
> >> letter he will write down.
> >
> > Minor nit: I believe you mean Morse code.
> >
> > /sven
> >
> >
>
> You are right. Ikes...
I thought you were referring to the dance steps of Morris (Moorish)
dancing, written in some arcane code of the late middle ages.
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Harlequin
news:1fx7gkm.tqp5kuxiwyjtN%wil...@wehi.edu.au:
Yeah. Thats the ticket. I was referring to the the dancing by
our Moors. Of course Morris dancing evolved in such a way
that modern dancers use telegraph machines.
Well it is either that or I was refering to some code invented
by Inspector Morris.
Richard Uhrich
Isn't Morris where pz lives? Does it have a code of some kind?
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Harlequin <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sven Axelsson <sven...@bredSPAMband.net> wrote in
> >>news:Xns93A6D16C2F024...@195.54.106.227:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Harlequin <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote in
> >>>news:Xns93A5EE72452EAu...@68.12.19.6:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It is nonsense to say you sequence the "genetic code." Just as one
> >>>>does not sequence Morris code. Morris code is just a table too.
> >>>>Go see a telegraph (probably in some museum) and you will find no
> >>>>part of it labed "Morris code." Nor is any part of its operation
> >>>>labled "Morris code." All Morris code is is a table which tells
> >>>>you when the operator hears a combination of dots and dashes what
> >>>>letter he will write down.
> >>>>
> >>>Minor nit: I believe you mean Morse code.
> >>>
> >>>/sven
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You are right. Ikes...
> >>
> >
> > I thought you were referring to the dance steps of Morris (Moorish)
> > dancing, written in some arcane code of the late middle ages.
> >
>
> Isn't Morris where pz lives? Does it have a code of some kind?
I believe, since PZ moved there, it's typing out S...O...S...
Richard Uhrich
No, I'm sure any distress would be due to recent implicatiobns on t.o.
that Australia might liberate nearby S. Dakota.
Eric Rowley
JH> Eric wrote:
JH> > From: muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop):
JH> >>...What I am predicting, though,
JH> >>is that as organisms become more complex, the length of
JH> >>introns increase, demonstrating that it is not age that
JH> >>accumulates junk DNA, per the evolutionary theory, but
JH> >>increasing complexity. If accumulation of junk over billions
JH> >>of years were to occur, you would find the supposedly
JH> >>earliest life forms with far more junk
JH> >>than the supposedly more recent.
JH> > Zoe, Zoe, Zoe... Do you think these things through before
JH> > posting? I can never tell if you just throw these things
JH> > together and don't read through them before posting or if you
JH> > have some wierd misunderstanding of the subject which if it
JH> > _were_ true would make your statements make sense.
JH> A little of both, I think. Some of what she says does make more
JH> sense if you use her private definitions for some words.
How would you know?
Have you found her secret dictionary? ;-)
A lot of what she writes sounds as if it _must_ make sense if
one only had access to the secret code, and there are tantalizing
clues so one thinks one has cracked the code but You think she
means one thing, I think she means something else and Bjoern seems
to understand it some other way.
JH> But
JH> most of it isn't very well considered and doesn't make sense
JH> with any coding.
And yet, some of it seems oddly consistent, the above for instance
seems to fit in well with her asking "How can you have a common
ancestor with mice when you already have one with chimps?"
It's almost as if she can't imagine anything other than separate
creation ex nihilo even as something other people believe in.
Like she can just barely grasp the idea that we think that humans
and chimps are decended from a common ancestor 5 million years ago
but that's as far as it goes, the idea that that ancestor in turn
might be a descendent of some earlier common ancestor with mice just
won't fit.
JH> > According to the theory of common descent all life forms
JH> > are descended from an original population of simple cells and
JH> > therefore have the same length of evolutionary history!
JH> > Our lineage has had 3.5 billion years in which to accumulate
JH> > junk DNA, just as long as the "lowly" bacteria.
JH> > Our ancestors 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000, 2,000 or 3,500
JH> > million years ago may not have been human but they were still
JH> > our ancestors and as such they passed their DNA on to us,
JH> > junk and all. (Though not unchanged of course.)
JH> > How can you expect to forge a great theory to bring down the
JH> > evolutionary paradigm if you can't even get a simple thing
JH> > like that right?
JH> > It's been said before but it's still true, you really,
JH> > really, _really_ need to learn something about things before
JH> > you start critisizing them or you just end up looking stupid.
JH> >>This is not the case. >>
JH> > Of course not!
JH> > The only way that could be the case is if different life
JH> > forms were created ex nihilo at different points in time.
JH> I don't know how this relates to Zoe's "prediction", but
JH> introns, at least in birds, seem to be getting shorter over
JH> time, in that deletions are both longer and more frequent, on
JH> average, than insertions. I wonder
JH> if that's so in other taxa too.
Interesting.
Maybe birds are getting less complex? ;-)
Eric
--
my domain is rixtele
John Harshman
Eric Rowley wrote:
> From: John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
> JH> Eric wrote:
> JH> > From: muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop):
>
> JH> >>...What I am predicting, though,
> JH> >>is that as organisms become more complex, the length of
> JH> >>introns increase, demonstrating that it is not age that
> JH> >>accumulates junk DNA, per the evolutionary theory, but
> JH> >>increasing complexity. If accumulation of junk over billions
> JH> >>of years were to occur, you would find the supposedly
> JH> >>earliest life forms with far more junk
> JH> >>than the supposedly more recent.
>
> JH> > Zoe, Zoe, Zoe... Do you think these things through before
> JH> > posting? I can never tell if you just throw these things
> JH> > together and don't read through them before posting or if you
> JH> > have some wierd misunderstanding of the subject which if it
> JH> > _were_ true would make your statements make sense.
>
> JH> A little of both, I think. Some of what she says does make more
> JH> sense if you use her private definitions for some words.
>
> How would you know?
> Have you found her secret dictionary? ;-)
No, it's all inference.
> A lot of what she writes sounds as if it _must_ make sense if
> one only had access to the secret code, and there are tantalizing
> clues so one thinks one has cracked the code but You think she
> means one thing, I think she means something else and Bjoern seems
> to understand it some other way.
A good point. And some times it seems as if you understand exactly what
she's getting at, when she says something else that makes no sense in
the previous context. Perhaps we need to consider a model in which Zoe
does indeed have a code, but it incorporates a random component in order
to make decipherment more difficult. Not quite a one-time pad, though.
> JH> But
> JH> most of it isn't very well considered and doesn't make sense
> JH> with any coding.
>
> And yet, some of it seems oddly consistent, the above for instance
> seems to fit in well with her asking "How can you have a common
> ancestor with mice when you already have one with chimps?"
>
> It's almost as if she can't imagine anything other than separate
> creation ex nihilo even as something other people believe in.
> Like she can just barely grasp the idea that we think that humans
> and chimps are decended from a common ancestor 5 million years ago
> but that's as far as it goes, the idea that that ancestor in turn
> might be a descendent of some earlier common ancestor with mice just
> won't fit.
There are definitely a number of conceptual problems at the root. What's
particularly bizarre is when you explain exactly where she's wrong,
explain the correct facts, and then she responds by claiming that's what
she's been saying all along, and then repeats her mistake under the
impression that she's saying the same thing.
Could be. Evidence for genomic deterioration since the fall, perhaps?
Harlequin
news:96862592.03062...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
>> > Isn't Morris where pz lives? Does it have a code of some kind?
>>
>> I believe, since PZ moved there, it's typing out S...O...S...
>
> No, I'm sure any distress would be due to recent implicatiobns on t.o.
> that Australia might liberate nearby S. Dakota.
I don't Australia can South Dakota since that would split
their forces of liberation between South Dakota and New
Zealand.
Richard Uhrich
> uhr...@san.rr.com (Richard Uhrich) wrote in
> news:96862592.03062...@posting.google.com:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>Isn't Morris where pz lives? Does it have a code of some kind?
>>>>
>>>I believe, since PZ moved there, it's typing out S...O...S...
>>>
>>No, I'm sure any distress would be due to recent implicatiobns on t.o.
>>that Australia might liberate nearby S. Dakota.
>>
>
> I don't Australia can South Dakota since that would split
> their forces of liberation between South Dakota and New
> Zealand.
>
>
But the Rosebud Sioux are ready to rise up and support the glorious
liberation, just as did the Shiites in Iraq!
mel turner
[zoe_althrop] wrote...
[snip]
>>Anyway, I thought the "kinds" and chromosomes stuff was more
>>interesting than this "scientific prediction" of yours, about DNA,
>>but perhaps that can change.
>
>well, this "scientific prediction" does have to do with kinds and
>chromosomes. I expect that genetic research and comparative genome
>mapping of chromosomes will demonstrate that there are limits to
>speciation
How could they demonstrate this?
and will give evidence that every kind of life form has
>boundaries.
Why should you expect any such thing? A "young earther" [or an old
earth, young-life type as I recall you are] has no need to propose any
such limits. Even without any limits at all to evolutionary change the
time frame they believe in doesn't allow enough time for life to have
evolved much since its creation. So they need nothing more.
If life on earth is only a few thousand years old, then it hasn't
evolved much, especially at the species level. No genetic
evolution-limiting mechanisms are needed.
> But I'm still working on the foundation, if you can wait.
Is there any foundation to work on? Never mind, I'll look at whatever
you propose [practicing looking askance...].
cheers
John Harshman
mel turner wrote:
> In article <3efa5cb5....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com
> [zoe_althrop] wrote...
>
>>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:49:55 +0000 (UTC),
>>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Anyway, I thought the "kinds" and chromosomes stuff was more
>>>interesting than this "scientific prediction" of yours, about DNA,
>>>but perhaps that can change.
>>>
>>well, this "scientific prediction" does have to do with kinds and
>>chromosomes. I expect that genetic research and comparative genome
>>mapping of chromosomes will demonstrate that there are limits to
>>speciation
>>
>
> How could they demonstrate this?
>
> and will give evidence that every kind of life form has
>
>>boundaries.
>>
>
> Why should you expect any such thing? A "young earther" [or an old
> earth, young-life type as I recall you are] has no need to propose any
> such limits. Even without any limits at all to evolutionary change the
> time frame they believe in doesn't allow enough time for life to have
> evolved much since its creation. So they need nothing more.
>
> If life on earth is only a few thousand years old, then it hasn't
> evolved much, especially at the species level. No genetic
> evolution-limiting mechanisms are needed.
Belt and suspenders, Mel. This is also why creationists who accept
microevolution also try to argue that the Biston betularia experiments
are fraudulent. And that Archaeopteryx is both "just a bird" and a fake.
(And of course it also helps to discredit mainstream biology in any way
possible.)
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:24:57 +0000 (UTC), postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne
>D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>zoe wrote:
>
>>>I predict that introns are part of (or THE) programmed "brain" of the
>>>genetic code. Like a computer program, introns are evidence for the
>>>logical part of the program that directs the data of the exons.
>>>Evidence of this programmed logic will demonstrate that there is a
>>>mind behind the programming, for logic comes from intellect, not
>>>stupidity.
>>
>>Stupidity? I suppose this is a pejorative stab at the evolutionary
>>alternative? With regard to your comments above about Björn I direct
>>you to Matthew 7 vs. 1-5. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
>
>you would do well to be in better control of yourself, don't you
>think? And your scriptural cite does not apply. I have never called
>Bjoern a liar, so there's no beam in my eye on that score. Want to
>start over?
>
>>Your prediction has already failed. Group I introns have been
>>exhaustively studied since they were first discovered in 1977 (1).
>
>1. They have been studied from an evolutionary point of view,
>meaning, the possibility of intelligence was not a consideration.
>That angle should be investigated instead of being dismissed out of
>hand.
How would a non-evolutionary point of view be used to study molecular
biology? What should we do? Rather than countless hours of lab work
purifying and extracting proteins and enzymes, PCR DNA amplification,
chromatography, gel electrophoresis, NMR, ESR, IR, etc. Should we
just pray that we'll receive some divine enlightenment as to how the
molecules work together? I'm really not sure how you would go about
it any other way. Where the rubber hits the road, molecular biology
is just chemistry and physics. We analyze the systems and present the
results. Evolution is a conclusion, not a prerequisite. It is the only
conclusion that makes any sense in light of the data.
>
>>The
>>process by which they are excised from the mRNA is well documented (2).
>
>2. Of course, it is well documented. The PROCESS of excision is well
>documented. I am NOT talking about the process of excision. I am
>talking about the causes for variation in sequences from protein to
>protein. How does the body KNOW? Introns is one hypothesis.
I'm not sure what you are saying here either. If you mean the
phenomenon whereby the same pre-mRNA can be processed into multiple
proteins, this is neither new nor mysterious. The molecular basis
pretty well documented. Group I introns are rather uninteresting.
Group II introns are a different story, but certainly an inevitable
outcome of hunks of RNA floating around in the nucleoplasm. RNA unlike
DNA can be catalytic like an enzyme. Naturally it is to be expected
that sometimes these hunks of RNA will perform a beneficial function to
the cell. Since all cellular RNA is ultimately derived from DNA, it is
heritable thereby subject to natural selection. No big deal.
>
>>The base sequence (except at the donor/acceptor regions) is known to not
>>affect the function of the genes from which they are excised;
>
>and how do you know that the function of the gene has not already been
>established by the instructions from the introns BEFORE excision? And
>that at the time of excision, the function is already set and that is
>why the introns are considered to be no longer needed in the process?
How do you imagine that biologists discovered introns anyway? I know
that you see a lot of neat schematic representations, but it isn't like
we peer through a microscope and watch a neat little multicolored 2 x
2 get hacked apart by some little chainsaw looking enzyme. Introns
were discovered when it was noted that purifying the nuclear components
resulted in hunks of RNA that were not poly-A capped. Thousands of
man-hours of work went into figuring out where these came from. The
work involves deliberate mutation of the RNA at different points along
the transcript to see at what point the system breaks down. Mutations
in the area of the donor/acceptor regions would break the excision
mechanism and the intron would then go on to be translated just like the
rest of the exons. It was this deliberate mutation of the strands that
led biologists to the conclusion that the sequence of the introns had no
bearing on the process. Introns were an observation, not a conclusion.
This is a very dumbed-down presentation of molecular biology, but it
goes to show that you really have no idea how scientists work.
>
>>therefore,
>>they cannot contain any higher information.
>
>not so fast. No "therefore" yet. You need to first demonstrate if
>there would be a difference in function if there were no introns to
>begin with, versus introns that are removed. Is there a way to test
>for that? I am not referring to removal of introns already in place,
>but somehow being able to join amino acids without any presence of
>introns, period.
See above. That introns are not sequence dependent, and not necessary
for translation was an observation, not a conclusion.
>
>>Their base sequence has
>>been experimentally altered(3)
>
>3. Have they been altered and then translated? And in which life
>forms was this performed? And, please, not bacteria, which are known
>to have so few introns that I'm betting that not much of a change will
>occur either way.
Ref 3 is a summary of what was known at the time (1981) of the various
RNA species (ribozomal RNA, messenger RNA, and transfer RNA). The
article cites work done on both prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems as
well as in-vitro experiments and experiments with viral RNA.
>
>You know, you really should quote from your sources. Why aren't you
>doing so?
I'm guessing you've never read an actual journal article, right? This
is the documentation style recommended by the Council of Biology Editors
(CBE <http://www.cbe.org>) and is the basis for most primary scientific
literature. Quotes from the source are generally not done, and in any
event, would not be of much use as the cited article must usually be
considered in its entirety. Primary literature is extremely verbose and
generally accompanied by illustrations, equations, tables, etc. which
don't lend themselves well to quotation. The CBE style dictates that
information that is not considered common knowledge for the field of
interest should be cited.
>
>>and shown not to affect the overall
>>excision process,
>
>the overall excision process? That is not what I am addressing. I am
>questioning the effect. How do introns affect the function of the
>organism?
Generally they have no effect. As noted above, this was an observation,
not a conclusion.
>
>>nor have any discernible affect on the organism as a
>>whole.
>
>this is sloppy argument, Wayne. And high-handed, too. If you have
>access to the sources you are citing, then you should quote directly
>from them for my benefit and the benefit of those who read your post.
>Anybody can give an opinion and slap a source onto it to give it
>authority.
So are you essentially calling me a liar? I'll delete my apology above
re: Björn.
This is essentially the way scientists present their information. If
you want your arguments to have any scientific consideration, you are
going to have to learn how scientists work. "If you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen."
>
>>Once excised, the intron RNA is usually broken down and recycled
>>for later use in DNA -> RNA transcription.
>
>I have no problem with that. The excision process itself is not what
>I am interested in at the moment.
That is about the only interesting system in which Group I introns
participate.
>
>>>I predict that, upon investigation, introns will be found to contain
>>>the instructions that dictate what the genetic code's sequences of
>>>amino acids will be, depending on the current and changing needs of
>>>the organism.
>>
>>As mentioned above, the sequence of an intron is not important to
>>the process and therefore cannot contribute any instructions to the
>>cellular machinery.
>
>I think you are premature in that conclusion. And please for direct
>quotes from your sources. I don't intend to take your word for it.
>And don't tell me to go to a library and look them up, or I'll do the
>same to you with my sources. I have been quoting my sources. So can
>you.
Your sources are web sites and pop science reviews. They
are essentially useless in a scientific discussion (see
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/>).
>
>>There are the rarer Group II introns which have
>>catalytic activity
>
>you mean the self-splicing introns? I've been reading about them.
Among others.
>
>>(not unexpected and evidence supporting RNA world
>>hypotheses(4))
>
>4. The RNA world hypothesis has a lot of holes, and you know that
>there is disagreement about it, so don't present it as the last word.
You'll most likely understand if I don't give your hand-waving away of
this much credence. Creationists conveniently dismiss any science that
doesn't fit their book worship cult. At any rate, this ref is a 700+
page book jam-packed with information. I won't bother recommending that
you read any of it as it requires a considerable background in molecular
biology.
>
>>and can add even effect the DNA of the host cell (5);
>
>5. I don't know what you're saying here. "Can add even effect"? Or
>do you mean AFFECT the DNA? Even so, I don't know what "add even"
>means.
That must have gotten past my editor. I originally wrote "can add
information to the DNA..." but felt that "can even effect the DNA..."
was more concise and left a less obvious creationist rant target ("add
information").
>
>>however, there is no evidence that this is in any way directed by the
>>needs of the cell and/or organism and, of course, not transferable to
>>germ line cells and thus not heritable.
>
>you're losing me. What is not heritable? The catalytic activity of
>Group II introns? Or is it your strange "add even effect" that is not
>heritable? I think you need to restate.
Hopefully it is clearer now. The DNA--even though it has mutated--is
not part of the germ line and therefore not heritable.
>
>>Some gp. II introns, once
>>excised, can even go on to form proteins, but again, there is no
>>surprise here since it is viable RNA derived from the DNA template and
>>thus subject to evolutionary mechanisms just like tRNA.
>
>that's one hypothesis to be tested. What I am predicting, though, is
>that as organisms become more complex, the length of introns increase,
>demonstrating that it is not age that accumulates junk DNA, per the
>evolutionary theory, but increasing complexity. If accumulation of
>junk over billions of years were to occur, you would find the
>supposedly earliest life forms with far more junk than the supposedly
>more recent. This is not the case.
Earlier life forms? All life at any snapshot in time has had the same
evolutionary history. The E. coli in my gut is simpler than me (by most
metrics of complexity) but are not earlier than me. At any rate, this
is a no-brainer for the most part. More complex organisms have more
genes and longer genes and so have more and longer introns.
It should also be noted that prokaryotes are under considerably more
evolutionary pressure to maintain tighter genomes. A typical E. coli is
already working on replicating its genome while it is in the process of
dividing. they have to divide and spread quickly in order to compete.
Unnecessary baggage in the genome is a hindrance to fast replication.
>
>>> No mindless, randomly mutating process can set up a
>>>series of instructions that will know how to respond to environmental
>>>influences, nor will stupidity be able to tell the genetic code how to
>>>sequence for specific needs. The genetic code is like the alphabet,
>>>(64 "letters" instead of 26) that can vary its codons in their
>>>sequences so that the organism can produce the correct responses to
>>>the changing influences of its environment.
>>
>>You're confusing terms (and probably concepts) here, but I think you are
>>proposing some sort of neo-lamarckian type of inheritance mechanism.
>>Surely even you know that Lamarckian evolution has been shown false by
>>numerous observations and experiments.
>
>no, Lamarckian evolution says stuff like if a giraffe stretches higher
>for food during its lifetime, it's neck will grow longer and then its
>offspring will have longer necks. That is definitely NOT what I am
>saying. I am saying that the environment, chemically and
>electro-chemically, can prompt certain responses within the cells that
>trigger (I predict) relevant instructions that cause the translation
>of the proper sequence of amino acids to create the precise type of
>protein needed in response to environmental demands. This would be an
>indication of intelligent, purposeful planning having been done for
>the life form.
But, are you saying that this change is heritable? You need to
elaborate a bit on this concept for it to have any meaning. Most
organisms adapt somewhat to their environment, but it is populations
that evolve.
>
>snip>
>
>>>Granted, there is appeal made to the evolutionary worldview in this
>>>article, but an appeal can also be reasonably made to the creationist
>>>worldview -- that the instructions for alternative splicing in introns
>>>didn't just happen to accumulate willy-nilly, but were purposely
>>>installed to give direction to the exons.
>>
>>Your going to have to try a lot harder with your appeal. First of
>>all, alternative splicing in intron excision is nothing new.
>
>except that is NOT what I am addressing. Alternative splicing has
>been observed, but the cause for the splicing, the patterns of
>stimulus and response, the cause of SELF-splicing, these are areas
>that I predict will reveal purposeful planning.
Prediction failed. The reasons for alternate splicings are pretty
well known. There is no indication that something unknown is causing
the process. In most cases it is mediated by some rather complex
feedback mechanisms because of the different environment different
cells find themselves in as they diversify. Remember that pre mRNA is
not a rigid strait 2 x 2 like rod as the schematics usually show, but
a flexing twisting more string-like molecule and is in constant motion
as all molecules are above absolute zero. RNA is also single stranded
and thus exposes its base pairs to anything else lurking about in the
nucleoplasm. Proteins and other RNA can bind to it in different ways
depending on the concentrations of the various species within the bag
of fluid known as the nucleus. Even something as mundane as a slight
pH difference can cause different folding and thus different exposed
cleavage sites on the pre mRNA. Hundreds of individual mechanisms for
alternate splicing have been studied over the years. Do a PubMed search
on "alternate splicing." At present it gives 375 hits. None of these
mechanisms show any sign of some supernatural planning anymore than any
other molecular mechanism involved in life processes. You can argue all
you want that life is designed, but you're not going to find anything to
support this stance in introns anymore than any other life process.
>
>>It
>>appears to be random with respect to the cell/organisms needs and
>>evolutionary speaking is just another form of random alteration to the
>>genome (mutation) and subject to evolutionary pressures just like any
>>other mutation.
>
>as I said before, the possibility of intelligence is not even
>considered, so of course any signs leading in that direction are
>interpreted as random. Not necessarily so.
It's not considered because there is no evidence of it--plain and
simple. Anyway, how would you look for intelligence anyway? All
attempts at such by ID types have all boiled dow to "I know it when
I see it," but the only ones who see it are they; the biologists in
industry and in academia, pretty much approaching 100%, don't see it and
they are the ones looking the closest.
>
>>Second, contrary to your "theory," these alternative
>>splicings have nothing to do with the sequence of the intron (wherein
>>you claim this "master program" resides)(6).
>
>Wayne, your footnotes are useless. You make a statement of your own
>opinion and then try to lend it authority with an
>authoritative-sounding footnote. Not good.
This is how scientists do it. Get used to it.
> You need to quote from
>your source because I am not prepared to take your word for it. And
>don't send me to look up your sources. If you have access to them,
>you need to quote from them. If you took the time to look up the
>articles and textbooks in order to place them in your post, then you
>should quote from them right here within your post.
See above. Quotes are pretty useless in this context. The entire
article usually needs to be considered. Again, this is the way science
has been done for years. Get used to it.
>
>>As with any other change
>>from the norm in DNA -> RNA -> protein mechanisms, this one is caused by
>>mutation and hence subject to evolutionary mechanisms.
>
>that is your say-so. Not strong enough.
>
>How would you feel if I provided you sources that I am presently
>studying, and make a point, without quoting, and expect you to go find
>my point in them?
>
>Here:
>
>http://acg.media.mit.edu/people/fry/ex/icp/chr21-detail.jpg
>http://acg.media.mit.edu/people/fry/ex/icp/all-detail.jpg
>
>I could give you the above links after stating firmly that introns
>give evidence of a program. I bet you would demand a quote from my
>sources that would support my conclusions. Well, I expect you to
>quote from your sources instead of giving your opinion and then
>backing it up with some general mention of a source.
Bet lost. Email me for an address to send the check.
As has been shown time and time again, you misquote your sources so
badly that no one puts any stock in your ideas based on your cites.
Creationists have a real knack for this. See the talk.origins quote
mine project.
>
>snip>
>
>>>It should be noted that increase in gene size is a result of increased
>>>intron length, not increased length of protein-coding exons. The
>>>average gene length of S.cerevisiae is 1.6, the average gene length of
>>>fungi is 1.5, AGL of C.elegans is 4.0, AGL of a chicken is 13.9, and
>>>the AGL of mammals is 16.6. The exons range, from 1, 3, 4, 9 and 7
>>>exons respectively.
>>>
>>>The link for the above information no longer works, so I can't give
>>>it, and that means researching the same data elsewhere -- tomorrow's
>>>another day.
>>>
>>>Also, humans have the greatest number of introns, says "Nature, Volume
>>>409, 15 February 2001."
>>>
>>>I predict that we are just beginning to discover a program that has
>>>been placed in life forms by their Creator.
>>>
>>>For more contributing data, see:
>>>
>>>http://bich431.tamu.edu/hu/23splicing.shtml
>>
>>Where does this article present evidence of a creator? I couldn't
>>find it.
>
>aha, see how it feels? Go look for it. It's in there. Just like you
>think your opinions above should be accepted because you have given
>sources without quotes.
>
I still don't see it. I've read the whole thing again. I even
downloaded the latest java version in an attempt to make sure there is
nothing hidden in the broken java applet in the side-bar. All I see is
that "some things are still unknown" and "this stuff is complex." Is
that your evidence?
>>All I can see is that you think that you've hit upon some
>>new information that has scientists baffled, and that because it seems
>>very complex to you, it must be designed. It is, indeed, complex;
>>however, it is neither new nor damning to the current evolutionary
>>paradigm. Introns have been studied since 1977. We've learned much
>>since then, but to those of us in the field, the processes surrounding
>>intron/exon splicing/shuffling, etc; just look like more evolutionary
>>baggage which if designed, could only have been designed by a drunkard
>>or an idiot.
>
>you do recognize that you have restricted your research to a narrow
>paradigm, and as a result, you will never learn anything beyond your
>predetermined evolutionary perspective because you have already
>decided that all data will point in this direction.
I have no predetermined perspective--that's your paradigm. I was a
creationist too before actually studying this stuff. I abandoned it
because it didn't follow from the data--plain and simple.
>
>>The majority of introns are of the Group I type, and
>>are just an unnecessary step in the production of proteins. They've
>>been around in cells for eons and since they don't adversely affect
>>the normal cellular processes, they face little selective pressure for
>>removal. In fact, due to the fact that introns are not evolutionarily
>>constrained by sequence, comparative genomics studies are possible
>>based on the higher mutation rates of introns compared to other more
>>conserved sequences(7).
>
>7. Yeah, right, another unquoted source. I'm impressed.
I labored long and hard researching these sources. Many I already
had copies of laying around my house and office, but I spent a good
three hours in the SIUE library researching this. I'm remembering why
I stopped corresponding with you now. Your default argument is that
scientists are liars and frauds and that is something I just can't
tolerate.
>
>>That introns have been mutating for so long, it
>>is no surprise that they should not have evolved into the less common
>>Group II introns and, as mutations, they can be neutral, detrimental
>>(as your reference above regarding Progressive Supranuclear Palsy), or
>>beneficial(8).
>
>8. You do recognize that your prejudice is coloring your
>interpretation of the data? Besides, my reference to PSP above
>mentions instructions in the introns. Did you miss that?
I'm a scientist. I have no prejudice. I go where the data takes me.
Show me a reasonable alternative that fits the data as well or better
than the current theory and I'll happily jump on the wagon. No one has
even come close yet.
>
>snip my QUOTED sources>
>
>>>And, hey, my prediction might be right, it might be wrong, but let it
>>>never again be said that the only thing that creationists can say in
>>>the science field is: "Goddidit" (even if He DID do it.) :-) It is
>>>left up to us to figure out HOW He did it. That is true science.
>>
>>The evidence strongly suggests that you are wrong. I predict that this
>>will have no effect on your stubborn insistence that there must be some
>>master plan, some deliberate supernatural interference, anything but
>>evolution; controlling life and development.
>
>and having ruled out this possibility, your scientific investigation
>now follows a narrow little path determined by your prejudices. Too
>bad for the breadth and depth of your scientific research.
I ruled it out because there is no evidence for it--plain and simple.
That is the same reason why biologists rule it out.
>
><snip references used as an appeal to authority in order to back up
>personal opinions. I await your quotes from your sources. Thank
>you.>
>
>----
>zoe
>
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE Dept. of Biological Sciences
who...@siue.edu
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
mel turner
wrote...
>mel turner wrote:
>> In article <3efa5cb5....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com
>> [zoe_althrop] wrote...
>>>>Anyway, I thought the "kinds" and chromosomes stuff was more
>>>>interesting than this "scientific prediction" of yours, about DNA,
>>>>but perhaps that can change.
>>>>
>>>well, this "scientific prediction" does have to do with kinds and
>>>chromosomes. I expect that genetic research and comparative genome
>>>mapping of chromosomes will demonstrate that there are limits to
>>>speciation
>>
>> How could they demonstrate this?
>>
>>>and will give evidence that every kind of life form has
>>>boundaries.
>>
>> Why should you expect any such thing? A "young earther" [or an old
>> earth, young-life type as I recall you are] has no need to propose any
>> such limits. Even without any limits at all to evolutionary change the
>> time frame they believe in doesn't allow enough time for life to have
>> evolved much since its creation. So they need nothing more.
>>
>> If life on earth is only a few thousand years old, then it hasn't
>> evolved much, especially at the species level. No genetic
>> evolution-limiting mechanisms are needed.
>
>
>Belt and suspenders, Mel. This is also why creationists who accept
>microevolution also try to argue that the Biston betularia experiments
>are fraudulent. And that Archaeopteryx is both "just a bird" and a fake.
>(And of course it also helps to discredit mainstream biology in any way
>possible.)
Sure, but I thought I'd point it out. [I wonder if a list of basic
creationist contradictions/logical inconsistencies may be worthwhile?]
Another one: many creationists will often claim that very inclusive,
diverse groups of many species are single "kinds" that had
"microevolved" since the flood, but will also try to deny any and all
cases of observed speciation.
Similarly, they'll dispute the idea that natural evolution can produce
adaptive features, or differences less than the differences seen among
species within their "kinds". If they were consistent, they'd only
recognize "kinds" that are uniform for features that "couldn't have
evolved naturally" [unless of course they'd like to argue that the
original created ancestors would have possessed all of the traits now
seen anywhere in their groups].
And there's the whole problem of the no-death-before-the-Fall
creationists, and the "microevolution" after the Fall of all the many
specialized predatory and defensive features of animals, features that
many creationists will want to claim can't possibly have evolved
naturally.
cheers
zoe_althrop
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>well, this "scientific prediction" does have to do with kinds and
>>chromosomes. I expect that genetic research and comparative genome
>>mapping of chromosomes will demonstrate that there are limits to
>>speciation
>
>How could they demonstrate this?
by observation of the fact that, as a RULE, life forms fail to
reproduce when there are chromosomal changes/damage. But even for
those species, especially in the plant kingdom, where polyploidy
exists, there are still limits. Plants remain plants. They do not
become non-plant species.
>>and will give evidence that every kind of life form has
>>boundaries.
>
>Why should you expect any such thing? A "young earther" [or an old
>earth, young-life type as I recall you are] has no need to propose any
>such limits.
I am not predicting based on NEED. I am predicting based on
observation of the data.
>Even without any limits at all to evolutionary change the
>time frame they believe in doesn't allow enough time for life to have
>evolved much since its creation. So they need nothing more.
except that, based on observation of present limits to speciation, it
can be predicted that if time were to last for a billion years, there
would still be no evolution of one kind of life form into a new
species. There is no reason to expect the present observed limits to
be removed in the future.
>If life on earth is only a few thousand years old, then it hasn't
>evolved much, especially at the species level. No genetic
>evolution-limiting mechanisms are needed.
this is not about need. I don't need anything to be a certain way.
>> But I'm still working on the foundation, if you can wait.
>
>Is there any foundation to work on? Never mind, I'll look at whatever
>you propose [practicing looking askance...].
meaning, "I am already practicing a prejudiced mindset"?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:14:26 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
>> <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
snip>
>>>Yes you have done it wrong again. I have seen no one here
>>>saying that the genetic code is the "alphabet."
>>
>> well, "alphabet" might be my word, but I have been led here to that
>> understanding -- 64 units in the alphabet, each unit consisting of a
>> sub-alphabet of bases, guanine, adenine, cytosine, thymine (uracil).
>> Just as the letters of the alphabet do not, in themselves mean
>> anything, but in combination with other letters, they form words, and
>> the words form sentences with meaning, so the "letters" of the genetic
>> code, the amino acids, by themselves have no meaning, but in
>> combination with other amino acids, they form proteins (sentences)
>> with meaning. There is even a sequence provided for punctuation.
>> This is evidence for a language, and language is a sign of
>> intelligence.
>
>Sub-alphabet?
I am calling the genetic code the alphabet of proteins. Its "letters"
are made up of amino acids expressed in 64 different combinations of
four bases. It is the bases for these amino acids that comprise the
sub-alphabet of the amino acids.
The actual alphabet of proteins (the genetic code), is as follows:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html#The_DNA_Codons
Quote:
"The Genetic Code (DNA)
TTT Phe TCT Ser TAT Tyr TGT Cys
TTC Phe TCC Ser TAC Tyr TGC Cys
TTA Leu TCA Ser TAA STOP TGA STOP
TTG Leu TCG Ser TAG STOP TGG Trp
CTT Leu CCT Pro CAT His CGT Arg
CTC Leu CCC Pro CAC His CGC Arg
CTA Leu CCA Pro CAA Gln CGA Arg
CTG Leu CCG Pro CAG Gln CGG Arg
ATT Ile ACT Thr AAT Asn AGT Ser
ATC Ile ACC Thr AAC Asn AGC Ser
ATA Ile ACA Thr AAA Lys AGA Arg
ATG Met* ACG Thr AAG Lys AGG Arg
GTT Val GCT Ala GAT Asp GGT Gly
GTC Val GCC Ala GAC Asp GGC Gly
GTA Val GCA Ala GAA Glu GGA Gly
GTG Val GCG Ala GAG Glu GGG Gly"
End quote.
Each combination of three bases (the sub-alphabet) would be
representative of an amino acid, and these amino acid representations
are what I am terming the "alphabet," or genetic code of proteins.
It is the sequencing of amino acids represented by the above genetic
code that would produce the myriad of proteins found in life forms.
Therefore, when I say that the genetic code can be sequenced, I don't
mean that the the 64 written triplet codons, written on paper, can
themselves change beyond their 64 combinations.
The variability that I am referring to is the variability of the
sub-alphabet and the alphabet. At the sub-alphabet level, variation
of base sequences will sometimes be GCA, sometimes GAG, or GGG, or
ATA, and so on. But at the alphabetical level, there is also further
ability for sequencing, this time of amino acids to produce proteins.
Sometimes the sequence of amino acids produces a complex protein like
hemoglobin; sometimes the sequence produces cytochrome C or albumen or
Leptin, and so on.
So, hopefully, in the future, if I say that the genetic code's
sequences can vary, it will be understood what I mean -- not that the
genetic code's triplet codons themselves change to a sequence not
found on the genetic code table, but that the sequence in which those
64 triplet codons can be strung together can vary.
If you can accept that this is my understanding, you should not have a
problem with my use of "genetic code" anymore. You should now know
what I mean.
>Why do you think "punctuation" which is extremely minimal (only
>"stop") is evidence for language?
it takes purpose to stop a mindless process from continuing on. This
is not a cessation of action where the process runs out of energy, or
is exhausted. This is a stop signal that interrupts a process that,
if not stopped, would have continued on. This is evidence of a
purposeful installment of an intervention tool.
>Starting and stoping point
>is necessary is is hardly something too "complex" to have evolved.
why would a mindless process suddenly stop at not just one, but many
many points in a sequencing process, creating the vast array of useful
(thus meaningful) proteins found in life forms? Is there an
evolutionary explanation for this obvious demonstration of boundaries,
as seen in stop codons?
>Why do proteins have meaning? I am serious. Or maybe I should
>phrase the question: why do proteins have meaning beyond that of
>any other molecule?
proteins have meaning by their location and their function. The fact
that proteins can combine to form meaningful (functioning) life forms
means that the proteins themselves contribute to a meaningful
existence for the life form.
A protein found out of context becomes useless or cancerous, but
within its program, it carries the meaning of a functioning life form.
Random generation of protein (which is the modus operandus of
evolutionary theory) will not produce that kind of meaning.
How so?
Random generation of proteins from amino acids in a lab has produced
exactly this kind of evidence for lack of meaning. The proteins formed
in labs are, for the most part, not found on the table of the genetic
code. They have no meaning, and evolve into nothing.
snip>
>> I didn't say the introns were part of the genetic code. I said it was
>> part of the genetic code's SEQUENCING. There's a difference.
>
>And it is still 100% wrong. The genetic code has _NO_ sequencing.
why so nitpicky? The genetic code's representation of amino acids can
be sequenced, on paper, to represent various proteins. If you
understand that I understand that, then when I say that the genetic
code can be sequenced, there should be no misunderstanding.
For instance, the letters of our alphabet can be sequenced into words.
If I say that the alphabet can be sequenced to form words, that does
not mean that I am trying to say that the letter A, for instance, can
change into something new that now looks like \-/, or some other new
form.
I hope it will be understood in the future that when I say "the
genetic code's sequences," I do not mean that the triplet codons,
written on paper (or present in the body as amino acids) themselves
change, but that the sequencing of the codons (as represented by the
genetic code table) can vary from protein to protein.
>It is just a table of 64 codons and the amino acids (or stop) which
>they code for AND NOTHING ELSE.
to say that the 64 codons are just that and NOTHING ELSE, is to stop
prematurely. The amino acids REPRESENTED by the 64 codons on paper,
are available to be sequenced into proteins. Of what use is your term
"genetic code" if you can't use it to work with?
>Introns do not in any way change the genetic code.
where have I said that? You still misunderstand me. There are
introns inserted between the exons, which exons are represented by
written outlines on the genetic code table. These introns do not
change the amino acids (represented by the genetic code). But I am
predicting that they do influence how the amino acids are strung
together in order to produce exactly the kind of protein needed by the
organism. The genetic code itself has not changed, but the sequencing
of amino acids can change, and if the amino acids are what the genetic
code represents, then "amino acids" and "genetic code" become
synonymous, so that it is fair to say that "amino acids can be
sequenced" or "the genetic code can be sequenced."
snip>
>> So when I say the genetic
>> code is the alphabet, I think I am saying the same thing you are.
>
>Not even close. THe genetic code is not an "alphabet" either.
it acts like an alphabet, in my opinion. The letters in the A-Z
alphabet can be sequenced into words and sentences with meaning. If
the amino acids can be sequenced into proteins and tissue to produce
meaningful, functioning life forms, then they are acting similar to
the A-Z alphabet.
snip>
>In any event no matter what the mRNA is sent to
>translation, no matter what its sequence is, no matter whether or
>not translation is done or not, etc.: the genetic code stays the
>same.
may I make it permanently clear this one last time?
I ACCEPT THAT THE GENETIC CODE DOES NOT CHANGE. Indeed, consider this
fact to be Exhibit A for evidence for boundaries and limits to
speciation.
If, in the future, I use the phrasing "variation in the genetic code's
sequencing," please know that I am not referring to variation in the
triplet codons themselves, where they become some new kind of amino
acid not found among the 20 essential amino acids, but I am referring
to variation in SEQUENCING of the triplet codons.
Is that CLEAR?
>And see the post which I nominated Post of the Month. It
>described the fact that scientists had deliberately changed
>the content of many introns and the result was:
>no change.
I do not accept this assertion, even though it is backed up by a
source. Wayne needs to quote from his source and give specifics as to
when these changes were made, on what kind of life form (bacteria?) et
cetera. Slapping a source onto a personal opinion is not scientific,
even though it might impress some.
How would Wayne like it if I offered the entire Bible as my source for
some statement on theology, and instead of quoting from it, I sent him
off to read through the entire book? This is what he is doing with
his sources. Throwing the book at me and claiming that if I were to
read through the texts, that I would find the very point that he is
making.
It is a waste of time to give important-sounding sources (or
otherwise), without pointing out the sections in those sources that
support your opinion or statement. It would be unfair of me to
announce: Introns contain instructions, see Footnote 1. And then in
the footnote I give a source, listing pp. 149-269. In a discussion
setting like this, you don't send someone to read 120 pages in order
to find the support for your statement. When I made a statement, I
quoted from my source. That way, it would be evident that the source
was really saying the same thing that I was saying.
snip>
>But maybe it would help you understand if I said that in reality there
>is no genetic code in any cell. Print out that table of codons and
>the amino acids they code for I provided earlier in the thread. That
>table -- that piece of paper -- is the genetic code. There is not
>structure, no sequence, or anything thing physical in your body that
>is the genetic code.
your misconception of my understanding, once again.
You are trying to make it look as if I think there is a table of
codons written out and sitting in each cell. Not true. But I do
predict that there is a program that dictates what sequences amino
acids will take to form protein.
If I say that the English alphabet can be arranged into words, do you
automatically think that I am saying that the letters themselves are
being changed into new letters not found in the original 26? Do you
automatically assume that I am making a case for the 26-letter
alphabet to be found resident, in listed format, in every piece of
written work? Of course not. So why would you try to make it look as
if I am saying this about the genetic code?
snip>
>Morris code is just a table too.
>Go see a telegraph (probably in some museum) and you will find no
>part of it labed "Morris code." Nor is any part of its operation
>labled "Morris code." All Morris code is is a table which tells
>you when the operator hears a combination of dots and dashes what
>letter he will write down.
thanks for your painstaking explanations, but I do not view the Morse
code any differently than you do -- other than how it is spelled.
>> snip>
>>
>>>> instructions that guide the splicing of exons (in a manner requisite
>>>> to meeting external demands) don't "just happen." It takes purpose
>>>> and planning -- attributes that indicate intelligence.
>>>
>>>You are only assuming what you are "proving."
>>>
>>>You will need to show that the splicing of exons requires planning.
>>>You have not even remotely done that. Maybe you can start with saying
>>>what form do those instructions that guide the splicing of the
>>>exons come in?
>>
>> I predict that the instructions that guide the splicing come from the
>> introns, and/or probably even further back.
>
>Again you did not predict this, you read it.
of course. Why? Do you want me to make it up out of my head? Of
course I'm reading and putting the data together to make a reasonable
prediction.
>And how does "intelligent
>design" predict any of this?
stop codons are an indication of intelligent intervention.
>God did not have to use introns or
>anything else?
He used what He used, and you can't better it.
>And do not that while sometimes introns guide their own cutting out,
>sometimes they do not.
right. There's more interesting avenues to investigate. This self
splicing is even more evidence of a program, imo.
>> My present hypothetical
>> guess is that they probably originate in the brain of the organism,
>
>Chez Watt worthy comment. Introns do not leave the cell or enter it.
you can keep your chez watt for yourself. I never said that introns
leave the cell or enter it. I said that the INSTRUCTIONS that guide
the splicing, and which result in introns of different lengths and
number, these instructions probably originate in the brain.
>> which would take us into the electro-chemical area of the life form.
>> But that would need research. As for the simpler life forms that do
>> not have brains, I would expect their programs to be based on less
>> than intelligence, on less than instinct, and more likely on a small,
>> mindless program that is less flexible to environmental influences
>> than organisms with brains.
>
>If this is your hypothesis then scientists already know enough to
>say it is false.
yeah, right, scientists know enough about the brain. Tell me another
one. The brain is still a frontier, like the genetic code.
snip>
>> "rational" implies intellect. "Not rational" (irrational) implies
>> lack of intellect.
>
>Your vocabulary is rather bad. "irrational" does not mean a lack
>of intellect. It means an intellect that believes or acts in
>a manner which is not rational. Maybe we can coin a new word
>for you: arational.
thank you. That's a beautiful word. I'll use if to mean "stupid"
from now on. Whenever you see me use the word "arational" please know
that I mean "stupid," okay?
>This is analous to moral, immoral, an
>a moral. A rock lacks morality but it is not immoral
>as a man who lacked morality would be but is rather amoral.
I don't think anyone would appreciate being called "amoral." Neither
would they appreciate being called "arational," I suspect.
"Amoral" would still mean "without a moral sense, incapable of
distinguishing between right and wrong."
"Arational" would still mean "stupid."
snip>
>> applying the term "non-goal-oriented" to systems that obviously have
>> goals doesn't make sense, does it?
>
>Your reading comprehension again. Evolution is "non-goal-oriented."
you didn't hear me. I said systems that are obviously goal oriented
should not be called non-goal-oriented. Saying that evolution is
non-goal-oriented is irrelevant to my point. Unless you're saying
that the goal orientation observed in the systems of life forms is not
a result of evolution?
>>This is what evolution does, tries
>> to label goal-orientation as non-goal-orientation. It calls black
>> white and white black, and is happiest when gray reigns.
>
>If you think that life has a grand (and literal) plan then you
>will need to show it. You seem not to comprehend that you really
>can't assume it.
no assumption here. Direct observation. Chemio-osmosis is observed
to work according to a plan, where particles are moved against the
gradient via ATP. Proton pumps also work according to a plan,
meaning, that if the parts of the whole were left unassembled, they
would never come together on their own to form the kind of system that
can move ions against the gradient. There has to be outside
intervention to set up such systems, and an intervention that can plan
with a purpose.
snip>
>> The sequences of the genetic code can change to produce 200,000 plus
>> proteins in a life form.
>
>The genetic code has NO sequences.
Depends on what you're talking about. For me, there are two levels of
sequences. TTT is a sequence, isn't it? TCT is another sequence, as
is TAT. The genetic code contains sequences of bases. That is one
level.
The sequences of amino acids produce proteins. This is another level
of sequences derived from the genetic code.
And I hope by now you realize that I do not mean, by the above, that
the genetic code's triplet codons themselves are changing into new
amino acids beyond the 20. I am talking about the SEQUENCES of the
amino acids represented by the genetic code's triplet codons.
>NEVER refer to the genetic
>code to refer to anything besides that piece of paper (or whatever)
>with the table on it.
that's quite a demand. "NEVER," indeed. Then you can never use the
term "genetic code" to say anything at all. If I say that the A-Z
alphabet can be sequenced to produce words and sentences with meaning,
you don't make a brouhaha about that, do you, and claim that I am
thinking to change the letters in the alphabet to brand-new outlines
that don't resemble any in the A-Z sequence? No, you understand what
I mean. How come it's suddenly so obscure to you when I use the
"genetic code" in a similar sense?
Is it because you don't like the idea of it resembling a language?
>It is equivalent to saying the telegrams
>of the Morris code which is, of course, an oxymoron.
except I have NOT said anything like that. In the case of the Morse
code, I would have said the sequencing of the Morse code's dots and
dashes will produce telegrams. Or, for short, the Morse code's
sequencing can produce telegrams.
>The Morris code
>has no novels, not messages, no articles, so sequences, or anything
>else: the Morris code is just a table.
you are nitpicking where there aren't any nits.
>> THAT is flexibility and inherent ability to
>> vary.
>
>It is not _that_ flexible.
right. There are boundaries so that it is not THAT flexible. Thank
you.
snip>
>> God could have done it any way, but not to optimum results.
>
>If you are saying that creationism predicts optimum results
I am NOT saying that, either. How about asking me instead of putting
words in my mouth?
Creationism predicts suboptimal results as a result of a change that
has taken place in nature due to OUR choice to go against the path
that produces optimum results. Creation, when functioning as it was
originally meant to function, would have none of the problems you see
today.
>then
>creationism is disprove a thousand times over. This system
>is not optimum and there are many wildly un-optimum systems
>in nature.
agreed. And there is a reason why.
snip>
>> That is why the laws of the universe (as with the moral
>> laws) are unchanging.
>
>If the laws of the universe change then by definition they
>cannot be laws.
are you reading what I wrote, or not? I said the laws of the universe
are unchanging. I did NOT say that the laws of the universe change.
Please stop arguing with your own hasty misconceptions.
snip>
>> And
>> that is why salvation is a science, not some sentimental stage show on
>> a cross. There is a solid, scientific reason why God had to die if we
>> are to be given back our life in eternity.
>
>You are the first creationist I have ever seen who has ever called
>any of this "scientific."
religion is not about fantasy. It is about reality. The universe is
REAL and the Creator of the universe is REAL and the history of the
universe and our earth is REAL. Reality is what science is about.
Now, just because a lot of reality is still beyond our understanding
does not make it any less real, nor does it make it unscientific to
investigate these areas.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>snip>
>Had to jump in here.
glad to see your newsreader is working.
>Harlequin and others have explained to you at
>excruciating length that your definitions are all wrong. Please stop
>using "genetic code" to mean something other than the correspondence
>between codons and amino acids.
my definitions seem wrong to you because you have a misconception of
what you THINK my understanding is of the genetic code. So that when
I say anything about the genetic code, you come to the automatic wrong
conclusion that I am saying something that I am not saying at all.
I'm beginning to think that all this nitpicking about the genetic code
is because it is too close to a language for comfort, and you would
rather I not use the term in any sense at all.
>And your little analogies are useless.
>Even you can't keep them straight: at various times you have said that
>DNA bases, codons, and amino acids are the letters in your "alphabet".
wrong. I have said the DNA bases are a sub-alphabet. And, yes, the
amino acids are the letters in the alphabet of the genetic code, which
"letters" form protein "words".
There's nothing wrong with that understanding, and you would see
nothing wrong with it, either, if you weren't so bent on sticking me
with your own misconceptions of what I think.
snip>
>> I didn't say the introns were part of the genetic code. I said it was
>> part of the genetic code's SEQUENCING. There's a difference.
>
>
>The genetic code doesn't have a sequence.
will you STOP it. TAA! TGA! TAG!
Didn't understand that? Then try UAA! UGA! UAG!
Please try to understand me when I say "the genetic code's
sequencing." I really wish to be able to use the terms and have you
understand what I mean. There's no need to get mulish and insist that
you don't understand what I mean, when I am trying to explain what I
do mean.
The amino acids that are represented by the genetic code can be
sequenced. When I say "the genetic code's sequencing," I am referring
to the amino acids represented by the genetic code, which amino acids
are chained together in various sequences to form various proteins.
Since the genetic code represents these amino acids, I see no reason
why you can't understand when I say the "genetic code's sequences."
Especially now as I've explained myself.
>You mean introns are part of a
>gene's or organism's DNA sequence.
introns are part of a DNA sequence, which sequence consists of both
introns and amino acids that are represented by the triplet codons as
listed in the theoretical GENETIC CODE. I just don't understand the
quibble. Could it be that you want to blot out any mention of a
genetic code because it's uncomfortably close to a language, and
language bespeaks intellect?
>>>The genetic code is not the alphabet as has already been pointed
>>>out to you. The "alphabet" for DNA is: G, C, T, and A.
>>
>> I would consider the bases of CGAT to be structural outlines of the
>> alphabet -- outlines that, when arranged, create amino-acid letters.
>> So I would consider the bases to be the scaffolding of the alphabet.
>
>
>As far as I can tell, there seems to be no point at all to this analogy,
>since it illuminates nothing; in fact it only seems to be increasing
>your confusion. Dump it.
I will NOT dump it. Certainly not because you are uncomfortable with
the idea of an alphabet analogy that implies language and intellect.
>>>The
>>>"alphabet" for RNA is G, C, U, and A. The "alphabet" for
>>>proteins is amino acids which make them up.
>>
>> I can agree with that. The alphabet for proteins is the amino acids.
>> And these amino acids are the genetic code. So when I say the genetic
>> code is the alphabet, I think I am saying the same thing you are.
>
>
>No, no, no, no, no. Amino acids are not, not, not the genetic code.
do you REALLY think that I think the amino acids are the literal
written listing of the 64 codons that we call the genetic code?
Mercy. You're suddenly so literal about everything I have to say on
the genetic code.
Okay. Here you go, just for you: Amino acids are represented by the
squiggly lines on paper that we come to understand is the
representation of amino acids, and which we choose to call the genetic
code. These amino acids, represented by the squiggly lines on paper
that we call the genetic code, can be sequenced in a variety of ways
to form proteins. Since the amino acids are represented by these
squiggly marks of the genetic code, I can say that amino acids are
sequenced, or I can say that the genetic code can be sequenced.
Is that better? Probably not.
>The
>genetic code is the list of correspondences between codons and amino
>acids. Codons are not the code. Amino acids are not the code.
>Relationships between codons and amino acids are the code. [Makes Marge
>Simpson noise deep in throat.]
aaarrgggh! Do you really think that I actually believe that amino
acids are the actual squiggly lines that are written on a piece of
paper to represent them? Come oooooonnnnnn.
>>>In any event, what introns do is done before translation.
>>
>> so? The introns do their work of instruction and then they are cut
>> out. What instructions exactly do they give, and how were the
>> particular instructions triggered for each protein that is required to
>> meet environmental needs? Therein lies my prediction.
>
>
>This prediction makes no sense. Since the only thing that determines a
>protein's nature is its sequence, and the only thing that determines a
>protein's sequence is the sequence of codons in the mRNA used to make
>it, your theory requires a belief that introns do something to change
>the sequence of mRNAs before they are excised. However, we know that not
>to be true. The sequence of a mature mRNA is identical to the sequence
>of that part of the gene from which they are transcribed. No influence
>of introns, or anything else, occurs to change this.
and what about alternative splicing? What makes THAT difference?
>>>When mRNA is processed the introns are _removed_. Then the
>>>mRNA is sent to the ribosomes where translation occures.
>>>The genetic code is only relevent to process of translation.
>>
>> how does the body know what to produce in order to meet environmental
>> needs? Something goes on before the translation process in order for
>> the translation itself to provide the proteins that are needed.
>
>
>Right. But this has nothing to do with translation. Mostly it has to do
>with transcription rate or (less important generally) with the rate of
>destruction of mRNAs. Transcription rate is the rate at which mRNAs are
>produced from the gene that codes for them. This in turn is influenced
>(plus or minus) by proteins called transcription factors. These in turn
>are controlled by a whole network of other molecules in complex feedback
>loops that often include molecules that transfer signals from outside
>the cell. Introns have absolutely nothing to do with it.
end of story. There is no more research to be done. John Harshman
has reached the zenith of his knowledge. Now, THAT is science for
you. No thanks.
<snip frustrating repetition from a closed mind.>
----
zoe
Eric Rowley
> >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:14:26 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
> >> <use...@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >>>Yes you have done it wrong again. I have seen no one here
> >>>saying that the genetic code is the "alphabet." >>
> >> well, "alphabet" might be my word, but I have been led here to
> that >> understanding --64 units in the alphabet, each unit
>
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html#
The_DNA_Codons
> Quote:
> "The Genetic Code (DNA)
> End quote.
> sequences can vary, it will be understood what I mean --not that
> the genetic code's triplet codons themselves change to a sequence
> not found on the genetic code table, but that the sequence in
> which those 64 triplet codons can be strung together can vary.
> If you can accept that this is my understanding, you should not
> have a problem with my use of "genetic code" anymore. You should
> now know what I mean.
> >Why do you think "punctuation" which is extremely minimal (only
> >"stop") is evidence for language?
> it takes purpose to stop a mindless process from continuing on.
> This is not a cessation of action where the process runs out of
> energy, or is exhausted. This is a stop signal that interrupts a
> process that, if not stopped, would have continued on. This is
> evidence of a purposeful installment of an intervention tool.
> >Starting and stoping point
> >is necessary is is hardly something too "complex" to have
> evolved.
> why would a mindless process suddenly stop
Because the stop codons have no translation and jam up the copying
mechanism.
> at not just one, but
> many many points in a sequencing process,
Because there are many many stop codons.
> creating the vast array
> of useful (thus meaningful) proteins found in life forms? Is
> there an evolutionary explanation for this obvious demonstration
> of boundaries, as seen in stop codons?
The stop codons have no translation and jam up the copying
mechanism.
> >Why do proteins have meaning? I am serious. Or maybe I should
> >phrase the question: why do proteins have meaning beyond that of
> >any other molecule?
> proteins have meaning by their location and their function. The
> fact that proteins can combine to form meaningful (functioning)
> life forms means that the proteins themselves contribute to a
> meaningful existence for the life form.
> A protein found out of context becomes useless or cancerous, but
> within its program, it carries the meaning of a functioning life
> form. Random generation of protein (which is the modus operandus
> of evolutionary theory) will not produce that kind of meaning.
> How so?
> Random generation of proteins from amino acids in a lab has
> produced exactly this kind of evidence for lack of meaning. The
> proteins formed in labs are, for the most part, not found on the
> table of the genetic code.
No you're not making sense again, there are _no_ proteins _at_all_
in the genetic code table. So what in the world do you mean.
> They have no meaning, and evolve into
> nothing.
Because they do not form a system and work together, they are just
loose proteins.
> snip>
> >> I didn't say the introns were part of the genetic code. I said
> it was >> part of the genetic code's SEQUENCING. There's a
> difference. >
> >And it is still 100% wrong. The genetic code has _NO_
> sequencing.
> why so nitpicky? The genetic code's representation of amino acids
> can be sequenced, on paper, to represent various proteins. If you
> understand that I understand that,
But we can't be sure that you understand that if you mudddle the
terms. And you are obviously misunderstanding a lot of basic things,
this could very well be one of them.
> then when I say that the
> genetic code can be sequenced, there should be no
> misunderstanding.
But there is.
Why not just say that the genome, genes and chromosomes can be
sequenced. Or that we have a sequence of bases, codons or amino
acids.
I don't see how those can be misunderstood if you use them properly.
> For instance, the letters of our alphabet can be sequenced into
> words. If I say that the alphabet can be sequenced to form words,
> that does not mean that I am trying to say that the letter A, for
> instance, can change into something new that now looks like \-/,
> or some other new form.
> I hope it will be understood in the future that when I say "the
> genetic code's sequences," I do not mean that the triplet codons,
> written on paper (or present in the body as amino acids)
> themselves change, but that the sequencing of the codons (as
> represented by the genetic code table) can vary from protein to
> protein.
But the problem is that the codons CAN change, not often but there
are organism with slightly different codes, that is why it becomes
confusing if one doesn't use compleatly clear language.
And you seem to me to be useing far to many words to say far to
little and ambiguity creaps in. There are to many phrases that can be
interpreted in to many different ways, only slightly different
perhaps but many small ambiguities add up to a lot of ambiguity.
> >And how does "intelligent >design" predict any of this?
> stop codons are an indication of intelligent intervention.
Why?
<snip>
> >> That is why the laws of the universe (as with the moral
> >> laws) are unchanging.
> >If the laws of the universe change then by definition they
> >cannot be laws.
> are you reading what I wrote, or not? I said the laws of the
> universe are unchanging. I did NOT say that the laws of the
> universe change. Please stop arguing with your own hasty
> misconceptions.
He isn't, he's saying that laws by definition have to be unchanging.
> snip>
> >> And
> >> that is why salvation is a science, not some sentimental stage
> show on >> a cross. There is a solid, scientific reason why God
> had to die if we >> are to be given back our life in eternity. >
> >You are the first creationist I have ever seen who has ever
> called >any of this "scientific."
> religion is not about fantasy. It is about reality. The universe
> is REAL and the Creator of the universe is REAL and the history
> of the universe and our earth is REAL. Reality is what science is
> about. Now, just because a lot of reality is still beyond our
> understanding does not make it any less real, nor does it make it
> unscientific to investigate these areas.
It is if it is compleatly outside our understanding!
We have to have someplace to start, some clues to start unraveling.
--
Eric
John Wilkins
That would be a *very* long list.
>
> Another one: many creationists will often claim that very inclusive,
> diverse groups of many species are single "kinds" that had
> "microevolved" since the flood, but will also try to deny any and all
> cases of observed speciation.
That's because they are in effect following Buffon's notion of species
as being mere varieties of a single kind, and hence that they must be
interfertile. Difference between them and Buffon is that *he* did the
experiments to see if they were.
>
> Similarly, they'll dispute the idea that natural evolution can produce
> adaptive features, or differences less than the differences seen among
> species within their "kinds". If they were consistent, they'd only
> recognize "kinds" that are uniform for features that "couldn't have
> evolved naturally" [unless of course they'd like to argue that the
> original created ancestors would have possessed all of the traits now
> seen anywhere in their groups].
>
> And there's the whole problem of the no-death-before-the-Fall
> creationists, and the "microevolution" after the Fall of all the many
> specialized predatory and defensive features of animals, features that
> many creationists will want to claim can't possibly have evolved
> naturally.
>
> cheers
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
mel turner
(zoe_althrop) wrote...
>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
[snip]
>>>well, this "scientific prediction" does have to do with kinds and
>>>chromosomes. I expect that genetic research and comparative genome
>>>mapping of chromosomes will demonstrate that there are limits to
>>>speciation
>>
>>How could they demonstrate this?
>
>by observation of the fact that, as a RULE, life forms fail to
>reproduce when there are chromosomal changes/damage.
Again, any such "rule" that may or may not exist doesn't prevent major
chromosomal changes within evolving lineages. Therefore, there isn't
a limit to speciation related to this rule.
But even for
>those species, especially in the plant kingdom, where polyploidy
>exists,
Chromosome number changes aren't all by polyploidy. Many are
single-chromosome changes by fusions and fissions. They don't
prevent fertility, nor do they rule out species-level and
within-species changes in chromosome number.
I'd assume that you'd consider plain old house mice [Mus musculus]
a single species or "kind", but they are known to have formed
different local chromosome races ranging from 2n = 22 up to 2n = 40
by Robertsonian chromosome fusions. Mice with 22 chromosomes will
look just like the ones with 40.
>there are still limits. Plants remain plants. They do not
>become non-plant species.
How is that any limit? Any descendant of a "plant" will be a "plant"
_by definition_ no matter how much it may change, but plants are an
enormous, enormously diverse group. Is "animals remain animals" also
a limit? It's equally true, and equally trivial. Every descendant of
any member of any phylogenetic group will remain a member of that
group, by the definition of "monophyletic group". That's not a limit,
but a definition. Humans remain Hominidae, remain Primates, remain
Eutheria, remain Mammalia, remain Amniota, remain Tetrapoda, remain
Sarcopterygii, remain Gnathostomata, remain Vertebrata, remain
Chordata, remain Deuterostomia, remain Metazoa, remain Eukaryota,
remain life-on-earth. Nothing can ever change so much that it no
longer belongs to the group of descendants of its ancestors. That's
not a limit, just a definition.
>>>and will give evidence that every kind of life form has
>>>boundaries.
>>
>>Why should you expect any such thing? A "young earther" [or an old
>>earth, young-life type as I recall you are] has no need to propose any
>>such limits.
>
>I am not predicting based on NEED. I am predicting based on
>observation of the data.
What data?
>>Even without any limits at all to evolutionary change the
>>time frame they believe in doesn't allow enough time for life to have
>>evolved much since its creation. So they need nothing more.
>
>except that, based on observation of present limits to speciation,
There is no such observation. Speciations do happen, and all the
observed data indicate that similar speciations have happened
throughout the history of life on earth. What limits do you think
you observe?
it
>can be predicted that if time were to last for a billion years, there
>would still be no evolution of one kind of life form into a new
>species.
Huh? Speciations are observed to happen. Or is this "new species"
something other than what biologists mean when they say "species"?
Did you mean "new kind", or are you claiming that all "new species"
aren't really species?
>There is no reason to expect the present observed limits to
>be removed in the future.
No removal is necessary, since no such limits are observed.
Speciations happen. So do chromosome number changes.
>>If life on earth is only a few thousand years old, then it hasn't
>>evolved much, especially at the species level. No genetic
>>evolution-limiting mechanisms are needed.
>
>this is not about need. I don't need anything to be a certain way.
Good. Then you won't fret if your genetic limiting mechanisms don't
exist. And after all, if life on earth is young as you believe, no
such mechanism is necessary to prevent much evolution. But if both
the mechanisms and the time limit are lacking, then it would seem
that nothing's stopping macroevolution on the largest scale from
occuring.
>>> But I'm still working on the foundation, if you can wait.
>>
>>Is there any foundation to work on? Never mind, I'll look at whatever
>>you propose [practicing looking askance...].
>
>meaning, "I am already practicing a prejudiced mindset"?
Meaning I was just kidding or teasing, a bit playfully.
cheers