toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Alate_One]

I know what your point is alate. Do you know mine? I understand that all 4 sequences produce the same enzyme with the amino acids in the exact same order each time. My question is: Is that the limit of the capabilities of each of those 4 sequences? If not, your point is moot. If so, then further examination is needed.

That is the limit of those sequences and as I said before I could design plenty more that make the same enzyme.

 

[Alate_One]

My statement was only unclear to people that are hostile to anything a creationist says.

Oh please. You can stop with the self serving obfuscation any time.

But let's get on to one of your evidences:

Taking these working outcomes: AGAAAACTTGCACCA OR CGGAAGTTAGCTCCG OR CGTAAATTGGCCCC OR CGTAAACTCGCGCCT, and any more working outcomes, what percentage would they be of the total number of possible outcomes? Would the possible outcomes be greater or less than 4^10?

I'm not entirely sure what you are meaning by "working outcomes". I would call the amino acid string the outcome, not the DNA.

In an organism information flows from DNA -> RNA -> protein (though there are instances where it stops at RNA). I was doing the reverse only as an example.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not entirely sure what you are meaning by "working outcomes".

Then you should clarify instead of constantly switching definitions when challenges are posed to you.

You remain utterly incapable of honest conversation. You do nothing but lie and deceive.

 

[voltaire]

That is the limit of those
sequences and as I said
before I could design plenty
more that make the same
enzyme.-------so you are absolutely positive those 4 sequences only produce that one enzyme and only that enzyme? Where did you get the hundreds of sequences from? They also produce the same enzyme and only that enzyme? If yes, then i must say that i am highly skeptical and do not believe you. I dont think you or any other biologist knows all the functions of the human body and all possible sequences that are capable of producing those characteristics.

 

[voltaire]

That is the limit of those
sequences and as I said
before I could design plenty
more that make the same
enzyme.--------how do you know that is the limit of those sequences? Do you know what a different RNA strand could do with those sequences? Are those 4 sequences only located at one spot in the genome? Could a location in a different spot produce a different result? In other words, Do those 4 sequences always produce the same enzyme no matter where they are located or what portion of the sequence is transcribed by RNA?

 

[Tyrathca]

how do you know that is the limit of those sequences? Do you know what a different RNA strand could do with those sequences? Are those 4 sequences only located at one spot in the genome? Could a location in a different spot produce a different result? In other words, Do those 4 sequences always produce the same enzyme no matter where they are located or what portion of the sequence is transcribed by RNA?

Are you refering to introns/extrons or phase shifts? If you have a point say it, more likely you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[voltaire]

Whats going on here is a case of bait and switch. Its true that RNA can transcribe several different DNA sequences and produce the same enzyme. What you are led to believe is that RNA always transcribes the DNA sequence in exactly the same starting and stopping point everytime and always produces the same enzyme. There is not an exact one to one relation between gene sequence and enzyme produced. The same enzyme can be produced from several different sequences but those sequences are not neat little tidy sections of DNA in very specific spots as you are being led to believe. Those different sequences are obtained by different modes of RNA transcriptions over various parts of the whole chromosonal strand. Humans and chimps have much identical sequences but those sequences are very specific places for a purpose and God did not have an infinite arrangement of those sequences in order to achieve all shared characteristics between humans and chimps.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Did Charles Darwin believe in Darwinism?

 

[Alate_One]

how do you know that is the limit of those sequences? Do you know what a different RNA strand could do with those sequences? Are those 4 sequences only located at one spot in the genome? Could a location in a different spot produce a different result? In other words, Do those 4 sequences always produce the same enzyme no matter where they are located or what portion of the sequence is transcribed by RNA?

I gave you an example of 4 possible sequences. These don't have context associated with them since they are artificial constructs.

In general, sequences can be affected by location, in terms of how much transcript they produce, but WHAT they produce ( the sequence of amino acids) is not at all affected by location in the genome. But in many cases location has no effect. In fact if we look at individual human beings, there is a lot of variation in the location of their genes.

A sequence of amino acids like I have shown will always produce the same amino acids when translated. If they were part of a larger sequence, they could be skipped over in some cases, but if that segment were translated it would always produce the same sequence of amino acids.

 

[Alate_One]

Whats going on here is a case of bait and switch. Its true that RNA can transcribe several different DNA sequences and produce the same enzyme.

You're a little backwards here. DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into protein.

What you are led to believe is that RNA always transcribes the DNA sequence in exactly the same starting and stopping point everytime and always produces the same enzyme. There is not an exact one to one relation between gene sequence and enzyme produced.

It is true when you are talking about an entire eukaryotic gene, that there is not a 1 to 1 correspondence between gene and enzyme. But that is because of introns that are not translated that are within the gene. Sometimes coding regions will be left out and not translated.

You could think of it this way: A gene could produce a "sentence" of ACAD TYRIN GVQL. It might produce ACAD GVQL or TYRIN GVQL or ACAD TYRIN instead of just ACAD TYRIN GVQL but it can't produce TRACGQVL. The segments can't change, though they can be skipped over or connected with different segments.

What I gave you originally is a coding region, which when translated will always produce the same set of amino acids.

Those different sequences are obtained by different modes of RNA transcriptions over various parts of the whole chromosonal strand.

There are no different "modes" of transcription, but there is different kinds of RNA editing.

Humans and chimps have much identical sequences but those sequences are very specific places for a purpose and God did not have an infinite arrangement of those sequences in order to achieve all shared characteristics between humans and chimps.

As I said, different HUMANS can have have different arrangements of chromosomes and DNA and still appear to be normal. There's no reason that the standard human arrangement and chimpanzee standard arrangement have to be so similar.

 

[Stripe]

You're a little backwards here. DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into protein.

Learn to read, idiot.

 

[KINGOFKNGS]

Learn to read, idiot.

If you're going to be snarky, learn some science. RNA does not transcribe DNA. DNA is transcribed into RNA, but not by RNA itself. Alate is perfectly accurate in the description.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Should we ask Charles Darwin what he thinks, first.

 

[Stripe]

If you're going to be snarky, learn some science. RNA does not transcribe DNA. DNA is transcribed into RNA, but not by RNA itself. Alate is perfectly accurate in the description.

:rotfl:

You're arguing about the ambiguity raised by a missing preposition. Just read the sentence and fix the ambiguity. But atheists rely heavily upon seizing upon anything but a straightforward discussion. And if she weren't picked up on this Alate would very soon be dismissing Voltaire's points by screeching that he doesn't understand some fundamentals.

All he did (at worst) was miss a preposition. Deal with it!

 

[Alate_One]

:rotfl:

You're arguing about the ambiguity raised by a missing preposition. Just read the sentence and fix the ambiguity. But atheists rely heavily upon seizing upon anything but a straightforward discussion. And if she weren't picked up on this Alate would very soon be dismissing Voltaire's points by screeching that he doesn't understand some fundamentals.

A missing preposition? The entire sentence is constructed backwards. RNA does not transcribe anything and RNA is certainly not transcribed into DNA. The sentence is totally wrong and can't be repaired with a word. It needed to be corrected. You're the one that is forcing an extended discussion of the matter.

Stop trying to cover up your stupidity. Show some integrity for once and admit you're wrong.

 

[KINGOFKNGS]

:rotfl:

You're arguing about the ambiguity raised by a missing preposition. Just read the sentence and fix the ambiguity. But atheists rely heavily upon seizing upon anything but a straightforward discussion. And if she weren't picked up on this Alate would very soon be dismissing Voltaire's points by screeching that he doesn't understand some fundamentals.

All he did (at worst) was miss a preposition. Deal with it!

I do believe that you're the one that tried to call Alate on reading something incorrectly. In fact, Alate was correct, and voltaire was incorrect. Alate used the phrase "a little backward"--this seems to say that Alate gets voltaire's basic point, but Alate felt it necessary to point out voltaire's error. There was no long diatribe or belittling or voltaire's error, just a simple correction and Alate moved on. Perhaps I'm missing something, but you're the one making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Stripe]

I do believe that you're the one that tried to call Alate on reading something incorrectly. In fact, Alate was correct, and voltaire was incorrect. Alate used the phrase "a little backward"--this seems to say that Alate gets voltaire's basic point, but Alate felt it necessary to point out voltaire's error. There was no long diatribe or belittling or voltaire's error, just a simple correction and Alate moved on. Perhaps I'm missing something, but you're the one making a mountain out of a molehill.

OK.

 

[I aint no monkey]

Whenever the question of evolution comes up, we must address what we mean by it because evolution has many meanings. Yes change in the allele frequencies happen but only after the original beings were created by God.

If we mean common descent from one or more forms then no, absolutely not that didn’t happen and there is no evidence of that. But did the original created butterfly evolve into 30,000 species of butterflies, yes. What we see are living fossils in the fossil record where some of the forms that we find are still alive today, unchanged after millions of years.

 

[Stripe]

Here is Alate's argument. Monkeys and humans are 95% genetically similar, thus they are descended from each other. She thinks God could have created humans in a different way with more dissimilar DNA from monkeys. She thinks this is good evidence that God did not create people and monkeys separately.

Not only is this very poor reasoning, she also happens to be asserting that she knows exactly what is required to design living creatures.

She has very poor arguments and relies heavily upon unattained knowledge.

And we should probably also ignore the 95% number.

 

[Alate_One]

Here is Alate's argument. Monkeys and humans are 95% genetically similar, thus they are descended from each other. She thinks God could have created humans in a different way with more dissimilar DNA from monkeys. She thinks this is good evidence that God did not create people and monkeys separately.

Not only is this very poor reasoning, she also happens to be asserting that she knows exactly what is required to design living creatures.

You are mischaracterizing my argument. I do not assert that I know exactly what is required to design a living organism.

But we do know how genes work at a sufficient level to say that you can design a gene in many different ways to do the exact same job.

And you can look at a protein that is found in all living things This is why cytochrome C sequences can be used to follow ancestry. Or you can use milk proteins to determine to which mammals whales are most closely related. Why should the sequence be closest to hippos?

You can even compare them for yourself if you like The comparison has been turned into a lab activity for students.

-edit - ran a quick alignment with mouse sequence from the database.

Mouse 75.9% identical to right whale
Deer is 83% identical to right whale
Hippo is 93.3.% identical to right whale

She has very poor arguments and relies heavily upon unattained knowledge.

And we should probably also ignore the 95% number.

What unattained knowledge is that? Which arguments are poor and why and why on earth should we "ignore the 95% number"? Because Stripe says so?