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

[Stripe]

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

Of course you can't represent yourself honestly. But in order to claim that God did not have to create in the fashion He did requires that you know a better way to design people.

Your argument requires that you know better than God.

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.

Which is nowhere near close enough to evidence for common descent. :nono:

So, which is it? Do you know for a fact that humans could have been designed with less similarity to chimps, or is your argument based on information you do not have?

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?

Because those two creatures are the most similar in design. :idunno:

You've been through this discussion a hundred times, Alate. Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?

why on earth should we "ignore the 95% number"?

Because it is likely acquired in a fashion designed to obtain the highest number possible and you simply use the word "similar" in more casual conversation as if this 95% number should then be respected.

Or there might even be numerous other models to compare similarity that, if applied to the difference between monkeys and people, would give a far smaller number.

Anyway .. not overly important .. just something to keep in mind. :up:

 

[voltaire]

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.------how do you know these redesigned dna sequences all do the same job? Do you get the same enzyme in a petri dish? You dont know how these redesigned sequences work in the organism, do you?

 

[voltaire]

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.-----If cytochrome-C is found in all living things, why should it determine ancestry? Are you saying there are thousands of sequences that produce cyt-C? Are you saying some animals have the same sequences that produce cyt-C and therefore they are similar? Do you know for a fact that these cyt-C sequences are not partially copied in combination with other sequences to produce other enzymes? I think you are under the delusion that a sequence is always copied in the same way everytime and always produces the same enzyme.

 

[Alate_One]

how do you know these redesigned dna sequences all do the same job? Do you get the same enzyme in a petri dish? You dont know how these redesigned sequences work in the organism, do you?

I know what the universal genetic code is. Scientists in labs design proteins all the time using the code. Because the code is universal, any gene that is designed using it will produce the same amino acid string in every organism on earth (save a few obscure bacteria). So yes I do know how they'll work in an organism.

Here's another picture showing the code.

There's no magic about it. The function of genes is a part of DNA function that is well understood.

 

[voltaire]

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-------- Again, are you saying there are thousands of dna sequences that produce the same milk protein? Are you saying some animals have the same sequences while others don't? If the milk producing sequences are only involved at all times in producing the milk protein, then you may have a point. If not, all the similarity means is that the similar sequences in both animals are involved in the same multitasking duties. They are probably found in the same chromosomal segments and have the exact same distances to other sequences on the chromosone in each animal. It is those distances that often determine what segments of dna the rna copies.

 

[Yorzhik]

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

This doesn't make sense. I'm not the one obfuscating, and you're the one that is hostile.

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

Would "working sequences" be better? Let's try again with that:

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

 

[voltaire]

I know what the universal
genetic code is. Scientists
in labs design proteins all
the time using the code.
Because the code is
universal, any gene that is
designed using it will
produce the same amino
acid string in every
organism on earth (save a
few obscure bacteria)-------is this universal code only for one enzyme or is it for all enzymes?

 

[Alate_One]

If cytochrome-C is found in all living things, why should it determine ancestry? Are you saying there are thousands of sequences that produce cyt-C?

Yes, there are many possible sequences of cytochrome C. All of them have the sam function. Some of them even have amino acids that are different, but yet still have the exact same function. We know this because scientists can experimentally take a cytochrome C gene from one organism, and put it into a totally different organism and it will still work.

Are you saying some animals have the same sequences that produce cyt-C and therefore they are similar? Do you know for a fact that these cyt-C sequences are not partially copied in combination with other sequences to produce other enzymes?

Organisms do not mix sequences from other, unrelated enzymes to produce proteins.

I think you are under the delusion that a sequence is always copied in the same way everytime and always produces the same enzyme.

I already explained to you how organisms generate differences from transcripts. You apparently ignored what I said. They ARE actually copied the same way. The difference comes in the RNA editing afterward.

 

[Alate_One]

is this universal code only for one enzyme or is it for all enzymes?

All enzymes and all proteins in general in *almost* all organisms (very small number of exceptions that are slightly different in genetic code). This is the reason I could take a gene from a bacterium and put it into a plant and it still worked.

 

[voltaire]

Alateone. If one universal
code that fits in a table on a
sheet of paper can produce
all known enzymes and
proteins, how does it work?
Is it a mathematical
formula? Do you start out
with the amino acid
sequence of a known
enzyme and use the code to
work backwards to a dna
sequence?

 

[Alate_One]

This doesn't make sense. I'm not the one obfuscating, and you're the one that is hostile.

Your reaction was hostile to me pointing out the truth of your statement. But anyway lets drop it for now.

Would "working sequences" be better? Let's try again with that:

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

I couldn't tell you what percentage of the possible number, total number is probably less than 4^10. I think we've been over this before anyway and it really has no bearing on my point in this case.

 

[voltaire]

I don't follow you alateone. You say because of the universal code, you were able take a gene from a bacterium and sucessfully place it in a plant. Did the gene produce the same enzyme in the bacterium as it did in the plant without any manipulation from you or did it do so only after you altered according to information you gleaned from the universal code?

 

[Alate_One]

Alateone. If one universal
code that fits in a table on a
sheet of paper can produce
all known enzymes and
proteins, how does it work?
Is it a mathematical
formula? Do you start out
with the amino acid
sequence of a known
enzyme and use the code to
work backwards to a dna
sequence?

It's not a mathematical formula. The code is what is used to translate the information in DNA into protein. If you're a scientist designing a protein from scratch you could take the sequence of an enzyme and work backwards to the DNA as you say. Most of the time it is easier to take an existing enzyme sequence and modify it. But the code comes in handy to do that as well since you can predict the results.

How it actually functions in the cell is this:

Translation

The genetic code functions in the cells through the t-RNAs. The anti-codons match codons (the three letters of RNA/DNA) which are "charged" with the correct amino acids. Any enzyme or protein can be created, it only matters what the sequence of mRNA is.

This one is more accurate in terms of actual structures

Transcription and translation

 

[Alate_One]

I don't follow you alateone. You say because of the universal code, you were able take a gene from a bacterium and sucessfully place it in a plant. Did the gene produce the same enzyme in the bacterium as it did in the plant without any manipulation from you or did it do so only after you altered according to information you gleaned from the universal code?

I didn't have to manipulate the actual codons of the gene at all *because* the genetic code is universal. I did have to change some of the signals that tell the cell to transcribe the gene (because those are different in plants and bacteria) but the gene itself was unchanged and functioned identically.

 

[voltaire]

This is getting extremely technical and i want to get back to your original argument about common descent because of 98% similarity in the genomes of chimps and humans. You asked why couldn't God design the same characteristics that are common in chimp and human using very different genetic sequences. You pointed out that you could make the same enzyme from hundreds of different sequences. First, are you saying it is the same enzyme because it has the same function? Are you saying this function (enzyme) can have hundreds of different amino acid sequences? Is the universal code simply program that rna uses to turn dna sequences into protein?

 

[voltaire]

Your argument was that humans and chimps share 98% of same dna sequence. You said that an enzyme could come in hundreds of forms all with the same function. You asked why did God make the DNA sequence nearly identical betweem humans and chimps when there was an infinite amount of choice available. It is the dna structure that is identical. Nobody said anything about the enzymes being identical.

 

[voltaire]

We are getting bogged down in the technical part without really getting to the heart of the issue and leaving me in a cloud of confusion. Lets cut to the chase. Why do you say that God could have created humans and chimps using genomes that are much less similar than 98%?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Of course you can't represent yourself honestly. But in order to claim that God did not have to create in the fashion He did requires that you know a better way to design people.

Your argument requires that you know better than God.

Isn't that what the evolutionist argument always boils down to? Scripture can't be right -- we know better.

 

[taikoo]

Isn't that what the evolutionist argument always boils down to? Scripture can't be right -- we know better.

No, that is what some creationists' dim level of understanding boils down to.

Here is how it really goes.

Evolution is a theory backed by immense amounts of confirming data, and has yet to be met with any serious challenge. The argument for evolution has zero to do with scripture. Scripture people are just a sideline cult, trying to snipe at it with zero success. Maybe the Daughters of the American Revolution would like to take on nuclear physics, they will do about as well.

Some of you, we try to jolly along into at least the 19th century, but its a lost cause for the great majority.

here is how it relates to what you said...

Some people's literal interpretation of certain small parts of the bible leads them to believe the words of some bronze age goat herders are literally accurate when the earth speaks otherwise. As anyone not crippled by creationism can see.

All of Scripture COULD be right, same as we all COULD win mega- lotteries tomorrow, and then all be killed by giant platinum meteors right after.

Its just that nobody with any sense thinks the chance is big enough to be worth a moments thought.

Btw, the "scripture cant be right" is an ad hom, you dont get to make those up and then claim someone else said them.

 

[KINGOFKNGS]

We are getting bogged down in the technical part without really getting to the heart of the issue and leaving me in a cloud of confusion. Lets cut to the chase. Why do you say that God could have created humans and chimps using genomes that are much less similar than 98%?

Understanding gene transcription and translation is imperative to understanding Alate's argument.

Let me try to give a quick, oversimplified overview. DNA is made up of four different nucleotides, and we give them each a symbol, A, C, T, and G. These can be put together in any combination you like. The combination of three of these nucleotides codes for a single amino acid. The order of the nucleotides matters as well. For example ACT would code for a different amino acid than CAT, or TCA.

A series of amino acids comes together to make a protein. Enzymes are proteins, so the original information coding for the proteins is found in the DNA.

DNA is transcribed to RNA, and RNA is translated into amino acids which make up the proteins.

When Alate mentions the universal code, the point is that nearly all of the amino acids can be coded for by more than one codon (set of three nucleic acids). For example, AGA, AGG, CGU, CGC, CGA, and CGG all code for arginine. Thus, in any protein, any time there is an arginine in the protein, it could be coded for by any of the six listed codons. The arginine would be identical no matter which of the codons is used. Almost all of the amino acids have multiple codons that can encode for the said amino acid.

I can't speak for Alate and Alate can correct me if I'm wrong, but Alate's point is that the exact same codons are used in the same place in many of proteins across species. The further apart the organisms are believed to be in evolutionary terms, the greater the difference in the proteins (and not necessarily differing codons for the same amino acid, but that's certainly a possibility). Furthering the point, God could have been more creative and even if He wanted to use the same enzymes or proteins, the DNA could be much more "creative" by using different codons for the individual amino acids than using the exact same sequences for proteins across species.