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

[voltaire]

Pleiotropy is when one gene
product (protein) has more
than one effect. It is not
caused by different DNA
sequences that produce the
same protein. It's caused by
a protein that has multiple
effects. Nice try, but that
doesn't fix the problem.-----That is false. Wiki explicitly states that pleiotropy is where one gene has multiple phentopic expressions.

 

[KINGOFKNGS]

Pleiotropy is when one gene
product (protein) has more
than one effect. It is not
caused by different DNA
sequences that produce the
same protein. It's caused by
a protein that has multiple
effects. Nice try, but that
doesn't fix the problem.-----That is false. Wiki explicitly states that pleiotropy is where one gene has multiple phentopic expressions.

Do you know what phenotypic means? Do you know what a gene is or what it makes?

 

[voltaire]

It is not
caused by different DNA
sequences that produce the
same protein.------Alateone. I never said it was and you misstated what i said. A single gene has multiple phenotopic effects. I have still dismantled your dillemma for the creationist. If one gene has several phenotopic expressions, a gene replacement that is known to produce the same protein must also have the same multiple phenotypic expression or the genome doesnt function properly.

 

[KINGOFKNGS]

It is not
caused by different DNA
sequences that produce the
same protein.------Alateone. I never said it was and you misstated what i said. A single gene has multiple phenotopic effects. I have still dismantled your dillemma for the creationist. If one gene has several phenotopic expressions, a gene replacement that is known to produce the same protein must also have the same multiple phenotypic expression or the genome doesnt function properly.

Perhaps you should learn what a gene does, makes, and how it can cause pleiotropism.

 

[Alate_One]

That is false. Wiki explicitly states that pleiotropy is where one gene has multiple phentopic expressions.

And wiki is correct, but multiple phenotypic expressions does not have anything to do with the codons that are used to encode the protein. It just means the protein(s) that the gene produces have multiple effects.

For example, cystic fibrosis is a pleiotropic genetic disease. One gene is damaged, a halide ion channel. But because that protein is found in many different cell types, the error has different effects in those different cell types. In skin cells it causes overly salty sweat. In lung cells it causes an inability to clear mucus resulting in continual lung infections. It can also cause clubbed fingers and infertility in both men and women (more frequently men). All of this (and more) from one gene. THAT is pleiotropy.

You really need to learn the underlying biology to be able to assess these other processes. Really you've got the cart before the horse. You're jumping into the more advanced things before you've got the basics down, which is leading you into all kinds of misconceptions.

 

[voltaire]

Do you know what
phenotypic means? Do you
know what a gene is or what
it makes?-----what did i say that indicates to you that i dont know?

 

[Alate_One]

I never said it was and you misstated what i said. A single gene has multiple phenotopic effects. I have still dismantled your dillemma for the creationist. If one gene has several phenotopic expressions, a gene replacement that is known to produce the same protein must also have the same multiple phenotypic expression or the genome doesnt function properly.

You haven't dismantled anything. You are very confused about the basics. Go back and learn transcription and translation at the very least.

what did i say that indicates to you that i dont know?

The fact that you think pleiotropy is in any way an answer to the quandry I posed.

 

[voltaire]

You haven't dismantled
anything. You are very
confused about the basics.
Go back and learn
transcription and
translation at the very
least.-------Wow. you really are scared arEnt you? I defeated your argument and now you are embarassed. That is why you have zero response and instead tell me i dont know anything in the hopes i will go away and you might impress the dopes that buy your BS.

 

[Stripe]

And wiki is correct, but multiple phenotypic expressions does not have anything to do with the codons that are used to encode the protein. It just means the protein(s) that the gene produces have multiple effects.

Which sounds to me like it is exactly the point being made .. but you haven't grasped how it defeats your silly challenge.

 

[voltaire]

The fact that you think
pleiotropy is in any way an
answer to the quandry I
posed---- it certainly is an answer to your quandary and now you have egg on your face.

 

[Alate_One]

Wow. you really are scared arEnt you? I defeated your argument and now you are embarassed. That is why you have zero response and instead tell me i dont know anything in the hopes i will go away and you might impress the dopes that buy your BS.

Did you read what I said volt? I explained to you why you are wrong.

This is really getting to be sad . . . .

 

[voltaire]

the problem still remains for you if its the protein that has multiple phenotypic expression.

 

[Alate_One]

the problem still remains for you if its the protein that has multiple phenotypic expression.

How exactly do you figure that? The protein is the same INCLUDING any pleiotropic effects no matter what particular sequence of DNA is used to encode it.

Which sounds to me like it is exactly the point being made .. but you haven't grasped how it defeats your silly challenge.

Neither of you have grasped any of this biology apparently.

Nothing at all is affected when, for example, CTT or TTA is used to encode Leucine. It makes no difference so long as the amino acid is Leucine.

Pleiotropy comes from the protein level which is the same either way.

 

[Yorzhik]

There is no deciding based on "personal preference". We look at ALL the evidence available.

You don't get it. It's God's personal preference you must divine. And simply creating your lists to fit His pattern might make you feel good, but it won't explain why He decided to do what He did. Why you think God had to create a unique sequence for every organism, or the same sequence for every organism, has no basis in anything empirical.

I HAVE done the math for you already, Liar. You and Stripe follow the same pattern, you accuse and accuse and even when confronted you'll do anything to keep from admitting you're wrong.

I was wrong. You did do part of the math. I'm sorry, I'll never forget that you did part of the math. Now, from the link you provided:

So what percentage of the total possibilities is the identical amino acid string?"

And here are the numbers we were working with: ... a functional Protein, cytochrome C

This is the number of possibilities to encode an identical amino acid string: 5.15 X 10^ 47

This is the total number of possibilities: 4.15 X 10^180

And we note the numbers you so graciously provided. Again, I apologize for saying you never provided numbers. You never answered this question. Here's the question again using these numbers: So what percentage of the total possibilities is the identical amino acid string?"

And after that percentage is found, let's go on to the sequence you provided in this thread: So we have 4 strings here, AGAAAACTTGCACCA OR CGGAAGTTAGCTCCG OR CGTAAATTGGCCCC OR CGTAAACTCGCGCCT, each of 14 or 15 length. Could any of the 4 symbols possibly be in any place in these sequences?

You said the total number of possibilities was probably less than 4^10, but if any symbol could possibly be in any place in these sequences I'm not sure that "probably less than 4^10" is correct. Also, we need to know the number of working sequences.

You don't answer these questions because you'd realize you were looking at lead wings.

He didn't HAVE to use identical DNA sequences to make humans and chimps. And if it was just a common toolkit, why aren't the sequences for every other animal virtually identical also? Instead there is a very clear pattern of similarities AND differences. Similarites and differences that have no bearing on function. And I'm not even talking about pseudogenes at this point.

It relies on the likelihood of patterns being true. If the pattern we have is just "God's preference" and an instantaneous "poof creation" is what happened, He has gone out of His way to make it look AS IF evolution occurred. And we look at this, plus pseudogenes, plus fossils, plus biogeography, plus developmental biology etc. and it becomes more and more ridiculous to deny the obvious.

The relationships were originally derived from character states. Physical traits like particular bone structures or teeth. And strangely enough the DNA confirmed the trees that were drawn using anatomy.

Molecular genetics and Evidence for evolution

And all the particular character states, physical traits like particular bone structures or teeth and strangely enough the DNA, are all weighted to get the tree you want http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v14i7f.htm

You SAY that but provide no evidence to support your assertion. We can see how the muscles work in the wings but you keep insisting there must be some magical thing that stops them from working.

As your video asserted, Cytochrome C is a little different in many groups. What isn't explained is how those differences, from one generation to the next, can change and still work. In other words, it's easy to create a relationship when total number of differences are counted, but when we look at changing those differences to what a common ancestor had, we realize it isn't muscle we are looking at - it's lead.

 

[Stripe]

Neither of you have grasped any of this biology apparently. Nothing at all is affected when, for example, CTT or TTA is used to encode Leucine.

And you're ignoring the answer. The answer is not that CTT and TTA both always make leucine. The answer is that the difference between CTT and TTA may have an effect you do not know about (or maybe an effect you do know about, but are unwilling to admit).

That's possible, right. God may have had very good reason to use the sequences He used that you do not know about, right?

Or do you know better than God about how to make people?

 

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by
Alate_One
Neither of you have
grasped any of this biology
apparently. Nothing at all is
affected when, for example,
CTT or TTA is used to encode
Leucine.-------This is the arrogance of the evolutionist. You think nothing is affected because you didnt notice anything in the experiment. You have no idea what all possibele effects there could be because you dont even know where to start looking for them. you are a sad woman indeed.

 

[Flipper]

As your video asserted, Cytochrome C is a little different in many groups. What isn't explained is how those differences, from one generation to the next, can change and still work. In other words, it's easy to create a relationship when total number of differences are counted, but when we look at changing those differences to what a common ancestor had, we realize it isn't muscle we are looking at - it's lead.

If only there was some sort of winnowing or "selective" process that filtered the viable results from the non-viable.

 

[voltaire]

Most
of the DNA sequence across
the chromosomal region
encompassing a gene is not
used for protein coding, but
rather for gene regulation,
like the instructions in a
recipe that specify what to
do with the raw
ingredients.3 The genetic
information that is
functional and regulatory is
stored in "non-coding
regions," which are
essential for the proper
functioning of all cells,
ensuring that the right
genes are turned on or off
at the right time in concert
with other genes.-----creation.com. This is another reason why God could not use any number of a variety of sequences at a particular gene locus. These regulatory sections of the chromosome work on a specific order in a gene sequence. A different arr angement of the gene could alter the regulatory functions of the genome.

 

[Alate_One]

And you're ignoring the answer. The answer is not that CTT and TTA both always make leucine. The answer is that the difference between CTT and TTA may have an effect you do not know about (or maybe an effect you do know about, but are unwilling to admit).

There is no difference since this has been tested over and over.

Or do you know better than God about how to make people?

No, but we have studied enough about how biology works to know that the level of similarity is unnecessary. Perhaps there is some degree more similarity that is necessary than we have accounted for, but there is no reason for 95% similarity. Other mammals do the exact same processes with much lower sequence similarities.

You want to insist there MUST be some reason other than evolution because you just can't possibly accept it. Again, DNA sequences aren't the only one pointing to evolution, there are plenty of other entire fields of science that point the exact same way. And then you have to try to explain those away as well.

 

[Alate_One]

You don't get it. It's God's personal preference you must divine. And simply creating your lists to fit His pattern might make you feel good, but it won't explain why He decided to do what He did. Why you think God had to create a unique sequence for every organism, or the same sequence for every organism, has no basis in anything empirical.

It's not that he HAD to necessarily, but we know that the same function can be done in multiple ways since so many genes in animals have the exact same function. Why would He use the particular pattern that looks so much like evolution. And again this is only one small area of evidence.

I was wrong. You did do part of the math. I'm sorry, I'll never forget that you did part of the math. Now, from the link you provided:
And we note the numbers you so graciously provided. Again, I apologize for saying you never provided numbers. You never answered this question. Here's the question again using these numbers: So what percentage of the total possibilities is the identical amino acid string?"

And if you are unable to calculate that number for yourself, there is no point in having a discussion with you. I already put forth plenty of effort for you. If you're not willing to contribute some of your own effort I'm not going to bother.

If you want to know how many of the possibilities work, that is an extremely difficult problem since at current our ability to predict protein structure is often not good enough to determine what will be functional and what won't. You could certainly get an idea by finding out how many different amino acid sequences for cyt C from different organisms have been sequenced and THEN figuring out how many possibilities for DNA code for those sequences there are. As you might guess, that's an amazing amount of work. If you want to do it, be my guest. Genbank is here. Genbank has all of the publicly available sequences posted for free. And of course even if you do all that, you don't know if the total number of working sequences have been sequenced yet(almost certainly not) or if the total number of working sequences even exists in living organisms.

And after that percentage is found, let's go on to the sequence you provided in this thread:

Nope. Now you're asking me to redo the calculations for those strings and I'm not doing extra work for you. We need to continue with what we were using. A short artificial string will not give us what we need to answer your questions. You want to do those, do them yourself.

And all the particular character states, physical traits like particular bone structures or teeth and strangely enough the DNA, are all weighted to get the tree you want

I've been over that particular issue with you already also. You need to go back and do some thread reading.

As your video asserted, Cytochrome C is a little different in many groups. What isn't explained is how those differences, from one generation to the next, can change and still work. In other words, it's easy to create a relationship when total number of differences are counted, but when we look at changing those differences to what a common ancestor had, we realize it isn't muscle we are looking at - it's lead.

Because, as flipper already pointed out to you, the ones that don't work don't survive. In fact cyt C is so important they probably would not even survive the embryonic stage. Even if the vast majority of changes don't work, you never see them.

The vast majority of new cultivars of roses don't make it to market either, that doesn't mean you can't make new rose varieties because good ones are an extremely small percentage of the total possibilities. There is a selection process getting rid of the unfit.