Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(pnj.com)   Creationist theme park to be seized by the federal government for tax evasion. I guess they didn't see that situation evolving   (pnj.com) divider line 354
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

21354 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2009 at 5:36 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



354 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-08-04 04:45:44 PM  
theorellior: LOL. Let's get a joint Teabagger/Creationist protest crowd going outside the building and see how the WHARRRGARBLE ratchets up.

Someone better send word to the birthers, too. We wouldn't want Orly to get shrill or anything.
 
2009-08-04 04:55:47 PM  
vertiaset: Well, well the atheist hate brigade is out in force today.

Come on boys, attacking Young Earth Creationists is really like shooting fish in a barrel now isn't it?

Most educated Christians believe in evolution. However, many people, Christians and non Christians alike have a lot of questions about the current scientific model. There are many flaws in the current theory that science groupies just ignore. One, which has been raised already, is the dearth of truly transitional forms. Even Richard Dawkins himself, when questioned about this admitted it to be so. In the Atheist Tapes he admitted that in the evolution of the feather for example that there were no true transitional forms and, get this, he said he had "faith" that they existed.

Remember kiddies under the current model there is no teleology. That is to say, all genetic changes are the result of random mutation and natural selection, there is no change responsive to environment. In other words, mammals did not develop hair because of changes in environment, there was a random mutation in A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, and remember these mutations are tiny and incremental, and this individual benefited so greatly from this change that it and its descendants out reproduced the descendants of EVERY OTHER member of the population. These mutations are then followed by other mutations, again random, which cause an evolutionary progression. If this individual, say a Cambrian fish, developed this random mutation and was eaten as soon as it emerged from its egg then the mutation is lost.

The DNA molecule was only first discovered in 1953. We just only recently completed the mapping of the molecule. We really only have a very basic and primitive understanding of the way in which the encoded information is transmitted as instruction to the cell. When we talk about "mutation" as errors in replication we must always remember that individual character traits are controlled by many different coded sequences in the molecule not merely a single sequence.

Does this mean that evolution is wrong. Absolutely not. It does mean that given our primitive understanding of the process that we should show a little humility in the face of our own ignorance.


You enjoy humility and ignorance all you want. It leaves room for gods and unicorns.

The rest of us will explore, test, study and learn more.

"Atheist hate brigade." Phhht. Maybe a good portion of us are sick of having real people's lives subject to the perceived whims of mythological creatures. Keep your religion out of the public debate and you won't have to deal with people who resent it being there.
 
2009-08-04 04:56:18 PM  
From an outsider's perspective, I can't see why anyone wants to visit these places.

Except to laugh/gawk.
 
2009-08-04 05:06:23 PM  
Learned Louisianian, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2009-08-04 05:08:00 PM  
HoFChaos:
I'm pretty sure you got well and truly trolled, plain and simple.


Believe what you like. :)

/I do so miss the early days of alt.syntax.tactical, though.
 
2009-08-04 05:12:55 PM  
vertiaset: You are suggesting that errors in replication, which is the purported cause of mutation, spontaneously and simultaneously occur, not in a single sequence but in several sequences in different sections of the strand precisely in the correct order to affect a profoundly beneficial alteration in the make up of the organism and that this is entirely a chance occurrence?

No. I'm saying that if a gene that controls, say, the expression of HGH is altered, it will have profound phenotypic effects. That you do not understand this extraordinarily simple fact about genetics is baffling.

You also seem to think that alterations can be 'beneficial'. They can't. Beneficial only makes sense in connection with the environment. A good example of this is the sickle-cell gene. It is beneficial to an individual to have one allele of sickle-cell if they live in a malarial region-- it provides a defense against malaria. It is of no benefit anywhere without malaria, and might be of limited detriment.

vertiaset: If advantageous mutations are not random and respond to environment and given the immensity of the information stored within the DNA strand, occur in millions of individuals in a population then this is a pretty good indication that DNA is a chemical machine designed to respond to changes in environment which is a clear indication of design at least at a fundamental level.

Why? That's simply saying "Ooh, complexity! Therefore, design!"

You might as well say the way oxygen and carbon-based stuff interacts shows that oxygen was designed to destroy carbon-based stuff. It'd make as much sense.

You also did not understand what I mean about genes interacting with the environment. Genes can be turned on or off by the environment-- that 'on' or 'off' status is not something passed on to children.

vertiaset: No evolutionary biologist of any merit would claim that the current evolutionary model is flawless. This makes you sound just like the fundies you ridicule.

Pretending you didn't understand what I wrote is not a good way to argue. I said that 'flaws' is an unscientific way to look at it. You are choosing to continue doing so, because you look at this issue unscientifically. The theory of evolution is rock-solid, and every year we add to it. We can scientifically explain more and more of how evolution operates every year. ID, on the other hand, cannot explain how anything actually operates, and does not constitute an actual theory.



You have failed to adequately respond to anything I said, and avoided responding to entire sections. What you have responded is simply an affirmation that any complex system must be designed. That is not a scientific claim.
 
2009-08-04 05:14:06 PM  
Kome: Or "most anybody else" for that matter.

Aside from the Jews, who squeak in a narrow majority with about 52% college degrees. Cue Lewis Black....
 
2009-08-04 05:35:23 PM  
Mine as well drop this tidbit in:

In the human body, there are roughly 3x10^9 base pairs, which makes DNA a large target for damage. If we ignore all the potential mutagenic chemicals and other substances that may cause mutations, and focus purely on the "random" mutation, each day a typical cell in the human body spontaneously suffers from 10,000 depurinations (loss of A or G basses), 500 depyrimidinations (loss of C or T basses), and 160 cystidine deamidations (converting C to U).
 
2009-08-04 05:36:09 PM  
Ok folks, I know that this is about 450 posts into this thread but here is a newsflash: CDP is trolling and is doing a darn good job of it. Go back and look at his posts closely, especally at the end. Notice anything?

Of course, this post isn't likely to be read and he'll get another boatload of bites next thread on this subject but I have to do my civic duty here.
 
2009-08-04 05:42:11 PM  
KSCA75: Ok folks, I know that this is about 450 posts into this thread but here is a newsflash: CDP is trolling and is doing a darn good job of it. Go back and look at his posts closely, especally at the end. Notice anything?

Of course, this post isn't likely to be read and he'll get another boatload of bites next thread on this subject but I have to do my civic duty here.


Wow. Welcome to Fark. CDP's been doing this for months - have you just figured it out for yourself?
 
2009-08-04 05:43:27 PM  
abb3w: The accumulation can allow for increase in how "profound" the mutation effects are; EG, evolution of citrate metabolism in E. Coli.

This is not a necessary argument, by the way. Single gene mutations can have profound effects. Nothing you said is wrong, but it's not necessary to talk about accumulation.
 
2009-08-04 05:51:50 PM  
mgshamster: "In the human body, there are roughly 3x10^9 base pairs, which makes DNA a large target for damage."

You may regard it as damage, but you're a human being with certain ideals you're holding evolution to. Evolution is a natural process, it isn't guided by human intelligence, and as a result it does not distinguish between "damage" and "improvement". A great deal of genetic diversity results from random mutation. All individuals born with mutations that prevent them from surviving long enough to breed are unable to pass on their genes. All those born with mutations that allow them to breed (or enhance their chances of doing so, such that they out-compete other members of their species) pass on their genes.

In this manner, the only genes that get passed on are those that either enhance ones odds at surviving long enough to mate or at least do not prevent it.

That's what people don't seem to grasp. Mutation is random. It doesn't work it any particular 'direction', or toward any 'goal'. It's the process of natural selection that provides that apparent 'direction'. Those with crippling/lethal genetic mutations don't pass on their genes. Those with mutations that enhance their ability to survive and mate do pass on their genes.
 
2009-08-04 05:57:26 PM  
Zamboro: You may regard it as damage, but you're a human being with certain ideals you're holding evolution to. Evolution is a natural process, it isn't guided by human intelligence, and as a result it does not distinguish between "damage" and "improvement". A great deal of genetic diversity results from random mutation. All individuals born with mutations that prevent them from surviving long enough to breed are unable to pass on their genes. All those born with mutations that allow them to breed (or enhance their chances of doing so, such that they out-compete other members of their species) pass on their genes.

In this manner, the only genes that get passed on are those that either enhance ones odds at surviving long enough to mate or at least do not prevent it.

That's what people don't seem to grasp. Mutation is random. It doesn't work it any particular 'direction', or toward any 'goal'. It's the process of natural selection that provides that apparent 'direction'. Those with crippling/lethal genetic mutations don't pass on their genes. Those with mutations that enhance their ability to survive and mate do pass on their genes.


You missed the point of his post.
 
2009-08-04 05:58:44 PM  
Zamboro: mgshamster: "In the human body, there are roughly 3x10^9 base pairs, which makes DNA a large target for damage."

You may regard it as damage, but you're a human being with certain ideals you're holding evolution to. Evolution is a natural process, it isn't guided by human intelligence, and as a result it does not distinguish between "damage" and "improvement". A great deal of genetic diversity results from random mutation. All individuals born with mutations that prevent them from surviving long enough to breed are unable to pass on their genes. All those born with mutations that allow them to breed (or enhance their chances of doing so, such that they out-compete other members of their species) pass on their genes.

In this manner, the only genes that get passed on are those that either enhance ones odds at surviving long enough to mate or at least do not prevent it.

That's what people don't seem to grasp. Mutation is random. It doesn't work it any particular 'direction', or toward any 'goal'. It's the process of natural selection that provides that apparent 'direction'. Those with crippling/lethal genetic mutations don't pass on their genes. Those with mutations that enhance their ability to survive and mate do pass on their genes.


Oops. Missed that edit. I thought I got all the "damage" words out and exchanged them for "mutation."

In toxicology, there isn't much difference between damage and mutation when it concerns DNA repair mechanisms. I usually change it to mutation for the lay-audience, just to be sure on specifics.

All in all, the point of the post was to show that random mutations happen spontaneously in every cell, every day. The number increases exponentially if we add in mutagens, carcinogens, and more.
 
2009-08-04 06:02:26 PM  
mgshamster: In toxicology, there isn't much difference between damage and mutation when it concerns DNA repair mechanisms. I usually change it to mutation for the lay-audience, just to be sure on specifics.

And when you're talking about a gene that codes for a specific protein, it makes sense to talk about the gene being 'damaged' if it changes so it no longer codes for that protein. So from the gene point of view, there is damage. From the evolutionary point of view, no damage.
 
2009-08-04 06:03:46 PM  
Obdicut: "You missed the point of his post."

Ah, good. So long as he doesn't sincerely hold creationist convictions, I'm relieved.
 
2009-08-04 06:04:59 PM  
mgshamster: "All in all, the point of the post was to show that random mutations happen spontaneously in every cell, every day. The number increases exponentially if we add in mutagens, carcinogens, and more."

Yes, Obdicut pointed out that I misunderstood you. My apologies.
 
2009-08-04 06:05:53 PM  
Zamboro: Obdicut: "You missed the point of his post."

Ah, good. So long as he doesn't sincerely hold creationist convictions, I'm relieved.


I thought I was well enough known in these evolution threads. I guess I lurk too much, and don't post often enough.
 
2009-08-04 06:08:25 PM  
Zamboro: mgshamster: "All in all, the point of the post was to show that random mutations happen spontaneously in every cell, every day. The number increases exponentially if we add in mutagens, carcinogens, and more."

Yes, Obdicut pointed out that I misunderstood you. My apologies.


Yeah, Obdicut posted about 45 seconds before I did. I didn't see his when I posted. No worries!

/Evo-devo rocks!
 
2009-08-04 06:09:51 PM  
mgshamster: I thought I was well enough known in these evolution threads. I guess I lurk too much, and don't post often enough.

There was no good reason to think your post was possibly coming from the perspective of a creationist. Don't worry.

However, you live in Davis, so you should worry about that.

Are you associated at all with UC Davis, by the way? My fiancee is applying to med schools right now, Davis is high on her list.
 
2009-08-04 06:12:46 PM  
Obdicut: mgshamster: I thought I was well enough known in these evolution threads. I guess I lurk too much, and don't post often enough.

There was no good reason to think your post was possibly coming from the perspective of a creationist. Don't worry.

However, you live in Davis, so you should worry about that.

Are you associated at all with UC Davis, by the way? My fiancee is applying to med schools right now, Davis is high on her list.


Yes, I am. Email me to avoid too much threadjacking.
 
2009-08-04 06:13:12 PM  
mgshamster: Yes, I am. Email me to avoid too much threadjacking.

Cool, thanks.
 
2009-08-04 06:19:44 PM  
hockeychick: Jubeebee: thefrailandwretched: hockeychick: Pretty sad really. These kids will parrot back what their parents have indoctrinated them with and will do the same to their kids. And the cycle repeats.

Not necessarily. I don't plan on teaching my children creationism and I grew up in a pretty fundamental household (not Young Earth Creationism, but damn near).

Good for you. I was raised a Young Earther when I was very young, but then I discovered dinosaur books at the library and enjoyed a nice decade of extreme cognitive dissonance before I fully embraced rationalism.



Defeating ignorance since 1440

That's the problem, my family won't let these kids interact with the outside world until they are so indoctrinated that they can't comprehend anything that may be different than their beliefs allow. They are all homeschooled, never visit the library, don't own a computer or TV or anything like that. They are insulated from everything outside of their property line.


I recommend the next time you see the children talk to them indavidual and see if Mommy and daddy do strange things like hurt them in some way or if the parents are doing bad things to them and promice you won't get in trouble for it.
If they seem imature for their age and or the boys treat the girls differntly. I would be calling Childprotective services out of concern and tell them what's going on. It sounds like social neglect and the parents might be suffering from depression or something else more sinister.
 
2009-08-04 06:57:21 PM  
vertiaset: Does this mean that evolution is wrong. Absolutely not. It does mean that given our primitive understanding of the process that we should show a little humility in the face of our own ignorance.

Science is a method and a process. Every day, hell every minute we discover more about the Universe and how it works including evolutionary biology.

And to repeat a point that has been made many times: It isn't atheist hate and general Christian bashing. And dismissing Creationists as if they are a minority is dishonest. Creationists of one form or another make up approx 1/3 of Christians in the US. Its a minority but hardly tiny.

And, even those who accept evolution, as you say you do, still constantly repeat some very misguided and silly things about it. We have lots of transitional forms in the fossil record, there isn't a massive lack of them.

Also most of your post concerning DNA was gibberish. We don't map DNA in general, we decipher various organisms genomes. And we've known for a long time about complex traits not mappable to one individual gene, we can still figure out a hell of a lot of what is going on.

Your personal ignorance is not the same thing as science being totally ignorant of a subject. In my experience most laypeople have very little understanding of just how much we know, as scientists, about many fields.

vertiaset: You are suggesting that errors in replication, which is the purported cause of mutation, spontaneously and simultaneously occur, not in a single sequence but in several sequences in different sections of the strand precisely in the correct order to affect a profoundly beneficial alteration in the make up of the organism and that this is entirely a chance occurrence? This seems highly unlikely and this is a major flaw in the theory.

1) This isn't what evolutionary biologists propose
2) It doesn't have to work that way
3) Not all mutations need to be beneficial

vertiaset: No evolutionary biologist of any merit would claim that the current evolutionary model is flawless. This makes you sound just like the fundies you ridicule.

No evolutionary biologist would say that the current model/theory is perfect, just that it is the best one that we have. also, the "flaws" you are pointing out are either horrible misrepresentations or your own personal ignorance. They are not seen as flaws by evolutionary biologists.

Obdicut: And when you're talking about a gene that codes for a specific protein, it makes sense to talk about the gene being 'damaged' if it changes so it no longer codes for that protein. So from the gene point of view, there is damage. From the evolutionary point of view, no damage.

I wouldn't say it no longer codes for that protein, it most certainly still does. That protein may now have a slightly different amino acid sequence but it is still the same protein. Divergence to new function will typically require multiple substitutions although not necessarily.
 
2009-08-04 07:24:55 PM  
entropic_existence: I wouldn't say it no longer codes for that protein, it most certainly still does. That protein may now have a slightly different amino acid sequence but it is still the same protein. Divergence to new function will typically require multiple substitutions although not necessarily.

I think you may have conflated an idea or two. All I was saying was that a gene can be damaged in such a way as to no longer produce a protein. I'm not sure what the multiple substitutions part has to do with the point about damage-- my statement didn't disallow or require multiple substitutions to cause the damage.

Furthermore, my point was that calling something 'damage' vs. 'mutation' depends mostly on your point of view.
 
2009-08-04 07:43:20 PM  
Obdicut: I think you may have conflated an idea or two. All I was saying was that a gene can be damaged in such a way as to no longer produce a protein. I'm not sure what the multiple substitutions part has to do with the point about damage-- my statement didn't disallow or require multiple substitutions to cause the damage.

Furthermore, my point was that calling something 'damage' vs. 'mutation' depends mostly on your point of view.


The multiple substitutions stuff was just a tangent. My response was really only targeted to your statement:

Obdicut: it makes sense to talk about the gene being 'damaged' if it changes so it no longer codes for that protein. So from the gene point of view, there is damage. From the evolutionary point of view, no damage.

Although I did actually misread it to be implying that damage/mutation made a gene no longer code for its protein as opposed to "call it damage if..."

Although there is still a slight problem with that. If a gene is "broken" via mutation (premature stop codon insertion for instance) then evolutionarily speaking that gene is highly likely to now be pseudogenized and lost.

Really in general is that "damage" is a mutation that occurs during an organism's lifetime that has some detrimental effect. These are of course also mutations but when talking about evolution a mutation properly is only a heritable mutation so for multi-cellular critters like us its an evolutionarily visible mutation only when it occurs in the germ line. The terminology is messy mostly just because it is being used to mean slightly more specific subsets in different fields.
 
2009-08-04 07:49:27 PM  
entropic_existence: Although there is still a slight problem with that. If a gene is "broken" via mutation (premature stop codon insertion for instance) then evolutionarily speaking that gene is highly likely to now be pseudogenized and lost.

Yes, but then the definition of damage is the evolutionary one-- which doesn't exist. Evolution doesn't view genes being 'lost' as damage-- especially since it could be highly advantageous at the time. From the point of the view (so to speak) of the gene, it's been 'damaged', but not from the point of view of evolution.


entropic_existence: Really in general is that "damage" is a mutation that occurs during an organism's lifetime that has some detrimental effect. These are of course also mutations but when talking about evolution a mutation properly is only a heritable mutation so for multi-cellular critters like us its an evolutionarily visible mutation only when it occurs in the germ line. The terminology is messy mostly just because it is being used to mean slightly more specific subsets in different fields.

Agreed. I mean, it makes sense to talk about damage when there exist genetic repair mechanisms-- but if you ask the evolutionary question about why those repair mechanisms exist, the worm turns again and all the definitions get scattered.

The English language is a wonderful thing, but sometimes in relation to science its profligate tendency towards analogy makes it a very sticky wicket.
 
2009-08-04 08:11:28 PM  
vertiaset:
Second: not all mutations are tiny and incremental. Many are, but the switch of a single gene-- especially a gene that controls the activation of other genes-- can have very profound effects.


You are suggesting that errors in replication, which is the purported cause of mutation, spontaneously and simultaneously occur, not in a single sequence but in several sequences in different sections of the strand precisely in the correct order to affect a profoundly beneficial alteration in the make up of the organism and that this is entirely a chance occurrence?


No, he isn't. He is suggesting that the effect of a single transcription error can be more or less profound based on what gene it occurs in. Whether this change is beneficial or not is dependent on the environment, not simply the resultant mutation itself.

You are in way over your head in this debate; it is clear that your understanding of evolutionary biology and genetics is insufficient to intelligently or validly criticize the theory.
 
2009-08-04 08:29:08 PM  
Obdicut: Yes, but then the definition of damage is the evolutionary one-- which doesn't exist. Evolution doesn't view genes being 'lost' as damage-- especially since it could be highly advantageous at the time. From the point of the view (so to speak) of the gene, it's been 'damaged', but not from the point of view of evolution.

Well yes and no. It depends what you are talking about and how you look at it. If I'm looking at an organism that survived (we have tons of pseudogenes in our genomes after all) then yes, it wasn't damage because it didn't hurt us any. However if that gene breakage is not at least neutral/nearly neutral but is instead a change under purifying selection then from an evolutionary point of view it was damage.

Gawdzila: You are in way over your head in this debate; it is clear that your understanding of evolutionary biology and genetics is insufficient to intelligently or validly criticize the theory.

The best critics of aspects of evolutionary theory tend to be, surprise surprise, evolutionary biologists themselves. I was at a conference last week/this weekend about microbial evolution and how appropriate the "tree of life" framework is given lateral gene transfer. None of what was said undermines evolution, in fact all of the mechanisms discussed are parts of modern evolutionary theory, but it was harsh criticism of a specific aspect of evolutionary theory.

You never see evolutionary biologists (or molecular biologists with a good grounding in evolution) going on about the type of BS "flaws" that you see brought up in places like these Fark Threads.
 
2009-08-04 08:35:01 PM  
ninjakirby: I have long been openly amused by the fact that with that beard, Ken Ham looks more like a chimpanzee than any other H. sapiens I have ever seen.

Please don't make fun of America's first astronaut to go into space.
 
2009-08-04 08:35:31 PM  
entropic_existence: Well yes and no. It depends what you are talking about and how you look at it. If I'm looking at an organism that survived (we have tons of pseudogenes in our genomes after all) then yes, it wasn't damage because it didn't hurt us any. However if that gene breakage is not at least neutral/nearly neutral but is instead a change under purifying selection then from an evolutionary point of view it was damage.

To throw more of my cents in...

The point of 'damage' was originally by me, and from a toxicologist's point of view, genes are damaged if the cell tries to repair it through one of its mechanisms, regardless of the evolutionary advantages or disadvantages (or neutralities!). Otherwise, it's just a mutation.

Naturally, it's a lot more complex than that. (For instance, what happens when there's an interstrand crosslink? The DNA repair enzyme just cuts the whole section out, and then the gene is SOL if that section is critical, or creates a stop codon, or something similar).
 
2009-08-04 08:38:06 PM  
entropic_existence: Well yes and no. It depends what you are talking about and how you look at it. If I'm looking at an organism that survived (we have tons of pseudogenes in our genomes after all) then yes, it wasn't damage because it didn't hurt us any. However if that gene breakage is not at least neutral/nearly neutral but is instead a change under purifying selection then from an evolutionary point of view it was damage.

If you mean that the 'goal' of evolution is for the survival of the species, then yeah, it's damage. All I'm arguing is the very strict evolution-wants-nothing point of view; evolution happens, that's all. It can't be said to interpret anything as positive or negative. Of course, from another hyperDawkins point of view, the gene that was 'damaged' 'wants' to propogate its 'damaged' form as well.

So I agree totally that "It depends what you are talking about and how you look at it". As long as you're plentiful with descriptors, using words like 'want' and 'damage' is okay, and even useful.

entropic_existence: You never see evolutionary biologists (or molecular biologists with a good grounding in evolution) going on about the type of BS "flaws" that you see brought up in places like these Fark Threads.

Except when they're dishonestly quoted out of context, of course. Usually a quote discussing how it appears to be a 'flaw' right before demonstrating that it isn't.
 
2009-08-04 08:42:54 PM  
GypsyJoker: And CDP continues to hook 'em.

Of course he does. If your posts are copy and pastes of creationist writings....

It is not funny if you have a sense of humor that has evolved past the 2nd grade. It only make the pro-science side look bad at best. At worst what he posts convince someone to reject science.
 
2009-08-04 09:03:59 PM  
entropic_existence: The best critics of aspects of evolutionary theory tend to be, surprise surprise, evolutionary biologists themselves.

Clearly this is the case. You must understand an idea before you can begin to criticize it, otherwise you end up simply wasting your breath railing against ideas and positions that nobody is actually arguing for.
 
2009-08-04 09:10:59 PM  
mgshamster: Mine as well drop this tidbit in:

In the human body, there are roughly 3x10^9 base pairs, which makes DNA a large target for damage. If we ignore all the potential mutagenic chemicals and other substances that may cause mutations, and focus purely on the "random" mutation, each day a typical cell in the human body spontaneously suffers from 10,000 depurinations (loss of A or G basses), 500 depyrimidinations (loss of C or T basses), and 160 cystidine deamidations (converting C to U).


You left out some important information. This damage is repaired by very aggressive cellular systems. The stats you posted are from in vitro experiments with DNA and are not observed in cells. This why scientists started looking for, and found, in vivo repair mechanisms.

/DNA repair guy
 
2009-08-04 09:22:21 PM  
mgshamster: To throw more of my cents in...

The point of 'damage' was originally by me, and from a toxicologist's point of view, genes are damaged if the cell tries to repair it through one of its mechanisms, regardless of the evolutionary advantages or disadvantages (or neutralities!). Otherwise, it's just a mutation.


Well thats true. Most point mutations I think will at least attempt to get fixed by DNA repair machinery but most of the fixes are 50/50 anyway like...


Naturally, it's a lot more complex than that. (For instance, what happens when there's an interstrand crosslink? The DNA repair enzyme just cuts the whole section out, and then the gene is SOL if that section is critical, or creates a stop codon, or something similar).


Right. Or how mismatch repair is a 50/50 toss up. The repair machinery has no idea which the right base pair is. It just snips one out and replaces it.

Obdicut: So I agree totally that "It depends what you are talking about and how you look at it". As long as you're plentiful with descriptors, using words like 'want' and 'damage' is okay, and even useful.

As an evolutionary biologist I never use the term 'want' in regards to biology or evolution except in the most informal context. :)

Obdicut: Except when they're dishonestly quoted out of context, of course. Usually a quote discussing how it appears to be a 'flaw' right before demonstrating that it isn't.

Of course. My supervisor's former PhD supervisor (who works in the lab next door) is often quoted in the Creationist Literature. He just avoids reading it but yeah, they seem to like to grab his stuff a lot.

Gawdzila: Clearly this is the case. You must understand an idea before you can begin to criticize it, otherwise you end up simply wasting your breath railing against ideas and positions that nobody is actually arguing for.

Yeah. Unfortunately the whole anti-intellectualism of the furthest right-wing reaches of the political spectrum is incredibly strong. Expertise is somehow looked down upon. Of course when the expertise is in a non-academic field thats ok. I like to tell them that I don't argue with my mechanic about my car engine because he knows a hell of a lot more about car engines than I do. Likewise I know a hell of a lot more about evolutionary biology than my mechanic.

pellies: You left out some important information. This damage is repaired by very aggressive cellular systems. The stats you posted are from in vitro experiments with DNA and are not observed in cells. This why scientists started looking for, and found, in vivo repair mechanisms.

/DNA repair guy


And as far as evolution is concerned it is only heritable mutations that matter anyway. So in multi-cellular eukaryotes it only really matters if the mutation is in the germ line.
 
2009-08-04 09:33:28 PM  
pellies: mgshamster: Mine as well drop this tidbit in:

In the human body, there are roughly 3x10^9 base pairs, which makes DNA a large target for damage. If we ignore all the potential mutagenic chemicals and other substances that may cause mutations, and focus purely on the "random" mutation, each day a typical cell in the human body spontaneously suffers from 10,000 depurinations (loss of A or G basses), 500 depyrimidinations (loss of C or T basses), and 160 cystidine deamidations (converting C to U).

You left out some important information. This damage is repaired by very aggressive cellular systems. The stats you posted are from in vitro experiments with DNA and are not observed in cells. This why scientists started looking for, and found, in vivo repair mechanisms.

/DNA repair guy


True, but I didn't want the post to get overly-complicated when all I was doing was pointing out the prevalence of mutations.
 
2009-08-04 09:40:45 PM  
entropic_existence: mgshamster: To throw more of my cents in...

The point of 'damage' was originally by me, and from a toxicologist's point of view, genes are damaged if the cell tries to repair it through one of its mechanisms, regardless of the evolutionary advantages or disadvantages (or neutralities!). Otherwise, it's just a mutation.

Well thats true. Most point mutations I think will at least attempt to get fixed by DNA repair machinery but most of the fixes are 50/50 anyway like...


This is not correct. It does not just snip one out. It knows which strand is template and therefore which nucleotide was inserted incorrectly. I can assure that all forms of repair are quite efficient and accurate (even when error prone polymerases are used) and well out of the range of 50/50. I can't get into it right now as I am going out. I wish I could as the topic interests me, as does your field of study.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-08-04 09:48:07 PM  
TheMysteriousStranger: GypsyJoker: And CDP continues to hook 'em.

Of course he does. If your posts are copy and pastes of creationist writings....

It is not funny if you have a sense of humor that has evolved past the 2nd grade. It only make the pro-science side look bad at best. At worst what he posts convince someone to reject science.


I must respectfully disagree with you.

I have explained before why I do what I do, and your assumptions are incorrect.
 
2009-08-04 10:09:00 PM  
CDP: I must respectfully disagree with you.

I have explained before why I do what I do, and your assumptions are incorrect.


Yeah, I've got to say, I hate trolls, but since you totally give it away every time I don't really consider you a troll. You include a punchline.

If this board didn't have people who smacked you down, I like to think you'd stop.
 
2009-08-04 10:09:44 PM  
pellies: This is not correct. It does not just snip one out. It knows which strand is template and therefore which nucleotide was inserted incorrectly. I can assure that all forms of repair are quite efficient and accurate (even when error prone polymerases are used) and well out of the range of 50/50. I can't get into it right now as I am going out. I wish I could as the topic interests me, as does your field of study.

Your right, I wasn't thinking of mismatch repair which occurs during replication. I was thinking of something else and it isn't quite 50/50 either. Your right of course, mismatch repair the daughter and template strands are known.
 
2009-08-04 10:11:09 PM  
CDP: I must respectfully disagree with you.

I have explained before why I do what I do, and your assumptions are incorrect.


Fair enough. But, since you are cutting and pasting real arguments made by creationists, it is still valid to refute them. You defeat the argument ... not the speaker.

Of course, since the original author isn't here, he's kinda just be preaching to the choir (so to speak). I'm sure some creationists are lurking though.
 
2009-08-04 10:12:13 PM  
entropic_existence: Your right, I wasn't thinking of mismatch repair which occurs during replication. I was thinking of something else and it isn't quite 50/50 either. Your right of course, mismatch repair the daughter and template strands are known.

I do love how this thread shows that with science you can say, "You didn't get that quite right," and the response is usually, "Oh, you're right, my bad." It's a good demonstration of the propagation of good information and the willingness of those honestly interested in science to be self-critical.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-08-04 10:31:24 PM  
Obdicut: CDP: I must respectfully disagree with you.

I have explained before why I do what I do, and your assumptions are incorrect.

Yeah, I've got to say, I hate trolls, but since you totally give it away every time I don't really consider you a troll. You include a punchline.

If this board didn't have people who smacked you down, I like to think you'd stop.


Let's just say that I will neither confirm nor deny your assumption.

However I do have a set of self-imposed rules that I do adhere to.

I am a little upset that nobody noticed that all of my links with the exclusion of the first one were from Dr. Dino's site.

I would have thought that between that and the graphics it would have been easy to see what was really happening.

I am truly amazed after all this times the reaction I still get.
 
2009-08-04 10:35:23 PM  
CDP: I am truly amazed after all this times the reaction I still get.

Please don't stop. I immediately know the thread is going to be great if I quickly scan through the posts and see one highlighted in green.
 
2009-08-04 10:36:33 PM  
CDP: I am a little upset that nobody noticed that all of my links with the exclusion of the first one were from Dr. Dino's site.

I noticed, but I didn't understand the relevance. Who's Dr. Dino?
 
2009-08-04 10:53:36 PM  
TheMysterousStranger: "It is not funny if you have a sense of humor that has evolved past the 2nd grade. It only make the pro-science side look bad at best. At worst what he posts convince someone to reject science."

He does us all a service by reminding us to really scrutinize each post and pay attention rather than going through the motions. If you can read his posts and fail to spot the signs that it's not meant sincerely, then you're not thinking critically.
 
2009-08-04 11:05:43 PM  
mgshamster: CDP: I am a little upset that nobody noticed that all of my links with the exclusion of the first one were from Dr. Dino's site.

I noticed, but I didn't understand the relevance. Who's Dr. Dino?


Kent Hovind, creationist, charlatan, tax protestor and previous owner of the Dinosaur Adventure Land theme park
 
2009-08-04 11:12:31 PM  
ninjakirby: mgshamster: CDP: I am a little upset that nobody noticed that all of my links with the exclusion of the first one were from Dr. Dino's site.

I noticed, but I didn't understand the relevance. Who's Dr. Dino?

Kent Hovind, creationist, charlatan, tax protestor and previous owner of the Dinosaur Adventure Land theme park


Yeah, I looked it up right after I posted that. I know who Kent Hovind is, I've been vaguely tracking his "work" for a few years now. Just never knew he proclaimed himself as "Dr. Dino," or that the two were associated.

/Learn something new everyday.
 
2009-08-04 11:28:01 PM  
So I'm reading this "whack the fundies on the head" thread and somebody comes in with a masterfully executed troll and then it degenerates into actual debate? WTF is wrong with you people?
 
Displayed 50 of 354 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report