Thread: That's it, I'm done

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Thanks, however I was swamped with biology and chemistry growing up. A lot of things just made a kind of permanent imprint on my psyche'

Like religion for example. Especially all that hell-fire and brimstone stuff...

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You're right about consistency thats for sure, they all display a sense of consistency in making hostile comments towards creationist views.

O RLY? Because they tear apart your creationist views with scientific evidence makes them not worthy of use? Let me guess, Answers In Genesis is your source for all your claims?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You’re excluding a major point to this topic, you keep stating that the frame shift mutation was responsible for the new trait in Flavobacterium however based off Susumu Ohno’s paper you’ve presented clearly states that the analysis of the published based sequence resides in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium sp. K172. Okay so here’s the kicker bluefinger, The number of bases repeated is not a multiple of 3 however in this case, 10 bases are probably the repeating unit. See, 10 bases were translated in all three possible reading frames the second repeat was one base offset for translation relative to the first repeat, and the next was offset one more base, etc. Also, none of those reading frames gave rise to stop codons. See this is important considering the 10-base repeat was translatable in any reading frame without causing any stop codons, the sequence was able to undergo an insertion which could alter the reading frame without prematurely terminating the protein.

Now I do understand that the mutation did cause a stop codon, but the stop codon was not because of frame shift but to the sequence introduced by the inserted nucleotide. Simultaneously, the mutation introduced a start codon in a different reading frame, which now encoded an entirely new sequence of amino acids. This is the key aspect of the sequence. It had this special property that it could tolerate any frame shift due to the repetitive nature of the original DNA sequence. Now as I’m sure you’re well-aware that in biology, a frame shift causes a stop codon and either truncation of the protein normally due to the premature stop codon or destruction of the abberant mRNA by the nonsense-mediated decay pathway. I don’t recall seeing stop-codons arising in PR.C, I’m not sure where you got that from. Nonetheless, the nylonase enzyme, once it arose, had no stop-codons so it was able to make a novel, functional protein.

The paper I presented said the frame-shift was a single T base injection after codon 33 on the PR.C protein sequence, resulting in a single frame shift that later induced a stop codon in between codons 425 and 426, even though there were several close calls along the same sequence, but because of the reading frame, were not processed to be stop codons. It is even highlighted quite clearly with the diagram of the sequence in the paper (all the back marks between the two sequences highlighting stop codons. Unless you know the DNA codes for stop codons, you'd probably miss it, but it is all there. Just look for those black marks and compare them to the two reading frames for PR.C & R-II).

However, with frame shift mutations, the sequence can extend beyond the original sequence if no stop codons are induced within the sequence and the resulting shift causes the primary stop codon to be misread. Then it is a case of the next sequence that causes a stop codon within the reading frame. There is nothing saying it has to be shorter than the original sequence. Most of the time, frame-shifts are pretty destructive, and result in abnormally long or short proteins, and can cause an affected gene to contain all the wrong codons and generally wreak havoc upon the genome. However, occasionally, it does allow for the development of completely new and novel traits such as Nylonase, not to mention add more bases to the genome.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why are my probabilities irreleavant but the moment someone talks about impossibilities of abiogenesis and non-living matter giving rise to living matter, then the first thing someone does is hit all the probabilities of this happening. And somehow it’s always determined that the probabilites are on the side of evolution. So I guess probabilites can be presented in one case but not in all huh?

Using probabilities for past events will always bring up huge odds stacked against them from even happening, and yet, the events happened as normal. Probabilities are used for predicting future events, not for speculating on past ones. For past events, we deal with evidence of whether they occurred or not.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I know that, however, if only 6 of these 47 mutations were essential for the evolution, the probability of achieving it in 30 years is about 3 x 10^35. but if I’m not mistaken this occurred in only 9 days! So, if the evolution could not be random, then it would have to be nonrandom, which means they would be triggered by the environment. That is, the capability is built into the bacterium and the environment triggers the mutations. Now in regards to what I mean by design, I am making this statement in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems ‘designed’ to be specifically adaptable to novel functions would you not agree?

Random mutations are random by nature. The insertion point for that extra base in codon 34 in PR.C could have happened at any point along the sequence. If it had, a different protein would have arisen, and it could have been a lot shorter or longer, not to mention the codons that would arise would have been quite different. There is no pre-adaptation as there is no conscious motive for such shifts. The only reason such a trait became prevalent was because the resulting protein was able to degrade a synthetic molecule. Had such a molecule not been present in the environment, such a frame-shift would have caused an unnecessary trait and wouldn't give the bacteria with the mutations any advantage.

There is nothing to suggest a design, only circumstance. In this circumstance, the mutation proved to be beneficial. In any other case, it would have been selected against.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Also websites like Nature, National Geographic, New Scientist and the ‘most’ of the others that Talk Origins use are notorious for their hostility toward the creationist. And their promotions of evolutionary frauds and myths. Now in the end it’s not all about flashy presentations because I honestly don’t have anything to prove, I look at both angles and unlike you I don’t take things at face value, just because Talk Origins says this is true and they snowball you with tons of information so that you do not check the validity of the sources which they makes claims of reliability, doesn’t always seem to be the case. However we are all different and in the “real end” that’s exactly how it should be.

There is a good reason why they don't support creationism, because there is nothing to show for it. At least with Evolution, I have a peer-review literature of about 200,000 papers to go through. There is plenty to show for Evolution, all of which comes from about 150 years of research on the field. And what sources do you use perhaps? Answers in Genesis?

I did my research, and it was pretty clear what the evidence was pointing to in this case. Whether it is Pub Med Central, Nature, TalkOrigins, or whatever, the case presented on all the sources was consistent and supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Like religion for example. Especially all that hell-fire and brimstone stuff...

Uh No actually all that fire and brimstone stuff is ridiculous and the scriptures never supported it. Like I said before bluefinger you don't take the opportunity to analyize things for yourself. You hear a lot of people talking about hell so you take it as face value that this is a belief among all and it's never the case. J

Originally Posted by bluefinger

O RLY? Because they tear apart your creationist views with scientific evidence makes them not worthy of use? Let me guess, Answers In Genesis is your source for all your claims?

I actually never seen them tear apart creationist views I've only seem them dig holes for themselves that so deep it's damn near impossible to get out.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The paper I presented said the frame-shift was a single T base injection after codon 33 on the PR.C protein sequence, resulting in a single frame shift that later induced a stop codon in between codons 425 and 426, even though there were several close calls along the same sequence, but because of the reading frame, were not processed to be stop codons. It is even highlighted quite clearly with the diagram of the sequence in the paper (all the back marks between the two sequences highlighting stop codons. Unless you know the DNA codes for stop codons, you'd probably miss it, but it is all there. Just look for those black marks and compare them to the two reading frames for PR.C & R-II).

However, with frame shift mutations, the sequence can extend beyond the original sequence if no stop codons are induced within the sequence and the resulting shift causes the primary stop codon to be misread. Then it is a case of the next sequence that causes a stop codon within the reading frame. There is nothing saying it has to be shorter than the original sequence. Most of the time, frame-shifts are pretty destructive, and result in abnormally long or short proteins, and can cause an affected gene to contain all the wrong codons and generally wreak havoc upon the genome. However, occasionally, it does allow for the development of completely new and novel traits such as Nylonase, not to mention add more bases to the genome.

What's the point you're saying the same thing over and over again and I'm just going to say the same thing over and over again and it will utimately result in a circular argument.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Using probabilities for past events will always bring up huge odds stacked against them from even happening, and yet, the events happened as normal. Probabilities are used for predicting future events, not for speculating on past ones. For past events, we deal with evidence of whether they occurred or not.

What are you talking about past events? In this case there are no past events.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

There is a good reason why they don't support creationism, because there is nothing to show for it. At least with Evolution, I have a peer-review literature of about 200,000 papers to go through. There is plenty to show for Evolution, all of which comes from about 150 years of research on the field. And what sources do you use perhaps? Answers in Genesis?

1 in thousands of others, however creationist also believe in evolution to a certain degree (selection working on alleles/mutation, which causes variations) Some of us would conclude that the changes in species(or kinds) is mainly through changes in frequency in alleles, and secondary through mutations of the alleles (which also can make changes) Some of us even believe in speciation (caused by mutations)

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I did my research, and it was pretty clear what the evidence was pointing to in this case. Whether it is Pub Med Central, Nature, TalkOrigins, or whatever, the case presented on all the sources was consistent and supported by evidence.

Whatever bluefinger the same consistency and high level of falsehood that sparks the claims on Arachaeoraptor, Gogonasus, Gigantoraptor, Elephant hurling and the lastest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle A.K.A Legged Sea Cow discovery in Jamaica

Originally Posted by Ne-Yo

[Citation Needed]

This post is CRAP. You can help clean it up by aiding the poster in GETTING A CLUE.

-Unsupported Garbage- -Random Retarded Statements-

.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Uh No actually all that fire and brimstone stuff is ridiculous and the scriptures never supported it. Like I said before bluefinger you don't take the opportunity to analyize things for yourself. You hear a lot of people talking about hell so you take it as face value that this is a belief among all and it's never the case. J

People still love to assert it. Guess you've never met Carico.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I actually never seen them tear apart creationist views I've only seem them dig holes for themselves that so deep it's damn near impossible to get out.

Which is the case... in bizarro world.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What's the point you're saying the same thing over and over again and I'm just going to say the same thing over and over again and it will utimately result in a circular argument.

Or you are ultimately ignoring the evidence. I explained and pointed it out to you, but all you do is go "Nuh-uh! Can't be that, it must be a design!". What citation have you got for your proposed design mechanism?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What are you talking about past events? In this case there are no past events.

So shifting the goalpost in the end?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

1 in thousands of others, however creationist also believe in evolution to a certain degree (selection working on alleles/mutation, which causes variations) Some of us would conclude that the changes in species(or kinds) is mainly through changes in frequency in alleles, and secondary through mutations of the alleles (which also can make changes) Some of us even believe in speciation (caused by mutations)

Right... but you go on about design. I ask "What constitutes as design and how can you test for it?". So far, everything I've seen does not suggest a design.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Whatever bluefinger the same consistency and high level of falsehood that sparks the claims on Arachaeoraptor, Gogonasus, Gigantoraptor, Elephant hurling and the lastest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle A.K.A Legged Sea Cow discovery in Jamaica

Again, must be quite fascinating to live in bizarro world, nothing is quite what it seems apparently