|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: The rocks’ photo has nothing to do with what we discussed about. It has EVERYTHING to do with we are discussing. There is no natural law that says a rock must have a specific shape or a specific composition. This is just like tRNAs. The shape and composition of a rock is the result of historical contingencies and natural laws, and the very same thing is true of tRNAs and the genetic code.
Well, please explain one of my questions, for example, 1+1=2, or The natural laws cannot explain why the liquid in river is called as WATER in English, but EAU in French. Why can't natural laws explain those? This is your claim, you need to support it with evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: The conclusion is drawn from the analyses of facts. You haven't offered any facts. All you do is assert that something can't be produced by natural laws without any facts to back it.
My conclusion is that God created life on Earth and gave life the ability to survive and evolve. Based on what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: The vocabulary of a language is a common agreement of the population who use the language. The recently prevalent coronavirus, known as COVID-19, is named by WHO. Many professional words are named by special professional committee. Imagine that in an ancient English speaking population, someone pointed to the liquid in a river and at the same time pronounced WATER, and others accepted it, then WATER means the liquid in river. The same thing happened for the ancient French speaking population, but the person pointed to the liquid in a river and at the same time pronounced EAU. All of this is the product of natural brains operating through natural processes.
As for the Genetic Code or the tRNA that embodied it , as the authors of the review paper Origin and evolution of the genetic code: The universal enigma pointed out, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: ‘Why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?’, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Not knowing the exact history of a process does not mean it violates natural laws. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?
Therefore, the meaning of a word is assigned by common agreement, not due to the word itself. This is very easy to understand from the information point of view. The meaning of a word has nothing to do with natural laws. Those words and agreements are the product of natural laws as described by neurobiology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Richard L. Wang writes: However, physics is not everything, because physics only governs all physicochemical processes of matter, physics cannot govern all processes of non-material elements.Physics cannot calculate numbers; Cavendish calculated the gravitational constant in his famous experiments. Maxwell and others were able to measure the permitivity and permiability of space which allowed them to calculate the speed of light. Einstein was able to calculate the distortion of spacetime due to velocity. You sure you know what you are talking about?
Physics has no sense of humor; Physics is the underlying process that gives rise to humor. The brain is matter, after all.
Physics cannot think, it does not know how to write messages for this Forum; Physics has no purpose; Physics cannot design any hardware and/or software; Physics has no language function, because materials do not need to communicate with each other; Physics cannot make decision as physics does not understand logic; Physics cannot produce any non-material elements; Physics underlies neurobiology which produces all of those things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
RLW writes: Cavendish, Maxwell and Einstein are PHYSICISTS, not PHYSICS. Thank you for the entertainment. A giggle in the middle of the day always cheers me up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: 16.1 Regulation of Gene Expression16.2 Prokaryotic Gene Regulation 16.3 Eukaryotic Epigenetic Gene Regulation 16.4 Eukaryotic Transcription Gene Regulation 16.5 Eukaryotic Post-transcriptional Gene Regulation 16.6 Eukaryotic Translational and Post-translational Gene Regulation 16.7 Cancer and Gene Regulation All of that is controlled by enzyme kinetics and and binding between complementary nucleotide bases. It's all natural processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: For Taq(Message 267), the key point is translation, but in your opinion the key point is the H-bond. For Taq(Message 335), the key point is regulations, the control of these bioinformatic processes, but in your opinion the key point is biochemistry, which doesn’t know control at all. The key point is basic chemistry. Biomolecules stick to one another because of chemistry and physics. What regulates the expression of a gene? The binding of transcription factors to the DNA upstream of the gene. What controls the binding of the transcription factors? Chemistry and physics. The physical shape and chemical characteristics of the amino acids across the protein determine what it will bind to. Certain amino acid sequences produce a folded protein that specifically binds to specific DNA sequences. If those sequences are upstream of a gene, those proteins will bind to that region. Other physical and chemical features on the protein then promote the binding of RNA polymerase to the DNA molecule, and what results is RNA transcription. ALL of it is physics and chemistry. Transcription factor - Wikipedia You should also study the classic lac promoter found in E. coli: lac operon - Wikipedia Let's also look at post-transcriptional regulation by micro-RNA's. How does that work? micro-RNA's bind to a protein complex in the same way that other proteins bind to DNA promoter regions. The micro-RNA has a 7 or 8 base section called a seed sequence, and if a 3' untranslated region (3' UTR) of an mRNA has a sequence complementary the mico-RNA/protein complex will bind to that 3' UTR. The presence of that bound complex prevents the mRNA from being translated into protein. That is how post-transcriptional gene regulation works, and all of it occurs through natural processes.
Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: If all bioinformatic processes could be broken down into a series of chemical and physical processes, people would never know how the basic principle of genetic processes — to produce the right protein at the right time, right place and right quantity — works. Again, read up on the lac operon: The lac operon (article) | Gene regulation | Khan Academy It explains all of the physics and chemistry that allows for beta-lactamase to be expressed at the right time in the right place and in the right quantities.
In that section, I analyzed the transcription regulation of lac operon of E. coli, and demonstrated that the function of regulation is similar to logic circuits in digital circuits, or similar to IF sentences in software. Where do you demonstrate that the functioning of the lac operon doesn't follow natural laws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: Can point mutations add genetic information, or produce meaningful genetic information? This is a question. Show experimental evidence, please. Do the genetic differences between the chimp and human genomes give each species meaningful genetic information? Yep. Those are the mutations you are looking for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: So, I suggest we change a topic, for example, mutations, Ok. Let's first look at transversion and transition mutations.
A transition is a point mutation where similar bases are switched out for each other. Cytosine and thymine have one ring while adenine and guanine have two rings. A transition is a switch between C and T or A and G. A transversion is a point mutation where dissimilar bases are switched out for one another, such as an A being switched out by a C or T. The proteins that copy DNA have a harder time distinguishing between similar bases as compared to dissimilar bases. Therefore, we should see more transitions than transversions. That's exactly what we see. Below is the per base human mutation rate for transitions and transversions taken from Kong et al. (2013): Transition at non-CpG 6.1810‘9Transversion at non-CpG 3.7610‘9 So transitions are about twice as common as transversions even though there are two possible transversions at each base compared to just one transition. These are de novo mutations measured in humans using genome sequence of parents and their offspring. In nature, we see exactly what we would expect to see from natural processes producing mutations. It goes even farther. There is another type of substitution mutation called a CpG mutation.
When there is a CG in a sequence the C is susceptible to methylation. Subsequent deamination of the methylated C results in a T. Let's include CpG mutations to our list from Kong et al. (2013): Transition at non-CpG 6.1810‘9Transition at CpG 1.1210‘7 Transversion at non-CpG 3.7610‘9 Transversion at CpG 9.5910‘9 Notice how the rate of CpG transitions is so much higher than the others. Again, this is the hallmark of naturally occurring point mutations. Are we on the same page so far? Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: Why? You don't understand how this changes the mathematics of DNA evolution. You are wearing out your hobby horse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: You certainly don't have the mathematical skills to be posting in the "Is it Science" and "Biological Evolution" forums. So says the person who didn't know what exons and introns are. If you don't think my posts are worthy of comment then don't respond to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: If you think your understanding of exons and introns can explain the mathematics of DNA evolution, do it. And if you think your understanding of exons and introns can explain mutations and how they relate to genetic information, do it. In case you didn't notice, this isn't a topic on the math of population genetics. One of the signs of a crackpot is that they bring up the same stale topic no matter what the thread is about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RLW writes: Yep, those are mutations, but can you provide evidences that those mutations resulted from POINT mutations? Absolutely. The first step in explaining the evidence is in my post on transversions and transitions. Naturally occurring point mutations result in a higher rate of transitions compared to transversions, with CpG mutations having the highest rate. Do you agree with this explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: I'm presenting empirical and mathematical evidence. Evidence of what? What point are you trying to make? Do you have something other than insulting people while demanding that they do math problems?
How does this relate to genetic information? You tell us. Get to the point.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024