Quality Control the Gold Standard

You asked about how the poor accuracy of primitive relicators could have become the highly reliable copying mechanisms in today's genetic machinery, and I referred you to some work that addressed your inquiry. Naturally this does not address the origin of RNA, because you did not ask about it, and because that is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about seven sigma, remember? If you'd like to address the origin of RNA then you should open a new thread. Likely the same thing would happen: you'll claim absolutely no progress has been made until someone contradicts you with references.Replicators were refined through a selection process that lasted potentially hundreds of millions of years in a laboratory the size of the entire globe. This is a much more powerful crucible for design than any human laboratory.--Percy

As i said, your numbers are out of date...you want refs...I got refs...SNP mutation rate:

quote:

---

Many previous estimates of the mutation rate in humans have relied on screens of visible mutants. We investigated the rate and pattern of mutations at the nucleotide level by comparing pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees to (i) provide an estimate of the average mutation rate per nucleotide, (ii) assess heterogeneity of mutation rate at different sites and for different types of mutations, (iii) test the hypothesis that the X chromosome has a lower mutation rate than autosomes, and (iv) estimate the deleterious mutation rate. Eighteen processed pseudogenes were sequenced, including 12 on autosomes and 6 on the X chromosome. The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Rates of mutation for both transitions and transversions at CpG dinucleotides are one order of magnitude higher than mutation rates at other sites. Single nucleotide substitutions are 10 times more frequent than length mutations. Comparison of rates of evolution for X-linked and autosomal pseudogenes suggests that the male mutation rate is 4 times the female mutation rate, but provides no evidence for a reduction in mutation rate that is specific to the X chromosome. Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common.

---

Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.STR mutation rate:

quote:

---

We estimate an effective mutation rate at an average Y chromosome short-tandem repeat locus as 6.9x10-4 per 25 years, with a standard deviation across loci of 5.7x10-4, using data on microsatellite variation within Y chromosome haplogroups defined by unique-event polymorphisms in populations with documented short-term histories, as well as comparative data on worldwide populations at both the Y chromosome and various autosomal loci. This value is used to estimate the times of the African Bantu expansion, the divergence of Polynesian populations (the Maoris, Cook Islanders, and Samoans), and the origin of Gypsy populations from Bulgaria.

---

The effective mutation rate at Y chromosome short tandem repeats, with application to human population-divergence time.Chromosomal rearrangement mutation rate:

quote:

---

The gametic mutation rates of human structural chromosome rearrangements have been estimated from rearrangements ascertained from systematic surveys of live births and spontaneous abortions. The mutation rates for rearrangements that survive long enough to give rise to clinically recognized pregnancies are 2.20 X 10(-4) for balanced rearrangements, 3.54 X 10(-4) for unbalanced Robertsonian translocations, and 3.42 X 10(-4) for unbalanced non-Robertsonian rearrangements. These estimates give a mutation rate for all detectable structural chromosome rearrangements of approximately 1 X 10(-3). The most common single rearrangement, the Robertsonian translocation involving chromosomes 13 and 14, has a mutation rate of 1.5 X 10(-4).

---

Mutation rates of structural chromosome rearrangements in man.As mentioned previously by myself, crashfrog, and many others, the substitution rate on its own is inadequate. Be wary of the assumptions you jump to, and of your words... I have have been civil to you, I would expect the same treatment from you.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

quote:

---

See evolutionary theory is so non-mathmatical

---

Oh, really? That's quite a claim, Peach.The following is called "Ewens' Sampling Formula" and is used in quantitative Population Genetics.Population Genetics uses Evolutionary Theory and combines it with Genetics. If Evolutionary Theory is so "squishy", then how is it that it uses this formula?Please explain.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-13-2006 04:50 AM

The phrase "under certain conditions", used above, must of course be made precise. The assumptions are (1) the sample size n is small by comparison to the size of the whole population, and (2) the population is in statistical equilibrium under mutation and genetic drift and the role of selection at the locus in question is negligible, and (3) every mutant allele is novel. (See also idealised population.)WOW! I'll bet these assumptions are determinable every century or so. Of cource since selection is only determined after the fact of many generations it must be marvy to assume it. Like wise all novel mutations. LOLLets see I just examined the undergrad bioloigy curriculum at five major public universities and just like last years review the math includes general math and stops at the sophmore year with Caluculs Inroduction for Non-math students.Funny I seem to recall my engineering track was Colleg ALg & Trig, four semester of Calculus, One semester of Diff. Eq. , one semester of Vector Analysis and Complex Variables.That help any?

Again, the 10** -09 was always in the context of defining the inherent dna copying mechanism in the human cell over huge populations and long time periods as in the Genome Project.You introduced all the other sources of mutation rates which are variant depending on a lot of variables that are difficult to isolate.The inherent "voice of the process" in base pair copying errors is Seven Sigma process in the human cell.Page not found | Schlick Group at NYUTo replicate a single unit of human DNA, about 3 billion individual base pairs are joined. In the course of building a baby from a fertilized egg, this process goes on about a million billion times. Despite the seemingly infinite room for error, however, a mistake is made only once for every 10 billion operations.That means there's an impressive quality control system at work. One part of this DNA copying machine is the polymerase, a protein enzyme that ensures complementary bases are placed with one another as a strand of bases becomes duplicated DNA. Mechanisms that repair and ensure the fidelity of DNA as it is replicated are vital since many human diseases can originate from mutations that are the result of polymerase error.Keep posting I want to see if my ego meter can redline from your input alone.

Funny I jest took a look at two Biology books one for HS and one for college Sophomores. In the front they list the editorial and peer review list and not one og thtem work for the publisher.They do however work at major Universities, research groups, drug compoanies and governmental agenices like the FDA, AG, etc. And all but two had Phd's in biological sciences.Now talke your cr-- somewhere else peanut.

I again suggest that you learn how to quote. If you had done so when replying to Rrhain you might have noticed he was talking about who writes the textbooks, not who reviews them. It is the publishers who have the final say as to a textbook's contents, not biologists or anyone on their review board, so as Rrhain says, if they want to sell textbooks in Texas then they'll follow the requirements of Texas's state board of education. This isn't called for under any circumstances, but if you must do this you might consider picking an occasion where you didn't screw up.--Percy

Hey I know an even better straw mand and red herring (you can do both simultaneously.. remarkable), IS TO USE THE RATE FOR 1,000 GENERATIONS IN RADIATED FRUIT FLYS.. THTA'S MUCH HIGHER.Not one of your examples is apples to apples .. pitiful.The evo ego is a sight to behold.

You are really treading very close to suspension. Learn to follow the guidelines. Address the points that are raised. Learn to participate or leave.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-13-2006 03:15 PM

Just so I understand the professors who select their text books and are very frequently the audience from which reviewers are chosen most frequently pick those books which contain the most erroneous presentation of evolution bacause they are actually IDer and Creationists or mandated by their colleges and universities to pick the poorest scholarship possible in text book selection. Furthermore the publishers standardly spend their type talking to legislatures rather than their primary audience as in teachers, instructors and selectors.Hmmm! I can walk into any office in this college and see somewhere between 15 and 30 different textbooks given as review copies to the instructors for their consideration. The sales reps do not spend much time presenting their textbooks to legislators and they don't send them review books.I live in this environment, I know how it works.

Actually yopur implication was that replicators being refined demonstrate the ability of such to arise from simple molceular pre-cursors and that is entirely on topic with my challenge.Of course when confronted with discliplined thinking and irrefutable logic that tears the thin fabric of the evolutionary claims .. your team simply repairs to the threaten and bully practice so akin to the way non-tenured instructors, professors, researchers etc. are blackballed, blasted, blackmailed and delisted when they dare not toe the line of evolutionary mysticism.Its really not a very convincing tactic.

The concern is about public school textbooks, not university textbooks. That's why PaulK and I talked about the necessity for publishers to be consistent with the requirements of state boards of education. Universities not only do not face this issue, but biology textbooks at the university level *are* written by biologists, which is usually not the case for public school textbooks.The controversy encroaches on public perception when creationists attempt to have their views represented in public schools by lobbying publishers and boards of education. This is what PaulK and I were talking about. Public school textbooks are not written by biologists, and the textbooks are selected by boards of education, often at the state level, and not by teachers.This is all off-topic, of course, but I just wanted to briefly point out where you were wrong.--Percy

Your topic is seven sigma. Your question was about how primitive replicators could improve in accuracy. I provided references to work studying how this can happen. This work rebuts your claim that seven sigma could not happen naturally.--Percy

Use the peek button on the lower right of any post to see how any affect is created. Or see dbCodes On (help) link to the left of your edit window when creating a post.

Wrong. My challenge was how could a seven sigma repliator arise from pre-rna to rna to ... the present system by Darwinian methods.Your experiment assumed the existance of an rna replicator and showed a level of improvement over generations in a designed controlled warm and fuzzy environment. Would it occur in the restless sea , attacked by water, oxygen and UV?And was it an improvement from 0.0001 sigma to .0002 sigma. Are you proposing that given another few generations it would have fulfilled the challenge but they just ran out of grant money.What constituted the measure of improvement... lets see the details.

Wrong again I served on the science and texbook volunteer parents review committee at Humble School District for the Kingwood H.S. It was a 6A school with 5,000 students and consistently ranked in the national the twenty academically.The school had a formal full time staff of textbook review people by subject area, including biology. School boards approve teh recommendations of staff and teachers like a rubber stamp.. period.I remember meeting with the biology text book review senior staff lady in the spring of 1989. I gave her a copy of Denton's magnum opus and said you know it might be helpful to read one MD and biologist's concerns about evolutionary theory.Later I went back and she refused to talk to me, gave me the book back and said she didn't have time for it.Its good to see you fellas in full retreat though rewriting history and such.Count on me to check with my sources on H.S. book authors soon.Maybe you should recommend getting me off the post now to avoid the embarrassmsnt.. that tactic is well worn and seems effective.