Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Mutations II
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 136 of 204 (45363)
07-08-2003 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Peter
07-08-2003 4:38 AM


Re: semantics indeed
I am highly skeptical that many C's would take the necessary time to reflect on anything scientific such that they would come to such a realization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 4:38 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1877 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 137 of 204 (45370)
07-08-2003 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by John A. Davison
07-07-2003 7:01 PM


Re: Oh, the irony....and the lies
OutOfDate:
quote:
Dear S and others who are inclined to call another one a hypocrite. There are no experts in evolution. Scott imagines himself to be one but he is not.
I have never said, implied, or indicated that I am an expert in anything. I believe I am more qualified than some in certain areas, true. But I do not believe that I have ever, except perhaps in defense of myself, ever claimed to be an expert i anything, and for you to claim this is a clear misrepresentation. It is alsoi sopmething of a sad joke, for even if I were to make such a claim, it is clear from your writings/rantings that you would be in no position to judge my supposed expertise on pretty much anything.
quote:
I have insulted no one, only Darwinism which is a monumental joke.
And you have been repeatedly asked to explain what you actually mean by Darwinism, and the one example in which you actually did reply (see the free for all forum), your definition was basically a joke. Not as big of a joke as semi-meiosis, of course, but a joke nbonetheless.
But, like I have pointed out several times before, you seem to think that because you have convinced yourself that you are speaking the "truth", it is justified that you denigrate and insult as you do. You claim that you do not insult, but was it not you that claimed that evolutionists are not scientists?
quote:
If you want to believe in a myth, that is your choice. Evcforum continues to be THE forum which thrives on insult and deprecation of any challenge to the atheist darwinian foolishness.
So shall we conclude that to you, "Darwinism" means "atheism"?
And that it is clear that you are driven not by some desire to learn the reality of evolution, but to prop up some ethereal theistic beliefs of yours? For that is certainly how it comes across.
quote:
You could never get away with some of the language I see here at Brainstorms or Terry's Creation versus Evolution or Both forum.
How true. Indeed, as others have mentioned, evolutionists could never get away with what you and your idiot pal Ilion and a few others do there. Terry the simpleton thrives in wirelding his "power" unidirectionally. That is the only way that creationist ideas, like yours, see the light of day.
quote:
If you want to find out where my papers are published I am sure Scott Page will tell you all about why they are of no consequence I have another coming out in September.
Rivista di Biologica, a formerly respected journal that is now dedicated to publishing fringe quackery.
Tell us all, John Davison - as you believe that unless one is doing "wet bench lab work" their conclusions are piffle (i.e., your denigration of "armchair theorists" like Haldane and Kimura) - how much original "wet bench lab work" did you do for this most recent Rivista submission?
quote:
Don't ask me any questions as Scott and others here already have all they answers. In a nutshell - mutation and natural selection. salty
Actually, one should not ask you questions because you have all the non-answers - "Why, (insert name of dead paleontologiost/fringe scientist here) would agree with me, and (he/she/they) are/were grewat people."
Argument via hero worship and denigration of Darwin seems to be the best you can muster, as your semi-meiotic joke is more reliant upon pure chance than is "atheistic Darwinism" and you are too agenda-blinded to recognize it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2003 7:01 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2003 9:04 PM derwood has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 138 of 204 (45377)
07-08-2003 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Mammuthus
07-08-2003 5:40 AM


If they are all directly related to genomic change, and
the only source of heritable genomic change is a germline
mutation then I don't see that we need to complicate matters
with a billion details.
The only way that an offspring can differ genomically from
any possible mixing of it's parents genomes is if the successful
germ-cells suffered a DNA copy error when they formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Mammuthus, posted 07-08-2003 5:40 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 07-08-2003 10:47 AM Peter has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 139 of 204 (45386)
07-08-2003 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Peter
07-08-2003 10:34 AM


However, by making a distinction between the nature of somatic versus germline mutations i.e. one is a mutation and the other is not according to your definition, one makes things more complicated and certainly less parsimonious if you call the same chemical change something different depending on the cell type.
The second part of your post as I have tried to explain is wrong...individuals can have identical DNA sequence yet one inherits an imprinting mutation which is not a DNA copy error. Different enyzmes replicate DNA and methylate it. Both are capable of making errors leading to mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 10:34 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 11:10 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 140 of 204 (45389)
07-08-2003 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Mammuthus
07-08-2003 10:47 AM


For the first part, I've not (intentionally) been saying that
a somatic mutation shouldn't be a mutation only that it should
be made clear the mutations are [oops] not all there is to heritable
change.
The second part was what I thought you were telling me, then I
thought it wasn't, now I KNOW it is what you are telling me
What is the exact nature and origin of the 'imprinter'?
Do you mean there is an enzyme for replication and another for
methylation?
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 07-08-2003 10:47 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Mammuthus, posted 07-08-2003 11:20 AM Peter has replied
 Message 142 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2003 11:35 AM Peter has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 141 of 204 (45390)
07-08-2003 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Peter
07-08-2003 11:10 AM


I think when you say somatic mutation versus germline mutation that makes it pretty clear which can be inherited.
quote:
The second part was what I thought you were telling me, then I
thought it wasn't, now I KNOW it is what you are telling me
I think this was my exact response when salty first brought up semi-meiosis
Imprinting is not very well understood i.e. how it is regulated.
Bioessays. 2003 Jun;25(6):577-88. Related Articles, Links
Imprinting evolution and the price of silence.
Murphy SK, Jirtle RL.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham.
In contrast to the biallelic expression of most genes, expression of genes subject to genomic imprinting is monoallelic and based on the sex of the transmitting parent. Possession of only a single active allele can lead to deleterious health consequences in humans. Aberrant expression of imprinted genes, through either genetic or epigenetic alterations, can result in developmental failures, neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral disorders and cancer. The evolutionary emergence of imprinting occurred in a common ancestor to viviparous mammals after divergence from the egg-laying monotremes. Current evidence indicates that imprinting regulation in metatherian mammals differs from that in eutherian mammals. This suggests that imprinting mechanisms are evolving from those that were established 150 million years ago. Therefore, comparing genomic sequence of imprinted domains from marsupials and eutherians with those of orthologous regions in monotremes offers a potentially powerful bioinformatics approach for identifying novel imprinted genes and their regulatory elements. Such comparative studies will also further our understanding of the molecular evolution and phylogenetic distribution of imprinted genes. BioEssays 25:577-588, 2003. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
...but DNA is replicated by DNA polymerases..DNA is methylated by DNA methyltransferases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 11:10 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 11:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 142 of 204 (45392)
07-08-2003 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Peter
07-08-2003 11:10 AM


Re: semantics indeed
There are several enzymes for methylation. There are enzymes both to add and remove methylation form CpG sites. The methylation patterns in an organism are highly dynamic.
Imprinting is a seperate but related phenomenon found in mammals and plants. In imprinting the methylation pattern differs between the maternal and paternal genetic contributions. This pattern is maintained when most other zygotic methylation patterns are reset, although the exact dynamics vary from species to species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 11:10 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 11:48 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 143 of 204 (45393)
07-08-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Wounded King
07-08-2003 11:35 AM


So do a cell's methylation enzymes come from the 'parent'
cell or are they produced within the cell?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2003 11:35 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 144 of 204 (45394)
07-08-2003 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Mammuthus
07-08-2003 11:20 AM


If the methyltransferases are passed into the 'new' cell
from the 'parent' cell (as opposed to be produced in-cell),
but were incorrectly produced within the 'parent' cell ...
I'd call that a 'protein synthesis error' (assuming it is
OK to refer to the ...ases as proteins).
That would give two sources of heritable mutation ... one
in the genome (a germline mutation) and the other in the
regulatory system (a protein synthesis error).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Mammuthus, posted 07-08-2003 11:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2003 12:46 PM Peter has replied
 Message 148 by Mammuthus, posted 07-09-2003 4:03 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 145 of 204 (45406)
07-08-2003 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Peter
07-08-2003 11:53 AM


Re: semantics indeed
The methyltransferases are produced in the zygote, but the imprinted patterns are established in the sperm and egg.
It seems very wide of the mark to call this a protein synthesis error. The problem is not one of a mutant form of protein being produced, due to an error in protein synthesis, although constitutively active forms of methyltransferase can be produced. The point is that DNA methylation is, in the normal way of things, dynamic. And as with most things in biology, it largely depends upon stochastic events. Consequently even with all the enzymes in a cell functioning as expected environmental factors and chance can give rise to atypical patterns of methylation which can, in certain circumstances, lead to a heritable phenotype.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 11:53 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Peter, posted 07-09-2003 4:44 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 204 (45438)
07-08-2003 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by derwood
07-08-2003 10:12 AM


Re: Oh, the irony....and the lies
Scott has lost none of his charm, For what it is worth, ISCID is publishing the Manifesto in its online journal. I'm sure Scott can find plenty to ridicule about that as well. Go for it Scott. It is music to my AntiDarwinian ears. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by derwood, posted 07-08-2003 10:12 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by wj, posted 07-08-2003 9:45 PM John A. Davison has not replied
 Message 149 by Mammuthus, posted 07-09-2003 4:04 AM John A. Davison has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 204 (45444)
07-08-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by John A. Davison
07-08-2003 9:04 PM


Re: Oh, the irony....and the lies
Salty, you have failed to respond to Schrafinator's question:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and one that we do not currently understand or one that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is fundamental to your assertion that "I do not understand Intelligent Design but that it exists is beyond any doubt." You need to provide evidence such as examples of intelligent design and why intelligent design is a better explanation for the example than the conventional scientific explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2003 9:04 PM John A. Davison has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 148 of 204 (45478)
07-09-2003 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Peter
07-08-2003 11:53 AM


yeah..what Wounded King said

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Peter, posted 07-08-2003 11:53 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 149 of 204 (45479)
07-09-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by John A. Davison
07-08-2003 9:04 PM


Re: Oh, the irony....and the lies
Are you going to post anything substantive or answer any of the multiple questions addressed to you or are you going to obsess about Scott for the rest of your stay here?
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by John A. Davison, posted 07-08-2003 9:04 PM John A. Davison has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 150 of 204 (45489)
07-09-2003 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Wounded King
07-08-2003 12:46 PM


...so even with the methylation states the same as the
parents the phenotype can be different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2003 12:46 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Mammuthus, posted 07-09-2003 4:54 AM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024