Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nobel Prize for DNA Repair

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:05:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

Anyone who makes substantial findings that can prevent cancer deaths in the future is very much deserving.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:16:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:05:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

Anyone who makes substantial findings that can prevent cancer deaths in the future is very much deserving.

I agree...but are they the most deserving? I am not in-tune enough with the chemical/biological community to know what other major discoveries may have been made recently.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:17:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:16:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:05:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

Anyone who makes substantial findings that can prevent cancer deaths in the future is very much deserving.

I agree...but are they the most deserving? I am not in-tune enough with the chemical/biological community to know what other major discoveries may have been made recently.

I'm not either (maybe more than you, but nonetheless), but this is a safe bet for a Nobel Prize, in my opinion.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:20:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:17:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:16:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:05:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

Anyone who makes substantial findings that can prevent cancer deaths in the future is very much deserving.

I agree...but are they the most deserving? I am not in-tune enough with the chemical/biological community to know what other major discoveries may have been made recently.

I'm not either (maybe more than you, but nonetheless), but this is a safe bet for a Nobel Prize, in my opinion.

Cool beans.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:39:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

This is totally awesome stuff, first of all, and this level of understanding will likely herald another revolution in medicine.

But now you'll hate me: It's also bad news for evolution. Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all. So it takes at least two simultaneous changes to even get to natural selection.

Microbiology has not been good to Darwin.
This space for rent.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:57:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:39:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

This is totally awesome stuff, first of all, and this level of understanding will likely herald another revolution in medicine.

But now you'll hate me: It's also bad news for evolution. Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all. So it takes at least two simultaneous changes to even get to natural selection.

You are falsely conflating DNA damage with mutations:

It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single- and double-strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and, thus, they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented, and, thus, translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and, thus, a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair; these errors are a major source of mutation.


[https://en.wikipedia.org...]
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:39:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

This is totally awesome stuff, first of all, and this level of understanding will likely herald another revolution in medicine.

But now you'll hate me: It's also bad news for evolution. Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all. So it takes at least two simultaneous changes to even get to natural selection.

Microbiology has not been good to Darwin.

You didn't even google what you are talking about before making broad statements about what it actually means.

Is there any argument you've made that is intellectually honest?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:39:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

This is totally awesome stuff, first of all, and this level of understanding will likely herald another revolution in medicine.

But now you'll hate me: It's also bad news for evolution. Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all. So it takes at least two simultaneous changes to even get to natural selection.

Microbiology has not been good to Darwin.

The following haters have done no research themselves. You are correct.

One of the Scientist to be awarded is Aziz Sancar.

Some of his papers are:
Human nucleotide excision nuclease removes thymine dimmers from DNA...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Efficient Nucleotide Excision Repair of Cisplatin, Oxaliplatin, and Bis-aceto-ammine-dichloro-cyclohexylamine-platinum(IV) (JM216) PlatinumIntrastrand DNA Diadducts
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org...

Now.. Those that reply to you will jump on a new band wagon the evolutionary mutation and dna damage are not the same thing. This is a false equivocation. Because DNA damage leads to genetic and epigenetic mutations.

Notice the first paper is on the repairing of Thymine Dimmers. Thymine is a nucleotide. Obviously we know that any evolution relevant mutation will be in the DNA. In the nucleotides.

Pyrimidine dimers are molecular lesions formed from thymine or cytosine bases in DNA via photochemical reactions.[1][2] Ultraviolet light induces the formation of covalent linkages by reactions localized on the C=C double bonds.[3] In dsRNA (double-stranded RNA), uracil dimers may also accumulate as a result of UV radiation. Two common UV products are cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs, including thymine dimers) and 6,4 photoproducts. These premutagenic lesions alter the structure of DNA and consequently inhibit polymerases and arrest replication. Dimers may be repaired by photoreactivation or nucleotide excision repair, but unrepaired dimers are mutagenic.

Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.

So un-repaired damage to DNA is what makes the mutations in DNA that are inherited by generations and drive the evolutionary process. This is so evolution 101 it's rather dumb you already have to replys blasting you.

If damage to DNA doesn't cause the mutations then what does? If they remove UV damage, and damage from free radicals, this only leaves transcription errors to carry the burden of all mutations that drive evolution.

Another common way of DNA change is by virus loads. DNA again has areas that are made to attract foreign DNA. Surprisingly the Core DNA of most systems get's repaired, protected, and safe guarded.

http://phys.org...
Cells silence transcription from foreign virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Bacteria have enzymes that find foreign DNA and snip it out.

Life is a miracle.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Here's what the article said: Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...

That, my friends, is the evolutionary definition of mutation. Remember, the theory is one of a blind process. Random change is random change. Some changes survive, some do not. That's the theory. And we're finding that many changes get eliminated before they get anywhere near a species reproductive cycle, so the filter narrows.

So the point here is not that mutations cannot occur. obviously they do, and get passed on to offspring. The point is simply that the bar to the sort of mutation that would create entirely new things is raised yet higher with this knowledge. It's not just random changes that are required, but changes that can leap the "defect" barrier.

And to Ramshutu - this is not brand new stuff, it's an ongoing field. There are layers of error correction involved, from the sort of parity checking involved in allowable base pair sequences to the higher level stuff discussed in the OP. As I so often have to say: Just THINK ABOUT IT. Don't run to some authority to ease the doubt in your belly, just think about it.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:06:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:57:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:39:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

This is totally awesome stuff, first of all, and this level of understanding will likely herald another revolution in medicine.

But now you'll hate me: It's also bad news for evolution. Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all. So it takes at least two simultaneous changes to even get to natural selection.

You are falsely conflating DNA damage with mutations:

It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single- and double-strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and, thus, they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented, and, thus, translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and, thus, a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair; these errors are a major source of mutation.


[https://en.wikipedia.org...]

And I should include this quote from your OP: To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information.

"Genetic information" IS the "base sequence" of our DNA.

So the whole point here is address defects that DO propagate, as in a cancer. There's not a great need to fix non-reproducing errors since individual cells don't live that long.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a change in base pairs versus when adjacent bases on the same strand bind to each other rather than the bases on the other strand? This isn't semantics. There are very clear differences between damage and mutation. The fact that one can cause the other doesn't somehow make them the same. This is like the difference between a cartographer drawing the wrong route versus having a hole in the map.

Here's what the article said: Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...

That, my friends, is the evolutionary definition of mutation. Remember, the theory is one of a blind process. Random change is random change. Some changes survive, some do not. That's the theory. And we're finding that many changes get eliminated before they get anywhere near a species reproductive cycle, so the filter narrows.

What you're saying here might be relevant if somatic cells (which the quote is referring to) had anything to do with reproduction.

So the point here is not that mutations cannot occur. obviously they do, and get passed on to offspring. The point is simply that the bar to the sort of mutation that would create entirely new things is raised yet higher with this knowledge. It's not just random changes that are required, but changes that can leap the "defect" barrier.

Little, if anything, has changed in terms of our understanding of the role mutations play in evolution.

And to Ramshutu - this is not brand new stuff, it's an ongoing field. There are layers of error correction involved, from the sort of parity checking involved in allowable base pair sequences to the higher level stuff discussed in the OP. As I so often have to say: Just THINK ABOUT IT. Don't run to some authority to ease the doubt in your belly, just think about it.

The "higher level stuff" in the OP is repair, not correction. Errors get corrected. Damage gets repaired. As I said, this isn't a matter of semantics.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 5:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:19:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a change in base pairs versus when adjacent bases on the same strand bind to each other rather than the bases on the other strand? This isn't semantics. There are very clear differences between damage and mutation. The fact that one can cause the other doesn't somehow make them the same. This is like the difference between a cartographer drawing the wrong route versus having a hole in the map.


It's so much fun to watch evolutionists dance. You'll say anything, glibly contradicting your own theory in order to defend it.

So, the point you guys are missing is that the change, whatever you want to call it, gets reproduced. That's why cancer is cancer - it reproduces, like crazy.

So call it a hole in the map, I don't care - the point for this analogy is that the hole is reproduced in every succeeding map, so it is effectively the same as a bad route.

But I think, btw, the wikipedia entry probably isn't directly relevant to the research in question. Nice try, but I think it's probably referring to older research.


What you're saying here might be relevant if somatic cells (which the quote is referring to) had anything to do with reproduction.


Or if all cells in the body had the same genome, lol, and the same low level transcription machinery.


The "higher level stuff" in the OP is repair, not correction. Errors get corrected. Damage gets repaired. As I said, this isn't a matter of semantics.

"No sir, your shocks did not get damaged, they have an error. Your ride must be corrected, not repaired".

"I see. But you're going to replace them, right? Why do I care what you call it?"
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 5:54:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Here's what the article said: Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...

That, my friends, is the evolutionary definition of mutation. Remember, the theory is one of a blind process. Random change is random change. Some changes survive, some do not. That's the theory. And we're finding that many changes get eliminated before they get anywhere near a species reproductive cycle, so the filter narrows.

So the point here is not that mutations cannot occur. obviously they do, and get passed on to offspring. The point is simply that the bar to the sort of mutation that would create entirely new things is raised yet higher with this knowledge. It's not just random changes that are required, but changes that can leap the "defect" barrier.

And to Ramshutu - this is not brand new stuff, it's an ongoing field. There are layers of error correction involved, from the sort of parity checking involved in allowable base pair sequences to the higher level stuff discussed in the OP. As I so often have to say: Just THINK ABOUT IT. Don't run to some authority to ease the doubt in your belly, just think about it.

So let me get this straight.

You assert that this fixed genetic mutations and this is somehow a blow for evolution.

Obviously, despite us knowing for a fact that many mutations happen, they are measurable, most are neutral, some are positive, more are negative. We see them happen every day, and are indeed so prevalent we have names for what they are called when they happen in a specific place. Which renders your original argument plain bullsh*t before you even start....

It's pointed out that your argument that this corrects the type of mutations that change the genetic payload; is, again, absolute Bullsh*t; and these "error correction mechanisms" are fixing chemical errors in the chemistry of the DNA itself; NOT returning the DNA content back to what it was before an error occurred.

So, thus far it is demonstrably the case, you have asserted bullsh*t twice.

So instead of apologizing, disappearing or even honestly admitting you made a mistake; you pick up on the OP poor choice of words, and are now trying to argue that even though your initial Bullsh*t is still absolute bullsh*t through the scientific understanding that has been cited, because what the OP said something that sort of matches your claims, that it isn't bullsh*t.

Just you can back up your original Bullsh*t argument with a semantic Bullsh*t argument, it doesn't make you right, nor does it vindicate or refute the fact that what you said is absolutely wrong.

It's clear that you do not understand what you're talking about because you made a claim that was obviously Bullsh*t, trying to support a position that is also demonstrably absolute Bullsh*t because regardless of what you say can and can't happen (citing no evidence and misunderstanding the science):

Mutations still happen whether you try and argue they don't, or not.

This is simply a complete lack of joined up thinking because, quite honestly, even if there were enzymes we discovered that correct coding errors and substitutions, and provides mechanisms exactly how you describe, it will still not change the fact that Mutations demonstrably happen all the time.

Why are you even arguing here as it is obvious you have no willingness to be either educated, or honest about anything you say.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 7:59:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 5:54:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Why are you even arguing here as it is obvious you have no willingness to be either educated, or honest about anything you say.

I've had a similar, very pointed, discussion with the same member recently, Ramshutu. [http://www.debate.org...]

There's no minimum knowledge needed to explore science -- to ask questions and offer conjectures -- but there are minimum levels of competence and ethics needed to critique scientific practice and product.

Scientific methodology develops and grows, but every method is built on an and aspires to an ethical foundation of:

* honestyin what we know and don't, what we've studied and haven't, what we've done and haven't;
* diligence in studying best practice methods, exploring phenomena, isolating bias, and testing error;
* transparencyin the methods and observations by which we arrive at our knowledge; and
* accountability for evidence, ignorance, and error.

Science tolerates incorrect theories and failed experiments conducted in good faith, but cannot tolerate poor ethics, since any ethical failure damages trust. (See for example: [http://www.sfn.org...])

Similarly, a critique of science that doesn't use current, peer-reviewed scientific papers, or understand the context of the research, or the methods used, is relying on hearsay and conjecture -- it's a strawman, and unethical by the same standards science seeks to uphold.

When a member falls below that standard repeatedly: overstates his own competence, doesn't acknowledge his ignorance, won't read papers when they're offered, won't admit error, slanders professionals (including community members) based on fantasised misconduct and utter ignorance of method -- despite constant complaints and endeavours to assist, it's not only unproductive, hypocritical and disrespectful, it runs to serial malignant abuse.

I personally don't think it serves the site or the field to indulge it, or to continue the pretense that such posts are made legitimately, or in good faith.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 8:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 5:54:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Here's what the article said: Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...

That, my friends, is the evolutionary definition of mutation. Remember, the theory is one of a blind process. Random change is random change. Some changes survive, some do not. That's the theory. And we're finding that many changes get eliminated before they get anywhere near a species reproductive cycle, so the filter narrows.

So the point here is not that mutations cannot occur. obviously they do, and get passed on to offspring. The point is simply that the bar to the sort of mutation that would create entirely new things is raised yet higher with this knowledge. It's not just random changes that are required, but changes that can leap the "defect" barrier.

And to Ramshutu - this is not brand new stuff, it's an ongoing field. There are layers of error correction involved, from the sort of parity checking involved in allowable base pair sequences to the higher level stuff discussed in the OP. As I so often have to say: Just THINK ABOUT IT. Don't run to some authority to ease the doubt in your belly, just think about it.

So let me get this straight.

You assert that this fixed genetic mutations and this is somehow a blow for evolution.

Obviously, despite us knowing for a fact that many mutations happen, they are measurable, most are neutral, some are positive, more are negative. We see them happen every day, and are indeed so prevalent we have names for what they are called when they happen in a specific place. Which renders your original argument plain bullsh*t before you even start....

It's pointed out that your argument that this corrects the type of mutations that change the genetic payload; is, again, absolute Bullsh*t; and these "error correction mechanisms" are fixing chemical errors in the chemistry of the DNA itself; NOT returning the DNA content back to what it was before an error occurred.


Did you read the summary of the article that was linked to, Ram? You seem to be going just by the Wikipedia post, and not by the research in question. Again - if you would try to have a conceptual grasp of the material I don't think you'd be making this mistake. If the researchers have found correction mechanisms that might influence cancer and the like, then they must indeed be talking about preserving/repairing reproducing DNA content.

Even the wikipedia page referenced, if you read the whole thing, ends with this sentence: As a consequence, the rate and accuracy of DNA repair mechanisms have an influence over the process of evolutionary change.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 8:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:08:58 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 5:54:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Here's what the article said: Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...

That, my friends, is the evolutionary definition of mutation. Remember, the theory is one of a blind process. Random change is random change. Some changes survive, some do not. That's the theory. And we're finding that many changes get eliminated before they get anywhere near a species reproductive cycle, so the filter narrows.

So the point here is not that mutations cannot occur. obviously they do, and get passed on to offspring. The point is simply that the bar to the sort of mutation that would create entirely new things is raised yet higher with this knowledge. It's not just random changes that are required, but changes that can leap the "defect" barrier.

And to Ramshutu - this is not brand new stuff, it's an ongoing field. There are layers of error correction involved, from the sort of parity checking involved in allowable base pair sequences to the higher level stuff discussed in the OP. As I so often have to say: Just THINK ABOUT IT. Don't run to some authority to ease the doubt in your belly, just think about it.

So let me get this straight.

You assert that this fixed genetic mutations and this is somehow a blow for evolution.

Obviously, despite us knowing for a fact that many mutations happen, they are measurable, most are neutral, some are positive, more are negative. We see them happen every day, and are indeed so prevalent we have names for what they are called when they happen in a specific place. Which renders your original argument plain bullsh*t before you even start....

It's pointed out that your argument that this corrects the type of mutations that change the genetic payload; is, again, absolute Bullsh*t; and these "error correction mechanisms" are fixing chemical errors in the chemistry of the DNA itself; NOT returning the DNA content back to what it was before an error occurred.


Did you read the summary of the article that was linked to, Ram? You seem to be going just by the Wikipedia post, and not by the research in question. Again - if you would try to have a conceptual grasp of the material I don't think you'd be making this mistake. If the researchers have found correction mechanisms that might influence cancer and the like, then they must indeed be talking about preserving/repairing reproducing DNA content.

Even the wikipedia page referenced, if you read the whole thing, ends with this sentence: As a consequence, the rate and accuracy of DNA repair mechanisms have an influence over the process of evolutionary change.

And this is not in contention.

What is in contention, is this statement:

"Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all"

This is bullsh*t because, as I pointed out and you have ignored, mutations occur, they are measurable, they happen all the time, and we have names for many of them, we have names for the types of mutation that can occur, how they occur and why they occur whether there is a mechanism for correcting it or not.

This renders your argument Bullsh*t before it even starts.

Secondly, you imply directly that the error correction mechanisms fix DNA mutations, they don't. This is Bullsh*t.

What you're now doing, is changing your argument to a second order in order to maintain the appearance that you're right all long. This is a Bullsh*t semantic argument, as I stated.

At best, your NOW arguing that these error corrections can prevent some mutations happening in the first place (well no sh*t sherlock), which is NOT what you said or implied originally and is just you trying to backpedal out of admitting your original statements are wrong.

And, you know what, the whole argument in general even ignoring all that is STILL Bullsh*t because we know mutations occur, they are measurable, they happen all the time, and we have names for many of them, we have names for the types of mutation that can occur, how they occur and why they occur whether there is a mechanism for correcting it or not.

So no.

What you did, is make an incorrect statement about something that happens, argued that you meant something else which is not the same as what you stated initially in order to show that something that DEFINITELY occurs does not.

That is, and why not use the term again, a Bullsh*t argument.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 8:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically?

Bish, apologies for my earlier off-topic post, and thanks for posting this link. I felt I owed you an on-topic response, so please find hereunder my contribution:

For most of the history of medicine, medical treatment has operated on the premise of understanding how anatomy and biochemistry work for our species as a class, classifying the symptoms, causes and prognoses of different conditions across the species, and then applying best practice statistically, to do the most good for the most people while minimising the risk of harm.

Human genome sequencing is revolutionising that.

Increasingly, individual and family gene-mapping offer insights into individual biochemical mechanisms and tolerances that will allow therapies tailored to the way individual bodies work. This offers more targeted and effective treatments, with higher success rates, faster recovery times, and fewer complications, along with the opportunity to treat conditions presently thought too complex or intractable to treat safely.

Understanding the cell repair process is key to this, not only for the prevention and treatment of cancers, but could potentially enable treatments for congenital disorders like cystic fibrosis, or muscular and neurological degeneration like MS or Alzheimers, while opening the door to therapies presently considered too aggressive to be safe. Over time, this should massively improve health outcomes while potentially reducing the cost of both illness and treatment.

I can't myself comment on how innovative and insightful were the methods used in this research, and Nobel nominations are confidential so I'm not aware of who the other leading contenders were.

However with a background in informatics, I'm pretty daunted by just how complex are genetic operations, and can't imagine this work was easy or simple. At the very least, this research is seminal for next-generation medicine, and pivotal for prevention and treatment of the second most common cause of death in the developed world, so I think it's a well-deserved prize.

I hope that may be useful.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 8:30:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 7:59:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 5:54:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Why are you even arguing here as it is obvious you have no willingness to be either educated, or honest about anything you say.

I've had a similar, very pointed, discussion with the same member recently, Ramshutu. [http://www.debate.org...]

There's no minimum knowledge needed to explore science -- to ask questions and offer conjectures -- but there are minimum levels of competence and ethics needed to critique scientific practice and product.

Scientific methodology develops and grows, but every method is built on an and aspires to an ethical foundation of:

* honestyin what we know and don't, what we've studied and haven't, what we've done and haven't;
* diligence in studying best practice methods, exploring phenomena, isolating bias, and testing error;
* transparencyin the methods and observations by which we arrive at our knowledge; and
* accountability for evidence, ignorance, and error.

Science tolerates incorrect theories and failed experiments conducted in good faith, but cannot tolerate poor ethics, since any ethical failure damages trust. (See for example: [http://www.sfn.org...])

Similarly, a critique of science that doesn't use current, peer-reviewed scientific papers, or understand the context of the research, or the methods used, is relying on hearsay and conjecture -- it's a strawman, and unethical by the same standards science seeks to uphold.

When a member falls below that standard repeatedly: overstates his own competence, doesn't acknowledge his ignorance, won't read papers when they're offered, won't admit error, slanders professionals (including community members) based on fantasised misconduct and utter ignorance of method -- despite constant complaints and endeavours to assist, it's not only unproductive, hypocritical and disrespectful, it runs to serial malignant abuse.

I personally don't think it serves the site or the field to indulge it, or to continue the pretense that such posts are made legitimately, or in good faith.

It is not possible that V is saying what he says without knowing it's wrong. For example, he's smart enough to pick up on very subtle slips of language when it suits his purpose.

With this in mind, he has the understanding and intelligence to know he's absolutely wrong about absolutely everything; which is why he falls into a pattern of changing the subject, logical fallacies, ignoring post content and generally disappearing when it gets too tough. It's disconcerting feeling of cognitive dissonance that is likely driving him in this direction, with normal people on normal topics reluctant to change, but after research and diligence changing their mind; but in V, it's a pattern of dishonest conduct to convince himself he's right.

The exchange serves several processes; it's not to validate evolution (as we both know that is already done). It's to show those that are honestly believing without being exposed to t he real evidence, that the arguments that they have heard are fully without credence or validity; and it's also to make sure that V isn't able to simply continue to chose his pattern of dishonesty without challenge; the more he is confronted with the dishonesty of his behavior, the more likely the way he deals with his own cognitive dissonance is likely to resolve itself in him admitting his dishonesty to himself; though I don't necessarily hold high hopes on the matter.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 8:51:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:30:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
The exchange serves several processes
I admire your optimism, Ramshutu, and of course what you do is up to you. Here's my rationale, though, to tuck in your back pocket for later:

Serial dishonesty cannot itself produce credibility or trust; it's parasitic on the credibility and trust of others. It's also intrinsically lazy, in that it seldom researches, and can't innovate. So engaging it at all it lends it credibility, while doing its research and arguing for it is actually cutting its food small enough to eat.

There's an interesting study reported in Psychology Today showing a correlation between Internet trolling, and narcissism, psychopathy and sadism. [https://www.psychologytoday.com...] [http://www.sciencedirect.com...]

It's said of psychopaths that it's easier for them to get more cunning than less malignant.

Does the same principle apply to the kind of science-trolling we see here?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 9:02:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:51:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 8:30:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
The exchange serves several processes
I admire your optimism, Ramshutu, and of course what you do is up to you. Here's my rationale, though, to tuck in your back pocket for later:

Serial dishonesty cannot itself produce credibility or trust; it's parasitic on the credibility and trust of others. It's also intrinsically lazy, in that it seldom researches, and can't innovate. So engaging it at all it lends it credibility, while doing its research and arguing for it is actually cutting its food small enough to eat.

There's an interesting study reported in Psychology Today showing a correlation between Internet trolling, and narcissism, psychopathy and sadism. [https://www.psychologytoday.com...] [http://www.sciencedirect.com...]

It's said of psychopaths that it's easier for them to get more cunning than less malignant.

Does the same principle apply to the kind of science-trolling we see here?

I find it unlikely, as most internet trolling is related to people and individuals rather than groups. The fundamentalist pscyhology seems to have similar aspects to that of Conspiracy Theorists, Brainwashed PoW's, and alien abductees (and in part some specific type racists ONLY in terms of how they present and rationalize their position).

An interesting read that motivates me a little is this:

"Our best evidence of what people truly feel and believe comes less from their words than from their deeds. Observers trying to decide what a man is like look closely at his actions. What the Chinese have discovered is that the man himself uses this same evidence to decide what he is like. His behavior tells him about himself; it is aprimary source of information about his beliefs and values and attitudes. Understanding fully this important principle of self-perception, the Chinese set about arranging the prison-camp experience so that their captives would consistently act in desired way. Before long, the Chinese knew, these actions would begin to take their toll, causing the men to change their views of themselves to align with what they had done."
(From Robert Caldini)

Importantly, I am not trying to brain wash, but making V aware and address his behavior to adjust his own self perception.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 9:17:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 5:16:27 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:19:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a change in base pairs versus when adjacent bases on the same strand bind to each other rather than the bases on the other strand? This isn't semantics. There are very clear differences between damage and mutation. The fact that one can cause the other doesn't somehow make them the same. This is like the difference between a cartographer drawing the wrong route versus having a hole in the map.


It's so much fun to watch evolutionists dance. You'll say anything, glibly contradicting your own theory in order to defend it.

So, the point you guys are missing is that the change, whatever you want to call it, gets reproduced. That's why cancer is cancer - it reproduces, like crazy.

So call it a hole in the map, I don't care - the point for this analogy is that the hole is reproduced in every succeeding map, so it is effectively the same as a bad route.

But I think, btw, the wikipedia entry probably isn't directly relevant to the research in question. Nice try, but I think it's probably referring to older research.

No, dimers don't get reproduced. They get skipped (causing a mutation) or they stop replication altogether. There is a very clear difference here.


What you're saying here might be relevant if somatic cells (which the quote is referring to) had anything to do with reproduction.


Or if all cells in the body had the same genome, lol, and the same low level transcription machinery.

The quote was about mutations happening during replication, which happens "millions of times each day in our bodies." The only applies to sex cells in men, not ova in women. You were using an irrelevant quote as a jumping off point for an idea that isn't new and doesn't do anything to support your claims.

The "higher level stuff" in the OP is repair, not correction. Errors get corrected. Damage gets repaired. As I said, this isn't a matter of semantics.

"No sir, your shocks did not get damaged, they have an error. Your ride must be corrected, not repaired".

"I see. But you're going to replace them, right? Why do I care what you call it?"

Feel free to explain what data exists in a vehicle's shocks that can have an error in it. Your analogy makes no sense.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 12:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 8:08:58 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 5:54:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Here's what the article said: Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...

That, my friends, is the evolutionary definition of mutation. Remember, the theory is one of a blind process. Random change is random change. Some changes survive, some do not. That's the theory. And we're finding that many changes get eliminated before they get anywhere near a species reproductive cycle, so the filter narrows.

So the point here is not that mutations cannot occur. obviously they do, and get passed on to offspring. The point is simply that the bar to the sort of mutation that would create entirely new things is raised yet higher with this knowledge. It's not just random changes that are required, but changes that can leap the "defect" barrier.

And to Ramshutu - this is not brand new stuff, it's an ongoing field. There are layers of error correction involved, from the sort of parity checking involved in allowable base pair sequences to the higher level stuff discussed in the OP. As I so often have to say: Just THINK ABOUT IT. Don't run to some authority to ease the doubt in your belly, just think about it.

So let me get this straight.

You assert that this fixed genetic mutations and this is somehow a blow for evolution.

Obviously, despite us knowing for a fact that many mutations happen, they are measurable, most are neutral, some are positive, more are negative. We see them happen every day, and are indeed so prevalent we have names for what they are called when they happen in a specific place. Which renders your original argument plain bullsh*t before you even start....

It's pointed out that your argument that this corrects the type of mutations that change the genetic payload; is, again, absolute Bullsh*t; and these "error correction mechanisms" are fixing chemical errors in the chemistry of the DNA itself; NOT returning the DNA content back to what it was before an error occurred.


Did you read the summary of the article that was linked to, Ram? You seem to be going just by the Wikipedia post, and not by the research in question. Again - if you would try to have a conceptual grasp of the material I don't think you'd be making this mistake. If the researchers have found correction mechanisms that might influence cancer and the like, then they must indeed be talking about preserving/repairing reproducing DNA content.

Even the wikipedia page referenced, if you read the whole thing, ends with this sentence: As a consequence, the rate and accuracy of DNA repair mechanisms have an influence over the process of evolutionary change.

And this is not in contention.

What is in contention, is this statement:

"Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all"


Ok, I'll admit the 'simultaneous mutation' thing may be an overreach. I may in fact be correct about that, but it is beyond the scope of the research in question, I'll admit that.

This is bullsh*t because, as I pointed out and you have ignored, mutations occur, they are measurable, they happen all the time, and we have names for many of them, we have names for the types of mutation that can occur, how they occur and why they occur whether there is a mechanism for correcting it or not.


Yeah, and this is not in contention. Of course mutations occur. And we generally call then "genetic disease", btw - they are an increasing part of medicine as the human genome slowly runs down. But [alleged] evolution is not just a matter of mutations occurring, it is a matter of vast numbers of mutations occurring sequentially in order to produce entirely new features and species. Entirely new genomes are alleged to have been created by a series of random hits to the original strand of DNA, whatever that looked like. So if you cannot see how error correcting mechanism might have an effect on that, I can't think you're a bit intellectually honest.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 12:45:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:51:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 8:30:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
The exchange serves several processes
I admire your optimism, Ramshutu, and of course what you do is up to you. Here's my rationale, though, to tuck in your back pocket for later:

Serial dishonesty cannot itself produce credibility or trust; it's parasitic on the credibility and trust of others. It's also intrinsically lazy, in that it seldom researches, and can't innovate. So engaging it at all it lends it credibility, while doing its research and arguing for it is actually cutting its food small enough to eat.

There's an interesting study reported in Psychology Today showing a correlation between Internet trolling, and narcissism, psychopathy and sadism. [https://www.psychologytoday.com...] [http://www.sciencedirect.com...]

It's said of psychopaths that it's easier for them to get more cunning than less malignant.

Does the same principle apply to the kind of science-trolling we see here?

And my personal opinion, if you are talking about me: This is SO PATHETIC.

To need to attack my motives is simple proof that you can't engage me on my points.

Look, guys, I'm disagreeing with the consensus science, so I'm not quite going to have the wealth of peer reviewed studies to cite. And if I cite an evolutionist who disputes certain aspects of evolution, like Behe, I see him subjected to the exact same sort of ad hominem as I get. So clearly it's defending tribal boundaries with you guys, not science at all.

But I'll continue to challenge you by citing the laws of physics themselves. Why, I don't know, but when I'm not busy I need something to occupy my time, I guess.
This space for rent.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 1:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
DNA replication is a molecule-level process occurring at a temperature where the effects of thermal noise - at that scale - are huge. The mechanics of DNA copying are complicated and error-prone and if there was no mechanism for correcting errors there would be far too many mistakes and the mis-copied DNA would probably not work at all.

It has long been recognised that it is essential that copying errors are rare. The puzzle is not that mutations happen, but how it can be that 99.9999% of the time the copying is perfect. It is the rare exceptions that slip through that are the subject of natural selection.

So v3nesi is almost right in saying this is important - error correction is important because it reduces the error rate to manageable levels. Without error correction there would be no reproduction at all.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 1:11:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 12:45:09 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 8:51:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 8:30:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
The exchange serves several processes
I admire your optimism, Ramshutu, and of course what you do is up to you. Here's my rationale, though, to tuck in your back pocket for later:

Serial dishonesty cannot itself produce credibility or trust; it's parasitic on the credibility and trust of others. It's also intrinsically lazy, in that it seldom researches, and can't innovate. So engaging it at all it lends it credibility, while doing its research and arguing for it is actually cutting its food small enough to eat.

There's an interesting study reported in Psychology Today showing a correlation between Internet trolling, and narcissism, psychopathy and sadism. [https://www.psychologytoday.com...] [http://www.sciencedirect.com...]

It's said of psychopaths that it's easier for them to get more cunning than less malignant.

Does the same principle apply to the kind of science-trolling we see here?

And my personal opinion, if you are talking about me: This is SO PATHETIC.

To need to attack my motives is simple proof that you can't engage me on my points.

As someone who continually disappears whenever a detailed argument is posted against them, who frequently changes the subject, quotes out of context, and who rarely tries to seriously defend their position, it's probably not best to argue about being able to engage an opponents points.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 1:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 12:23:09 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 8:16:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 8:08:58 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 5:54:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:00:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:46:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Did everyone catch that last line? UNREPAIRED DIMERS are MUTAGENIC.



Yes, and it's the same sort of semantics and circular logic we always get from the evo crowd: If a change gets through, we'll call it mutation, if it can be repaired, we'll call it "damage". It's like the games that are played with the definition of "speciation".

Here's what the article said: Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...

That, my friends, is the evolutionary definition of mutation. Remember, the theory is one of a blind process. Random change is random change. Some changes survive, some do not. That's the theory. And we're finding that many changes get eliminated before they get anywhere near a species reproductive cycle, so the filter narrows.

So the point here is not that mutations cannot occur. obviously they do, and get passed on to offspring. The point is simply that the bar to the sort of mutation that would create entirely new things is raised yet higher with this knowledge. It's not just random changes that are required, but changes that can leap the "defect" barrier.

And to Ramshutu - this is not brand new stuff, it's an ongoing field. There are layers of error correction involved, from the sort of parity checking involved in allowable base pair sequences to the higher level stuff discussed in the OP. As I so often have to say: Just THINK ABOUT IT. Don't run to some authority to ease the doubt in your belly, just think about it.

So let me get this straight.

You assert that this fixed genetic mutations and this is somehow a blow for evolution.

Obviously, despite us knowing for a fact that many mutations happen, they are measurable, most are neutral, some are positive, more are negative. We see them happen every day, and are indeed so prevalent we have names for what they are called when they happen in a specific place. Which renders your original argument plain bullsh*t before you even start....

It's pointed out that your argument that this corrects the type of mutations that change the genetic payload; is, again, absolute Bullsh*t; and these "error correction mechanisms" are fixing chemical errors in the chemistry of the DNA itself; NOT returning the DNA content back to what it was before an error occurred.


Did you read the summary of the article that was linked to, Ram? You seem to be going just by the Wikipedia post, and not by the research in question. Again - if you would try to have a conceptual grasp of the material I don't think you'd be making this mistake. If the researchers have found correction mechanisms that might influence cancer and the like, then they must indeed be talking about preserving/repairing reproducing DNA content.

Even the wikipedia page referenced, if you read the whole thing, ends with this sentence: As a consequence, the rate and accuracy of DNA repair mechanisms have an influence over the process of evolutionary change.

And this is not in contention.

What is in contention, is this statement:

"Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all"


Ok, I'll admit the 'simultaneous mutation' thing may be an overreach. I may in fact be correct about that, but it is beyond the scope of the research in question, I'll admit that.

Thank you.

This is bullsh*t because, as I pointed out and you have ignored, mutations occur, they are measurable, they happen all the time, and we have names for many of them, we have names for the types of mutation that can occur, how they occur and why they occur whether there is a mechanism for correcting it or not.


Yeah, and this is not in contention. Of course mutations occur. And we generally call then "genetic disease", btw - they are an increasing part of medicine as the human genome slowly runs down. But [alleged] evolution is not just a matter of mutations occurring, it is a matter of vast numbers of mutations occurring sequentially in order to produce entirely new features and species. Entirely new genomes are alleged to have been created by a series of random hits to the original strand of DNA, whatever that looked like. So if you cannot see how error correcting mechanism might have an effect on that, I can't think you're a bit intellectually honest.

Actually no. As I said, mutations can be demonstrably shown to be primarily neutral, some negative, and fewer, but plenty of positive mutations. In trying to defend your position, you seem to be ignoring established facts that do not support your position.

We've seen changes in size, shape, internal chemistry, organ structure (we've seen changes from 3-4 chambered hearts, changes in digestive systems, for example), we've seen bones added, bones removed, we've seen whole genome duplication; region duplication, fusions. We've seen genes being turned off, new genes for new things inserted.

All with an "error correction" system in place fixing DNA.

Compare any two animals, and their genomes are riddled with differences with further evidence of such mutations. With the same gene that creates the same proteins having a sequence of minor single point changes between two species; with the number of changes correlating with the amount of generations since a common ancestor existed between them; a correlation that also extends to other animals too.

Indeed, you know as well as I do that significant changes occur in animals, and significant numbers of changes are repeatedly and regularly observed to occur due to mutations and evolution. We can generate significant change through selective breeding which operates on just these principles too: indeed the differences between the most disparate forms of domestic dog are larger than between the most foxlike dog and most doglike fox.

Evolution IS just a matter of mutations and change occurring; over billions and billions of generations. And if the nature of the mutations we see today (their chemical nature, btw), are the same as the ones in the past, then extending back, what we would see is:

"vast numbers of mutations occurring sequentially in order to produce entirely new features and species"

Of which there is ample and incontrovertible evidence in the genome to show that this is indeed what happened. Of course, you ignore this evidence, or at least misrepresent it to the point it isn't reflective of the reality; and disappear whenever this is pointed out...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 3:02:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 1:01:39 PM, kp98 wrote:
DNA replication is a molecule-level process occurring at a temperature where the effects of thermal noise - at that scale - are huge. The mechanics of DNA copying are complicated and error-prone and if there was no mechanism for correcting errors there would be far too many mistakes and the mis-copied DNA would probably not work at all.

It has long been recognised that it is essential that copying errors are rare. The puzzle is not that mutations happen, but how it can be that 99.9999% of the time the copying is perfect. It is the rare exceptions that slip through that are the subject of natural selection.

So v3nesi is almost right in saying this is important - error correction is important because it reduces the error rate to manageable levels. Without error correction there would be no reproduction at all.

Which then brings you back to the irreducible complexity issue - how did the earliest forms survive until the sophisticated error correction methods could evolve?

This is the problem that micro-biology has exposed, in general: Evolution is based on the speculation of a progression from simple to complex. But it turns out that the micro-machinery of life is highly sophisticated in all lifeforms. And, the micro-machinery bears a striking resemblance to computing machinery in several respects. So the foundational alleged progression is suspect. It's like finding solutions to Pythagoras' right triangle on Mesopotamian clay from 1800 BC (true) - the story of man's mathematical progress has to be adjusted.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 3:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 3:02:06 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/9/2015 1:01:39 PM, kp98 wrote:
DNA replication is a molecule-level process occurring at a temperature where the effects of thermal noise - at that scale - are huge. The mechanics of DNA copying are complicated and error-prone and if there was no mechanism for correcting errors there would be far too many mistakes and the mis-copied DNA would probably not work at all.

It has long been recognised that it is essential that copying errors are rare. The puzzle is not that mutations happen, but how it can be that 99.9999% of the time the copying is perfect. It is the rare exceptions that slip through that are the subject of natural selection.

So v3nesi is almost right in saying this is important - error correction is important because it reduces the error rate to manageable levels. Without error correction there would be no reproduction at all.

Which then brings you back to the irreducible complexity issue - how did the earliest forms survive until the sophisticated error correction methods could evolve?

This is the problem that micro-biology has exposed, in general: Evolution is based on the speculation of a progression from simple to complex. But it turns out that the micro-machinery of life is highly sophisticated in all lifeforms. And, the micro-machinery bears a striking resemblance to computing machinery in several respects. So the foundational alleged progression is suspect. It's like finding solutions to Pythagoras' right triangle on Mesopotamian clay from 1800 BC (true) - the story of man's mathematical progress has to be adjusted.

Not speculation, testable, validated hypotheses.

I'll re-add this, from another post; because you ignored it:

Your one and only argument in support for Intelligent Design, is that "Life looks designed", you repeatedly compare life to designed things, as you do here and unrepentantly state over and over again that because life has some things in common with designed things, it must be designed.

Guess what. This is the very speculation you are complaining about. You have no real basis for this inference, as there are SO many aspects of life that are completely alien to anything that has ever been designed, and there are so many trends in life that completely fly in the face of any meaningful or rational designer one could happily postulate. You get around this by ignoring the evidence, such as trends in taxonomy, embryology, or genetics that all point against the inference of design.

So, you look at something, making a comparison, then claim it's designed.

It is one thing that you're wrong for the reasons I stated, and also another thing that you are dishonest about it too, by NEVER admitting, or even acknowledging what the trends in taxonomy OR genetics actually are, hand waving them away as "common features indicate common designer", again, simply asserting your point without any justification.

It is another thing to then, with a straight face, claim that doing the same thing that your ENTIRE pro-ID argument is based on is somehow stupid, deluded or ignorant.

Indeed, I have no words for the fact that you don't seem to appreciate the excessive levels of irony you making this claim has.

Now, don't even start to conclude that this is me claiming that your position and evolution have just as much merit. Because they don't.

Given that there the differences evident between two individuals of a species we know is related is often more than we find within two fossils that are obviously not the same type, given that the changes we see in species today are the same in nature as the ones we see between any two fossils that are obviously not the same type; and given that such fossils invariably fall in geological ranges consistent with being related, tell me: What is so unreasonable, speculative, or laughable about concluding that from this information, these two fossils are probably related?

Given that there are so many of these links (which there are), with so few major differences between them (which there are), and given that whenever you start with a group of species you know are related, and try and compare the next most closely related set of species, you realize that the differences within the group is bigger than the differences outside; and given that repeating this exercise over and over again works pretty much on all life, with only a handful of things that we don't see changing today. What is it that is so unreasonable about concluding that, from this information, this life is all related?

Given that a hereditary relationship between all these species explains almost every single last trend in biology down to the molecular level in some cases, atavisms, vestigiality, genetic trends, trends in fossils, trends in geography and chronology, trends in traits and does so causally, IE: such things are forced to be like that because of how they came about... and given that your speculative assertions of a designer explains none of them; why is it reasonable to conclude that your position is strong, and evolutions position is so weak?"

The fact that you run away when such arguments are presented is "simple proof that you can't engage me on my points."
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 5:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:39:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/7/2015 8:03:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientist for their work in studying how DNA is repaired in our bodies:

"UV radiation and molecules known as free radicals can cause damage. Furthermore, defects can arise when DNA is copied during cell division - a process that occurs millions of times each day in our bodies...To address those defects, a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and de-bug our genetic information. The three new laureates mapped in detail how some of these mechanisms worked." [http://www.bbc.com...]

What implications, if any, does this research have on science, in general, and medicine, more specifically? Do you think these researchers were the ones most deserving of the prize?

This is totally awesome stuff, first of all, and this level of understanding will likely herald another revolution in medicine.

But now you'll hate me: It's also bad news for evolution. Our DNA has error correction! Or bodies work to stamp out mutation. This raises the statistical bar to Darwinian evolution even higher. Now we see the need for simultaneous mutations - the error correction mechanisms must mutate at the same time as the 'good' mutation in order to allow it to get passed on at all. So it takes at least two simultaneous changes to even get to natural selection.

Microbiology has not been good to Darwin.

.................. error correction in DNA has been known for... decades.