tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5484866355639880217..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The fuzzy thinking of John Parrington: The Central DogmaLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89842835931662544552015-07-18T16:16:11.004-04:002015-07-18T16:16:11.004-04:00Now I'm just repeating myself.
Thanks for th...Now I'm just repeating myself. <br /><br />Thanks for the input.ROCKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793927966898795177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24426084047954427602015-07-18T16:14:51.305-04:002015-07-18T16:14:51.305-04:00I know that once the topic disappears off the end ...I know that once the topic disappears off the end of the page anything that is said is forgotten.<br /><br />Crick’s Dogma is false and there isn’t a biochemist or molecular biologist today who cannot routinely demonstrate it’s false.<br />ROCKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793927966898795177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44719841973108273312015-07-14T14:25:57.390-04:002015-07-14T14:25:57.390-04:00It seems strange that one would tout the fact that...It seems strange that one would tout the fact that the human genome, e.g., is mostly “junk” (a rather non-descript term), but fail to recognize how this “junk” is generated. <br /><br />Proteins are potent mutagens.<br /><br />The very fact that our genomes are mostly “junk” is due to the fact that proteins are powerful catalysts of evolutionary change. So, the “missing link” in Crick’s is supplied.<br /><br />I tried to save it, update it, in exactly the way a biochemistry professor told me, ca. 1975: <br /><br />Crick’s Dogma is just Weismann’s Doctrine.<br />ROCKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793927966898795177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47931713276678271172015-07-12T21:12:29.129-04:002015-07-12T21:12:29.129-04:00What did I misunderstand?
Well, I did not see any...<i>What did I misunderstand?</i><br /><br />Well, I did not see any of the points you made above in your earlier posts. This blog is populated by creationists who depend upon misunderstanding to perpetuate the conversation.. So when I see someone talking about maladaptism in connection to the Central Dogma.. I wonder. Perhaps you are legimately curious.. if so, I apologize and encourage you to ask more questions.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81976117390804913022015-07-12T20:05:21.062-04:002015-07-12T20:05:21.062-04:00“It really seems you are straining to misunderstan...“It really seems you are straining to misunderstand - any particular reason for that?”<br /><br />What did I misunderstand? <br /><br />“A fairly simple idea”-- <br /><br />Crick: Hereditary information is transferred from DNA to protein and not from protein to DNA.<br /><br />Did I get that wrong?<br /><br />Lets step through this, line upon line and word upon word if you so choose. But where did I get this wrong? <br />ROCKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793927966898795177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24333532719089315252015-07-12T17:46:23.362-04:002015-07-12T17:46:23.362-04:00I think if Crick made that argument, the Central D...<i>I think if Crick made that argument, the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology is that most mutations are maladaptive then I would have understood immediately!</i><br /><br />It really seems you are straining to misunderstand - any particular reason for that?<br /><br />Most mutations are neutral, and will have no discernable effect on phenotype. In any case, doesn't really have anything to do with the Central Dogma, which is at root a fairly simple idea (don't confuse simple with obvious, when we are talking about thinking circa 1950s).SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63862719319570287602015-07-12T17:27:35.367-04:002015-07-12T17:27:35.367-04:00Crick's argument has absolutely nothing to do ...Crick's argument has absolutely nothing to do with that.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15920159053601248642015-07-12T17:08:23.650-04:002015-07-12T17:08:23.650-04:00However variation is introduced into the genome it...However variation is introduced into the genome it is only per chance that it is adaptive. <br /><br />Crick’s argument reduces to this? <br />ROCKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793927966898795177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5616192708184922522015-07-10T13:28:07.569-04:002015-07-10T13:28:07.569-04:00Thanks for the helpful feedback. I’m still trying…...Thanks for the helpful feedback. I’m still trying…<br /><br />So, in fact, the flow of information completes the loop, and upon completion of the loop, DNA-seq is modified quite specifically, but non-adaptively. I.e., the statistical preponderance of the heritable genetic information generated during “closure” is maladaptive. <br /><br />I think if Crick made that argument, the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology is that most mutations are maladaptive then I would have understood immediately!<br /><br />Seems to me, all the rest is exactly what led to my confusion. <br />ROCKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793927966898795177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74114133129497520982015-07-10T12:45:22.185-04:002015-07-10T12:45:22.185-04:00Sceptic Mind,
U Mad? Why am I a moron for doing t...Sceptic Mind,<br /><br />U Mad? Why am I a moron for doing the same exact thing that you did?<br />I make a claim that god is irreducibly complex, hence, it must be true, right?<br />And since IC is a central argument for the Grand Theory Of Intelligent Design, we can conclude that god was designed. What's the problem? Do I have to conclude that IC is not about design, but just a pathetic negative argument against evolution then? I really hope not, it would be a huge blow to the well established GTOID. This could potentially put an end to my research on ID. I have this experiment going on where I put all these primordial molecules on a dish of spaghetti carbonara and left it for weeks out of the fridge, and if I can get some living forms to arise, we'll finally have good evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Grand Designer of life. Wish me luck!Dazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5278663868902641532015-07-10T12:42:46.114-04:002015-07-10T12:42:46.114-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36668655749210245152015-07-10T12:05:05.475-04:002015-07-10T12:05:05.475-04:00and the story goes on and on
Indeed it does, sinc...<i>and the story goes on and on</i><br /><br />Indeed it does, since you don't understand enough to know that Larry already answered your objection in his last comment.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33274285141828583162015-07-10T11:46:05.964-04:002015-07-10T11:46:05.964-04:00bwilson, good article - I've read it previousl...bwilson, good article - I've read it previously, as the lead author's a friend.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72017091453732930432015-07-10T11:44:32.341-04:002015-07-10T11:44:32.341-04:00Larry
Here is a specific example of the interdep...Larry <br /><br />Here is a specific example of the interdependence of DNA, RNA and protein. DNA, RNA and proteins cannot do their jobs without the help of at least one of the other two. <br /><br />On the top of that a living cell needs all three molecules at the same time. Not only these three are needed for life, but they need a cell membrane, energy ect.<br /><br />Cell membrane can't be made without proteins and proteins can't be made without cell membrane and the story goes on and on. <br /><br />Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15102788205010147162015-07-10T11:40:49.839-04:002015-07-10T11:40:49.839-04:00Sceptical Mind, this article seems a pretty direct...Sceptical Mind, this article seems a pretty direct response to your question:<br /><br />Scott et al. 2014. RNA catalysis, thermodynamics, and the origin of life. Life 4: 131-141. doi:10.3390/life4020131 (http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/4/2/131)<br /><br />(A bit of background: we already know that components of RNA can self-assemble, and that some RNAs can catalyze their own replication.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52284654067160758332015-07-10T11:10:33.492-04:002015-07-10T11:10:33.492-04:00Septic Mind,
"Why don't you explain why ...Septic Mind,<br /><br /><i>"Why don't you explain why the amount of apparent junk in the DNA vary so spectacularly? You have fish that have almost none of it, like puffer fish and fish that have a lot, like lungfish."</i><br /><br />Exactly you idiot. This variation is one of those things that suggest that a lot of that stuff is junk. Useless stuff. So it can vary without consequences.<br /><br /><i>"The same variation applies to plants, mammals etc."</i><br /><br />No kidding! (you imbecile).<br /><br /><i>"The funniest thing is that prokaryotes, like bacteria don't even have anywhere near this level of variation."</i><br /><br />Yup. Have you ever read anything about population genetics, and reproduction rates as it applies to this "mystery"? Of course not,. You're an illiterate idiot.<br /><br /><i>"Seems that natural selection acts in mysterious and magical ways."</i><br /><br />Seems like you don't understand what "natural selection" means. If something is invisible to selection, then it won't matter if there's much or little (you idiot). If there's population bottlenecks, then lots of stuff will prevail despite natural selection. Natural selection is not the only one explanation for everything we see in life forms, despite what your miseducation might suggest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60999601566976361232015-07-10T10:54:51.806-04:002015-07-10T10:54:51.806-04:00Larry
To make the long story short, provide a re...Larry <br /><br />To make the long story short, provide a reasonable explanation on how the first self-replicating molecule evolved by avoiding the obvious problem of irreducible complexity. What I mean by irreducibly complexity problem here is that all elements of the molecule would have to be in the same place and at the same time in order for self-replication to begin its function. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46975136861659739202015-07-10T10:36:32.027-04:002015-07-10T10:36:32.027-04:00Daz
You've just proven that you are a moron b...Daz<br /><br />You've just proven that you are a moron but also just a lousy troll that is pissed off because he has no arguments. <br /><br />Ciao idiota!Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51702513166205885192015-07-10T10:31:55.368-04:002015-07-10T10:31:55.368-04:00Skeptical Mind says,
Life is irreducibly complex ...Skeptical Mind says,<br /><br /><i>Life is irreducibly complex so there is no way it could've originated by chance</i><br /><br />I see lots of biological systems that are irreducibly complex by any reasonable definition [see <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2015/06/the-meaning-of-irreducible-complexity.html" rel="nofollow">The meaning of "irreducible complexity"</a>]. That does NOT mean they didn't evolve. We have lots of good explanations for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems in modern organisms. <br /><br />This argument from ignorance fails at the first step. Creationists assume that just because a system is irreducibly complex then it could not have possibly arisen by natural means and gods must have created it. All we have to do is show hypothetically that one irreducibly complex system could easily arise by entirely natural means in order to refute that argument. <br /><br />In many cases we actually have good evidence that our explanation is correct [see <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2011/08/blown-out-of-water.html" rel="nofollow">Blown Out of the Water</a>]. <br />We have done that many times but the creationists ignore the examples we've given. That's why I call them IDiots. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85350224347774347212015-07-10T10:30:50.513-04:002015-07-10T10:30:50.513-04:00Why don't you explain why the amount of appare...Why don't you explain why the amount of apparent junk in the DNA vary so spectacularly? You have fish that have almost none of it, like puffer fish and fish that have a lot, like lungfish. <br /><br />The same variation applies to plants, mammals etc. <br /><br />The funniest thing is that prokaryotes, like bacteria don't even have anywhere near this level of variation. <br /><br />Seems that natural selection acts in mysterious and magical ways.Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86553274996503359132015-07-10T10:22:46.939-04:002015-07-10T10:22:46.939-04:00Mmmm. I have a point too! I think the Central Dogm...Mmmm. I have a point too! I think the Central Dogma underscores a very central point in evolution - something else one can read in Dawkins, besides that 'personal incredulity' thing - the primacy of replication for evolution. I don't think the direction is a mere frozen accident, but a mechanistic necessity for evolutionary reasons. My biochemical argument is admittedly weaker - though beware: simply because one can <i>imagine</i> a fancy setup where a mechanism can 'read' every residue in an unwound peptide without getting glued to it or unwound itself somewhere along the line does not mean it is possible. <br /><br />But the evolutionary issue is more central, as I sketched above. It does not just need to be mechanistically possible - within the reach of a super-duper Designer, say - it has to be <i>evolutionarily possible</i>. And that's not just a question of overcoming the biochemical mechanistic barriers. The information flow is from replicators - 'for whose benefit', in Dawkinsian terms, the whole shebang is orchestrated - to phenotype <i>for a reason</i>. <br /><br />Transcription is partial replication. It enables multiple copies of a protein to be produced, just as full replication enables multiple copies of the entire genome. These are powerful tools. But going the other way involves essentially 'using' proteins as a mutagen. Creating sequences you either already have (if you made 'em in the first place), can't use (if you have no translation machinery), or stand a very good chance of being fatally inconvenienced by. This (to me) is devoid of evolutionary logic. You can do this occasionally (see LGT) but do it wholesale and you are screwed. Meantime, for the mechanism to become fixed, and counter the mutation load, it's no use being useful once in a while. I am open to persuasion, but 'don't you be so sure' isn't really compelling. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18871000320805447632015-07-10T09:03:14.856-04:002015-07-10T09:03:14.856-04:00Irreducible complexity is not a thing.
No? What ...<i>Irreducible complexity is not a thing. <br /><br />No? What then?</i><br /><br />An ever changing, unscientific, bold assertion of truth, a ridiculous negative argument from personal incredulity. A useless, question begging brain fart. <br /><br />But two can play that game. I'm going to just affirm that god is irreducibly complex because without Jeebus or the holy rapist pidgeon it could never retain his brainwashing function, hence, some other super god, one that is actually intelligent must have created him. Am I doing good science now?Dazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72332313066157418632015-07-10T08:47:19.585-04:002015-07-10T08:47:19.585-04:00Septic Mind,
"Life is irreducibly complex so...Septic Mind,<br /><br /><i>"Life is irreducibly complex so there is no way it could've originated by chance."</i><br /><br />Mere assertion. I would bet impossible to prove that life is irreducibly complex, and then again, worse if you're using the definition that has the conclusion hidden, as in "irreducibly complex is a thing that missing a single component breaks into useless crap, and that could not have evolved," in which case is an assertion that is clearly false. Many individuals die, and life continues. So much for missing parts break it and render it useless.<br /><br />As per natural abiogenesis (I think this is what you meant, but who knows, you're stupid). That life arose naturally doesn't mean that it arose "by chance."<br /><br /><i>Anyone who believes in abiogenesis can be compared to someone who believes that an electric drill assembled itself and then built a house."</i><br /><br />Only if you're stupid enough to think that drills are comparable to life, and that everything is natural, except life. Care to prove that life is supernatural?<br /><br />You seem to be under the impression that gods are there. That gods are the "natural" conclusion when confronted with hard problems, like the question of how life originated. But that would be no better than those primitive tribes thinking that the volcano is an angry god. So, where's the proof that gods exists? Ah, it's your your superstitious beliefs? I thought so.<br /><br /><i>"There is no derogatory name in a dictionary to describe such stupidity and obvious blindness."</i><br /><br />Like the blindness necessary to ignore that you're no better than a volcano worshipper?<br /><br />I think you have no idea what Sceptical means. You're easily convinced that gods-did-it is a meaningful answer. There's no derogatory name in the dictionary that would describe your self-unawareness, stupidity, ignorance, and blindness. We're stuck with calling you an IDiot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40547378328810841282015-07-10T08:28:03.765-04:002015-07-10T08:28:03.765-04:00Dazz
Irreducible complexity is not a thing.
No?...Dazz<br /><i>Irreducible complexity is not a thing.</i> <br /> <br />No? What then?<br /><br /><i>Claiming life is IC doesn't make it true, particularly when IC essentially amounts to "look at this, it's irreducibly complex". Are ID researchers working shifts to apply Behe's (non existent) method to identify irreducibly complex organisms? </i><br /><br />It looks like Dazz has no idea what irreducible complexity is. <br /><br />Oh yeah? Does claiming that life is not irreducibly complex without any evidence how life originated make it true?<br /><br /><i>Look at yourself in the mirror when you accuse others of stupidity: God's purported creation of life out of clay or whatever bullshit you believe in is abiogenesis too</i><br /><br />Give me one reason why I should try to explain you the latter if you have no idea what you are talking about? <br /><br />Look up what the scientific explanation is for the origin of life elements starting with big bang? Look in the mirror and ask yourself: what is my stupid head made of? Clay/dust/earth or whatever you call the elements that the universe and human body was made of after the big bang. <br />Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5227825691176090632015-07-10T08:17:44.272-04:002015-07-10T08:17:44.272-04:00Anyone who believes in abiogenesis can be compared...<i>Anyone who believes in abiogenesis can be compared to someone who believes that an electric drill assembled itself and then built a house.</i><br /><br />And then how much more idiotic does one have to be to think the workman who built the drill either was magically poofed into existence, or has been alive since prior to the beginning of the universe and will live on eternally?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.com