tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3605373191080617033..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: John Parrington and the genetic load argumentLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6668190635940620172015-07-27T16:28:06.363-04:002015-07-27T16:28:06.363-04:00"Yes we can if the functions are deeply redun..."Yes we can if the functions are deeply redundant, which indeed they are, and also if mutations are not completely random but are restricted to avoid damaging function. "<br /><br />Numbers please - tossing out these vague assertions and expecting your point to be settled would be like, oh I don't know - pointing out how your pal Wells distorted quotes in his book to misrepresent concepts and declaring that all creationists are dishonest and/or incompetent without offering any additional support and expecting you to just accept that as fact.<br /><br />nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12529951552508497702015-07-27T06:51:51.169-04:002015-07-27T06:51:51.169-04:00and also if mutations are not completely random bu...<i>and also if mutations are not completely random but are restricted to avoid damaging function</i><br /><br />Right, that's why we can't get cancer - oh, wait....judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51472726623093954072015-07-26T21:46:58.453-04:002015-07-26T21:46:58.453-04:00Larry needs to start removing your posts more quic...Larry needs to start removing your posts more quickly. I think he should remove only the posts that say nothing, but that does seem to be all of them.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20639699537147418772015-07-26T17:29:09.904-04:002015-07-26T17:29:09.904-04:00"remote improbable event indistinguishable fr...<i>"remote improbable event indistinguishable from a miracle (which is pretty much Koonin's solution to OOL"</i><br /><br />No it isn't, you are misrepresenting Eugene Koonin. He merely published a paper to suggest one kind of solution in the multiverse, he isn't saying that is the only sensible option or even that it's what he believes. <br /><br />You nutbags have been mistakenly obsessed with that paper ever since it's publication. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66939499354690064812015-07-26T17:16:39.237-04:002015-07-26T17:16:39.237-04:00"Yes we can if the functions are deeply redun...<i>"Yes we can if the functions are deeply redundant, which indeed they are"</i><br /><br />What functions are those, and how do you know they are "deeply redundant"?<br /><br />Nobody is impressed by this kind of ad-hoc reationalization. You need to bring actual evidence. "Was methylated once in some tissue" isn't evidence that is "deeply redundantly functional" whatever the fuck that even means. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5246302675694488362015-07-26T17:14:48.151-04:002015-07-26T17:14:48.151-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25928862772025957802015-07-26T06:07:05.237-04:002015-07-26T06:07:05.237-04:00With Piotr's observant comment above in mind, ...With Piotr's observant comment above in mind, I have some questions for Sal ("liarsfordarwin") and others who argue against the concept and evidence of 'junk DNA':<br /><br />If, instead of a (or the) human genome, the focus of a discussion/debate were on the genomes of Necturus maculosus, Lilium longiflorum, Protopterus aethiopicus, Amoeba dubia, and/or Allium cepa, would you be as determined to argue against the concept and evidence of 'junk' DNA, and would the gist or wording of your arguments be the same (i.e. rely on the same premises)?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6426005319316504702015-07-26T00:58:49.304-04:002015-07-26T00:58:49.304-04:00"We could not survive as a species if the seq..."We could not survive as a species if the sequence of most of our genome was important for biological function. " <br /><br />Yes we can if the functions are deeply redundant, which indeed they are, and also if mutations are not completely random but are restricted to avoid damaging function. GWAS and other studies have shown fault tolerance and redundancy in the genome. The fact a region can tolerate mutation is evidence of functional fault tolerance, not lack of functional role. For example, there is a 2010 paper on incongruent redundancy experiments that show functionality but also tolerance to mutational knockout.<br /><br />If function is discovered, in light of the genetic load problem, this is evidence of function that arrived independent of natural selection. Something can be functional without being selectable, especially for deeply redundant features or features that can be functional in a contingent context. So the genetic load arguments cannot be used to definitively say large parts of the genome are functionless, it can only say large parts could not evolve and maintain function via natural selection.<br /><br />Genetic load arguments don't preclude evolution by another mechanism like say an astronomically remote improbable event indistinguishable from a miracle (which is pretty much Koonin's solution to OOL, or for that matter the creationist solution to life's major features).<br /><br />Though I'd agree with you spurious RNA transcripts are not direct evidence of function, the fact specific DNA regions are targeted for methylation markings and that those methylation markings seem important for proper function, it's too early to say there is no role for those sections of DNA even supposing some of the transcription of those regions is spurious. NIH ROADMAP has only scratched the surface of tracking the "methylome" that is imprinted on "junk" DNA. <br /><br />By the way, thanks for backing my citation of Hermann Muller on mutational load. You're most certainly right to say selection mechanisms can't evolve nor maintain large amount of function in the genome, and if the medical researchers of ENCODE and ROADMAP discover evidence of function, that is evidence of functionality that cannot come about and be maintained by Darwinian means because of the mutational load problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76108732048619945152015-07-24T16:20:00.911-04:002015-07-24T16:20:00.911-04:00The Deeper Genome: Why there is more to the human ...<i>The Deeper Genome: Why there is more to the <b>human</b> genome than meets the eye</i><br /><br /><i>Such is the nature of the shift that now we face the challenge of not just recognizing the true scale of this complexity, but explaining how it all comes together to make a living, functioning, <b>human</b> being.</i><br /><br />Hey, what about living things other than <i>Homo sapiens</i>? Are humans really so exceptional genome-wise? I thought the human genome was <b>a</b> genome rather than <b>the</b> genome.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13999420284401254422015-07-24T16:03:43.999-04:002015-07-24T16:03:43.999-04:00Well, more sense at least. Now it's just wrong...Well, more sense at least. Now it's just wrong instead of not even wrong.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47045205313755039622015-07-24T15:56:25.032-04:002015-07-24T15:56:25.032-04:00A creationist tries to understand genetic load
A...<a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/04/a-creationist-tries-to-understand.html" rel="nofollow">A creationist tries to understand genetic load </a><br /><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2015/01/a-lesson-on-genetic-load.html" rel="nofollow">A lesson on genetic load</a><br /><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/07/five-things-you-should-know-if-you-want.html" rel="nofollow">Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate </a>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16117836594815674222015-07-24T15:51:32.963-04:002015-07-24T15:51:32.963-04:00Thanks. I had changed an "or" to an &quo...Thanks. I had changed an "or" to an "of" twice. Now that I've corrected it, I'm sure you can see that it makes sense. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25488514687008717332015-07-24T15:04:47.801-04:002015-07-24T15:04:47.801-04:00Larry,
...an accumulation of chemical modificatio...Larry,<br /><br /><i>...an accumulation of chemical modifications in the DNA</i> of <i>its associated histones, a site for non-coding RNA synthesis, </i>of<i> a nexus in a 3D network</i><br /><br />This makes even less sense to me than I imagine it's supposed to. Have you by any chance changed "or" to "of", twice? Because I'm pretty sure histones don't have DNA, and I'm pretty sure that RNA synthesis doesn't produce a nexus in a 3D network.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3771453407648382612015-07-24T14:13:45.628-04:002015-07-24T14:13:45.628-04:00Wikipedia says: "Genetic load is the differen...Wikipedia says: "Genetic load is the difference between the fitness of the theoretically optimal genotype and the fitness of the observed average genotype in a population. "<br /><br />This seems a bit odd. I didn't know that there was a theoretical optimum. <br /><br />Is there a better definition? Are the sequence differences within species or within genes. Or what?Petrushkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343702725399620404noreply@blogger.com