Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:29 PM
Rduke55 Rduke55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

I know, and I know it's frustrating, but that behavior often makes them get defensive and also takes away from your argument.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:37 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

[ QUOTE ]
It's like Bill Hicks said: I don't mean to sound cold or cruel or viscious, but I am, so It comes out that
way.

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:38 PM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

I think you mistook my post for being mad or something. I was just telling calling it like I saw it and had decided to dismiss his whole theory. I think I just used his mild insult as reasoning that it was fair throw him into the fruit basket. And I find the idea of a talking dog and Mr. Ed amusing.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:39 PM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

Bill Hicks fan???!!!

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:48 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Hicks fan???!!!

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm Jim Ficks, and I'm dead now... I jogged every day, ate nothing but tofu, swam 500 laps every morning.... and I'm dead! Yul Brenner drank, smoked, and got laid every night of his life. He's dead!.... [censored]! That Yul Brenner.... smoking, drinking, girls sittin' on his little cue-ball noggin every night of his life! And I'm running around a dewy track at dawn. And we're both f****n' dead." -- Bill Hicks - Relentless


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



nuff said.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:56 PM
bocablkr bocablkr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Default Re: Darwin and DNA

[ QUOTE ]
Some very interesting ideas come from what is by far the most interesting paper I have examined this year in reading about evolution and genetics . The title is NeuroTheology: Brain, Science Spirituality, Religious Experience by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. I was able to download the PDF for free but have been unable to locate the link I used. (If I do locate it, I will post it.)



[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are an authority on either, that statement has little meaning.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-13-2005, 11:56 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Darwin and DNA

Since I haven't read the book I won't comment on it much , other than to say it sounds very similar to some other arguments I've heard before, and I don't think it's valid.

Since the science seems to be missing in this thread, I'll offer a little primer on introns, for those that are interested. If you only learn one thing here, about introns or otherwise, I'll be happy.

DNA is composed to two main classes: coding regions and non-coding regions. Introns are in a subclass of coding regions - but first, lets define the (much more straight forward) coding regions.

Coding regions are composed of exons, and exons encode genes, and these are sequences of DNA that make protein. Lots of people forget this, or misunderstand it, and it's important. Genes encode protein. Protein includes "structural" protein, like the keratin in your hair, and also lots of little molecular machines that make and break stuff. They aren't magic wands that bequeath speech - there are a whole bunch of genes necessary for this, and not all of them are known. There is a middle man here called RNA - I'll get to that later.

Non-coding DNA includes stuff like strucutural DNA, that proteins can bind to, so your chromosomes stay in tact.

It also encodes regulatory DNA called "promoters". Promoters are sequences of DNA that tell the cells how much protein to make, and when. Not all genes are "on" all the time. You can think of promoters as sort of a dimmer switch for a light - on, off, and a bunch in between. Different cells, at different times, make different proteins.

Introns are short sequences of DNA found in between exons. Before making a protein, the DNA sequence of a gene is read by some of those little protein machines I mentioned earlier, and a RNA strand is made. The RNA initially contains both introns and exons. Then, the introns in the RNA are "spliced out" or removed by more protein machines. Then, more protein machines "read" the RNA, and make a protein.

Why there was this apparently useless DNA that just got removed was baffling to scientists initially, hence the name "junk DNA". It is no longer thought of as junk; several functions for introns are now known - I'll give you a couple. It wouldn't surprise me if even more is discovered later.

1. Alternative splicing: Sometimes, a gene will be spliced differently under different circumstances. In cell A, there might be three introns spliced out, and in cell B, there might only be two, but one of them is slightly bigger. Now there are two very similar, but slightly different proteins in different cells - and there has been an "economy of DNA" - only one gene! Cool, huh?

2. Introns are regulatory elements. This works in a couple of different ways - sometimes, an intron ban act like a promoter, or with a promoter, to turn a gene on or off. Sometimes, the intron can affect RNA stabilty, so the amount of RNA that gets made into protein can be affected.

There is a famous quote by a scientist (sorry, I forget who) said something like "Give me the regulatory elements of a man and the genes of a man, and I'll give you a man; give me the regulatory elements of a mouse and the genes of a man and I'll give you a mouse." I forget who said it. Anyway, at the time everyone thought he was nuts, but this is now (at least partially) accepted.

Of course, all this fuss about introns really has nothing to do with the validity of the argument, in my opinion. If you have questions about homologs and orthologs of genes, mutation rates, and selective pressures, let me know... I think these are more relevent.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-14-2005, 12:31 AM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Darwin and DNA

Good quick summary.

To be a little more precise, exon DNA encodes proteins. A gene on the other hand is the unit of heritable information. As you mentioned genes may encode proteins (or parts thereof) or may have regulatory roles. There are genes with known functions in intron DNA. (I believe you know this, but you probably wrote your summary rather quickly)

Furthermore, it's not like there is some great mystery about the potential of intron DNA. There are established start codons and we've figured out the 64 combinations of DNA codons and whether they start or stop RNA transcription (the making of RNA from DNA) or code for one of the 20 amino acids.

Since the human genome project was completed (by both private and public entitites), we have a complete map of the human genome. Work since the project was completed has involved signficant annotation of the genomic data with proteomic data, information about what regions code for what proteins. When you actually find out what we know, it's a lot less mysterious and you can't so easily just point to the mysterious thing (psychics love talking about coupled particles and their "violation" of locality) and give it extraordinary power as the OP gives to intronic DNA. It's a classic rhetorical trick to lazily prove that which cannot be proven.

Obviously with 20 amino acids, start and stop codes, there are a full 42 unused codons, right? Wrong. There are redundant codons that code for the same amino acid. A codon consists of a group of 3 consecutive nucleotides on a DNA chromosome (not redundant here as some viruses use RNA as their source of heritable genetic material). There are 64 permutations of 3 nucleotides taken 4 at a time. Redundancy helps guard against problems related to the accidental change of one nucleotide for another.

The whole idea that there's a single gene for speech is simply preposterous.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.