22 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is not true. Sex regulation in fruitflies is determined by alternate splicing of pre-mRNA
Here's something you may find interesting, Coletti. This website discussing the Human Genome Project claims many human genes produce more than one possible protein, unlike the fruit fly and roundworm. Now, this doesn't take into account how long those proteins are, but it does help people who want to define 'complexity' such that humans are show ...[text shortened]... ese other organisms.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/HGP.html
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeOh. Well, the website says something about the human proteome being possibly 10 or more times as large as that of the fruit fly and roundworm despite the genome being only about twice as big. I don't know the details. You can look at the website for yourself.
This is not true. Sex regulation in fruitflies is determined by alternate splicing of pre-mRNA
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy did you burp?
Excuse me, you said, "...and that's NOT speculation" ,but what you
had talked about was filled with terms like "seems to indicate",
"seems to exist", "can be explained by", "allowing for minor" all of
those words seem to me that there is indeed quite a bit of speculation
going on with your point.
Kelly
I was refering to an article that had more data on it ,, the addy of which I had already posted. I did however put the quotes, from the site, inside quotation marks to signify it was a quote.
Had you read it you would have known I was refering to the lab tests.
23 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompWhy did I burp?
Why did you burp?
I was refering to an article that had more data on it ,, the addy of which I had already posted. I did however put the quotes, from the site, inside quotation marks to signify it was a quote.
Had you read it you would have known I was refering to the lab tests.
You again said what you were refering to was not speculation, yet!
What you quoted had all the verbage I pointed out to you, things
like "seems to indicate" and so on. This is not something filled
with just facts, but speculation. If you cannot see it, it must be
because you don't want to see it.
Kelly
23 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe it's because it's I have a better grasp on how science works, too.
Why did I burp?
You again said what you were refering to was not speculation, yet!
What you quoted had all the verbage I pointed out to you, things
like "seems to indicate" and so on. This is not something filled
with just facts, but ...[text shortened]... nnot see it, it must be
because you don't want to see it.
Kelly
Epigenetics is pointing to a return to Lamarchian adaptation which is much more like Darwin's evolution than the more accepted " random mutation" . The writer was reporting what the test were indicating and the fact that the test were done. It's the tests results that isn't speculation.
Just because I refused to quote out of context doesn't mean I was refering to the entire quote , either. The tests results are not speculation, PERIOD!
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompMaybe it's because it's I have a better grasp on how science works, too.
Maybe it's because it's I have a better grasp on how science works, too.
Epigenetics is pointing to a return to Lamarchian adaptation which is much more like Darwin's evolution than the more accepted " random mutation" . The writer was reporting what the test were indicating and the fact that the test were done. It's the tests results t ...[text shortened]... was refering to the entire quote , either. The tests results are not speculation, PERIOD!
This sounds very much like speculation to me! 🙂
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou don't see that the writer is hedging because it different than random mutation as the only cause for natural selection. You also dont like that it shows the "discredited " Lamarchian evolution is back and thats the mechanism Darwinism needs.
[b]Maybe it's because it's I have a better grasp on how science works, too.
This sounds very much like speculation to me! 🙂[/b]
Get used to the idea dj ,, and this these, too.
Science is about to end all speculation about the mechanism of evolution and there's nothing you junk scientists can do to prevent it.
and your last enclave of psuedo-probility theory is also going to get the boot.
Its a great time for science: both Evolution and the Standard Particle Model are about to be validated by tests. You should be rejoicing since you will no longer feel the need to make a scientific fool of yourself.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompI do not have problem one with calling a test result a fact, it is what
Maybe it's because it's I have a better grasp on how science works, too.
Epigenetics is pointing to a return to Lamarchian adaptation which is much more like Darwin's evolution than the more accepted " random mutation" . The writer was reporting what the test were indicating and the fact that the test were done. It's the tests results t ...[text shortened]... was refering to the entire quote , either. The tests results are not speculation, PERIOD!
it is; however, what that result could mean or indicate is another thing.
That is my complaint, not your grasp on how science works, you should
grasp the difference between taking a reading and suggesting what
that reading means, one is a fact the other is not.
Kelly
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstomplol this one made google * is proud*
Maybe it's because it's I have a better grasp on how science works, too.
Epigenetics is pointing to a return to Lamarchian adaptation which is much more like Darwin's evolution than the more accepted " random mutation" . The writer was reporting what the test were indicating and the fact that the test were done. It's the tests results t ...[text shortened]... was refering to the entire quote , either. The tests results are not speculation, PERIOD!
03 May 05
While I was in biochemistry class today my professor mentioned something about the definition of genomic information. Unfortunately I was half asleep (a dude with a jackhammer woke me up early).
The idea was that the more conserved a region of DNA was, the more information was present. I think he was talking about promoters in E. coli; I don't really know what he was talking about.
Anyone know more about this?
03 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhome'C value' seems to involve the kind of definition I am looking for. I'm assuming 'c value' means 'complexity value'. It seems to refer to the amount of DNA in a genome.
google for the 'c value paradox'
Intergenic DNA used to be termed junk DNA. The assumption that if is all without function is currently being challenged but its too cutting edge for me to get my head around
However apparently this is still something people are investigating/refining.
03 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungC VALUES
'C value' seems to involve the kind of definition I am looking for. I'm assuming 'c value' means 'complexity value'. It seems to refer to the amount of DNA in a genome.
However apparently this is still something people are investigating/refining.
The amount of DNA in a haploid genome set (such as in a
sperm nucleus) is called the genome size or C value
where C stands for "constant" or "characteristic" to
denote that C values are relatively constant within a
single species, but vary widely between species
eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol435_535/Nov9.htm
theres a video on the C-Paradox here
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/darwincentre/live/presentations/260105CraigBuckley.html
hope that's what you're seeking
03 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI thought I'd start at the start of this thread and go through what was
Normally I'd just go to the dictionary. However none of the definitions there seem really appropriate to the issue.
So, maybe in this case I'd define the information content of a DNA molecule to be equal to the number of base pairs which are actually part of a gene. So for example, if an organism only had 5 genes of lengths 664, 852, 13, 100 ...[text shortened]... ll these.
There are a number of mechanisms which increase this number quite often in the lab.
written before and ran across this. I am hoping this was not accepted
as information, it is more than just base pairs and the lengths that
are involved. When one thinks about information in text, is the
information in the letters used, or in the arraignment of those letters?
If one looks at numbers the same thing is true too, there is the
letter or number itself which has a bit of information but when you
start stringing them together for a reason, it takes on a whole new
level of information. I can write "This is the day the Lord has made,"
or write, "iieeeaaaTttssshhdddLm" I believe I got all the same letters
but we have information in my first example while using the same
letters; in my second example the placement or arraignment does not
give us anything useful as information is concern.
This example is just on writing and reading so we can understand,
within DNA we are looking at functionally complex systems springing
forth. This is a completely new level of complexity and raises the bar
considerably as far as what is required to do such a task.
Kelly
03 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI am hoping this was not accepted as information, it is more than just base pairs and the lengths that are involved.
I thought I'd start at the start of this thread and go through what was
written before and ran across this. I am hoping this was not accepted
as information, it is more than just base pairs and the lengths that
are involved. When one thinks about information in text, is the
information in the letters used, or in the arraignment of those letters?
If ...[text shortened]... mplexity and raises the bar
considerably as far as what is required to do such a task.
Kelly
So you're telling us what you think information is not. Can you contribute to what it is, or will you simply shoot down every proposed definition so that the claim can never be challenged (or supported)?
That definition was modified because Coletti objected to it. His criticism led to a specific modification of the definition. We excluded introns because of his excellent argument. Therefore every base pair left should be translated into protein, and the order matters. Your criticism is not relevant in light of that.
In fact, even the so called 'junk DNA' apparently gets used by organisms occasionally. I was reading about how a new gene was discovered in 'junk DNA' which produced RNA that regulated another gene recently.
within DNA we are looking at functionally complex systems springing
forth.
What does 'functionally complex' mean? Maybe you haven't gotten that far, but 'complexity' is another word I feel is not sufficiently defined.
03 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'll tell you what, I'll read to get to the current portion of this and not
[b]I am hoping this was not accepted as information, it is more than just base pairs and the lengths that are involved.
So you're telling us what you think information is not. Can you contribute to what it is, or will you simply shoot down every proposed definition so that the claim can never be challenged (or supported)?
That definition w ...[text shortened]... haven't gotten that far, but 'complexity' is another word I feel is not sufficiently defined.[/b]
jump on a matter already settled, unless I think it really wasn't
settled well.
Kelly