Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Youwerecreated]

Just admit you're wrong and the genetic code is a language.

You throw a challenge, get a solid response, and retort with "no but seriously you're still wrong" instead of actually addressing the challenge that you yourself created. So what was the point of creating the challenge in the first place? This is what makes you ignorant: pure bankruptcy of logic. It's not that you disagree, it's that you lack the capacity to even evaluate WHY you disagree.

Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function ? Tell me all these documented beneficial mutations and we will compare numbers to the harmful mutations.

Why do you think comparing beneficial mutations to the number of deleterious mutations proves your point? Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge regarding the topic of evolution. Mutations are not created to be beneficial. They are just created, and the bad ones get weeded out. You have never understood this concept.

But to answer your question anyway, I'm happy to "Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function": bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance. I'm sure you will argue this doesn't count despite perfectly meeting your criteria and presenting a mutation that provided a benefit without removing another function, but that's your usual response: pretend anything supporting evolution doesn't exist or doesn't count for unsubstantiated reasons.


And this is precisely what I meant by moving the goalposts. You ask for one thing, and then demand another. In this case, you asked for any code that isn't made by an intelligent mind, I give you several, and then you claim I haven't given you a "form of communication." By definition, communication means "the imparting of thoughts." So yes, you are correct in saying I have not shown you a form of [imparting thoughts] that did not require thinking. Note how by definition thought involves thinking. Thus once again you have set up circular reasoning, as it seems to be the ONLY method such blind ignorance creates underhanded coercion of reasoning.

Again, the reason you are ignorant is not because you disagree. The reason you are ignorant is because you are incapable of engaging in a logical honest conversation. Science draws conclusion from evidence. You support pre-conceived conclusions from the poor rhetoric of people you copied and pasted.

Hey genius, can you tell me where all DNA information origionated from ?

Can you provide any emperical evidence of life happening naturally from a non-intelligent process ?

As I mentioned numerous times now, you aren't ignorant simply because you disagree. You are ignorance because you constantly get the concept of evolution wrong, and this quote is just another shining example. With regard to evolution, the origin of the universe, this planet, and even the origin of DNA and life are completely irrelevant. Regardless of whether DNA burst into existence by magical leprechauns, was deposited on earth by aliens, was created by god, or was the result of a time traveling experiment from the year 3025 by a sentient piece of swiss cheese, the concept of evolution does not change. I'm sure this confuses you, simply because you still don't understand evolution.

So again I ask: do you purposely remain willfully ignorant to these topics? Or are you simply not smart enough to understand them?

I'm guessing it's a little of both. Regardless, this is another example of moving the goalposts. You can't have an open conversation on a single topic using such things as reason or evidence, so you jump between topics every time your points are soundly refuted.

So let's look at the progression I had predicted you would take so far:

* You claimed evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided supporting evidence. < this happened
* You ignored supporting evidence. < this happened
* You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms. < this happened
* I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct. < this happened
* You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there. < this happened
* I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp. < this happened
* You once again made the claim evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided more supporting evidence. < this happened
* You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
* I provided evidence to macroevolution.
* You ran away.

By the usual progression, this is where you start getting into contrived points regarding micro and macro evolution. Then, I'll prove you wrong again, and you'll run away. Home stretch now!

In the beginning nothing existed - There was not anything happening to absolutely nothing. One random day - nothing exploded and became everything.

Then nothing became everything for no logical reason.

Nothing rearranged itself into self replicating,intrcately complex life forms that believed in God.

The abiogenic beginning of all life,you say happened only once - unwitnessed and never happened again - Billions of years ago,how convenient.

How unscientific,How embarrassing.

Mr Evolutionist can you give an example of a single genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the useful and beneficial information in the genome ?

You cannot none exists. How embarrassing.

Mr evolutionist can you document just one,there should be billions if evolutionist is true.

100% verifiable Transitionary fossil that proves definittively that one species actually changed into another completely different species ?

Of course you cannot. None exists. How embarrassing. How frustrating that must be. This means fossils for the common ancestors and the ones in between them.

Scientifically it would normally be unfair to demand 100% proof from anyone but except that you evolutionists demand that we believe evolution as fact.

I f you demand that,then we demand PROOF !

Mr evolutionist- since you are quick to point out that evolution theory only involves the suppositions of the evolutionary processes of living things.

How does evolution deal with the appearance of the Atom and its quantum particles ?
After all,Atoms are non-living yet they are the substance of everything that is living and non-living.

Of course you would answer that,evolution does not attempt to explain the appearance of Atoms and quantum particles.

Oh but it does.

Evolution says that everything came from nothing,billions of years ago. This certainly includes Atoms.

Even if it doesn't deal with evolution or even the big bang then try to explain it by whatever theory that have to do with this.

How convenient that you would pick and choose what you wish to explain and then dismiss a creationist as unintelligent for believing that all that we see,had an intelligent Designer.

Humor me for a moment.

Suppose you were walking on the beach and dug down several feet into the sand and found a perfectly working watch,would you then suppose that watch used to be a rock and then evolved into this intricate mechanism ?

 

[FurthurBB]

I believe that is what the bible say's and i have no reason to doubt it by the evidence. Especially knowing what i know of mutations.

Which is apparently nothing from what you have been saying here.

Well not sure what you're referring to ? but i have debated in three or four threads here on this issue, and mutations have been covered thoroughly.

I am sure they were covered thoroughly, but your understanding of mutations is severely limited based on the comments you make on here. Oh and as far as the mutation fixation thing. There is a molecular genetics term that means something different than gene fixation. mutation fixation: Definition from Answers.com so I was wrong about that, but if you read the definition you will see that you were wrong too.

 

[FurthurBB]

There have been many organisms go extinct would that not fall under the definition of natural selection ?


Dictionary






Search Results

nat·u·ral se·lec·tion



noun&#8195;



1.The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution

Is this not what i have been saying ? now knowing how rare beneficial mutations are how can you believe that every group of organisms that are alive today ,managed to pass on enough beneficial mutations to where every group could evolve that evolutionist said evolved ? it has never made any sense and i have already provided the method to why we see such diversity and it does not envolve mutations.

As I have told you before, the mutations that help organisms to survive in one environment can be deleterious in another. Mutations are not rare at all, they happen all the time. Since unicellular organism have a very low genetic load and have low fidelity polymerases. Complex multicellular organisms have a very high genetic load and we have high fidelity polymerases. Even humans build up mutations, our polymerase has an error rate of 1 mistake in 1 billion nucleotides. Considering the rate at which we replicate DNA, that is an average of ~1250 mutations in a person's lifetime. This doesn't even account for the UV light we are exposed to or any other mutagens. Some bacterial polymerases have a error rate as high as 1 in 100,000 nucleotides. That means that they would have a mutation at least every 2nd round of DNA replication.

Beneficial mutations are extrememly rare which is what you need for your theory to be true. But most of those mistakes are repaired or they show no effect to the organism at all.

Again you completely ignore what I wrote and keep saying the same thing. Why do you do that?

 

[FurthurBB]

Natural selection is not an intelligent process when did I say that ?

Right here http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...question-click-for-answer-32.html#post4016355

That was sarcasm,my point was that by evolutionists reasoning that natural selection would know which mutant gene was beneficial and which wasn't and let the beneficial mutation remain in the population.

Sarcasm is what that was.

No, by your reasoning you keep misunderstanding these concepts no matter how many times I try to explain them to you.

 

[FurthurBB]

Really ? because most scientist equate the Genetic code as a language. You're reaching, the genetic code allows us to identify individuals.

Standford school of medicine thinks it is a language. from what I have read from you so far I doubt your credentials are more impressive. Like i said quit wasting my time.

Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

Why would you assume I need to read those things? We scientist do call it a genetic code, language, or fingerprint. That is because when DNA has an adenine, RNA polymerase will pair it with a uracil, if there was a thiamine in the DNA before the adenine and a cytosine after you will get a start codon that always makes methionine when translated. What you are not understanding is only uracil or thiamine can base pair with adenine (unless there is something chemically wrong with the bases), and the tRNA for methionine is the only tRNA that can react with AUG (same disclaimer as earlier). It is all very well understood chemical reactions that give us what we call a code or language or fingerprint.

Any message that can be relayed by a code is a form of communication which is a language. Genetic code is the blue print of life.

All you ever want to do is play word games. It gets really old.

 

[FurthurBB]

I am saying God allowed man to change but as you can see it is very little change over the years. All races of humans came from the same parents and each race has different characteristics . That is your change monkey or ape was not in the process. That is evidence that the information was already present, it did not happen through mutations. We are all decendants of the same parents.

There is no evidence that the information was already present at all. Every species starts Just with two parents unless they use binary fission to reproduce then they only come from one parent. God sure is tricky, why did he make it so that when cells within a multicellular organism lose communication they become unicellular organisms?

I don't think God is tricky at all,he is just the best dang scientist of all, so good that we still can't figure out how he did everything, with all the great minds working on it for many years.

Just because you can't reason some things out that he did, is not evidence he didn't do it.

Well, those great minds did figure out what causes cells within a multicellular organism to revert back to a unicellular organism when they lose the ability to communicate with the other cells. You just don't like the answer.

 

[FurthurBB]

I am saying God allowed man to change but as you can see it is very little change over the years. All races of humans came from the same parents and each race has different characteristics . That is your change monkey or ape was not in the process. That is evidence that the information was already present, it did not happen through mutations. We are all decendants of the same parents.

There is no evidence that the information was already present at all. Every species starts with two parents unless they use binary fission to reproduce then they only come from one parent. God sure is tricky, why did he make it so that when cells within a multicellular organism lose communication they become unicellular organisms?

Sure there is you just don't want to admit to it. we see diversity in every family of organisms. And we know many of the changes was the result of interbreeding and or cross breeding.

We know all humans originated from the same mother,but yet the humans are diverse.

Of course there is much diversity within families and especially humans. We have a huge genetic load with lots of variation. I believe Mendel showed us many years ago that interbreeding and cross breeding can cause much variation in a mating population. Some hundred years later armed with Mendelian genetics scientists have found a mechanism that drives genetic variation. Even humans have certain genes that are not faithfully replicated and are not even the same in any two people. Genetic fingerprinting is mathematics based on hypotheses about the commonality of mutations, genetics, and evolutionary theory. Would you like to throw that science out of the courtroom?

 

[FurthurBB]

You believe a non-intelligent non-thinking process called random chance is creator of life.

False. This is yet another example that illustrates how you don't even understand the concept of evolution, despite your insistence it is incorrect. Perhaps you should similarly insist the theory of gravity is wrong because I believe in ether.

Let's once again correct your ignorance on the topic. While evolution does have a random component to it, the filter of natural selection does not produce a random result. Let me dumb this down a bit. Random is rolling two dice and having any of the 6 numbers come up with equal probability. If your dice always land on snake eyes, the game is fixed.


Oh good. Another one of your contrived "proofs" that lacks all supporting evidence. Here's the thing about this "proof": any code I provide you will claim God made. That's how circular reasoning works. From a logical standpoint, it's called moving the goalposts.

Numbers, in their simplicity, create codes and patterns. Prime numbers, the Fibonacci sequence, Ulam's spiral, fractals, crystal structures, etc. But despite codes being produces throughout the natural and physical world, you will in your usual circular reasoning, claim none of them "count" because you don't like them. The key to this particular bit of circular reasoning of yours is the use of the word "code" as it by definition infers something must be DEcoded or read, which itself can only be done by something natural, thus negating all codes entirely, bringing us back to the start of the circular reasoning.


DNA.

Once again we have another argument you aren't quite smart enough to understand on your own. But good job copying and pasting someone else's propaganda. To this end, I have implanted one example of a code in the above set that your author states is not real. I did so purposely to goad you into attempting to reiterate his point on that topic, so I can then dismantle them one by one. I expect you will completely ignore every other example that your author didn't address, pretending they don't exist. This should be entertaining.


Now this uses one of your other tactics I mentioned in my previous list: claiming your theory is supported because someone else can't support their own. Actually I should restate: you're claiming your theory regarding God is supported because someone else can't support your INCORRECT theory regarding evolution. Perhaps next week you can tell me you can prove you shoot fire from your ears because I can't explain how neutrinos work.

How can you say a mutation can add information when it results from a loss of the origional information ? All mutations are an error,it's rearranged information.

Not all mutations result in loss of information. Once again you show how utterly clueless you are on this topic. Refutation without understanding is as good as describing a new surrounding with your eyes closed.

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ? Mutations result in a loss of a function yes or no ?

There is no form of communication where intelligence was not needed.

Why do you say new information arises through mutations but reject it being a means of communication ? one of your terms "DNA transcription" do you care to define it for us ?

No, most mutations do not result in a loss of the original function. The rest is more word games.

 

[FurthurBB]

You sure have convinced me with all that drivel.

That is mostly all their arguments is based on, everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with them. But they can never provide any sort of mechanism that has been observed. The craziest thing about them is they even go to measures to undermind superior scientist in the field that disagree with them having no reason to reject what these scientists say.

It is universially accepted that the genetic code is a code of information which is a language,but he will still try to defend his religion. Anything that shows evidence for an intelligent creator he will reject and hold on to his view of randomness. Everything we see according to his side is by chance alone,but they will try to convince you it is not by random chance,funny how they contradict themselves and not even realize they have contradicted themselves.

Well, if this helps you to sleep at night. I would not want to be the one to ruin it.

 

[FurthurBB]

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ?

No. Not all mutations result in a loss of the original information. This is a topic we've gone over several times in the past. I can't tell whether you decide to purposefully remain ignorant on the matter, or you simply can't grasp the basic concepts. Many mutations do result in a change whereby the new organism does not have the same information as the old. But many mutations also simply add new material without affecting or losing prior code. Again, we've gone over this. I've similarly shown you many examples of this type of de novo mutagenesis, which you have never been able to explain, and continually ignore, pretending they don't exist because it doesn't fit with your conclusion.

This is essentially the difference between our reasoning. I draw a conclusion based on the evidence, whereas you cherry pick your evidence based on your pre-conceived conclusion.


Yes. That is because communication by definition requires intelligence. Circular reasoning is circular. That still has nothing to do with natural codes and patterns. If I take a random string of DNA and shove it into a non-living media composed of protein building blocks and ribosomes, that DNA can be read and produce a protein, despite nothing being alive in the media. No life, no communication, no intelligence, but the code is still there are produces an outcome, just as Ulam's spiral is a code that is there and produces an outcome regardless of whether it is communicated or not.


Nor have I convinced 4th graders. You need to not only read, but understand, before you can disagree with it. I doubt you did either.

That is mostly all their arguments is based on, everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with them.

No. I believe you're ignorant because you don't understand the concept you attempt to deface, because you spout incorrect fabrications of evolution, and because you generally get the topic wrong more times than I can count. Compare that to someone who has read and understands the bible but believes it to be a work of fiction. The former is ignorance, the latter is disagreement. You are confusing the two.

Perhaps if you didn't say so many scientifically inaccurate statements as if they were true, I wouldn't believe you were ignorant.

This is where we usually wait for one to several days for you to find some other author to provide you with content with which you can respond to all of the other points I've made so far, and ignore all the evidence creationist loons can't account for.

Just admit you're wrong and the genetic code is a language.

Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function ? Tell me all these documented beneficial mutations and we will compare numbers to the harmful mutations.

Poop or get off the pot.

Wait nothing, I am still waiting for you to show a form of communication that did not need intelligence to be developed ,it just simply happened by chance ?

This is proof positive that you do not understand. The good ones and bad ones are the same depending on the environment. Some mutations that cause you to lose function must be good for you. Humans have lost the ability to make all vitamins except D and we let bacteria that lives in our digestive system make them for us. Why might that be a good thing? If we lived in a different niche, our lack of ability to make vitamins would severely decrease our fitness.

 

[Youwerecreated]

False. This is yet another example that illustrates how you don't even understand the concept of evolution, despite your insistence it is incorrect. Perhaps you should similarly insist the theory of gravity is wrong because I believe in ether.

Let's once again correct your ignorance on the topic. While evolution does have a random component to it, the filter of natural selection does not produce a random result. Let me dumb this down a bit. Random is rolling two dice and having any of the 6 numbers come up with equal probability. If your dice always land on snake eyes, the game is fixed.


Oh good. Another one of your contrived "proofs" that lacks all supporting evidence. Here's the thing about this "proof": any code I provide you will claim God made. That's how circular reasoning works. From a logical standpoint, it's called moving the goalposts.

Numbers, in their simplicity, create codes and patterns. Prime numbers, the Fibonacci sequence, Ulam's spiral, fractals, crystal structures, etc. But despite codes being produces throughout the natural and physical world, you will in your usual circular reasoning, claim none of them "count" because you don't like them. The key to this particular bit of circular reasoning of yours is the use of the word "code" as it by definition infers something must be DEcoded or read, which itself can only be done by something natural, thus negating all codes entirely, bringing us back to the start of the circular reasoning.


DNA.

Once again we have another argument you aren't quite smart enough to understand on your own. But good job copying and pasting someone else's propaganda. To this end, I have implanted one example of a code in the above set that your author states is not real. I did so purposely to goad you into attempting to reiterate his point on that topic, so I can then dismantle them one by one. I expect you will completely ignore every other example that your author didn't address, pretending they don't exist. This should be entertaining.


Now this uses one of your other tactics I mentioned in my previous list: claiming your theory is supported because someone else can't support their own. Actually I should restate: you're claiming your theory regarding God is supported because someone else can't support your INCORRECT theory regarding evolution. Perhaps next week you can tell me you can prove you shoot fire from your ears because I can't explain how neutrinos work.


Not all mutations result in loss of information. Once again you show how utterly clueless you are on this topic. Refutation without understanding is as good as describing a new surrounding with your eyes closed.

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ? Mutations result in a loss of a function yes or no ?

There is no form of communication where intelligence was not needed.

Why do you say new information arises through mutations but reject it being a means of communication ? one of your terms "DNA transcription" do you care to define it for us ?

No, most mutations do not result in a loss of the original function. The rest is more word games.

This was your only comment worth commenting on so far.

If a new function was created by a mutation that means a function was lost because the information was rearranged. If i am wrong document a mutation that added a new function without losing another function ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no evidence that the information was already present at all. Every species starts Just with two parents unless they use binary fission to reproduce then they only come from one parent. God sure is tricky, why did he make it so that when cells within a multicellular organism lose communication they become unicellular organisms?

I don't think God is tricky at all,he is just the best dang scientist of all, so good that we still can't figure out how he did everything, with all the great minds working on it for many years.

Just because you can't reason some things out that he did, is not evidence he didn't do it.

Well, those great minds did figure out what causes cells within a multicellular organism to revert back to a unicellular organism when they lose the ability to communicate with the other cells. You just don't like the answer.

The only thing evolutionist have been able to show and no one denies that organisms have a limited ability to adapt.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why would you assume I need to read those things? We scientist do call it a genetic code, language, or fingerprint. That is because when DNA has an adenine, RNA polymerase will pair it with a uracil, if there was a thiamine in the DNA before the adenine and a cytosine after you will get a start codon that always makes methionine when translated. What you are not understanding is only uracil or thiamine can base pair with adenine (unless there is something chemically wrong with the bases), and the tRNA for methionine is the only tRNA that can react with AUG (same disclaimer as earlier). It is all very well understood chemical reactions that give us what we call a code or language or fingerprint.

Any message that can be relayed by a code is a form of communication which is a language. Genetic code is the blue print of life.

All you ever want to do is play word games. It gets really old.

What word games am i playing ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

As I have told you before, the mutations that help organisms to survive in one environment can be deleterious in another. Mutations are not rare at all, they happen all the time. Since unicellular organism have a very low genetic load and have low fidelity polymerases. Complex multicellular organisms have a very high genetic load and we have high fidelity polymerases. Even humans build up mutations, our polymerase has an error rate of 1 mistake in 1 billion nucleotides. Considering the rate at which we replicate DNA, that is an average of ~1250 mutations in a person's lifetime. This doesn't even account for the UV light we are exposed to or any other mutagens. Some bacterial polymerases have a error rate as high as 1 in 100,000 nucleotides. That means that they would have a mutation at least every 2nd round of DNA replication.

Beneficial mutations are extrememly rare which is what you need for your theory to be true. But most of those mistakes are repaired or they show no effect to the organism at all.

Again you completely ignore what I wrote and keep saying the same thing. Why do you do that?

No comment on any of this ?

In the beginning nothing existed - There was not anything happening to absolutely nothing. One random day - nothing exploded and became everything.

Then nothing became everything for no logical reason.

Nothing rearranged itself into self replicating,intrcately complex life forms that believed in God.

The abiogenic beginning of all life,you say happened only once - unwitnessed and never happened again - Billions of years ago,how convenient.

How unscientific,How embarrassing.

Mr Evolutionist can you give an example of a single genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the useful and beneficial information in the genome ?

You cannot none exists. How embarrassing.

Mr evolutionist can you document just one,there should be billions if evolutionist is true.

100% verifiable Transitionary fossil that proves definittively that one species actually changed into another completely different species ?

Of course you cannot. None exists. How embarrassing. How frustrating that must be. This means fossils for the common ancestors and the ones in between them.

Scientifically it would normally be unfair to demand 100% proof from anyone but except that you evolutionists demand that we believe evolution as fact.

I f you demand that,then we demand PROOF !

Mr evolutionist- since you are quick to point out that evolution theory only involves the suppositions of the evolutionary processes of living things.

How does evolution deal with the appearance of the Atom and its quantum particles ?
After all,Atoms are non-living yet they are the substance of everything that is living and non-living.

Of course you would answer that,evolution does not attempt to explain the appearance of Atoms and quantum particles.

Oh but it does.

Evolution says that everything came from nothing,billions of years ago. This certainly includes Atoms.

Even if it doesn't deal with evolution or even the big bang then try to explain it by whatever theory that have to do with this.

How convenient that you would pick and choose what you wish to explain and then dismiss a creationist as unintelligent for believing that all that we see,had an intelligent Designer.

Humor me for a moment.

Suppose you were walking on the beach and dug down several feet into the sand and found a perfectly working watch,would you then suppose that watch used to be a rock and then evolved into this intricate mechanism ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which is apparently nothing from what you have been saying here.

Well not sure what you're referring to ? but i have debated in three or four threads here on this issue, and mutations have been covered thoroughly.

I am sure they were covered thoroughly, but your understanding of mutations is severely limited based on the comments you make on here. Oh and as far as the mutation fixation thing. There is a molecular genetics term that means something different than gene fixation. mutation fixation: Definition from Answers.com so I was wrong about that, but if you read the definition you will see that you were wrong too.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong .I spent several years looking at the effects of mutations on fruit flies after college. My speciality was molecular biology from the university of Arizona,please don't insult me with this crap that I don't understand. I Am a creationist and my explanations are gonna disagree with yours,do you understand this ? I don't insult you by saying you don't understand your theory don't say I don't understand my theory. What would you like to discuss regarding mutations that you say I don't understand ? It is proper for you to say I don't agree with you but don't say I don't understand your views. I may have graduated long before you but I do keep up with both sides.

 

[FurthurBB]

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ? Mutations result in a loss of a function yes or no ?

There is no form of communication where intelligence was not needed.

Why do you say new information arises through mutations but reject it being a means of communication ? one of your terms "DNA transcription" do you care to define it for us ?

No, most mutations do not result in a loss of the original function. The rest is more word games.

This was your only comment worth commenting on so far.

If a new function was created by a mutation that means a function was lost because the information was rearranged. If i am wrong document a mutation that added a new function without losing another function ?

I am sure it is the only one you can think of a comment for, but anyway most mutations neither add a function nor take one away because DNA polymerase repairs mistakes by adding or removing nucleotides. Often times, this results in the same function. Though, a lot of species carry duplicate genes. Recently, it was found that P. aeruginosa actually has a tendency to make duplicate genes when they are in a biofilm. The reason for this is not known, but it is quite interesting because bacteria in a biofilm do not live a unicellular lifestyle. If you have more than one copy of a gene and one gets mutated, it would not destroy any function at all.

 

[FurthurBB]

I don't think God is tricky at all,he is just the best dang scientist of all, so good that we still can't figure out how he did everything, with all the great minds working on it for many years.

Just because you can't reason some things out that he did, is not evidence he didn't do it.

Well, those great minds did figure out what causes cells within a multicellular organism to revert back to a unicellular organism when they lose the ability to communicate with the other cells. You just don't like the answer.

The only thing evolutionist have been able to show and no one denies that organisms have a limited ability to adapt.

I know you want to believe this is true, but it is not even close.

 

[FurthurBB]

Well not sure what you're referring to ? but i have debated in three or four threads here on this issue, and mutations have been covered thoroughly.

I am sure they were covered thoroughly, but your understanding of mutations is severely limited based on the comments you make on here. Oh and as far as the mutation fixation thing. There is a molecular genetics term that means something different than gene fixation. mutation fixation: Definition from Answers.com so I was wrong about that, but if you read the definition you will see that you were wrong too.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong .I spent several years looking at the effects of mutations on fruit flies after college. My speciality was molecular biology from the university of Arizona,please don't insult me with this crap that I don't understand. I Am a creationist and my explanations are gonna disagree with yours,do you understand this ? I don't insult you by saying you don't understand your theory don't say I don't understand my theory. What would you like to discuss regarding mutations that you say I don't understand ? It is proper for you to say I don't agree with you but don't say I don't understand your views. I may have graduated long before you but I do keep up with both sides.

I already told you that I do not believe you about your education because everything you have said shows me that it is not possible, unless you had some kind of memory loss. If it is insulting to you that you do not understand, then learn something about it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am sure they were covered thoroughly, but your understanding of mutations is severely limited based on the comments you make on here. Oh and as far as the mutation fixation thing. There is a molecular genetics term that means something different than gene fixation. mutation fixation: Definition from Answers.com so I was wrong about that, but if you read the definition you will see that you were wrong too.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong .I spent several years looking at the effects of mutations on fruit flies after college. My speciality was molecular biology from the university of Arizona,please don't insult me with this crap that I don't understand. I Am a creationist and my explanations are gonna disagree with yours,do you understand this ? I don't insult you by saying you don't understand your theory don't say I don't understand my theory. What would you like to discuss regarding mutations that you say I don't understand ? It is proper for you to say I don't agree with you but don't say I don't understand your views. I may have graduated long before you but I do keep up with both sides.

I already told you that I do not believe you about your education because everything you have said shows me that it is not possible, unless you had some kind of memory loss. If it is insulting to you that you do not understand, then learn something about it.

How many times do I need to ask you what it is I don't understand or what I said that makes you think I suffered from memory loss. I don't care if you believe me or not you have still refused to show evidence that any mutation added information to the genome.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, most mutations do not result in a loss of the original function. The rest is more word games.

This was your only comment worth commenting on so far.

If a new function was created by a mutation that means a function was lost because the information was rearranged. If i am wrong document a mutation that added a new function without losing another function ?

I am sure it is the only one you can think of a comment for, but anyway most mutations neither add a function nor take one away because DNA polymerase repairs mistakes by adding or removing nucleotides. Often times, this results in the same function. Though, a lot of species carry duplicate genes. Recently, it was found that P. aeruginosa actually has a tendency to make duplicate genes when they are in a biofilm. The reason for this is not known, but it is quite interesting because bacteria in a biofilm do not live a unicellular lifestyle. If you have more than one copy of a gene and one gets mutated, it would not destroy any function at all.

Most mutations are neutral that is why you want to make the claim that mutations don't change a function or add a function. But you are so full of crap and this is the last response i will make to you. First you tried to say the genetic code is not a language which overwhelming data suggests it is. Now you're claiming mutations don't cause a loss of a function or gain of a new function ,if that is the case how do you get evolution .


Don't ever question my education and may i suggest you take more classes in biology before you attempt to debate it.



Chapter 16Molecular pathology




16.1Introduction

Go to:Top&#9650;

Molecular pathology seeks to explain why a given genetic change should result in a particular clinical phenotype. We have already reviewed the nature and mechanisms of mutations in Chapter 9 (briefly summarized in Box 16.1); this chapter is concerned with their effects on the phenotype. Molecular pathology requires us to work out the effect of a mutation on the quantity or function of the gene product, and to explain why the change is or is not pathogenic for any particular cell, tissue or stage of development.



Box 16.1

The main classes of mutation. Deletions ranging from 1 bp to megabases. Insertions including duplications.
.
Not surprisingly, given the complexity of genetic interactions, molecular pathology is at present a very imperfect science. The greatest successes to date have been in understanding cancer, where the phenotype to be explained, uncontrolled cell proliferation, is relatively simple. For most other genetic diseases we would like to explain complex clinical findings. Often these are the end result of a long chain of causation, and all too often they are not predictable or even readily comprehensible in our present state of knowledge. Nevertheless, as the emphasis of the Human Genome Project moves from cataloging genes to understanding their function, the study of molecular pathology has moved to center stage.

One of the major advantages of studying humans rather than laboratory organisms is that the healthcare systems worldwide act as a gigantic and continuous mutation screen. Any human phenotype that occurs with a frequency greater than 1 in 109 is probably already described somewhere in the literature, and for most inherited diseases where the gene responsible has been identified, many different mutations are known. We cannot do experiments on humans or breed them to order, but humans provide unique opportunities to observe the clinical effects of many different changes in a given gene. This generates hypotheses, which must then be tested in animals. Thus investigations of naturally occurring human mutations are complemented by studies of specific mutations in transgenic animals (see Chapter 21).



16.2There are rules for the nomenclature of mutations and databases of mutations

Go to:Top&#9650;

The preferred nomenclature of genes is laid down by the Genome Database Nomenclature Committee (http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/; printed version: White et al., 1997). A valuable summary of genetic nomenclature for many different organisms including man was published as a supplement to Trends in Genetics in 1998 (see Further reading).

Mutations can be described in two ways: by their effects or by detailing the sequence change. Box 16.2 shows one possible nomenclature for effects, currently more widely used for laboratory organisms than humans. Box 16.3 summarizes the recommended conventions for describing sequence changes (Antonarakis et al., 1998). Systematic attempts are now being made to establish disease-specific databases of mutations (Krawczak and Cooper, 1997). These can be accessed through central points such as the Human Gene Mutation Database (http://www.uwcm.ac.uk/uwcm/mg/hgmd0.html). For some but not all genes, allelic variants are also listed in the OMIM database (http://www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk/omim/). Cooper and Krawczak (1993) have performed a number of useful meta-analyses on diferent types of human mutation.



Box 16.2

A nomenclature for describing the effect of an allele. Null allele or amorph: an allele that produces no product. Hypomorph: an allele that produces a reduced amount or activity of product.
.


Box 16.3

Nomenclature for describing mutations (see Antonarakis et al. (1998) for full details). Use the one-letter codes: A, alanine; C, cysteine; D, aspartic acid; E, glutamic acid; F, phenylalanine; G, glycine; H, histidine; I, isoleucine; (more...)
.


16.3A first classification of mutations is into loss of function vs gain of function mutations

Go to:Top&#9650;


16.3.1The convenient nomenclature of A and a alleles hides a vast diversity of DNA sequence changes

Over 750 different cystic fibrosis mutant alleles have been described, and a similar number of different mutations in the &#946;-globin gene. There is no reason why these should all fit into a few tidy categories. In principle however, mutation of a gene might cause a phenotypic change in either of two ways:
•
the product may have reduced or no function (loss of function mutation - an amorph or hypomorph in the terminology of Box 16.2);

•
the product may do something positively abnormal (gain of function mutation - a hypermorph or neomorph).


Loss of function mutations most often produce recessive phenotypes. For most gene products the precise quantity is not crucial, and we can get by on half the normal amount. Thus most inborn errors of metabolism are recessive. For some gene products, however, 50% of the normal level is not sufficient for normal function, and haploinsufficiency produces an abnormal phenotype, which is therefore inherited in a dominant manner (see Section 16.4.3). Sometimes also a nonfunctional mutant polypeptide interferes with the function of the normal allele in a heterozygous person, giving a dominant negative effect (an antimorph in the terminology of Box 16.2 - see Section 16.4.4).

Gain of function mutations usually cause dominant phenotypes, because the presence of a normal allele does not prevent the mutant allele from behaving abnormally. Often this involves a control or signaling system behaving inappropriately - signaling when it should not, or failing to switch a process off when it should. Sometimes the gain of function involves the product doing something novel - a protein containing an expanded polyglutamine repeat forming abnormal aggregates, for example.

Inevitably some mutations cannot easily be classified as either loss or gain of function. Has a permanently open ion channel lost the function of closing or gained the function of inappropriate opening? A dominant negative mutant allele has lost its function but also does something positively abnormal. Nevertheless, the distinction between loss of function and gain of function is a useful first tool for thinking about molecular pathology.


16.3.2Loss of function is likely when point mutations in a gene produce the same pathological change as deletions

Purely genetic evidence, without biochemical studies, can often suggest whether a phenotype is caused by loss or gain of function. When a clinical phenotype results from loss of function of a gene, we would expect any change that inactivates the gene product to produce the same clinical result. We should be able to find point mutations which have the same effect as mutations that delete or disrupt the gene. Waardenburg syndrome Type 1 (MIM 193500) provides an example. As Figure 16.1 shows, causative mutations in the PAX3 gene include amino acid substitutions, frameshifts, splicing mutations, and in some patients complete deletion of the PAX3 sequence. Since all these events produce the same clinical result, its cause must be loss of function of PAX3. Similarly, among diseases caused by unstable trinucleotide repeats (see Box 16.7), Fragile-X and Friedreich ataxia are occasionally caused by other types of mutation in their respective genes, pointing to loss of function, whereas Huntington disease is never seen with any other type of mutation, suggesting a gain of function.



Figure 16.1

Loss of function mutations in the PAX3 gene. The 10 exons of the gene are shown as boxes, with the connecting introns not to scale. The shaded areas show the sequences encoding (more...)
.


Box 16.7

Unstable expanding repeats - a novel cause of disease. Unstable expanding trinucleotide repeats were an entirely novel and unprecedented disease mechanism when first discovered in 1991, and they (more...)
.

16.3.3Gain of function is likely when only a specific mutation in a gene produces a given pathology

Gain of function is likely to require a much more specific change than loss of function. The mutational spectrum in gain-of-function conditions should be correspondingly more restricted, and the same condition should not be produced by deletion or disruption of the gene. Likely examples include Huntington disease (see Box 16.7), and achondroplasia (MIM 100800: short-limbed dwarfism). Virtually all achondroplastics have one of two mutations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor gene FGFR3, both of which cause the same amino acid change, G380R (Bellus et al., 1995). Other mutations in the same gene produce other syndromes (Section 16.7.3). For unknown reasons, the mutation rate for G380R is extraordinarily high, so that achondroplasia is one of the commoner genetic abnormalities, despite requiring a very specific DNA sequence change.

Mutational homogeneity is a good first indicator of a gain of function, but there are other reasons why a single mutation may account for all or most cases of a disease:
•
diseases where what one observes is directly related to the gene product itself, rather than a more remote consequence of the genetic change, may be defined in terms of a particular variant product, as in sickle cell disease (see Box 16.5);

•
a molecular mechanism may make a certain sequence change in a gene much more likely than any other change - e.g. the CGG expansion in Fragile-X syndrome (see Box 16.8);

•
there may be a founder effect - for example, certain disease mutations are common among Ashkenazi Jews, presumably reflecting mutations present in a fairly small number of founders of the present Ashkenazi population (Motulsky, 1995);

•
selection favoring heterozygotes (Section 3.3.2) enhances founder effects and often results in one or a few specific mutations being common in a population.




Box 16.5

Hemoglobinopathies. Hemoglobinopathies occupy a special place in clinical genetics for many reasons. They are by far the most common serious mendelian diseases on a worldwide scale. Globins illuminate important (more...)
.


Box 16.8

Laboratory diagnosis of fragile X. Cytogenetic testing - the fragile site is seen only when cells are grown under conditions of folate or thymidine depletion. For unknown reasons, (more...)
.

16.3.4Deciding whether a DNA sequence change in a gene is pathogenic can be difficult

Not every sequence variant seen in an affected person is necessarily pathogenic. If the genome-wide average heterozygosity of 0.0032 is applied to coding sequences, then screening a panel of 100 patients for mutations in a 3-kb coding sequence would reveal about 500 sequence changes. Even allowing for the much higher conservation of coding sequences, screening on such a scale will almost certainly reveal some rare nonpathogenic sequence variants, as well as pathogenic changes. If each variant occurs in one person in 10 000 in the population, it will not show up in any panel of normal controls of realistic size. How does one decide whether a sequence variant is pathogenic?

If the pathogenic mechanism is gain of function, then as explained above (Section 16.3.3), the mutation is likely to be very specific. Any sequence change different from the standard mutation is probably not pathogenic, at least for the disease in question. Loss of function mutations are usually much more heterogeneous. Only a functional test, either in vitro (Chapter 20) or in vivo (Chapter 21), can definitively show whether a DNA sequence change in a gene affects the function, but useful clues can be obtained by considering the nature of the sequence change (Box 16.4).



Box 16.4

Guidelines for deciding whether a DNA sequence change is pathogenic. Deletions of the whole gene, nonsense mutations and frameshifts are almost certain to destroy the gene function. Mutations that (more...)
.


16.4Loss of function mutations

Go to:Top&#9650;


16.4.1Many different changes to a gene can cause loss of function

Not surprisingly, there are many ways of reducing or abolishing the function of a gene product (Table 16.1 and Figure 16.2). Some of these have been discussed in Section 9.4. The hemoglobinopathies (Box 16.5) exemplify many of these mechanisms especially well. In fact, globin mutations can be found to illustrate virtually every process described in this book. Readers with a particular interest in these diseases are recommended to consult one of the excellent reviews of this topic (e.g. Weatherall et al., 1995; see further reading).



Table 16.1

Eleven ways to reduce or abolish the function of a gene product (see Table 9.5 for a classification of mutations by their nature and location in the gene).
.


Figure 16.2

Deletions of &#945;-globin genes in &#945;-thalassemia. Normal copies of chromosome 16 carry two active &#945;-globin genes and an inactive pseudogene arranged in tandem. Repeat blocks (labeled (more...)
.
When considering the likely result of a mutation on the gene product, some points to bear in mind are as follows:
•
Small deletions and insertions have a much more drastic effect on the gene product if they introduce a frameshift (that is, if they add or remove a number of nucleotides that is not an exact multiple of 3). Deletions in the dystrophin (DMD) gene provide striking examples (Figure 16.3). Almost regardless of the size of the deletion, frameshifting deletions produce the lethal Duchenne muscular dystrophy, in which no dystrophin is produced, whereas nonframeshifting mutations cause the milder Becker form, in which dystrophin is present but abnormal.

•
Nonsense mutations often trigger mRNA instability (see Section 9.4.6 and Hentze and Kulozik, 1999) rather than cause production of a truncated protein.

•
Base substitutions in coding sequences may be pathogenic because of an effect on splicing or because they destroy an embedded signal (a nuclear localization signal, for example), rather than because of their effect on the amino acids encoded. Activation of a cryptic splice site is particularly hard to predict - see Section 9.4.5 and Berget (1995).




Figure 16.3

Deletions in the central part of the dystrophin gene associated with Becker and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Numbered boxes represent exons 43–55. Deletions that generate frameshifts cause


Molecular pathology - Human Molecular Genetics - NCBI Bookshelf