Hi, I'm Mark, a YEC looking for a fellowship forum

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What about S phase DNA repair fixes limits for species change?
 

Flipper

New member
You asked about the mechanism that fixed limits, I said, 'the S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle', it is only now you are demanding 100% fidelity in replication. I never said that living systems must remain static or that mutations did not slip through, I said that mutations are a failure of DNA repair. I answered the question and you moved the goal posts which is not my real problem with what you are saying. My problem is that you have not acknowledged the actual molecular mechanism here or suggested one that passes the normative bounds of genetic alleles.

Mark

It isn't "only now", I asked what mechanism you had that prevented all these small changes we both agree happen from adding up to large changes.

You've so far failed to show how DNA repair mechanisms prevent large scale changes over time. In fact, the very page you linked to has a couple of examples that show how mutations can get fixed in a population, including a nice measurement of mutation rates via genetic drift.

Is there some content on that page you linked to that actually supports this idea of a locking mechanism? The conclusion on the page actually seems to say the opposite:

Germline mutations, in contrast, will be found in every cell descended from the zygote to which that mutant gamete contributed. If an adult is successfully produced, every one of its cells will contain the mutation. Included among these will be the next generation of gametes, so if the owner is able to become a parent, that mutation will pass down to yet another generation.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hey! It's atheist PHD returned!

What mind bending experiment have you got set up for us this time? :chuckle:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The theory of evilution thrives on the 'gain of genetic information' from one generation to the next

That's the one peddled by YECs. Evolutionary theory is not about "gain of genetic information." In evolutionary processes, sometimes we see a gain in information, sometimes we see a loss. Would you like to learn why?

while the truth of Creation thrives on the 'loss of genetic information' from one generation to the next.

Actually, it's not Creation, but creationism that imagines such a thing. As you might know, Genesis directly contradicts YE creationism.

The great variety we see in Creation today is due to a loss of information from the original felines and canines and primates and so on.

Couldn't be true. If you assume two of the "cat kind" on the Ark, there could only be at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet there are dozens for each. The rest must have appeared by mutation.

You're a victim only so long as you faithfully believe all the fairy tales they tell you. Christianity isn't YEC; never was.
 

Eggasai

New member
It isn't "only now", I asked what mechanism you had that prevented all these small changes we both agree happen from adding up to large changes.

There you go moving the goal posts again, you asked what mechanism limits changes, I said:

The S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle:
In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Kimball Biology Pages, Mutations)​

You've so far failed to show how DNA repair mechanisms prevent large scale changes over time. In fact, the very page you linked to has a couple of examples that show how mutations can get fixed in a population, including a nice measurement of mutation rates via genetic drift.

Yea and Kimball gives some pretty striking examples of how mutations cause disease and disorder.

Is there some content on that page you linked to that actually supports this idea of a locking mechanism? The conclusion on the page actually seems to say the opposite:

Never said it was a locking mechanism, I said there were limits.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Yea and Kimball gives some pretty striking examples of how mutations cause disease and disorder.

It turns out that most mutations don't do much of anything. You likely have several yourself. A few do things that are harmful. A very few actually make organisms more fit. Natural selection sorts them out, because the unfit tend to die before reproducing and the fit tend to leave more offspring.

Never said it was a locking mechanism, I said there were limits.

So did Darwin. Otherwise, we'd see every imaginable variation, and there'd be no discrete species.
 

Flipper

New member
There you go moving the goal posts again, you asked what mechanism limits changes, I said:

The S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle:
In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Kimball Biology Pages, Mutations)​

I fail to see how I am moving the goal posts. I also fail to see what relevance the S phase mechanism has in preventing a whole series of small changes adding up to larger changes over time. I am assuming you're aware that evolution does not occur at the level of an individual, but rather in a population over time?

In the light of this, and in the light of the fact that we both agree that mutations (repair mechanisms or not) can get fixed in populations, I'm confused as to what relevance S phase repair has to my question? No doubt I'm being very dense, but it seems to me that you've signally failed to show how S phase prevents changes from being fixed.

If S phase did repair DNA so that copying always occurred with 100% fidelity, you might have a point. Complete perfection in copying would be in insurmountable problem for evolution, but we both agree that that doesn't happen.

Your observations about deleterious mutations are true, but mostly irrelevant. It's well known that many mutations can be harmful; no one is arguing that.

Never said it was a locking mechanism, I said there were limits.

I don't really want to quibble about the exact term -- I'm interested in the actual evidence for this "thus far and no further" approach to microevolution. It's true, you said there were limits. But saying is one thing, actually showing that there are limits is another.

So far, you haven't done that at all. You have just made an assertion that the S phase somehow prevents lots of small mutations adding up to large change over time.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If the S phase process is repairing DNA, then anything that escapes its attention will, by definition, be bad for the organism.

Right?
 

Flipper

New member
If the S phase process is repairing DNA, then anything that escapes its attention will, by definition, be bad for the organism.

Right?

Wrong.

Just to be clear here, what you're saying is that all mutations are inevitably bad. Is that correct?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am trying to understand what Eggasai is saying, just as you are. Quit trying to poison the discussion before it's started. :nono:

Just to be clear here, what you're saying is that all mutations are inevitably bad. Is that correct?

If you're not clear on what is being said why are you jumping on the "No" bandwagon so fervently? If the S phase processes do indeed work to preserve good function then anything that escapes their attention will be bad for the organism.
 

Flipper

New member
I am trying to understand what Eggasai is saying, just as you are. Quit trying to poison the discussion before it's started. :nono:

Well quote him next time then, if you're not talking to me. Still doesn't make your observation correct though.


If you're not clear on what is being said why are you jumping on the "No" bandwagon so fervently? If the S phase processes do indeed work to preserve good function then anything that escapes their attention will be bad for the organism.

So, like I said, you're saying that no mutations can be advantageous? How is it that the S phase mechanism determines a good function from a bad one? And how does it detect SNP changes that occurred before DNA replication?

I also mentioned earlier that even with DNA repair mechanisms, replication is not a perfect process:

Eukaryotic DNA replication is highly stratified, with different genomic regions shown to replicate at characteristic times during S phase. Here we observe that mutation rate, as reflected in recent evolutionary divergence and human nucleotide diversity, is markedly increased in later-replicating regions of the human genome. All classes of substitutions are affected, suggesting a generalized mechanism involving replication time-dependent DNA damage. This correlation between mutation rate and regionally stratified replication timing may have substantial evolutionary implications.

Human Mutation Rate Associated with DNA Replication Timing
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's the same all over, I'm not worried about evolutionists, I've been dealing with these guys too long. Most of what is passing for 'debunking' is Talk Origins propaganda and personal attacks. I really hope they don't muddy the waters too much because I'd like to get a chance to get acquainted with a few YECs.

Learned a couple of things over the years I'd like to share. Appreciate the warm welcome, look forward to seeing more of you.

Grace and peace,
Mark
Sounds like you will do fine here. There is also a niffty little ignore feature you can use if anyone is stocking you.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well quote him next time then, if you're not talking to me. Still doesn't make your observation correct though.
I'm talking to you as well. :idunno:

So, like I said, you're saying that no mutations can be advantageous?
It will never be good for an organism that there are mutations. You might be able to argue that one, specific mutation is beneficial at some low level, but you can never claim that random changes to information might make the information better. Noise always degrades signal. It never improves it.

How is it that the S phase mechanism determines a good function from a bad one?
It was designed that way. :thumb:

It certainly didn't learn to fix mistakes by means of random mutation and natural selection. :nono:

And how does it detect SNP changes that occurred before DNA replication?
Dunno.

I also mentioned earlier that even with DNA repair mechanisms, replication is not a perfect process:
Which means .. what? :idunno:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sounds like you will do fine here. There is also a niffty little ignore feature you can use if anyone is stocking you.
Stalking or stocking... they are both good reasons to put someone on ignore.

Hey, Delmar, when can you make it up here for some fall grilling?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
If the S phase process is repairing DNA, then anything that escapes its attention will, by definition, be bad for the organism.

Right?

Well, let's take a look. About a century ago, a certain male was born in a small town in Italy, and the repair process failed so that a new blood protein was code for. The old protein still worked, because it was a duplicate gene, but the new one provided very good resistance to hardening of the arteries.

Was that good or bad for him? If you know that, you have your answer.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Stalking or stocking... they are both good reasons to put someone on ignore.
Oops! I was talking about someone puting you on the shelf and putting a lable on your forehead. Yeah that's it :D
Hey, Delmar, when can you make it up here for some fall grilling?

Good idea! I'll talk to Mrs Delmar.
 
I'm searching for the adaptive evolutionary processes responsible for taking the limited number of living things on the Ark, into the world of their descendants in all their vast array.

I'm doing some research on that issue - specifically the genetic variation in humans since the ark. I'll be posting it eventually - but it is becoming pretty lengthy - and I keep finding new interesting data.
 
You might want to consider something about ‘forums’?
Do you think that God doesn’t notice believers are just using the Internet as an excuse to ‘avoid’ Having To Physically Go Into All The World and do what Jesus commands [Mark 16:15-18]? Ergo, most believers aren’t joining forums to serve God or experience fellowship in Christ but rather they just want to boast and start arguments and insult everyone who doesn’t agree with their limited understanding of “God” or even worse and perhaps more likely; they were tempted into a forum by the devil to distract them From God?

i.e. Satan doesn’t want Christians going out In Person into the real world and spreading the gospel and edifying and healing and baptizing etc. and the Internet provides the ideal diversion to excuse believers from actually talking with real people In Person, knocking on people’s doors In Person and laying hands on people etc.? Thus, “forums” created to entice idle lazy disobedient believers to cower behind Alias usernames spewing biblical quotes from ignorance instead of declaring their Real names and going into the Real world and serving God as they Really should be doing? So the devil is quite happy to lure naïve believers into cyberspace, away from the real world and thus keeping them from Doing Those Things in service to God “in person”? And as long as people are distracted on the Internet arguing and bible-bashing each other, the devil doesn’t have to lift a finger to prevent “those believers” from obeying Mark 16:15-18 because they are already neatly trapped in the “Internet” and they may never learn how to truly Walk in Christ? In other words, their faith is so weak that they couldn’t preach anything to anyone In Person even if they wanted to and they probably never even spoke one prayer to God asking him to bless them with the ‘power’ to go out and interact with people Face-to-Face and obey what Mark 16:15-18 commands and in the end, that neglect could very well cost them their souls?

Some of these forums may also have been created by believers who do not have a ‘leadership role’ in their own physical church or maybe don’t belong to any church? So the “Internet” affords them the opportunity to ‘practice at’ being a cyber-pastor over their own flock of Anonymous cyber-lambs/wolves but they don’t have to face the inevitability of being questioned about what they’re doing and believing and saying because when the going gets tough, they simply remove the topics they don’t like and/or ban the people they cannot face. Likewise, many of the forum members are probably in the same boat and without the ‘power’ to do what Mark 16:15-18 says but a forum also enables ‘them’ to pretend they are wise church elders so confidently quoting scripture while arguing uncontrollably with anonymous strangers who might very well be wolves, for all They know or care to find out? ;)

Too scary for you to believe that might be what’s happening? Are you offended that your forum might not be serving any divine purpose whatsoever and that You might actually have to re-think some things about your faith and biblical interpretation? Shocked that You might need some spiritual correcting or you may actually be lost again? Well I hope you are shocked or at least concerned because that might mean you actually Do Care To Know if you’re believing and doing the right thing in Jesus’ name and that you do want to Listen and Learn and grow in Christ like the rest of us foolish wretches? And maybe you will now pray for God to show you what your true good works might be and bless you to properly serve his will, not Yours? Rather than anonymously prancing around in a forum trying to impress someone with your biblical knowledge because you’re afraid and powerless to face the real world in His name? Or like believers who segregate themselves in forums by denomination, as if to advertise that they might somehow be better Christians than non-denominational followers or that Adventists might somehow be better Christians than Protestants or Catholics might somehow be better Christians than Anglicans or Christadelphians might somehow be better Christians than Lutherans or Baptists might somehow be better Christians than Evangelicals etc. etc. etc.? But there it is! We now have thousands of believers that have migrated to the Internet wagging their uncontrollable tongues (James 3:8) in the vacuum of cyberspace and pretending to be warriors for God but in reality, they are merely deluding themselves? And for all You know, the devil’s minions also created the forum You are babbling in and the yolk is on you? ;) Don’t believe it? If you can’t, then you are ignorant because I’ve witnessed so-called Christian forums where the moderators are actually atheist or worse perhaps and so the joke was indeed on “those believers who participated”.

But what do I know? Anyway, kudos to those responsible for this forum if this topic actually survived their screening process thus allowing members to read it and God to do the moderating? Notwithstanding, I do question the advent of forums and the motives of those who create them since, if for no other reason, that the ‘nature’ of a forum does not promote love and patience but rather conflict, hatred and impatience. So if anyone thinks I’m here looking for forum buddies, friends or pals, let me be perfectly clear. God willing, I’m compelled to be here mainly to WARN those believers who may have been lured here by the evil one and/or inadvertently; about the ‘danger’ of forums and the Internet! Period.

And whether or not the creators of these forums had good intentions, I have witnessed far too much evil in each and every forum I participated in. Without exception, Each and Every so-called Christian forum proved to be little more than a chaotic hostile vehicle for judgmental, hateful, ignorant administrators and moderators trying to play God instead of ‘facing God’s truth’ in obedience to Christ and most members responded in kind because most people weren’t there to blamelessly, harmlessly debate Christianity and perhaps learn something and grow in Him. Quite the contrary, they were there to fight and argue their “limited understanding of God” at any cost and when the Mods/Admins couldn’t support their opinions and/or felt threatened to perhaps being exposed as false brethren, they just removed the topics and banned anyone who didn’t kneel to their rhetoric and man-made rules. Which means they aren’t ‘forums’ in the first place because people weren’t allowed to freely and honestly debate or discuss anything. ;)

So I guess we’ll soon find out if this forum operates similarly and if believers here put God’s Laws first instead of man-contrived-forum-rules? As well, I won’t be posting any further comments nor responding publically to anyone’s threads in this forum either because I’m not here to debate anything with anyone especially in an almost certain ungodly atmosphere like ‘this’ and so as to then perhaps be accused of lending credence to any otherwise legitimate Internet platforms let alone “so-called Christian forums”? I’ve already learned my lesson God willing, about the evil of the “Internet” and those human resources who would perpetrate evil there. Indeed, I’m genuinely repulsed now just ‘joining’ any of these forums in order to “warn” those whom God may wish to be warned? I may not even have any divine purpose for being on the Internet myself but in the event that just one person is properly corrected or saved by doing so, then it was absolutely worth the effort. Hallelujah!

Paul
 

Eggasai

New member
If the S phase process is repairing DNA, then anything that escapes its attention will, by definition, be bad for the organism.

Right?

The vast majority do nothing at all, they are referred to as neutral. In, for instance, a protein coding gene they can cause a frameshift. Because the amino acids come in threes (triplet codens) the genomic mechanisms will insert a stop coden. On rare occasions a mutation can afford a beneficial effect but these are exceedingly rare.

Take your time with this but bear in mind that adaptations happen without random mutations.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top