Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The lungfish genome, tetrapods, and junk DNA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Just saying howdy with no attempt whatsoever to derail the thread in any way, shape or form.
    This seems to fly directly in the face of one of the most sacred tradition of Theologyweb


    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      Yes, it was a proteasome in archaea, and it remains one today. And we know duplications take place in every single generation of humans, so it doesn't matter whether they're selectable.
      Yet one proteasome isoform has an unknown function, so protein complexes built off a proteasome need not have a proteasome's functionality, and thus might not even be selectable: "Although the precise function of these proteasome isoforms is still largely unknown, cells expressing these proteasomes show enhanced resistance to toxicity induced by metallic ions such as cadmium." (Wikipedia).

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Yet one proteasome isoform has an unknown function, so protein complexes built off a proteasome need not have a proteasome's functionality, and thus might not even be selectable: "Although the precise function of these proteasome isoforms is still largely unknown, cells expressing these proteasomes show enhanced resistance to toxicity induced by metallic ions such as cadmium." (Wikipedia).
        Please, read before you latch on to the first thing that you think makes for an argument.

        Your argument would be stupid even if it were factually correct. But it's not even factually correct. Those isoforms exist in addition to the usual proteasome, as the Wikipedia entry you cite makes clear just a couple of sentences before the part you quote.

        It's quite clear that you care far more about making an argument than you do about understanding anything. Maybe try reversing the priorities? You'd come across as less clueless.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          Just saying howdy with no attempt whatsoever to derail the thread in any way, shape or form.
          Oh, come on, it takes barely any effort to detail a thread - you can do better than that.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            Please, read before you latch on to the first thing that you think makes for an argument.

            Your argument would be stupid even if it were factually correct. But it's not even factually correct. Those isoforms exist in addition to the usual proteasome, as the Wikipedia entry you cite makes clear just a couple of sentences before the part you quote.

            It's quite clear that you care far more about making an argument than you do about understanding anything. Maybe try reversing the priorities? You'd come across as less clueless.
            It's pretty clear that Lee only hunts for stuff that confirms his view disregarding everything else.

            It's like Ken Ham's response during his debate with Bill Nye a few years back when asked if there was anything that could change his mind concerning his views and Ham replied that nothing would.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              Those isoforms exist in addition to the usual proteasome, as the Wikipedia entry you cite makes clear just a couple of sentences before the part you quote
              Yes, but they demonstrate that a modified proteasome can have a different function. But this won't support your scenario, where it's (selectable!) proteasomes all the way up.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Yes, but they demonstrate that a modified proteasome can have a different function. But this won't support your scenario, where it's (selectable!) proteasomes all the way up.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                Meaningless, and not worthy of a response.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Yes, but they demonstrate that a modified proteasome can have a different function. But this won't support your scenario, where it's (selectable!) proteasomes all the way up.
                  You're not getting it. Proteasome null mutations are lethal in every organism we've looked at, including humans. The proteasome in humans is still under purifying selection against loss of function.

                  That in no way means that some cells types in a human (or some other organism) either don't need the proteasome (although i don't think this is the case), or need the proteasome plus a more specialized version of it. In fact, the latter is the case for immune cells.

                  So, you can have variant versions without it meaning that the primary version is not under selection.

                  This would all be so much easier if you'd just accept that you don't know much biology and ask questions, instead of triumphantly thinking you have a killer argument every time you read something you don't fully understand.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    You're not getting it. Proteasome null mutations are lethal in every organism we've looked at, including humans. The proteasome in humans is still under purifying selection against loss of function.

                    That in no way means that some cells types in a human (or some other organism) either don't need the proteasome (although i don't think this is the case), or need the proteasome plus a more specialized version of it. In fact, the latter is the case for immune cells.

                    So, you can have variant versions without it meaning that the primary version is not under selection.

                    This would all be so much easier if you'd just accept that you don't know much biology and ask questions, instead of triumphantly thinking you have a killer argument every time you read something you don't fully understand.
                    Excellent post and explanation! I admire your patience in providing scientific explanations which lee merriill repeatedly ignores.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Proteasome null mutations are lethal in every organism we've looked at, including humans. The proteasome in humans is still under purifying selection against loss of function.
                      So it's even more difficult for the proteasome to evolve, which makes your scenario less likely.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        So it's even more difficult for the proteasome to evolve, which makes your scenario less likely.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        Please, please, please get a book on basic biology. You are talking out of your nether regions, too clueless to realize just how not even close to even being merely mistaken you are. The wormtongue's like Behe have whispered their lies into your ear for so long you basically don't know up from down.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          So it's even more difficult for the proteasome to evolve, which makes your scenario less likely.
                          So, faced with obvious evidence that Behe's argument is ignoring known examples in biology, Lee retreats to the following: if it can't be selected for, then it's impossible; if it can be selected for, then it's impossible.

                          Michael? Michael Behe, is that you?

                          Or is Lee actually a troll? I've tended to apply Hanlon's razor to Lee ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"), assuming he genuinely believed what he was saying, but just had some Dunning-Kruger issues. But this reply and the one in the other thread are causing me to reassess that.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            So, faced with obvious evidence that Behe's argument is ignoring known examples in biology, Lee retreats to the following: if it can't be selected for, then it's impossible; if it can be selected for, then it's impossible.
                            No, a sequence of unselected mutations makes a path unlikely (not impossible). If the path is selectable at each step, then it is likely.

                            Or is Lee actually a troll? I've tended to apply Hanlon's razor to Lee ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"), assuming he genuinely believed what he was saying, but just had some Dunning-Kruger issues. But this reply and the one in the other thread are causing me to reassess that.
                            You can tell who has the better argument, oftentimes, by checking who feels the need to resort to insults.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              No, a sequence of unselected mutations makes a path unlikely (not impossible). If the path is selectable at each step, then it is likely.
                              I just explained that it's under selection at each step, and your response was "So it's even more difficult for the proteasome to evolve."

                              Which is it?

                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              You can tell who has the better argument, oftentimes, by checking who feels the need to resort to insults.
                              Forcing us to explain basic biology to you over and over while you confidently call us wrong is insulting.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

                                Forcing us to explain basic biology to you over and over while you confidently call us wrong is insulting.
                                A real life example of your statement "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                I really don't know why Lee keeps posting in NatSci since it is evident that he has no interest in actual science.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:59 AM
                                0 responses
                                9 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Sparko, 04-09-2021, 07:35 AM
                                4 responses
                                22 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 04-05-2021, 08:45 AM
                                9 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Seeker, 03-26-2021, 10:22 PM
                                10 responses
                                126 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Seeker
                                by Seeker
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-23-2021, 12:38 PM
                                4 responses
                                55 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X