The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How do viruses pack more information into the same sized genome?  (Read 20907 times)

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage

Isn't there some effective method of silencing forum trolls?

Yes, ignore him. I'm going to.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8122
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
"The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count".
 
Not evinced and probably not true.
Why the need keep making false statements in support of some all powerfull god?

Anyone who seriously believes that a god determines who is afflicted by disease is understandably going to be sycophantic to that god.
They are of course deluding themselves. Genetic characteristics will largely determine what diseases we are subject to,
characteristics which were established before birth, before any sycophancy or sinning could take place.
So even if this god actually existed, kissing their ass is not going to change your genetic susceptibility to disease.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2008 16:07:23 by RD »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Don't think so: jimbob said that the moderators aren't censors. So you're out of luck, I fear.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
I'll give you 13 without even breaking sweat - Galapagos finches.

Just to remind you. I accept that micro-evolution occurs, and some speciation. Remember that?

Also remember that Simpson said that it is pointless trying to find transitions at or above family level.

Which is what evolution needs to do. It also needs to explain how the finches learned to fly. As Dembski says:

"A scientific explanation needs to call upon causal powers sufficient to explain the effect in question. Otherwise, the effect is unexplained." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.12.Unfettered_Resp_to_Orr.htm
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
Go find me a dozen examples of mutations producing new species. There's the whole internet out there for you to search.

Just to remind you - that was the challenge. I answered it. Now you're saying you accept that micro-evolution occurs as if my answer does not satisfy your challenge. There are 13 species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. Is 13 ≥ a dozen? As far as I'm aware, it is. I think anyone who thinks properly will accept that I did indeed find "a dozen examples of mutations producing new species". By arguing that I did not you are merely trying to defend an untenable position.

So, here's a challenge for you - prove to us the method by which those finches came about if it was not mutation-based evolution.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Quote
Go find me a dozen examples of mutations producing new species. There's the whole internet out there for you to search.

Just to remind you - that was the challenge. I answered it. Now you're saying you accept that micro-evolution occurs as if my answer does not satisfy your challenge. There are 13 species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. Is 13 ≥ a dozen? As far as I'm aware, it is. I think anyone who thinks properly will accept that I did indeed find "a dozen examples of mutations producing new species". By arguing that I did not you are merely trying to defend an untenable position.

So, here's a challenge for you - prove to us the method by which those finches came about if it was not mutation-based evolution.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Just out of idle curiosity can I ask why anyone is askig Asyncritus (or anyone else for that matter) why God did something?
Even if God existed then His last "direct communication" was roughly 2000 years ago. That story was written up a few hundred years later in the Bible.
It doesn't mention viruses. There is no way that anyone could know why God might have invented them. For anyone to claim to "know the mind of God" is outstandingly conceited.

I'm also intrigued by Asyncritus's reason for disease and death. It might be fair enough to say that, without death we would still have Hitler and Stalin.
OK that means that there is variation in the nature of people. If God aranges that disease (or whatever) kills them before they reporoduce then isn't that exactly the same as evolution anyway?

I'd also like to know what evil the dead bird I found in my garden had done?
« Last Edit: 15/11/2008 17:31:02 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
I'd also like to know what evil the dead bird I found in my garden had done?


Crapped on my car just after I'd polished it!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
If Arse-incritus doesn't answer me soon, I shall feel compelled to post this:-


« Last Edit: 15/11/2008 21:10:44 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8122
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
I don't think Asyncritus is a moron...

Quote
Moron was originally an English scientific term ... used to describe a person with a mental age located between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

I do think that he has been subject to indoctrination...

Quote
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
« Last Edit: 15/11/2008 21:43:40 by RD »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Maybe it should be a Prat Alert then!
 

Offline SquarishTriangle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
I'd also like to know what evil the dead bird I found in my garden had done?

...and why I'm still here. Maybe he has a terrible aim.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Quote
Go find me a dozen examples of mutations producing new species. There's the whole internet out there for you to search.

Just to remind you - that was the challenge. I answered it. Now you're saying you accept that micro-evolution occurs as if my answer does not satisfy your challenge. There are 13 species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. Is 13 ≥ a dozen? As far as I'm aware, it is. I think anyone who thinks properly will accept that I did indeed find "a dozen examples of mutations producing new species". By arguing that I did not you are merely trying to defend an untenable position.

So, here's a challenge for you - prove to us the method by which those finches came about if it was not mutation-based evolution.

You're assuming the case.

As I understand it, it was 'reproductive isolation' that did the trick - which is another name for geographically forced inbreeding. And inbreeding does some strange things.

What it doesn't do is produce new families and above. Which, just to remind you, is what you have to establish.

And in case you may have forgotten, you have to also account for the existence of 14 or so new PHYLA  in the Cambrian. So account already.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why don't you understand that evolution is, given time, perfectly capable of generating fammilies, phyla and kingdoms?
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Why don't you understand that evolution is, given time, perfectly capable of generating fammilies, phyla and kingdoms?

Because, given known rates of evolutionary advance, there simply isn't enough time between the preCambrian and the Cambrian for 14 phyla to emerge.

Somebody above was saying that indoctrination means that you don;t think critically about an implanted belief system.

Now demonstrate your 'non-indoctrination' by thinking critically and asking a few questions about this enormously significant fact.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
The limit you impose on which taxonomic ranks evolution can act upon is your own opinion. Evolutionary change is based on a continuum. Classifications are simply human constructs. If a sample of every single species ever produced had been preserved, you would see this clearly.

That said, Wikipedia's article on the Cambrian Explosion provides a very good account of the topic, and it's sources are cited!. So do many other internet sources. What is the point of repeating it all here? You know how to use search engines!

Here's a particularly interesting article: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_cambrian_as_an_evolutionary_exemplar/
And another excellent page: http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/morton/cambevol.html

Again, you make it so pathetically clear that your arguments consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. You've been told to learn properly the topics you wish to criticize, but you haven't listened. Save yourself the humiliation and do some research.

By the way, where is your positive case for creationism? Whats the point of trying to disprove evolution if your motivation is a false ideology?
« Last Edit: 18/11/2008 01:53:25 by _Stefan_ »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Quote
It's more than ten million years later that the spectacular and strange animals of the Burgess Shale make their appearance. It's during the Middle Cambrian that we can say most of the modern phyla are present, although of course the representatives of those phyla don't look much at all like their modern members.

One message from these data is that the Cambrian 'explosion' was real. It isn't an artifact of poor sampling of ancient rocks—we have a range of good fossils from the period before, and it's clear that the pre-Cambrian world was a different place than the post-Cambrian.

Don't you read your own links?

Engage brain - it is the organ of thought, not the oesophagus!

So where did that lot come from then? I'm talking about the Burgess shale - about which Gould wrote Wonderful Life, out of his own mouth condemning the very theory  he sought so hard to defend, and then quite ruined the whole thing by proposing Punctuated Equilibrium!!! Heh heh.

Ever heard of that?
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Of course I did. I prefer not to spread misinformation, unlike some. Did you read any of them? What don't you understand?
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grape-fruit. I have daisies on my farms little larger than my finger nail and some that measure six inches across, but I have none as big as a sunflower, and never expect to have….. In short, there are limits to the developments possible, and these limits follow a law” (BURBANK 1939).

Within a specific environment, within one life span sure, it may be hard to achieve such a variation. But what about with a changing environment over thousands or millions of years? If this Burbank fellow had that much time to achieve his goal instead of the most insignificant blip in the vast scale of time, he might re-think his "law".
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
There are 3 things which must be present before we can validly say 'design is present'.

1 Complexity

2 Specificity

3 Contingency.

Can you explain your reasoning as to why those 3 criteria indicate design exclusively and cannot be the result of evolution?

There's a whole book on the subject called Intelligent Design by William Dembski. He holds, I think, 3 PhDs in Maths, Philosophy and Theology.

It seems fitting to quote a recent post to another thread by dentstudent:

Argument from authority
Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile

Sure, random mutations cause variation.[/b] Nobody is denying that. DID YOU READ THAT? OR MISSED IT AGAIN?

But
a. mutations are either neutral, or harmful and

b.The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count.

One may as well state that:
a. The objects are only either red or green.
b. The blue objects don't count.

Apart from being completely contradictory statements, of course they count! Especially if you are using this information to form a Theory of Objects.

Also, many mutations may seem neutral or harmful given the environment in which they occur. But a change of environment or conditions may turn it from neutral or harmful to beneficial. For example, a bacteria mutates so that it needs to consume twice as much energy just to survive and replicate. This may seem obviously harmful. But, this same mutation may happen to make it more resistant to a certain drug, which is introduced to its environment. All of a sudden this "harmful" mutation is in fact beneficial, as although it needs twice the energy, at least it survives where others do not.

Here's an excellent video demonstrating how such evolution can occur:
You many find many of cdk007's other videos rather enlightening too.

Sorry for the triple post.
« Last Edit: 18/11/2008 14:19:56 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"there simply isn't enough time between the preCambrian and the Cambrian for 14 phyla to emerge."
Since they did, there was.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
As I understand it, it was 'reproductive isolation' that did the trick - which is another name for geographically forced inbreeding. And inbreeding does some strange things.

Would you care to enlighten us as to the mechanism behind this? You obviously believe it has nothing to do with adaptive genetics. And if you think that inbreeding creates other species, how come all the inhabitants of Norwich are human?  :D
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Quote
As I understand it, it was 'reproductive isolation' that did the trick - which is another name for geographically forced inbreeding. And inbreeding does some strange things.

Would you care to enlighten us as to the mechanism behind this? You obviously believe it has nothing to do with adaptive genetics. And if you think that inbreeding creates other species, how come all the inhabitants of Norwich are human?  :D

Heh heh!
 

Offline rex789

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
K. As I was studying for my step 1 micro syllabus I read thru the retroviridae family of viruses and thought that this here would be an excellent argument for intelligent design. Searched google and was brought to this page.

After reading thru you post, i see one big problem. Through out this discussion you repeatedly state "facts" like: "He probably had enough space in the larger genomes."
 
You (and all the debaters of intelligent design) had a one on one interview with this 'GOD'? well considering there is only one. So to prove you wrong all i have to do is talk to a hindu? they got tons of gods. i wonder if your god made their gods. of if your god was thrown out by their gods.

k leave the god discussion behind.

scientifically, mathematically, rationally you say that this complexity can't be attained?

that is exactly correct! why do i agree? because randomness is the Daddy of all that lives! If you say there is GOD, then i say yes there is. It's everywhere! it's complete randomness and chaos (not taken in mathematical terms obviously)!

what is the entirety of pi? and how do complex living things come about? two questions we know there is an absolute answer to!

pi has an end, we just will never find it
living things are! they are here! (viruses included - yeah yeah non living blah blah)
how did they come about? there is an absolute answer to it but we will never find it!
Is there GOD?
No there is none and it's absolute. why? because that would totally not be random!
and as for your original topic. yes HIV codes for multiple genes using the same string of ATGC \U

did you ever buy those transformer toys as a kid. u know the ones that have individual functions\character but you can put 3 or 4 or 7 together and make something totally different. Well welcome to bioengineering. biological systems are examples of chaotic systems specially in ecology and in evolution. Chaotic, this time in mathematical terms, because there is math involved there. Math is in the h-bonding vander-val forces and in the electron forces that make them: the primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures. all proteins follow set rules set forth by the interactions between the various forces at work ( atomic level and beyond). and following these simple but elegant rules yes, HIV can code for multiple proteins from the same set of base transformer characters (you can take the pegs, slides, clicks and hooks used to attach various models together as the forces that i am talking about)

to put this debate to an end.
GOD and SCIENCE will never mix. One is a study another a hoax. which is which depends on who u are. but if you want to be correct u kno the truth and so does every child soldier in africa just before he/she gets killed by another 11 year old. Who told me this? I can assume when you talk about sin this would be the ultimate! guns in hands of kids! and if a child can sin then trully there is no GOD!
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 06:08:04 by rex789 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums