lpetrich

It was obtained by bypassing the journal's subscription system -- I don't think it's legal. But I suggest drawing a diagram, placing it on one's site, and linking to it.

RufusAtticus

Don't pay $5, go to your local college library and find a copy of the journal. If said library has an electronic subscription service, like mine, you can also get a pdf of the file. If that fails, email the corresponding author and ask for an electronic reprint.

~~RvFvS~~

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Nickle

*bump*

I was hoping for a creationist explanation. Oh, V?

Usually YECs pathetically dance around junk DNA by saying they really have another purpose. Even this poor argument can't work with this psuedogene. So I guess God created an almost exact, albeit broken, match of the real gene to throw us off while the real purpose of this DNA remains a mystery.

Come on YECs, how does creation "science" explain this better than evolution. And while you are at it, I think Oolon has some questions about vitamin C.

Vanderzyden

Monkenstick,

OK, I'm finally here. I should first say that I am impressed at your persistence and your courtesy in repeatedly making your requests. Your patience and polite reminders are likely to benefit us both in this discussion.

OK, let's begin. Yes, I have questions and concerns:

1. I notice that the same scientists have published the sequences (in a foreign journal) for the non-functional proteins in the apes/humans as well as the functional copy taken from the owl monkey. Are you aware of independent confirmation of their work?

2. Let assume that the work of these scientists is solidly affirmed. What makes this extant genetic characteristic significantly different from other thousands (millions?) of other genetic homologies in the attempt to collect evidence for modified trans-species common descent?

3. Let assume that the BLAST pairwise alignment analysis (which, I understand, is highly statistical) is correct. Then the owl/monkey sequences are 94% similar. What assures you that the 6% difference is not functionally critical?

4. It would appear that the urate oxidase sequence contains only two (not "several") premature stop codons. What "evolutionary" event would cause the INSERTION of a terminal codon in the MIDDLE of a gene? (As you imply, the stop codon is directly and strongly analogous to an "exit", "end" or "terminate" in a computer program)

5. What prevents me from reasoning intelligibly that the Creator merely employed life-building blocks in the establishment of entirely new species, rendering some of the genes, or genetic components, inoperable?

John

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

scigirl

4. It would appear that the urate oxidase sequence contains only two premature stop codons. What "evolutionary" event would cause the INSERTION of a terminal codon in the MIDDLE of a gene? (As you imply, the stop codon is directly and strongly analogous to an "exit", "end" or "terminate" in a computer program)

I'll answer this one cuz it's really easy.

One simple point mutation could change a codon from a functioning one (say UGG) to a stop codon (UGA).

And you only need one stop codon to mess up the gene.

(For this discussion I politely suggest you drop the computer analogies and actually talk about genetics, because you might get hung up on things that aren't actually analogous or similar).

scigirl

scigirl

Here's a primer on the genetic code and how it works:

<a href="http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPROTSYn.html#The%20Genetic%20Code" target="_blank">http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPROTSYn.html#The%20Genetic%20Code</a>

Basically, the building blocks of proteins, which are amino acids, are encoded by the DNA in triplet codes, called codons. There are 64 possible codons since there are 4 bases, but only 61 actual codons. 3 of the codons (UAA, UAG, UGA) have no corresponding amino acid (well usually) and the ribosome stops translating the message once it gets to one of these.

Note: DNA has T's where RNA has U's. So the stop codons in DNA are actually TAA, TAG, and TGA.

scigirl

scigirl

5. What prevents me from reasoning intelligibly that the Creator merely employed life-building blocks in the establishment of entirely new species, rendering some of the genes, or genetic components, inoperable?

So, how would the creator do this?

Let's say the creator chose to render the gene inoperable by, say, causing a point mutation in the gene.

Well that's exactly what we are saying happened. Basically, your theory does not provide any different or unique insights as to why we have the gene cuz you are basically saying "yep all that happened like you said, but God did it."

So? How does presupposing this designer add to the theory, explanation, or anything else?

scigirl

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

I understand that the terminal code renders the gene non-functional, but that has little or no bearing on my concerns.

Now, you say that mutations are responsible. So, I have more questions:

1. Specifically, what in a mutation would cause the INSERTION of a stop codon? (A mutation is a detrimental, passive, malfunctional event, and yet you are saying that such events could be responsible for the active, specific placement of a terminal codon).

2. You say the answer is easy. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to ask for direct support for your response: What evidence do you have from which we may directly infer that mutations are responsible for the insertion of stop codons?

3. What is a point mutation? Please distinguish it from other mutations.

4. In the chromosome fusion thread, you said that mutations would result in fusing and truncation. Please reconcile and/or distinguish your reasoning there with what you are saying here.


Note: It would seem that the software analogy is direct and strong, as I indicated, since we are discussing genetic code. Tell me, why precisely is unsuitable about the analogy?

John

Vanderzyden

No, rather, let's say that the Creator took building blocks that were already present, and then simply inserted a stop codon himself. There is "child's play" compared with his ability to perform abiogenesis and bring the life building blocks into existence in the first place.

Oh, I am not required to add anything to the "theory". We are not discussing how I can help the Darwinist solidify his case. It would seem that monkenstick is asking for my interpretation. He is asking me to test the ideas that he has discovered. The request was for a creationist explanation. So, you have one.

You are confusing me, here, scigirl. I am not at all saying that "yep all that happened like you said, but God did it". To the contrary, I am saying that there is precious little that may be construed as evidence of a mechanism by which modified common descent is the truth concerning the existence and proliferation and immense variety of life. Homology is not itself evidence of trans-species modified common descent.


John

Nat

"3. What is a point mutation? Please distinguish it from other mutations."

A point mutation is a mutation that results in a single nucleotide being swapped out for another. Such mutations differ from insertions and deletions because they do not result in a frame-shift of the rest of the genome.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nat ]

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nat ]</p>