Re: Incredible evolution

On Aug 13, 6:24 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Glenn" <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1187049861.614530.77210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 13, 4:42 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Glenn" <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1187039710.965347.98060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 13, 1:47 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Glenn" <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1187034027.925602.140570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 13, 12:45 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Glenn" <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1186972960.704960.149410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 12, 7:13 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Glenn" <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1186966100.724647.188090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Intuitively, a genome with nothing but what is
absolutely required for life, ultraconserved genes and nothing else,
would *die* if anything went wrong. So in an opposite way I'd also say
that repair mechanisms are size dependent.

And just when I am beginning to think that you know a little about
the subject matter, you come up with a comment like that and confirm
that you are actually just a creationist who has learned to use Google.

Well technically you are right about that as far as you go.

First, you should think about the difference between 'mutation' (which
is generally not repaired) and 'damage' (which is repaired). All damage
is fatal - at least in the sense that it prevents reproduction. So a
junk-laden genome may well be able to tolerate mutations, but it is still
absolutely intolerant of 'damage'. And it is damaged more often because
it is bigger (has more places to take damage).

You really don't like directly responding to anything, do you. All
damage would be fatal in an organism who only had essential genes.

All uncorrected damage is fatal or sterilizing regardless of where it happens
in the genome, even in an organism most of whose genes are inessential.

That a very extraordinary claim. And since you are here alive, I
suggest you review your understanding of evolution.

And I would suggest that you review the distinction I am making between
mutation and damage. Mutation changes the genome, but leaves it replicable.
Mutation provides the raw material for evolution. Damage changes the genome
in more severe ways - rendering it uncopyable by the usual mechanisms.
DNA repair fixes damaged genomes (though it may leave them mutated). DNA
repair does not undo mutations. (Minor clarification of this last statement.
There is a process called 'proofreading' which does undo copying errors before
they are themselves copied. Proofreading is not (IMO) a 'repair' mechanism.
There is also a repair process called 'mismatch' correction which *does* undo
some mutations, though it is also sometimes done 'incorrectly' so that it acts
as a cause of mutation.)

[snip remainder]
I come to realize that the whole source of confusion in this thread is that
you think that DNA repair is a mechanism for controlling mutations. It is
not. And until you understand the processes you keep citing, there is not
much point in proceeding.

Oh no, I have not argued that dna repair is a mechanism for
controlling mutations. It may be, but that has not been part of my
position. I suggest you review your understanding of the processes I
keep citing, since "all uncorrected damage is fatal or sterilizing" is
most definitely wrong. Good grief! Saying that dna repair is essential
to life does not mean that there can be no errors.

How typical! We are discussing 'damage' (which I claim is always fatal
or sterilizing - by *definition*) and mutation (which, of course, is
not always fatal). But then you bring up a third word - "error".

All I can say is that apparently you still don't get it.

Well I can safely say you don't get it. This choice of words for
mutation is part of your (sic) argument.

Yes, I used 'copying error' as a synonym for one kind of mutation.

SFW? You havent explained your problem.

Now, you reacted in horror to my saying "all uncorrected damage is
fatal or sterilizing" by saying "Good grief! Saying that dna repair
is essential to life does not mean that there can be no errors".

Which suggests to me that you are still confused about the distinction
I am making between mutation and damage. Which also suggests to me
that you think that the DNA repair mechanisms you are talking about
exist to correct mutations. Which suggests to me that you really don't
understand the material you keep talking about.

Well it suggests to me that dna repair mechs exist, as well as all
sorts of "mutation and damage".
Again, your whole argument consists of claiming I don't understand
something that you won't explain. It reads like a magical mystery
tour. If that's "in the mainstream", then we should all be very
afraid.

You brought up the
view that a primitive cell could survive without repair mechanisms,
and I simply argued against that.

Obviously, if a cell doesn't suffer damage, it does fine without repair.
If it does suffer damage, then it must either eventually die without
reproducing, or repair the damage.

It is *not* obvious that a cell does "just fine" without repair. All
cells do suffer damage, and all cells have repair mechs. You're
obviously in lala land. And a cell can suffer damage and still
reproduce. You're getting so ridiculous that I'm wondering about you.

And that piece of trolling ends this discussion. Bye.

That would be the second time you have said byebye. Was the first
before or after you decided to illuminate me with your surprise to
find your penpal to be just a creationist in a Google hat who barely
comprehended his references? And was that before or after you tried to
bring Genesis into the thread?
In any case, I suppose the last exchange above is as good a place as
any for you to bail. John has put his overpriced two cents in, and his
reasoning skills seem on a par with your own demonstration, so the
thread and my amusement won't die with you. I just need some time to
recover from reading his last two posts before I reply. For reasons in
relation to the "logic" you both seem to share, I have yet to get rid
of visions of flying pigs out of my mind.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Incredible evolution
    ... is generally not repaired) and 'damage'. ... Mutation changes the genome, but leaves it replicable. ... DNA repair fixes damaged genomes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Incredible evolution
    ... is generally not repaired) and 'damage'. ... Mutation changes the genome, but leaves it replicable. ... DNA repair fixes damaged genomes. ... Obviously, if a cell doesn't suffer damage, it does fine without repair. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Incredible evolution
    ... is generally not repaired) and 'damage'. ... damage would be fatal in an organism who only had essential genes. ... organisms observed have repair machinery essential to survival. ... DNA repair is not just a nice trick. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • the essential tension between gene mutation and gene repair
    ... race between gene variation by mutation, ... Chromatin, DNA Repair, and Variation ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: wifi usb adaptor
    ... damage to the USB ports which had blown a 5 volt circuit trace feeding ... NTFS in the event of FS 'damage'. ... in a much more efficient way than the 'bruteforce data recovery' methods ... decent FS _repair_ utilities within the OS. ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)