Re: Code for a new arm



On Jan 9, 6:35 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:42 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 9, 10:27 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Apparently the whole 'information' question that got squawkings
feathers in flutter is having the same effect around here.

ie, the reality-based community knows that the term 'information' has
many different meanings, and so sane and rational folk DEFINE what it
is they are asking for.
You, of course, see that as an excuse to prance about like you are
somehow relevant ...

In order to
keep dodging the question we've seen nothing but squawkings about
definitions and nuances.

ie, the reality-based community trying to figure out exactly what it
is you 'think' you are asking about.

Anything but actually bothering to attempt to
answer the question.

There are many ways to answer the question about where 'information'
in a genome comes from; the reality-based community has been asking
you 'what do you call information ?' so they have a chance of giving
you an answer you might accept.

For example, do YOU consider a gene being duplicated and modified to
perform a slightly different function a gain of information or not ?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Initiating pompous gibberf*ckery in 3... 2... 1...

So in order hear less squawks around here I'll
try and better pose the question.

Let's think about an arm. Surely, somewhere in the human genome (not
necessarily in sequence) must be encoded the [insert the noun you
prefer here (just don't mention the i word)] needed for the
construction of an arm. Presumably, if we are to believe the theory of
evolution, that part/those parts of the genome were once not there.

Nope - limbs are generated via cell:cell interactions mediated by
transcription factors. In simpler words, redeployment of gene
products that WERE ALREADY THERE.

So you think there is no difference in code for an organism with a fin
and an organism with an arm?

There IS a difference is coding, but it would be in the REGULATORY
REGIONS. Try reading for comprehension instead of flaccid attempts at
'gotcha !!' points.

You think the quantity of code is the
same for both and for earlier organisms with neither?

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE 'QUALITY' OF CODE, you scrotum-gnawing
simpleton.

So the 'information' about how to build an arm is 'encoded' in the
control regions of dozens (if not HUNDREDS) of genes within
interacting networks.

This may well be true but you still haven't even attempted to explain
how those networks got there from an initial starting point of not
being there.

Hmm - I've never seen goalposts retreat at Warp 9 before. You were
originally flatulating about 'formation of an ARM'; now you want an
explanation for every developmental gene network in existence !

The original network would have been very small, that became more
complex over time as genes (and their regulatory regions) were
duplicated and modified.

Or do you think that some organism poofed into existence
and we evolved from that already complex organism? We have a word for
that hypothesis. It's called CREATION!

Are you being willfully stupid, or are you just truly stupid ?

The original organisms would have been very simple, and became more
complex over time.

As all available data suggests.

Only a metapneustic monorchid would be demented enough to 'think' I
claimed anything about complex organisms poofing into existence.

Given that it is rather easy to tweak control regions (and entire
genes), and the filtering effects of selection, generating
'information' is rather easy.

So tweak some chimpanzee genes and make me one with four arms - two in
the usual place and two where the legs used to be. Feel free to make
as many gradual intermediate changes as you like.

Experiment would be as pointless as your 'request' is stupid - chimps
can already use their feet like hands.
Reality-based folk know of something called 'historical constraint' -
one might be able to modify legs to be quite similar to arms, but the
FACT that what we call 'legs' are attached to the pelvis, while 'arms'
are attached to the scapula can't be changed via biology.

But a Magical Sky Pixie could do it with no trouble at all.

Limbs of tetrapods go back about 500 million years or so - to fish.
Arms and legs are just highly modified fins (and fins are just
modified bumps on the torso at specific spots).

Initiating flatulent evasion in 3... 2... 1...

Your fantasy beliefs and timescales have nothing to do with the
question.

Translation : "reality does not conform to vowel movement's
delusions !! Must inflate ego and act pompous, and hope people are
fooled !!"

The timescales are derived from observations of reality - the first
tetrapods (critters with four limbs) were the fish. And they've been
around a long, long time.

Stop fantasizing and focus on the question.

Translation : "F*CK !! He answered my question !! Must run away while
screaming my own praises !!!"

You asked : 'where is the information for how to construct an arm ?'
I answered : 'in the regulatory regions of dozens (maybe a hundred)
different regulatory genes in many different networks. This is WHY
developmental biology is such a worthwhile challenge - trying to
untangle how a network arose (given a few hunded million years of
stochastic variation and different types of selection in the disparate
lineages) could keep a researcher happily engaged for decades !

But that is far too much work, and requires far too much study,
intelligence, and understanding of nature and reality. Much better to
sneer at it and invoke the unknowable whims of unknowable Magical Sky
Pixies to 'explain' it all.

If I am to
believe your world view then both fish and tetrapods evolved from some
organism that had neither fins nor limbs. Where exactly do you think
the code came from so that fish could have fins and tetrapods could
have limbs?

FISH ARE TETRAPODS, you bdelloid lickspigot !

TRY READING FOR COMPREHENSION - I stated that limbs are modified
FINS. Fins are modified bumps on the side of the body at a specific
point.

All that is needed for a bump is for cell division to keep going a bit
longer in that area than it normally would.

And what do you mean 'not necessarily in sequence' ? Where else would
genomic 'information' be ? The mellifulous aether ? Magical Morph
Fields ? What ?

What do you mean by 'networks' above?

Some genes control the expression of other genes, which control the
expression of other genes, and so on.

A gene may be regulated by the products of many other genes, and
regulate the expression of many others. When researchers map out what
regulates what, you get what are called 'networks'.

(vowel movement will now whine that the reality-based answer isn't
good enough for him, then flounce about like his self-induced
ignorance is relevant)

LOL. You have been vague, you have spouted fantasies, you have
contradicted yourself (see networks versus later insults), you have
completely avoided the reality of the implications of your world view.

Translation : "F*CK !! Prof Weird isn't falling for my bluffs !! Must
scream and posture MORE arrogantly, in the flaccid hope that I can
fool someone into believing I'm competent !!"

I have not been vague - development is very complex, and not
completely worked out yet. Sane and rational folk would accept that;
you do not.

I have spouted no fantasies - examination of the fossil record and
genomes of various organisms (as well as developmental studies) shows
that limbs are modified fins. Fins have the 'one bone - two bone -
many bone' pattern seen in the limbs of all tetrapods examined to
date. The sane and rational explanation is 'descent with
modification'; you, of course, refuse to accept it because it is
beyond your willfully flaccid comprehension.

I have not contradicted myself - you are just too desperate and slow
witted to understand what I ACTUALLY said, so you imagined I said
something you could rage about.

What 'implications' of my 'world view' ? YOU ASKED WHERE THE
INFORMATION FOR CONSTRUCTING AN ARM CAME FROM; nothing about
'worldviews' or their 'implications' !
I must admit - blubbering about worldviews when you were initially
asking where information came from is a world-class crimson whale
maneuver !

Initiating psychotic (and irrelevant) screaming in 3... 2... 1...

Your world view implies that all life in all its glory each with its
own genome came from a soup of chemicals with no genome and the best
you can do is make some baseless argument about how the code was
already there. Where? In your soup of CO2 and NH3? I'm sorry to be the
one to break the news to you but CO2 and NH3 typically have no
genome!!!

Wow - you are a gold medalist at misunderstanding people and dragging
goalposts around !

You initially asked : 'where did the information about how to
construct an arm come from ?'; NOW YOU ARE BLUBBERING ABOUT THE ORIGIN
OF LIFE ITSELF !

All extant life came from ONE GENOME, which arose amongst creatures
simpler than bacteria about 3.5+ billion years ago (according to
currently available data).

The building blocks of life can be generated abiotically - no need for
life to form them.

These organisms became more complex as time and generations went by.
Single celled prokaryotes, to single celled eukaryotes, to
multicellular eukaryotes, to invertebrates to chordates to fish to
amphibians to reptiles to mammals to primates to us and everything
else crawling, walking, swimming or flying on this little blue world.

Please propose your conjectural views of how such sequences got there.

Via modification of earlier sequences, given the FACT that formation

Could you possibly be more vague and substanceless in your
'explanation'?

That explanation is far more concrete and has far more substance than
your 'alternatives'.

If you think it's true then take a chimpanzee and modify its sequence
in a sperm and egg cell and make a chimpanzee with four arms. Does
your idea of 'modification' per chance include the notion of
introducing new code that wasn't previously there? Does it per chance
involved increasing the length of the genome?

Again, twit - your request is as stupid as it is pointless.

'New' code can be just modified 'old' code - change a base pair in a
regulatory gene can alter how readily other genes can interact with
it, which can have phenotypic effects.

There are many ways to increase the length of a genome - NONE INVOLVE
MAGIC, OR THE INTERVENTION OF MAGICAL SKY PIXIES.

Where, EXACTLY, would 'new code not previously in the genome' come
from ? Outer space ? Installed by nanopixies ? Teleported in via Lt
Laforge ?

of an arm involves no proteins not already present, nor invention of
anything actually new.
Just altering the expression patterns and timing of genes already
available.

Good! Then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to perform the
challenge.

Again, buffoon : your request is as stupid as it is irrelevant, given
the fact that chimps already have four 'hands' - their feet are just
as dextrous as their hands.

Please do also attempt to make your conjecture a challenge to debunk
by basing it on yet more conjecture and of course a good set of
unverifiable assumptions for good measure. We wouldn't want to give
the scientific method a bad name by actually applying it objectively.

JC

And your 'explanation' is what again ?

"Since me not understand it, MAGICALSKYPIXIEDIDIT !!111!1!!!!
11!!!!" ? How, EXACTLY, could anyone debunk that ?

Nearly thirty years of research in developmental and molecular biology
shows my explanation is about as good as any sane or rational person
could expect
(no unverifiable/untestable assumptions); you will, of course,
complain it isn't good enough, and demand more ...

vowel movement sneers at the face in the mirror :

About 30 seconds worth of skim reading showed your answer to be
completely lacking in substance as well as either misguided or
purposefully dodging the real question.

I answered your real question - which was about 'where did the
information about how to construct an arm come from ?'

That frightened you, so you started with the pompous whining,
dismissive bleating, goalpost dragging, and crimson whale yarking.

And how much substance does your 'explanation' have ?

Oh right - YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, OTHER THAN 'an unknowable being somehow
did stuff !!!!!!1!!!!!'

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Code for a new arm
    ... let's talk about mechanisms of growing the genome functionally such ... construction of an arm. ... complex over time as genes were ... The original organisms would have been very simple, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Question about Sex
    ... Say you had an organism with only 5 genes. ... Now G1 has a possible mutation that could generate ... a severe benefit to the species - G1A. ... What happens if you have to sets of organisms, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The ultimate cause of aging
    ... survival and reproduction indefinitely. ... natural selection acts more strongly on variations ... The basic problem with it, however, is that there is evidence of senescence effector and suppressor genes that control the rate of aging in some organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Code for a new arm
    ... and so sane and rational folk DEFINE what it ... Let's think about an arm. ... control regions of dozens of genes within ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Article: Gene Transfer Between Species Is Surprisingly Common
    ... Gene Transfer Between Species Is Surprisingly Common ... Science Daily - Bacteria are known to share genes, ... Even among higher organisms, shared genes are the rule rather than the ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)