Scott, i understand you dont want to lose face - even on an internet forum. Buts its too late, you already have, and your about to lose some more.
I believe firmly in constructive criticism. However, the person it concerns should at least want to learn. You dont want to learn Scott. As far as your concerned, the knowledge of some desert nomad from 2000 years ago is as a reasonable explanation as any other. In fact, its the superlative explanation. Despite the whole history of academic thought - the reformation, the enlightenment, the romantic era, the industrial and scientific revolution - the bible - despite not telling us that much about biology - is the answer to biology. Everything in biology is in perfect harmony with god.
Except Biology doesnt conform to a scrap of paper. It is full of parasites, parasitoids, carnivores and disease, and always has been. As i have said countless times before, what does it tell you that to believe what you do, we have to take it on the chin - blind faith - that things in biology were "different" back then?
That men could come from soil
That women could come from a mans rib
That snakes could talk
That people could live for hundreds of years
That a man could travel the world and capture two of every terrestrial organism
That carnivores - from fish to mammals - were all vegan
What did tigers have for teeth Scott? Corks?
So your wrong on the immune system just as you are wrong on these things. And your wrong, about all of these things, because you dont know any better. To date, you show no signs of wanting to learn anything.
Noah canoing down the amazon is perfectly reasonable - perfectly accurate - of what really happened.
Well gee golly bum Scott (what a curious, American phrase), chemical memory is in fact totally different to "DNA". "Chemical memory" is exactly that, memory mediated by chemicals; or rather chemical compounds called antigens. Antigens are mostly proteins, contained on the surface coats (or membranes) of bacteria and viruses and other pathogens. Your immune system - the cell-mediated immune system - works through the recognition of these antigens. Upon infection, the antigens of a given pathogen are presented to a T helper cell which directs the production of other kinds of cells; T killer cells and macrophages (which basically go around killing pathogens) and the B cell, which creates an antibody specific to the antigen. Long lived memory cells are also produced, allowing long-term immunity. Nowhere is DNA involved (other than normal protein synthesis); the antigen does not instigate the installation of a relevent new coding. Memory cells are devoted to produce proteins specific to the relevant antigen - relevant proteins are transcribed and modified - and, in doing so, a side-effect is that they actually invite a higher deleterious mutation rate; the cells lose other functions as a consequence.
Ã‚Â Consequently, immunity is not inherited. This is why women are advised to breast feed their children - to provide a short-lived immunity to disease until the child grows stronger and is able to acquire their own. Scott, why do you think it might be a bad move to genetically decree ("memorize") immunity?
It is totally different to antibiotic resistance, caused by a selectable and permenant mutation.
"Antibiotic resistance mutations in 16S and 23S ribosomal RNA genes of Escherichia coli"Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â
Yes. Presumably though, my points about noah must have occurred to you too, right?
Noah taking corals from the great barrier reef (corals would not have survived a flood).
No Scott, its not demonstrable, at all, because organisms cannot direct their own genes and consequently, their eventual adaptation. As shown in the above article (and many others), antibiotic resistance is caused by random mutation, and this even comes around as an evolutionary trade-off:
"The biological cost of antibiotic resistance"
see above, Scott. Once again, antibiotic resistance is determined by random mutation. Call me Mr Picky, but its probably not the best self-defense technique.
Yes, well thanks for that "titbit" Scott. For your information (and as i have written, but that doesnt seem to matter), i dont doubt that DNA "codes" for something, or that this something could be said to be "information". What i doubt is that the "information" in question is a strong enough argument to support your position:
"Information must increase through evolution"
which totally ignores the truth that proteins come in all shapes and sizes and can do the same thing, and indeed that genomes (raw information), too, can be huge, or tiny, without any difference in an organism's apparent complexity. "Information" is not a valid biological measurement, because it depends on context. A non-coding sequence might become a coding sequence (or dragged into a coding sequence) with a single mutation. If anything, there is a slight inverse relationship between genome size and organismal complexity.
Scott, its like your just ignoring what im saying. I said:
Maybe its the word "shag". In britain "shag" "shagging" is roughly equivalent to s@x, in america in means "kissing", doesnt it?
Scott, your still not getting this. Mutations become fixed because they become more and more prevalent. If individuals with a given mutation are able to produce - more, and more often - it will eventually be that other variants are out numbered. This takes time - time for populations to grow and migrate - but eventually it will happen.
Look Scott, imagine a jar. Every minute, your going to put in this jar one red ball and three blue balls. If you do this for a whole hour, the jar will be full and if you randomly choose, say, 10 balls, the odds are that you have many more blue balls to red balls in your sample.
So, taking it back to ecology, "red" individuals will find it harder and harder to encounter other "reds". The "gene landscape" (the variation in a population)Ã‚Â will become more and more homogenously "blue", and the spatial (perhaps temporal e.g. seasonality) difference between "reds" will increase. So, ultimately, the "blue" variant becomes fixed; "reds" are only able to breed with "blues".
Of course its not "one" allele thats proliferating at any time. Its variation on every single gene. Its a little harder to quantify larger changes into this mendelian model such as whole genome duplication; they are less predictable changes. However, this can happen between two generations (and macroevolution has been observed in a lab - particularly in plants and bacteria).
Scott, please debate with me. Dont just disregard this stuff as "evo-babble" tell me how im wrong. How anything ive said is somehow illogical.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â
Scott, as has been patiently demonstrated, on consecutive occasions:
1)there is no such thing as genetic memory (unless this is a permenant modification in germ-lines cells)
2)mutations become fixed in a population through inqualities in good, old-fashioned bonking
3)antibiotics are naturally occurring compounds used by organisms to kill other organisms (humans exploit this relationship)
4)antibiotic resistance is caused by random mutation (even single point mutations)
5)organisms have no ability to direct their own genetics, merely the ability to use whats available
Please present a valid counter-argument, and please read up on biology.
You can piece it together from there, check the references out.
Ah yes McStone, your entire argument is quite invalid, yet again. I'm not wrong on the immune system, I'm quite correct, and you are quite obviously wrong.
Why are you wrong? Simple, Antigens are proteins. DNA is built of proteins. DNA contains memory from the Parents, and it is thus passed on to the offspring. Even though you are right about children having to build their immune systems. Some of the immunity is passed on from the Mother, but not all
immunity... Which you do mention, and brings into nicely what I want to talk about. The immune system.
You do realize that the human immune system reacts completely on the DNA of it's white blood cells. These reactions towards opposing proteins allows the DNA to react to the opposing Bacteria... it truly is battle of the DNA's.
The White Blood cells have to react with the Chemical compounds that make up the Bacteria... Which actually do make up the Bacteria's DNA composition.
Proteins reacting with Proteins... McStone, your mistake here is quite obvious. Our immune system, has to react to chemical ( Protein Composition) of the Bacteria.
B cells, which create the Antibody, have to figure out the Chemical ( Protein DNA compostition ( amino acids
) of the Bacteria.) You actually refuted yourself in this post, because you forgot completely what has to happen for an Antibody to even be produced. Protein recognition... it's all in the game, and without DNA, all of it would be impossible. The B cells, would not be able to translate the Bacteria's Chemical Composition, therefore rendering them useless.
McStone, DNA is a very integral part of the immune system, and stating that DNA is nowhere in use in the immune system is so incorrect, that it will ultimately rip your argument apart. Yes McStone, you have been exposed on this issue as well.
1. There is such thing as Genetic Memory
, LOL you forget that you have your mother and father's genes. Sorry McStone, but you are incorrect again. If it wasn't information, you would not share traits with your ancestors... your Mother, Father, Grandmother, and Grandfather... the list goes on... Transferable Information. You say organisms cannot direct their own genes... Hold on a minute McStone, you are incorrect on this. Your mother and father selected each other, and thusly selected a way to direct their own genes
. Same goes for animals, The stronger more capable Males are selected by the Females, over the less competitive... most of the time.
2. Mutations are passed through the breeding process...sometimes, but I did not disagree with you on this. Mutations are actually completely different than Antibiotics... Radiation causes Mutations, Chemicals that destroy DNA composition Amino Acids
will cause Mutation, because the some of the Amount of DNA ( Polypeptide chain is broken
) is lost when it is shot through cells in the body. When the cells loose this information, they begin to multipy incorrectly because they cannot transfer their information correctly... resulting in tumors/Mutations. Mutations are caused by a disturbance. Transfer information DNA, RNA. Nucleotide bases are disturbed
Now, you may ask why are Antibiotics different then, because they are reacting to a disturbance... yes they are acting to a disturbance, because they used their Protein Synthesis to find a way to match chemical (Protein Composition/ you already know the composition amino acids
which have to contain nucleotide bases from the DNA to even be contructed) of the enemy, so that it can help stop the production of certain functions of the Bacteria
. When the AntiBody has done this, the Bacteria try to find a way to Synthesis With proteins in the Immune system, so that they too can fight against the immune system. DNA... it's all in the game.
3. Antibiotics are naturally occuring compounds ( molecules
) a.k.a proteins ( amino acids
), which are creating by using DNA. If DNA wasn't a part of the equation, it would not work... recogintion of the foreign substances protein make-up is absolutely necessary.
4. Antibiotic resistance is obviously NOT caused by mutation, because as can clearly be seen the selection of proteins ( amino acids
Which have to contain nucleotide bases to even be constructed ) is used. A switch. No mutation has occured, it is simply natural. When you take Protein Synthesis out of the equation, then you will not get Antibiotic resistance. It's all in the Protein ( amino acid
which have to contain nucleotide bases to even be constructed) Selection, A switch in the code... ( which as been demonstrated over and over, yet you still don't get it, even though it has been explained + demonstrated by the Bacteria and Immune Systems themselves). Therefore, you are incorrect again. Random Mutation doesn't have a thing to do with the Protein ( amino acid
which contain Nucleotide bases to even be constructed) Selection, it is quite none-random, and it is quite actually not a mutation.
You ask me that I should actually try to debate you McStone... Really McStone? You have got realize when you are being debated... such as now, and every single time you've been called out in your posts. You say I don't want to learn anything? Well maybe you need get back to books yourself, because as I have shown, your a little short in your own understanding. This post has been edited to satisfy McStone's nit picky ness
.I'm sorry that the statement DNA is Protein caused so much confusion. DNA helps build proteins, it isn't THE Protein, even though the Protein contains molecules from the DNA... then again that's not the point of my argument, but needs to be pointed out anyways. Thanks McStone for pointing this out, now you may actually address the points