1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. told'ya so
  4. Page 2

told'ya so

On Jun 20, 3:54 am, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: [....]

Many extraordinarily unlikely things are also true. I intended the checksum as one of the huge number of ways it could be happening. Each is very unlikely but there are a very large number of ways.

Yes but unlike your claim, the cell would know it had a bad gene on its hands.

Are you absolutely sure about that? In the case of the single celled critter, apoptosis isn't really an option. In the multicelled case, only the mutations that happen in the reproductive cells matter to our discussions. Those that happen elsewhere are trapped within that single generation. There is a huge over supply of sperm cells so a few jumping off the nearest bridge won't be noticed.

[....]

Try it for a population of 2 males and two females, one mating for each female and no intergenerational matings. There are only four cases.

only saying the

It *is* where I explained the above the first time.

Have you considered that the cell may move the defence effort to the known good gene thereby allowing this bad gene to mutate again. Would you say a second mutation removes the gene or not?

Reply to
MooseFET
Loading thread data ...

You are assuming that only one amino acid sequence is good.

Most single nuclear polymorphisms are utterly neutral at any specific time. Change the environment, and one of the previously neutral polymorphisms may suddenly become very advantageous.

Populations need a lot of variability to cover potential enviromental changes, and your checksum would lock any organism that employed it into a straight-jacket that would be an evolutionary dead end.

Care to suggest an alternative?

And may or may not start a cancer ...

True, but irrelevant.

You seem to have forgotten chromosomal cross-overs. IIRR humans do about three per chromosome (excluding the X-chromosome, of course).

only saying the

How does the cell "know" which is the good gene? Your entirely hypothetical teleomere checksum would work on the whole length of the chromosome, covering several hundred to more than a thousand genes

formatting link

as well as a great deal of "junk" DNA (which certainly isn't all junk).

Would you care to come up with a more plausible mechanism?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

So, you're saying that cells were designed by an Intelligent Designer? ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

I'm assuming nothing of the kind. I'm just pointing out an error in your thinking.

Most the DNA is robust nonsense. It codes to nothing and making a small change in it doesn't make it start coding anything. As a result bulk of changes don't result in any difference in function. A change in an important area can also have no net effect if it changes something of zero importance about an animal. Right handed (pawed) house cats are not at a serious disadvantage. If the change in a house cats genes made the majority right handers there would be no effect.

No, it need not. I just pointed out an error in your thinking. The checksum could be there but only effect the degree to which that gene gets defended against further mutations or it could be only acted on if some other gene fires. It has long been known that mutation rates in animals rises when the population is under stress.

Allow another mutation. This would work just like the bogo-sort routine that windows uses.

In either case, it doesn't get passed beyond the generation.

Why would that not be very relevant to the subject of genes passing down to the future. If some sperm cells select themselves out, their genes hit a dead end.

No, you have missed the point of what I said. Take the 4 case example. It is a massive over simplification but it shows the point.

[....]

So? It still covers that gene too. I only suggested the checksum because it was a good example of something you hadn't thought of.

No, not a chance. I intend to nit pick and snipe.

Reply to
MooseFET

It's sort of academic, since the results are indistinguishable. If there were a designer, she would have to be far, far more intelligent than any human.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

A definite BABE !-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Reply to
Jim Thompson

And a Democrat.

Reply to
Don Bowey

Yup!

formatting link

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich the Philosophizer

No - democrats, like republicans, are statists. Mother is Free Will; statists are in opposition to Free Will, and need to be healed.

Cheers! Rich

--
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
Reply to
Rich the Philosophizer

What results? You've got evidence that the genetic code includes error detection/correction elements?

Certainly more intelligent that the median participant in this user group.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

Since there is absolutely no sign of sophisticated error correction or error detection in the genetic code, the intelligent designer would seem to have been out of the shop when our cells were designed, if they were designed which seems unlikely.

In other words, I wasn't saying that cells were designed for a human designer, as should be obvious to anybody with a reading age above about six.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.