Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Kevin McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Still Exposing His Ignorance

-

Recently Kevid said:
Are you aware that you can change the DNA of an allele and it NOT change the protein?

Yes there are amino acids that are coded by more than one codon. However it has been shown that even if the codon codes for the same amino acid it may have an impact on how the protein is constructed and can change the protein.

IOW even though the amino acid sequence is the same, even though it was coded for by a different DNA sequence, the protein can be altered due to the availability of the corresponding tRNA. It's a timing thing.

For example Researchers Find That a 'Silent' Gene Mutation Can Change the Function of an Anticancer Drug Pump:
A genetic mutation that does not cause a change in the amino acid sequence of the resulting protein can still alter the protein's expected function, according to a new study conducted at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study shows that mutations involving only single chemical bases in a gene known as the multidrug resistance gene (MDR1) that do not affect the protein sequence of the MDR1 gene product can still alter the protein's ability to bind certain drugs. Changes in drug binding may ultimately affect the response to treatment with many types of drugs, including those used in chemotherapy. The results of this study appear online in Science Express on December 21, 2006*.

But anyway-


Kevin goes on to say:
Are you aware that you can NOT change the DNA and still have a change in the protein?

Prions, Kevin. Prions are infectious proteins that alter the 3D shape of its "sister" protein in the infected organism. It "forces" its "sister" to assume its shape- every "sister" it touches.

Lesson over...

34 Comments:

  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Not prions dummy. I'm talking about mutations in the tRNA and rRNA.

    So, let me ask you, why does your calculations for CSI no longer do what you think they do?

     
  • At 8:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    Not prions dummy. I'm talking about mutations in the tRNA and rRNA.

    You weren't talking about mutations in tRNA and rRNA- you didn't say one word about them.

    Kevin:
    So, let me ask you, why does your calculations for CSI no longer do what you think they do?

    I don't know what you are talking about and neither do you.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Joe, you said that the PROTEIN had zero tolerance for change.

    Then you used the DNA sequence to perform you 'calculation'.

    However, your calculated probability is wrong. Because you don't have 64 amino acids, there are only 20.

    If you are talking about proteins, then you have to base your calculations on 20 amino acids, not 64 codons (6 bits).

    further, you added the stop codons as a separate step in your calculation, that's incorrect. Because the stop codons are already included in the first term. You are forcing an additional set of codons when you don't have to.

    But, your basic fundamental error is conflating protein sequence with DNA sequence.

    Because of the two things I mentioned (multiple DNA sequences coding for the same amino acid) and the potential of mistakes in the translation process, you cannot base calculations for proteins on the numbers for DNA

    Your entire process is wrong.

    Now, would you like to try again?

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    Joe, you said that the PROTEIN had zero tolerance for change.

    Then you used the DNA sequence to perform you 'calculation'.


    I used the amino acid sequence also you moron.

    It gives the same answer, asshole.

    Ya see 3 nucleotides = 1 codon = 1 amino acid

    Kevin:
    However, your calculated probability is wrong. Because you don't have 64 amino acids, there are only 20.

    Thank you for proving that you are igniorant.

    There are 64 coding codons for those 20 amino acids and STOP codons- moron.

    Kevin:
    further, you added the stop codons as a separate step in your calculation, that's incorrect. Because the stop codons are already included in the first term. You are forcing an additional set of codons when you don't have to.

    The stop codon is NOT part of the final protein, idiot.

    Kevin:
    But, your basic fundamental error is conflating protein sequence with DNA sequence.

    You only think so.

    Kevin:
    Because of the two things I mentioned (multiple DNA sequences coding for the same amino acid) and the potential of mistakes in the translation process, you cannot base calculations for proteins on the numbers for DNA

    Your ignorance means nothing to me.

    The multiple DNA sequences for the same amino acid is taken care of with the variational tolearnce you moron.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    But Joe, you said there was no variational tolerance in the protein.

    I'm just using what you said. It's not my fault that you cannot express yourself very well in the English language.

    BTW: You are wrong. The 64 combinations of nucleotides DO include the stop codons. In fact, there are 3 stop codons (UAA, UAG, UGA). And yes, it's not part of the PROTEIN, but MUST be part of the DNA or the protein won't form correctly.

    Since you also aren't including start codons, Introns, Exons, precursors, mutations in RNA polymerases, and all that other somewhat important stuff, then I think it safe to say that your cute little multiplying 2 numbers together is fundamentally wrong.

    Why don't you try again and take all those things into account.

    While you are at it, why not explain how you can tell a 100 amino acid protein that was designed apart from a 100 amino acid protein that was randomly assembled.

    I'd love to hear this one.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    But Joe, you said there was no variational tolerance in the protein.

    Right but you tried to change the scenario- asshole.


    Kevin:
    BTW: You are wrong. The 64 combinations of nucleotides DO include the stop codons.

    That is wht I said you fucking moron.

    Kevin:
    While you are at it, why not explain how you can tell a 100 amino acid protein that was designed apart from a 100 amino acid protein that was randomly assembled.

    There isn't any evidence that 100 amino acids can randomly assemble, moron.

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    No, Joe. I didn't try to change the scenario. I used ONLY the scenario you started talking about.

    YOU are the one who thinks the scenario changed because you don't even understand the math involved here.

    You continue to conflate DNA sequence and amino acids. Pick one.

    By using DNA and amino acids interchangeably, you making a fundamental error.

    There are 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides.

    However, there are only 20 amino acids.

    Because all you are doing is multiplying, then you cannot interchange those two concepts. It's basic math.

    Multiplying by 64 will give you a different answer than if you multiply by 20.

    Joe, I know this pisses you off, but I'm trying to help you.

    I know you don't understand why, so I'll explain it.

    If we can come up with a strict, robust definition and process, then it becomes testable. Then we can actually test it and see if your ideas here even work.

    At present, they do not. Here's why, it doesn't matter that amino acids can or cannot spontaneously self -assemble. I believe that you are correct that they cannot, under any conditions.

    However, we aren't doing that. We have RNA that assembles proteins. I know that you will go into the "where did the RNA come from", which isn't the point either. I really wish you had some understanding of how science actually works. Then you could stay on topic.

    Unless and until you come up with a scientifically and mathematically robust description of why an AA can't be 'x' long unless it was designed, then this is all just meaningless number manipulation.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    You continue to conflate DNA sequence and amino acids. Pick one.

    They both give the SAME answer.

    Kevin:
    There are 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides.

    That is what I said.

    Kevin:
    However, there are only 20 amino acids.

    Irrelevant. 64 coding codons because we have to account for the STOP- there isn't any amino acid for STOP.

    So what we have is Kevin trying to use his ignorance to change the thing entirely.

    As for introns and exons, well splicing and editing require knowledge. And just physics and chemistry cannot account for that.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    HINT- It is the genetic code that we are representing

     
  • At 9:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    There are 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides.

    Nope. There are 64 different coding codons- each codon is three nucleotides.

    Kevin:
    Multiplying by 64 will give you a different answer than if you multiply by 20.

    Moron. BITS- Shannon- first you have to figure out the possibilities. 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits you dipshit.

    20 amino acids + 3 STOP codons = 2^4.525 = 4.525 bits, meaning the difference isn't as great as you think you moron as you don't multiply by 64 nor 20.

    Kevin:
    Unless and until you come up with a scientifically and mathematically robust description of why an AA can't be 'x' long unless it was designed, then this is all just meaningless number manipulation.

    TRY leading by EXAMPLE you fucking coward. Where is your position's scientifically and mathematically robust description of physics and chemistry creating a protein in the absence of a biological organism? Without that you all you have is shit and a strawman.

     
  • At 6:16 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Where is your position's scientifically and mathematically robust description of physics and chemistry creating a protein in the absence of a biological organism?

    That would be this:

    An amino acid, one of the building blocks of life, has been spotted in deep space. If the find stands up to scrutiny, it means that the sorts of chemistry needed to create life are not unique to Earth verifying one of astrobiology's cherished theories.

    This would add weight to ideas that life exists on other planets, and even that molecules from outer space kick-started life on Earth.

    Over 130 molecules have been identified in interstellar space so far, including sugars and ethanol. But amino acids are a particularly important find because they link up to form proteins, the molecules that run, and to a large extent make up our cells.

    Back in 1994, a team led by astronomer Lewis Snyder of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign announced preliminary evidence of the simplest type of amino acid, glycine, but the finding did not stand up to closer examination (New Scientist magazine, 11 June 1994, p 4).

    Now Snyder and Yi-Jehng Kuan of the National Taiwan Normal University say they really have found glycine. "We're more confident [this time]," says Kuan. "We have strong evidence that glycine exists in interstellar space."


    Almost a decade ago.

    http://www.angelfire.com/folk/benjo4u/Science/Protein_In_Deep_Space.htm

     
  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM, you are a clueless tard. There isn't any scientific or mathematically robust description of physics and chemistry creating a protein in the absence of a biological organism.


    You may as well say that stones have been found to be made by nature, operating freely. Stones are the building blocks of Stonehenge, so that means Stonehenge is not an artifact.

    You are a typical evotard moron coward.

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    STILL nothing about a protein forming in the absence of a living organism.

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    STILL nothing about a protein forming in the absence of a living organism.

    So all those proteins floating around in space were created by a living organism?

    Is that your claim?

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    You may as well say that stones have been found to be made by nature, operating freely. Stones are the building blocks of Stonehenge, so that means Stonehenge is not an artifact.

    Stonehenge is made of stones, true. However it's also made of worked stone in a specific purposeful arrangement.

    Stones are products of nature operating freely.

    Stonehenge is the product of humans build with stones that were products of nature operating freely.

    That you can't see the difference is telling.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So all those proteins floating around in space were created by a living organism?

    AMINO ACIDS NOT PROTEINS WERE FOUND FLOATING IN SPACE YOU MORON.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Stonehenge is made of stones, true. However it's also made of worked stone in a specific purposeful arrangement.

    How do you know it is worked stone? How can you tell if erosion didn't doit?

    OM:
    Stonehenge is the product of humans build with stones that were products of nature operating freely.

    So you say but still nothing on proteins forming in the absence of a living organism.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    How do you know it is worked stone? How can you tell if erosion didn't doit?

    I'll leave that aspect of things to the "Explanatory Filter" as it claims to be able to determine design from non-design.

    Perhaps you could show us how it's done?

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    AMINO ACIDS NOT PROTEINS WERE FOUND FLOATING IN SPACE YOU MORON.

    Heh, it's but a short step

    "If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine," said Dr. Geoffrey Blake of Caltech, a co-author of the paper. "And now, we can detect these same molecules in the planet zone of a star hundreds of light-years away."

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/335830/partial_ingredients_for_dna_and_protein_found_around_star/

    Astronomers at W. M. Keck Observatory have found � for the first time � some of the basic compounds necessary to build organic molecules and proteins found in DNA within the inner regions of a planet-forming disk. The object, known as "IRS 46," is located in the Milky Way galaxy, about 375 light years from Earth, in the constellation Ophiuchus.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18569

    Here on Earth, the molecules are believed to have arrived billions of years ago, possibly via comets or comet dust that rained down from the sky. Acetylene and hydrogen cyanide link up together in the presence of water to form some of the chemical units of life's most essential compounds, DNA and protein. These chemical units are several of the 20 amino acids that make up protein and one of the four chemical bases that make up DNA.

    But yeah Joe, you are right.

    Proteins can only form in the presence of a living organism.

    Oh, but wait. That's not what the evidence says at all! But I don't expect that to change your mind!

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I'll leave that aspect of things to the "Explanatory Filter" as it claims to be able to determine design from non-design.

    Well if nature, operating freely can produce a living organism then something as simple as Stonehenge wouldn't be a problem.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine," said Dr. Geoffrey Blake of Caltech, a co-author of the paper. "And now, we can detect these same molecules in the planet zone of a star hundreds of light-years away."

    Nothing about proteins forming in the absence of a living organism in that.

    Astronomers at W. M. Keck Observatory have found � for the first time � some of the basic compounds necessary to build organic molecules and proteins found in DNA within the inner regions of a planet-forming disk. The object, known as "IRS 46," is located in the Milky Way galaxy, about 375 light years from Earth, in the constellation Ophiuchus.

    Nothing about proteins forming in the absence of a living organism in that.

    Here on Earth, the molecules are believed to have arrived billions of years ago, possibly via comets or comet dust that rained down from the sky. Acetylene and hydrogen cyanide link up together in the presence of water to form some of the chemical units of life's most essential compounds, DNA and protein. These chemical units are several of the 20 amino acids that make up protein and one of the four chemical bases that make up DNA.

    Nothing about proteins forming in the absence of a living organism in that.

    IOW you have no idea you clueless fuck.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    IOW you have no idea you clueless fuck.

    Then what is the origin of proteins Joe?

    Let me guess! "They were designed".

    LOLOLOl

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then what is the origin of proteins Joe?

    There isn't any evidence one can arise without agency involvement.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW your position still doesn't have any positive evidence...

     
  • At 4:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    There isn't any evidence one can arise without agency involvement.

    Great. We know now how they did not arise. We knew that already, you've said it plenty of times before.

    What I'm asking you is how they did arise, not how they did not.

    You just can't bring yourself to say "they were designed" can you as you can already hear how stupid that sounds.

     
  • At 4:03 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    IOW your position still doesn't have any positive evidence...

    That's doubly ironic after your comment where you provide negative evidence in support for ID.

    If proteins are not a product of evolution where did they come from Joe?

    I know where you think they did not come from, but I'm asking for positive evidence to support your position as to where they did come from.

    If you can't provide an alternative to that which you say is impossible why should anybody listen to you at all?

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You just can't bring yourself to say "they were designed" can you as you can already hear how stupid that sounds.

    So saying Stonehenge was designed is silly?

    So archaeology ad forensic science are silly?

    You are a moron.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    If proteins are not a product of evolution where did they come from Joe?

    Nice equiviocation you fucking coward.

    And how noce of you to not support any of your claims.

    And doubly nice of you to conflate amino acids with proteins.

    The positive evidence that proteins are designed is the same positive evidence that Stonehenge was designed, namely tghat there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce one and more importantly it meets the design criteria- meaning a specification is present.

     
  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW we still don't know how Stonehenge arose, yet we still say it was designed.

    You know why? Because it ain't silly and saying it was by design changes the investigation- not that an imbecile like you would understand that.

     
  • At 8:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW your position still doesn't have any positive evidence...

    And obviously you are too much of a coward to try to refute that.

    Typical...

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The positive evidence that proteins are designed is the same positive evidence that Stonehenge was designed, namely tghat there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce one and more importantly it meets the design criteria- meaning a specification is present.

    So your "positive" evidence is the lack of evidence that nature can create proteins?

    I guess you just don't understand the word "positive" in relation to evidence.

    So, great, you think you know how they did not form. I can name N other ways they did not form too.

    Yet you can't explain how they did form, can you?

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Because it ain't silly and saying it was by design changes the investigation- not that an imbecile like you would understand that.

    I understand it. But you've never been able to

    A) Show why we should consider protiens designed apart from to say that "nature could not have done it"

    B) Show how our understanding of proteins is enhanced by "the knowledge that they are designed".

    Do A or B or even both and perhaps your point will have some merit.

    Until then, knowing how something *did not* happen is not much use for knowing how it did.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The positive evidence that proteins are designed is the same positive evidence that Stonehenge was designed, namely tghat there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce one and more importantly it meets the design criteria- meaning a specification is present.

    OM:
    So your "positive" evidence is the lack of evidence that nature can create proteins?

    Nope. That is only PART of what I said, asshole.

    Do you really think your willful ignorance means something?

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But you've never been able to

    A) Show why we should consider protiens designed apart from to say that "nature could not have done it"


    Yes, I have. ya see they also meet the specification criteria.

    OM:
    B) Show how our understanding of proteins is enhanced by "the knowledge that they are designed".

    The same way our understanding of everything is enhanced just by determining it was designed.

    Geez OM you really do think your ignorance means something.

    Even dawkins understands the design inferences changes everything- with biology we would be looking at a totally different type of biology- moron.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home