Joined: Sep. 2006
Thanks for the reply.
|Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,09:51)|
|QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS|
No. Read the quote.
|Are you implying (from this Crick quote) that biologic information is a measure of the chemical makeup of a protein?|
It was a question of clarification. I was hoping on something more than a yes or no from you. I still am asking that. But whatever.....
|Mike PSS... |
No you wouldn't. Let me prove this to you. Let's pretend I own a used car lot and you come to my lot to buy a car. I show you a nice, mid-90s truck and an old rusty mid-70s truck. I tell you "Mike, this truck is not deteriorated ... it's just different. You can have either one for $5000." What would be your reaction? Hmmmm....
If I applied Crick's definition to your truck analogy I would say that a certain quantity of the original metal (primarily Iron, but with other constituents of course) had oxidized to Fe2O3. However, why I would characterize this as "DEGENERATE" is a mystery. I would characterize this as "DIFFERENT".
Sometimes it just blows me away to see how Darwinian thinking has destroyed your common sense!
I've gotton my mind around this analogy a little more and it 'stinks'. Your are saying that a single 1972 pick-up that ages is to DEGENERATION as the genomic mutation of multiple generations of an organism.
This analogy sucks. Someone earlier (OA?) mentioned the progression of designs of a pick-up over time. That would be more of an apt analogy in this case.
Now, you could also argue around the blueprints to the 1972 pick-up. And if a 'new' truck built in 2006 from the 1972 plans came out looking like a rust bucket then this would be an apt analogy for ?transcription error? maybe.
So my answer to the salesman question would be "I think both are overpriced but the 1972 truck is older and showing signs of wear."
|Mike PSS ... |
Please read what I type. I don't have such a wonderful tool. I said so plainly. All I have at the moment is my intuition. But again, intuition is quite valuable if kept in its proper place. You have no rigorous mathematical tools to help you on my used car lot above, but you have your eyeballs and your intuition. Ditto for biological systems. Use it, my friend!
|Please provide a reference or link to this wonderful biologic information measurement tool you think you would use so the rest of us can share the results.|
I think I just used that skill above.
Do you like how I used it?
|Mike PSS... |
you have now made several statements which show that you do not read what I post. Please re-read the posts from the many POPULATION GENETICISTS beginning with Muller in the 50's that I have posted.
|I think Dave's premise of degenerate information is even less applicable when we talk about a population instead of an individual.|
So your ready to start talking about HLA-B genes again. And how 61 new alleles appeared "fully expressed in the population" in less than 250 years.
I have a little brain teaser in response to your Ayala post that you use to support this whole mixture analogy you seem to hold onto. Anyway, Ayala is referring to populations mixing genes over a l-o-o-o-o-o-ng time. So we'll have to start talking about deep time again when discussing Ayala.
Assume sickle-cell anemia (SCA) is the same as an HLA-B allele. Black Africans brought the SCA allele to the NA continent over 300 years ago.
Now, how distributed within the NA population is SCA?
Do we find it expressed in Native Americans?
Do we find it expressed in European natives?
Do we find it expressed in South-East Asian Natives?
How long before the population becomes fully admixed so that the SCA distribution within the NA population is statistically avereaged? Another 300 years? 5 years? never?
And.... Will there be populations living in NA that can trace ancestry back that shows no admixture with other groups?
Population genetics is discussed in terms of statistics. It's one of the few mathamatical practices I loathe (give me matrix mathamatics any day, eigen value anyone?) but I think I can muddle my way through.