The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design

[جوري]

Greetings Skye,

I've looked through your latest post and tried to find some useful content, but there is none. Got a link yet?

Peace

when you take your brain out for a good wash, can you make any requests!

I appear to have repeated czgibson's mistake
and used evolution interchangeably with natural selection.

So the question is now: "Why is Huntington's not compatible with natural selection?"

Does making the same mistake as gibson loan it more credence? I expect that atheists can only subscribe to the same dogma, since their God Dawkin circumvented and subtly referenced the terms in his manifestos, however, your god is no substitute for your own brain, thus you go ahead and explain to us what 'Natural selection' means to you and in which way it is compatible with a codon reiteration disorders? I fear your previous:

Why would Huntington's not fit with evolution? Most sufferers don't have any of the detrimental symptoms until long after they've reached sexual maturity and been able to pass on their genes. In most cases it would have no effect at all on their 'fitness' to reproduce.

isn't compatible with the definition of 'Natural Selection' where fitness and favorable heritable traits is 'central' to its theme, while low-fitness have fewer off-spring or none at all.. here we have several (I know you like Huntington it is easy to google nonetheless, ( 28 types of spinocerebellar ataxias)/ (fragile X) and the various other polyglutamine disorder to name a few--where low-fitness codons aren't merely passed down but expand rapidly with each successive generation. Natural selection isn't merely about 'phenotypic normalcy' and what other animals find attractive to reproduce, fragile X exhibits pheonotypic abnormalities early on in fact depending on how large the expansion, and they are not about to die or be 'selected out' any time soon! --


all the best!

 

[Uthman]

Sister Gossamer, czgibson, please desist with the personal insults. Thanks.

 

[JaffaCake]

isn't compatible with the definition of 'Natural Selection' where fitness and favorable heritable traits is 'central' to its theme, while low-fitness have fewer off-spring or none at all.. here we have several (I know you like Huntington it is easy to google nonetheless, ( 28 types of spinocerebellar ataxias)/ (fragile X) and the various other polyglutamine disorder to name a few--where low-fitness codons aren't merely passed down but expand rapidly with each successive generation. Natural selection isn't merely about 'phenotypic normalcy' and what other animals find attractive to reproduce, fragile X exhibits pheonotypic abnormalities early on in fact depending on how large the expansion, and they are not about to die or be 'selected out' any time soon! --

I ask you a question specifically about Huntington's and you give me an answer focussed on Fragile X.

Regarding Huntington's, and only Huntington's, what are the features of this condition that you think impair fitness to reproduce?

You're going to love this one:
A Darwinian approach to Huntington’s disease: Subtle health benefits of a neurological disorder

"Huntington’s disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that, unlike most autosomal dominant disorders, is not being selected against. One explanation for the maintenance of the mutant HD allele is that it is transparent to natural selection because disease symptoms typically occur subsequent to an individual’s peak reproductive years. While true, this observation does not explain the population-level increase in HD. The increase in HD is at least partly the result of enhanced fitness: HD+ individuals have more offspring than unaffected relatives."

While you'd love to think everyone but you is some kind of google-dependent chimpanzee, I initially picked up on this because of experience with someone close to me.

Anyway, your turn.

 

[جوري]

I ask you a question specifically about Huntington's and you give me an answer focussed on Fragile X.

Your question is irrelevant and insinuated in the middle of a topic on how 'Natural Selection' reconciles with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders. And we are still waiting on a sound response!
Is the term being watered down from its conception, to resign to the times hindered by its original definition? If such is the case, I'd avoid the term 'Darwinian' in anything I quote!

Regarding Huntington's, and only Huntington's, what are the features of this condition that you think impair fitness to reproduce?

Again, it has nothing to do with being fit to reach the stage of reproduction, see my detailed reply in the previous post!

You're going to love this one:
A Darwinian approach to Huntington’s disease: Subtle health benefits of a neurological disorder

"Huntington’s disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that, unlike most autosomal dominant disorders, is not being selected against. One explanation for the maintenance of the mutant HD allele is that it is transparent to natural selection because disease symptoms typically occur subsequent to an individual’s peak reproductive years. While true, this observation does not explain the population-level increase in HD. The increase in HD is at least partly the result of enhanced fitness: HD+ individuals have more offspring than unaffected relatives."

Perhaps you can point out the part that I am supposed to love?
Or does having the term 'Darwinian' in the title absolve you from making minimal effort? In fact the article goes so far to tell you ", this -- does not explain the population-level increase in HD'' -- I am yet to learn of how this reconciles with 'Natural selection' along with the other disorders of this type!

While you'd love to think everyone but you is some kind of google-dependent chimpanzee, I initially picked up on this because of experience with someone close to me.

It would certainly explain your one fixation and loss of the complete picture-- and that has indeed been the general consensus amongst our forum insta-scholars.. google in common!

Anyway, your turn.

I am tickled!

 

[Ramadhan]

One thing you've left out of your habitable zone discussion thus far is that of the star's age. A star becomes gradually warmer as it ages, and therefore the habitable zone moves further from the star over time. Early in our Sun's life, Venus would have been within the habitable zone, and later in our Sun's life Mars will be within it.

Not quite, even if mars gets warmer, it still will not be habitable because it doesn't have rotating liquid iron core which produces magnetic field that acts to protect planets from solar radiation and solar winds.
all life would be toast without artificial protection.

 

[JaffaCake]

Your question is irrelevant and insinuated in the middle of a topic on how 'Natural Selection' reconciles with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders. And we are still waiting on a sound response!

What makes you think you can't reconcile the two?

Natural selection doesn't mean that only the best adapted genomes survive, just that they're most likely to survive.

Not quite, even if mars gets warmer, it still will not be habitable because it doesn't have rotating liquid iron core which produces magnetic field that acts to protect planets from solar radiation and solar winds.
all life would be toast without artificial protection.

I wasn't suggesting that Mars necessarily would be habitable, but that it would fall within the orbital region known as the 'habitable zone'.

 

[جوري]

What makes you think you can't reconcile the two?

answering my question with a question doesn't a sound reply make.. Do you understand what was being asked of you? Not just in terms of Huntington which has a Juvenile form by the way but I don't want to bring more variables into the table, when you are having a heck of a time with just one!

Natural selection doesn't mean that only the best adapted genomes survive, just that they're most likely to survive.

Indeed, those with an advantage succeed and those that don't become extinct.. not the case with mutated useless codons that not only succeed but expand with every successive generation!

I wasn't suggesting that Mars necessarily would be habitable, but that it would fall within the orbital region known as the 'habitable zone'.

Not that I want to steal brother Naidmar' thunder, but I have seen your habitable region article and we can't really be sure that the 'habitable' regions are in fact habitable-- Do you read what you post thoroughly?

all the best!

 

[JaffaCake]

Indeed, those with an advantage succeed and those that don't become extinct.. not the case with mutated useless codons that not only succeed but expand with every successive generation!

Well that's exactly my point, it is not just those with an advantage that succeed. Plenty of neutral or slightly detrimental mutations will succeed with every generation.

People with a small number of repeats will never even know they have them because there will be practically zero effect.

If you look back at the abstract I posted earlier you'll notice they hypothesise that the number of Huntington's carriers is increasing because they are more reproductively successful.

What other explanation do you need?

Not that I want to steal brother Naidmar' thunder, but I have seen your habitable region article and we can't really be sure that the 'habitable' regions are in fact habitable-- Do you read what you post thoroughly?

The habitable zone is simply the region around a star in which a planet would have to orbit in order for the building blocks of known life to be available, such as liquid water. Too far out, the water stays frozen, too close, it all evaporates. That is over-simplified but it's enough to illustrate why I said what I did.

 

[جوري]

Well that's exactly my point, it is not just those with an advantage that succeed. Plenty of neutral or slightly detrimental mutations will succeed with every generation.

People with a small number of repeats will never even know they have them because there will be practically zero effect.

If you look back at the abstract I posted earlier you'll notice they hypothesise that the number of Huntington's carriers is increasing because they are more reproductively successful.

What other explanation do you need?

You don't know what level of penetrance of codons are actually needed to exhibit fully any mutation.. you can have a small number and exhibit full traits, or vice versa and that goes for mutations outside the 'insertion' type, so please don't make up things as you go along or as you learn from third party info. Nonetheless, that was never the Q. It was never about hanging around long enough to reproduce as I have shown you that Huntington isn't the only one in its class of disease, and further more it can actually manifest in a Juvenile form .. the Question has always been, why seemingly detrimental and by detrimental I mean fatal genes aren't merely being selected out, they are selected in and expand rapidly.. Seems to go against the very core principal of 'Natural Selection'.. btw that is if I am to agree with it as a mechanism of evolution, which I don't any more than I agree that any mutation or genetic drift will cause 'speciation' .. mutations have names and they aren't beneficial unless you are watching X-men which isn't how it works in real life.. and pls don't bring me the whole tired sickle cell fiasco into the picture as I have covered it here extensively.. substituting one disease state for another doesn't a benefit incur..

I think you collectively take adaptation to mean speciation by a huge leap of faith and then upset at best if challenged on mechanism of action which is the bread and butter of science, either by answering a question with another to deflect from reflecting on your beliefs, or taking a lesser absolute and focusing on it to explain the aberrations that turn up and every so often .. You can't really then come and claim this as the absolute truth of how 'evolution' happens if looking for loop holes every time your are stumped for answers..
your entire dogma is based on fallacious nonsense, that requires a long stretch of the imagination and then wonder why folks take you for indoctrinated zealots who bow before a lesser god?!

The habitable zone is simply the region around a star in which a planet would have to orbit in order for the building blocks of known life to be available, such as liquid water. Too far out, the water stays frozen, too close, it all evaporates. That is over-simplified but it's enough to illustrate why I said what I did.

Except as per your article, they can't be sure that water or oxygen is actually there or was there to sustain life!

and pls allow me to quote directly from your article:

So there's no way to know if there is actually water on the surface, or even oxygen in the atmosphere that would indicate the presence of life. But future missions, like Darwin, will certainly put it in the cross hairs to get a better look for life.

​

Future hopes aren't inscribed in stone!

all the best!

 

[JaffaCake]

why seemingly detrimental and by detrimental I mean fatal genes aren't merely being selected out, they are selected in and expand rapidly..

Because people can be carriers without manifesting the disease. A female Fragile X carrier could have an X which would be fatal to any man but is asymptomatic or only has mild symptoms because she also has a 'working' copy.

Those with mild symptoms may seem normal in the main part but pass on their faulty X to numerous children and so on until the repeats build up several generations later whereupon many of the descendants are symptomatic or receive a fatal copy. Meanwhile those children that didn't receive additional repeats are still breeding as normal carrying them to subsequent generations.

I think it's also important to consider that the selection that happens in modern humans is very often not natural.

Except as per your article, they can't be sure that water or oxygen is actually there or was there to sustain life!

That's not what I'm saying. Obviously if there is no H20 on the planet, moving it closer or farther away from the star isn't going to magically generate some (unless the temperature catalyses some water generating reaction). Being in the habitable zone creates the correct cosy conditions for the prerequisite chemicals to play together happily if they occur. Incidentally, oxygen isn't one of the prerequisites.

 

[جوري]

Because people can be carriers without manifesting the disease. A female Fragile X carrier could have an X which would be fatal to any man but is asymptomatic or only has mild symptoms because she also has a 'working' copy

Those with mild symptoms may seem normal in the main part but pass on their faulty X to numerous children and so on until the repeats build up several generations later whereupon many of the descendants are symptomatic or receive a fatal copy. Meanwhile those children that didn't receive additional repeats are still breeding as normal carrying them to subsequent generations.

what does this have to do with Natural selection 'allowing' for detrimental codons to be selected in and not out? I don't need a genetics lesson, I'd not introduce material to the table if I had no prior knowledge of it!

I think it's also important to consider that the selection that happens in modern humans is very often not natural.

Oh? to begin with I'd like your definition of 'Natural' before we expand..

That's not what I'm saying. Obviously if there is no H20 on the planet, moving it closer or farther away from the star isn't going to magically generate some (unless the temperature catalyses some water generating reaction). Being in the habitable zone creates the correct cosy conditions for the prerequisite chemicals to play together happily if they occur. Incidentally, oxygen isn't one of the prerequisites.

I don't think you are capable of distinguishing 'natural' from 'unnatural' from 'magical' what is your criteria and baseline?

what came first the chicken or the egg?

all the best

 

[JaffaCake]

what does this have to do with Natural selection 'allowing' for detrimental codons to be selected in and not out?

Detrimental codons are not selected in, the problem is that often they're not selected out.

It's unlikely that an asymptomatic carrier or mildly symptomatic carrier would be selected out. You can't select against something which does not manifest itself or affect the selection process.

Oh? to begin with I'd like your definition of 'Natural' before we expand..

It's a tricky one, since we're natural by extension one could consider anything and everything we do to be natural including nuclear power stations and stem cell research. What I mean in this case is that selection which would occur without any interference from modern technology. How things would happen 'in the wild', as it were, before humans coalesced into civilisations.

I don't think you are capable of distinguishing 'natural' from 'unnatural' from 'magical' what is your criteria and baseline?

I don't think you are capable of saying "Oh, sorry, I thought you meant something else."

what came first the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Fish were producing eggs long before chickens evolved.

 

[جوري]

Detrimental codons are not selected in, the problem is that often they're not selected out.

It's unlikely that an asymptomatic carrier or mildly symptomatic carrier would be selected out. You can't select against something which does not manifest itself or affect the selection process.

Fact in spite of your assertions is that not only are they selected in, but there is no halting or correcting the process once it is set forth.. if 'natural selection' were a mechanism by which the most fitted survives this would be a stab right at the very citadel!

It's a tricky one, since we're natural by extension one could consider anything and everything we do to be natural including nuclear power stations and stem cell research. What I mean in this case is that selection which would occur without any interference from modern technology. How things would happen 'in the wild', as it were, before humans coalesced into civilisations.

That doesn't explain what natural is-- Natural has an imaginary standard line, which makes the lot of you incapable of describing anything that falls to the left or the right of it without grizzling, and mum at best at how 'natural' in an of itself came to be, sentience and all!

I don't think you are capable of saying "Oh, sorry, I thought you meant something else."

Whatever you need to do to get yourself through this..

The egg. Fish were producing eggs long before chickens evolved.

swell, I am glad you said that.. now please carry us through the process of one large cell and I'll cut you some slack and provide you with the basics in spite of the probabilities and dynamics that assemble it as such and without a host for survival or favorable environmental conditions.. just go ahead and take through the process to a fully fledged chicken and I'll spare you the hundreds of millions of other species for which you are to carry a similar process for without intervention!


all the best!

 

[JaffaCake]

Fact in spite of your assertions is that not only are they selected in, but there is no halting or correcting the process once it is set forth.. if 'natural selection' were a mechanism by which the most fitted survives this would be a stab right at the very citadel!

So we're not talking at cross purposes here, tell me how you think that they are 'selected in'.

Also, what sort of mechanism would be considered natural that had some kind of process for picking out faulty codons that are the precursor to a problem several generations forward?

That doesn't explain what natural is-- Natural has an imaginary standard line, which makes the lot of you incapable of describing anything that falls to the left or the right of it without grizzling, and mum at best at how 'natural' in an of itself came to be, sentience and all!

I explained what I mean when I use 'natural' in the context of natural selection, which was the only pertinent definition at that point. It's an arbitrary distinction and I said as much.

 

[Trumble]

Well that's the trick isn't it; the unlucky ones are those who didn't make it, so I wouldn't be able to tell you . We're lucky because little Jimmy the first genetic material managed to evolve, against all the odds (or they were in his favour, either way, that is pretty lucky).

"Those who didn't make it" is a contradiction in terms in this context as 'making it' is a necessary condition for being a 'they' or 'those' in the first place. You cannot have a 'lucky' species if it is impossible to have an 'unlucky' one!

The issue is not whether little Jimmy managed to evolve, but whether one of a billion billion potential little Jimmys ever came into existence in the first place. As we know for a fact that at least one did, we therefore know the odds of there being at least one little Jimmy with complete certainty. 100%.

 

[جوري]

So we're not talking at cross purposes here, tell me how you think that they are 'selected in'.

Really that was difficult? they pass defective genes from generation to generation, with each generation manifesting a worst outcome.

Also, what sort of mechanism would be considered natural that had some kind of process for picking out faulty codons that are the precursor to a problem several generations forward?I explained what I mean when I use 'natural' in the context of natural selection, which was the only pertinent definition at that point. It's an arbitrary distinction and I said as much.

I don't know what mechanism is considered natural.. you are the one using the term and often, I'd think the burden of proof would lie upon you to explain what it is and how it works? You say, nothing is created, 'the egg came first' and you even threw in fish before chicken, with the bravado of someone who has mastered his craft, yet here you are at the cross roads failing to tell us how it all 'naturally' came to be?.. I really didn't think the question was that difficult!


all the best

 

[JaffaCake]

Really that was difficult? they pass defective genes from generation to generation, with each generation manifesting a worst outcome.

Each generation doesn't necessarily manifest a worse outcome. Some would manifest a worse outcome, most would have the same number of repeats, occasionally there would be an extremely fluky deletion of a repeat.

It's the people who acquire the same number of repeats, display no symptoms and then reproduce that cause an increase in carriers and 'select in' the defective genes.

You can't prevent it from being selected in if there is no manifestation to select on.

I don't know what mechanism is considered natural.. you are the one using the term and often, I'd think the burden of proof would lie upon you to explain what it is and how it works?

The halt or correction comes when organisms die from their genetic defects. What other system would you expect?

You say, nothing is created, 'the egg came first' and you even threw in fish before chicken, with the bravado of someone who has mastered his craft, yet here you are at the cross roads failing to tell us how it all 'naturally' came to be?

Knowing that fish laid eggs before chickens existed does not require one to know how it all came to be.

 

[جوري]

Each generation doesn't necessarily manifest a worse outcome. Some would manifest a worse outcome, most would have the same number of repeats, occasionally there would be an extremely fluky deletion of a repeat.

oh?
well let's see what the geneticists say:

Anticipation and transmitting parent effect — HD is transmitted as an autosomal dominant trait. As mentioned earlier, expansion of the repeat number between successive generations causes an earlier and more severe phenotype, termed anticipation.

Paternal inheritance produces the largest increase, with an average of nine repeats with each generation [8] . The intergenerational anticipation shows a major transmitting parent effect, as approximately 70 to 88 percent of symptomatic juvenile patients inherit the mutant HD gene from their father [9,10] . The high number of cellular divisions that occur during spermatogenesis may account for the pronounced paternal-repeat instability
​

Source: Trottier, Y, Devys, D, Imbert, G, et al. Cellular localization of the Huntington's disease protein and discrimination of the normal and mutated form. Nat Genet 1995; 10:104. Zuhlke, C, Riess, O, Bockel, B, et al. Mitotic stability and meiotic variability of the (CAG)n repeat in the Huntington disease gene. Hum Mol Genet 1993; 2:2063.

Uptodate.com

It's the people who acquire the same number of repeats, display no symptoms and then reproduce that cause an increase in carriers and 'select in' the defective genes.

I believe I have introduced you to penetrance a few posts ago just like I am now introducing you to the term anticipation!..
perhaps you can shed some light on your own points?

You can't prevent it from being selected in if there is no manifestation to select on.

What does this mean?

The halt or correction comes when organisms die from their genetic defects. What other system would you expect?

I expect that when terms are coined and peddled around as scientific, that they manage to withstand the test of time!

Knowing that fish laid eggs before chickens existed does not require one to know how it all came to be.

So what you are saying is that you accept that on faith? like those who accept that we were created on faith?

Thanks, that was pretty much all I needed out of this exercise..
Now quit passing it off as science while parading the 'smarter than thou' attitude ..

all the best!

 

[JaffaCake]

oh?
well let's see what the geneticists say:

So now we're being Huntington's specific?

My point stands for Fragile X, and as we discussed before, Huntington's is unlikely to be selected out because by the time it is manifest, the carrier is usually old enough to have grandchildren.

So what you are saying is that you accept that on faith? like those who accept that we were created on faith?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

There is palaeontological evidence that there was a time when no chickens lived, and fish laid eggs. That's all I need to know in order to tell you that eggs came first.

 

[جوري]

So now we're being Huntington's specific?

It narrows down the field for you but you are none the wiser?

My point stands for Fragile X, and as we discussed before, Huntington's is unlikely to be selected out because by the time it is manifest, the carrier is usually old enough to have grandchildren.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here?

There is palaeontological evidence that there was a time when no chickens lived, and fish laid eggs. That's all I need to know in order to tell you that eggs came first.

There was a time when no humans lived and there was one shrubs, again what is your point? No matter how you slice it, your convictions as far as evolution and the origins of life are concerned are based solely on faith not facts!

all the best!