Since UCD is supported by evidence, I see no reason to back away from it. Also, I have offered mutation and selection as a known mechanism, and yet you continue to state that no one has offered a mechanism.
1 Like
It’s been done. (This is but one example - there is a lot to draw upon.)
After you read this paper, @colewd , maybe you can figure out a way to connect the term Kq in Equation 1 to biochemical parameters (such as the association constants for the binding of two transcription factors to one another).
Enjoy!
2 Likes
You can make this statement about almost anything.
Here is the evidence, if you want to look at it:
1 Like
A V-region assumes the existence of an antibody architecture, not some other protein, therefore a random sequence of random length does not automatically make an antibody protein. You misrepresented the argument and criticized something I wasn’t saying.
There’s no need to act like it’s just hearsay; you could search for yourself. Your reluctance to search the literature before claiming superior understanding is predictable.
I didn’t claim superior knowledge, I was pointing out you’re criticizing an argument I wasn’t making, and that you’re solving a different problem than the one I’m actually posing, which means you didn’t really solve the problem that was actually posed, namely the helicase architecture, not an antibody archictecture.
I don’t need superior knowledge to point out to a molecular biologists like yourself that a helicase complex doesn’t have the same fold and quaternary structure as an antibody complex!!! A junior in biochemistry can see that.
A model was built to examine the kinetics of regulatory cascades such as occur in developmental gene networks.
The model should show the mechanism can do the job at hand. Thanks for the paper I will read it.
With antibodies, you are essentially randomizing a portion of that protein. Evolution often involves randomization of a portion of a protein (e.g. gene duplication and subsequent mutations, an indel that changes the reading frame). In fact, many antibodies are the result of indels that change the reading frame of the genes segments involved in VDJ recombination.
I guess you believe this is adequate evidence for UCD.
He has a 2010 paper that tries to argue for UCD. The issue is he uses random change as the null.
Then what should be used as the null hypothesis?
Design.
You can make lame hand-waving excuses to ignore the scientific evidence about almost everything too. That doesn’t make the evidence go away.
1 Like
And you can do the same way with evidence that contradicts your claim and it also won’t go away.
How can design be used in that protocol?
2 Likes
Look at Winstons model he is developing.
I have. It argues for a non-nested hierarchy based on environmental needs instead of an environment independent tree-like structure seen in evolution. Therefore, design would predict a lack of a phylogenetic signal which is consistent with the protocol that is being used.
3 Likes
I don’t think you understand it. He argues that the pattern best fit is a dependency diagram used in software module development.
Can you swap software modules in a manner that would produce a non-nested hierarchy?
If his article was worth more than a cup of warm spit, he’d have published it in an actual journal, and not the moribund creationist blog “BioComplexity.”
If you know what you are talking about, you’d know that I’ve claimed nothing of the sort.
No. What you are saying makes no sense. I directly and accurately answered your question, which revealed a total lack of understanding on your part.
You still don’t understand.
I didn’t say you did. I said that you are claiming superior understanding without examining the evidence.
Do you not know the difference between knowledge and understanding?
I never claimed it did. I’m simply pointing out the frequency of specific enzyme activity in sequence space.
Since helicase monomers have activity, evolving new quaternary structure isn’t the barrier you are claiming it to be.
Did you even bother to look that up?
1 Like
Winston should be applauded for attempting to answer these larger problems. He may end up being wrong, but at least he is trying.
3 Likes