Live stream of the Nelson–Velasco debate – NOW

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 29, 2014

Intelligent Design, News, Tree of life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to “Nelson-Velasco debate: Hold it despite opposition. Anything else is “fascism,” says prof,” here’s the live stream of the debate (presumably when it starts, at 3:00 pm EST).

By the way, in case you happen to hear, during the debate, that “Creationists will be the death of science” or some such, get this, from genetcisit Todd Wood’s blog:

I just got back from the Bryan College Undergraduate Research Conference. I’m teaching an adjunct class this semester to bio majors, and two of my students were presenting. …

[evil creationists, see?]

After the conference, the department chair took me aside and shared with me the results from the latest standardized testing of the senior biology majors. The test splits up their scores in four categories: cell, organismal, genetics, and evolution. To my absolute delight, Bryan College students scored in the 99th percentile – in the evolution category! That was their highest category too. Uh oh! Who’s been teaching them evolution? Well, that would be me. The class I’m teaching this semester is called “History of Life,” which is just a euphemism for evolutionary biology. I teach straight from Freeman and Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis, and we read Darwin’s Origin of Species during the class. The students know my position on origins, and when appropriate, I bring in creationist commentary. But for the most part, it’s straight evolutionary biology. The 99th percentile means they’re outperforming most students taught by actual evolutionists.

The fact that lots of people don’t believe that a pile of kindling is a Tree of Life, doesn’t mean they can’t answer questions about what’s in the book advocating that view.

The problem is more with what’s in the book.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

AVS (#85), Your attempts to minimize the competency of creationists in evolutionary theory are noted. You said,
And, again Paul, I would want to know how many students took the test.
And again,
The only thing that has been proven is that 8 students (which were assuming) out of who knows how many, scored well on a test that was standardized to who knows what other schools. By your thinking it would seem the likely candidates for this were other christian colleges, which doesn’t say much for being in the 99th percentile then.
Your proposal sounds a little desperate. Educational Testing Service ( https://www.ets.org/ ) is the same outfit that produces the Graduate Record Exam, which presumably you will take. To suggest that it standardizes its evolutionary biology test on creationist colleges is just ludicrous. Contrary to your prejudices, some creationists, including most of those at Bryan college, really do understand evolution. Remember, their 6 year average is 98th percentile.Paul Giem_{April 7, 2014
April
04
Apr
7
07
2014
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

AVS, You are missing the point that was being made, because you are behind in your understanding where the conversation currently is. You stated that
The argument was whether or not the sequence is the driving factor in folding, and as I have just explained, the sequence is the driving factor with or without the use of chaperones.
That was the proposal that Annila and Baverstock originally made (in a peer-reviewed journal) and that bornagain77 repeated. However, I believe that BA77 is now agreeing to the fact that the sequence does determine the folds that are possible, and that sequence is a necessary condition for proper folding (see #47 and #48). At this point nobody is disagreeing that protein sequence is necessary for proper folding, and you would get no argument from me if you characterized sequence as the major driving factor in protein folding. You even seemed to recognize this in #50. You have also conceded that for a subset of proteins, chaperones are necessary. As you said in #57,
I’ve already stated that to my knowledge chaperones function by providing an environment in which the protein folds more easily, still driven by its amino acid sequence.
But there is another question that you do not seem to be understanding as well. It is, what percentage of proteins require chaperone proteins in order to fold correctly in vivo? And for this purpose, it doesn't really matter whether the proteins are actively folded by the chaperones, or the chaperones merely keep the proteins from folding incorrectly or from interacting with other proteins prematurely. The important point is that the proteins need the chaperones to fold properly in vivo. And here Joe is correct according to the literature. Joe quotes an article stating that
The folding of most newly synthesized proteins in the cell requires the interaction of a variety of protein cofactors known as molecular chaperones.
That would indicate that the proportion of proteins needing chaperones to fold correctly in vivo is greater than 50%. You picked option C. I will quote option C again:
C. pretend that you can still lay down the law, in which case your opinion on this can be safely ignored.
You simply can't "lay down the law". Neither we, nor the proteins, will listen. Science is finding out what nature does, not telling nature what it must do. You sound like a college student who is full of himself. Come to think of it, since you state that "actually I will have a PhD in cell and molecular biology somewhere in the next 6 years", you probably are a college student. (Either that, or you are a graduate student on a slow track.) Some of us have more education in the relevant disciplines than you do. And you are telling us not to listen to two PhD's who got their article into the peer-reviewed literature. So even if you had a PhD, you couldn't "lay down the law". Experimental evidence and logic are the only things we are required to listen to. That is why you need to produce an article if you wish to persuade us that in fact, most proteins in vivo do not require chaperones. Your comment, "I am arguing against need for the chaperones that directly effect protein folding", is currently arguing against a straw man. Nobody here is any longer arguing that chaperones are folding proteins in the way the chaperones dictate regardless of the proteins' sequences. But if you state it in a slightly different way, "I am arguing against need for the chaperones that directly affect protein folding", then you will meet more resistance. A chaperone that keeps a protein from folding in the wrong direction is aiding in its proper folding. If it makes you feel better, you can take out the word "directly". But the chaperone in question definitely affects protein folding.Paul Giem_{April 7, 2014
April
04
Apr
7
07
2014
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

I know what the paper says, moron. I did not take the abstract out-of-context and you cannot show that I did. You have been unable to follow anything that I posted. It's as if you are just a mental midget cry-baby.
That abstract is referring to all subtypes of chaperones, the chaperones that directly aid folding by imparting steric information and those that don’t.
I know that. I never said that chaperones were only used to assist protein folding. The abstract says tat most proteins require chaperones to assist in folding. That refutes your ignorant claim that chaperone assistance is rare for protein folding. You are a poseur. and a liar.Joe_{April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Joe, we've talked about all of these things. Yes context is very important, and you took that abstract out of context when you copy and pasted it as "evidence" for yourself. That abstract is referring to all subtypes of chaperones, the chaperones that directly aid folding by imparting steric information and those that don't. Bye bye little Joey, thanks for the laughs.AVS_{April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

AVS YOU don't know what you are talking abt. Yoiu are a lar and a loser.
1. There are many types 2. A small subset of these type directly aid protein foldingg
So far so good
3. Most proteins can fold on their own
Evidence please.
4. A small subset of proteins have an absolute requirement for chaperones for correct folding
Reference please. Your word means nothing here.
5. As far as I am aware, the small subset of chaperones that aid folding, function by taking in the unfolded protein and provide an environment in which the amino acid sequence can correctly fold.
LoL! As far as we are aware AVS is a liar and a moron.
It should be noted when the word “chaperone” is used, it is not only referring to the small subset of chaperones that directly aid in the folding of the protein, but also the many other types of chaperones that do not aid folding.
LoL! It all depends on the CONTEXT.
For example: “The folding of most newly synthesized proteins in the cell requires the interaction of a variety of protein cofactors known as molecular chaperones.”
Peer-review
With these facts in mind it shouldn’t be hard to see who actually knows what they are talking about.
AVS can't even follow along. He has to lie, misrepresent and bloviate. So AVS is nothing but a lying punk and cannot stand that I corrected him.Joe_{April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

I always do make sure that person doesn't know what they are talking about before I call them out on it. It usually doesn't take long to figure it out. And, again Paul, I would want to know how many students took the test. Is it a requirement for graduation, or did they just select 8 of their top students to take the test so they could hand out stats like these. The only thing that has been proven is that 8 students (which were assuming) out of who knows how many, scored well on a test that was standardized to who knows what other schools. By your thinking it would seem the likely candidates for this were other christian colleges, which doesn't say much for being in the 99th percentile then.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

There is no such thing as a degree in "protein folding," but actually I will have a PhD in cell and molecular biology somewhere in the next 6 years. Once again, no. You have to be careful when reading the article because when they say "function in protein folding" they don't mean the chaperone actually directs folding. IF you just read the abstract, you'll see that they say Hsp70/40 function in protein folding, and then they will go on to explain in more detail that these proteins just keep the newly synthesized protein from aggregating. Hsp60 is the only chaperone they mention which directly aids folding of the newly synthesized protein. And as I have repeatedly said, this chaperone functions by providing an environment for increased efficiency of sequence-driven folding. The argument was whether or not the sequence is the driving factor in folding, and as I have just explained, the sequence is the driving factor with or without the use of chaperones. I am not arguing against the need for chaperones as a whole, I am arguing against need for the chaperones that directly effect protein folding. And I know it to be a fact that the majority of proteins in the cell do not need chaperones to direct their folding. "It would seem that if the folding of a protein requires the interaction of various protein cofactors known as chaperones, those chaperones directly aid in the folding of that protein." Just in case I didn't make myself clear, NO. This is completely wrong and also the source of Joe confusion. the word directly is what makes this statement wrong. As I have just said, the need for chaperones that directly aid folding of a protein sequence is small in the cell. The majority of proteins use chaperones, but they do not "directly" aid folding, they merely hold the protein in its unfolded state or partially unfolded state. Joe does not have a reference that supports his position. He thinks he does, but that is only because he has no idea what he is talking about. So yes, I choose C, but my "opinion" cannot be safely ignored because I actually know what the hell I am talking about. Wiki most certainly is reference enough for post here at UD, you hold this site in much to high esteem.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

AVS (#64), You said,
I see Paul, obviously at least some of the students have an understanding of the basics of evolution, the numbers don’t lie. But I would suggest that you be careful about saying the “whole class” scored in the 99th percentile, as this is not what was said. What was said was that “students” scored in the 99th percentile. I would like to know if all their students took the test or was it just a select few? How many students were actually in the 99th percentile? Who else takes the test? I know my university doesn’t require biology students to take tests like this.
Thanks for your concession that at least some creationist students understand the basics of evolution. I presume that you will be cautious in the future about saying things like "You really don't understand evolution" to a creationist or ID proponent without first making sure that the person doesn't actually understand. If you look at the website, there are 8 named students. So it appears that 8 students got the 99th percentile. One may argue that these are 8 out of a huge number of students. I doubt that there are that many biology students at Bryan College. But there is another piece of information that can be gotten here (scenario 5) It says,
over the past 6 years, Bryan's Biology majors have averaged scores in the 98th percentile in their ETS Major Field Tests.
So this finding was not just a fluke. I don't know why your university doesn't require biology students to take tests like this. But I can see why Bryan College might want to do so. There would be those who would criticize them for going to a creationist school and not learning about evolution. Perhaps they wish to give the lie to such suppositions. They have more to prove than your university. It does look like they have pretty much proved it.Paul Giem_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

AVS (#81), Before we accept the law you are laying down, perhaps it is fair to ask who gave you the role of lawgiver. Do you have a master's or PhD in protein folding? Or are you just spouting what you were taught without any idea that science may have advanced from there? I will agree that there are many types of chaperone proteins. From my reading of Joe's reference (#79), it appears that most can function as helpers for protein folding, either by actually encouraging folding or by discouraging the aggregation that would otherwise occur, which seems to me to still be necessary for folding in vivo. So your point 2 appears to be falsified by the reference. Your point 3 is true, but misleading. If you will note, the reference points out that in vitro and in vivo are two different environments, with some folding taking seconds in cool, dilute solutions that would not apply in vivo. To quote,
However, the experimental conditions necessary to successfully fold many proteins, especially larger ones, in vitro, are very constrictive, usually requiring very low protein concentration and long incubation times and are usually unphysiological (e.g., relatively low temperatures).
If one has a protein that will not spontaneously fold in the cell at ambient temperatures without a chaperone, it is fair to say that it requires a chaperone (or chaperones) to fold properly in the cell. I noticed that you tried to sidestep the force of Joe's quote by claiming that
It should be noted when the word “chaperone” is used, it is not only referring to the small subset of chaperones that directly aid in the folding of the protein, but also the many other types of chaperones that do not aid folding. For example: “The folding of most newly synthesized proteins in the cell requires the interaction of a variety of protein cofactors known as molecular chaperones.”
I'm not sure you are listening to yourself when you say this. It would seem that if the folding of a protein requires the interaction of various protein cofactors known as chaperones, those chaperones directly aid in the folding of that protein. And according to the quote, most proteins fall into that category. Joe has a reference, peer-reviewed, supporting his position. You have three choices: A. admit you were wrong, or at least that the available evidence supports his position, B. find a newer reference supporting your position, or C. pretend that you can still lay down the law, in which case your opinion on this can be safely ignored. And for this, Wikipedia is not a reference, although if they have references to the peer-reviewed literature, those references (if you read them) might be adequate.Paul Giem_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

Alright, let me lay down the law for everyone since a certain individual is exhibiting the exact traits of a typical UDer; a complete misunderstanding and yet complete confidence in the bullshit that comes out of their mouth. Here are the facts about chaperones: 1. There are many types 2. A small subset of these type directly aid protein foldingg 3. Most proteins can fold on their own 4. A small subset of proteins have an absolute requirement for chaperones for correct folding 5. As far as I am aware, the small subset of chaperones that aid folding, function by taking in the unfolded protein and provide an environment in which the amino acid sequence can correctly fold. It should be noted when the word "chaperone" is used, it is not only referring to the small subset of chaperones that directly aid in the folding of the protein, but also the many other types of chaperones that do not aid folding. For example: "The folding of most newly synthesized proteins in the cell requires the interaction of a variety of protein cofactors known as molecular chaperones." With these facts in mind it shouldn't be hard to see who actually knows what they are talking about.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

AVS:
I’m not saying that a small subset of proteins would be able to fold correctly without chaperones.
Most proteins wouldn't be able to. And according to what YOU sed the amino acid sequence determines the fold. However the fact that chaperones are required refutes that claim.
I’m saying that all the chaperones do is guide sequence-specific folding.
Not exactly. The sequence specificity will allow the assisted folds to be held after the chaperone leaves the scene.Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

AVS sed that chaperones assisting in protein folding is rare. I give you the following as a refutation: Chaperone Mediated Protein Folding:
Abstract The folding of most newly synthesized proteins in the cell requires the interaction of a variety of protein cofactors known as molecular chaperones.
Oops. As I already knew, I know more about biology than AVS. And without the chaperones those proteins would never fold into their required shape. AVS has never even addressed what I have been saying. Talk about mental retardation...Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

I'm not saying that a small subset of proteins would be able to fold correctly without chaperones. I'm saying that all the chaperones do is guide sequence-specific folding. I honestly think you have some form of mental retardation...or your just a troll. Bye little Joey, take care now!AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

At least AVS admits that he is a wall. That is a start. Again, it is a fact that without the chaperones, the proteins that need them would NOT find their functional shape. AVS doesn't even respond to what I am saying. AVS is a pure ass and a moron.Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Joe, how bad are you bleeding from banging your head against the wall so much? The use of chaperones for folding is rare, and I've already explained numerous times that chaperones work by catalyzing sequence-specific folding. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When you have something new to say, let me know. Good day.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

AVS- you are full of it. Without the chaperones the polypeptides would not find their functioning shape. And according to your original claim the same amino acid sequence should produce the same protein with the same folds. It doesn't, you lose.Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

I don't hate anybody, but when someone starts screaming their religious nonsense at passerbys, yelling about how "evolution is a lie" with absolutely no evidence for their claims, it bothers me a little. In the end everyone thinks the guy is a complete psycho, but it still bothers me that people can be so ludicrous. Anyways I realize what I'm doing on here is comparable, but at least I back up my claims with scientific facts.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Dr. Geim forgive me for posting one more time, but AVS you state:
When I stop seeing your creationist nutjob friends on my campus screaming about how “Jesus loves me and….hates me” then I will stop being an ass to you guys.
So AVS, I take it you are defending atheistic/materialistic thinking for how we got here, (aka Darwinism), on UD because you hate some or all Christians on your campus? Please clarify as to whether you hate some or all of the Christians on your campus? Should I hate all or just some atheists in the world because of the deeds of Stalin and Chairman Mao?,,, But anyways, I take it that you think that you have no soul to be concerned about and that all this life after death talk is just a bunch of malarkey???? Well contrary to what you may imagine to be true for reality, the fact is that there is now empirical evidence for a 'transcendent' component to your being which is not reducible to matter and energy. In fact to hash this out just a bit more, Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’ (cannot be created or destroyed) ‘non-local’, beyond space-time matter-energy, quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
In fact, not only is this non-local, beyond space and time, quantum information in the cell not reducible to (or emergent from) the energy and mass of the body as Darwinism holds, but all the energy and mass of an entire human body can ‘theoretically’ be reduced to quantum information and 'instantaneously' teleported elsewhere in the universe. A fact which is completely contrary to materialistic thinking:
Quantum Teleportation of a Human? – video https://vimeo.com/75163272
Thus AVS, while you may laugh at, scoff at, and demean, people who take the destiny of their souls seriously, the fact of the matter is that empirical science itself is now to the point of verifying their basic 'nutjob' belief to be true!!! i.e. Science itself now strongly indicates that there is indeed a transcendent 'soul' within out bodies to be concerned about. Myself, I take the 'life after death' matter seriously:
Two very different eternities revealed by physics https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thank-you-okfanriffic/#comment-494454 "Einstein's equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist." Kip S. Thorne - "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" pg. 476 Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Michaela's Amazing NEAR death experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTcHWz6UMZ8 Dr. Jeffrey Long: Just how strong is the evidence for a afterlife? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mptGAc3XWPs
Verse and Music:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? Creed - My Own Prison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBqjGd3fHQ
bornagain77_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

I know, I love it. When I stop seeing your creationist nutjob friends on my campus screaming about how "Jesus loves me and....hates me" then I will stop being an ass to you guys.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

AVS, with all due respect, you are a jerk!bornagain77_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Wiki warns you of that because they know its better to be safe than sorry. The fact of the matter is that wiki is plenty reliable for informal conversation. I use it frequently to supplement my learning in the classroom and as background for any topics I am unfamiliar with. I would venture it is correct 99% of the time.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

BA, you further prove my point that you simply do not have the necessary biological knowledge to carry out the conversations that you do. Protein function is a direct product of the protein's shape/form. You didn't "cause" any confusion, you only demonstrated your own.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

AVS How on earth do you find wiki good enough when wiki itself warns you about the unreliability of its content...Andre_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Dr. Giem, my claim is that shape or form is only tenuously effected by sequential information, I said nothing about functionality. I'm well aware functionality is many times extremely sensitive point mutations. I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused to this thread I have caused. And will comment no further.,,, I thought, and still think, the point I made towards form and shape to be important. Perhaps shadows of Aristotle drifting in the back of my mind. :) Matter and Form http://simplyphilosophy.org/philosophy/classical-greek-philosophy/aristotle/matter-and-form/bornagain77_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Also, wiki serves its purpose just fine for informal conversation. It is 99% accurate and for the most part up to date. And it most certainly does help me. Do I need to quote it again?AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Joe, for the last time, the chaperones are merely expediting the sequence based folding. Also, the different folds that can occur from an unchanged amino acid sequence are the product of sequence-based folding also, the variation comes from segments of the polypeptide strand exiting the ribosome at different rates.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

I see Paul, obviously at least some of the students have an understanding of the basics of evolution, the numbers don't lie. But I would suggest that you be careful about saying the "whole class" scored in the 99th percentile, as this is not what was said. What was said was that "students" scored in the 99th percentile. I would like to know if all their students took the test or was it just a select few? How many students were actually in the 99th percentile? Who else takes the test? I know my university doesn't require biology students to take tests like this.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Wiki doesn't help you and it isn't a valid academic source. And without the chaperones the polypeptide would NOT find its required shape. So shut up already. With silent mutations the amino acid sequence is the same. And I already knew your explanation. That is why I said what I did. With the same amino acid sequence there can be different final proteins. Period, end of story. According to you that can't happen.Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

AVS (#58), According to the website of Bryan College, it is part of the ETS Major Field Tests. Sounds like a standardized test to me, including mostly non-Christian schools. And it is not just one student, but the whole class. Now what do you think?Paul Giem_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Joe, please read the first few paragraphs on the wiki page for chaperones, it will straighten you out as to how rare a process it is. You are still missing my point that the chaperones are merely catalyzing the sequence-based folding process. The folds are still dependent on amino acid sequence in the silent mutation's case. Let me explain, the association of certain tRNA to their codons slows the process of translation a bit more than other tRNA, this leads to the amino acid sequence outside of the ribosome maybe folding slightly differently because some of the amino acids that normally would have exited the ribosome with the normal nucleotide sequence, have not yet madde it out yet. In both this case, you will notice that folding is still being driven by the amino acid sequence.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply