Changes

::::Oh, dear I was really hoping the "random" thing wasn't going to be a problem. You see I could have ran that sentence through a program that randomly changed one letter in the sentence to any others in the alphabet and listed them all. Of all of these one would be "THE CAT WAS RED" which in this example let's consider a beneficial mutation along with others such as "THE BAT WAS RED", and "THE MAT WAS RED" that still make plausible sentences in English. If we consider these sentences as mRNA and each word as a codon for a protein (reading left to right) in this four protein molecule then these mutations in the first base of the second codon will change the type of amino acid to be inserted into this protein. In the proteins for the "beneficial" mutations that I have stated above the new amino acid would do something like alter the configuration of the protein or change it's hydrophobicity in a way that would enable it to carry out it's function more effectively (it could have other consequences, but this is an example so let's keep it simple). We can say that mutations such as "THE PAT WAS RED", "THE SAT WAS RED", and "THE NAT WAS RED" that are all made up of English words, but don't make grammatical sense as mutations that may change the amino acid sequence, but change it to something similar (like  Asn->Glu, both negatively charged with similar pKa values) to where it's function is not affected. Also third base pair changes such as "THE CAN WAS RED" would still code for the same amino acid (in this case) since their is redundancy in the the genetic code and would therefore have the same protein produced as from the original sequence. That mutation would have little or no effect on the fitness of the organism, unless for a complex biochemical one (such as changing the stability of the DNA by going to a G/C->A/T base pair). All the other mutations that make nonsense sentences "THT HAT WAS RED", "THE GAT WAS RED", and "THE HAT WAS NED" let's call harmful mutations that make the protein less effective at what it does. When natural selection works on these mutations the positive ones get selected for and the harmful ones start declining in the population. So after many generations some may be left with "THE CAT WAS RED" which despite being random in the first place looks like it was designed, since all the much more likely harmful mutations occurred and were selected against.

::::Oh, dear I was really hoping the "random" thing wasn't going to be a problem. You see I could have ran that sentence through a program that randomly changed one letter in the sentence to any others in the alphabet and listed them all. Of all of these one would be "THE CAT WAS RED" which in this example let's consider a beneficial mutation along with others such as "THE BAT WAS RED", and "THE MAT WAS RED" that still make plausible sentences in English. If we consider these sentences as mRNA and each word as a codon for a protein (reading left to right) in this four protein molecule then these mutations in the first base of the second codon will change the type of amino acid to be inserted into this protein. In the proteins for the "beneficial" mutations that I have stated above the new amino acid would do something like alter the configuration of the protein or change it's hydrophobicity in a way that would enable it to carry out it's function more effectively (it could have other consequences, but this is an example so let's keep it simple). We can say that mutations such as "THE PAT WAS RED", "THE SAT WAS RED", and "THE NAT WAS RED" that are all made up of English words, but don't make grammatical sense as mutations that may change the amino acid sequence, but change it to something similar (like  Asn->Glu, both negatively charged with similar pKa values) to where it's function is not affected. Also third base pair changes such as "THE CAN WAS RED" would still code for the same amino acid (in this case) since their is redundancy in the the genetic code and would therefore have the same protein produced as from the original sequence. That mutation would have little or no effect on the fitness of the organism, unless for a complex biochemical one (such as changing the stability of the DNA by going to a G/C->A/T base pair). All the other mutations that make nonsense sentences "THT HAT WAS RED", "THE GAT WAS RED", and "THE HAT WAS NED" let's call harmful mutations that make the protein less effective at what it does. When natural selection works on these mutations the positive ones get selected for and the harmful ones start declining in the population. So after many generations some may be left with "THE CAT WAS RED" which despite being random in the first place looks like it was designed, since all the much more likely harmful mutations occurred and were selected against.

::::And I do apologize for linking the wrong article, tabbed browsing is a boon and a curse. ^^  --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::And I do apologize for linking the wrong article, tabbed browsing is a boon and a curse. ^^  --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::

 

::::: Using intelligent design to demonstrate evolution ''is'' a problem, and always will be.  Including ''systematically'' trying all combinations.  And stopping the "mutations" there.  No microbes-to-man evolution is going to stop at a single mutation.  How about ''randomly'' making one mutation (even trying every combination), then ''another'' random (not systematic) mutation to the sequence that already has a mutation, then ''another'' random mutation to that, and so on.  And then see how many still make sense.