Izawwlgood wrote:Spoiler:I am beyond uncertain how you can possibly be confused at this point. Putting aside the dyslexic confusion of SDM <-> SMD, which is a completely honest mistake, I truthfully don't understand what you are having trouble with in terms of what site directed mutagenesis is, and it's frustrating, because it makes me think that each explanation I've given you is insufficient at conveying what the technique does.Technical Ben wrote:PS, Izawwlgood, if a scientist cannot roll a die (or RND generator) prior to SDM (yes, it was my dyslexia there that caused a error in letter order previous, sorry) so as to choose a site at random, then I am lost for words.
A scientist CAN roll a die and randomly pick a basepair to mutate (I and others said as much!), but that doesn't mean that SDM is a process used to randomly generate mutations. As mentioned, if you roll a 1d10 and come up with a 4, that's random. If you pick up a 1d10 and place it with the 4 position up, that's not random, and the fact that a die that's been thrown and landed on a 4 is indistinguishable from a die that was placed with the 4 position up doesn't mean the two methods for producing a 4 are identical/interchangable/indicative of whatever it is you keep trying to circle around. Arbitrary vs random vs directed.Spoiler:And again, I, and I'm not sure anyone really, knows what you mean when you say stuff like this;Everything matches, everything lines up, and everything fits. Your lack of understanding, the holes in your knowledge, are where your self-proclaimed inconsistencies lie.Technical Ben wrote:All I was looking for was a way to match the observations of one thing to the other, or the theory to the observations.
Where have I asked the scientist in the example to "place" the dice at a specific result or that SDM is random? From the begging I requested a random site generated however we wish to then apply SDM to that site. We don't even need to apply SDM, that was your suggestion. Are you saying a lab cannot apply other mutagens? I only ever asked for a random (with which ever distribution we need to test for) application of the site for mutations both in the lab and in our observations in nature. If you wish to imply something else, ask if that's my application first. This is not a failure in language, it's an insistence of others to imagine what I believe. You still think I'm arguing for a deity choosing sites of mutation, when I've only ask what we observe the sites of mutation to be. Only after a long discussion do we get the conclusion it's not with uniform distribution. So I now have matching observations (mutation to phenotype), and am happy with this. I will save my further questions to an appropriate time, as I now have an observation I can apply your comments on "complexity/information/function" too (if it's still considered a relevant question). Thanks.
Everything matches, everything lines up, and everything fits. Your lack of understanding, the holes in your knowledge, are where your self-proclaimed inconsistencies lie.
And yet when I said I had specific phenotypes observed with greater frequency, I was not told "because the observation of mutations is also unevenly distributed". Hence "everything matches" was the answer given. But the comments of "all mutations are random (no description of distribution)" and "phenotypes are distributed a specific way" do not match well at all. So I've had to ask what the distribution of mutations are, or if there was anything else I was missing, before I can say "yes these match" to myself. Now I know both have specific distributions, perhaps looking at what these are will be for another time.
vbkid wrote:As has been pointed out already, while mutations are random, phenotypes are not directly correlated to the chance of a specific mutation since, as been pointed out already, beneficial mutations are passed on with a much higher rate of success.
But I asked what the distribution of random mutations were. Specific mechanisms have specific distributions, right? That is all. If it's unscientific to ask that question, then I'll leave further discussions.
There are statements we can make about the kids rolls, and statements that would be false. Such as "the kid rolls sixes more often" would be false, as the weighting is 10% for a 6 and 90% for a 1. Now do the same, but give the child a million sided dice. Give the child 1 roll, or 2. Is it still correct to state "the child will roll a six"? Or "the child has a chance to roll a 6"? Or "It is probable the child will roll the required result"? I've been shown there is a possibility of a roll for a mutation. I'd like to check if it's a probability I can expect. That is a discussion for another time and thread though.