SDM means 'site directed mutagenesis', and is a technique whereby a scientist generates a point mutation in a plasmid. A mutation, which is what you're maybe thinking of here, is when replication machinery copying the DNA of an organism makes a mistake, and generates a point mutation.Technical Ben wrote:For example, if talking about SDM, I see that it happens in both the lab and in nature. I see no "trick" there, it's a plain observation. Is a scientist "tricking" people when he applies SDM? No. Is nature "tricking" people? No. However, in nature there will be differences to in the lab. Why? Because we are not replicating the natural system 1) Completely and 2) perfectly.
Yes, but mutation being a random system that generates random mutations (...) is not the same as a scientist deliberately generating a point mutant via SDM. I.e., one system isn't random, and the other system is. They may have the same outcome (single base pair changes), but that says nothing of their mechanism of action, or 'motive force'.Technical Ben wrote:Why is this important? Random systems look different than systems with mechanisms of action.
See, this is a principal example of why you're frustrating. If you had just said from the very beginning "I do not understand what SDM is" you could have avoided now three posts that make very little sense.Technical Ben wrote: I want to know the difference between "a person in a lab making these things" and "nature making these things". Does the scientist select randomly, or for a specific mutation? Does nature select randomly or for specific mutations?
SDM, as I mentioned and as I think we went over in the other thread, generates a single point mutation THAT THE SCIENTIST CHOOSES. This is different from natures random mutations! This has nothing to do with natural selection, per say, because SDM is a molecular biology technique done in the lab. Please stop confusing the two.
I've repeated myself in this post, because as typified by much of your confusion, I want you to pay attention to the things being said to you in an effort to incorporate it into your own mismashed understanding of biology. Having a contention with a theory because you fear the lab techniques developed to study a facet of the field are indistinguishable from real world observations is... I don't even know how to explain to you how demonstrative it is of an appallingly incomplete understanding of the field itself.