|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Vestiges for Peter B. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
peter, aren't you going to adress my vestigial DNA?
I think you should, if you claim science will prove there are no vestiges
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Monkenstick
Sorry for not responding, but I do not get a message in my email (anymore), so I have to find out for myself.Regarding your question. You mean the loss of/inactivation of a redundant gene? I really do not understand why everyone is so focussed on the loss of genes. My hypothesis of a multipurpose genome holds that the major part of the genes of an organsism is redundant anyway (e.g. 98% of the genes of Arabidopsis, or 10% of the Ecoli genes can be removed without any problem), and according to this hypothesis --since there is no selection on these genes-- they will easily be lost. Not a problem for me to explain. However, the evolution theory cannot explain redundant genes since they are in the genome without selection. It would implicate a rapid evolution (=change) of these genes --as explained before-- but that is not the case. (this has several implications for ET that I will address elsewhere). So, in contrast to the hypothesis of evolution the hypothesis of a multipurpose genome explains this phenomenon. BTW, I read the article you referred to and you find the best evidence for common descent (Johnson and Coffin, PNAS 1999). As a matter of fact and as stated by the authors it is all based upon three ASSUMPTIONS (page 10255, last paragraph). If you read my response on pseudogenes you also get an impression how I see pseudogenes. Furthermore, the authors provide one falsification of common descent: the RTVL-Hb HERV (figure 2G). So, a close look at the article you refer to demonstrates that common descent deduced from endogenous retroviruses is not at all compelling. Evidence for common descent simply depends on the DNA region one studies (see also my reference in: Genetica 1996). best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I can understand why you would write this.
quote: Yes, I have heard of the thymus. I teach immunology. Can you explain when the thymus was seen as "proof" of evolution as a vestigial structure?Can you then explain why it is no longer considered a vestigial structure? The 'conclusion jumping', as you call it (hmmm.... projection?) was due to a lack of evidence to the contrary. When evidence was uncovered to the contrary, a new understanding was possible. The only way that your absurd charge would have merit would be if evolutionists still insisted that the adult thymus is a vestige. But that isn't the case, is it, Peter B.? Of course, if one wants to talk abouit conclusion jumping, I suggest one go no further than the nearset creationist website. Or Peter B. post.quote: Yes, I do. You seem to have been doing quite a bit of it on this board. Of course, considering your humiliating forays into areas of science that are not your own, I don't think I am doing this. I notice that you did not answer my question.quote: Oh, well, pardon me. I guess that means that the entire farrago of 'vestigial structures' is a sham. Is that NOT what you intend? Or is this supposed to be something else?[quote]
quote: What - no statment of indignation?No irrelevant snippet? Hmmmm..... quote: No, it is entirely warranted. You, a creationist, claim that "science" will 'proof' that there are no vestiges.This claim has been circulating for years - maybe decades. Just like the claim that molecular biology will 'disprove' evolution, ala TB. Of course, that asinine 'prediction' was made over a decade ago, and the opposite seems to have more basis in reality than the creationist bombast. No, quite warranted. And what was your 'concern' again? That horses don't have a vestigial hoof muscle because it does something, therefore it can't be vestigial?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Nos,
Mammuthus posted some reviews. They demonstrate that the X is not a broken Y. Their conclusion is "that the PAR (pseudoautosomal region) are relics of differntial additions, loss, rearrangements and degradation of the Y chromosome in different mammalian." My conlusion: nobody knows the origin of the Y chromosome (specific genes). Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Nos,
Mammuthus posted some reviews (mail #69). They demonstrate that the X is not a broken Y. The authors of the most recent review conclude "that the PAR (pseudoautosomal region) are relics of differential additions, loss, rearrangements and degradation of the Y chromosome in different mammalian." My conlusion: nobody knows the origin of the Y chromosome (specific genes). Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: They don't know when the mutation occured which separated the sexes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear Nos,
They don't know WHEN the mutations occured AND they don't know WHERE the genes came from. Before mutations to occur there has to be a gene, isn't it? Or before losses, translocations, rearrangements, and degradations there has to be a lot of genes, isn't it? As a matter of fact nobody knows where they came from, and evo's simply ignore the question. Evo's BELIEVE that is just popped into existance and creo's believe it has been created. I already mentioned that we are not able to trace back the origin because of genetic uncertainty. So, apperently we have two believe systems: one is atheistic (evolutionism) the other one is theistic (creationism). That's what the fuss is about. But, it is just a matter of choise. Get familiar with the matter involved. Read opposite opinions, falsifications, and falsifications of falsifications. Keep what is good and you will find the truth. best wishesPeter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Yup, you're a creationist alright since you don't have a real clue about evolution. I already have and that is why I know that evolution is true and creationism is nothing but wishful "thinking". There is just too much credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence in favor of evolution and all you have is your bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Both you and schraf are skipping over the question of when we become adults. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Oh, oh, oh! Are we talking about horse anatomy and evolution? I have a degree in Equestrian Studies and have worked with horses for about 20 years now.
Horses have a lot of obvious vestigial structures, such as the splint bones on either side of the cannon bones. They are vestigial tarsal bones left over from when horses used to have multiple digits. In fact, they articulate the knee joint at the top, but then taper away to nothing about 2/3 down the leg. A picture:
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
(31)a.gif Here is what AiG says about splint bones in horses, with my comments:
quote: The splint bones, unless they have been through stress or traumatic injury and have therefore become calcified and fused to the cannon bone, do not provide any strength to the cannon bone because they are only floating beside the cannon, attached with connective tissue. An injury and inflammation in this area is common in young horses and is very painful. I have no idea how the splint bones could strengthen the foot bones, either, because they are nowhere near the foot bones.
quote: Horses can get along just fine without their splint bones, and I know this from first hand experience. In some horses the splint bones are so fine and thin that they would not provide much protection. I notice that nowhere in AiG's article do they discuss why a bone that tapers away to nothing would articulate in a joint, and they do not discuss the common inflammation and injury to splint bones in horses. Big surprise. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth" [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: So Peter, have you published any of your hypotheses yet? Arguing on these bulletin boards is interesting, but you know that this is not the forum for overturning a paradigm. So let's see you publish some of these ideas. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: When society says we are. In the USA it is 21, in Canada it is 19. In primitive cultures it is as soon as your body is old enough to reproduce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You do not pay attention. In the US there are dozens of different ages of maturity depending on what you want to do, where you want to do it, who you want to do it with, and what sex you are. Your reply is of course begging the question. You again gallop happily right over the important bits. Why 21? Why 19? Who set the age? Why do I believe them? Why is it OK that the age of maturity changes culture to culture? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by John:
You do not pay attention. In the US there are dozens of different ages of maturity depending on what you want to do, where you want to do it, who you want to do it with, and what sex you are. Your reply is of course begging the question. You again gallop happily right over the important bits. Why 21? Why 19? Who set the age? Why do I believe them? Why is it OK that the age of maturity changes culture to culture? It all depends on the cultural norms and other things such as population size, educational systems, male to female ratio, experience from observed behaviors at certain age levels, etc. It is not as simple as you would want it to be. Sorry, but it seems that the cops won't be letting you bonk any young teenage girls any time soon and we can see just how much you want to do that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024