Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8776 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-16-2017 1:29 PM
375 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,046 Year: 20,652/21,208 Month: 1,085/2,326 Week: 421/345 Day: 78/208 Hour: 10/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5960
61
62636465Next
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 901 of 969 (740637)
11-06-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by Taq
11-06-2014 12:34 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
sfs can explain it much better than I can, but "not aligning" is not a synonym for "0% homology". If you don't know where the sequence fits in the chimp genome then you can't even compare it to the human genome to begin with. Therefore, you have no evidence that the unaligned sequence would have 0% homology. Even random sequence will have 25% homology.

Believe it or not sfs and I have hashed this out over a year ago. I never claimed “0%” homology. By the same token sfs could not claim (100%) homology. It is as I have argued here, what are the important genes and how different are they?

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 12:34 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 1:16 PM zaius137 has responded
 Message 905 by sfs, posted 11-06-2014 1:47 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 902 of 969 (740638)
11-06-2014 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 899 by Taq
11-06-2014 12:35 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
You are wearing a hole in the carpet my friend...

Site identified, site compared. Site unidentified site not compared.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 12:35 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 904 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 1:17 PM zaius137 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6988
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 903 of 969 (740639)
11-06-2014 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by zaius137
11-06-2014 1:01 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
I never claimed “0%” homology.

Then where did you get the 70% from? How do you determine divergence when the DNA under question hasn't even been compared?

It is as I have argued here, what are the important genes and how different are they?

I find that to be a strange statement since your main argument is based on a paper that compares pseudogenes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 1:01 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 906 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 1:50 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6988
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 904 of 969 (740640)
11-06-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 902 by zaius137
11-06-2014 1:04 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
You are wearing a hole in the carpet my friend...
Site identified, site compared. Site unidentified site not compared.

There are 20 identified sites in seq B.

Perhaps you want to try again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 1:04 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 910 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:38 PM Taq has responded

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 905 of 969 (740646)
11-06-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by zaius137
11-06-2014 1:01 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:

Believe it or not sfs and I have hashed this out over a year ago. I never claimed “0%” homology. By the same token sfs could not claim (100%) homology.


If by "hashed out", you mean that you made rambling, inaccurate claims, I corrected you, and you ignored me, then yes, we hashed it out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 1:01 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 907 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:03 PM sfs has responded

    
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 906 of 969 (740648)
11-06-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 903 by Taq
11-06-2014 1:16 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
Then where did you get the 70% from? How do you determine divergence when the DNA under question hasn't even been compared?

I was very carful to claim that it “could be” as high as 70%, not that it was.

quote:
I find that to be a strange statement since your main argument is based on a paper that compares pseudogenes.

Are pseudogenes important? My only complaint here it the ~1.5% divergence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 1:16 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 909 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 2:31 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 907 of 969 (740651)
11-06-2014 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 905 by sfs
11-06-2014 1:47 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
If by "hashed out", you mean that you made rambling, inaccurate claims, I corrected you, and you ignored me, then yes, we hashed it out.

I remember I maintained a point on several issues.

If I remember correctly, your little program you wrote was using asexual reproduction rates contrary to our sexual reproduction discussion, your similarity in protein coding segments was not using the poisson distribution like you should have. etc.

The past is the past, I always say....Ohh... by the way I did prevail in the discussion on alignment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 905 by sfs, posted 11-06-2014 1:47 PM sfs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 908 by sfs, posted 11-06-2014 2:21 PM zaius137 has responded

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 908 of 969 (740655)
11-06-2014 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 907 by zaius137
11-06-2014 2:03 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:

I remember I maintained a point on several issues.

If I remember correctly, your little program you wrote was using asexual reproduction rates contrary to our sexual reproduction discussion, your similarity in protein coding segments was not using the poisson distribution like you should have. etc.

The past is the past, I always say....Ohh... by the way I did prevail in the discussion on alignment.



I don't know how many encounters we've had. The one I found is the one where I wrote the following: "What you've written is complete gibberish." It was. Everything else you wrote in that thread was also either wrong or completely meaningless.

Of course you think you prevailed. That's because, as is obvious from this thread, that you understand so little of what you're talking about that you can have no way of telling when you're wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:03 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 911 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:47 PM sfs has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6988
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 909 of 969 (740658)
11-06-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 906 by zaius137
11-06-2014 1:50 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
I was very carful to claim that it “could be” as high as 70%, not that it was.

Why would you expect the 10% of the genome that wasn't compared between humans and chimps to be different than the 90% that was compared?

Are pseudogenes important? My only complaint here it the ~1.5% divergence.

Are pseudogenes important for what?

Why do you continue to complain about statistics you don't understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 906 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 1:50 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 914 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:55 PM Taq has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 910 of 969 (740659)
11-06-2014 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 904 by Taq
11-06-2014 1:17 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
There are 20 identified sites in seq B.

Perhaps you want to try again?
How many mutations over those 20 sites? And the resulting percentage?


If you identified 20 sites then it is bp per bp on each segment. You have sites 7-11 100% divergent. Divergence per site is:

Number of mutations = 5

Number of sites = 20

Number of divergent sites is 5/20 or 25% divergent (75% similar). As per the definition... "compared" Mutation per site.

If the site is 20 bp then you have 1 mutation per site.

number of sites = 1

number of mutations = 1

divergence is 100%..

But you only compared 1 site.

Would you like to use the bp per bp comparison for the entire genome?

I thought you claimed that a single insertion is counted as one mutation?

Are you retracting that statement?

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 1:17 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 912 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 2:48 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 911 of 969 (740663)
11-06-2014 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 908 by sfs
11-06-2014 2:21 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
Of course you think you prevailed. That's because, as is obvious from this thread, that you understand so little of what you're talking about that you can have no way of telling when you're wrong.

Then I can use the 1/7(u) again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 908 by sfs, posted 11-06-2014 2:21 PM sfs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 913 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 2:49 PM zaius137 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6988
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 912 of 969 (740664)
11-06-2014 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 910 by zaius137
11-06-2014 2:38 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
If you identified 20 sites then it is bp per bp on each segment. You have sites 7-11 100% divergent. Divergence per site is:

Number of mutations = 5

Number of sites = 20

There is only 1 mutation.

Want to try that again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 910 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:38 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6988
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 913 of 969 (740665)
11-06-2014 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 911 by zaius137
11-06-2014 2:47 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
Then I can use the 1/7(u) again?

If (u) is 1.3%, then an additional indel rate of (u)/7 would be a total of 1.49%. That would work for me.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 911 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:47 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 915 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:57 PM Taq has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 914 of 969 (740667)
11-06-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 909 by Taq
11-06-2014 2:31 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
Why do you continue to complain about statistics you don't understand?

I understand the papers I cited claim more than 1.5% divergence counting indels. So far no argument you have made causes me to doubt The authors conclusions, since they are recognized authorities in the field.

Are you still claiming they are wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 2:31 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 917 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 3:40 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 915 of 969 (740668)
11-06-2014 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by Taq
11-06-2014 2:49 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
If (u) is 1.3%, then an additional indel rate of (u)/7 would be a total of 1.49%. That would work for me.

Again… (u) is not a percentage. It is “rate” of mutation per generation.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 2:49 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 3:35 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5960
61
62636465Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017