|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh Good - Bart is back | |||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
PB, as you have not previously asked for the data on this thread, despite the fact that you felt informed enough to start discussion on the Tob and Cap discontinuity, I suggest you ask for the codes and phylogenic tree nicely.
Your threat to deem this as a defeat for SLPx is laughable. It is clear that you started the discussion ignorant of basic information and then cry foul because someone else will not do your homework for you. In the meantime, since you initiated the discussion, where is your explanation for the Tob / Cap discontinuity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7691 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear WJ,
WJ: PB, as you have not previously asked for the data on this thread, despite the fact that you felt informed enough to start discussion on the Tob and Cap discontinuity, I suggest you ask for the codes and phylogenic tree nicely. PB: I askes several times in several threads to provide more information, in particular the codes and the tree. Next I will have a careful look at it. WJ: Your threat to deem this as a defeat for SLPx is laughable. PB: Yep, but it is an easy victory as well. WJ: It is clear that you started the discussion ignorant of basic information and then cry foul because someone else will not do your homework for you. PB: Get real. It was Page to post this ultimate proof of common descent, not me. Why doesn't Page simply give all information. It would improve the discussion. WJ: In the meantime, since you initiated the discussion, where is your explanation for the Tob / Cap discontinuity? PB: I did not initiate the discussion. Page posted his best evidence months ago. Now, I respond. Top and Cap are distinct MPGs, so I do not see a problem for NRM on distinct spots. NRM is dependent on the DNA sequence, so disctinct sequences will give distinct NRM that line up in similar MPGs. As soon as I have Page's info I will discuss this example in detail. That's why I wanna know what the codes stand for. It is also important to note that certain regions in the genome are not in accord with common descent (as discussed), while others are. Both are however in accord with NRM. Thus GUToB rules, while common descent is questionable for such regions. best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
So, old world primates and new world primates are distinct multipurpose genomes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:BWAAAHHAAAAAHHHAAAAA!!!! Thats rich! Thats a keeper!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
This just keeps getting better - Borger says that he will explain things when he gets the data, but he ALREADY HAS IT!
THAT is where he made his laughable Tob/Cap gaffe - it was IN THE DATA! This is just a comedy, now, and Borger is the fall guy. Incredible.... I guess I HAVE to conclude that Borger lied when he said that he had 'read my stuff.' He is also continuing to lie when he refers to the data I linked to - data that he claimes not to have yet takes information from it and declares it supportive of his fantasy - as my "ultimate proof" of common descent. His repetition of this knowingly false claim puts Borger in the esteemed company of Wally "Kuckoo" ReMine, Freddy "1 chance in 32 means that the 32nd one is the winner" Williams, Henry "polyploidy means gene duplication" Morris, etc. Good creationism, Petey old boy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Scott and Peter Borger,
For the benefit of those trying to follow along, could one of you (or both of you, doesn't matter) please summarize this issue, which is getting lost in the mutual declarations of victory, or at least a link to the message where the issue is described, and provide a link to the message with the data, or a new link to the data? Thanks! --------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I am not declaring anything. I am just pointing out the increasing lunacy in Borger's posts.
This most recent issue involves two species that I generated sequence data for. I had posted a link to the alignment: http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm I had originally posted a link to this alignment when Borger asked for some evidence for NDT. One familiar with DNA sequence data will immediately see why that is. It came up again in this thread. Borgern then thought he had stumbled onto something, and asked about two of the species in the alignment, coded as Tob and Cap.He wondered why there was such a difference between them, implying that evolution 'couldn't explain it.' I pointed out that one was a New world primate, the other an Old World primate, separated by at least 40 million years. He ignored my response for some time, but has now again tried to make it an issue for some reason, by claiming that he needs the "phylo-tree" in order for him to assess it. Funny - he didn't seem to need it when he was trying to declare it a problem for evolution. More later...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
For Borger's perusal, a "phylo-tree":
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/phylo-tree.htm Cebus apella would be in the collective branch at the top, labeled Platyrrhini. It is the maximum likelihood tree. The numbers present are likelihood branch lengths, converted (loosely) to percent. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
SLPx writes: I am not declaring anything. I am just pointing out the increasing lunacy in Borger's posts. The measure of anyone's success in debate is the number of others they've convinced, not their own undeniably biased self-impression. I wouldn't worry about convincing Peter Borger that's he making fundamental logical errors - that's unlikely to happen. Your task, and his, is to make it clear to those following along that the other's position is untenable. Making fundamental logic errors is anathema to this goal, and whether an opponent acknowledges the mistake or not makes no difference to those who witnessed the error. There's no point beating a dead horse, even if the opponent won't admit it's dead. There's greater advantage to simply moving forward and pointing out yet more weaknesses in the opponents position. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Trust me - I am under no illusion that Borger will ever change his mind about anything.
However, his bizarre tactics and conclusions, I think, should be pointed out - repeatedly, if necessary - for the benefit of those that may be fooled by the typical overconfident bluster inherent in so many of the creationist's posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
SLPx writes: However, his bizarre tactics and conclusions, I think, should be pointed out - repeatedly, if necessary - for the benefit of those that may be fooled by the typical overconfident bluster inherent in so many of the creationist's posts. I agree that repetition is good. Every response is an opportunity to hone and sharpen and further clarify your position. But it might be sufficient to merely point to the dead horse rather than repeatedly club it. And a word to Peter Borger: At least some of the evidence you've offered in support of your views is still under challenge. It would be helpful not to cite such evidence in other threads as if it had already carried the day. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
So, old world primates and new world primates are distinct multipurpose genomes?
So. is this your position or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7691 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Hi WJ,
WJ: So, old world primates and new world primates are distinct multipurpose genomes?So. is this your position or not? PB: From these sequences it is clear that they are pretty distinct, and probably comprise disctinct super-MPGs. Although I do think that MPGs are determined at another level, [and probably involving a higher organisation of genomes]. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7691 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Hi page,
In response to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Borger's perusal, a "phylo-tree":http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/phylo-tree.htm Cebus apella would be in the collective branch at the top, labeled Platyrrhini. It is the maximum likelihood tree. The numbers present are likelihood branch lengths, converted (loosely) to percent. PB says:Thanks a lot for providing (half of) the tree. I will have a look at the data. Tobecontinued. best wishes,peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
In order to help discussion along, Peter defines MPGs in this message:
http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome It seems to this observer that discussion has proceeded without understanding what Peter means by MPG and so has been necessarily vague. I suggest people examine the definition and let it guide discussion. Here are the major points from that email:
The concept 'multipurpose genome' holds that:
--------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024