Always talking about micro-evolution?

I have to go with Mr. Hambre on this. I don't see where micro stops and macro begins. This seems to be some sort of reflexive defensive mechanism to criticism by the nitwits of creationism that is not justified. If I can observe genetic changes in bacteria, Drosophila, cichlids, etc. in my lifetime, can extract ancient DNA and analyze a a genetic time course that exceeds my lifetime, analyze fossils which greatly exceeds my lifetime, and see the identical mechanism at work, why the hell do I need to qualify the bacterial observations as micro and any transition that requires longer generation time as macro?
There is only evidence that evolution in the past worked as it does in the present and no evidence against it...what do creationists have?

quote:

---

Or the poor individual in Goettingen, Germany who, back in May of 2003, was placed at the scene of a murder by DNA results. The only problem? He was behind bars at the time of the murder.

---

You mean the guy who had his sperm smuggled out of prison by his wife to plant at a crime scene in an attempt to "prove his innocence"? This hardly damages DNA evidence.Your million to one estimate seems to have also materialed from nothing. With a panel of 10 variable microsatellite loci, the chance of a false positive is almost zero. It is certainly more reliable than eye witness accounts or other more traditional forms of data gathering.Funny that you refer to RFLP's at the end of your post...appears you have not actually "researched" DNA based forensics at all.For a guy who calls himself a skeptic, relying on newspaper reports and anecdote is hardly the markings of a skeptic...

quote:

---

The gene, chromosome, and DNA "evidence" that you may present is flawed and changing every year, so please don't bother; even the atheist scientist community is in disagreement with itself over that constantly changing controversial "evidence."

---

Hmm. You seem to have access to "flaws" and "disagreements" in genetics and cytogenetic and DNA evidence that I the rest of the scientific community is unaware of...enlighten us pleeze Funny that you claim that scientific community is atheist. In fact the majority of scientists are believers in one religion or another. One of the directors of the Human Genome Project is a devout Christian. Let's see your evidence for your assertion.You whined about my comment about nitwit creationists...this is why I made such a comment. Someone like you who clearly has never bothered to inform themselves about what the theory of evolution states comes onto the site, makes the same old refuted arguments based on ignorance and cartoonish misrepresentations of science, makes the same old "all scientists are atheists" claim (while enjoying the fruit of our labors in the form of technology and medicine no less), makes a steady stream of assertions that are not supported, in other words, nitwit creationists. I have yet to see an original argument from you guys. It is like you are all mental clones unable to learn and unable to realize that all of the points you bring up as if they were original have been debated ad naseum . Tell your avatar to watch out..he might walk off that flat earth or step on a cud chewing rabbit.

Hi Skeptick,Here is one reference where they use a population specific estimate
(note, the OJ Simpson trial came before the widespread use of DNA forensics. It has since greatly improved)Forensic Sci Int. 1999 Apr 12;101(1):27-32. Related Articles, LinksPhilippine population database at nine microsatellite loci for forensic and paternity applications.Halos SC, Chu JY, Ferreon AC, Magno MM.DNA Analysis Laboratory, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.Allele frequency distributions for a Filipino population from the National Capital Region (NCR) were determined for eight STR loci: HUMF13A01, HUMFES/FPS, HUMvWA, HUMFOLP23, HUMD8S306, HUMCSFIPO, HUMTPOX and HUMTHO1; and a VNTR locus: D1S80. Statistical analysis showed that the nine loci showed no deviations from Hardy-Weinberg and linkage equilibrium rules. The average power of paternity exclusion for the nine loci is 0.9962 and the discriminating power is 1-2 x 10(-9). The data obtained from this study will be used as reference data for forensic DNA typing in the Philippines.Electrophoresis. 1995 Sep;16(9):1612-6. Related Articles, LinksGenetic typing with HUMTH01, HUMVWA31A and HUMFES/FPS short tandem repeat loci, D1S80 variable number tandem repeat locus and HLA-DQ alpha of recent and from XII-XIII centuries spongy bone.de Pancorbo MM, Castro A, Alonso S, Fernandez-Fernandez I, Barbero C, Garcia-Orad A, Izaguirre N, Iriondo M, de la Rua C.Departamento de Biologia Celular y Ciencias Morfologicas, Facultad de Medicine y Odontologia, Universidad del Pais Vasco, Leioa (Bizkaia), Spain.The genetic analysis of ancient populations through DNA from bone remains, requires use of short sized loci that can be amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for which the short tandem repeat (STR) loci are most suitable. These techniques can also be applied to genetic identification in forensic casework. In this study three STR loci, HUMFES/FPS, HUMTH01, and HUMVWA31A, were selected to estimate their usefulness when applied to recent and ancient spongy bone DNA typing. In addition, loci D1S80 and HLA DQ alpha were also tested in the analysis of recent spongy bone DNA. The recent remains studied were constituted by ten spongy bone samples of postmortem material from one individual buried for 1 year. The ancient remains are composed by 8 spongy bone samples from the heads of left femurs from a XII-XIII Centuries Basque Country population. Adequate amplification and typing results could only be obtained with cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB)-extracted DNA, without any further purification after precipitation. Genotypes of the one year post-mortem material and those of his son and his wife were obtained at the D1S80, HLA-DQ alpha, and STR loci. In all these systems, no exclusion was observed, with a combined probability of paternity of 0.9997. This demonstrates the reliability of the obtained results. The genetic typing of HUMTH01 in spongy bone from the XII-XIII Centuries Basque Country individuals was also performed. This will allow the genetic analysis of ancient bone remains and therefore, to carry out evolutionary population studies.J Forensic Sci. 2002 Jan;47(1):66-96. Related Articles, LinksTWGDAM validation of AmpFlSTR PCR amplification kits for forensic DNA casework.Holt CL, Buoncristiani M, Wallin JM, Nguyen T, Lazaruk KD, Walsh PS.PE Applied Biosystems, Human Identification Group, Foster City, CA, USA.Laboratory procedures used in short tandem repeat (STR) analysis were subjected to various scenarios that assessed reliability and identified potential limitations. These validation studies were designed as recommended by the Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM) and the DNA Advisory Board (DAB) (17,18). Various DNA samples were amplified by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using AmpFlSTR PCR Amplification Kits (i.e., AmpFlSTR Green I, Profiler, Profiler Plus, and COfiler kits), detected with ABI Prism instrumentation, and analyzed using GeneScan and Genotyper software. Data acquired in these studies reinforced an existing body of knowledge and expertise regarding application and interpretation of STR typing in the forensic science community. Consistent STR genotypes were detected in various body tissues and fluids. Inter-laboratory comparisons produced concordant genotype results. Quantitative interpretational aids for DNA mixtures were characterized. Ability of the typing systems to type potentially compromised samples reliably was evaluated. Nonprobative case evidentiary DNA was successfully amplified, genotyped, and interpreted. Potential limitations or cautionary factors in the interpretation of minimal fluorescence intensity were demonstrated. Differential amplification between loci was observed when PCR was inhibited; preferential amplification typically was not. Single AmpFlSTR locus amplification did not offer consistent benefit over AmpFlSTR multiplexing, even in cases of DNA degradation or PCR inhibition. During rigorous evaluation, AmpFlSTR PCR Amplification Kits reproducibly yielded sensitive and locus-specific results, as required in routine forensic analyses.and here is a cautionary tale...as with any method there are ways to confound the analysis. 1 way is a clever crook could spray multiple different DNAs all over a crime scene making it impossible to get an accurate genotype. Another is illustrated here in this paper where heavy inbreeding in a population can lead to false positive identificationCroat Med J. 2003 Jun;44(3):322-6. Related Articles, LinksHow high should paternity index be for reliable identification of war victims by DNA typing?Birus I, Marcikic M, Lauc D, Dzijan S, Lauc G.DNA Laboratory, Osijek University School of Medicine, Osijek, Croatia.AIM: To analyze statistically and logically the significance of genetic matches between skeletal remains and relatives of missing persons in the process of identification of war victims by DNA typing. METHODS: DNA was isolated from bone and blood samples and short tandem repeat (STR) loci were typed by using AmpFLSTR Profiler, Profiler Plus, and Identifiler kits. Novel mini-haplotype analysis that compares matches in all three-locus combinations of alleles was developed and used in the analysis of inbreeding in the group of 295 unrelated individuals. RESULTS: While comparing 98 skeletal remains exhumed in the process of identification of war victims in Croatia with over 3,000 genotypes of relatives of missing persons, we revealed 20 cases of 14-locus matches and 4 cases of 15-locus matches between unrelated people. We hypothesized that this unexpectedly high number of false matches might be a consequence of local inbreeding and supported this hypothesis with very low correlation between the probability of a genotype and the number of matching genotypes in the database (R(2) = 0.36). Further support for the hypothesis was obtained by the analysis of mini-haplotypes, which revealed up to 90% overrepresentation of some mini-haplotypes. CONCLUSIONS: STR DNA typing is the "golden standard" of human identification, but evidential value of a genetic match can be easily misinterpreted. Therefore, careful use of statistical methods is essential for the proper evaluation of laboratory results. Whenever possible, multiple relatives should be analyzed and other evidence based on the information about time, place, and other conditions of disappearance, as well as anthropological and other "classical" forensic data should always be put together and compared before any final decision about the identity is made.Though false matches occurred, the data is STILL more reliable than any other form of forensic data and less susceptible to false positives or negatives. In addition, unlike other forms of evidence, more and more STR loci can and are being identified that are useful so if anything the technique will continue to improve.

quote:

---

I believe we were already fully aware of your outstanding abilities to copy and paste.

---

I am equally impressed with your ability to miss information you ask for that is sitting nice an pretty in the abstract of a paper.

quote:

---

I really thought maybe I could have a decent conversation with you. Instead, you have reduced this discussion, like so many others, by going technical.

---

Arguing from ignorance is nice at the water cooler and is simple. Science is technical, difficult, complex. Deal with it. You either learn about the subjects you want to debate or leave the debate to those who know something about science. It is not my fault you are over your head with the simplest of journal articles.

quote:

---

I'm here to pick the brains of other human begins and enjoy some authentic dialogue. So,

---

You are here to make the same tired old assertions that every creationist before you has made...it is amazing that you guys don't even read what the last creationist said.

quote:

---

Could we rewind and start over? I would appreciate an answer to my question of post #49.

---

In the interim, Loudmouth addressed this issue. And if you would be a bit less lazy and read the articles, or take a basic biology class maybe you could answer it yourself. You would see from the papers that the STR false positive rates depend on the population genetics of the population under study.I am highly amused by your terrible fear of a technical discussion
..epigenetics got you scared? STRs keep you awake at night? Ahh fear of what others have a clue about and you don't...boo

quote:

---

. I still suspect Mammuthus knows where this was really going and dodged me in a way you still don't realize. Had he responded back to refute my thoughts, I would taken his word for it and freely apologized for my method of smoking him out.

---

I have about as much idea where you are going with your nonsense as I have with Stephen ben Yeshua's search for demons in farts.It is interesting that a direct link to the peer reviewed literature on STR's, their benefits, and the difficulties that is open for YOU to look into yourself without having to take my word for it, is seen by you as evading the question. Excuse me for treating you like a person who is capable and interested in educating themselves in the subject they wish to debate. Obviously I should have assumed the ocean sized hole in your education would require that I explain STR's to you using pictures of TeleTubbies or Barney the dinosaur singing the STR false positive song

Since you specifically asked for a response to this post...I will first off say, I think your arguementation is rather odd. On the one hand you are somehow in awe of scientists but at the same time, without a background in science you claim that everything we study is false. A word of caution, science unlike religion does not use argument from authority. Loudmouth could very well be more experienced in DNA forensic research than myself as I have specialized in a different field. However, I have followed the development of the field. Your chances of matching someone at the 10 STRs most commonly used will not give you a nice fixed number with a lot of zeroes behind it as you wish. The chances of a false positive are dependent on the genetics of the population i.e. the level of inbreeding.From the actual criteria that are used by forensics scientists"From 2,701,834 pairs of profiles in the FBI data involving blacks, whites, eastern Hispanics, and western Hispanics, they calculated an expected total of 95.3 two-locus matches, whereas 104 were observednot a statistically significant difference.12 Only one three-locus match was found among 7,628,360 pairs of profiles; curiously, it was between a white and an eastern Hispanic. There were no four- or five-locus matches (see also Herrin 1993)."Note this is from the early 90's..now ten loci are used per test.Furthermore"Regardless of whether the population is exactly in LE, the rarity of multilocus matches is evident even in large data bases. As mentioned earlier, Risch and Devlin (1992) found no four- or five-locus matches among 7,628,360 pairs of profiles. The much larger composite database recorded by TWGDAM (Chakraborty, personal communication) comprises 7,201 whites, 4,378 blacks, and 1,243 Hispanics. Among 58 million pairwise comparisons with four, five, or six loci within racial groups, two matches were found for four loci and none for five or six. "Again, even though no matches are found with 5 or six loci..the panel has expanded to 10. And this is with VNTRs instead of STRs which are now more commonly used which have almost no chance of a false match"Assuming HW proportions and LE and using the data in Table 4.10, the probability that two randomly selected individuals would have the same profile is about 10-10 for the five VNTR loci, about 10-6 for the six STR loci (using the 12 STRs mentioned in the paragraph above would lower the probability to about 10-12), and about 10-4for the six Polymarker loci."This basically means there is no chance under the current procedures used to get a false positive. Loudmouth gave an estimate that 2-3 people on the planet might have the same STR profile as you. This is many orders of magnitude better than any other form of forensic evidence. The only hole in the armour is that DNA evidence is prone to contamination, degradation over time, and in extreme cases, to inbreeding effects. However, inbreeding effects are mitigated by population genetic based studies for every single locus that enters forensic research before such a marker can be used widely.So what exactly am I supposedly afraid of regarding where this topic will lead?If you want to read more
here
Not Found |The National Academies Press

quote:

---

As for your trusty DNA evidence, chimps and humans are about 98.4% similar. You know this. The human DNA has indeed been "mapped" but take a wild guess as to what percent of DNA "FUNCTION" has been determined? (hint: 1 or 2%). But yet we make wild claims about what DNA reveals about our common ancestor from millions/billions of years ago.

---

It appears you need to be spoon fed even more basic biology. Most of the genome is composed of repetitive DNA which are relic proviruses such as HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses) and non-LTR retrotransposons such as LINE-1 elements. Such sequences tell us a lot about common ancestry because they are under little selective constraint and are free to vary in sequence over time i.e. accumulating random mutations.

quote:

---

The crazy thing about this whole DNA reseach is what Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, said about the genetic difference between humans and chimps; the difference is about 1.6%, which he claims is "a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change in only three (3) nucleotides is fatal to an animal." Dr. Maddox also stated that, "science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as .0000001% of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal".

---

A single base change in a critical amino acid can cripple a protein. A mutation in a piece of non-coding DNA is irrelevant phenotypically. Why is this concept over your head...oh wait..forgot who I was talking to

quote:

---

I was trying to engage Mammuthus in this subject, to get another side of the story perhaps, but he apparently knew where I was going with the line of questioning, so chose to dodge me and proclaim that he's just bigger, better, smarter, and more educated that I am, and something else about a water cooler, I think. I guess that proved his point.

---

Still not clear what topic you were trying to engage me in or what I dodged. The only thing I can see you attempting to do with you line of questioning is to avoid all scientific evidence that supports genetics, forensics, and evolution and try to equate your assertions with facts and scientific theory. Or are you just trying to convince me that you are a mere troll rather than an uninformed religious fanatic?I noticed you claim you have a deadline on this board. When the clock strikes twelve do you put on your magic slippers and suddenly have an arguement?

quote:

---

You keep talking about genes, but refuse to listen when Mammuthus argues his area of expertise. I think what we know about genetics is strong evidence in favor of common ancestry, and you seem to argue that what you don't know about DNA is evidence against evolution.

---

I actually don't see it as a problem that he refuses to listen to me. I encourage people to not be swayed by argument from authority. How many of us really think that Fretwell's arguments are any more valid because he was once an ecologist? However, at any point that I or Loudmouth present the reports of scientific studies, Skeptic whines that it is too technical, that he has no way of evaluating anything that is being said since he is not an expert, and that he wants us to make up some kind of scenario independent of the hypotheses that are already supported by evidence such as the evolution of vision, digestion, and reproduction. I could present specific data points from my own research but what for? They would be over his head as well. Ultimately, he is asking us to not present the evidence for evolution from our respective specialities (Loudmouth is studying zoology and I am a human geneticist by training) but rather to spoon feed him some dumbed down kindegarten version of science that he might understand and then rip into because we are not presenting the actual detailed experimental evidence. It is a little troll game. Attempt to dumb the argument down and then claim that we have no evidence for our hypotheses. When the evidence is presented, claim that it is not understandable to someone with a Dragonball-Z level science education and therefore not valid. The worst part is, he could go out and read about any of this without taking our word for it. He could take a biology course or some basic genetics. He could even go so far as to do some experiments himself such as the bacterial evolution experiment that RrHain always brought up in such cases..would take him a week of his time. But it is far easier to be confidently ignorant than tentatively informed.

quote:

---

As you already pointed out, you're almost infinitely ahead of me on this stuff.

---

Actually, my point was that I am ahead because I have bothered to be ahead. None of this area of research is inaccessible. There are even books for non-specialists available. If you wish to make assertions about biology, it would behoove you to do so with some knowledge of the field rather than reiterating baseless tripe. I am not a physicist. If I wished to debate quantum mechanics I would make damn sure that I had my basics in tip top shape before charging in and making the kind of statements that you have. So again, I am not calling you stupid. I am accusing you of being willfully ignorant which is different.

quote:

---

So, what percentage of DNA is "non-coding"?

---

Approximatley 97%. The number is only approximate because, less than 50% of identified open reading frames (potential protein coding sequences) are of known or potentially known function. There are also a lot of functional RNAs and important sequences even among the "junk DNA" sequences that are turning up. An example are two genes called Syncytin 1 and Syncytin 2 which are human endogenous retrovirus envelope genes (HERV-W class specifically) which are crucial for placental formation in humans through old world monkeys but not in other mammals (yet another example of shared ancestry among higher primates).

quote:

---

Also, what percentage of DNA has been identified as functional?

---

Just as above, 3% of the genome is comprised of classical genes. But this number will continue to change as more of the non-coding DNA function is elucidated. There are also structural components to DNA that are non-coding like the centromeres and telomeres. They are critical but they do not produce proteins.
Another problem with giving one specific number is that there is variation in copy number of many sequences even among individual humans.

quote:

---

Just short, simple, and direct answers are fine. I'm not nearly as smart at noseyned, so please work with me here.

---

Let me know if the above is what you were looking for or you wanted something else.

quote:

---

The remaining 97% that is non-functional, does that mean it has no function, or that we perhaps need a different "de-coder" ring? Sorry for the term, my vocabulary is quite limited.

---

Hi Skeptic,
As Sylas pointed out, some of the non-coding DNA is important for controlling transcription of genes but never makes it into the protein. Also, some of the DNA puts a critical distance between sequences that control gene expression. Thus, the sequence itself is irrelevant but the number of bases between the transcription control elements is critical. There are many dead copies of genes called pseudogenes that may have once been functional or are the products of reverse transcription of retroelements that went awry. These psuedogenes could be removed from the genome and would not have any phenotypic effect. Then there are the repetitive elements I mentioned. In some cases they may be important. They may also serve a function as structural elements in chromosomes. But many can suffer deletions, mutations, or be removed completely without any consequence to the organism and hence have been termed "junk". Finally, there are purely structural sequences like those of the centromere. They don't code for proteins but are necessary for cell division to occur. The vast majority of the genome (around 97%) is made up of these types of sequences as opposed to protein coding sequences.

quote:

---

No matter how hard I try, I can't do anything right for some of you guys.

---

Just to point out, our interactions have become much milder. Mr. Hambre has asked you several specific questions without insulting you as well. Loudmouth has been patient the entire time you have been here. Perhaps keep posting on those topics you feel are progressing and ignore those you feel are merely part of a flame war.

quote:

---

Must have taken a pretty sharp guy to design it.

---

Actually, it would take an unbelievable incompetent to "design" the genome as it has evolved. An incredible amount of the genome is ultimately wasted space. There are species of frogs with larger genomes than ours because they have even more repetitive sequences. The genome is a graveyard full of pseudogenes that are junked copies of replication processes gone awry. Many of the repetitive sequences make it more difficult for chromosomes to pair during mitosis and meiosis. They can also mediate disease causing deletions. It is incredibly inefficient in terms of required energy to replicate all the extra DNA. Just plain stupid design. Evolution has no problem with this..if one can survive and reproduce more than another variant, it does not matter if the design is good or bad..just has to be better at representing itself in the next generation than the others.Bacteria are much more efficient and streamlined. Viruses even more so...I guess then god must be a microbe and we are just badly designed biological garbage...all pray to lord E. coli..god of feces. By my stink thou shall know me

quote:

---

You accept exactly the sort of change in populations that demonstrates the Darwinist variation-selection process in action, but you deny that this process could result in the sort of large-scale change that we'd expect to see it produce over time.

---

Now be reasonable Hambre. You never actually witnessed your own conception...in fact, you have never personally witness a conception event at the level of sperm and egg. This obviously demonstrates an the anti-stork conspiracy among scientists. Ha ha..next you will have me believe that bacteria can exchange genetic material with one another ha ha ha.

quote:

---

Plus, I have to admit I really don't think I like this stuff much, because you never seem to find a single evolutionist willing to quote a creation website or hardly ever find a creationist quoting evolutionist websites. So, you have only biast opinions with only biast resources, and basically, since they won't agree with anything but evolution, there is a predicament.

---

That is an interesting misconception. Evolutionary biologists like virtually all scientists are mostly unaware of creationists. Like all other sciences, methodological naturalism, evolutionary is in the business of hypothesis construction, testing, and falsifying. This is done in major public and private university laboratories and not on websites. The biased resources you claim we use are exaclty the same "biased" resources as geneticists, microbiologists, and general molecular biologists. The method we use to form, test or falsify our hypotheses are identical to those used by any other science i.e. chemistry, physics. So it seems 1) you think science is equivalent to randomly airing opinions on websites 2)there is a greater scientific conspiracy to suppress your personal beliefs....odd state of mind. Could you perhaps indicate where during your education you came encountered this view of science?Perhaps you could actually point to a single scientific discovery or invention that has been made by or benefited from creationists using appeals to the supernatural?