molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

PB: Although it could be an explanation to reduce variability, the complete absence of variability can NOT be explained by your proposal. (See above). Neither inbreeding nor selection sweep can help you. BTW, selection sweep is nothing. It was merely introduced to fit data into evolutionism. It is like very weak purifying slection (=almost neutral selection). Meaningless nothingness.M: Why? How much genetic variation does a population reduced to a single individual carry?

{Large amounts of utter irrelevancy snipped.}

quote:

---

Q: I don’t cling to root coppicing. It has not been demonstrated that the trees in the wild have been derived from seedlings.

​

PB: It has been demonstrated that the Wollemia recruits from seedlings in the wild. The first pines in the nurseries were grown from seedlings colected from the wild population. It was horticultural scientist of the Mount Annan Botanic Gardens Cathy Osford job to do that. "In the first year a mere fifty seed were collected [from the wild]. In the second a more promising quantity was obtained--600." (The wollemi pine, J. Woodford, p125, ISBN 1 876485 48 5). The MPG is demonstrated by "Offord told me [Woodford, not PB] me mortality rate [..] for Wollemia seedlings is almost zero". (p132). Furthermore, and important for our discussion "Offord and colleagues estimate that the twenty-three adult Wollemi pines [..] produce about 150 female cones per year and these cones set between 3000 and 4000 viable seeds" (p134).

​

So, there is no doubt that seedlings derie from sexual reproduction, and there is no doubt that trees are recruited from ssedlings. Of course you may doubt the words of horticulturist Offord. It is a common habit in evolutionism to doubt the data if they are not in accord with evolutionism (see my mailings to Mammuthus).

---

I emailed Dr. Offord for her take on it. We’ll see.

quote:

---

Q: Please provide a reference for this assertion — none of the references I provided you so state. This is a new assertion on your part. However, you seem to be indicating that you agree that coppicing — IF SHOWN TO BE THE CASE IN WOLLEMIA — can in fact explain the observed lack of genetic variability. Is this correct?

​

PB: The issue here is NOT that I do not provide refernces, but that YOU don't accept the reference of being of scientific relevance. You doubt Dr Peakall's words, and you probably doubt Offord's words. You seem to be the 'doubting Thomas'. [Nothing wrong with doubting, it shows that you are.]

---

Really? Name ONE SINGLE REFERENCE except the popular press book written by a journalist that you have EVER cited in reference to this tree. Since you refuse to read the ones I’ve provided (undoubtedly because they refute your idiotic hypothesis), I’m not clear on what the point in continuing this discussion might be. You have — again, for the umpteenth time — failed to address the question: IF COPPICING IS SHOWN TO BE THE CASE IN WOLLEMIA, CAN THIS EXPLAIN THE GENETIC PATTERN? Yes or no? If not, why not?(Since you have no ability to research anything on any subject, but rather prefer a popular press book; here’s a popular press transcript from Quantum, 1997)

quote:

---

John Benson, Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney: "So Cathy here we have a cluster of trees or what looks like a cluster of trees but in fact it’s only one tree.. What we’ve got is a number of shoots that have resprouted from the roots of this tree, from little epicormic shoots at the base of the tree. And they’ve come up after a disturbance event and the main trunk of the tree has fallen down. So is that the main trunk there? Yes, here we have the main trunk of the tree, and as you can see it’s about a metre in diameter and based on what we know about Agathis, a related genus of the Wollemi Pine, this may be a thousand years of age. So, if this is 1000 years and it may not be the original trunk, what the whole tree could be many thousands of years old? Yes, it could be many thousands of years old.

​

The root stock could be many thousands of years old. Because there may have been other trees this size that have come down in the past, they’ve rotted away. This one grew up again, it fell over and this is now rotting away.

---

There you go Peter. I can quote journalists just as easily as you can.

quote:

---

Q: Again, this is a new assertion on your part. Please provide the reference that indicates Dr. Peakall has rejected this hypothesis. On the other hand, you have not addressed the point: IF ALL STANDS WERE ORGINALLY SEEDED FROM A SINGLE PARENT ORGANISM, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT ON THE GENETIC VARIABILITY OF THE SPECIES? My contention obviously is that once again we would expect a lack of genetic variability. Please be specific for a change.

​

PB: I am not going to say the same over and over. I mentioned it in the first letter #1 of this thread. Of course I was expecting a lot of unbelief, since the tree violates evolutionary principles. However, let me once more quote from Woodford's scientific book: {lengthy book quote snipped since it didn’t answer the question as posed above}

---

Two points here: one, the tree doesn’t violate evolutionary principles except in your mind. Answer the question. I couldn’t care less what Woodford wrote in his book. Second point: stop referring to a pop press book as science. If you can’t tell the difference, I’m beginning to doubt you have any idea what science is — in spite of your self-proclaimed expertise.

quote:

---

To get the data in accord with evolutionism a whole lot of story telling is required, but it still doesn't explain the Wollemi's invariable DNA. It becomes Peakall that he recognised the MPG, however. Apparently, more and more molecular scientists recognise the MPG, although they try to fit it in a evolutionary framework. It will never fit, since we are talking about two distinct paradigms.

---

Answer the question. Stop handwaving. Prove with an email response from Dr. Peakall that he recognizes the MPG as a valid scientific hypothesis. Name one genuine molecular biologist who recognize the MPG.

quote:

---

Q: Then you concede that, with or without the MPG nonsense in the mix, the standard evolutionary explanation of genetic bottleneck CAN EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIATION IN THE SPECIES? Yes or no? If not, why not?

​

PB: That you do not understand the MPG doesn't make it nonsense. The MPG hypothesis (ever heard about hypotheses?) predicts a couple of things that can be readily tested (see letter #1), and it is able to explain all biological observations, including the Wollemi's invariabale DNA, and (genetic) redundancies. Thus, it is superior to evolutionism. So please be less condescending. And to be specific, evolutionary theory can NOT explain the invariable DNA data of the Wollemi pine (see above).

---

AGAIN you fail to even address the question. I’m not talking about the MPG. CAN A GENETIC BOTTLENECK EXPLAIN THE LACK OF GENETIC VARIABILITY IN THE SPECIES? YES OR NO?

quote:

---

Q: No, according to my view, ANY population that is severely reduced — whether selfed or not — and is forced to breed within it’s own restricted population, will suffer from in-breeding depression. Over time, inbreeding depression and selection sweep will homogenize the population. CAN THIS BE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF VARIABILITY IN WOLLEMIA? Yes or no? If not, why not?

​

PB: Although it could be an explanation to reduce variability, the complete absence of variability can NOT be explained by your proposal. (See above). Neither inbreeding nor selection sweep can help you. BTW, selection sweep is nothing. It was merely introduced to fit data into evolutionism. It is like very weak purifying slection (=almost neutral selection). Meaningless nothingness.

---

So you agree that inbreeding depression is an explanation for lack of or limited variability in a population? Please define what you think selection sweep means — it doesn’t appear you understand the terminology if you are comparing it to purifying selection. Handwaving it away by calling it meaningless is ridiculous — if it’s meaningless, explain why. Asserting something is meaningless simply because you don’t understand the concept is not conducive to productive debate.

quote:

---

Q: On a related note, please explain the assertion the conservationists stance may be wrong. What stance?

​

PB: The MPG hypothesis holds that all defence mechanism are present in the origin organism. In an organism where the DNA doesn't degenerate it is expected that all original defence mechanism are still intact (because it didn't degenerated as a result of completely intact DNA repair mechanisms. DNA repair mechanisms are more or less redundant since loss of a couple of repair enzymes will not immediately jeopardise the organism's capacity to reproduce), and we do not have to be concerned about deseases that might wipe out the tree because it doesn't have genetic variability (this is the conservationist's evolutionary vision).

---

So in your view, no organisms need fear epidemics caused by increased susceptibility due to genetic homogeneity? I suggest you submit a manuscript explaining that to Conservation Ecology, Animal Conservation, Journal of Applied Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation, or other journal. Conservation biologists certainly seem overly concerned about the issue if there’s no problem. I’ll bet they’d be delighted to hear they worried for nothing.

quote:

---

Q: We’re not even discussing your absurd hypothesis — rather the possible mainstream explanations for the lack of variation in this species.

​

PB: Here you demonstrate that you are not interested in science, only in keeping up the appearance of evolutionism. Your socalled mainstream explanations are no explanations, merely stories. However, I am not surprised since evolutionism is synonymous to 'telling each other stories': maybe this and maybe that and so and this and bladidiblabla... Well, not anymore since this is the 21st century. Better provide evidence instead of these stories.

---

Lol. This from the guy who has invented a General Theory of Biology that contains more undetectable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable and unrealistic stories about unobserved non-random mutations, an unsupported multipurpose genome that magically protects degenerate organisms, aided by utterly unreproduceable creaton particle/waves than my daughter’s Mother Goose fairy tale book.Oh, by the way, you HAVE been provided evidence about all of the possible explanations. Not my problem that you refuse to read anything that comes out of a mainstream journal.

quote:

---

Q: You sound surprised. Pretty amazing for someone who claims to be an expert in biology. Why would you think genetic drift doesn’t apply to clonal micropopulations? In any event, once again, you fail to answer the question: CAN GENETIC DRIFT EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIABILITY WITHIN WOLLEMIA? Yes, or no? If not, why not? And again, who cares about your MPG in the context of this discussion?

​

PB: I am an expert in biology, indeed. That's why I see through evolutionism. However, explain to me how genetic drift is relevant to explain the Wollemi pine complete absence of variability. Maybe I miss your point.

---

Expert in biology, hunh? Then YOU figure out how genetic drift can cause loss of alleles in an isolated population. Show your vaunted, self proclaimed expertise. Lol.

quote:

---

Q: In conclusion, you have utterly failed to respond substantively once again. Points 2-4 ARE the discussion, as is point 1. Try again.

​

PB: As long as I do not respond in an evolutionary fashion I will keep failing. You are like Buddika, you only want to hear evolutinary stories. No matter how illogic, unscientific they may be, as long as it sounds like evolutionism, it is okay. Sad.

---

Nope, it’s more as long as you don’t respond in any kind of substantive fashion — including demonstrating your ability to research and understand the concepts you claim to refute — you will keep failing. [quote]Q:However, in THIS thread your opening post was specifically about Wollemia, correct? Therefore I have been addressing that example. Simply because you keep dragging in red herrings — all but (as far as I can tell) one of which has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere — doesn’t mean that I am required to address your blather.

quote:

---

2. Since evolution is falsified, your mythical, magical, unreproduceable, undetectable MPG is the default hypothesis

​

PB: Since I am interested in the origin, I had a close look at the scientific content of evolutinsm. It can readily be falsified, and the rest is known. It is not even science, since science is interested in how things work, no matter what the truth is. According to evolutionists evolution is truth, even it can be scientifically falsified.

​

The MPG is no less mythical than the evolutinary stories. One of the thousands of MPG's is still unchanged present in the Wollemi pine. The MPG can be tested by its predictions. As demonstrated, the MPG predicts properly, even better than evolutionism. And it can be falsified (letter #1). It is a scientific theory that holds that life popped into existance (creation) and it also holds that science is unable to address the questions concerning origin. It is supported by contemporary molecular biology, while evolutionism seems to be supported by biology, while it actually isn't.

---

This is just silly. All you’re doing is reasserting your already refuted premise AGAIN, without providing anything substantial to support it. Thousands of MPG’s? Name ten. Supported by contemporary molecular biology? Name five molecular biologists that support the MPG. Life popped into existence? When, specifically? How was this accomplished? etc

quote:

---

Q: The conclusion, and the reason I state that these points are key, is that if mainstream explanations CAN be used to account for the lack of variability in your evidence, your evidence cannot be used to falsify evolution.

​

PB: For the last time: all examples I've shown can NOT be explained by evolutionism. Either they violate random mutation, or they violate selection, or they violate molecular genetic rules. In my previous letter I mentioned the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn. This observation can NOT be explained by evolutionism. Even Dr page admitted that. It is not even molecular biology, so you should be able to see that too. Of course you can ignore it.

---

Wollemia has a swim reflex? Or is this yet another red herring you’re attempting to bring into the discussion (like your horseshoe crabs)? Address MY points — not those you’re attempting to argue with others.

quote:

---

Q: Regardless of the truth or validity of MPG, you must show WHY specifically the mainstream explanations are false.

​

PB: I did that over and over, with quotes from Dr Peakall, the guy who did the molecular genetic research on the tree. Problem is that you DON'T accept it, since it clashes with your worldview (I guess).

---

Which is a problem, since your quotes from Dr. Peakall are directly opposite to his published work IN HIS OWN WRITINGS — not those of some journalist. You are the one that consistently refuses to pay any attention to all of the references you’ve been provided, and consistently is unable to produce any of your own that support your claims.

quote:

---

Q: Then you must show evidence that MPG actually exists followed by why MPG should be considered the default hypothesis IN THE ABSENCE OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY EXPLANATIONS.

​

PB: Now, I am trying to convey for over 5 months where biology clashes with evolutionism and provided an alternative explanation. For instance, there is the clearcut violation of genetic redundancies. They don't have an association with gene duplcation and do not change faster than essential genes. It is such enormous falsification of evolutionism that even evolutionary scientists do NOT believe that they are around (Surviving a knockout blow, Science 2002). In contrast, genetic redundancies are expected to be found in a MPG. That should be sufficient.

---

No, all you’ve been doing is reasserting the same damn thing over and over and over and over with absolutely NO additional supporting documentation (or for that matter ANY documentation). Can’t you get it through your head that nobody’s buying your hypothesis for the simple reason that you haven’t made a decent case in FAVOR of it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
PB: Although it could be an explanation to reduce variability, the complete absence of variability can NOT be explained by your proposal. (See above). Neither inbreeding nor selection sweep can help you. BTW, selection sweep is nothing. It was merely introduced to fit data into evolutionism. It is like very weak purifying slection (=almost neutral selection). Meaningless nothingness.

​

M: Why? How much genetic variation does a population reduced to a single individual carry?

​

---

********************Oh yeah and to do something profoundly annoying to creationists..actually back up my claims with data...of course it will then be duly ignored since after all ignorance is blissCurr Biol 2000 Oct 19;10(20):1287-90
An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck.
Weber DS, Stewart BS, Garza JC, Lehman N.
Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.A bottleneck in population size of a species is often correlated with a sharp reduction in genetic variation. The northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) has undergone at least one extreme bottleneck, having rebounded from 20-100 individuals a century ago to over 175,000 individuals today. The relative lack of molecular-genetic variation in contemporary populations has been documented, but the extent of variation before the late 19th century remains unknown. We have determined the nucleotide sequence of a 179 base-pair segment of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region from seals that lived before, during and after a bottleneck low in 1892. A 'primerless' PCR was used to improve the recovery of information from older samples. Only two mtDNA genotypes were present in all 150+ seals from the 1892 bottleneck on, but we discovered four genotypes in five pre-bottleneck seals. This suggests a much greater amount of mtDNA genotypic variation before this bottleneck, and that the persistence of two genotypes today is a consequence of random lineage sampling. We cannot correlate the loss of mtDNA genotypes with a lowered mean fitness of individuals in the species today. However, we show that the species historically possessed additional genotypes to those present now, and that sampling of ancient DNA could elucidate the genetic consequences of severe reductions in population size.

Hi Peter,I beleive the following lends support to predictions 1 & 5 of your MPG theory:Nature 403, 616 (2000) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.Conservation biology: 'Ghost' alleles of the Mauritius kestrelJIM J. GROOMBRIDGE*, CARL G. JONES, MICHAEL W. BRUFORD & RICHARD A. NICHOLS* Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
Mauritius Wildlife Foundation, Black River, Mauritius
School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary & Westfield College, London E1 4NS, UK
Present address: Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3TL, UKThe population of Mauritius kestrels is thought to have recovered from a single wild breeding pair in 1974, when its prospects were considered to be hopeless, to over 200 pairs today. Here we evaluate the loss of genetic variation that resulted from this bottleneck by typing 12 microsatellite DNA loci in museum skins up to 170 years old and from modern kestrels. We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species. This shows that the unexpected resilience of the population could not have been due either to benefits contributed by an undetected remnant population or to reduction of the inbreeding genetic load by a history of small population size.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Hi Peter,

​

I beleive the following lends support to predictions 1 & 5 of your MPG theory:

---

Apparently, you missed the part where Borger lets it slip that his ... 'theory' is actually not cretinism friendly..Of course, one would have to be a complete moron to think that any of this anti-evolution claptrap has merit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
The only examples given for new, useful genetic information for a species (see Page, Mamuthus) are speculative events that allegedly happened millions of years ago. In other words, there is no evidence for increased genetic information - it's all speculation.

---

Mantras aside, Williams simply misrepresents the situation. His naivete in science shines brightly, and grows stronger with nearly every post.

Dear Quetzal,
{left out all irrelevant stuff}Maybe you didn't get it but I am going to change biology.
Good luck with the old paradigm Best wishes
Peter

Dear Fred,Thanks for more evidence of the MPG,best wishes,
Peter

Dear Quetzal,You say:Lol. This from the guy who has invented a General Theory of Biology that contains more undetectable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable and unrealistic stories about unobserved non-random mutations, an unsupported multipurpose genome that magically protects degenerate organisms, aided by utterly unreproduceable creaton particle/waves than my daughter’s Mother Goose fairy tale book.I say:
Sounds like..............evolutionism?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,
{left out all irrelevant stuff}

​

Maybe you didn't get it but I am going to change biology.
Good luck with the old paradigm

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

What a formidable reply. I guess biology is utterly crushed. Enjoy the rest of your career squirting toxins on cells to see whether they shrivel up and die or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,
{left out all irrelevant stuff}

​

Maybe you didn't get it but I am going to change biology.
Good luck with the old paradigm

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

****************+Wow..what stunning replies to the posts from yesterday...I mean..I am in awe at the concise logic and multiple rebuttals....LOL! you are going to grow old and bitter when you don't become as famous as you hope...oh well...sad...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]Hi Peter,I beleive the following lends support to predictions 1 & 5 of your MPG theory:Nature 403, 616 (2000) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.Conservation biology: 'Ghost' alleles of the Mauritius kestrelJIM J. GROOMBRIDGE*, CARL G. JONES, MICHAEL W. BRUFORD & RICHARD A. NICHOLS* Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
Mauritius Wildlife Foundation, Black River, Mauritius
School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary & Westfield College, London E1 4NS, UK
Present address: Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3TL, UKThe population of Mauritius kestrels is thought to have recovered from a single wild breeding pair in 1974, when its prospects were considered to be hopeless, to over 200 pairs today. Here we evaluate the loss of genetic variation that resulted from this bottleneck by typing 12 microsatellite DNA loci in museum skins up to 170 years old and from modern kestrels. We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species. This shows that the unexpected resilience of the population could not have been due either to benefits contributed by an undetected remnant population or to reduction of the inbreeding genetic load by a history of small population size.
*******************M: Bwaahaaahaaahaaa!!!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!!1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.From the abstract of your own reference:
"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species."Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass Fred5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes.And again:
We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot air Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-22-2002]

And so you can indulge you dog fixation...Genetic Evidence for an East Asian Origin of Domestic DogsPeter Savolainen, Ya-ping Zhang, Jing Luo, Joakim Lundeberg, and Thomas Leitner
Science Nov 22 2002: 1610-1613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material]Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World DogsJennifer A. Leonard, Robert K. Wayne, Jane Wheeler, Ral Valadez, Sonia Guilln, and Carles Vil
Science Nov 22 2002: 1613-1616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material]The Domestication of Social Cognition in DogsBrian Hare, Michelle Brown, Christina Williamson, and Michael Tomasello
Science Nov 22 2002: 1634-1636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material]All todays issue of Science....no poodles magically turning into St. Bernards here SLPx and Quetzal...care to place your bets on which of the ten creationist debate commandments will be employed to dismiss these studies?

Dear Mammuthus:In response to:The population of Mauritius kestrels is thought to have recovered from a single wild breeding pair in 1974, when its prospects were considered to be hopeless, to over 200 pairs today. Here we evaluate the loss of genetic variation that resulted from this bottleneck by typing 12 microsatellite DNA loci in museum skins up to 170 years old and from modern kestrels. We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species. This shows that the unexpected resilience of the population could not have been due either to benefits contributed by an undetected remnant population or to reduction of the inbreeding genetic load by a history of small population size.
*******************You very scientifically say:M: Bwaahaaahaaahaaa!!!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!!1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.PB: It is clear now that you do not know the differnce between a gene and microsatelite DNA. How did I ever, I wonder, get involved in this discussion with morons? M: From the abstract of your own reference:
"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species."PB: This in respect to microsattelite DNA, not genes. How did I ever, I wonder, .... etc.
Conclusion from the paper is that "the unexpected resilience of the population could not have been due either to benefits contributed by an undetected remnant population or to reduction of the inbreeding genetic load by a history of small population size."
My conclusion: MPG (meaning 'Multi-Purpose Genome', not 'Mammuthus Powered Gobbledegook' )M: Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass FredPB: I noticed that you regard Fred an illiterate. You could brush up on your reading capacity as well.5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes.PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT).M: And again:
We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.
Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..PB: It is easy to falsify theories. The evolutionary theory can aslobe readily falsified. Falsification apparently doesn't matter for the validity of origin theories. Ultimately it is all a matter of believe.M: Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot airPB: Still defending your religion, Mammuthus? I mean the Theory of Illusion; survival of fiction through random evasion and rejection.M: Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense.PB: Seeing your believe system going down hill can be painfull. So take care. I think, you wish (deep inside) that you never had registered. Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-22-2002]

PB: It is clear now that you do not know the differnce between a gene and microsatelite DNA. How did I ever, I wonder, get involved in this discussion with morons? M: LOL! there are also microsatellites in genes...oh but you knew that already of course seems that you must be the moron tenet 1 still falsified...hear that sound...Peter the great's grand schemes falling down M: From the abstract of your own reference:
"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species."PB: This in respect to microsattelite DNA, not genes. How did I ever, I wonder, .... etc. M: You obviously never wondered or YOU would know something about microsatsPB:
My conclusion: MPG (meaning 'Multi-Purpose Genome', not 'Mammuthus Powered Gobbledegook' )M: Based on too heavy consumptions of drugs inducing denial of the falsification of the Mentally Poor Garbage hypothesisM: Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass FredPB: I noticed that you regard Fred an illiterate. You could brush up on your reading capacity as well.M: Says the guy who never cracked open a book on pop gen or read a single citation provided for him....I never claimed Fred is an illiterate..I claimed he is an imbecile 5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes.PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT).M: And again:
We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.
Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..PB: It is easy to falsify theories.M: Your hypothesis certainly was..and your old buddy Fred provided the reference falsifying two of your hypothesis predicitions..you guys make a great team...you are the Jamaican bobsled team of creationism.PB:
The evolutionary theory can aslobe readily falsified. Falsification apparently doesn't matter for the validity of origin theories. Ultimately it is all a matter of believe.M: You mean evolution or abiogenesis..surely the great Peter Borger would not confuse them?M: Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot airPB: Still defending your religion, Mammuthus? I mean the Theory of Illusion; survival of fiction through random evasion and rejection.M: Nope..still an atheist....2 minutes go by...check..nope still an atheist...M: Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense.PB: Seeing your believe system going down hill can be painfull. So take care. I think, you wish (deep inside) that you never had registered. M: LOL!!!!!!!!! I am delighted that I registered..you and Fred have provided me with more comic relief than I have had in a long time.Best wishes,
M[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-22-2002][/B][/QUOTE]