|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
{Large amounts of utter irrelevancy snipped.}
quote: I emailed Dr. Offord for her take on it. We’ll see.
quote: 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: There you go Peter. I can quote journalists just as easily as you can.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ******************** 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 bliss Curr Biol 2000 Oct 19;10(20):1287-90An 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
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 kestrel JIM J. GROOMBRIDGE*, CARL G. JONES, MICHAEL W. BRUFORD & RICHARD A. NICHOLS * Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, UKMauritius 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, UK 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Mantras aside, Williams simply misrepresents the situation. His naivete in science shines brightly, and grows stronger with nearly every post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7685 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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 wishesPeter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7685 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Fred,
Thanks for more evidence of the MPG, best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7685 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ****************+ 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
[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 kestrel JIM J. GROOMBRIDGE*, CARL G. JONES, MICHAEL W. BRUFORD & RICHARD A. NICHOLS * Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, UKMauritius 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, UK 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.******************* 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 Fred 5) 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
And so you can indulge you dog fixation...
Genetic Evidence for an East Asian Origin of Domestic Dogs Peter Savolainen, Ya-ping Zhang, Jing Luo, Joakim Lundeberg, and Thomas LeitnerScience Nov 22 2002: 1610-1613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material] Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World Dogs Jennifer A. Leonard, Robert K. Wayne, Jane Wheeler, Ral Valadez, Sonia Guilln, and Carles VilScience Nov 22 2002: 1613-1616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material] The Domestication of Social Cognition in Dogs Brian Hare, Michelle Brown, Christina Williamson, and Michael TomaselloScience 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7685 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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 Fred PB: 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 air PB: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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 microsats PB: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 hypothesis M: Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass Fred PB: 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 air PB: 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024