Doe the climate direct mutations towards the ATP6 gene?

quote:

---

PB: Dr Lynn Caporale recently published a book on the topic of NRM. So, I presume that you also deny her book. I am starting to feel a sense of pitty when I have to discuss science with with atheistic evo's and I have to try hard to understand their non-scientific approach of data. This is what Caporale has to say about new observations and denial: "This observation [of jumping genes] was greeted by much of the scientific community with what most generously might be called denial". You are one of the deniers.

---

In the first place, I can't recall any conversation where we even discussed "jumping genes", let alone where I denied their existence. Secondly, your quotation of Dr. Caporale's out-of-context sentence provides no support for or even discusses YOUR ludicrous approach to science and data. Since apparently no one is capable of understanding Dr. Caporale's "real meaning" - including the good doctor herself - except you, there's evidently no further point in discussing it.

quote:

---

PB: Where do you get this idea? The GUToB does several predictions and they all came true. That's something one cannot say for evolutionism. For instance, evolutionism predicts that genetic redundancies should have an association with gene duplication. But they don't (refered to Winzeler et al, at least a dozen times, so you should know). Evolutionism also predicts that such genes demonstrate a higher mutatition rate. But they don't. Clear case. At least for me, since I am a scientist.

---

You have not shown any prediction made by the GUToB to actually exist or those few cases which are valid to be unexplainable by mainstream biology. Please show any peer-reviewed article where the term "evolutionism" is used. Finally, I think you are misusing the term "genetic redundancy" if you claim it must be associated with gene duplication. In biology, the term isn't only associated with second copies of genes - it can also refer to the case where several different genes combine to code for a specific function. Hence it isn't simply duplication that's involved, and your assertion is groundless.

quote:

---

Q: Your say so? As far as the mutagens go, they DO in large measure have random effects but are statistically more likely to induce mutations at particular loci.

​

PB: Yep, and such positional NRM will give the illusion of common descent.

---

Since my statement had nothing to do with common descent and everything to do with your continual misuse of "random", your response is a non-sequitor.

quote:

---

PB: I understand both the evolutionary and GUToB concepts. I know which one to choose. And of course it is beyond you, since you are only willing to see the evolutionary concept. Sometimes it pays to look beyond the paradigm. And if you still are under the impression that evolutionism can explain all bioloical data, then you are wasting your time on this board. (AND I TOO, sorry for the capitals)

---

If your intent was to find biologists that recognize your greatness, I concur that you are wasting your time on this board.

quote:

---

PB: It is exactly the same as what I demonstrated 7 months ago in the 1G5 gene. And denied till Caporale posted her mail to this board. Now suddenly there is NRM and it is all consistent with evolutionary theory. You evo's are so easy to see through. It is almost ridiculous. It is litterally ROTFLMAO........ No, it is sad.

---

Glad you're laughing. You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING in seven months. All you've ever done is repeat your own mantra, ignore inconvenient questions, and insult anyone who disagrees with you. What part of Dr. Caporale's statement "Rejecting entirely random genetic variation as the substrate of genome evolution is not a refutation, but rather provides a deeper understanding, of the theory of natural selection of Darwin and Wallace." don't you understand?

quote:

---

PB: Do you really want to be involved in a Page-like diatribe? I hope you won't, although accusing me of shoehorning scientists would be a nice start. Listen Quetzal, I didn't have to read Caporale's book to demonstrate NRM and how it contradicts NDT. Dr Caporale simply confirmed my claims about NRM. I think it is clear from her book that she doen't advocate NDT, either. For instance:

​

"So, E. coli cannot randomly try every possible change and then wait for selection to capture the very best ones." [page 72]

​

"New levels of interaction rarely arise through letter-by-letter random mutations of random DNA sequences" [page 144]

---

Just what part of those two statements you quoted do you think falsifies NDT or provides support to your non-random mutations? Neither statement is even vaguely contentious taken out of context as you've done.

quote:

---

Maybe you could quote the second paragraph from the "Materials and Methods" section, just to check.

​

PB: To check? You are such a comediant! Wanna check the colour of my undies too, I guess.

​

Q: The last time we discussed it, you hadn't read it - just the title and the bit of the abstract I posted (message #23 of the thread I referenced for Judge).

---

So you CAN'T cite the paragraph. As I thought. So much for your self-proclaimed intellectual integrity.

quote:

---

PB: The last time we discussed you hadn't read Caporale, and you still haven't. However, let's not waste time on non-sense. Let's discuss the rapid evolution of Bt resistance in laboratory populations of insects, and field populations of major pests possessing Bt resistance genes even before the Bt cotton crop (a transgene) was planted. [SR Palumbi. The evolution explosion. p131-161. ISBN 0-393-32338-2]

---

And I still haven't read Dr. Caporale's book. I've simply looked at some of her peer-reviewed articles - of which I find little to criticize. Of course, unlike you, I've been completely upfront about NOT reading it...I would be delighted to discuss rapid evolution of pesticide resistence in field populations. Especially since if nothing else they utterly refute your directed mutation/multipurpose genome nonsense.Quite simply, natural resistance to Bacillus thuringensis IS pre-existent in nature, because the bacillus itself is present and hence moths (for instance the tobacco budworm Heliothis virescens) have developed a natural resistance - even before its use in transgenic crops. However, it should be noted that the mutation that provides this resistance is only expressed in fully homozygous moths - it is a recessive whose frequency is normally maintained through selection-mutation balance in the population. Field estimates give a frequency of about 1.5*10^-3. This is actually a fairly high frequency. Whereas biocontrol has been effective in reducing pest loss (and subsequent pesticide use), all it takes is one reproducing population and the F1 and F2 generations start having a significantly increased frequency of homozygous insects - because everything without it has died. What biocontrol with Bt DOES accomplish is give transgenic plants a "leg up" on evolution - allowing them to start with an advance in the arms race.It isn't NRM, it's basic ecology and population genetics. Of course, you knew that...{edited for grammar}[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-10-2003]

quote:

---

PB: Wrong. The sequences in ancient subspecies contain more information regarding mutations that your simplistic comparison of chimp and human mtDNA.

---

In your "analysis" - was the chimp sequence 'ancient'?I am also curious as to why you have had no comment on the question of your's I answered here:
http://EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back -->EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is backI have a good idea, of course...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-10-2003]

Hi Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Wrong. The sequences in ancient subspecies contain more information regarding mutations that your simplistic comparison of chimp and human mtDNA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: In your "analysis" - was the chimp sequence 'ancient'?PB: I was talking about subspecies of human in the mtDNA analysis. Do you see subspecies of chimps?
(Although the two subspecies of Ptr you showed for the ZFY region demonstrate very distinct sequences).Page: I am also curious as to why you have had no comment on the question of your's I answered here:
http://EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back -->EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is backI have a good idea, of course...PB: Listen Page, it seems that you like digging your own grave. I offered to dicuss you ultimate evidence for common decent but you didn't respond.Anyway, as long as you are unable to exclude NRM in your ultimate 'evidence' for common descent there is nothing scientific in your analysis. There are several NRM spots in the sequences you provided and if I have to point them out, just let me know. Furhermore you have to determine a function for the positions. Probably they are of unknown regulatory function and play a specific role of gene expression and/or regional regulation of DNA sequences in these species. Read Dr Caporale and you get a better understanding of genomes and DNA in general.have a nice day,
Peter

quote:

---

Borger:
Read Dr Caporale and you get a better understanding of genomes and DNA in general.

---

More later, but I am entertained by the latest projective gibberish that asthma boy seems content to inflict upon us...------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-13-2003]

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Wrong. The sequences in ancient subspecies contain more information regarding mutations that your simplistic comparison of chimp and human mtDNA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Dr.Page: In your "analysis" - was the chimp sequence 'ancient'?

​

PB: I was talking about subspecies of human in the mtDNA analysis. Do you see subspecies of chimps?

---

I know what you were talking about. You were talking about ancient humanoid sequences being compared with modern chimp sequences and drawing conclusions from it.Erroneous conclusions.

quote:

---

(Although the two subspecies of Ptr you showed for the ZFY region demonstrate very distinct sequences).

---

Yes, they do. So much for GUToB, eh?
Well, actually, no they don't.More Borger naivete.The two sequences are not representative of subspecies, they are samples from different individuals of the same species.Even worse for GUToB.Shame your made-up kid stuff keeps getting slammed at every turn.Maybe it is time to start all over?

quote:

---

Dr.Page: I am also curious as to why you have had no comment on the question of your's I answered here:
http://EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back -->EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back

​

I have a good idea, of course...

​

PB: Listen Page, it seems that you like digging your own grave. I offered to dicuss you ultimate evidence for common decent but you didn't respond.

---

Listen, Borger, you are avoiding the issue.You made some pretty overconfident and insult laced claijs - claims premised on your own naivete and ignorance - and are now desperately trying to cover that up.Please retract your asinine claims regarding the species that you could not even identify.
Lest even more of your deceptive tactics are laid bare.In addition, you continue to misrepresent my position on the alignment and employ red herrings. I never claimd that the alignment was the "ultimate evidence" for evolution. It certainly demonstrates the legitimacy of the assumptions, of course. But that adjective is solely your invention.Very dishonest, especially for an anti-atheistic nihilist.

quote:

---

Anyway, as long as you are unable to exclude NRM in your ultimate 'evidence' for common descent there is nothing scientific in your analysis.

---

If you say so.pewrhaps you can explain the scientific aspects of the "creaton" and the "morphogenic field."By the way - I can exclude NRM quite simply - there is no evidence for it. The distribution patterns of mutation, deletion, and insertion do not support your contention. Indeed, you dug YOUR own grave when you made that sophomoroic naive quip about the "subspecies" of chimp showing so much polymorphism in the locus in which YOU claim to see NRM.The creationist is often their own worst enemy. You demonstrate this nicely on nearly a daily basis.That is, when you are not avoiding threads.

quote:

---

There are several NRM spots in the sequences you provided and if I have to point them out, just let me know.

---

Well , I know you tried to do that once before, and I pointed out that your supposed NRM spots were haphazard and inconsistent.But, please do point them all out for us. Please also point out the neighboing sequences that would allow for this, that is, if you are going to at least attempt to use Dr.Caporale's criterion of hairpin loops.

quote:

---

Furhermore you have to determine a function for the positions.

---

I do? Have you done this?
Interestingly, the loci are indicated on the alignemt. Guess you didn't pay much attention. That is, I indicate whee the exons, introns, etc. are.The bulk of the mutations are in non-exonic regions, just as we wouild expect.

quote:

---

Probably they are of unknown regulatory function and play a specific role of gene expression and/or regional regulation of DNA sequences in these species.

---

Probably.But if you do not know, how is it that you are so confident in your conclusions?And if so, why are there so many disparate mutation patterns even within genera?

quote:

---

Read Dr Caporale and you get a better understanding of genomes and DNA in general.

---

Maybe you should do the same.It seems that your first reading only supplied you with some out-of-context quote and wild extrapolation fodder.Win every debate...Thats rich....

Dear Page,PB: Second round? quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borger:
Read Dr Caporale and you get a better understanding of genomes and DNA in general.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: More later, but I am entertained by the latest projective gibberish that asthma boy seems content to inflict upon us...PB: Us? Pluralis majestatis? And I was the megalomaniac?------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of ChicagoPB: I've read your and Goodman's stuff on panomo. The data are probably okay (I didn't cjeck them, yet), and the conclusion are completely conceivable from the common descent evolutionary paradigm. You know that I object to that from the GUToB paradigm. So, we have to fight another battle, I guess. The truth will be known and are in the extremes. Shall we discuss the Panomo clade from the stance of the ZFY region or from the mtDNA? Or?Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Borger:
Read Dr Caporale and you get a better understanding of genomes and DNA in general.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Page: More later, but I am entertained by the latest projective gibberish that asthma boy seems content to inflict upon us...

​

PB: Us? Pluralis majestatis? And I was the megalomaniac?

---

Yes, you are. Your frequent claims of superiority indicate this. By "us" I mean people reading your posts. Your continued purposeful misrepresentation is becoming most bothersome.

quote:

---

------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

​

PB: I've read your and Goodman's stuff on panomo.

---

I have no idea what "panomo" is.
The above is not from 'my' stuff.

quote:

---

The data are probably okay (I didn't cjeck them, yet),

---

Considering the fact that you seem largely unable to analyse data in any logical way, I frankly would not care what you think of it.

quote:

---

*snip gibberish*
Shall we discuss the Panomo clade from the stance of the ZFY region or from the mtDNA? Or?

---

I don't know what panomo is. Looks like something you made up.The fact that you seem to want to limit analyses to small loci tells me that you don't know much about DNA analyses.This was also shown in your laughably naive insistence that the Adcock et al. mtDNA locus supercedes the entire mtGenome as well as all of the nuyclear DNA studies.To put it in terms that you might - or at least should - comprehend, that would be like taking a single outlier in an epidemiological study of tens or thousands and proclaiming that outlier to be the best source of all information on asthma.You wouldn't so that.Or would you?So I take it that you are dropping your earlier naive insult re: Tob and Cap?

Dear Page,Page: "To put it in terms that you might - or at least should - comprehend, that would be like taking a single outlier in an epidemiological study of tens or thousands and proclaiming that outlier to be the best source of all information on asthma."PB: No, what I demonstrated can not be discarded as outlier, it rather is a RANDOM test. I am pretty sure that other mtDNA regions as soon as they become available from similar research demonstrate similar results (This is a prediction).Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Page: "To put it in terms that you might - or at least should - comprehend, that would be like taking a single outlier in an epidemiological study of tens or thousands and proclaiming that outlier to be the best source of all information on asthma."

​

PB: No, what I demonstrated can not be discarded as outlier, it rather is a RANDOM test. I am pretty sure that other mtDNA regions as soon as they become available from similar research demonstrate similar results (This is a prediction).

---

Your "prediction" has already been falsified.Or are you trying to handwave away the fact that the entire mtGenome has been analysed already?------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

I have often found that I can tell just who is "winning" a "debate" (I would hardly classify what happens on discussion boards as 'debates') by how much of the posts do not get responded to.That is, creationists tend to try to simply ignore/omit sections of posts that they cannot address substantively.Isn't a perfect system, of course, but I would say that in view of it, the "evos" are well ahead of the curve...

Hi Page,SLP: Your "prediction" has already been falsified.PB: Where can I read about mtDNA sequences --other region than presented in Adcock's paper-- in several ancient human subpopulations? Please let me know.SLP: Or are you trying to handwave away the fact that the entire mtGenome has been analysed already?PB: Comparing unequal things again? Listen Page, there is not even the slightest connection between your reply an my previous writing.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Page,If you are still under the impression that you've won our little chat on ancient mtDNA, than you must also be under the impression that the Germans and Japs won WWII.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Borger:
If you are still under the impression that you've won our little chat on ancient mtDNA, than you must also be under the impression that the Germans and Japs won WWII.

---

You mean the one in which you insisted that one ~300 bp locus trumps all of the information gleaned by analysing the entire mtGenome?Apparently, you think that because the Gemans blitzkrieged the crap out of Holland, that Holland is still under German control...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]

quote:

---

SLP: Or are you trying to handwave away the fact that the entire mtGenome has been analysed already?

​

PB: Comparing unequal things again? Listen Page, there is not even the slightest connection between your reply an my previous writing.

---

\
You mean like how you compared modern chimp DNA to 'ancient' humanoid DNA and claimed that therefore humans and chimps diverged 150,000 years ago?That 'analysis' of yours which I showed to be low-brow bunkum?

Also, I am curious as to why there has been no response to my posting of an abstract indicating that actual EVIDENCE indicates the gene duplication and subsequent diversi=fication of the alpha actinin gene family...Could it be the old "what I do not acknowledge does not exist" mode that some creationists employ with vigor?