Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Nonrandom mutations are provoked by the DNA sequence. The DNA sequence may form imperfect folded hairpins due to internal complementarity. See the edited version of my previous mail.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

So any given DNA sequence will always 'suffer' the same mutation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Page,

​

Page: We consider chimps and humans to be of the same Genus due to a uniform application of taxonomic criteria, that being estimated time since divergence.

​

PB: homo or pan?

​

Best wishes,
Peter
Peter

---

An evolution expert such as yourself should already know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Nonrandom mutations are provoked by the DNA sequence. The DNA sequence may form imperfect folded hairpins due to internal complementarity. See the edited version of my previous mail.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

​

So any given DNA sequence will always 'suffer' the same mutation?

---

Exactly.Unless it doesn't.But that is proof of non-random mutation, too.

More content-free flailing....

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: I do NOT object to these observations within ONE species. I expected them anyway from the GUToB. However, the NRM are immediately clear: in the immune system and the viral sites. Both have been decribed in the book by Dr Caporale.

---

Yes, and interestingly, as is quite clear form the abstract, these loci are NOT very reliable in reconstructing phylogenies due to their higher rates of mutation. Therefore, you mantra implying that NRM produce the illusion of phylogeny is thus falsified.

quote:

---

Dramatically, it tells us that viruses cannot be used for phylogenetic analysis! So, the evolutionary common descent interpretations on HERVs and other shared viruses are invalidated by these observations.

---

I guess you only read what you want...Of course, the 'incongruent phylogenies' are not what you probably think they are.For simplicity, let's say that the known phylogeny is:O(((((((AB)(CD))(EF))(GH))(IJ))(KL))(MN))A viral locus might produce this incongruent tree:O(((((((AC)(BD))(EF))(GH))(IJ))(KL))(MN))Not exactly paradigm busting or earth shattering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Same 'class' same sequence, same mechanism, same non-random mutation, same shared mutations, NO common descent.

---

What do you mean, "same 'class'"?

Homo or Pan? By the rule of order, since the genus Homo was coined first by Linnaeus, then the chimp would be Homo troglodytes.Of course, the paleoanthropologists might object to this, because this change would render Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus and other hominin genera redundant, and all those fossils will become Homo...OK. Dr Page, Dr Borger, stop looking at molecules and look at the fossils. They deserve their genera.

Dear Page,We are only beginning to understand non-random mutations, and how they are introduced. The rest of the mechanisms that line up mutations and give the illusion of common descent will follow. I expect them to be elucidated within 10 years or so (this is a prediction). It is the end of evolutionism (from microbe to man). What is left is the GUToB (and creation).Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

We are only beginning to understand non-random mutations, and how they are introduced.

---

You seem VERY sure of yourself Peter the atheist-but-not-really, given you confess the above? Truth told, youn haven't a clue. This alone is enough to FALSIFY the GUToB.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2003]

Dear mark,I am a skeptic. A real one.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Nonrandom mutations are provoked by the DNA sequence. The DNA sequence may form imperfect folded hairpins due to internal complementarity. See the edited version of my previous mail.
Best wishes,
Peter--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So any given DNA sequence will always 'suffer' the same mutation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Exactly. Unless it doesn't. But that is proof of non-random mutation, too.PB: According to the 'imperfectly folded hairpin model' the mutations are ALWAYS introduced at the same spots. Commonly it involves the same nucleotide (rule of base-pairing, you know), or a nucleotide is deleted over and over at the same spot. So, one can actually predict where the mutations are introduced as one knows the sequences. It even becomes possible to predict the hairpin from a gene and predict where the mutation is to be expected. I will have another close look at the GLO gene, soon, and assess whether such hairpins can be expected from the sequences present in this stretch of DNA.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,

​

I am a skeptic. A real one.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

This is at odds with you claims that the GUToB is indicative of reality, yet "we are only beginning to understand non-random mutations, and how they are introduced." It seems to me you are putting forward a theory with no mechanism, something you have berated others for.It seems you are not the only skeptic.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear mark,M: This is at odds with you claims that the GUToB is indicative of reality, yet "we are only beginning to understand non-random mutations, and how they are introduced."PB: It is in accordance with what we observe. That suffices.M: It seems to me you are putting forward a theory with no mechanism, something you have berated others for.PB: I already provided a mechanism: Imperfectly folded hairpins.M: It seems you are not the only skeptic.PB: That's great. Keep on your skeptical glasses, anytime, not selectively.best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Homo or Pan? By the rule of order, since the genus Homo was coined first by Linnaeus, then the chimp would be Homo troglodytes.

---

We consider chimps and humans to be subgenera of Homo, [i]Homo (Homo) and Homo(Pan).[/quote][/i]Of course, the paleoanthropologists might object to this, because this change would render Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus and other hominin genera redundant, and all those fossils will become Homo... [/quote] Not to mention entomologists and morphologists generally and...
We based our classification on a universal application of taxonomic rank criteria - estimated time since divergence.
This would cause all sorts of re-classification. Folkks don't like that...

quote:

---

OK. Dr Page, Dr Borger, stop looking at molecules and look at the fossils. They deserve their genera.

---

Fossils - bah!

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: According to the 'imperfectly folded hairpin model' the mutations are ALWAYS introduced at the same spots.

---

I wouldn't doubt that. However, when one looks at large-scale alignments (such as the one I have linked to several times), I do not believe that so many hairpins would exist so close to gether and apparently overlappuing, but of course NOT always producing the 'predicted' changes.
Again, I find it fantastic that this process would produce results that just happen to be largely congruent with phylogenetic hypothesis based on non-molecular data.I presume that the general sequences of these hairpins are known? [/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Page,

​

We are only beginning to understand non-random mutations, and how they are introduced.

---

If that is so,. I find it fantastic that you so frequently and confidently parade them around as a falsification of NDT.

quote:

---

The rest of the mechanisms that line up mutations and give the illusion of common descent will follow.

---

So you are putting your cart before your horse. Before your horse is even born.
How strange for a creationist to do that!

quote:

---

I expect them to be elucidated within 10 years or so (this is a prediction). It is the end of evolutionism (from microbe to man).

---

But you have no problem with Dust-to-Dan creation?