|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7981 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Percy,
Thanks for your response. However, your logic leads to a dead end street: neutral selection. Even if the mechanisms you propose are relevant in the generation of the intron, you have to introduce "neutral (purifying) selection" on this neutral region to explain the intron in the complete population. Since you are so sure, I invite you to explain to me what it is. I mean, what is "neutral selection"?Best Wishes, Peter
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Peter Borger
I've read your post but not all of the rebuttals. Can I just say that most YE-creationists (eg myself) would strongly suspect that the various species of Drosophila did diverge from a common anscestor. Why exactly do you doubt that DNA and protein sequences can vary and be selected for? Althoug it took a breakthorgh by Darwin and then the later NDT genetics reformulation it is dead obvious that life MUST work this way. I have seen this with my own eyes in viral evoltuion in the lab. And bacteria can routinely evolve improved enzymes if stressed. There are US companies that are generating enzymes evolved this way for chemical industry! This is not our battleground - our batleground is the origin of distinct kinds. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-15-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1794 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I've asked similar questions about linked genes in the
other Peter Borger threads, and he's so far ignored them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23127 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
You believe that the sequence of ten differing nucleotides within the intron of the 1g5 gene in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila yakuba could not have arisen randomly. I offered several possible random sources, but that doesn't mean you are wrong, only that you were leaving out some possibilities.
Perhaps some non-random sources *are* responsible. What do you think they could be? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7981 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear John,
Thanks for the challenge. I have not thought of it a lot, but I doubt whether linkage can help. Linkage to genes that improve survival/fitness will still imlpy that redundant genes should change more rapidly. If there is no link between redundancy and gene stability it implies that additional (unknown) mechanisms in genetic stability (and mutation) are involved. Genetic redundancies end up in a genetic uncertainty problem (See: Tautz, Trends in genetics 2000, volume 16, p475), and disbelief (Nature 415, p8-9, 2002). The theory can never be proven by science. If anybody falsifies the theory a paradigm-shift is required. I am sure it will be falsified beyond any doubt very soon. I already gave you quite a shock with the 1G5 gene. NDT has now become merely a believe (read Percy's reply). Best wishes, Peter
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7981 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Percy,
I have the impression that you avoid my question. My question: ...."Even if the mechanisms you propose are relevant in the generation of the intron, you have to introduce "neutral (purifying) selection" on this neutral region to explain the intron in the complete population. Since you are so sure, I invite you to explain to me what it is. I mean, what is "neutral selection"? Your answer:....You believe that the sequence of ten differing nucleotides within the intron of the 1g5 gene in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila yakuba [simulans, pb] could not have arisen randomly. I offered several possible random sources, but that doesn't mean you are wrong, only that you were leaving out some possibilities. Sorry, but I do not see a link between question and answer. Could you please be more clear. Best Wishes,Peter
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[b]Linkage to genes that improve survival/fitness will still imlpy that redundant genes should change more rapidly.[/QUOTE] [/b] How? Why?
quote: I have no doubt that there are mechanisms as yet unknown to us. But how does this help you?
quote: Well, no, sorry. You must try harder to shock me.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23127 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
peter borger writes: Sorry, Peter, didn't mean to seem like I was ignoring your question, but it was *you* who assigned me the viewpoint of neutral selection, not me. Neutral selection isn't a possibility I would have considered. If you want to make "answer my question" demands, then me first, you addressed almost none of the points in my first post. Your opening post claimed proof against random mutation in the form of consecutive nucleotide differences in the intron of the 1G5 gene of two closely related Drosophila species. I've pointed out the statistical insignificance of small data sets, suggested possible sources, at least one of which was non-random, and in my previous post I granted that perhaps the source *was* non-random, and inquired what you thought the possible sources might be. There's something about the paper that I wasn't able to figure out, and maybe you know the answer. Table 3 has a AF005851 link for the MEL-1G5 gene. I expected it to contain the full base sequence for the 1G5 gene, but it doesn't come close to matching the sequence segments from Figure 1. Do you know what the sequence represents? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Here is a question - have you ever heard the term "selection"?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I wonder, Peter - does Spetner supply any evidence supportive of his claims regarding 'directed' or 'non-random' mutation occurring in multicellular eukaryotes?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I believe you have make an entirely unwarranted and somewhat bizarre extrapolation. "a comparison between fixed and polymorphic sites between the two species shows also no significant deviation from the assumption of a neutral evolution in this region. Apparently, you have never heard of the Neutral Theory? On another board, a chap went on a tirade against me for pointing out that a prominant creationist was commenting on areas outside of his area of expertise. Nevermind that it has been shown that this creationist, when doing so, is totally in error.I submit that a shallow understanding of what evolution entails is responsible for these undue extrapolations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: There is nothing to respond to because you falsified nothing. Again, I suggest that you become more familiar with the topics you discuss.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Can you name a few distinct Kinds for us, and maybe provide some of the criteria used in establishing their Kindness?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 5171 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
Hi Tranquility Base. I have very much enjoyed reading your posts and contributions to this forum. But it’s no fun to agree on everything
quote: This is very much an important battleground! Informed evolutionists fight against environmentally directed mutations tooth and nail (case in point, resident PhD evo biologist Scott Page), because it does falsify Neo-Darwinism, as Peter stated. Evolutionist Dr Futuyama correctly noted in his 1998 college book Evolutionary Biology that its is a fundamental tenet of NDT that non-random mutations do not occur! (citation available on request) According to this leading evolutionist (and there are many others), non-random, environmentally directed mutations (technically called stationary-phase mutation) would invalidate NDT.
quote: But this is precisely anti Neo-Darwinism, provided the improved enzyme resulted from a non-random mutation! I don’t mean to speak for Peter, but I don’t believe he disputes what you observe above, in fact the above fits nicely within the creationist framework. Where the contention lies is whether or not the evolved strain is the result of random mutation, or non-random mutation. If it got there by non-random mutation, this explicitly means the information was already present in the genome and no upward evolution occurred. It also falsifies NDT. Disclaimer: I do not believe this would spell the end for the fairytale of evolution. The general theory as a whole has been set up to not be falsifiable (which makes it a bad theory, really no better than a low-grade hypothesis). My guess is that the evolutionists will simply discard NDT in its current form and re-write the theory to accommodate non-random mutations. I believe it was the famous evolutionist geneticist Lewontin who admitted that evolutionists are committed to naturalism at all costs!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7981 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Percy, Dear All
Percy demonstrates by avoiding my question that they are stuck in their own paradigm! I do not even have to introduce the redundant genes anymore. The paradigm has fallen!! Dear readers isn't it incredible, the paradigm has fallen! You are free to believe whatever you like!!! Dear readers I freeed your minds!!! The tenet has been overthrown. I wish you all the best,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 07-17-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025