|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 2/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: A Primate Puzzle for Page | |||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Itz,
In response to:--------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: I never said that all sequences have to be in the 'EXACT SAME REARRANGEMENT'. You keep distrorting my words. Itz: You certainly implied it, if it wasn't the exact same arrangement then this statement is complete gibberish: PB: "Let's say that the initial orientation in the common ancestor of all 4 organisms was 3'-->5', and it did not change in orangutan. Than, we have to admit that it changed orientation to 5'-->3' in the ancestor of chimp, gorilla and human."--------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: Yes, I implied it, and fortunately you had a detailed look at the paper. My claim holds for the p arm of the chromosome. The q arm may contain several sites for recombination. Or maybe one of the required elements relocated. Who knows? It requires a thorough scrutiny. As long as we don't know, claiming it to be a random event is arguing from ignorance. And:--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Itz: It would only be reasonable to assume it happened in the common acestor of chimp, gorilla and human if it was the exact same arrangement. Therefore i assumed you had some grasp of basic logic and you were saying the chimp and gorilla rearrangements were identical, was i wrong?. Will you now say when you think things happened now that you know the arrangement in chimp and gorilla were independant and therefore couldn't have happened in the common ancestor of human, chimp and gorilla. PB: I didn't say you were wrong. I said that you falsified Mammuthus scenario. As a matter of fact you were right. If the rearrangements are independent in chimp and gorilla I suggest that there are mechanisms involved that likely mediate the rearrangement of the DNA in this regions. Maybe they are transposable. Or, maybe they interact with creatons.  Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6465 days)  Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days)  Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
PB: I never said that all sequences have to be in the 'EXACT SAME REARRANGEMENT'. You keep distrorting my words. It should be noted that the arrangements involved the same spot in the p arm of chromosome 12 (10). That is pretty much non random.
M: Pretty much..or more like not at all. You claimed for almost a year now that mutations are non random with respect to position..now you are saying not even with respect to position. As Itz pointed out, your statement is absolute gibberish...since getting you to define non random is impossible, how about you describe a random event as you undestand it so we can see if your definition of random is as wrong and esoteric as non-random? PB:Of course you are free to propose a random mechanism plus selection. M: I did not even propose selection in this case. The rearrangment could have been completely neutral. PB:Still, it would indicate a mechanism that can induce such inversions. M: Why? If I see a traffic accident on the road I don't see indication of a mechanism that induces car crashes. PB:At least it involves the DNA repair system, and the proteins probably recognise certain well defined sites. That such sites get easily lost should be known to you since, you are in the field of HERVs. Often integration/excision sites are not recognised anymore due to RM. M: Actually integration/excision sites are recognized because HERVs leave solo-LTRs behind when they splice out. PB: If the mechanisms are still intact to rearrange in chromosome 12, it would likley be in this region. M: Likely? Did you say likely? no no no no..if it is non-random you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to KNOW EXACTLY where. Likely is..drum roll please..RANDOM PB: I really start doubting whether you know how biological science works. First, we have to elucidate the mechanisms involved. As demonstrated by Lynn Ripley in Caporales book (page 36-40), she first performed dozens of studies to elucidate the mechanism in T4 that induces over and over the same mutations on the same spot. Next, she understood the mechanism and was able to predict them. So, first we have to know the underlying mechanism, my dear Mammuthus. As long as we deny such mechanisms of being extant, we will never find them. As long as we regard the major part of the DNA as evolutionary embellishment we will never learn about the genome. That's why your worldview is hindering scientific progress. M: This entire statement absolutely had nothing to do with randomness or non randomness Peter. It is your understanding that is in question. That a particular sequence or chromsomal region is MORE LIKELY to undergo rearragement/mutation/transposition does not mean that it will every time. It is still not a priori predictable or deterministic. And there are thousands of people working on the mechanisms underlying mutation bias...your worldview is hindering your capactiy to be a scientist. PB: (Just for my interest, in a previous letter you were writing on the DNA of Musk oxen, did you already publish it somewhere? I would be interested to read it). M: We were just getting ready to write it up when we got a hold of 12 new specimens from Alaska (our original are from Russia). So we decided to process the new samples and add the data to what we collected from Russia. We are about 3 months out from finishing the data collection and then we will publish it...I'll send you a preprint or reprint once it's accepted. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
PB: I never said that all sequences have to be in the 'EXACT SAME REARRANGEMENT'. You keep distrorting my words. It should be noted that the arrangements involved the same spot in the p arm of chromosome 12 (10). That is pretty much non random. .......Not only claimed, I provided scientific papers demonstrating NRM.
M: This is a nice example of denial Peter. You claim one thing, then say you meant something else and end by just re-iterating your initial claim without any rebuttal..."mommy the sky is purple...No Peter it is blue...but mommy I have provided scientific papers demonstrating the sky is purple". PB2: The papers that I provided demonstrate NRM with respect to 1) position in the DNA, and 2) nucleotide. What you want to see is with respect to 3) when they are introduced. I don't know when they are introduced. It requires further research. Anyway, NRM have far reaching implications for biology. M: Point 1 and 2 have been known for decades. Point 3 is where the problem is. I don't want to see "with respect to when". In order for your claim of non-randomness to be correct you HAVE to KNOW WHEN. Otherwise it is still random mutation...what you are proposing has no implications for biology because it is a figment of your imagination. Hotspots and areas of higher likelihood do have far reaching implications for biology..which has also been known for decades...as I said, you seem to be a bit of a slow learner. PB2: I have defined NRM a long time ago: they are NR with respect to 1) position in the DNA, and 2) the nucleotide. M: That is not what I was asking you this time. I asked you to defined random mutation...I want to see if your definition of random mutation is as wrong as non-random. PB2: Life is not a traffic accident. Get your definitions straight. Besides, the mechanism behind a car accident could be 1) a turn on the wheel, 2) curve in the road, 3) speeding, 4) drunk driving, 5) driver hit by a) blindness, b) lighting, c) a bullet, etcetera, etcetra.Non-causative science is outlandish gibberish. M: So now you claim that probability is not involved in life? LOL!!!!You defined factors that might influence the probability of the car crash but you have not defined a "mechanism" that is the deterministic or causative agent in determining when or to who a particular accident will occur. This is the same flaw as your arguments about mutation...and by the way, you do realize that DNA is a structure..mutations are changes in this structure... but since you said Non-causitive science is gibberish..please show a causitive science...or did you mean caustic science because you spilled acid in your lap  M: Actually integration/excision sites are recognized because HERVs leave solo-LTRs behind when they splice out. PB2: What they leave behind can be re-used to integrate again? By other DNA elements? M: Sure, and LTR of an exogenous virus could recombine with a solo LTR in the genome and cause insertions or deletions or in some cases replacement. PB2: No, Mamuthus, if one event is 1000 times more likely than the other event it implicates a mechanism and thus the event is a non-random. If two events have equal probablity they are random events. M: Nope, that is your failure of understanding. Greater probability does not make it non-random regardless as there is always a probability of a different outcome. It might implicate a physical or chemical feature that is increasing the probabiity but it does not implicate a deterministic or causative mechanism. And why do two events have to have equal probablity to be considered random? If I live in an area of low crime and dense traffic and get mugged on my way to work was it a pre-determined non-random event given that I had a higher probability of being run over as opposed to being mugged? If you have two bases AT where A is 1000 times more likely to mutate to G but then you actually see in the next generation that the T becomes a C..there where does that fit in with your deterministic mechanism? PB2: These mechanisms underlying mutation bias are not good for evolution through a random mechanism. It also has far reaching consequences for phylogenetics (as discussed). M: Any implications regarding hotspots etc. are well known to evolutionary biologists and their implications on phylogenetics have been studied for over 20 years...you have a lot of catching up to do. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
PB3: Make the link where I say that rearrangements have to be exactly the same. From GUToB I say that rearrangements require specific recognition sites in the genome. That's it. Not that all rearrangements should be the same. It depends where the recognition sites are present. Apparently they are present in the p arm of 12(10).
M: So now you have expanded non-random mutation to include mutations that occur in different places to? So for you anything that is random is non-random?..I am still waiting for your definition of random...There are also examples of rearragnement with no recognition sites..so that would falisfy a requirement of GUToB. (Note to Admin: I realize you are trying to get Borger to define GUToB..shall I ignore any mention of it or should I continue to address it?) PB3: I doubt it, since we only learned rapid sequencing recently and comparative genomics is only now possible. Besides, evo's only demonstrate what is in accord with their theory (Remember the dicussed cytochrome c in Stellaria longipes? Closer to fungus than to plants. Or the IL-1 beta incongruence? We now know (through HUGO) that the proposed copy in the human genome to reconcile the tree is NOT present). That's how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism (= evolution from microbe to man by utter naturalistic means): By not showing all the data. M: Aside from your moronic conspiracy theory about how HUGO is supposedly surpressing data, different mutation rates have been know sicne the 50's when Benzer et al. were working on bacteriophage..you really need to learn some molecular biology Peter if you claim you doubt anyone new about this stuff. PB3: Yeau, and that's YOUR definition of non-random: you have to know when it is introduced. Well, I really don't mind when it is introduced, as long as the position and nucleotide are always the smae they are NR with respect to nucleotide and position. That's not so hard to get, is it? Next step is to determine 'When'. Maybe 'when' genomes are in the presence of high levels of radiation. Who knows? M: No, it is not my definition of non-random. It is the basic requirement of your hypothesis of non-random mutation as YOU have defined it. Without it it is still random non-deterministic mutation...and so far I have yet to see a single scientist or science oriented member of this board who agrees with your concept of NRM. M: That is not what I was asking you this time. I asked you to defined random mutation...I want to see if your definition of random mutation is as wrong as non-random. PB: That is known. You wanna know WHEN. M:??? Take a deep breathe and try again...what is your definition of random mutation. PB3: You have to explain the structure first before you can change it. Before you can refurbish a room you have to build the house. Logics Mammuthus. That's called logics. M: Explain the structure of DNA? Uhhh double helix...oh and by the way that has been known for 50 years to though it seems to have passed you by PB3: Action-reaction. Ever heard of that? M: This is your definition of causitive science?..answers like this make me wonder if you sit alone at night in a room with socks on your hands talking to them about non random gas attacks from Burrito Grande's at Taco Bell. PB3: It's GUToB. It may affect expression of other DNA elements and thus induces variation. Probably the HERVs are not randomly distributed throughout the genome. Would explain a lot. Thanks for that. M: Considering you cannot even define GUToB (sorry again Admin) why not call it ham with cheese on rye..that would explain a lot. Thanks for that...and you claim I am talking gibberish...the second half of your post sounds like a drug induced rant. PB3: Not causative? A specified position in the DNA may be subject to more mutation than another due to the environment where it is in, e.g. hairpin forming abilities so the polymerase is easy to slip/introduce faulty nucleotides. Than this is the cause of an enhanced probablity. That's causative. And such position will line up and give the false impresion of common descent if distinct MPG have the same initial DNA make up. I've pointed them out in the ZFY region, a region in which the mutations cannot be explained by common descent. It is evidence for the GUToB. M: So you would claim that one house falling down rather than another during an earthquake is because the house caused it? The "cause" of the mutation is the environment, not the structure or chemistry. It does not will itself to mutate. Even if the event is more probable at a position it is still chance whether it happens or not..it is still random mutation...not every susceptible site in a DNA sequence mutates anytime there is an environmental stress. As to your ZFX/ZFY idiocy, I refuted this ages ago...you ignored my posts..re-iterating your lack of understanding does not make it true. PB3: You cannot compare the DNA and where mutations are introduced with your neighborhood and car accident. M: I can and I did, you did not address my point but only stated that I cannot...you lose PB2: These mechanisms underlying mutation bias are not good for evolution through a random mechanism. It also has far reaching consequences for phylogenetics (as discussed). M: Another non-answer PB: The obvious hotspots are probably included, while the not-so-obvious hotspots are NOT included in these studies. How did the evo's determine the hotspots in the ZFY region? Answer: they didn't. M: This rant makes little sense...but if you actually read anything you would be able to tell exactly how hotspots are included...but nobody hold their breathe that Peter will actually do any reading on this subject...better to be ignorant and make assertions than to educate yourself and find out you are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
PB: I think is doesn't make sense to further discuss on the topic. You have your views, I have mine. You promote evolutionism --although demonstrable to be false-- I will promote the GUToB.
M: You have yet to define GUToB. You have not supported MPG, creatons, NRM, or morphogenetic fields. You have shown nothing but willful misinterpretation of what evolution is so this is not just a disagreement about different interpretations or views. But go ahead and promote GUToB..maybe even define it...there have been cranks before, during, and after Darwin's time proposing all sorts of nonsense..it is ultimately irrelevant what you promote since the scientific community will never have any reason to take it seriously. pbWhat you have demonstrated, however, is that it is impossible to penetrate the ivory tower the evolutionist's have build around the theory. Simply deny all evidence against. I already knew that much, but I really find it a pitty, since I think we are missing an important point. But as long as the field is guarded by orthodox guys like you and Page (I don't mean this as an insult) we might never find out about it. M: What you have demonstrated is you will not be able to convince anybody of anything with unsupported assertions...you have not provided me with one compelling reason to question any of the principles of evolution. The only ones who have ever done so have been other evolutionary biologists who have not demonstrated evolution wrong but have made me rethink particular aspects of biology because I disagree with them i.e. the usefullness of molecular clocks. You have you own little impenetrable tower of religious fundamentalist dogma that does not allow you to even consider that you are wrong on any aspect of what you are saying regardless of how many different disciplines demonstrate this...that is the real pity, your mind is so tightly closed you can't even think logically. PB: Of course, it will soon be demonstrate that evolutionism by chance is wrong. (Page, I know your reaction already so you can save yourself the effort). More scientists like myself have already and will further stand up and ask you evo guys a couple of real scientific questions. M: These preditctions have been made for over 150 years to no effect. In any case, getting real scientific questions from the like of you would be a refreshing change from anything you have posted thus far. PB: And than the theory turns out to be nothing but a 19th century fairytale propogated by a small fraction of atheists sitting in their dusty rooms studying mutation rates in DNA sequences and how they line up, while completely missing the point of NRM. M: Actually, most people who accept evolution are not atheists and since the majority of scientists accept evolution your "small fraction of atheists" bigotry demonstrates yet again how distant you are from reality.....by the way, my lab is not dusty. PB: But there is nothing else than good old evolutionism, you say? Well actually there's GUToB now. GUToB is a state of the art scientific theory that explains all biological phenomena, so why stick to the ol'? M: Because thus far nobody I have ever seen has provided a compelling alternative...oh yes, and you still have not defined GUToB...and to add to that list of Borger undefined terms...random mutation. PB: It thought is was obvious from your last couple of mailings that you don't really want to discuss evolutionism on a contemporary level, instead of the usual never-to-proof-fossil-nagging. I believe that it is more important to know the truth than to be orthodox. M: I believe it is more important to substantiate ones hypotheses regarding nature scientifically than to arrogantly claim one "knows the truth". It is you who are the dogmatic fundamentalist practicioner of orthodoxy...maybe someday if you work hard and open your mind you might be able to give science a whirl. PB nce more, I find it a pitty, we could have taken it to a higher level. No, M, not with halucinogens or tropogenics. M: Ironic that you claim to be disappointed by the conversation not being taken to a higher level. Last year you completely avoided several of my posts asking specific questions even after I bumped them repeatedly. You have lied and claimed nobody has debated you on topics like ZFX and ZFY before though this has been repeatedly done. When pushed you have avoided defining terms and resorted to repeating the same mistatements over and over..recently you have resorted to redefining you terms in almost every post. You have mischaracterized or purposefully misdefined evolution as a misguided attempt to "score points" and also recently you have avoided defining GUToB completely when pressed by Admin yet as a frequent answer to posts you claim this nebulous term is the answer to all biology...if anyone is guilty of turning this discussion into a lowbrow affair it is you...think about it a little. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
