Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 16 of 274 (13532)
07-15-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
07-15-2002 12:01 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 07-15-2002 12:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 07-15-2002 11:05 AM peter borger has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 274 (13537)
07-15-2002 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-11-2002 10:27 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-11-2002 10:27 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by derwood, posted 07-16-2002 1:18 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 29 by Fred Williams, posted 07-16-2002 6:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 274 (13550)
07-15-2002 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
07-15-2002 12:17 AM


I've asked similar questions about linked genes in the
other Peter Borger threads, and he's so far ignored them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 07-15-2002 12:17 AM John has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 274 (13555)
07-15-2002 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by peter borger
07-15-2002 12:28 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 07-15-2002 12:28 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 07-16-2002 4:07 AM Percy has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 20 of 274 (13615)
07-16-2002 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
07-15-2002 12:17 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 07-15-2002 12:17 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 07-16-2002 10:05 AM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 21 of 274 (13618)
07-16-2002 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
07-15-2002 11:05 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 07-15-2002 11:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 07-16-2002 10:30 AM peter borger has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 274 (13623)
07-16-2002 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by peter borger
07-16-2002 3:06 AM


[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:
If there is no link between redundancy and gene stability it implies that additional (unknown) mechanisms in genetic stability (and mutation) are involved.
I have no doubt that there are mechanisms as yet unknown to us. But how does this help you?
quote:
I already gave you quite a shock with the 1G5 gene.
Well, no, sorry. You must try harder to shock me.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by peter borger, posted 07-16-2002 3:06 AM peter borger has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 23 of 274 (13625)
07-16-2002 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by peter borger
07-16-2002 4:07 AM


peter borger writes:

I have the impression that you avoid my question.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 07-16-2002 4:07 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 07-16-2002 8:25 PM Percy has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 24 of 274 (13633)
07-16-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by peter borger
07-12-2002 8:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
That may be so, but as convincingly demonstrated in this reference it violates randomness and thus falsifies NDT.
Soon I will send in falsifiactions of natural selction acting on the genome. I know that the NDT has fallen.
Any questions? Do not hesitate to ask.
Peter

Here is a question - have you ever heard the term "selection"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by peter borger, posted 07-12-2002 8:11 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 25 of 274 (13634)
07-16-2002 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by peter borger
07-13-2002 10:09 PM


I wonder, Peter - does Spetner supply any evidence supportive of his claims regarding 'directed' or 'non-random' mutation occurring in multicellular eukaryotes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by peter borger, posted 07-13-2002 10:09 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 26 of 274 (13635)
07-16-2002 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by peter borger
07-13-2002 10:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
Thanks for you response, but you are wrong.
According to the authors: Almost none of the amino acid positions may be under strong selective constraint, because the fraction of polymorphic sites in the intron is comparable to the fraction of polymorphic sites in the coding region. In addition, they say that 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.
Thus, this gene is not under selective constraint and has not been selected for during millions of years. Unless you would like to assume neutral selection. I have posted a couple of e-mails to evolutionary theorist to figure out what they exacly mean by neutral selection. None of them responded, demonstrating the current problem in NDT.
If you have a solution, please let me know.
Peter

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 07-13-2002 10:22 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 27 of 274 (13636)
07-16-2002 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
07-14-2002 9:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Percy,
Thanks for you response, but I am not impressed by your rebuttal. I mailed this posting because it is a falsification of random mutation.
You did not respond to that.

There is nothing to respond to because you falsified nothing. Again, I suggest that you become more familiar with the topics you discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 07-14-2002 9:46 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by peter borger, posted 07-17-2002 8:19 PM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 28 of 274 (13637)
07-16-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
07-15-2002 2:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
This is not our battleground - our batleground is the origin of distinct kinds.
Can you name a few distinct Kinds for us, and maybe provide some of the criteria used in establishing their Kindness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-15-2002 2:34 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 29 of 274 (13658)
07-16-2002 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
07-15-2002 2:34 AM


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
, so I’ll have to challenge you on something you said:
quote:
This is not our battleground [non-random mutations] - our batleground is the origin of distinct kinds.
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:
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.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-15-2002 2:34 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 10:41 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 34 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 11:21 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 37 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-17-2002 1:59 PM Fred Williams has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 30 of 274 (13670)
07-16-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
07-16-2002 10:30 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 07-16-2002 10:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 07-16-2002 10:11 PM peter borger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024