|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific end of evolution theory (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Sorry Peter B, you can’t make any judgement on neutral/non-neutral rate until you can scientifically prove there is absolutely no function in the genes that you purport should display neutral rate mutation. This is your own standard, remember? No judgement allowed = no falsification. These genes do not reside stable in the genome, except perhaps at the 100% fixation level. Genetic drift acts upon their frequencies. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What has this got to do with your hypocrisy? I’m well aware of neutral theory.
quote: You have not shown evolution cannot work at the molecular level without being a hypocrite. Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons. In fact all you’ve done is to hit upon the pseudogene in question having some function. This is the third or fourth time I’ve posted this, why aren’t you addressing the main point? YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!!!!!! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What has this got to do with your hypocrisy? I’m well aware of neutral theory.
quote: You have not shown evolution cannot work at the molecular level without being a hypocrite. Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons. In fact all you’ve done is to hit upon the pseudogene in question having some function, because neutral rate mutation was not seen to occur in the entire sequences. Meaning functional constraint was potentially observed. This is the third or fourth time I’ve posted this, why aren’t you addressing the main point? YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!!!!!! Unless you can show the sequences you have chosen to "falsify" evolution have had actual scientific attempts made to show that they are actually functionless, then your argument is utterly undone. Mark [/B][/QUOTE] ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy,
Using one strict standard as a criteria in an attempt to weaken your opponents argument, & then completely ignore it to strengthen your own argument, is hypocritical. I am happy to qualify that I mean no insult whatsoever to Peter, or use the word hypocrite as an attack on Peters character in general. I only use the word in it's strict sense, & in this situation only. If possible, I'll try to find a less inflammatory word in future, but I do maintain I'm using the word correctly. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter B,
quote: Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out.
quote: I did, but cannot see how you have addressed the point above. Please be more specific. You need to show me that either, 1/ You are not relying on substitution rate to determine whether neutral rate substitution is occurring. Or, 2/ You need not determine whether the sequence is functionless (or never had function) or not, before claiming that neutral rate substitution is not observed & neutral theory is overthrown. How can you be sure that function in the knocked out gene isn’t redundant, with weak selection occurring upon it, or perhaps more importantly, that it never had a secondary function, never, EVER? Is this so hard to comprehend? If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation regarding falsification of neutral theory, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS!!!!!!!!! DO YOU GET IT NOW!!!!????? This point of this exercise is to expose your double standards, nothing more. You are perfectly content to tell me that function must be SHOWN to be absent before phylogenies can be inferred from transposons, & at the same time feel SURE that neutral theory is overthrown without showing the same.
quote: I am commenting on your attempt to falsify neutral theory, not the NDT in it’s entirety, let’s leave the goalposts where they are, please. So, how is the above point irrelevant to your attempt to falsify neutral theory? It seems to me that you are applying contradictory standards. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Admin, You will note my last post uses "contradictory standards", so at the very least, I'm towing the line. Also, the entire point of my argument with Peter B is that he is using this fallacy, so in this case calling attention to it isn't sufficient! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Yup, here she is.... http://EvC Forum: evidence that intelligent design can't explain -->EvC Forum: evidence that intelligent design can't explain I never said you used fallacies to support your view, just that you allow yourself the luxury of not being able to show function/non-function of a sequence, yet absolutely require it for phylogenetic analysis that supports evolution.
quote: In the very same thread you are assuming the total non-functionality of the GLO pseudogene. Functionality doesn’t have to be known for phylogenetic inference, but it does have to be known if your argument depends on the lack of function of a particular sequence. Since you have used the GLO vit c pseudogene as your evidence; 1/ Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out, which you claim shows lack of function. 2/ Assuming you can cite the studies of the knockouts above, how can you show the sequences never had a secondary function at some point, never, ever, EVER? Remember, you are claiming a falsification here, you need to be in possession of this knowledge. If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation, as regards falsification of neutral theory, or the NDT for that matter. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-07-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter B,
Message 49 please, Thanks, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Falsification of natural selection? Natural selection has been demonstrated umpteen times experimentally. I'll use a single example, the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. In waters populated by the predator Crenicichla, males have smaller less conspicuous spots that match the gravel bottom (different bottoms elicit different patterns). In effect the guppy has evolved camouflage. The alleles that express phenotypes are under SELECTIVE pressure. Guppies that exist in waters that lack Crenicichla display a much wider range of colouration. That is to say the alleles that affect skin colour are no longer under selective pressure. Guppy populations that are in waters that have Crenicichla populations, & are placed in waters without the predator soon display a wider variety of colouration. Again, the skin colouration alleles aren't selectively constrained, & are able to increase via genetic drift, since they are now "neutral" alleles. If guppies from non-predatorial waters are placed in water with Crenicichla, the colourations soon begin to match the gravel bottom. That is, alleles responsible for skin colouration are under selective pressure. (Endler 1980) Now, given you have "falsified" natural selection, can you explain the above within your shining new paradigm? I don't think so, there is no other explanation other than non effectively camouflaged guppies end up as lunch for Crenicichla, those that have camouflage go on to repopulate. Namely, natural selection. If allele frequencies are being affected by natural selection, & natural selection is part of the NDT, then how can you possibly conclude that the NDT can't be seen to work at the genome level? Falsification of natural selection? Not. As regards neutral theory:
quote: You admit that DNA there are sequences not under selective constraint, & that sequence changes occur. You also admit that it is "well established". I think you will find it is also at the "genome level". How can you accept something is well established & have claimed a falsification at the same time? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Bullshit.
quote: You clearly, demonstrably, claim that function that isn’t known in DNA SEQUENCES (not retrovirus’) & that therefore they can’t be used as proof of common descent (phylogenetic inference). Much of your subsequent arguments revolve around non-neutral substitution/mutations being evident in functionless sequences, when all that should be evident is neutral rate substitution. You claim to falsify the NDT/neutral theory without being able to demonstrate the lack of function in sequences, & therefore show that neutral rate substitution is all that should be seen. THEREFORE, you require function to be known to infer phylogenies, but don’t need it to falsify the NDT when non-neutral constraint is evident???? Would you like to retract one, or the other?
quote: Highlight mine. You cannot falsify anything whilst relying on an untested [I][b]assumption[/I][/b]. Your argument fails here.
quote: Actually, you’re right, I went off on a tangent. Please allow me to redirect my argument.
quote: How can you tell non-random (statistically speaking) mutation from conserved loci?
quote: Again, how can you tell the mutation rate at a particular locus of an ancestral sequence? See http://EvC Forum: evidence that intelligent design can't explain -->EvC Forum: evidence that intelligent design can't explain (At the bottom).
quote: These figures are entirely consistent with the currently accepted phylogeny of apes. If the rat & ape clade diverge at the bottom of the phylogeny, then subsequent divergence up the ape clade is macaque, orangutan, chimp, human.
quote: Yup, the rat is the outgroup, similar substitution rates are expected.
quote: Chimps arwe closest to human, so we expect least difference 4/163. Orangutans next, 7/163. Finally macaques, 15/163, that diverged earliest, & therefore have the greatest difference to humans.
quote: Again correct, chimps are more closely related to orangutans than macaques, & therefore show fewer substitutions.
quote: Again, as expected! Chimps & humans are closely related & show only 4 substitutions between each other since divergence. All substitutions from macaque to most recent common ancestor of humans & chimps have exactly the same substitutions. After divergence they part at a roughly equal rate of substitutions. Meaning they have similar numbers of substitutions relative to each other, but very different numbers of subs to a macaque. Finally.
quote: They’re wrong then, aren’t they? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
I have decided to sum all our posts in one thread. It allows me to pull all the strings together, & re-ask questions that were looked over. It also gives others the opportunity to get a summary of what we have been arguing. I apologise now to other readers, I am repeating argument made before, that were not substantially/meaningfully responded to. It seems there’s no other way. You have provided arguments that you think are falsifications. If you are going to falsify anything, then the tentativity in your arguments must be near zero. You cannot falsify anything whilst relying on an untested assumption. Unless I am much mistaken, your present & previous arguments are summed below. A to E. A/ Random mutation isn’t random, so, the tenet that says evolution is random mutation culled by natural selection falsifies the NDT.
quote: (Evolutionary Biology 2nd Edition, Douglas Futuyma p281-2) One of the reasons I felt I had to get everything under one roof was the opportunity to reiterate this argument. You have never substantially responded to the issue of the intended definition of random, as outlined above. It is incorrect to insist on a definition that was never intended, & as such, applying a strict statistical definition of random falsifies nothing. YET, you still insist you have falsified the NDT because of the statistical non-randomness displayed in mutations. You do this without bringing anything new to the discussion, & I must therefore conclude you are using the time honoured tactic of, I have no argument, so I’ll repeatedly reassert my initial premise. I am giving you the opportunity to bring a new argument to the debate, rather than your reassertions. The intended meaning of random, is that if the locus of a particular mutation cannot be predetermined, it is random (among other things, above). This means hotspots, & even directed evolution (should such a thing exist), are random. Let us assume that directed evolution exists, & is active in a population of 1,000 individuals. One locus is under potential directed evolution, the other 499 nucleotide sites exhibit statistically random mutational probability. After 1 generation, 250 of the organisms have had the sequence undergo directed mutation, 500 experienced no mutation at all, & 250 experienced statistically random mutation. Could you have predicted the mutation loci deterministically in a given sequence? No, of course not. Ergo, even directed evolution is random (Futuymas definition). You cannot gainsay evolutions intended meaning of random. Only the definer/author can do that. Given that you can’t put words in peoples mouths, & tell them what they are supposed to have meant by random, you cannot insert XXX meaning of random in order to falsify random mutationbeing required for evolution. It ain’t allowed. The next time you say you have falsified the NDT because of randomness, it had better come with a bloody good reason, or I claim victory. I’m tired of explaining the same thing over & over, & you just reasserting your original position without explanation. OK? It’s reassertions like this.
quote: ..that ignore everything that has been said, & it’s beginning to piss me off. B/ You believe you have falsified neutral rate mutation/ neutral theory. Therefore phylogenetic analysis cannot be inferred because directed evolution cannot be excluded. Put simply, you are saying that because alleged neutral sequences display non-neutral behaviour, this must be directed mutation, because it’s supposed to be neutral. Given you accept functional constraint, or at least accept that it’s well established.
quote: Then what do you infer from a nucleotide site that doesn’t display neutral rate substitution? It seems to me that you disregard your acceptance of functional constraint, even though it is a perfectly plausible explanation, in favour of it was designed to mutate there!. This means that previously functionless sequences may have loci that have function, after all, since functional/selective constraint is observed. Remember, it is YOU who are claiming a falsification, & it is YOUR argument that must therefore have near zero tentativity. Therefore you must SHOW that an ENTIRE sequence is functionless. I don’t deny that the original transcribed protein has been ruined. But I do not accept that there is no function at any locus, or never has been, unless you show otherwise. But given that there are pseudogenes/transposons that HAVE been shown to have function, it is imperative that you investigate for this possibility before claiming falsifications. If you cannot do this, then you cannot infer falsification from non-neutral rate loci in alleged functionless sequences. C/ You assert it is possible to locate hotspots in ancient sequences, in order to be able to infer that pseudogenes (GLO) were wrecked by hotspot mutation. Firstly, I doubt this very much, since GLO genes are active in more mammals than not. If a hotspot destroyed our GLO function, then why not a cows? Given it has hotspots too. Secondly, why would an ID design a functioning gene with a built in self destruct? It's like building a plane with wings that fall off, or a car where the steering wheel comes off in your hand above a certain speed. But I digress. I agree, you can take an extant sequence, mutate it a thousand times, then examine where the sequences mutate most in order to demonstrate where the hot spots are. But, this is entirely different a proposition from being able to infer hotspots from ancestral sequences. The best you can see from an ancestral sequence is that a loci mutated a maximum of three times, that is, from A to G, A to T, A to C, certainly not from within your paradigm. There is no way you can quantify a hotspot that has a thousand-fold higher probability of mutation than a statistically random probability. You may look at loci that appear to be random to you, but have mutated thousands of times more than adjacent loci, but because it started as A, & finished as A, you will never know. This is probably best illustrated in the form of a question; Q/ There is a single homologous locus in a gene in eight different related organisms. 1/The nucleotides are A,G,T,C,A,G,T, & C. Is the locus a hotspot? 2/The nucleotides are A,A,A,A,A,A,A, & A. Is the locus a hotspot? 3/The nucleotides are A,A,A,A,A,A,A, & T. Is the locus a hotspot? So, how can you tell the location of hotspots in ancestral DNA? D/ You claim to have falsified natural selection, specifically. Natural selection has been demonstrated umpteen times experimentally. I'll use a single example, the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. In waters populated by the predator Crenicichla, males have smaller less conspicuous spots that match the gravel bottom (different bottoms elicit different patterns). In effect the guppy has evolved camouflage. The alleles that express phenotypes are under SELECTIVE pressure. Guppies that exist in waters that lack Crenicichla display a much wider range of colouration. That is to say the alleles that affect skin colour are no longer under selective pressure. Guppy populations that are in waters that have Crenicichla populations, & are placed in waters without the predator soon display a wider variety of colouration. Again, the skin colouration alleles aren't selectively constrained, & are able to increase via genetic drift, since they are now "neutral" alleles. If guppies from non-predatorial waters are placed in water with Crenicichla, the colourations soon begin to match the gravel bottom. That is, alleles responsible for skin colouration are under selective pressure. (Endler 1980) Now, given you have "falsified" natural selection, can you explain the above within your shining new paradigm? I don't think so, there is no other explanation other than non effectively camouflaged guppies end up as lunch for Crenicichla, those that have camouflage go on to repopulate, taking their existing/newly appeared alleles with them. Namely, natural selection. If allele frequencies are being affected by natural selection, & natural selection is part of the NDT, then how can you possibly conclude that the NDT can't be seen to work at the genome level?Falsification of natural selection? Not. I saved the best ‘till last E/ You assert that statistical non-randomness as evidence of design. How can you tell a naturally occurring system/object from a designed one? Since you are attempting to show ID, then if you can’t answer this question, then ALL your arguments come to nought. Retrospectively, your problem is your own use of language. You drop the word "falsification" in to your argument, without realising it requires you to have all bases covered. You simply have to have a lot more information before you can get anything like a falsification of the NDT. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Not the the evilutionist conspiracy again?! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 1/ But mutation IS random!!!!!!! AAAAAAGH. The NDT HASN'T BEEN FALSIFIED. See part A/ of message 73, & you'll see this is exactly why your pissing people of with this repetitive-I-have-no-argument-so-I'll-reassert-myself-ad-nauseum crap. DEAL SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE QUESTION!!!!! 2/ The NDT is both random & non-random anyway, statistically speaking, NS=non-random. GD=random. So at best you have another strawman. 3/ Answer part E/ of message 73. If you can't do this, then you cannot assert that non-randomness = design. Statistical non-randomness exists in nature, demonstrably so. How can you tell the difference? Another reassertion-without-answering-the-pertinent-question. This is getting boring.
[quote][b]I will have a careful look at your summary this weekend. Await my response.[/quote] [/b] And? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: I missed that one! Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Blitz, perhaps you should read his post......
[B][quote]Peter B said:If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true..[/B][/QUOTE] He says that if evolution is non-random (which the NDT professes to be anyway), then [i][b]nothing can prevent creation to be true[/i][/b]. ie if the NDT is false, nothing can prevent creation being true. 1/ Falsifying the NDT doesn't make creation true. 2/ Professing creation to be true ISN'T agnosticism OR atheism. It's theism. Peter Borger claims to be agnostic. A dichotomy? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024