quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
In response to:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear JP,
You state:
"It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required."
Actually it just depends on the gene or DNA region of the primates one studies. There are genes that are (almost) identical between chimp and human, but there are also genes that are very, very distinct (indicating a directed mechanism). If you have a careful look at the chromosomes and DNA sequences of both species it is highly questionable whether a random mechanism is involved. One might as well assume creation.
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:
Actually, n o it doesn't.
I say:
Well, as demonstrated by the reference: IT DOES, your statement was not correct.
No, my statement was correct. I am unaware of any phylogenetic studies that does not place
Homo in a clade with the great apes. That there will occasionally be a locus here and there that exhibits interesting mutation patterns is only 'big news' to creationists.
quote:
And:
"Perhaps you can provide us with some examples of what you speak."
I say:
This reference is the first one that was published. Since only the minor part of chimps genes is known there will (for sure) follow more.
Funny - creationists have been saying that molecular biology will disprove 'Darwninsim' (for sure) for over a decade now...
quote:
These genes will provide a severe problem for the putative non-random mechanism of NDT. As explained below.
Not really. As explained below.
quote:
And you said:
"What you see as a 'directed mechanism' those with experience see as the result of either selection of the physicochemical properties of the DNA sequence in question."
I say:
Maybe you could be clearer on the putative physicochemical properties of DNA sequence in question.
Sure - polypurines/polypyrimidines, for example, are prone to often largescale insertions and deletions due to polymerase error.
quote:
And you state:
"More undue extrapolations."
I say:
"Who is doing the undue extrapolations? Why are evolutionists allowed to do unwarranted extrapolations all the time, then?"
You are doijng the undue extrapolation. It is a creationist staple. I wish evoloutionsists would use more discretion in the language they use, for example, during TV or news interviews, but I am unaware of these unwarranted extrapolations of which you speak.
quote:
And:
Concerning the Nature article:
It should be noted that fifteen copies of the duplicated segment were found in humans. (I also wonder whether duplications are randomly introduced or also non-randomly, directed).
Of course you do. In creationism circles, such thoughts are usually presented as facts (see ReMine, for example).
quote:
The authors state: "Sequence comparison of putative proteins from two full length human transcripts showed 81% amino acid sequence identity"
And, the authors state: "...the corresponding NON-CODING portions of genomic DNA were 98.1% identical"
Furthermore the authors state that: "We found NO significant sequence similarities to this gene in other organisms..."
They conclude that: "These data suggest either that the exonic regions were HYPERMUTABLE or that amino acid changes had been selected for."
{I agree on HYPERMUTABLE. Here, SELECTION is only a matter of believe. I am sure that the mechanism underlying hyper-mutability is directed by protein and/or RNA.}
You are sure of this? It must be true then. If it is 'directed' by other cellular molecules, how is this then evidence agaisnt evolution?
What was your point again?
quote:
My comments:
If genes emerge and evolve rapidly giving rise to genes with little/no similarity to ancestral precursors, than how did they come into being?
Magic? Anthropomorphic superbeing poofed it into existence? Space men?
quote:
According to NDT an original LCR16a gene region (where did it come from, anyway?) duplicated several times. Duplications give rise to IDENTICAL regions and if it encodes a protein it will specify the same protein. After duplication the genes/DNA regions are redundant. Redundant regions accumulate mutations at a neutral rate. Mutation rate is approx 10exp(-10) - 10exp(-9)/nucleotide/year. In the gene random accumulation of mutations will occur with an incidence of approx 1.5 exp(-6). .. In 6 million year there will be only 9-90 nucleotides to be different.
I believe that mutation rates have been updated a bit. I don't recall the numbers off hand.
quote:
It should be noted that sequences similar to LCR16 are present in all great apes but the gene is specific for humans: the authors did not find a match in other organisms.
And this is indicative of special creation of humans how? This is indicative of non-random mutagenesis how?
quote:
NDT does not have an explanation for this gene.
Does cretionism?
quote:
According to theory, a common ancestor for chimp and human lived 5-6 million years ago. In 5-6 million years random accumulation in redundant genes cannot give rise to new genes. It already takes approx 150 million years for a gene to arise from a duplication that has approx 20% sequence identity (see the actinin genes). What we see is that the LCR16 region has attracted/accumulated mutations in a much defined area: the coding region. Notably, there are 15 similar LCR16 regions, but only one of them accumulated the mutations. So, the authors are right in claiming that the region is hypermutable --the gene in particular--and indicates a non-random mechanism.
What are the flanking sequences like? Did they say (haven't read the article yet)? What is your idea of 'non-random'?
quote:
However, they cannot introduce a non-random mechanism since it would violate NDT.
In addition, if you have a careful look at table 3 you will find out that exon 4 demonstrates more variation WITHIN chimpanzee species than BETWEEN human and chimp.
Yes - it has been known for some time that there chimps exhibit greater variation than humans do. Must be the creator had something planned for them...
quote:
Finally, we find NEGATIVE selection for exon 2 within Hylobates subspecies (table 2).
So, could you please tell me what kind of evolution is it that we observe in this region?
I would have to know what the gene product is before I could hazard a guess.
Could you provide a creationist explanation?
Or is that asking too much?
™ Version 4.2
