PB:
quote:
You say:
While I see that I was in error in so far as interpreting your post #123 and #126, I maintain that you did not read, or perhaps understand, the implications of the abstracts I posted in #96. One has to be a dogmatist extraordinaire to believe that papers explaining how mutations occurred genome-wide really indicate a non-random mechanism.
I say:
I know the implications, and I just wait and see for more experiments on the 'hot' regions.
And the backtracking continues. You wrote in direct response to my posting of those citations that they were in fact supportive of your fantasy. Now you will 'wait and see.' Common creationist tactic- jumping to totally unwarranted conclusions.
quote:
You say:
I am wrong? Well, then, Peter B., please supply us with the documentation for non-random mutations occurring in multicellular eukaryotes that result in phenotypic change. The best he (Spetner) could do was some pap about sea gull wings... Which of course had no genetic analysis in its support...
Spetner the creationist could not do this then, and he has not done it yet.
Help him out.
I say:
I already helped him out by showing some interesing examples of non-random mutation (although they are not accepted by some evolutionists, including yourself). So, more research in this particular area will be revealing. I predict: Within 10 years non-random mutations will have their place in NDT.
Nothing you have presented even remotely does what you claim it to. Your GLO schtick has been blown out of the water. Nothing else produces an altered phenotype by 'turning on' pre-existing genes (ala NREH). So, you have done nothing at all.
quote:
my quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT THE MECHANISM IS NOT EXACTLY AS HE (AND CAIRNS) THOUGHT IT WAS, IS NOT SURPRISING SINCE NOTHING IN BIOLOGY IS AS WE EXPECT IT TO BE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he was wrong then. Good to hear you say that.
I say:
The original proposal was false. I just wait and see what the hot regions imply. Maybe it implies an indirect mechanism.
This is in direct opposition to your earlier proclamations. But it is good to see that you are starting to try to reclaim some integrity.
quote:
my quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FURTHERMORE, THE CAIRNS INTERPRETATION IS ONLY A MINOR POINT IN SPETNER'S BOOK SO YOU CANNOT REJECT HIS ENTIRE BOOK ON CAIRN'S PARTIAL RECANTATION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you say:
I didn't. Indeed, the Cairn's bit was mentioned in regards to "non-random mutation" in general, not to anyone's vanity press book targeting a lay audience.
I say:
At least somebody who tries to educate the lay audience in an anti-nihilistic way.
Your metaphysical views of evolution are interesting. Common for creationists to try to 'blame' evolution for this or that, as you are implicitly doing. Irrelevant to science, of course, but interesting. You dislike evolution because of where you think it will lead philosophically or culturally or whatever.
Too friggin bad.
quote:
My objections to the hype are all the extrapolations from it. That is, the BullS..T I hear on the television and read in the papers. You --as a respectable scientist-- should also object to that.
I do object to the terms used by some when talking about evolution. But I wouldn't were it not for the fact that I know how creationists will interpret and twist what they say. When a paleontologist says on TV that "This fossil is one of our ancestors" or something like that, "I" know what he means. But "I" also know how cretins will spin it. That is why I object to scientists saying things like "This fossil is one of our ancestors" .
Of course, I very strongly object to creationists saying thngs like "There is no evidence for evolution" or some such nonsense. And they say it all the time. because they are either totally ignorant or because they are being purposely deceptive.
Which are you?[quote]
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BETTER READ HIS BOOK INSTEAD OF ONLY HIS OPPONENTS. AND WHY DO YOU THINK THERE HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT SO MANY EXPERIMENTS TO FALSIFY CAIRNS INTERPRETATION?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In reality, so many experiments were carried out to see if he was right (he wasn't), not to try to disprove him.
I say:
Maybe they didn't perform the right experiments yet.
Yes, that must be it. I guess looking at the whole genome beforew and after exposing these critters to strssful environments to see if changes are 'directed' just isn't the right thing to do.
quote:
I think a lot more is going on in this operon than we think there is. And what about the cryptic genes? The distinct stopcodons alternated by sense DNA are nor merely for show. I persist, there is a mechanism that can drain this well, and it will be found. Maybe it cannot be found in the laboratory. Maybe one has to look in subpopulations of extant organisms.
So, proof for creation is just around the corner, right?
quote:
my quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NDT WOULD HAVE FALLEN, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY YOU OBJECT/DENY THE NON-RANDOMNESS OF MUTATION IN THE 1G5 GENE. AND THAT'S WHY NDT BLOCKS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
What progress would be made by accepting a fringe idea on non-random mutation? I object/deny it because as I have repeatedly explained and supplied references for, the idea of non-randomness is not what it is made out to be by folks like you.
I say:
I said this with the 1G5 gene in mind. Denial of observations does not bring science any further.
Indeed. Nor does claiming support from evidence that is in reality contrary to one's position. That is brainwashing, not science.
quote:
You say (about reconsiliation of gene and species trees):
They do? Examples please.
I gave you the IL1-beta incongruence. One should be sufficient.
Oh, right. I forgot - one anomoly can disprove evolution, but several examples countering 'directed mutations' just don't have any effect on alternative 'hypotheses', especially those favored by creationists. Haven't done the right experiments yet, that sort of thing.
quote:
my quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, GENE TREES HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIES TREES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you say:
This is a major misrepresentation on your part, Peter B. It is outright false.
I say:
Please elaborate a bit on it. References etc.
Was it not YOU that claimed:
"ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, GENE TREES HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIES TREES. "
It seems to me that YOU should be the one to provide documentation, since YOU are the one that claims that evolutionary biologists DO believe this. I am an evolutionary biologist (unlike you) and I know this is incorrect. I am the source.
But, you seem to know Futuyma. Maybe you have his text? Well, I do, And it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this:
"Coalescent theory tells us that under some circumstances,
this gene tree, even if correct,
may not be the same as the species tree, i.e., the phylogeny of the species form which the gene copies were taken."
p. 332, "Evolutionary Biology", 3rd Ed.
Emphases in original. He then goes on for some several paragrapgs explaining why this can be.
Quote-mining and selective interpretations - not to mention baseless assertion - are hallmarks of cretinsm.
quote:
You say:
Your credibility - what little you may have once had here - is now completely gone.
I say:
My credibility within the evolutionary community is about zero, I guess. But, so what, I go for truth, not for 'evolutionisms just-so stories'.
Now its at about - 10. Your 'truth', it seems, is predicated on misinterpretations, personal beliefs, shallow grasps of science, etc.
Common.
quote:
my quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY? OTHERWISE ALL GENES LYING OUT PROVIDE FALSIFICATIONS OF COMMON DESCENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you say:
This is just asinine, and indicative of your dogmatic ignorance. Any text on molecular evolution not only explains why discrepencies exist, they actually predict that more will be found.
I say:
Listen Mr SLPx, I don't adhere any dogma's. I just stand up against nihilism.
What bullshit.. You 'stand up' for your creationism beliefs, and that is it.
quote:
And as I see it, molecular genetics points in the direction of 'creatons interacting with matter in a morphogenetic field'. And you have to present pretty strong arguments to convince me of the opposite.
Frankly, I don't care what an asthma researcher thinks about evolution. I don't have to convince you personally of anything, for, as has been shown on this very forum for at least 2 posters that I can easily recall, no matter what is presented, you will simply reject or twist it. That is what the adherents of supernaturalistic antimaterialsims are all about - sophism to protect their beliefs.
quote:
And now I am curious what the hype has invented now to predict discrepancies. So, explain plus references please. (BTW, "to predict discrepancies". Hear what you are implying: 'our hype predicts that phenomenon X may be found and otherwise the opposite of X may also be found.' I call that HUMBUG)
See my Futuyma ref.
In addition, one would thnk that a molecular biologist - even a creationist one - would undestand that not all loci mutate with the same regularity. Though I once encountered a PhD creationist - also from Australia - that claimed to be a geneticist yet didn't know the difference between nucleotides and codons. Creationists like to append polysyllabic words to their titles/credentiasl to impress their target audiene - layfolk.
Funny - when I corrected him, he, likemost cretins, actually engaged in condescension towards me - told me that I should get my "science straight" before daring to correct a PhD geneticist like him....
quote:
my quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU CAN FIND THIS HIGHLY DISPUTABLE MATHEMATHICAL TRICK FOR INSTANCE IN 'MOLECULAR EVOLUTION, A PHYLOGENTIC APPROACH by R. PAGE'. WHAT EVO’S DO IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND REASONING. THEY CLAIM THAT SINCE EVOLUTION IS TRUE, THE EVIDENCE FOR PUTATIVE DUPLICATIONS IS SIMPLY THE INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN THE GENE AND THE SPECIES TREE. I OBJECT TO SUCH SIMPLISICISM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I object to your idiocy, but it won't get me anywhere. Is it a 'trick'? That sounds awfully inflammatory, Peter B. Perhaps you don't understand statistics?
I say:
No, your are not going to hide behind statistics. That's another trick to not answer. Besides, statistics has nothing to do with putative duplications that are not present.
Refs please. (who do I sound like?)
quote:
you say:
Or maybe the workings of genomes? Well, either way, your claims are getting more and more bizarre and more and more desparate.
I say:
That the claims seem bizarre is due to the shortcomings of evolutionism on the level of the genome.
I see. So everyone else is wrong, and the asthma guy creationist is right.
quote:
my quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR EXAMPLES: (http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/papers/page97mpe.pdf).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The abstract:
"The processes of gene duplication, loss, and lineage sorting can result in incongruence between the phylogenies of genes and those of species. This incongruence complicates the task of inferring the latter from the former. We describe the use of reconciled trees to
reconstruct the history of a gene tree with respect to a species tree. Reconciled trees allow the history of the gene tree to be visualized and also quantify the relationship between the two trees. The cost of a reconciled tree is the total number of duplications and gene losses required to reconcile a gene tree with its species tree.
We describe the use of heuristic searches to find the species tree which yields the reconciled tree with the lowest cost. This method can be used to infer species trees from one or more gene trees."
you say:
Whats your point?
I say:
My point was the incongruence of the IL-1beta family and the absence of the duplication. The only putative duplication to be found in this region is the one that gave rise to human IL-1alpha. Maybe reread my point. And I am not the desperate one.
I think you are - after all, what you see as an evolution disproofing anomoly is actually a fairly well understood phenomenon. Well, understood by those in the field anyway. Like the anti-non-random mutation abstracts I posted, I do have to wonder if you even read the abstact of this paper?
quote:
You say:
I am constantly amazed at how the creationist interprets 'explanations' as 'excuses' and the like. Pitiful, really.
I say:
Better try to convince me with a scientific explanation instead of these evo-blahblah.
Again, I really don't care what megalomaniacs think.
quote:
quote:
I say:
Here you demonstrate again your condescending (dumb and dumber, remember) overconfinced attitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
No, it is a valid conclusion.
I say:
Based on what? Could you please lead me through your thoughts and how you draw such conclusions.
Well, you edited out what I was responding to, and I don't want to open a new window and reread the thread to see. I think it is pretty clear that I was right. Look at the post I am responing to here, for example...
quote:
quote:
---------------------------------
peter borger writes:
THE MOLECULAR GENAEOLGY OF INTERLEUKIN-1-beta demonstrates an aberration from the species tree.
you say:
So?
I say:
Why did you cut of this falsification of common decent. It was the quintessence. Maybe you could respond to it in a scientific way.
LOL! Yeah, it was a falsification. Read the Futuyma ref, for one. Maybe you can support your claims in a scientific way, instead of digging through the lit to find what you consider anomolies which disproof evolution.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And concerning the Uebermensch: you were the one that introduced space-aliens to explain genes in humans not present in apes. I can think of several better 'scientific' non-testable explanations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did no such thing. Please stop misrepresenting me and trying to erect straw man arguments.
MY RESPONSE;
YES, YOU DID. IN RESPONSE TO THE GENES PRESENT IN HUMAN NOT PRSENT IN MAN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What genes might be present in humans but not in man, I wonder...
I say:
Obviously, you have a very selective memory. The gene in the LCR16a segment: present in human not in apes.
Gee, Petey - never heard of deletions before? Of course, look at what you wrote:
"...GENES PRESENT IN HUMAN NOT PRSENT IN MAN. "
quote:
You say:
How do you propose this comparison be done?
MY RESPONSE:
AS DEMONSTRATED FOR THE 1G5 GENES IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF SUBPOPULATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
What do you mean sub-population?
I say:
Remember the Ig5 gene and the peculiar results that gave when the authors compared subpopulations. That's where my discussion started 3 months ago.
So you can't just say what you mean?
Nature 2000 Dec 7;408(6813):708-13
Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans.
Ingman M, Kaessmann H, Paabo S, Gyllensten U.
The analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been a potent tool in our understanding of human evolution, owing to characteristics such as high copy number, apparent lack of recombination, high substitution rate and maternal mode of inheritance. However, almost all studies of human evolution based on mtDNA sequencing have been confined to the control region, which constitutes less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome. These studies are complicated by the extreme
variation in substitution rate between sites, and the consequence of parallel mutations causing difficulties in the estimation of genetic distance and making phylogenetic inferences questionable. Most comprehensive studies of the human mitochondrial molecule have been carried out through restriction-fragment length polymorphism analysis, providing data that are ill suited to estimations of mutation rate and therefore the timing of evolutionary events. Here, to improve the information obtained from the mitochondrial molecule for studies of human evolution,
we describe the global mtDNA diversity in humans based on analyses of the complete mtDNA sequence of 53 humans of diverse origins. Our mtDNA data, in comparison with those of a parallel study of the Xq13.3 region in the same
individuals, provide a concurrent view on human evolution with respect to the age of modern humans.
Subpopulations like this?
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I AM INTERESTED IN THE SEQUENCES OF ONE PARTICULARE GENE (SAY HEMOGLOBIN OR CYTOCHROME C) THROUGHOUT THE DIFFERENT HUMAN SUBPOPULATIONS. I WONDER WHETHER THESE DATA ARE PRESENT INLITERATURE?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
I don't know about that particular gene, but Paabo's group has done an extensive study on the mitochondrial genome and, why, it must be a mere coincidence, the findings fit wquite nicely with evolutionary hypotheses.
I say:
Is this really your response? Could you give me the references of Paabo studies. Was it caried out in subpopulations.
Oh - see above. 53 subpopulations.
quote:
And you write:
"I wonder what your more knowledgible and rational colleagues would think if they knew that you were writing - and apparently believe - something so asinine?"
I say:
Nice try to stop me from doing. My colleagues like new ideas.
Ye, why not publish somewhere that i'm an ass. That would be fun, isn't ist. You could join Schrafinator's club.
It is fun, I agree. But there is no need to publish the obvious
quote:
You say:
I guess you didn't realize that all those duplicated genes actually fit quite well within an evolutionary framework?
I say:
And this shows your lack of knowledge on the topic. Once more for you:
There is NO association between genetic redundancies and gene duplications.
Yes, my lack of knowledge. Maybe you heard of a paper that came out in
Science a bit ago. It contained a working draft of 90% of the human genome? It showed that not only have individual genes been duplicated, but in fact much of the genome consists of huge duplicated blocks.
I was talking about duplications, you now add another criterion. Good for you!
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(ever heard of the second DNA associated code of transcription? And there may even be a third code involved in coactivation of transcription. Firstly, there is NO evolutionary explanation for the first code. And now we find that the first code gives rise to a second code through possible another code. So you better present a pretty good story to explain this by a random mechanism).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, no, I have not heard of this. Please provide some verifiable documentation that I can check to see if your depiction of this is accurate.
MY RESPONSE:
I ALREADY GAVE THE REFERENCES. I AM WAITING FOR A REPONSE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
I am still waiting for your hypothesis...
I say:
You could have found it if you actually were reading my posts.
You also say:
A response to what?
I say:
It once more demonstrates your lack of knowledge on contemporary biology. Notably it was published in Science 2001. Everybody reads Science! Except ostriches, I guess.
Yeah, ostiches and arrogant overconfident creationists, I guess.
™ Version 4.2
