Endosymbiont theory wrong?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter,

​

Nobody understands the ToE at the molecular level, or any level. Why? Because evolution doesn't exist. Better name for the wat the ToE stands for would be Theory of Variation-induction (or something like that). Scientists are discovering that evolution as it was set up by the NDT-ers cannot work.

​

In addition, why do you think that websites like these are around? If evolution was a fact --as claimed so often by proponents-- these sites wouldn't exist. Ever encountered a site for "flat-versus-round" earth-discussions? Of course not. There is scientific consensus about the earth. Not about evolution, since compelling evidence is lacking.

​

I will always object to the nihilism underlying NDT. It's my main goal in life.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

Oh yeah Peter? Here are some links to flat earth proponentsPage not found | Department of HistoryNobody understands gravity either...it would be better named I did not float into space this morning theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,

​

You say:
If you truly can provide solid evidence for a multipurpose genome, you would rock the world of biology to its foundation. However, simply asserting it doesn't make it so - even on a discussion board. What is your hesitation about providing at least a hint of your evidence? Afraid someone will steal your Nobel Prize? Science isn't a trial where the results might be biased by premature exposure. Perhaps you'd care to at least give us an idea of what kind of evidence your dealing with?

​

I say:
The first hint in the direction of a multipurpose genome is the presence of genetic redundancies. Up to >90% of the genes of organisms can be redundant. It is one of the big surprises of contemporary biology/genetics. Evolutionary biologists try to explain this by assuming very weak purifying selection. I don't believe in very weak purifying selection. And if you have a careful look at certain redundant genes one can only explain them by assuming neutral selection. It is nothing, so the evolution theory cannot explain this phenomenon. A multipurpose genome can, though. It could be evidence for creation, since the genes reside in the genome without selection. Moreover, how did redundant genes evolve without selection? How can it be that they are 'as stable as essential genes'? These phenomena do not advocate evolution theory. On the contrary.
In the meantime I accidentally found biological evidence for the existence of this multipurpose genome. It concerns a phenomenon that cannot be explained by evolutionism, only by the MPG. I will not present it here, but I will try to get it published. Here I presented only some examples OF NON-RANDOM mutation for the sake of dicussion.

​

You say:
Also, it would significantly bolster your case here in the numerous threads in which you are involved. You continually use the "multipurpose genome" as evidence for your position, yet have thus far not provided any reason for anyone to take the idea seriously. Just a side comment.

​

I say:
'All' my postings made perfect sense. Maybe you didn't see it. The NON-random mutations in a multipurpose genome explains ALL biological observations --including genetic redundancies-- although it does not address the origin. It can also not be addressed by evolutionism, so what is the difference? I already mentioned that the ideas concerning the origin cannot be addressed by science, since it is obscured by genetic uncertainty. In my opinion the search for the origin of genes is useless.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

*********************************
Hi Peter,You never addressed my critiques of your proposition. However, please list for me one "purpose" of the genome outside of self replication. Your term multipurpose does not really suggest anything to me. Is my genome there to make a strong cup of coffee on Tuesdays and as another purpose to type on a keyboard? As for redundant genes, there are many examples of how recombination and transposable elements leads to gene duplications which can turn out to be extremely useful i.e. syncytin, or the genes for red and green color vision etc. I also find it disturbing that you claim that your ill defined hypothesis explains ALL biological principles and then claim you will not describe it here. It in no way explains why cytochrome b of mammoths is most similar to that of living elephants as opposed to marmosets. There are no predicitions you could make with your hypothesis either. You just say that redundant genes are evidnece that some mythical god waved his beard at DNA and created everthing a million years ago, 1 year ago, 5 minutes ago? If you actually DID some research you would find that redundant genes have been studied and known about for decades and is in no way a problem for evolution. Those that assume a novel function under a changed environment or even provide an advantage to the organism are fixed, some are fixed and maintained by drift, low mutation rate, and lack of recombination, others like many psuedogenes decay until they are barely recognizable as such. Your hypothesis would not even tolerate pseudogenes.Most of us have been very forthcoming in our providing you with information, references, links, etc. and you claim that you will not reciprocate.By the way, there are way more Paabo references regarding sub population genetic diversity. I chose the Kaessmann work because he focused on nuclear DNA. But just type Paabo S into medline and you will hit the relevant papers by scrolling through.Cheers, M

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,

​

You say:
If you truly can provide solid evidence for a multipurpose genome, you would rock the world of biology to its foundation. However, simply asserting it doesn't make it so - even on a discussion board. What is your hesitation about providing at least a hint of your evidence? Afraid someone will steal your Nobel Prize? Science isn't a trial where the results might be biased by premature exposure. Perhaps you'd care to at least give us an idea of what kind of evidence your dealing with?

​

I say:
The first hint in the direction of a multipurpose genome is the presence of genetic redundancies. Up to >90% of the genes of organisms can be redundant. It is one of the big surprises of contemporary biology/genetics. Evolutionary biologists try to explain this by assuming very weak purifying selection. I don't believe in very weak purifying selection. And if you have a careful look at certain redundant genes one can only explain them by assuming neutral selection. It is nothing, so the evolution theory cannot explain this phenomenon. A multipurpose genome can, though. It could be evidence for creation, since the genes reside in the genome without selection. Moreover, how did redundant genes evolve without selection? How can it be that they are 'as stable as essential genes'? These phenomena do not advocate evolution theory. On the contrary.
In the meantime I accidentally found biological evidence for the existence of this multipurpose genome. It concerns a phenomenon that cannot be explained by evolutionism, only by the MPG. I will not present it here, but I will try to get it published. Here I presented only some examples OF NON-RANDOM mutation for the sake of dicussion.

​

You say:
Also, it would significantly bolster your case here in the numerous threads in which you are involved. You continually use the "multipurpose genome" as evidence for your position, yet have thus far not provided any reason for anyone to take the idea seriously. Just a side comment.

​

I say:
'All' my postings made perfect sense. Maybe you didn't see it. The NON-random mutations in a multipurpose genome explains ALL biological observations --including genetic redundancies-- although it does not address the origin. It can also not be addressed by evolutionism, so what is the difference? I already mentioned that the ideas concerning the origin cannot be addressed by science, since it is obscured by genetic uncertainty. In my opinion the search for the origin of genes is useless.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

*********************************
Hi Peter,You never addressed my critiques of your proposition. However, please list for me one "purpose" of the genome outside of self replication. Your term multipurpose does not really suggest anything to me. Is my genome there to make a strong cup of coffee on Tuesdays and as another purpose to type on a keyboard? As for redundant genes, there are many examples of how recombination and transposable elements leads to gene duplications which can turn out to be extremely useful i.e. syncytin, or the genes for red and green color vision etc. I also find it disturbing that you claim that your ill defined hypothesis explains ALL biological principles and then claim you will not describe it here. It in no way explains why cytochrome b of mammoths is most similar to that of living elephants as opposed to marmosets. There are no predicitions you could make with your hypothesis either. You just say that redundant genes are evidnece that some mythical god waved his beard at DNA and created everthing a million years ago, 1 year ago, 5 minutes ago? If you actually DID some research you would find that redundant genes have been studied and known about for decades and is in no way a problem for evolution. Those that assume a novel function under a changed environment or even provide an advantage to the organism are fixed, some are fixed and maintained by drift, low mutation rate, and lack of recombination, others like many psuedogenes decay until they are barely recognizable as such. Your hypothesis would not even tolerate pseudogenes.Most of us have been very forthcoming in our providing you with information, references, links, etc. and you claim that you will not reciprocate.By the way, there are way more Paabo references regarding sub population genetic diversity. I chose the Kaessmann work because he focused on nuclear DNA. But just type Paabo S into medline and you will hit the relevant papers by scrolling through.Cheers, M

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,

​

You say:
If you truly can provide solid evidence for a multipurpose genome, you would rock the world of biology to its foundation. However, simply asserting it doesn't make it so - even on a discussion board. What is your hesitation about providing at least a hint of your evidence? Afraid someone will steal your Nobel Prize? Science isn't a trial where the results might be biased by premature exposure. Perhaps you'd care to at least give us an idea of what kind of evidence your dealing with?

​

I say:
The first hint in the direction of a multipurpose genome is the presence of genetic redundancies. Up to >90% of the genes of organisms can be redundant. It is one of the big surprises of contemporary biology/genetics. Evolutionary biologists try to explain this by assuming very weak purifying selection. I don't believe in very weak purifying selection. And if you have a careful look at certain redundant genes one can only explain them by assuming neutral selection. It is nothing, so the evolution theory cannot explain this phenomenon. A multipurpose genome can, though. It could be evidence for creation, since the genes reside in the genome without selection. Moreover, how did redundant genes evolve without selection? How can it be that they are 'as stable as essential genes'? These phenomena do not advocate evolution theory. On the contrary.
In the meantime I accidentally found biological evidence for the existence of this multipurpose genome. It concerns a phenomenon that cannot be explained by evolutionism, only by the MPG. I will not present it here, but I will try to get it published. Here I presented only some examples OF NON-RANDOM mutation for the sake of dicussion.

​

You say:
Also, it would significantly bolster your case here in the numerous threads in which you are involved. You continually use the "multipurpose genome" as evidence for your position, yet have thus far not provided any reason for anyone to take the idea seriously. Just a side comment.

​

I say:
'All' my postings made perfect sense. Maybe you didn't see it. The NON-random mutations in a multipurpose genome explains ALL biological observations --including genetic redundancies-- although it does not address the origin. It can also not be addressed by evolutionism, so what is the difference? I already mentioned that the ideas concerning the origin cannot be addressed by science, since it is obscured by genetic uncertainty. In my opinion the search for the origin of genes is useless.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

*********************************
Hi Peter,You never addressed my critiques of your proposition. However, please list for me one "purpose" of the genome outside of self replication. Your term multipurpose does not really suggest anything to me. Is my genome there to make a strong cup of coffee on Tuesdays and as another purpose to type on a keyboard? As for redundant genes, there are many examples of how recombination and transposable elements leads to gene duplications which can turn out to be extremely useful i.e. syncytin, or the genes for red and green color vision etc. I also find it disturbing that you claim that your ill defined hypothesis explains ALL biological principles and then claim you will not describe it here. It in no way explains why cytochrome b of mammoths is most similar to that of living elephants as opposed to marmosets. There are no predicitions you could make with your hypothesis either. You just say that redundant genes are evidnece that some mythical god waved his beard at DNA and created everthing a million years ago, 1 year ago, 5 minutes ago? If you actually DID some research you would find that redundant genes have been studied and known about for decades and is in no way a problem for evolution. Those that assume a novel function under a changed environment or even provide an advantage to the organism are fixed, some are fixed and maintained by drift, low mutation rate, and lack of recombination, others like many psuedogenes decay until they are barely recognizable as such. Your hypothesis would not even tolerate pseudogenes.Most of us have been very forthcoming in our providing you with information, references, links, etc. and you claim that you will not reciprocate.By the way, there are way more Paabo references regarding sub population genetic diversity. I chose the Kaessmann work because he focused on nuclear DNA. But just type Paabo S into medline and you will hit the relevant papers by scrolling through.Cheers, M

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,

​

You say:
If you truly can provide solid evidence for a multipurpose genome, you would rock the world of biology to its foundation. However, simply asserting it doesn't make it so - even on a discussion board. What is your hesitation about providing at least a hint of your evidence? Afraid someone will steal your Nobel Prize? Science isn't a trial where the results might be biased by premature exposure. Perhaps you'd care to at least give us an idea of what kind of evidence your dealing with?

​

I say:
The first hint in the direction of a multipurpose genome is the presence of genetic redundancies. Up to >90% of the genes of organisms can be redundant. It is one of the big surprises of contemporary biology/genetics. Evolutionary biologists try to explain this by assuming very weak purifying selection. I don't believe in very weak purifying selection. And if you have a careful look at certain redundant genes one can only explain them by assuming neutral selection. It is nothing, so the evolution theory cannot explain this phenomenon. A multipurpose genome can, though. It could be evidence for creation, since the genes reside in the genome without selection. Moreover, how did redundant genes evolve without selection? How can it be that they are 'as stable as essential genes'? These phenomena do not advocate evolution theory. On the contrary.
In the meantime I accidentally found biological evidence for the existence of this multipurpose genome. It concerns a phenomenon that cannot be explained by evolutionism, only by the MPG. I will not present it here, but I will try to get it published. Here I presented only some examples OF NON-RANDOM mutation for the sake of dicussion.

​

You say:
Also, it would significantly bolster your case here in the numerous threads in which you are involved. You continually use the "multipurpose genome" as evidence for your position, yet have thus far not provided any reason for anyone to take the idea seriously. Just a side comment.

​

I say:
'All' my postings made perfect sense. Maybe you didn't see it. The NON-random mutations in a multipurpose genome explains ALL biological observations --including genetic redundancies-- although it does not address the origin. It can also not be addressed by evolutionism, so what is the difference? I already mentioned that the ideas concerning the origin cannot be addressed by science, since it is obscured by genetic uncertainty. In my opinion the search for the origin of genes is useless.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

*********************************
Hi Peter,You never addressed my critiques of your proposition. However, please list for me one "purpose" of the genome outside of self replication. Your term multipurpose does not really suggest anything to me. Is my genome there to make a strong cup of coffee on Tuesdays and as another purpose to type on a keyboard? As for redundant genes, there are many examples of how recombination and transposable elements leads to gene duplications which can turn out to be extremely useful i.e. syncytin, or the genes for red and green color vision etc. I also find it disturbing that you claim that your ill defined hypothesis explains ALL biological principles and then claim you will not describe it here. It in no way explains why cytochrome b of mammoths is most similar to that of living elephants as opposed to marmosets. There are no predicitions you could make with your hypothesis either. You just say that redundant genes are evidnece that some mythical god waved his beard at DNA and created everthing a million years ago, 1 year ago, 5 minutes ago? If you actually DID some research you would find that redundant genes have been studied and known about for decades and is in no way a problem for evolution. Those that assume a novel function under a changed environment or even provide an advantage to the organism are fixed, some are fixed and maintained by drift, low mutation rate, and lack of recombination, others like many psuedogenes decay until they are barely recognizable as such. Your hypothesis would not even tolerate pseudogenes.Most of us have been very forthcoming in our providing you with information, references, links, etc. and you claim that you will not reciprocate.By the way, there are way more Paabo references regarding sub population genetic diversity. I chose the Kaessmann work because he focused on nuclear DNA. But just type Paabo S into medline and you will hit the relevant papers by scrolling through.Cheers, M

Dear Peter,
Thank you for this response. This is actually the direction I was hoping things would go as now you are starting to propose your alternative and we can debate it. I will give some quick thoughts now and come back with more later.
----------------------- [QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear mammuthus,You say:
You never addressed my critiques of your proposition.I say:
Still thinking about them.
---------------------Fair enough.
-----------You say:
However, please list for me one "purpose" of the genome outside of self replication.I say:
Rapid adaptation to changing environment.
--------------------------------That is what Lamark proposed in principle and it has been repeatedly falsified. If you change the environment drastically, most members of a group die and those with fortuitous mutations survive i.e. antibiotics resistence in bacteria, HIV host immune system evasion. You would have to demonstrate that within an individual, the genome suddenly changes from one species to a new one instantly for your statement to be true...which by the way would demonstrate basic genetics are wrong as well.
---------------------Yos say:
Your term multipurpose does not really suggest anything to me. Is my genome there to make a strong cup of coffee on Tuesdays and as another purpose to type on a keyboard? As for redundant genes, there are many examples of how recombination and transposable elements leads to gene duplications which can turn out to be extremely useful i.e. syncytin, or the genes for red and green color vision etc.I say;
This hypotheis has been tested and falsified. There is no relationship whatsoever between genetic redundancies and duplications.
-------------------------You can ignore my examples which are a tiny fraction of those that exist but that does not make them go away. What is your support for the second sentence of this statement....red green color genes falsify your statement.
--------------------------Evolutionisms' biggest frustration: redundant genes unrelated to duplications. In addition, redundant genes do not change more rapidly than essential genes. How did redundant genes evolve into different genes, while there is no selective constraint on the genes? Answers not to be found within the evolutionary paradigm.
--------------------------------So say you contrary to the evidence. Redundant genes relax the constraints on the genes in question freeing them to differentiate i.e. Hox gene clusters and increased body plan variation.
----------------------You say:
I also find it disturbing that you claim that your ill defined hypothesis explains ALL biological principles and then claim you will not describe it here.I say:
All information an organism needs to adapt to an environment is already present in the genome. It only has to be activated. This can be in response to external stimuli. The activation may lead to gene shuffling (as recently observed in some bacteria), or maybe even to non-random mutations in promoters.
The SNP we see in genes throughout the genome may be generated in a similar way due to a degenerate mechanism of gene shuffling, non-random mutation etc.
-----------------------------
I will ignore your "non-random" remark as Quetzal has taken you to task and so have I on your misconception of randomness. However, the fact that most species that have existed on earth have gone extinct and that what exists today is only a small subset of earth history diversity falisfies your hypothesis. The Lamarkian individual adaptation to rapid environmental challenge does not explain why highly adaptaple animals like mammoths for example were wiped out 4000 years ago (10,000 if you exclude Wrangel Island).
---------------------------You say:
It in no way explains why cytochrome b of mammoths is most similar to that of living elephants as opposed to marmosets. There are no predicitions you could make with your hypothesis either.I say:
First prediction:
The major part of the genome is not used (redundant). As a matter of fact that is wat we see.
-----------------------------------BZZZZT wrong, the major part of the genome not used are ALUs and retroviral like elements. And most have unique features and behave very much like exogenous viruses. In addition, genes with known function also demonstrate common descent of mammoths and other elephantids...not just pseudogenes...in fact cytb has a known function
----------------------------Second prediction:
Mutations are introduced at the same spots within related species. As a matter of fact that is what we see, too.
----------------------------------------------------
Untestable, introduced by whom...what about all the mutations not in the same spot within related species...that falsifies your prediction.
-----------------------Third prediction:
Mutations are the same with respect to nucleotide. That is also what we observe.
---------------------Could you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you mean? Misfolded prions are mutated and do not require a nucleotide change...only infection by misfolded prions from an external source.
----------------------You say:
You just say that redundant genes are evidnece that some mythical god waved his beard at DNA and created everthing a million years ago, 1 year ago, 5 minutes ago?I say:
There are species that demonstrate no variation at all with respect to DNA sequences (without being a clone), and one could interpret this phenomenon as created last year, last century. Whatever.
----------------------------------For this you need to provide a real example as that would not just falisfy evolution but genetics as well. Can you really show two species that are genetically identical?
----------------------You say:
If you actually DID some research you would find that redundant genes have been studied and known about for decades and is in no way a problem for evolution. Those that assume a novel function under a changed environment or even provide an advantage to the organism are fixed, some are fixed and maintained by drift, low mutation rate, and lack of recombination, others like many psuedogenes decay until they are barely recognizable as such. Your hypothesis would not even tolerate pseudogenes.I say:
Not tolerate pseudogenes? I do not deny the observed well established genetic phenomena. They are all included in the hypothesis. Duplication of genes, and the subsequent inactivation of genes to generate pseudogenes. I have no problems with that in my hype.
-------------------------------So your hypthesis requires that a pseudogene be inactivated? There are many examples of only partial integrations i.e. a fragement of a mtDNA nuclear gene inserting i.e. inactive from the beginning.
-----------------------You say:
Most of us have been very forthcoming in our providing you with information, references, links, etc. and you claim that you will not reciprocate.I say:
I was also very forthcoming in providing my vision, and backed it up with references. I am still thinking about it, and I let the ideas vintage. Of course, the new hype has to be polished.
----------------------Ok, your last post was exactly the direction I was hoping things would take.You say:
By the way, there are way more Paabo references regarding sub population genetic diversity. I chose the Kaessmann work because he focused on nuclear DNA. But just type Paabo S into medline and you will hit the relevant papers by scrolling through.I say:
I know a great deal of Paabo's interesting work .
---------------------------So do I I'll respond more as I think of things but feel free to jump in with comments on this post.Best wishes,
M

Step away Quetzal..I have lots of toes ...10 at last count

Hi Peter,
Another thing occurs to me. If all genomes are multipurpose, how do you account for extinctions? I will go with what I have observed using Mammuthus primigenius as an example. From all sequences I have obtained and other groups have obtained, Mammuthus was very similar to both Elephas (Asian elephants and their relatives) and Loxodonta (African elephants and their relatives). Mammoths had the widest distribution of all elephantids up until about 12 Kya. Considering their "multipurpose" genomes should have adapted immediately to change just as Elephas and Loxodonta did presumably...why would Mammuthus be extinct? Or any animal ever become extinct?Another problem has to do with basic genetics. If similarity of mutations at specific bases is due to an "creaton morphogenetic" field or some such thing as you suggest....why am I more similar to my parents than to any other living organism? Shouldnt my DNA be most similar to whatever was exactly in the same field? I should therefore be equally closely related phylogenetically to the bacteria that were presumably in the delivery room as to my mother or father.Another thing, if this force is guided by RNA or DNA polymerases, why do they behave exactly the same in terms of random mutation as all other genes?More coming as I think about it.Cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Care to make things any more complicated? Dr. Borger's suggesting creaton morphogenetics, and I am currently interested in doing taxonomical genomics (Thanks to TB--I hope he tracks this thread).

​

I have seen older classifications which put the woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) as a member of genus Elephas, Elephas primigenius. Your work might be a good point to start testing TB's proposal. Maybe you & he can work together to determine if Mammuthus is in the same 'kind' with the two extant elephant species.

---

+++++++++++++++++++That would be easy, I could just claim it is the same "kind" without support and keep claiming it over and over again...also without defining what a "kind" is