Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:33 AM
19 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Endosymbiont theory wrong?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 31 of 43 (19289)
10-08-2002 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by peter borger
10-08-2002 3:09 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 3:09 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 32 of 43 (19290)
10-08-2002 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by peter borger
10-08-2002 3:09 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 3:09 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 33 of 43 (19291)
10-08-2002 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by peter borger
10-08-2002 3:09 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 3:09 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4044 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 43 (19296)
10-08-2002 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by peter borger
10-08-2002 3:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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.

Maybe I'm getting a bit confused. I thought you were saying that some kind of "morphogentic field" existed that would cause directed, non-random mutations in a gene "at need" for an organism's marginal fitness. You also seemed at one point to be talking about some sort of "hidden" genes in supposedly non-functioning DNA that could be "turned on" by environmental pressures (which I thought was the basis for your "multipurpose genome"). Now you're talking about "genetic redundancy" - which I think means one thing to a biologist and another to you. Perhaps you could explain what you mean here - I don't want to talk at cross-purposes.

quote:
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.

Uhh, give me a hint? BTW: your examples of "non-random mutation" are less than compelling, since it has been demonstrated that you're unclear on what constitutes random in this context.

quote:
'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.

Perhaps to you they make perfect sense. If they did to me, I wouldn't be asking questions about them...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 3:09 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5837 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 35 of 43 (19484)
10-10-2002 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Mammuthus
10-08-2002 4:35 AM


Dear mammuthus,

You say:
You never addressed my critiques of your proposition.

I say:
Still thinking about them.

You say:
However, please list for me one "purpose" of the genome outside of self replication.

I say:
Rapid adaptation to changing environment.

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. 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.

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.

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.
Second prediction:
Mutations are introduced at the same spots within related species. As a matter of fact that is what we see, too.
Third prediction:
Mutations are the same with respect to nucleotide. That is also what we observe.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 10-08-2002 4:35 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 5:27 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-10-2002 7:59 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Mammuthus, posted 10-13-2002 12:13 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 36 of 43 (19488)
10-10-2002 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by peter borger
10-10-2002 4:31 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 10-10-2002 4:31 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by wj, posted 10-11-2002 3:48 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4044 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 43 (19498)
10-10-2002 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by peter borger
10-10-2002 4:31 AM


Sorry, Mammuthus – I don’t mean to step on your toes, here. However, Peter’s assertions are sucking me in…

quote:
M: 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.

PB: This hypotheis has been tested and falsified. There is no relationship whatsoever between genetic redundancies and duplications. 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.


How has the hypothesis (which one, btw - it's not clear from your post) been falsified? Name one single example of a "redundant" gene that CAN’T be related to one of the known mechanisms such as duplication, transposition, mutation, chromosome fusion or doubling, etc.

quote:
M: 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.

PB: 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.


There is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Please show one single study, with references, on any population of any organism, where the introduction of a new pathogen, mutagen, or environmental factor produced “fortuitous” variation that allowed the population to adapt to the new conditions. All other studies show, on the contrary, that unless the variation was already present, the population will be severely disrupted. In local populations, this disruption – even if relatively minor – can cause extinction. Since we see local extinctions occurring regularly, your statement that some kind of miraculous activation or ex nihilo creation of a genetic adaptation will allow the population to adapt to the new conditions is falsified.

quote:
PB: First prediction:
The major part of the genome is not used (redundant). As a matter of fact that is wat we see.

True, as far as it goes, although I’m glad you clarified how you are using redundant. As Mammuthus pointed out, most of the genomes of the organisms so far sequenced consist of non-coding “junk DNA” (like the 40% of the genome that consists of a three-nucleotide repeat in Drosophila melanogaster or the alu sequences in humans), transposons, broken or pseudogenes, retroviral insertions, etc. The other meaning of “redundant” (i.e., duplicate function), was what I thought you were using. However, this observation is actually a prediction of evolution: duplication, retrotranscription, fusion, mutation, etc are what created these sequences in the first place.

quote:
PB: Second prediction:
Mutations are introduced at the same spots within related species. As a matter of fact that is what we see, too.

Yeah, sometimes. However, this is based on the inheritance of the same hotspot or sequences through common descent. It has nothing to do with any “multipurpose genome”, unless you can show that ALL organisms – related or not – have the exact same thing. Otherwise, you’re just providing additional evidence for a common ancestor of the two species. The further back in time the speciation event took place, the more divergent will be the genome.

quote:
PB: Third prediction:
Mutations are the same with respect to nucleotide. That is also what we observe.

What? This statement makes no sense. Please clarify. If you’re saying that hotspot mutations are almost always the at the same nucleotide position, and the same mutagen will effect that particular nucleotide (or sequence) in the same way, then you’re correct (although there are variables: some organisms have unique adaptations/other mutations that can mitigate the effects of a particular mutagen not shared by even VERY closely related organisms, so it’s not 100%). However, if you are saying that every mutation that effects a genome of a particular organism will ALWAYS be in the same place with regards to mutations in a related species, you are making another wild assertion without facts. In fact, the exact opposite is what we see – hotspots and mutations inherited from a common ancestor aside. Mutations occurring in different species are often in different places, except as noted. That’s what random means.

quote:
M: 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?

PB: 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.


Name one, and provide the study that indicates this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 10-10-2002 4:31 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 8:26 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 38 of 43 (19500)
10-10-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Quetzal
10-10-2002 7:59 AM


Step away Quetzal..I have lots of toes ...10 at last count
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-10-2002 7:59 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 43 (19609)
10-11-2002 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mammuthus
10-10-2002 5:27 AM


Peter Borger says:
"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."

However these assertions appear to be contradicted by the reality of the human GLO pseudogene. What is needed to "activate" the GLO pseudogene? An external stimulus like deficiency in dietary vitamin C intake? Where is the evidence that the pseudogene has ever been activated by SNP mutation (presumably the reinsertion of the common sigle nucleotide deletion)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 5:27 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 40 of 43 (19782)
10-13-2002 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by peter borger
10-10-2002 4:31 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 10-10-2002 4:31 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-14-2002 4:43 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 43 (19827)
10-14-2002 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Mammuthus
10-13-2002 12:13 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Mammuthus, posted 10-13-2002 12:13 PM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Mammuthus, posted 10-14-2002 5:00 AM Andya Primanda has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 42 of 43 (19830)
10-14-2002 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Andya Primanda
10-14-2002 4:43 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-14-2002 4:43 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-14-2002 5:14 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 43 (19832)
10-14-2002 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Mammuthus
10-14-2002 5:00 AM


As a matter of fact, I think that TB do have some sound proposal about how to define 'kinds'... its about that core genome thingy he had worked out. Or maybe we should go with his 'new protein family' scheme. Just ask his opinion about the elephants.

Anyway, how do we detect creatons? ('The Borger Particle'--he could get a Nobel out of it...people get Nobels for finding quarks and mesons and such) In a biological equivalent of supercolliders?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Mammuthus, posted 10-14-2002 5:00 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019