Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 2:44 PM
29 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (5 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,879 Year: 4,916/19,786 Month: 1,038/873 Week: 394/376 Day: 25/46 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   stilllll waiting, Peter B...
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 16 of 26 (20439)
10-22-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
10-21-2002 9:45 AM


Dear Guys (Mammuthus, Mark24, Dr Page),

All you do is avoid the problem. I quoted Page and Holmes and I was right there. However that wasn't the problem. The actual problem I mentioned was the IL-1beta incongruence. I checked the claim on IL-1beta in the human genome. If the duplication that reconciles the trees is present it should be traced back in chromosome 2 (as emphasised several times). The duplication that can be found in this chromosome, however, gave rise to IL-1 alpha. That is the problem. Horizontal transfer? From mouse to human? Everything is possible in evolutionism, I guess. All I wanted to demonstrate is that evolutionism can readily be falsified at the genomic level now the human genome has been sequenced. That was my intial statement; that the genome is not in accord with evolutionism. And I gave you several examples. More?

Best wishes, and have a nice day,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 9:45 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 10-22-2002 4:20 AM peter borger has responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4581 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 17 of 26 (20451)
10-22-2002 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by peter borger
10-22-2002 12:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Guys (Mammuthus, Mark24, Dr Page),

All you do is avoid the problem. I quoted Page and Holmes and I was right there. However that wasn't the problem. The actual problem I mentioned was the IL-1beta incongruence. I checked the claim on IL-1beta in the human genome. If the duplication that reconciles the trees is present it should be traced back in chromosome 2 (as emphasised several times). The duplication that can be found in this chromosome, however, gave rise to IL-1 alpha. That is the problem. Horizontal transfer? From mouse to human? Everything is possible in evolutionism, I guess. All I wanted to demonstrate is that evolutionism can readily be falsified at the genomic level now the human genome has been sequenced. That was my intial statement; that the genome is not in accord with evolutionism. And I gave you several examples. More?

Best wishes, and have a nice day,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-21-2002]


***********************

And yet another reason why you are incorrect...

Hughes AL.
Evolution of the interleukin-1 gene family in mammals.
J Mol Evol. 1994 Jul;39(1):6-12.

And horizontal transer of genes from mouse to humans is hardly far fetched as they have actively transposing ERVs that can form infectious viral particles....and pigs ERVs can infect human cells....and snake retroelements have integrated intot the ungulate germ line and so on and so on...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 12:06 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 6:42 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 18 of 26 (20460)
10-22-2002 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mammuthus
10-22-2002 4:20 AM


Dear Mammuthus,

You write:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Guys (Mammuthus, Mark24, Dr Page),
All you do is avoid the problem. I quoted Page and Holmes and I was right there. However that wasn't the problem. The actual problem I mentioned was the IL-1beta incongruence. I checked the claim on IL-1beta in the human genome. If the duplication that reconciles the trees is present it should be traced back in chromosome 2 (as emphasised several times). The duplication that can be found in this chromosome, however, gave rise to IL-1 alpha. That is the problem. Horizontal transfer? From mouse to human? Everything is possible in evolutionism, I guess. All I wanted to demonstrate is that evolutionism can readily be falsified at the genomic level now the human genome has been sequenced. That was my intial statement; that the genome is not in accord with evolutionism. And I gave you several examples. More?

Best wishes, and have a nice day,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-21-2002]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***********************

And yet another reason why you are incorrect...

Hughes AL.
Evolution of the interleukin-1 gene family in mammals.
J Mol Evol. 1994 Jul;39(1):6-12.

And horizontal transer of genes from mouse to humans is hardly far fetched as they have actively transposing ERVs that can form infectious viral particles....and pigs ERVs can infect human cells....and snake retroelements have integrated intot the ungulate germ line and so on and so on...

MY RESPONSE:
And thus --according to evolutionism-- the mouse copy of IL-1beta carried by a virus integrated exactly adjacent to the human IL-1 alpha copy? Your solutions sounds like Dr Page's explanation of genes in human not present in primates: random deletion in all primates but man. I have to say, the stories get better and better.
I think I will check the presence of viral sequences in this region tomorrow.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 10-22-2002 4:20 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 10-22-2002 6:55 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 20 by derwood, posted 10-22-2002 2:13 PM peter borger has responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4581 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 19 of 26 (20463)
10-22-2002 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by peter borger
10-22-2002 6:42 AM


Why not? Many integrations are by homologous recombination. Especially retroviral integration events. That is why you often see concentration of independent integration events i.e. LINE elements integrating into HERVs etc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 6:42 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 20 of 26 (20509)
10-22-2002 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by peter borger
10-22-2002 6:42 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
Your solutions sounds like Dr Page's explanation of genes in human not present in primates: random deletion in all primates but man.[QUOTE]

1. Please provide the quote in which I stated that.

2. Please find out what a Primate is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 6:42 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 9:48 PM derwood has responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 21 of 26 (20528)
10-22-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by derwood
10-22-2002 2:13 PM


Dear Dr Page,

YOU SAY:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
Your solutions sounds like Dr Page's explanation of genes in human not present in primates: random deletion in all primates but man.[QUOTE]

1. Please provide the quote in which I stated that.

MY RESPONSE:
You are of particular short memory. In your mailing #170 (thread molecular evidence against random mutation) you gave this brilliant evolutionary explanation for the gene in the human LCR16a region not present in apes:

Read my response to your #170 again, it reads:

YOUR #170 MAILING:
Gee, Petey - never heard of deletions before? Of course, look at what you wrote:

"...GENES PRESENT IN HUMAN NOT PRSENT IN MAN. "

MY #171 RESPONSE:
SLIP OF THE PEN. IT SHOULD HAVE READ ...PRESENT IN HUMAN NOT PRESENT IN PRIMATES. BUT NOW I SEE, DELETED 'AD RANDOM' IN ALL PRIMATES BUT MAN. YE, I COULD HAVE EXPECTED THAT. WELL, DEAR SLPX, THE STORY OF EVOLUTION GETS BETTER AND BETTER.......CONVINCING.

MY CURRENT RESPOSNSE:
So, again I provide evidence for what I claim. And, all you can do is deny/distort your own words or backtrack.

YOU SAY:
2. Please find out what a Primate is.

MY RESPONSE:
My Oxford dictionary reads: Primate; Any animal of the order ‘Primates’, the highest order of mammals, including tarsiers, lemurs, apes, monkeys, and man.
[it should be noted that all this is according to evolutionism, pb]

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by derwood, posted 10-22-2002 2:13 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-23-2002 12:44 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 23 by derwood, posted 10-23-2002 1:45 PM peter borger has responded

    
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 26 (20581)
10-23-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by peter borger
10-22-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
YOU SAY:
2. Please find out what a Primate is.

MY RESPONSE:
My Oxford dictionary reads: Primate; Any animal of the order ‘Primates’, the highest order of mammals, including tarsiers, lemurs, apes, monkeys, and man.
[it should be noted that all this is according to evolutionism, pb]


Ever heard of Carolus Linnaeus, 'the Big L.'? He's a creationist Swede who created the order Primates and named the chimpanzee Homo troglodytes, after having pondered whether it should be put into the same species with himself, Homo sapiens. Don't call Big L an evolutionist; he believed in the fixity of species and he died some 50--100 years before Darwin published 'Origin'.

Care to discuss bipedalism again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 9:48 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 23 of 26 (20585)
10-23-2002 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by peter borger
10-22-2002 9:48 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
YOU SAY:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
Your solutions sounds like Dr Page's explanation of genes in human not present in primates: random deletion in all primates but man.

quote:

1. Please provide the quote in which I stated that.

MY RESPONSE:
You are of particular short memory. In your mailing #170 (thread molecular evidence against random mutation)


Oh yeah - just after I demonstrated that you had misrepresented Kimura and that you were backtracking on a number of emphatic laims you had previously made...

quote:

you gave this brilliant evolutionary explanation for the gene in the human LCR16a region not present in apes

Hmmm.... The only reference I found to LCR16a in the literature in fact indicates that not only do apes have the region, but so do Old World monkeys:

********************************
J Hered 2001 Nov-Dec;92(6):462-8

Divergent origins and concerted expansion of two segmental duplications on chromosome 16.

Eichler EE, Johnson ME, Alkan C, Tuzun E, Sahinalp C, Misceo D, Archidiacono N, Rocchi M.

"Within the human genome, at least 70% of the LCR16u copies were duplicated in concert with the LCR16a duplication. In contrast, only 30% of the chimpanzee loci show an association between LCR16a and LCR16u duplications. The data suggest that the two copies of genomic sequence were brought together during the chimpanzee/human divergence and were subsequently duplicated as a larger cassette specifically within the human lineage..."

****************************
more later...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 9:48 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 10-23-2002 8:00 PM derwood has responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 24 of 26 (20621)
10-23-2002 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by derwood
10-23-2002 1:45 PM


Dear Dr Page,

It was about the GENE present in human not present in apes. Not about the LCR16a region alone.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by derwood, posted 10-23-2002 1:45 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by derwood, posted 10-24-2002 10:52 AM peter borger has responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 25 of 26 (20705)
10-24-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by peter borger
10-23-2002 8:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,

It was about the GENE present in human not present in apes. Not about the LCR16a region alone.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-23-2002]


Which GENE is that? Ref please. I searched this site and got no hits, and I searched Medline for LCR16a and got the single hit I cited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 10-23-2002 8:00 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by peter borger, posted 10-24-2002 9:26 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 26 of 26 (20751)
10-24-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by derwood
10-24-2002 10:52 AM


Dear Dr Page,

To be continued in the other thread (mol gen evidence against random mutations)

best wishes
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by derwood, posted 10-24-2002 10:52 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019