molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)

Dear Dr Page,You wonder:"Do you get your information on what 'evolutionists' know from evolutionists, or creationists?"I say:You should know by now that I am perfectly able to read scientific manuscripts and analyse the data by myself. I don't require either creationists or evolutionists opinions on science. Ever heard of objective unbiased data analysis?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,Often I have the feeling that I am waisting my time here on this board. If you for instance started to look up the papers I refer to, it certainly would improve our discussion.
Weeks and weeks ago I referred to a Nature paper on the gene in LCR16a region. You even commented on it, and now I have to inform you again on the same topic. But, for the purposes of discussion, you can find the reference in: Nature 2001, volume 413, pp514-519.The paper is on the morpheus gene family and the authors conclude:...some genes emerge and evolve very rapidly, generating copies that bear little similarity to their ancestral precursors. Consequently, a small fraction of human genes may not possess discernible orthologues within genomes of model organisms.Random mutation and selection?I don't think so, the odds are against it.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Mammuthus,YOU SAY:
I and other start to feel the same (about wasting time on this board, pb) way when you persist in the fallacy of non-random mutations. If your hypothesis is going to have any merit it will have to stand on being falsifiable, testable, and supported by data. Not by changing defintions to suit your hypothesis needs.my response:I explained several times now what I understand as non-random mutations (nonrandom with respect to nucleotide and location, you call them hot-spots, I guess). I also concurred that presently there is no convincing scientific evidence for deterministic mutaions this so I don't use it to substantiate my hypothesis. And since I backed up my claims with several scientific papers (on 1G5 and mtDNA) I it's not a fallacy.
Besides, the discussion with Dr Page is on genes present in human not in apes and non-random deletion.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Peter,Why don't you have look at the sequences of the 1g5 gene in drosophila subspecies or the mtDNA sequences in subspecies of ancient human. You will discover --like me-- that there are two types of mutations: random and non-random with respect to nucleotide and position. The latter will give the illusion of common descent. (also read mail #185). Why not look at these sequences for yourself, instead of reiterating that I am wrong. I guess, it has been overlooked, since usually DNA sequences of subspecies are not presented. I recommnend you to do a bit of research yourself and demonstrate that I am wrong. Back it up with scientific publications. Till now nobody showed me a study that rebuts my claim beyond doubt.Best wishes,
Peter

dear Mammuthus,You say:
Alas I have rebutted your claim repeatedly.I say:
No, you didn't rebut the 1G5 gene in drosophila and you didn't rebut the line up of non-random mutaions in ancient mtDNA. You only keep repeating yourself that I have to predict were and when the next mutation in your HV1 region will occur. I already did a prediction for that, but you are still not content. In the meantime i gave you the new definition of non-random mutations [science is about adapting hypotheses, isn't it?], since the concept of deterministic mutations is presently not proven. But evidence is at close hands (see Dr Page's mailing: Cairns excerpt. I invite also Dr Page to rediscuss this topic since I discovered some 'strange stuff' in this mailing).You say:
Look at the distribution of mutations and you will get a normal distribution.
There are lots of human population genetics studies. I have referenced them before. That you continue to deny they exist is your fallacy.I say:
What you fail to acknowledge is that there are two types of mutations: random and non-random, and added together they give the impression of randomness. Only in extreme cases one can observe them
seperately, since usually the are obscured by random muations. Still one can observe them in the 1G5 gene. It is proof that they exist
and all you do is deny it and present me data from which it is not immediately clear what the random and non-random muations are. But even in the mtDNA study I referred to it is clear (as pointed out). Furthermore, there is still the invitation to discuss this example in detail and I will show you where it violates evolutionism. It can be demonstrated that these data violate 1) common decent, 2) random mutation, and 3) molecular clock. Open a new thread for it, and I will once more beat evolutionism.You say:
The burden of proof is on you Peter. I study ancient DNA and I know the study you are referring to well (in fact a colleague of mine wrote a piece in Science demonstrating several technical fallacies in the study).I say:
Technical fallacies that gave rise to the wrong sequences? If not, the example still stands and your attemp to rebut are void. But now I get it, your colleague also discovered that the data violate evolutionism and therefore the study cannot be correct. Isn't that the way it works. If studies appear in the journals that violate the hype the studies are wrong? Is that it?You say:
In no way based on the ancient sequence could you then determine where the next mutation would occur in the next human lineage or in the next generation. If you found Mungo lakes fellow villager, you cannot tell me exactly where the mutations in his mtDNA would be. That a particular kind of mutation occurs more frequently(i.e. transitions) does not make it a non-random mutation. That all of your hypotheses are based on a deterministic mutation mechanism falsifies them a priori as what you claim is not observed.Where exactly, not probably, will the next mutation occur in my HV1 region?I say:
And again you try it. How many times do I have to reiterate myself on non-random mutations and what the may implicate for evolutionism? There we go again. By non-random I mean with respect to nucleotide and position. They will give the illusion of common descent. I already presented scientific evidence for the existence of these mutations so what's the point? O, now I get it, it overturns the strongest molecular argument for commmon descent. Well, I could care less.Best wishes,
Peter

dear Dr Page,Is this an invitation to discuss the paper again?
Please let me know, and I will expose evolutionism as one big idee fix.best wishes,
Peter

Dear mammuthus,Since this discussion is culminating in a "yes-it-is-no-it-isn't" debate, I like to have you a look at the 1g5 gene (#1 mail in the mol gen proof against random mut thread) and explain to me how you see this example. In my opinion it demonstrates non-random mutations with respect to nucleotide and position. If not, please explain your opinion in detail, so that you may be able to convince me. Next we can discuss the ancient mtDNA's or was the paper retracted by the authors? If not, the data still stand as scientific data, and your colleagues have to proof that their data are correct and not contaminations.best wishes,
Peter

Dear mammuthus,If you has paid attention to what I write you would have known that I will repsond to Quetzal after the weekend. In the meantime you ould have a look at the 1G5 gene.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-01-2002]

Dear Buddika, this is easy.Buddika says:
1. Define NDT.I say:
Neo-darwinian theory. All life-foms evolved from a common ancestor through selection of random mutations in DNA sequences.Buddika:
2. Borger's "evidence" regarding the 1G5 gene in Drosophila has been called into question in several responses, so I need not deal with that. What I want to know is where, in any of this thread, Borger explicitly details how it is that this line of "evidence" refutes evolution. I see no evidence of his claim that "...it violates randomness and thus falsifies NDT", so I would like to see this explicitly detailed, or see a reference to where he has previously explicitly detailed this.MY RESPONSE:
You are among the deniers. Whatever the mechanism behind the mutations in the Ig5 gene in Drosophila, it defies NDT since they are non randomly introduced in a neutral evolving gene.Buddika:
3. Borger claims that: "If a theory can be falsified it is not a good theory..."
On the contrary - if a theory can be falsified, it is an excellent theory, because it allows a means to check it by experimentation. If Borger is, in this sentence, claiming that evolution actually *has* been falsified, then this brings us back to challenge #1MY RESPONSE:
Maybe I should have read.."If a theory can be falsified it is not a good theory, at least it is not complete, and certainly not truth..."Buddika:
4. Borger also writes (immediately after the above quote): "...and should be replaced by something else that more accurately describes what we see, even if it has to include design. Only atheists will object to that."I would like an explanation from Borger as to why an atheist would object to evidence of intelligent design (ID), even if Borger's definition of ID is "God did it!" Does he equate the theory of Evolution with atheism, and if so, what is the logic behind this assumption?MY RESPONSE:
I proposed the creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field. You introduced "God did it", although you may be --and likely are-- right. Of course, evolutionism is not equal to atheism. However, in popular media it is often used synonymously: evolutionism equals atheism. As known on this site, I SEVERELY object to that.Buddika:
5. Following from 4, Borger needs to provide detailed support for his claims regarding ID. If he believes that ID is responsible for life on Earth that he ought to outline a scenario as to how it happened, because if he cannot, all that he is doing is providing what he considers to be negative evidence against evolution (and from what I have read in this thread, it isn't even good evidence). Even if this held up, it would not make a positive case for ID. What is Borger's positive case for ID? How did ID come about?MY RESPONSE:
As pointed out in several letters (for instance to Mark24) genetic redundancies are compelling evidence for ID. A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints. I provided scientific evidence for that observation. It once more overturns NDT.Buddika:
So here we have five challenges to Borger. Let's see if he can answer any of them. I will not move on from these until and unless he adequately addresses all of them.MY RESPONSE:
A midnight run. I already explained these concepts in detail on this site, and why they are evolutionism killers.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-06-2002]

Dear Mammuthus,Phenotype without genotype?best wishes,
Peter

Dear Buddika,You write:
Comments on Borger's opening message:
Borger seems to indicate that he is a big fan of Lee Spetner, who is not a biologist or a geneticist, but a physicist, but Spetner's work is flawed:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htmMY RESPONSE:
I know Korthof's work. He writes book reviews related to evolutionism-creationism. I recommend you to read his discussion with Spetner. It can be found here:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36a.htmBest wishes,
Peter

Dear Mammuthus,You say:Dear Peter,
Selection is on the.....?.......Redundant genes?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear WJ,Genetic analysis of subpopulations. Read my message #97 (thread: scientific end of evolution theory2) and #184 in this thread.best wishes
Peter

Dear Buddika,You write:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for finally defining NDT. I was assuming that's what you meant, but I could find no explicit definition in this thread. Judging by other threads, explicit definitions do not appear to be your strong point.
Since you have now defined NDT in terms of "random mutations" I now have to ask you exactly what you mean by "random mutation" - what is your definition of random in this context?Borger: "You are among the deniers."B: Deniers of what? I am simply asking you to set down some solid information as a starting point. In the absence of that information I am not in a position to deny or accept anything you say.PB: See the 1g5 gene. My letter #52 in the "molecular genetic evidence against random mutations-thread".Borger: "Whatever the mechanism behind the mutations in the Ig5 gene in Drosophila, it defies NDT since they are non randomly introduced in a neutral evolving gene."B: And your evidence of this is where? Either detail it here or refer me to the message(s) in this thread where you have detailed it. I don't think your case is very strong based simply on this one quote (above), since you seem to be saying that you have no idea what the mechanism is, but you *know* it defies NDT! I don't see that you can possibly be in a position to make such a statement, especially in light of the criticism your claims have received in this thread.PB: Message 1-32 in the "mol gen ev ag rand mut thread" constitutes the complete falsification and overturn of NDT.B: You have not published anything in refereed science papers to establish your case, nor can you point to anyone else who has done so and demonstrated how it calls NDT into question. Nor have you made a case for how this one claim (even if it were true) manages to overthrow NDT in the light of the overwhelming multi-disciplinary evidence that scientists have built up over the last 140 years supportive of NDT.PB: Apparently evolution --if extant-- isn't a random process. Sent in a letter on the topic. Rejected. Current status: submitted.B: All you appear to be doing is leaping to a conclusion based on your personal interpretation of a paper which was not designed to demonstrate the claims you are making. Have you raised this issue with the people who published that paper? If so, what did they say?PB: Conlusion jumping has been discussed extensivenly in another thread, previously. I am not yet fisnished with unwarranted conclusion in evolutionism-thread. I will continue one day soon.Borger: "Of course, evolutionism is not equal to atheism. However, in popular media it is often used synonymously: evolutionism equals atheism."B: I disagree.PB: of course you do.B: In creationism, it is all too frequently used synonymously. I do not believe that it is so used in the popular media. Do you have examples to support this claim?PB: From scientifically peer reviewed journals you mean? Turn on a television, turn up a paper, magazine, etc. Wait and see.Borger: "You introduced "God did it", although you may be --and likely are-- right."B: I introduced nothing. The previous post was my very first contribution to this thread. You are the one who raised the issue of atheism ("Only atheists will object to that"), which has no place in a science thread. For the record, I do not believe that any god ever did anything.PB: You mentioned "God did it" in your previous letter. I didn't.Borger: "As pointed out in several letters (for instance to Mark24) genetic redundancies are compelling evidence for ID. A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints. I provided scientific evidence for that observation. It once more overturns NDT."B: Once again you fail to provide specific references. Can you give me a URL or a message number where I can find this, or am I going to have to search through every Mark24 message? Was this in this thread? Was it recently, or more towards the start of the thread? Where is your evidence for this claim: "A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints."PB: The concept of genetic redundancies has been discussed with refernces in my thread: "scientific end of evolutionism". It is the death blow to evolutionism.Borger: "I already explained these concepts in detail on this site, and why they are evolutionism killers."B: Then you shouldn't have any difficulty, once again, providing references. I have noted repeatedly in interactions with you that you reference almost nothing. At the very least, whenever you refer to something like this, you need to specify the thread and message number or give a URL, or indicate if it was recently or earlier in the thread. If you cannot do this, I can only assume you have no reference to offer.PB: since you are the new one here, I recommend to read al my posts (400 or so). All relevant literature is referred to. To name a few:1) Bouche, N. and Bouchez, D. Arabidopsis gene knockout: phenotypes wanted. Current Opinions in Plant Biology 2001, Volume 4: p111-117.2) North, K.N. et al. A common non-sense mutation results in a-actinin 3 deficiency in the general population: Evidence for genetic redundancy in humans. Nature Genet 1999, Volume 21: p353-354.3) Zhang, P. The cell cycle and development: redundant roles of cell cycle regulators. Current Opinions Cell Biololgy 1999, Volume 11: 655-662.4) Tautz, D. A genetic uncertainty problem. Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477.5) Winzeler, E.A. et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 1999, Volume 285: p901-906.6) Kolisnychenko, V, et al. Engineering a reduced Escherichia coli Genome. Genome Research 2002, 12: 640-647.Or do a pubmed (NCBI homepage) search on 'genetic redundancy'. It will give you 871 hits.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,You write:
Yes, I recommend reading that exchange too. Spetner comes off looking like a desperate, egomaniacal, backpeddaling, red herring-spewing, minutiae-monger...No wonder Borger recommends it...I say:
.........I am always so impressed by your 'scientific' replies and rebuttals. Best wishes,
Peter