molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

PB:
"And apparently, you --like Dr Page-- seem to find it pleasing to be condescending."Remind me - who was it that came in here, with no pertinent educational or reseach experience, claiming to have falsified evolution?

PB:
"The ZFX gene doesn't change for 20 million years as demonstrated by biomolecular scientists and you call that a fallacy? "Why do you keep misrepresenting this, Peter?Again I ask if you know the difference between a gene and an exon.I ask this because you keep saying "gene" and yet your citations only deal with a single exon.Are you hoping everyone will simply forget all of your misrepresentations and hyperbolic statmnents?Guess again...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,

​

You are purposely obtuse. You know what I mean and you know that I am right.

---

No, I know that you do not seem to know the difference between "gene" and "exon." If you did, you would not keep referring to the ZFX/ZFY as the "gene." It is but a small portion of the gene, as I alreeady explained, and, as I already explained, there is no reason to assume that it should have accumulated mutational change. You never did supply your math demonstrating that there should have been change in that particular exon.And, no, PB, I do not know that you are 'right'. About this or anything else, though I have found your repeated claims that Dawkins is out of his league when writing on such things... The irony is just too rich...

quote:

---

Better try to find an evolutionary explanation for these observations.

---

I already provided one, as have others. Your continued ignoring of them and continued insistence that you are right about everything smacks of a neurosis, not a conspiracy of denial.

quote:

---

In addition, you still owe me an evo-explanation for the incongruence of the IL-1beta genes,

---

I have asked repeatedly for a citation. I do not feel like rummaging through your voluminoouis diatribes looking for one passing mention of a concrete document.

quote:

---

and for the stability of the ZFX region studied by Kim et al.

---

Now you are just being obtuse. I already commented on that. You ignored it, apparently.

quote:

---

Next we can discuss --if you like-- the redundant alpha actinin genes,

---

Sure - ref please.

quote:

---

the redundant src-kinases and where they violate molecular evolution and how you try (?) to save evolutionism from falling.

---

Oh - I forgot that Your Grae had disproved evolution already, and that we underlings have simply not realized it yet.But I am still wondering why Your Grace prattled on about LCRs and such....

quote:

---

And please stop trying to represent me as someone not knowing the difference between genes and exons.

---

You are doing that to yourself by continuing ot refer to the study by Kim et al. as one in which a "gene" is used.

quote:

---

Maybe you can provide this site with a contemporary definition of a gene? That would be great. Thanks in advance.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

Eukaryotic gene: a sequence of DNA that encodes one (or more) protein produts. consists of intronic (non-protein encoding) and exonic (protein encoding) portions. exons and introns are of variable lengths and number.Now maybe PB can provide a contemporary justification for referring to an exon as a gene?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr page,

​

And, as demonstrated, I not only claimed it but I also demonstrated how to do it.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

What are you blabbering about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
[Or maybe it is a nice challenge for Dr Page since he is the PhD-ed evolutionary biologist of this site and he knows how it works. I cannot answer these questions, since am only a "asthma research creationist guy".]

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

Creationist 'challenges' are bogus. All such 'challenges' are of the Kent Hovind type - no matter what is presented, the challenge will never be met. Borger has expressed this type of activity numerous times already - simply ignoring or hand-waving any and all explanations presented to him for his many 'challenges' and 'refutations of darwinism.'But it is true that an asthma resarcher is just another layman when discussing evolutionary biology. Ask Phil Johnson.

Case in point:PB:
"I didn't forget about this reference. I read it last weekend and the content of the article simply doesn't rebut my observation that the ZFX gene is completely stable during '20 million' years. That there are genetic elements jumping around in the genome and accumulate on the X chromosome in this region is in accord with the vision of a multipurpose genome where variation is induced by such elements, not by accumulation of SNPs or other mutations. These jumping elements affect gene expression and thus induce phenotypic variations."As mam has pointed out, THE GENE is NOT stable over that period.You then just ramble on and on about how there are no mutations at neutral sites blah blah blah....Ignoring evidence doesnot mean that it is not there.No wonder professionals tend not to respond to your hysterical diatribes...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 10-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Dr Page,

​

And these observations are all in accord with a multipurpose genome and not in accord with evolutionism. You are, of course, free to deny that.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

And so you keep repeating.You never did explain why there must be mutations in that one exon under NDT.You never did comment on the alignment that I took the time to make for you.I doubt you even looked at it.I think I know why, of course, but I would like to give you the opportunity to explain this spate of blinder-wearing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Mammuthus: They [cheetahs] have niether poor genetic content nor have they lost genetic information. They have reduced allelic variation in the population i.e. cheetah's almost monomorphic.

---

​

LOL! This is utter nonsense. Your two sentences are a contradiction. Maybe a citation you used earlier the same day will help:

​

An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck.
Weber DS, Stewart BS, Garza JC, Lehman N.
Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.

​

A bottleneck in population size of a species is often correlated with a sharp reduction in genetic variation.

​

Do you believe no genetic information is lost after a bottleneck occurs? Why in the world would there be less genetic variation? Perhaps you deny the cheetah is the result of a bottleneck? If so, why are they almost monomorphic?

​

I really hope you admit your silly observation was flat wrong and move on.

---

Ahh - the semantics queen strikes!Here's a poser for an information theory expert.What impact on 'information' occurs in the following scenarios:1) An insertion (mutation) ina gene results in an increase in gene exppression. The product is not altered, there is just more of it. This increase in product confers pesticide resistence.2) A gene duplication results in a modified phenotype.Is the 'information' in the above situations increased, decreased, or the same?If the information remains the same or decreases, how does one explain the acquired phenotypic changes?In any event, what is the relationship between "information" and phenotype?A precise definition of information will be necessary to address these issues. The definiiton will need to be legitimate, applicable to biological systems (genomes), and accepted by those in the field.Lacking such a definition of 'information' will be indicative that the presenter is simply engaging in just-so story telling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,

​

You say:
As mam has pointed out, THE GENE is NOT stable over that period.

​

I say:
The gene is regulated differently in different organisms and may be affected by the insertion of the DNA elements Mammuthus described.
It doesn't rebut the observation of Dr Kim et al that the presented sequence of the ZFX gene is stable over 20 million years. This sequence simply stands as a falsification of evolutionism.

---

I did not realize that Kim's group had sequenced the entire gene. Perhapos it is in a different publication - other than the one you cited - and one for which the DNA sequences are not yet available?Because, you see, the Kim et al. paper you cite refers only to one exon, and the nucleotide links from the paper only produce DNA sequence data for the region for which I made an alignment (and you deigned not to even look at).
Please supply the citation or the GENBANK numbers for the DNA sequences for the entire ZFX gene. I would most like to see them and analyze them for myself.

quote:

---

You then just ramble on and on about how there are no mutations at neutral sites blah blah blah....

​

I say:
Please Dr Page grow up and face the facts. I haven't had a rebuttal from you, neither from Mammuthus on this specific topic. Mammuthus tried to feed me a red herring with his jumping DNA elements in ZFX region, but it was about Dr Kims article, remember. I can see right through these fallacies.

---

I'm sure you can, being a creatonist and all.However, I most certainly did face the facts, and unlike you, Peter, I seem to be able to understand them. The only fallacy I see is the continued reference to the ZFX "GENE" being stable for 20 million years. I already presented you with 'my math' demonstating why chance alone can account for why there are no substitutions in the referred to 300+ bp locus. You simply ignored it and continued on with your mantra.Mantra spewing is a common creationist characteristic. Sad.

quote:

---

You say:
Ignoring evidence doesnot mean that it is not there.

​

I say:
Ignoring evidence is exactly what you do now for about three months. Better respond to the LCR16a gene, the IL-1beta incongruence. They are still unsolved and you 'promissed' to solve the problems for evolutionism.

---

There is no gene in an LCR as you have already 'admitted'. I have been unable to find your reference to such a paper describing a gene in an LCR. Searching Medline for "LCR16a" produced only the paper I already cited, and it mentioned nothing of genes.
I have also been unable to find your specific reference for the paper you believe props up your claims re: IL-beta 1. One would thnk that since these are such linchpiuns for your falsification of NDT that you would gleefully cite them at every request.

quote:

---

You say:
No wonder professionals tend not to respond to your hysterical diatribes...

​

My response:
1) the letter I wrote was a very neat letter, I was disappointed that I didn't get a response,

---

The recipient probably saw through the facade...

quote:

---

2) now you are here you have an excellent opportunity to help me out with the alpha-actinin genes. Notably, you are the evolutionary biologist of this site.

---

What about them?

quote:

---

3) apparently you are not a professional, since you keep responding to my 'hysterical diatribes'.

---

This is a discussionboard. Were you to write an 'official' email or letter to me prattling on about these 'unanswered questions' and 'anomolies' and such I probably would not respond, either.
While it is true that research for me is on a back burner these days, I do still consider myself a 'professional' in that I have the requisite background education, experience, and pertinent publications. I would not even consider proclaiming some other field of science 'unscientific' or to have 'falsified' something that I am clearly unable to comprehend sufficiently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Dr Page,

​

Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere,

---

"Everyone"? Don't you mean just you?

quote:

---

since you are unable to answer, or you distort my words and answer to that.

---

Please demosntrate that I have done so. Creationist religious nutrs like to lie about their opponants all the time. Thius is what you are doing here. Have you NOT repeatedly referred to the "ZFX/ZFY GENES"? And claimed that THE GENES have remained stable in hominoids for 20 millions years, thus falsifying NDT?When in reality the very papers you cited indicated that only part of one exon had been sequenced?That is not distortion at all. It is your own words coming back to bite you in the ass.Did you not claim that the papers I cited refuting 'directed mutations' were in fact proof of them?

quote:

---

Why, I wonder? To keep the hype alive? Of course! However, I know --and I demonstrated it several times and I can do it over and over again-- that the hype has fallen en will never stand again. Molecular biology is not in accord with the hype. Conclusion, there is no evolution and there has never been evolution. Get used to this new worldview, it will help you survive.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

: J Pers Soc Psychol 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.Kruger J, Dunning D.Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601, USA. jkruger@s.psych.uiuc.eduPeople tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page:

​

Your definition of a gene:

​

"Eukaryotic gene: a sequence of DNA that encodes one (or more) protein produts. consists of intronic (non-protein encoding) and exonic (protein encoding) portions. exons and introns are of variable lengths and number."

​

My comments:
No regulatory sequences included for expression?

---

Regulatory sequence is not expressed.

quote:

---

What is a gene that cannot be expressed? A junk gene?

---

A pseudogene is a gene that has suffered a debilitating mutation in its promoter. You asked for my definition of gene because apparentrly you do not knoiw that exons are only a part of a gene. You di dnot ask for expanded discussion of eukaryotic genes and their flanking regions.If you even know what those are...

quote:

---

Sounds to me as a very oldfashioned definition.

​

Best Wishes
Peter

---

Well, I guess you must be Johnny on the spot with the definitons.I wonder - does the new-fangled definiton that you apparently prefer indicate that the terms "gene" and "exon" are synonymous, as you have been using them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Mammuthus: They [cheetahs] have niether poor genetic content nor have they lost genetic information. They have reduced allelic variation in the population i.e. cheetah's almost monomorphic.

---

​

LOL! This is utter nonsense. Your two sentences are a contradiction. Maybe a citation you used earlier the same day will help:

​

An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck.
Weber DS, Stewart BS, Garza JC, Lehman N.
Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.

​

A bottleneck in population size of a species is often correlated with a sharp reduction in genetic variation.

​

Do you believe no genetic information is lost after a bottleneck occurs? Why in the world would there be less genetic variation? Perhaps you deny the cheetah is the result of a bottleneck? If so, why are they almost monomorphic?

​

I really hope you admit your silly observation was flat wrong and move on.

---

​

Ahh - the semantics queen strikes!

​

Here's a poser for an information theory expert.

​

What impact on 'information' occurs in the following scenarios:

​

1) An insertion (mutation) ina gene results in an increase in gene exppression. The product is not altered, there is just more of it. This increase in product confers pesticide resistence.

​

2) A gene duplication results in a modified phenotype.

​

Is the 'information' in the above situations increased, decreased, or the same?

​

If the information remains the same or decreases, how does one explain the acquired phenotypic changes?

​

In any event, what is the relationship between "information" and phenotype?

​

A precise definition of information will be necessary to address these issues. The definiiton will need to be legitimate, applicable to biological systems (genomes), and accepted by those in the field.

​

Lacking such a definition of 'information' will be indicative that the presenter is simply engaging in just-so story telling.

​

---

One will notice that Fred Williams the young earth creationist electrician focuses on what he thinks are 'math erros' by evolutionists iunstead of addressing issues that he portrays himself as being an 'expert' in....: J Pers Soc Psychol 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34 Related Articles, LinksUnskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.Kruger J, Dunning D.Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601, USA. jkruger@s.psych.uiuc.eduPeople tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,

​

That you are a really sad guy is once more demonstrated by:

​

"One will notice that Fred Williams the young earth creationist electrician focuses on what he thinks are 'math erros' by evolutionists iunstead of addressing issues that he portrays himself as being an 'expert' in...."

​

I feel sorry for you. Instead of follying on irrelevant stuff, demonstrate that you have a PhD. Till now you weren't able to show it.

---

Yes, you are right Borger.I guess I should busy myself making bizarre extrapolations, unwarranted assumptions, and repeated assertions.I guess I should find three or four actual research papers and cling to my twisted interpretations of them no matter what.Yes, I guess I am a sad guy.
Of course, I am still wondering why you keep referring to the Sequence in the Kim paper as a 'gene' when it is not.

quote:

---

Even if Fred is an electrician, his maths abilities are far superior to what you demonstrated till now. Proof that you deserve your PhD. Now you have the opportunity. Proof it!!!!

---

Proff what? Please proof that Williams has these superior math skills.Of course, I never claimed to be a math wiz. Unlike creationists, I tend to stick to areas that I actually know about.

quote:

---

I also recommend: take a debating course.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

Thanks.Where did you take yours?Patriot University?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere,

​

"Everyone"? Don't you mean just you?
quote:

---

​

No Scott, EVERYONE I KNOW who encounters you. Your misrepresentations really get old, and it makes one wonder why anyone ever engages you in debate after a few exchanges with you. Maybe it’s a morbid curiosity with me or something.

---

No, you are just a pompous, self-absorbed, arrogant pseudocertain creationist blabbering on topics that you have no business blabbering about.
The creationist keeps yammering about "misrepresentations" as if it means something.Talk abot useless drivel - like how Williams' dream date ReMine cries "Misrepresentation!" whenever someone points out that ReMine believes that there is a conspiracy to keep Haldane's 'dilemma' quiet - you se4e, he never actually writes or says "conspiracy", so saying he does is a "misrepresentation." Because, you see, claims of keeping things hushed up, brushing them aside, and keeping H's D 'hidden' for 40 years in no way indicates the ReMine thinks there is a conspiracy...

quote:

---

Your hairsplit exon/gene thing with Peter Borger is simply a bald-faced misrepresentation.

---

No it isn't. The implication of Borger are clear. That you 'side' with him is a no-brainer - heck, thats probably why you're doing it!

quote:

---

Nobody here appreciates it, I suspect even the evolutionists grow tired of your pure nonsense.

---

Yes, I am sure they do.

quote:

---

Here is an abstract from PubMed, found it on the first search and I’m sure there are PLENTY more. Are you going to write these authors and ask them if they know the difference between a gene and an exon? Please consider some time in your life the option of not misrepresenting your opponent. It's becoming real hard to take you serious when you resort to such blatant nonsense.

---

Blatant nonsense? Like claiming that the bible is "100% accurate and error free" or whatver gibberish you like to belive?LOL!

quote:

---

Mol Cells 2000 Oct 31;10(5):512-8 Related Articles, Links

​

Evolution of the X-linked zinc finger gene and the Y-linked zinc finger gene in primates.

​

Kim HS, Takenaka O.

​

Division of Biological Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Pusan National University, Korea. khs307@hyowon.cc.pusan.ac.kr

​

We have sequenced the partial exon of the zinc finger genes (ZFX and ZFY) in 5 hominoids, 2 Old World monkeys, 1 New World monkey, and 1 prosimian. ...

​

(waiting to see if Page will email these authors about their horribly terrible, disgustingly improper use of the terms "ZFX gene" and "ZFY gene").

---

Sorry, ass - unlike the creationist, these real scientists make it clear form the FIRST SENTENCE that they are referring to a "partial exon". From there on, writing "gene" is a convenience. You see, non-scientist Williams, professionals know what other professionals mean. Or at least should. Can't speak for Borger or most creationists.Borger, on the other hand, made it pretty obvious from the posts of his that I have read (haven't read them all) that he is referring to the gene as a whole.Now I know that you think the use of PROPER TERMINOLOGY is silly, for some bizarre creationist reason, but it makes it much easier to know what someone is talking about (also indicates whether or not they know what they are talking about) when proper terminology is used.So, for example, when someone writes "analogy" when the appropriate term should have been "homology", one can be fairly certain that the writer is just spewing goo.Now, little Freddie (aka Moderator 3) - don't you have some more people to ban from your 'guest book' for exposing youas the fraud and charlatan you are, ?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

​

You and SLPx obviously personally hate each other just like anybody with a brain on this board hates debating with Fred Williams

---

Now, now....I don't hate anybody.Well, I almost hate Williams, but only because of his personality and his frequent misreporesentation and making of unsuppoorted claims...What I Do hate is seeing miscreants claim to have 'falsified' thius or 'proved' that and be wholly unable to support such fantastic claims.That gets old fast, and I have no patience at all for such insolence.