a graph for borger to explain

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkenstick:
yes, normal distribution, a common shape when the variables are random

​

---

******Good one

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear All,

​

End of the story, I guess.

​

Peter

---

*****************Yes you are both wrong and niether of you understand random mutation. Glad we cleared that up finally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkenstick:
yes, normal distribution, a common shape when the variables are random

​

---

​

******

​

Good one

​

---

​

Uh, why is this a "good one"? Have you looked at the study? Even if we assumed the study is entirely accurate, it would not be evidence against adaptively directed (non-random) mutations. Not even remotely. Do you know why?

---

******************No Fred, enlighten me with your thus far non-apparent wisdom of mutation mechanisms.Here is a Dloop from an individual from China, where will all the pre-adaptive non-random mutations occur exactly? You cannot answer, do YOU know why?1 ttctttcatg gggaagcaga tttgggtacc acccaagtat tgactcaccc atcaacaacc
61 gctatgtatt tcgtacatta ctgccagcca ccatgaatat tgtacggtac cataaatact
121 tgaccacctg tagtacataa aaacccaatc cacatcaacc cccccccccc atgcttacaa
181 gcaagtacag caaccaaccc tcaactatca cacatcaact gcaactccaa agccacccct
241 cacccactag gataccaaca aacctaccca cccttaacag tacatagtac ataaagccat
301 ttaccgtaca tagcacatta cagtcaaatc ccttctcgcc cccatggatg acccccctca

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mammuthus,

​

By now you must know what I mean by non-random and random mutations. I have explained over and overe and over, and I am not going to explain another time that non-random mutations are non-random with respect to nucleotide and position. So, I don not claim that the are non-random with respect to WHEN they will be introduced. I hope I do not have to explain this again, it is becoming annoying. You can find examples of these mutations in the 1G5 gene and in mtDNA (as discussed). Read also my mail #185 in the molecular genetic proof against random mutation.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

***********************
Peter, by now it should be clear that nobody but you see's your "non-randomness" as anything but your pet definition of a well known phenomenon coupled with your lack of understanding what random means. That you now admit you do not know when the mutation will occur at a given site, coupled with the fact that mutations by the SAME mechanisms occur outside of hotspots, outside of C-T transitions, and in nonsynonymous positions, you have done nothing but give a silly term to a known molecular process that in no way violates the principles of molecular evolution. You don't even know WHERE the next mutation will occur in a gene much less when regardless of the probabiltiy of it being at a C to T transition. Yet you persist in claiming you have identified some new phenomenon...so if you find it annoying that nobody is accepting this nonesense take comfort in the rest of us being annoyed at having to constantly listen to this nonesense from you.A gene under intense selection or a gene near a gene under intense selection where it cannot escapte the selection by recomination is highly stable and thus both show little variation...how is does this refute evolution and provide evidence of morphogenetic fields, creatons, or any other nonesense?You clearly do not undertand population genetics or the underlying basic genetics as you have made clear you don't beleive that populations reduced to few individuals show less variation than large populations with large effective populations.Show the deterministic mutations in 1G5 or in the mtDNA sequences as discussed. You have not thus far been able to do so.Cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkenstick:
yes, normal distribution, a common shape when the variables are random

​

---

​

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

​

I see you totally avoided answerering my question LOL..because you cannot..nice bait and switch...you must relish the tast of your own foot.

​

******

​

Good one

​

---

​

Uh, why is this a "good one"? Have you looked at the study? Even if we assumed the study is entirely accurate, it would not be evidence against adaptively directed (non-random) mutations. Not even remotely. Do you know why?

---

​

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

​

No Fred, enlighten me with your thus far non-apparent wisdom of mutation mechanisms.

​

Here is a Dloop from an individual from China, where will all the pre-adaptive non-random mutations occur exactly? You cannot answer, do YOU know why?

​

1 ttctttcatg gggaagcaga tttgggtacc acccaagtat tgactcaccc atcaacaacc
61 gctatgtatt tcgtacatta ctgccagcca ccatgaatat tgtacggtac cataaatact
121 tgaccacctg tagtacataa aaacccaatc cacatcaacc cccccccccc atgcttacaa
181 gcaagtacag caaccaaccc tcaactatca cacatcaact gcaactccaa agccacccct
241 cacccactag gataccaaca aacctaccca cccttaacag tacatagtac ataaagccat
301 ttaccgtaca tagcacatta cagtcaaatc ccttctcgcc cccatggatg acccccctca

---

​

Mammuthus, the study Monkeystink cited cannot provide evidence for or against adaptively directed (non-random) mutations, since it only examines synonymous sites. Thus your "good one" comment was a classic insert foot in mouth. Or perhaps you can tell us why it was a "good one"? (instead of sending us on a little red-herring about a chap from china).

​

Every one here seems to have figured out this gaffe but you. Monkenstink first, then SLP, whose silence and subsequent unrelated red-herring shows even he recognizes it wasn’t a good one. Good job Scott, my young apprentice!

​

---

Scrolling through this thread I see you also ducked Monkenstick's question as well as mine.....perhaps if you are smelling a read herring you should check your upper lip for the remains of your odd lunch. It is clear you rather make unsupportable statments rather than addressing the questions....so where again are the mutations going to occur in the HV1 region Mr. Nonrandom? If it is so obvious surely this should be an easy question to answer....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Scrolling through this thread I see you also ducked Monkenstick's question as well as mine.....perhaps if you are smelling a read herring you should check your upper lip for the remains of your odd lunch. It is clear you rather make unsupportable statments rather than addressing the questions....so where again are the mutations going to occur in the HV1 region Mr. Nonrandom? If it is so obvious surely this should be an easy question to answer....

---

​

Uh, what question is that, ye puffed up evolutionist who refuses to ever admit a mistake, one so obvious that even fellow evolutionist and layman monkenstick recognized?

​

Oh, and your implication that the imability to predict where a mutation will occur somehow disproves non-random mutation is, well, ... Hmm, I'm trying to be kind. Cockamamie. Is that kind enough?

---

**********************Well, if it is so obvious then please demonstrate non-random mutation. And if you are claiming that non-random mutation is a non falsifiable hypothesis then you have successfully proved your permanent residency in fantasyland

FW:
As for my stand on non-random mutations, see Messages 44, 59 from July in molecular genetic proof against random mutation. To summarize, the primary purpose of my entry into that thread was to defend Peter’s claim that discovery of such mutations falsify the current NDT paradigm, and I provided a quote from leading NDT advocate Dr Futuyma proving it. I stated that I believe there is evidence for non-random mutations, but nothing to hang one’s hat on (Transposons for one have all the appearance of being a non-random, pre-programmed type of mutation). I also once believed non-random mutations would explain Haldane’s Dilemma as it applies to rapid diversification since a flood 5K years ago, but backed off this observation as later personal studies of the dilemma demonstrated that rapid diversification could easily occur without the aid of non-random mutations.M: Out of curiosity, what specifically made you back off of the non-random mutation idea? What were the "personal studies"? Peter in no way has backed off of the non-random mutation hypothesis of his so why do you disagree that it is unecessary? He claims it is a falsification of NDT but you seem to have different criteria. Care to explain?FW:
Page nevertheless continues to quote statements of mine that I have backed off of (messages 44 & 59 are proof of this, in case Page denies I never told him). This is like those dishonest atheists who will use quotes of Abraham Lincoln before he was a Christian in their attempt to show he was not Christian!M: Aha, agenda exposed. You are yet another christian bigot. Big surprise there. You probably have never even met an atheist yet feel you are such a wonderful superior ubermensch that you can judge us all.FW:
For now, I’m on the sidelines watching the drama play out. I pop into this drama now and then mostly to expose erroneous statements or bad logic like Mamuthus's "good one" in this thread.M: It was a good one. And you have not supported your position. But don't feel bad, Borger is much smarter than you and has not had any success with his various lines of reasoning either