|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: a graph for borger to explain | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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 borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear Monkenstick,
"I checked out this figure and apparently you have it from Dr Theobalds site of the talkorigin. I once had a discussion with Dr Theobald on cytochrome c incongruence and I have to admit that he is the best defender of evolutionism I've ever met in my entire life. I guess it is his full-time job. However, as mentioned before the cyt c incongruence could never be compellingly conluded since the Stellaria genome hasn't been sequences. So long it hasn't been sequenced I simply claim the stellaria cyt c incongruence as proof against common descent. By the way, he wasn't able to beat the IL-1 beta incongruence, neither the redundant src kinase family" This on the side. Now, with respect to the graph. A more fine tuning analysis of the figure may reveal two graphs that demonstrate overlap. In fact, there is some evidence for that if you have a careful look at the graph between 0.4 and 0.5 (x-axis). It may implicate the existance of two types of mutations. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ***********************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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] quote: Why am I not surprised the resident post-hole digger didn't figure this out. [/quote] Why am I not surprised that the resident pseudocertain creationist (AKA Moderator 3) feels the need to disparage his intellectual superiors to make himslef feel more important? Guess you were just waiting for someone else to explain it for you...quote: Great. Then maybe you can FINALLY provide soje actual unequivocal evidence for "adaptively directed mutations" - you know, the mythical cretin nonsense that you are a 'prosyletizer' of? That you were supposedly writing an 'article' (for your own web site only, no doubt) about over a year ago but apparently were not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: When did I propose that? [strawman alert!]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Right, Moderator 3, everything is a red herring when you can't provide a legitimate response. The 'red herring' was presented because you simply ignore the requests everywhere else. I cannot help it that you provide false claims (re: writing an article on 'non-random mutations'; 'large cache of evidence for them; etc...) and then tuck and run whenever you are called on it. That is what creationists do. Creationists like you and your 'intellectual' handler, Wally 'I don't have to follow the agreed upon debate guidelines' ReMine. You can nitpick the off-the-cuff internet discussionboard replies of others all day and it will not make you any more able to discuss the issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
that post wasn't directed at you fred williams, I assume you accept that mutations can act randomly on all sites within a gene then?
borger doesn't, he thinks mutations are directed, I want him to explain how random mutations are only able to act on neutral sites within a gene, considering that these sites are separated by only a few angstroms
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
I just read borgers most recent posts and it seems he now believes there are both random and non-random mutations, I don't know whether this graph had anything to do with it or not, but IIRC, borger used to claim that mutations are non-random (I assume he meant all mutations)
ah well, theres no problem then, you guys have just tacked on non-random mutations to stick god in the tiny angstrom wide gap
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear Monkenstick,
If you had kept up with my previous mails than you would have known that I introduced the concept of non-random and random mutations a couple of months ago in a reply to mark24. best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
sorry borger, I must have missed that
I have trouble keeping up with your fantastic (see: fantasy) explanations for why phylogenetics give all the indications of common descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
I think he means this question
quote: |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024