Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   a graph for borger to explain
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 16 of 43 (21162)
10-31-2002 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mammuthus
10-31-2002 3:33 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 10-31-2002 3:33 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 10-31-2002 6:42 AM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 17 of 43 (21164)
10-31-2002 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by monkenstick
10-28-2002 5:56 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by monkenstick, posted 10-28-2002 5:56 PM monkenstick has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 18 of 43 (21170)
10-31-2002 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by peter borger
10-31-2002 4:53 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 4:53 AM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 19 of 43 (21185)
10-31-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fred Williams
10-30-2002 6:52 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
fred is correct in a way, because the graph represents differences between neutral positions within genes.
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:
Specifically, the study only considers synonymous mutations in the 3rd codon position where any base will still yield the same amino acid (called four-fold degenerate site). Thus, the study will have nothing to say whatsoever of mutations with selective value (such as adaptively directed mutations, which is what this particular debate is all about).
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 10-30-2002 6:52 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 20 of 43 (21191)
10-31-2002 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by monkenstick
10-30-2002 10:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
so how do you propose that random mutations act only on fourfold degenerate sites, and not all sites within the gene?
When did I propose that?
[strawman alert!]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by monkenstick, posted 10-30-2002 10:36 PM monkenstick has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 21 of 43 (21193)
10-31-2002 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
10-31-2002 3:40 AM


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

******
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 10-31-2002 3:40 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 10-31-2002 1:30 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 27 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 2:27 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 3:07 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 22 of 43 (21197)
10-31-2002 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fred Williams
10-31-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
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!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 10-31-2002 12:41 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 43 (21212)
10-31-2002 5:25 PM


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


Message 24 of 43 (21213)
10-31-2002 5:34 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 9:06 PM monkenstick has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 25 of 43 (21220)
10-31-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by monkenstick
10-31-2002 5:34 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by monkenstick, posted 10-31-2002 5:34 PM monkenstick has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 43 (21236)
11-01-2002 1:37 AM


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 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 27 of 43 (21273)
11-01-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fred Williams
10-31-2002 12:41 PM


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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 10-31-2002 12:41 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 28 of 43 (21279)
11-01-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fred Williams
10-31-2002 12:41 PM


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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 10-31-2002 12:41 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Fred Williams, posted 11-01-2002 7:18 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 29 of 43 (21300)
11-01-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Mammuthus
11-01-2002 3:07 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 3:07 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 11-02-2002 4:27 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 32 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:33 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 35 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 9:25 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 43 (21301)
11-01-2002 7:26 PM


I think he means this question
quote:
I assume you accept that mutations can act randomly on all sites within a gene then?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024