|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ++++++++++++++++ Evolution is still standing, you have not addressed SLPx's criticisms of your skewed and misdefined ZFX reference, you have not supported your own hypothesis, you are not even answering posts regarding your own hypothesis! So please don't pull the Wordswordsman tactic of claiming that it is a "sin" to argue with people who disagree with you as a way of dodging substantive questions that arise no matter how hostile you and SLPx are to each other. Quetzal and I have had most of our posts left unanswered by you recently....if I used your standard as you have just applied it to SLPx I could say.. "Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere, since you are unable to answer, or you distort my words and answer to that. 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 ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION and there has never been A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. Get used to this OLD worldview, it will help you survive. " Oh wait, I can already say this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: "Everyone"? Don't you mean just you?quote: 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: : J Pers Soc Psychol 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34 Unskilled 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.edu People 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Regulatory sequence is not expressed.quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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, Links Unskilled 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.edu People 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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.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!!!! I also recommend: take a debating course. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: All you can do is answer with a strawman? I never said genes were lost. Ever. It never ceases to amaze me the desperation of PhD evolutionists to avoid admitting a blatant mistake to preserve their pride (I think I read some time ago you have a PhD, I apologize if I’m wrong). I know full well the difference between a gene and an allele. Try to be less puffed up on yourself. I’m truly sorry a layman such as myself has to point out such an obvious fact to you.
quote: I truly hope you do not have a PhD, because there is simply no excuse for anyone, even an evolutionist, to claim that a bottlenecked animal such as the cheetah has not lost genetic information due to the isolation event and subsequent genetic drift. According to the dream world of Mammuthus, if we isolate the poodle completely, and let it breed only with other poodles, we can eventually get a St Bernard. But anyone with half a brain knows we can’t. We even get to cheat and use truncation selection, something that does not occur in nature, and we *still* will not be able to produce a St. Bernard. Now if you object to this analogy, explain why the poodle has suffered loss of genetic information and the cheetah hasn’t.
quote: Learn to think outside your fantasy box and stop posting pure nonsense. Are you prepared to defend this ludicrous position, even if I find a PhD evolutionist to refute your nonsense? Hey Scott, I’m curious. Do you buy this nonsense? Tough spot you are in, eh? Do you reluctantly agree with your idol, or defend your colleague. Do you think the cheetah has not lost ANY genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population? This really ought to be fun to watch your reaction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
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. Your hairsplit exon/gene thing with Peter Borger is simply a bald-faced misrepresentation. Nobody here appreciates it, I suspect even the evolutionists grow tired of your pure nonsense. 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. 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. Among these primate species, the percentage similarities of the nucleotide sequence of the ZFX gene were 96-100% and 91.2-99.7% for the ZFY gene. Of 397 sites in the ZFX and ZFY gene sequences, 20 for ZFX gene and 42 for ZFY gene were found to be variable. Substitution causes 1 amino acid change in ZFX, and 5 in ZFY, among 132 amino acids. The numbers of synonymous substitutions per site (Ks) between human and the chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan for ZFY gene were 0.026, 0.033, and 0.085, respectively. In contrast, the Ks value between human and hominoid primates for the ZFX gene was 0.008 for each comparison. Comparison of the ZFX and ZFY genes revealed that the synonymous substitution levels were higher in hominoids than in other primates. The rates of synonymous substitution per site per year were higher in the ZFY exon than in the SRY exon, and higher in the ZFY exon than in the ZFY intron, in hominoid primates. PMID: 11101141 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] (waiting to see if Page will email these authors about their horribly terrible, disgustingly improper use of the terms "ZFX gene" and "ZFY gene").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
quote: (emphasis changed) in this case, because borger is discussing the amount of change in a sequence, its actually rather important to know whether its the entire gene or a single exo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Monkenstick,
This is the article we are discussing and the focus is on the ZFX exon, not the ZFY as you highlighted. However, I have a copy of this article from dr Kim since I wanted to have a look at the exon sequences the authors compared, since the 0.008% doesn't say anything to about the molecular mechanism. I wanted to see which nucleotide was affected. Unfortunately, these data are not shown in the paper, only the percentages. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear dr Page,
You never responded to my comments on the ZFY region. The only response I've had was Percipient's and it was meaningless. So, if you wanna discuss this topic in detail, I have no problems with that. For me it is just another little exercise in contemporary biology. And that's my job, I can do it on the side. Talking about unskilled. It was you who told me that you were an anatomist by education, so give me a good reason why you are allowed to write on evolutionary topics. At least I am a biologist by educations and so I am allowed to write on evolutionary topics. It was also you who wasn't up to date with contemporary biology (remember the histon code?). And your current actions......speak for themselves. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
my mistake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Et tu, mammuthus?
You say: Conclusion, there is no ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION and there has never been A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. Get used to this OLD worldview, it will help you survive. I say:You are wrong, there is an alternative, but you don't want this alternative since it doesn't correspond with your personal worldview. Therefore, nobody else outside the field of evolutionism is allowed to say something about evolutionism and that is how it is kept alive and propagated. It is nothing but a meme. But you know that it has fallen, Mammuthus, I've shown you how to falsify it. Of course, you can always claim that space-aliens are involved (as Dr Page likes it). Best wishes,peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
quote: or magical invisible particles called creatons
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Are you sure you never implied this? I invite your attention to this bit:
quote: Perhaps the problem is you haven't defined your terms. What is, in your definition, "genetic information"? How do you detect/quantify its "loss" (or gain, for that matter)? How is it lost without loss of genes? Is there some other way of losing information? If so, what? Mammuthus, however, never said genes were lost - he asked if you believe so, since your entire point rests on "loss of information" whatever that is.
quote: Now this is an amazing departure. Please show specifically where Mammuthus even mentioned dogs. Let alone discussed the derivation of a St. Bernard from a poodle. Are you capable of rational discussion, or just killing strawmen? It's actually quite easy to "claim" that a genetic bottleneck doesn't cause "loss of information" since no one has defined what that means... And I'd be willing to bet Mammuthus has a WHOLE lot more understanding of pop gen than you do - at least going by what you've shown so far. Spare us the infantile ad hominems. Evcforum isn't whatever childish creationist board you apparently usually frequent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
All you can do is answer with a strawman? I never said genes were lost. Ever. It never ceases to amaze me the desperation of PhD evolutionists to avoid admitting a blatant mistake to preserve their pride (I think I read some time ago you have a PhD, I apologize if I’m wrong). I know full well the difference between a gene and an allele. Try to be less puffed up on yourself. I’m truly sorry a layman such as myself has to point out such an obvious fact to you.
M: LOL!!! I am puffed up? Considering you complete ignorance about the subject you are debating it is you who should deflate your ego. Your personal attacks and claims that all questios to you are strawmen demonstrate the paucity of you knowledge and your inability to support your stupid claims. FW:I truly hope you do not have a PhD, because there is simply no excuse for anyone, even an evolutionist, to claim that a bottlenecked animal such as the cheetah has not lost genetic information due to the isolation event and subsequent genetic drift. M: Oh so you "Dr." Williams are in a position to evaluate Ph.D's in genetics although you are completely ignorant of the subject...perhaps you could use a spell back in kindergarten. FW:According to the dream world of Mammuthus, if we isolate the poodle completely, and let it breed only with other poodles, we can eventually get a St Bernard. But anyone with half a brain knows we can’t. We even get to cheat and use truncation selection, something that does not occur in nature, and we *still* will not be able to produce a St. Bernard. Now if you object to this analogy, explain why the poodle has suffered loss of genetic information and the cheetah hasn’t. M: Poor Freddy Fred boy Since you cannot answer my questions you have to make up statements that I never made. LOL!!!Since you would rather trade insults with me as opposed to anwering the question posed to you I am not surprised that you pulled the last paragraph out of your fantasy world. Do you think that cheetah's have more or less genes than before the bottleneck? Define allelic variation. If you cannot you should keep your mouth shut regarding the accuracy of my statements. FW:Learn to think outside your fantasy box and stop posting pure nonsense. Are you prepared to defend this ludicrous position, even if I find a PhD evolutionist to refute your nonsense? Hey Scott, I’m curious. Do you buy this nonsense? Tough spot you are in, eh? Do you reluctantly agree with your idol, or defend your colleague. Do you think the cheetah has not lost ANY genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population? This really ought to be fun to watch your reaction. M: Learn to think Fred. You obviously cannot get beyond your religios zealotry to actually form logical thought in your brain. Scott if free to agree or disagree with me.....my guess is he will also get a laugh out of your silly posts. Have a nice day and stay off the drugs..or at least lower the dosage
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024