|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: a graph for borger to explain | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Why am I not surprised the resident post-hole digger didn't figure this out. 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).
quote: So? I don't think anyone has disputed this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: When did I propose that? [strawman alert!]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Easy. See Cairns, Hall, etc. In short, the discovery of mutation(s) that are the result of an adaptive response to some environmental stimuli. Or, mutations that cannot mathematically be attributable to a chance copying mistake in the DNA.
quote: See Rosenberg, et al. A good paper is EVOLVING RESPONSIVELY: ADAPTIVE MUTATION, VOLUME 2, JULY 2001. It’s been over a year so I suspect this paper might be available for free now on the internet. To summarize, Rosenberg claims there is nothing anti-NDT at all about the apparent Lac+ adaptive mutation. She cited data that indicates a sub-population hypermutation occurred which included many unselected mutations within the Lac+ mutants genome, which would be expected if the mutations were behaving in a random, NDT fashion. As Page pointed out, Cairns recanted some aspect of his original study, but from recent literature Cairns obviously still holds to adaptive mutation, disputing an important claim of the anti-adaptive mutation crowed that virtually all the mutations are occurring in a hyper-mutating sub-population. See Contribution of Bacterial Hypermutators to Mutation in Stationary Phase | Genetics | Oxford Academic RSTINDEX=0&journalcode=genet%20ics 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. 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! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: I agree! Too bad you have a comprehension problem. Q asked for evidence that would falsify non-random mutation, and I provided his answer for him. I agree that Rosenberg is providing evidence *against* Cairns, Hall et al. I then added that Cairns disputes this evidence. He writes: Their argument is unsound and, furthermore, makes a prediction that is contradicted by their own results. BTW, don’t try to claim I did not know Rosenberg’s work sought to rebut adaptive mutations. I posted something similar in message 60 back in July in the molecular genetic proof against random mutation, but you never responded. I have to run. I have a project I have to work on tomorrow and may not have time at work to post here. So, I just might violate my personal goal to stay away from boards during my personal time and will try to pop in tonight. Anybody have a doghouse they can spare for a few nights? PS. Mams, I am not backing away from non-random mutation per se, I am backing away from their being an essential component to explain the Haldane fixation/reproductive capacity problem as it relates to rapid diversification in 5K years since the flood (you know, that world-wide deluge you guys pretend never happened).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024