Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   a graph for borger to explain
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 7 of 43 (21115)
10-30-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Mammuthus
10-30-2002 3:33 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 10-30-2002 3:33 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by derwood, posted 10-30-2002 12:12 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 9 by wj, posted 10-30-2002 5:37 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 10-31-2002 3:40 AM Fred Williams has replied

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


Message 11 of 43 (21136)
10-30-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by monkenstick
10-30-2002 5:49 PM


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.
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:
What the graph does show however, is that random mutation does act within genes.
So? I don't think anyone has disputed this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by monkenstick, posted 10-30-2002 5:49 PM monkenstick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by peter borger, posted 10-30-2002 8:18 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 10-31-2002 11:44 AM 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

  
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

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


Message 37 of 43 (21539)
11-04-2002 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Quetzal
11-02-2002 4:27 AM


quote:
Q: Okay, let's rephrase the question - which has as yet not been answered. IF non-random mutations exist, how would they be identified
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:
Q: If the non-random mutation hypothesis is true, what evidence would we be able to find in support (or to falsify) the idea?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 11-02-2002 4:27 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 2:17 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 40 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 5:46 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 11-05-2002 2:37 AM Fred Williams has not replied

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


Message 41 of 43 (21554)
11-04-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by derwood
11-04-2002 2:17 PM


quote:
Not only does that not sound like a ringing endorsement for the creationist extrapolation on 'non-random mutations', but in fact sounds very Darwinian.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 2:17 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by derwood, posted 11-05-2002 11:11 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024