Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 121 of 317 (21610)
11-05-2002 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by derwood
11-05-2002 11:34 AM


Dear Scott,
I have said all along that informed evos recognize that the only way to get new gentic information naturalistically is via random gene duplication + subsequent random mutation to the new gene that is beneficial to the population. Do you have such an example?
Your pal,
Fred

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by derwood, posted 11-05-2002 11:34 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by derwood, posted 11-06-2002 8:54 AM Fred Williams has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 122 of 317 (21611)
11-05-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Fred Williams
11-05-2002 6:09 PM


Fred,
quote:
Mark, we’ve already been down this road, and IMO you are just playing games. I don’t blame you, you are arguing from a losing position. I already answered you here, and don’t want to keep repeating myself: http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics -->EvC Forum: Information and Genetics
It’s important for the reader to note that Mark still refuses to give an example he would consider as a loss of information. Apparently in his world any change to a genetic sequence is a gain in information. If not, then he needs to explain himself. Please provide what you would consider a loss of genetic information.
Firstly, I HAVE given an example of information loss, read the thread.
Secondly, you patently DID NOT respond to;
http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics -->EvC Forum: Information and Genetics
It came AFTER your alleged response. Please point out where the points made here were responded to before I made them???????
I reiterate (but it would be helpful if you reread the entire post & arguments leading to it);
quote:
1/ Let’s get back to the crux of the argument, does evolution require naturally arising new information in the genome?
2/ Does evolution require naturally arising information that never previously existed in the genome?
What’s the bloody difference, except for a definitive one? You have tried to say evolution can’t occur because, 1/ can’t occur. If this were actually a physical restraint, you would have a point, but since scenario 2/ CAN be true, evolution is safe from information theory.
With reference to posts 107 & 112 in this thread, please.
I want to know why "new information" is the "dagger in the heart" of evolution, but "information that never previously existed" from generation to generation, isn't? Or am I making a strawman, here? Please read all the relevant threads, you're not the only one that doesn't like repeating themselves.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 6:09 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 7:13 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 123 of 317 (21612)
11-05-2002 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by derwood
11-01-2002 5:14 PM


Dear Dr page,
Your definition was oldfashioned (as expected, since evolutionism is an outdated theory). If you include introns in your definition, you also have to include all regulatory elements: promoters, enhancers, silencers etc. Enhancers and silencers have been found 10-100 thousand bp up- and down-stream of the coding sequences of a gene.
So, here we have the upgraded 21st century definition of a gene: All sensible-sequences that contribute to regulated expression of another sensible-sequence (specifying either protein or RNA).
Maybe you didn't get it yet, but biology is moving fast.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by derwood, posted 11-01-2002 5:14 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by derwood, posted 11-06-2002 8:57 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 147 by derwood, posted 11-06-2002 8:58 AM peter borger has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 124 of 317 (21617)
11-05-2002 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by mark24
11-05-2002 6:35 PM


Mark,
I don't have much time left tonight. Can you post your example of loss of info to save me the time of searching for it. I'll try to respond tomorrow, but I can't promise anything becuase I have to get some work done (I have to get out my brush and do some nvsram scrubbing - hmm, this serves as a prime example of *increase* in information for our product ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by mark24, posted 11-05-2002 6:35 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 3:10 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 11-06-2002 4:29 AM Fred Williams has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 125 of 317 (21619)
11-05-2002 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Fred Williams
11-05-2002 6:02 PM


quote:
Do you think the cheetah has less genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population, yes or no. If no, give us your definition of genetic information that leads you to reach such an amazing conclusion.
My lack of biology knowledge usually causes me to stay totally clear of discussions pertaining to genetics, but I'll take a bit of a stab at this one.
It certainly seems that the current cheetah population has less genetic diversity that that of "pre-bottleneck". I personally can't seem to see a direct correlation between "increased diversity" and "increased information". In either case, there is the information required to breed another cheetah.
Just a random, what the hey type thought.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 6:02 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Quetzal, posted 11-06-2002 6:52 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 152 by Fred Williams, posted 11-06-2002 5:24 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 317 (21627)
11-05-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Fred Williams
11-04-2002 6:12 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
If the cheetah lost a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has LESS genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?
So then the opposite would necessarily be a gain in genetic information. Correct? If the cheetah gained a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has MORE genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?
For that matter, any species that gains one useful allele by your definition has increased information in the gene pool.
Gosh, that was easy.
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Fred Williams, posted 11-04-2002 6:12 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Fred Williams, posted 11-06-2002 5:43 PM Fedmahn Kassad has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 127 of 317 (21635)
11-05-2002 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Mammuthus
11-04-2002 11:30 AM


dear mammuthus,
You say (among other things) in response to Fred's mail:
FW:
Mammuth claims:
1) Cheetah has the same amount of genetic information as its pre-bottleneck parent species. He can use the definition at the beginning of my post to make his case. If he cannot make his case with this definition, he can then attempt to use the even more watered-down definition, Shannon information, to make his case.
2) Monkenstick’s graph was somehow a good one, that it has something to say about whether or not non-random mutations exist.
M: Let's actually look at what I said in response to Peter Borger post 57 as opposed to whatever Fred Williams wishes to attribute to me.
PB:
CONSERVATION BIOLOGIST’S CONCERN ABOUT DWINDLING POPULATIONS IS BASED ON INBREEDING AND A DECLINE OF THE GENEPOOL. THIS HAS BEEN OBSERVED ON THE CHEETAH, THE FLORIDA COOGAR, ALLOCASUARINA, ETCETERA. IN MY OPINION, THE CURRENTLY LIVING ORGANISMS HAVE POOR GENOMIC CONTENT DUE TO LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION FROM THE MULTIPURPOSE GENOME.
MY RESPONSE:
Maybe I should have said POORER genomic content. It is well established that distinct subpopulations of species have lost/diminished expression of different genes. In humans ADH, hemoglobin, CF are lost in distinct subpopulations, while other still have them. The redundant alpha-actinin 3 gene is lost in approx 18% in caucasion population without any survival effect.
M: Then your assertion is falsified. They have niether poor genetic content nor have they lost genetic information. They have reduced allelic variation in the population i.e. cheetah's almost monomorphic. Since they are not extinct their genetic content is not poor.
MY RESPONSE:
Maybe I should have said poorer compared to before the bottleneck. I really have to spell out everything I say, because you like to be deliberately obtuse. Furthermore you assert that they didn't loose genes. How do you know? Did you count genes before and after the bottleneck? And what also wonders me is your assertion that reduced allelic variation is the culprit. How do you know? You assume it. The observation of monomorphic genes is not equivalent to a decreased fitness. It doesn't matter for structural and metabolic proteins. It probably only matters for the immunological compartment. However, the immunological system generates its own mutations so over a few generations this system will be variable again. In addition, projects like HUGO show that we are not able to give the exact amount of genes of the human genome, indicating the high within species variability. Variability not through gain of new genes, rather through random loss of preexisting genes. These genes are apparently not directly necessary for survival/reproduction and will get lost easily. All in accord with the multipurpose genome.
Furthermore, your example of the cheetah also demonstrates that organisms have an excess of genes (redundancies) that can be lost. Still the organism survives: Redundancies of the multipurpose genome.
M:
If you become extinct you sucked. If the genome is so multipurpose how can it have poor genetic content?
MY RESPONSE:
The multipurpose gene is subject to entropy. Redundant genes will get lost easily. In particular those genes not immediately required for survival and reproduction.
M:
Or are you saying that all individuals carry every bit of genetic variation within the population? If so this is easily falsified as well.
MY RESPONSE:
Going back in time subspecies become more and more one species. This origin-species has got the ultimate genetic variation because it still contains all preexisting genes. Through genetic losses, and differential regulation of these preexisting genes it can adapt to a range of environments. For instance the Darwin Finches on isolated Galapagos isles. Cross breeding (as has been carried out) will increase the genetic variability through inbreeding of lost genes (distinct species lost different genes). Thus, the more variability is inbred the closer the organism will resemble the original 'kind' containing all original genetic info. Whether the original kind can ever be backcrossed remains to be established. My guess is NOT, since regulatory elements like retroviruses may have an irreversible effect on gene expression. So, in my opinion, the original genome is plastic within preset limits.
M:
So I questioned if Peter Borger considers all INDIVIDUAL genomes to host the variation within the population i.e. multipurpose Lamarkian adaptation. Why is it a cheetah (individual)has a "poorer" genetic content now than prior to the bottlneck? They have the SAME genes, they are diploid, the sexually reproduce, etc etc like there ancestors. However, the cheetah population as a whole has less variation. That is the consequence of a genetic bottleneck....if they do not go extinct, they do not have "poor" genetic content. They have lost alleles not genes.
MY RESPONSE:
Alleles of what? Regulatory networks? Immunogenes? Genes coding metabolism proteins? It all depends on the alleles you are referring to. Monomorphic alleles are only detrimental to the organism if the monomorphic alleles are bot mutant alleles. Your explanation does not account for wild type alleles. You also have to consider the fact that monomorphic alleles (homozygous) genes is the rule rather than the exception in any organism studied. So, in my opinion, monomorphic genes cannot be the culprit. Loss of genes can be.
M:
That Fred somehow connects the above argument with some fantasy about isolating poodles to produce St. Bernards is his own problem.
MY RESPONSE:
No, it is an evolutionary problem. It cannot be explained by NDT, or the gain of new genes. It can be explained by the multipurpose genome: differntial loss and differential regulation of preexisting genes.
M:
2) Monkenstick demonstrated random mutation i.e. provided evidence for it. That is more than you have done for non-random mutation. So it is a good one.
Unless you will now magically produce the evidence for non-random mutation?
MY RESPONSE:
Non-random mutaions have been demonstrated but every time evolutionist provide fallacies to overcome them. This is also clear from the Cairns excerpt in letter #52 in the "mol gen evidence against random mutaion thread" (Dr Page response to Fred). Let's have a look at this paper again and I will demonstrate where the evolutionist's reasoning goes wrong. I don't understand that it is not seen through by the molecular biologists involved.
best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 11:30 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 3:38 AM peter borger has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 128 of 317 (21651)
11-06-2002 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Fred Williams
11-05-2002 6:25 PM


FW:
Don’t blame the confusion on me.
M: I can and do blame the confusion on you since you are the only one confused here.
quote:
M: My point remains valid. You have yet to support your assertion of non-random mutation. Monkenstick was able to demonstrate random mutation. As to what others on this board recognize, I would not be so sure everybody is worshipping at your feet there Fred ...that evidence is also lacking.
FW:
It’s amazing you cling to this. Since no one here has denied random mutation, the point is a strawman.
M: It is amazing that you cling to mythology like the worldwide flood. And my point is not a strawman. Any way you cut it you have not provided any evidence of non-random mutation yet there is plenty of evidence for random mutation...you can avoid it all you want but this fact does not go away.
FW:
But let’s be honest.
M: You honest? I'm an atheist..I don't believe in miracles.
FW:
Monkenstick thought it somehow showed all randomness and argued against the existence of non-random mutations. I think this is also what you thought when you read his post. But the fact is, it turns out his citation has nothing at all to say about non-random mutations. WHen you realized this, you tried to shift the goalposts and turn it into a strawman. Your choices are not appealing: 1) bogus claim, 2) strawman. There is of course a 3rd choice 3) admit your mistake and move on (I promise I won't gloat, I make my fair share of mistakes)
M: It was a good one and I have no mistake to admit. What you should admit is that you cannot demonstrate non-random mutation and are desperately trying to deflect the conversation away from this painful fact.
FW:
But since you continue to refuse, you win a special prize. Please go here:
How to keep an idiot busy
M: Grow up Fred. You claimed you were capable of civilized discussion and yet here you demonstrate behavior befitting a mentally challanged donkey.
FW:
I’m curious, are there any evolutionists at all on this board who believe Mams good one point was valid? Come on, don’t be shy. Embarassing to rebut a fellow evo? Man, it’s not even that big of a point to concede on. Anway, if you agree Mams had a point, see above link. Thanks!
M: Does anybody out there think Fred has anything substantive to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 6:25 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by derwood, posted 11-06-2002 9:05 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 155 by Fred Williams, posted 11-06-2002 6:04 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 129 of 317 (21652)
11-06-2002 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Fred Williams
11-05-2002 7:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mark,
I don't have much time left tonight. Can you post your example of loss of info to save me the time of searching for it. I'll try to respond tomorrow, but I can't promise anything becuase I have to get some work done (I have to get out my brush and do some nvsram scrubbing - hmm, this serves as a prime example of *increase* in information for our product ).

***********************
Fred's latest method of ducking all questions to him...he is too busy..and the dog (oh I mean the poodles he thinks turn into St. Bernards by genetic drift) ate his homework...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 7:13 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Fred Williams, posted 11-06-2002 6:13 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 130 of 317 (21653)
11-06-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by peter borger
11-05-2002 6:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mammuthus,
I started this thread to elaborate on your questions and how I see a multipurpose genome. So, stop saying that I am ignoring your questions. If you have the feeling I do, please point out what questions you like to have addressed. Make a list, or so. By the way, why should I answer questions within a day or 2 days? This board will be around for a long time and I have other thing to do too. Ultimately I will address all your questions.
Best wishes,
Peter

***************
I have repeatedly bumped posts in this and other threads without response. We ALL have other things to do. Considering you have continued to post without answering the multiple bumped posts gives the impression you are ducking the questions.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by peter borger, posted 11-05-2002 6:10 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 5:02 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 131 of 317 (21654)
11-06-2002 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by peter borger
11-05-2002 11:33 PM


Hi Peter,
PB:
Maybe I should have said POORER genomic content. It is well established that distinct subpopulations of species have lost/diminished expression of different genes. In humans ADH, hemoglobin, CF are lost in distinct subpopulations, while other still have them. The redundant alpha-actinin 3 gene is lost in approx 18% in caucasion population without any survival effect.
M: Can you give an example of diminished expression? Or do you just mean lost? However, none of this is obvious from the cheetah. There is no evidence that they lost a gene like alpha actinin 3. And again, they are not extinct so their "quality" is fine.
PB:
Maybe I should have said poorer compared to before the bottleneck. I really have to spell out everything I say, because you like to be deliberately obtuse.
M: You have a knack for vaguery that makes it impossible to always know what you are talking about. "poor" genomic content is a meaningless statement.
PB:
Furthermore you assert that they didn't loose genes. How do you know? Did you count genes before and after the bottleneck? And what also wonders me is your assertion that reduced allelic variation is the culprit. How do you know? You assume it. The observation of monomorphic genes is not equivalent to a decreased fitness.
M: I guess you did not read any of the papers.
PB: It doesn't matter for structural and metabolic proteins.
M: Do you know this or are you just saying this?
PB:
It probably only matters for the immunological compartment. However, the immunological system generates its own mutations so over a few generations this system will be variable again. In addition, projects like HUGO show that we are not able to give the exact amount of genes of the human genome, indicating the high within species variability.
M: Why would we know a priori the exact number of genes? HUGO used extremely rough calculations and were wrong...and?
PB: Variability not through gain of new genes, rather through random loss of preexisting genes. These genes are apparently not directly necessary for survival/reproduction and will get lost easily. All in accord with the multipurpose genome.
M: How do you know if the genes are new or not with the multipurpose genome? Since you claim that no animals are similar due to common descent you therefore don't know if New World Monkeys developed before or after humans by your hypothesis. All genes could be new or old. They could have been created as the sequencing reaction occurred to give the appeareance of the appearance of common descent. How you going to test for that. I have also given you citations for novel genes in primates but you choose to ignore them. And do you really claim ALL variability you see is due to loss of genes?.....Hartl and Clark...Hartl and Clark
PB:
Furthermore, your example of the cheetah also demonstrates that organisms have an excess of genes (redundancies) that can be lost. Still the organism survives: Redundancies of the multipurpose genome.
M: You still don't understand the concept of fitness do you?
PB:
The multipurpose gene is subject to entropy. Redundant genes will get lost easily. In particular those genes not immediately required for survival and reproduction.
M: Then it is pretty freaking amazing that so many redundant genes are highly conserved....or now you are going to post the exact same above sentence but just put a "not" in fron of subject in the first sentence?
MY RESPONSE:
Going back in time subspecies become more and more one species. This origin-species has got the ultimate genetic variation because it still contains all preexisting genes.
M: I actually asked if you think each (not the species) individual genome contains the variation of the species? That would fit with Lamarkian dynamics.
PB:
Through genetic losses, and differential regulation of these preexisting genes it can adapt to a range of environments. For instance the Darwin Finches on isolated Galapagos isles. Cross breeding (as has been carried out) will increase the genetic variability through inbreeding of lost genes (distinct species lost different genes).
M: You forgot that selection acts on the random mutation in the Darwin finches with those best adapted to the new environment surviving and reproducing. The birds don't just fly out one day and there beaks morph....and please explain how cross breeding will increase genetic variability through inbreeding since cross breeding and inbreeding are opposites.
Hybrids are usually less fit than either parent species and populations of such hybrids usually die out unless the two species share a hybrid zone...look it up.
PB:
Thus, the more variability is inbred the closer the organism will resemble the original 'kind' containing all original genetic info.
M:Inbreeding reduces variability. More inbred individuals do not look like the last common ancestor or do you think the Amish are more genetically similar to Homo erectus because they are more inbred than the average human population?
Also you seem to imply that the first breeding pair of a species contains all genetic variation possible for that species and must reproduce through some alternative means to suddenly make a population appear that contains all the variation which is then subsequently lost..disregarding expanding populations for one thing...and you think evolutionary theory is in trouble???
PB:
Whether the original kind can ever be backcrossed remains to be established. My guess is NOT, since regulatory elements like retroviruses may have an irreversible effect on gene expression. So, in my opinion, the original genome is plastic within preset limits.
M: To bad this is not a testable hypothesis...preset by whom?
PB:
Alleles of what? Regulatory networks? Immunogenes? Genes coding metabolism proteins? It all depends on the alleles you are referring to. Monomorphic alleles are only detrimental to the organism if the monomorphic alleles are bot mutant alleles.
M: Hmmmm have you ever studied genetics? Are you really really sure that "Monomorphic alleles are only detrimental to the organism if the monomorphic alleles are bot mutant alleles"? Ever hear of dominant mutants? Partial dominance? Penetrance? Genetics 101 Peter.
PB:
Your explanation does not account for wild type alleles. You also have to consider the fact that monomorphic alleles (homozygous) genes is the rule rather than the exception in any organism studied. So, in my opinion, monomorphic genes cannot be the culprit. Loss of genes can be.
M: Funny then that for many genes heterozygosity is very high. In fact it is variable among species with those going through bottlenecks showing very little like W. nobilis to those with very high relative heterozygosity.
PB:
No, it is an evolutionary problem. It cannot be explained by NDT, or the gain of new genes. It can be explained by the multipurpose genome: differntial loss and differential regulation of preexisting genes.
M: Okay, then you finally have a testable hypothesis. You can isolate a group of poodles like Fred says and you should get St. Bernards if you agree with his prediction..this is not a predicition of evolutionary theory but obviously one of multipurpose-ism.
PB:
Non-random mutaions have been demonstrated but every time evolutionist provide fallacies to overcome them.
M: If by demonstrating you are wrong is how you define fallacy then so be it. Monkenstick at least provided a graph..let's see yours.
PB:
This is also clear from the Cairns excerpt in letter #52 in the "mol gen evidence against random mutaion thread" (Dr Page response to Fred). Let's have a look at this paper again and I will demonstrate where the evolutionist's reasoning goes wrong. I don't understand that it is not seen through by the molecular biologists involved.
M: Let's have a look at some of my and Quetzal's unanswered questions to while we are at it.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by peter borger, posted 11-05-2002 11:33 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:33 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 158 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 6:56 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 132 of 317 (21656)
11-06-2002 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by derwood
11-04-2002 12:32 PM


Hi SLPx
SLPx
Indeed.... I see that despite your calm and congenial posting style (and I mean that), Fred has gone on the 'attack'. So much for his implication that he is only a jerk to folks that give him a hard time...[quote] M: I have not been so congenial lately And as I have seen, Fred has been unable to answer a single question put to him...he either replies with an insult, claims all questions are a red herring, claims you said something you did not and then says you have to answer based upon his falsification, or claims he is too busy to answer....he has a clear knowledge deficit and does not cover it very well.
SLPx:
Indeed. I have probably been a bit too harsh with TB. Unlike Borger, at least he seemed a bit humble and admitted that his interpretations were bible-based.
M:
Well, compared to Fred Williams, Borger and TB look like geniuses
TB always makes a good effort and often brings up interesting points....
By the way, don't you love how Fred keeps claiming you and I would never dare to contradict each other and then makes appeals to the unseen public for support

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 12:32 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by derwood, posted 11-06-2002 9:30 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 133 of 317 (21657)
11-06-2002 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Fred Williams
11-05-2002 7:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mark,
I don't have much time left tonight. Can you post your example of loss of info to save me the time of searching for it. I'll try to respond tomorrow, but I can't promise anything becuase I have to get some work done (I have to get out my brush and do some nvsram scrubbing - hmm, this serves as a prime example of *increase* in information for our product ).

http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics
"2/ A chromosome loss, that carried expressed genes."
Please respond, where we left off from, at;
http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 7:13 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Fred Williams, posted 11-06-2002 7:03 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 134 of 317 (21658)
11-06-2002 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Mammuthus
11-06-2002 3:38 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
Return to Start (mail #1). Read what the multipupose genome holds, than throw again.
More soon.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 3:38 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 135 of 317 (21661)
11-06-2002 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Mammuthus
11-06-2002 3:13 AM


Dear mammuthus,
Your socalled 'bumped postings' are on Quetzal's selfinvented thread called "creatons and morphogenetic fields". Although it has been dedicated to me --I'm flattered-- we were discussing the multipurpose genome in the evolution section. The creaton-morphogenetics should be discussed in the origin of life/genes thread. Let's first continue the multipurpose genome debate. Next, we can discuss creatons in more detail. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation,
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 3:13 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 5:16 AM peter borger 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