|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ************* Hi Peter,I don't have to go that far back..I will bump the unanwswered posts again for you here today. Ok? Best wishes,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: I gave you the reference, look it up for goodness sake!
quote: So, anything written by an evolutionary biologist, botanist, geneticist, etc is by definition incorrect according to your view? Continue to believe whatever you wish. You’ve been shown to be wrong — repeatedly. I have cited multiple references, and every single article ever published on Wollemia nobilis. If you wish to continue arguing that the authors of these studies are completely wrong, there’s not much I can do to convince you otherwise.
quote: Suggest you actually go back and read all the references I’ve provided. Your interpretations have been shown to be erroneous. The data is incomplete because Peakall hasn’t completed the study — the initial sequencing was done on only 18s (by Peakall), and rcbl by (Setaguchi et al), references for which you have already been provided. This means that your assertion that this flipping tree somehow proves multipurpose genomes are absolutely stable and evolutionary theory completely overthrown is based at best on limited data from an initial study.
quote: If I didn’t think you were serious, I’d have ignored you completely. However, you have shown your ignorance or willful misunderstanding of even basic biology every time you type a new response.
quote: Yet another personal attack. Nope, wrong again. Since I’m not the one actually performing the original research, I tend to listen to the folks that are. When what they are saying contradicts other things — either my own personal observations or some other scientist — I dig into the subject in more depth and make up my own mind. On the other hand, I tend to only reference articles in these discussions which I agree with — otherwise I wouldn’t post them. Not my fault if the articles contradict your little fantasies. And I agree — you’re great at making up far-fetched stories.
quote: I did — I referenced several plants, a couple of mammals, etc. Pay attention. If you can’t keep up, take notes.
quote: Whether it’s true or not is what we’re discussing, isn’t it? So far, you’ve shown a grand total of zip, zilch, nada that indicates you’ve falsified evolution as you’ve claimed. You haven’t even raised a decent question yet. The only thing you’ve done is make unsupported assertions and refused to answer direct questions. Tell you what: here’s my axiom (and so you’ll stop claiming I don’t know anything). For me, to understand biodiversity and the birth and death of populations and species — and how to preserve them - requires an understanding of the natural history and ecology of individual species, and the biology of the individual organisms that make up the species. Survival of populations in the wild is dependent on effective population size, distribution, and density. The number of birds crammed into a small forest fragment or the number of algae cells on a wet rock effects food supply, how heavily predators and pathogens strike, to what degree reproduction is delayed or effective, how long individuals live, which new competitors can force themselves into the community, etc. To understand life, you must specify the context — the parameters of which are a function of a particular time and place. To understand biodiversity, you have to understand the processes of speciation and extinction - the birth rate of new species and the longevity of the clades they in turn spawn. You have to understand the first order effects of any environmental change, and the second-order ripples they cause, the third-order changes caused by the second, etc. And you need to understand the natural history underpinnings of the creation of ecosystems — because no organism on the planet lives in isolation. That is where my axiom comes from. Creaton waves, magical multipurpose genomes, spurious non-random mutations do absolutely NOTHING to advance my understanding of the processes that are critical to my work. Every single plant, animal, insect or fungus that I’ve ever encountered; every single interaction in the wild I’ve ever studied, merely confirms what science tells me about evolution. Hope that answers your question Dr. Borger.
quote: I’m still waiting for you to contact him for an explanation. If you think he’s so dead certain about the reality of your assertion, you should be jumping at the chance.
quote: {Begin Borger mode}You’re just so wrapped up in your dogmatic assertion of creatons and multipurpose genomes that you can’t accept any other explanation.{/Borger mode} I’ve given you several explanations from pop gen and ecology that could account for the limited variation in this species. Try actually developing a logical argument against them — like tell me WHY clonality, or extreme bottleneck, or any of the other explanations don’t make sense. All you’re doing is handwaving — in fact, if you hand wave much more you’re going to achieve liftoff.
quote: Okay, so I stand corrected: you HAVE received a response from Dr. Peakall. Please post it so we can all see how much he supports your position.
quote: Even in the city of Sidney you’ve encountered them? Amazing — and here I’d thought everyone was saying they were rare. Oh, you mean you encountered them in the controlled environment of a botanical garden or institute? Bit of a different story, that. There’s quite a bit in the literature on disease and bottlenecks — my suggestion would be to read some conservation biology. Look up feline infectious peritonitis and check out the FIP outbreak in African cheetahs in East Africa during the 1980’s. There was also a mini-epidemic at the Los Angeles Zoo. In every other species that can be infected by this virus, the mortality rate is about 1%. The 1980’s outbreak in cheetahs was 60% fatal. Do some actual research for a change before you claim that the scientists studying an issue are wrong.
quote: Of course you have references for your oryx assertion, right? I mean which species are you talking about: O. gazella, O. tao, O. beisa, O. leucoryx? Your extremely sloppy scholarship is showing again - you are once more making utterly spurious assertions about what scientists are doing with absolutely no effort on your part to either learn about or understand what it is you’re attacking. As to the cape lion — what’s your point? Two cubs were imported to South Africa from Siberia — but they’re a related subspecies. There are, however, 11 reported specimens of what may be descendants of the cape lion in Ethiopia. Even if they are — and aren’t hybrids with another lion subspecies - as far as I know no genetic tests have been performed (except to show the Siberian cubs were a separate subspecies). So asserting that they are or are not genetically homogenous is pretty speculative, even for you. Of course you’re correct that there’s no risk of pathogens with Wollemia either. That’s undoubtedly why they’ve instituted a complete contamination barrier — including forcing the scientists studying the trees to wash their boots in antiseptic before working with the wild populations — because they’re unconcerned about the introduction of new pathogens.
quote: No, you misunderstood — endstation as I used it IS extinction. Otherwise the population continues to evolve. When it can’t, it goes extinct. Gould and Eldredge wrote extensively on the mode and tempo of evolution, they didn’t talk at all about endstations or whatever. Now Vrba wrote quite a bit about extinction and selection sweep. Maybe you’re confused.
quote: Read what I wrote! It’s quite straight forward conservation biology. 700 specimens, all genetically related to only three individual genotypes in a single population. And yes, there are genetic differences — don’t tell me you don’t know what a karyotype is I’ll leave you to guess why your questions on the debate over the Catalina mahogany hybrid show you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.
quote: I did give you the complete reference. (Hint: look at the original post. See the little line under the title? Click on it and you have access to the original article in the original journal). What the hell does color inheritance in mice have to do with population bottlenecks or even conservation of isolated populations? Nice attempt to baffle with bs by dragging in a complete irrelevancy in an apparent attempt to show off how much you know
quote: Now you’re back to denying organisms have a natural history. Oh yeah, I forgot — magical creaton waves poofed them into existence de novo.
quote: I assume this is the Peter Borger Rule of Biodiversity? Again, depends on the organism in question, the environmental factors impinging on it, etc. Some lineages change — speciate — quite readily, others don’t. There’s a lot of interesting debate over the causal factors of this difference.
quote: So sensible regions are exons? What happens when one of the various mutations occurs in these sensible regions?
quote: I’d like you to post the response from Dr. Peakall where he says evolution isn’t sitting well — not the Woodford quotation — the response to your email that you’ve apparently received from him. I’ve never said — nor has any biologist that I’ve ever read — that low variability is a guarantee of extinction, although it's usually a good sign the population is in serious trouble. I also agree that Wollemi Pine isn’t an exception — just an extreme example of a normal distribution. As far as variability is good, although a gross oversimplification, in essence this is true. It’s the key to your question above concerning disease susceptibility. I’m surprised I have to explain this basic concept. The more genetically homogenous a population, the less likely it will contain adaptive variants able to survive or take advantage of new selection pressures. IOW, introduce a new pathogen into a population with lots of variation, there’s much more likelihood that there will be some individuals in the population with at least partial resistance to the pathogen. In a homogenous population, the odds of having an individual or group with resistance is much less, and hence if a pathogen effects one individual, it will effect ALL the individuals in the population.
quote: Sorry Peter, your message 16 on this thread specifically states the DNA is unvariable, i.e., not capable of variation. You have been challenged to show the mechanism by which DNA is prevented from variation. Your assertion = your evidentiary support required. Try again.
quote: I have. You have not produced ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE outside Woodford’s book. I have presented you with numerous articles from peer reviewed journals written by the scientists actually studying the issue. Your entire argument thus far rests on your continual restatement that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
quote: Thanks, I’ll decline. I get enough of a rush out of the real world — I don’t need to accept your fantasy.
quote: Please quote the response you received from Dr. Peakall. You’re spending a lot of words explaining to us ignorants here on this board what he really means. I challenged your interpretation using what Dr. Peakall actually wrote. Unless you can bring me Dr. Peakall’s exact response, then you are engaging in yet more baseless assertion. Wait a sec, I just caught this — from the above, it now appears you are stating that there IS variation in the trees — which is what I’ve been saying for 9 pages. Have you retracted your assertion, and I missed it? As for not understanding your hypothesis — on the contrary, I at least understand what you’ve presented so far. I also understand that it’s completely spurious, based on utter lack of evidence and gross misunderstanding of basic conservation biology, genetics, ecology, etc. Misunderstandings which you repeatedly and effectively demonstrate all on your own every time you post. Keep it up — you’re making my argument better than I ever could.
quote: I think Mammuthus already hit you on this one. However, so I understand you, are you saying that all organisms possess a multipurpose computer system that allows them to switch genetic programs at will? If every organism had a multipurpose genome — which is what you assert — every organism should be able to fill every niche on the planet at will. Great! I want to have a gill system that allows me to forego SCUBA gear. How do I turn on the ability to breathe water?
quote: Great! Your hypothesis is falsified: Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, Hartl DL (1998), Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila, Nature 396:572-575 quote: Here’s a brand new gene that was formed from bits and pieces of other genes — not a duplication event. Here’s the follow-up paper: Nurminsky D, Aguiar DD, Bustamante CD, Hartl DL (2001), Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster, Science 291:128-130 quote: Note the comparison with D. simulans, which has a recent —observed — common ancestor with D. melanogaster and DOESN’T have the gene. As to proving it didn’t happen through creatons — lol. You haven’t shown anything even remotely resembling proof that the silly things even exist! Why on Earth would you think I have to prove their absence in this process?
quote: In the first place, I did provide the full reference (click on the title). Amazing you can make the assertion that the speciation event is due to loss of DNA compatibility whatever that is. How’d you arrive at that bit of inference when you haven’t, by your own admission, even read the article? From the title? Lol!!!! You didn’t even read THAT correctly. It talks about mating time incompatibility - one of several pre-zygotic barriers (in this case, behavioral, not genetic, originall). Your turn — provide a reference that shows the 13 species of finches on the Galapagos still interbreed.
quote: See above — way above.
quote: This is now the THIRD time you’ve failed to even address this issue beyond simply re-asserting your original claim. I can only assume that in spite of your vaunted, self-proclaimed expertise, you are unable to do so.
quote: Tell me something Peter: are you simply incapable of looking something up on your own? This is pretty basic stuff. Here’s some articles I happened to have on my hard drive without even bothering to check Pubmed or any of the journals: Bataillon T, Kirkpatrick M (2000) Inbreeding depression due to mildly deleterious mutations in finite populations : size does matter! Genet. Res., 75 : 75-81 Willis, JH (1999), Inbreeding Load, Average Dominance and the Mutation Rate for Mildly Deleterious Alleles in Mimulus guttatus Genetics 153: 1885-1898 Colas B, Olivieri I, Riba M (1997) Centaurea corymbosa, a cliff-dwelling species tottering on the brink of extinction: A demographic and genetic study, PNAS 94: 3471-3476 Reinartz JA, Les DH (1994) Bottleneck-induced dissolution of self-incompatibility and breeding system consequences in Aster furcatus (Asteraceae), Am. J. Bot. 81: 446-455 Charlesworth D, Morgan MT, Charlesworth B (1992) The effect of linkage and population size on inbreeding depression due to mutational load Genet. Res., 59: 49-61 These should be enough to give you at least some education in the subject. Feel free to ask if you have any questions ONCE YOU’VE ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLES. I’m getting really, really, REALLY tired of doing your research for you. For someone who throws their academic credentials at me every single chance he gets, you seem to be oddly incapable of looking up the basic concepts of the multiple scientific disciplines you claim to refute.
quote: How about we see what the actual data says — WHEN IT’S FINALLY PUBLISHED.
quote: You have once again failed to address this issue in any way whatsoever other than repeating your mantra. Try again.
quote: No — you made the claim. You show ME the references that indicate the five species of horseshoe crab are genetically identical in accordance with your multipurpose genome. Your MG thingy is incredibly elastic, depending on what you’re responding to:1. MG is indicated by invariant DNA (Wollemia) which prevents speciation. 2. MG is indicated by the existence of different species which have invariant DNA () 3. MG can cause speciation, which, according to you, doesn’t exist. 4. Under the MG, genomic plasticity (in invariant DNA?) is due to loss of genes (but I thought it was invariant?). You aren’t even consistent in what you claim for your spurious hypothetical genome.
quote: The point is, if the stands DO represent only three individuals — rather than three populations — seeded from a single individual, almost no variation would be expected. And you’re right about one thing, I wouldn’t accept uncorroborated ANYTHING from you at this point. Go ahead and contact Dr. Peakall for his input. I might accept what he has to say about the organism he’s studying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi Peter,
Rather than bumping them yet again (which I imagine the Admin would prefer I not do) I refer you to posts 94-96 in this thread which are unanswered and have been bumped before. You can turn to the Creaton thread at your leisure. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Yep - you're absolutely correct. Decreased population variability != decreased information content. That's the whole point. Creationists have been babbling about "information" for years. I suppose it sounds good to the rubes...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Great reply Fred. You and Peter B seem to be vying for who can give the best non-answer to an honest question.
quote: I'm afraid I don't read or post on TO. Actually, the whole point is you haven't given a definition. Hard to work with a definition that is internally inconsistent, idiosyncratic, and fundamentally inapplicable and worse, conflates three completely different information concepts. Tell you what - since the whole information argument was YOUR red herring, you show us (with appropriate equations) how information is lost in a population after a bottleneck.
quote: So I take it you don't have an answer? Or rather, since you're so conversant with this type of argument, you don't want to pursue it because you're bored with it? Tell you what, since this is old hat for you, repost one of your old arguments with the accompanying math. After all - you're the one that wants to use "information" in a discussion of ecology and population genetics. You define the information content of the system. You derive the necessary equations, and show YOUR assertion is valid. I personally consider the whole "information" argument to be a specious waste of time. So unless you can come up with a compelling reason - or mathematical proof of your contention - I think you're simply blowing smoke. Hence the utterly contentless reply you made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Quetzal,
Fred may not have defined "information", but he HAS defined "new information" as it pertains to the genome.
quote: Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
quote: He also said this:
quote: Therefore, if loss of alleles is loss of information, then the opposite is of course true. That really wasn't so hard to falsify his information argument, unless he disputes that new alleles have been produced. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hmm, okay. However, I think that still begs the question. Consider:
1. At the level of the organism, that means that any mutation, duplication, fusion, recombination etc that results in either an increase in function, a novel function, or greater efficiency internally (in the "environment" of the cell, cascade, or organism's body), OR which generates a beneficial phenotypical change in relation to the particular organism's environment, constitutes "new information". Okay, I can almost buy that. In that case, it's trivially easy to show new information. 2. However, considered at the level of the population (which is the level at which we were arguing), and based on the fact that the "new" algorithm must be "useful" to the population, I don't see how anyone can quantify the effect of a single novel function in the genome of a single individual as "useful" - hence Fred's question is impossible to answer. Even assuming this new individually-useful algorithm gets somehow fixed and becomes dominant in the population over X generations, how can it be determined to be "useful" even at this point unless it has a net effect on the marginal fitness of the entire population? OTOH, if all that is required is that some member of some population - even if the population is represented by a billion individuals - "gains" a new algorithm (as in #1), then again it is trivially easy to state that the population's gene pool has gained (albeit incrementally) an increase in information. However, I'd be willing to bet any amount of money you'd care to wager that's not what ol' Fred is trying to get at...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
But he doesn't know better-- he is a zoologists-- so he can be forgiven}
I will remember this gem....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Yes, you know all about those "informed evos", don't you? Unfortunatly, you are dodging my questions/challenges, which is no surprise. Do you consider Kimura an "informed evo"? I will have to conclude that your inability/refusal to address my questions/challenges is an implicit concession. In the end, this whole 'new information' schtick is moot. Address the scenarios I mentioned, and I will address yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
delete double post
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Hey look! It is Fred Williams long-lost love child! But tell us all, Pete, what that has to do with referring to an exon as a gene? And do you have a soure for your definition? You see, maybe you just don't know better-- you are an asthma researhcer-- so you can be forgiven}...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Do you really need to ask?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I missed that. Take it back so I can say it? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What a joke... Just another example of an overemphasis on internet discussion board posts by the cretin, and utter hypocrisy. Posts are, at least mine are, not designed to be easily transferred to a professional manuscript. I write them on the fly - between classes, at lunchtime, those ocasions that I am caught up on my work and have some time to kill... Typos? Lots. Odd sentences? Plenty. Incorrect word usage? Sometimes. Gasp - errors? On occasion. I don't write - or set out to write - impeccable proclamations on science, and I don't expect it of anyone else, either, though it seems pretty obvious that the average creationiost believes their every utterance has scientific merit... What I do expect is that one - on any side of a discussion - realize this and not harp on minutiae. I can hear the 'rebuttals' now - "Thats all Page does blah blah blah!" Well, in a sense, I do - but not on one-time statements. I 'harp on' repeated unsupported assertions. I bring up obvious and blatant errors that are never corrected. I reiterate my objections to pompous assertions regarding how 'informed evos' know this and that, when such a claim is idiotic (but repeated). I point out large-scale back-peddaling. Etc... When I first started posting to these boards (about 5 years ago), I did take the time to 'research' my posts. To fully address the claims of the creationist. But I soon discovered that if I brought up 10 points, creationists would focus on one and claim victory. Or not respond at all. And if the creationist brought up 10 points and I responded to each of them, they would bring up 10 more. I discovered that creationist censors would merrily simply delete posts that damaged the arguments of their friends or heros, or pointed out the incompetence of professional creationists. Too many times did I have multi-page posts gutted or outright deleted. So I said F*** it - why do all that work when the cretin will ignore, obfusate, dodge, twist, or edit and delete? Why not just point out their ignorance? It is easier to do, faster, and one does not have to worry about making errors! Of course, that gets me branded, but I don't care. I don't mind running blocker for those evolutionists out there that were born with much higher levels of patience than I... But as for this schtick about not publicly chastizing/correcting a fellow evolutionist... that is just plain old projection. I have been correted many a time, and I have corrected others. It is the creationist that tends not to do this. Just look at what I recently mentioned - Luke Randall. He came on thr OCW site some time ago, boasting about how he knew evolution was wrong because he had a PhD in microbiology and genetics, and how the human genome had 3 billion codons. Silence from creationists (including Fred). I correct this, and the cretin (Randall) tells me to "get my science straight" before daring to try to correct a creationist scientist. I prove he is wrong, and he gets indignant, I get attacked by creationists for 'scariug away' a real PhD holding creationist. Later I see that Fred links to Randall's site, rferring to it as "excellent"... Last time I checked, randall still had numerous errors on his pages, including the ones I pointed out (I had pointed out several more before he tucked tail and ran). So, not only does the creationist rarely - if ever - 'correct' an error made by a fellow creationist, they actually seem to embrace their idiocy! By the way - I will nbever correct you in public... You do the same for me, OK pal?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024