molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

​

Here's a poser for an information theory expert.

​

What impact on 'information' occurs in the following scenarios:

​

1) An insertion (mutation) ina gene results in an increase in gene exppression. The product is not altered, there is just more of it. This increase in product confers pesticide resistence.

​

2) A gene duplication results in a modified phenotype.

​

Is the 'information' in the above situations increased, decreased, or the same?

​

If the information remains the same or decreases, how does one explain the acquired phenotypic changes?

​

In any event, what is the relationship between "information" and phenotype?

​

A precise definition of information will be necessary to address these issues. The definiiton will need to be legitimate, applicable to biological systems (genomes), and accepted by those in the field.

​

Lacking such a definition of 'information' will be indicative that the presenter is simply engaging in just-so story telling.

​

---

Hello?Information theory expert Williams?Whats the matter?Do you get more mileage trying to insult me than you would actually applying your vast and unrecognized superintellect of yours to your pet areas?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
SLPx
Well, I almost hate Williams, but only because of his personality and his frequent misreporesentation and making of unsuppoorted claims...

​

M: You could add to that his resistance to answering any question put to him....or from my exchanges with him..his very odd interest in the reproduction of poodles

---

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:

---

SLPx:
What I Do hate is seeing miscreants claim to have 'falsified' thius or 'proved' that and be wholly unable to support such fantastic claims.

​

That gets old fast, and I have no patience at all for such insolence.

​

M: I have little patience for it either but I ultimately would like Peter to re-engage in the debate on his hypothesis. The debate has dropped off the last week or so...

​

I actually wish Tranquiltiy Base would jump in as he usually was good at sticking to topic and made a good effort at responding to all posts that came his way.

​

cheers,
M

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Q: Perhaps the problem is you haven't defined your terms. What is, in your definition, "genetic information"?

---

​

Since evolutionists generally reject a thorough definition of information (since it refutes their theory),

---

Let me guess - this "thorough" definition of information is the one espoiused by creationist information tehnologist Gitt in which it is comically asserted that information can only come from a 'conscious mind'?

quote:

---

for the sake of discussion we can limit the definition to the following: An algorithm that programs something that is useful for the organism’s gene pool. We’ll assume the sender is nature (as opposed to the obvious choice of intelligence).

---

Who 'sends' the impetus for mutational change?

quote:

---

That is, we’ll already assume that nature (via blind selection and chance mutation) created the algorithms (aka genes) in the parent population. I’m already giving you a huge (realistically unbridgeable) head start.

---

Oh, thank you thank Massa Expert!Now if only you would address the scenrios I laid out with your clear expertise in Information and how it applies to biological systems!

quote:

---

I will also submit that even using the lowest level of information, Shannon information, one can easily show that bottlenecks lead to loss of information.

---

I guess the flood story has to be a myth, by your standards...

quote:

---

Me: 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.

---

Funny - I recently read somewhere that Williams refers to me as an 'ad hom expert' or some such projection....

quote:

---

Q: 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?

​

What has become clear to me, from this thread and especially from the a graph for borger to explain is that Mammuthus is the one who seems unable to carry out a rational discussion, and why I called him out on this nonsense. Anyway, you left out an important sentence of mine from the above paragraph: Now if you object to this analogy, explain why the poodle has suffered loss of genetic information and the cheetah hasn’t.

​

Do you believe the poodle, if isolated, would have less information than what is available in entire dog gene pool? Please use Shannon information if you like. If yes, explain why you think the cheetah has NOT lost genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population? This was my point for introducing the poodle analogy. It was not a strawman.

---

What contains more specific information - the original dog-kind or a red fox? And why?
What contains more specific information - an entire set of encyclopedias or page 126 of Volume 3?
And why?Thanks.

quote:

---

Q: 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.

​

I suspect he does know more about pop gen than me. But I don’t know for sure, because I have found that PhD biologists (both creationists and evolutionists) are often not well-trained in pop gen (Page admits it wasn't his area of study, and it has shown).

---

At least I do not present amyself as being expert in areas that I am not. I cannot say the same for the creationist that lacks even the ability to know how wrong they are.

quote:

---

What is clear is that Mams doesn’t know dit about info theory,

---

And you know this because you ARE an expert, right?

quote:

---

and even if he used the weakest definition (Shannon information), he still will not be able to make a viable case that the cheetah has the same amount of genetic information as its pre-bottleneck parent population. His claim is ludicrous beyond words.

---

Almost as ludicrous as claiming that oil of hyssop is "50% antibacterial".

quote:

---

Q: Spare us the infantile ad hominems. Evcforum isn't whatever childish creationist board you apparently usually frequent.

​

LOL! Then spare us your hypocrisy. I did not come down hard on Mammuthus until after he denied his clear error in the borger graph thread and instead retorted that I had made unsupported statements. Then in this thread he said I was wasting his time with my incredible ignorance. Do you think it will be hard to produce evolutionist PhDs who will support my claim that the cheetah has lost genetic information from its parent species. Are these men also showing incredible ignorance? Why don’t you ask Dr Schnieder if he thinks the cheetah has the same genetic information content as its pre-bottleneck parent population?

---

Why don't you ask Tom Schneider what he thinks of your take on information and how it applies to biology?

quote:

---

Apparently Mammuthus’s PhD went to his head, and out went common sense.

---

The arrogance of ignorance strikes again!

quote:

---

The irony is that neither mistake had much, if any, bearing on the viability of evolution - his theory was not even threatened (the current theory of evolution accommodates everything, especially lateral and downward evolution!) Yet denial, denial, denial, and retort by claiming your opponent’s incredible ignorance. So much for rational debate.

---

Maybe he went to the Wally "Kuckoo" ReMine and Williams school of sience?Has Wally bagged that Laotian chick yet? The one that he let live in his apartmet - wherein he conveniently left a copy of his book to... impress... her? Yeah, Fred, you have some odd idols...

quote:

---

I saw your comment to Budikka. Why is it you attack the layman, yet spare the biggest ad homenim expert on this board, Dr Page? Is it because PhD members here are off-limits to your pseudo administrating? Is Budikka really that much more vitriolic than Page?

---

Rings hollow, coming from the King of Vitriol and insults.

quote:

---

I for one am more than willing to have a rational, civil debate, and have had them with many on this board, including other PhDs (such as Randy and Taz) who haven’t let their education make them think they know all and are immune to mistakes or ashamed to admit them when they occur.

---

LOL!No, wait, um... er... it is ashortcoming of the medium... Yeah.. thats it..I never REALLy thought that SNPs are removed form phylogentic analyses... yeah.. right.. thats it... It was the medium

Fred:Please describe the flow of "information" in the following scenarios:1. A gene duplication results in an altered phenotype2. An insertion (a mutation) results in increased gene expression, producing pesticide resistance.3. Random mutations result in a gain of additional substrate specificity while retaining specificity for the original substrate.Please explain for each:Whether information was lost, gained, or remained the same and how.How the end result can be explained by your explanation for the above.How this impacts the iunformation arguments against evolution.And please answer these questions:Which has more specific information, an entire encyclopedia set of a certain page of a certain volume; a "dog kind" or a fox terrier.

But he doesn't know better-- he is a zoologists-- so he can be forgiven}I will remember this gem....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
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

---

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.

delete double post[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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

---

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}...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
M: Does anybody out there think Fred has anything substantive to say?

---

Do you really need to ask?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

​

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

---

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?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]

quote:

---

Address the scenarios I mentioned, and I will address yours.

---

See post to Quetzal. I'm not interested in wasting time.You made a specific claim. I agreed it would be an example of increased genetic information.[/quote]You did?

quote:

---

Having problems finding your hypothetical example? Why then did you bring it up? All you did was make my case for me. If evolution were true you should be able to produce a myriad of examples, yet you can't produce one.

---

No, Moderator 3, I have examples, I just wnated to see you address my scenarios (which you didn't, not in this thread, anyway).If creationism were true, you would not have to lie, backpedal, co-opt, and misrepresent so much.Where are your examples of "directed mutation"? WEhere is your evidence for the number of "kinds' on some ark?Where is your evidence FOR this ark?

quote:

---

Bye bye evolution. It's a fairytale.

---

So sayeth the post abandoner, the scenrio ignorer, the repeated-assertion-IS-evidence-monger, the master of Projection.You don't want to 'waste your time' supporting your claims.That is pure cretin propaganda.Its the best the idiot has.Bye bye Scheisskopf.So long cretiniam.In the words of Mike Behe, if you can't publish, you should perish. Cretinism perished decades ago, but the brainwashed religious zealots refuse to koin the Reality Club.

Well, I'm done. The gloves are coming off...Borger:

quote:

---

I can assure you that I as a molecular biologist specialised in eukaryotic gene regulation I much better understand evolutionism and the underlying mechanism than Dr Page (he is anatomist by education) or you (a conservationist). So, it is you who doesn’t understand the molecular mechanism involved in evolutionism. So, don’t even try it."

---

Ignoring for now the fact that Borger is just arguing from (pseudo)authority - which, according to Jonny Sarfati at AiG is a no-no - let's take a look at Boger's idiocy.Yes, I received a degree from the department of Anatomy and Cell Biology.CELL BIOLOGY, Borger.The CELL BIOLOGY part seems to have escaped you. The text we used for our CELL BIOLOGY courses?"MOLECULAR BIOLOGY of the Cell", Alberts et al.What was my research in?The MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY of primates:"The Molecular Phylogenetics of Catarrhine Primates as inferred from Two Unlinked Nuclear Loci"Am I also an anatomist? Yes. That is why I understand the significance of the position of the foramen magnum in a skull. Trained on human cadavers. Also studied embryology. You?My minor was Physical Anthropology.So one again, the creationist's shallow attempt at one-upsmanship is sunk before it leaves port.Of course, if you are so well-versed in molecular biology, one has to wonder why it is that you have such a hard time understanding: 'random' as it pertains to genetics; 'hot spots'; what is really expected in phylogentics; etc.Just another blow-hard prattling on in areas outside his field of knowledge...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Maybe Scott is ready to shatter the world with the example he implies he has in his hand. Let’s see if he plays the card, or keeps us all in suspense!

---

I am still wondering where your amazing 'article' on the 'large cache of evidence' for "non-random mutations" and how they help solve the post-ark hyperspeciation devastation... That you said you were working on...Over a year ago...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Maybe Scott is ready to shatter the world with the example he implies he has in his hand. Let’s see if he plays the card, or keeps us all in suspense!

---

I am still wondering where your amazing 'article' on the 'large cache of evidence' for "non-random mutations" and how they help solve the post-ark hyperspeciation devastation... That you said you were working on...Over a year ago...

PB: Again, you do not respond to my statements. You are starting to behave like Dr Page. He's got a degree in elusiveness.Well, Pete, maybe you can tell what I have tried to elude?

​

I am still waiting for some evidence that evolutionists believe that all gene trees should match not only each other but all species trees, too, AND that apparently elusive 'scineitific discipline' that is devoted to reconciling incongruent trees...

​

AND the rationale for claiing that evidence against non-random mutations is really evidence for them...

​

That sort of thing...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-09-2002]