molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

quote:

---

Mammuthus: They [cheetahs] 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.

---

LOL! This is utter nonsense. Your two sentences are a contradiction. Maybe a citation you used earlier the same day will help:An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck.
Weber DS, Stewart BS, Garza JC, Lehman N.
Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.A bottleneck in population size of a species is often correlated with a sharp reduction in genetic variation.Do you believe no genetic information is lost after a bottleneck occurs? Why in the world would there be less genetic variation? Perhaps you deny the cheetah is the result of a bottleneck? If so, why are they almost monomorphic?I really hope you admit your silly observation was flat wrong and move on.

quote:

---

M: I will gladly admit that you have absolutely no idea about you are talking about. Do you believe genes are lost from a species after a bottleneck or alleles?

---

All you can do is answer with a strawman? I never said genes were lost. Ever. It never ceases to amaze me the desperation of PhD evolutionists to avoid admitting a blatant mistake to preserve their pride (I think I read some time ago you have a PhD, I apologize if I’m wrong). I know full well the difference between a gene and an allele. Try to be less puffed up on yourself. I’m truly sorry a layman such as myself has to point out such an obvious fact to you.

quote:

---

What they have is a reduction in variants of the genes (hint they are diploid organisms) thus they do not have poor genetic content and they maintained the genes that make them cheetahs...they are monomorphic i.e. the gene copies are identical due the death of the individuals carrying the other variants and the population growing from the extremely small remaining (bottleneck) population.

---

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. But anyone with half a brain knows we can’t. We even get to cheat and use truncation selection, something that does not occur in nature, and we *still* will not be able to produce a St. Bernard. Now if you object to this analogy, explain why the poodle has suffered loss of genetic information and the cheetah hasn’t.

quote:

---

Learn some population genetics and stop wasting my time with your posts based on your incredible ignorance.

---

Learn to think outside your fantasy box and stop posting pure nonsense. Are you prepared to defend this ludicrous position, even if I find a PhD evolutionist to refute your nonsense? Hey Scott, I’m curious. Do you buy this nonsense? Tough spot you are in, eh? Do you reluctantly agree with your idol, or defend your colleague. Do you think the cheetah has not lost ANY genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population? This really ought to be fun to watch your reaction.

quote:

---

Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere,

​

"Everyone"? Don't you mean just you?
quote:

---

No Scott, EVERYONE I KNOW who encounters you. Your misrepresentations really get old, and it makes one wonder why anyone ever engages you in debate after a few exchanges with you. Maybe it’s a morbid curiosity with me or something.Your hairsplit exon/gene thing with Peter Borger is simply a bald-faced misrepresentation. Nobody here appreciates it, I suspect even the evolutionists grow tired of your pure nonsense. Here is an abstract from PubMed, found it on the first search and I’m sure there are PLENTY more. Are you going to write these authors and ask them if they know the difference between a gene and an exon? Please consider some time in your life the option of not misrepresenting your opponent. It's becoming real hard to take you serious when you resort to such blatant nonsense.Mol Cells 2000 Oct 31;10(5):512-8 Related Articles, LinksEvolution of the X-linked zinc finger gene and the Y-linked zinc finger gene in primates.Kim HS, Takenaka O.Division of Biological Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Pusan National University, Korea. khs307@hyowon.cc.pusan.ac.krWe have sequenced the partial exon of the zinc finger genes (ZFX and ZFY) in 5 hominoids, 2 Old World monkeys, 1 New World monkey, and 1 prosimian. Among these primate species, the percentage similarities of the nucleotide sequence of the ZFX gene were 96-100% and 91.2-99.7% for the ZFY gene. Of 397 sites in the ZFX and ZFY gene sequences, 20 for ZFX gene and 42 for ZFY gene were found to be variable. Substitution causes 1 amino acid change in ZFX, and 5 in ZFY, among 132 amino acids. The numbers of synonymous substitutions per site (Ks) between human and the chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan for ZFY gene were 0.026, 0.033, and 0.085, respectively. In contrast, the Ks value between human and hominoid primates for the ZFX gene was 0.008 for each comparison. Comparison of the ZFX and ZFY genes revealed that the synonymous substitution levels were higher in hominoids than in other primates. The rates of synonymous substitution per site per year were higher in the ZFY exon than in the SRY exon, and higher in the ZFY exon than in the ZFY intron, in hominoid primates.PMID: 11101141 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE](waiting to see if Page will email these authors about their horribly terrible, disgustingly improper use of the terms "ZFX gene" and "ZFY gene").

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), 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). 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.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. For a good description of Shannon information and its application to biology, see Dr Tom Schnieder’s primer here:http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/...paper/primer/latex/index.html

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.

​

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.

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). What is clear is that Mams doesn’t know dit about info theory, 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.BTW Quetzal, please tell me what it is I said that misrepresents pop gen.

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? Apparently Mammuthus’s PhD went to his head, and out went common sense. 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.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?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. I’m also not afraid to call certain individuals to the carpet when they make cockamamie claims they cannot substantiate. Mammuthus made two cockamamie claims. Let’s see him defend these claims, instead of running off about how I’m incredibly ignorant: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.

quote:

---

M: I see you excluded completely your willingness to admit your mistakes or how about your complete misrepresentations of what I have said in the first place?

---

Where do you think I misrepresented you? Perhaps here:

quote:

---

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.

---

Don't you know that populations evolve, not individuals? Seriously, it sure seems you implied, and still are implying, that the cheetah population (its gene pool) has the same amount of genetic information as the pre-bottleneck parent species. 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?

quote:

---

That Fred somehow connects the above argument with some fantasy about isolating poodles to produce St. Bernards is his own problem.

---

The analogy was an attempt to illustrate the impact on the gene pool after a bottleneck. Bottlenecks are a sure-fire way of producing a new sub-population whose gene pool will have less genetic information than the original parent population. Your claims regarding the cheetah clearly implied that you do not think this is the case.

quote:

---

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.

---

Your point is only valid if Peter or I had questioned the existence of random mutations. We have not done this, so your above statement is a classic strawman. You still seem to be the only one on this board who fails to recognize your "good one" was nothing of the sort.

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.

---

Hi Mark. LOL! Sorry. It's just that you have now given the 3rd evolutionist response to info theory, fulfilling my prediction on this board when we first started down this path. It took a couple months (hmm I guess not, it was a few months ago but I wasn't able to witness it until now). The other two that were already used BTW, were:1) info theory doesn't apply to biology
2) mistakes = new informationNow you have introduced the classical3) information was present from the beginning!I will say that #3 is the most tenable of the evolutionist information oh no excuses! For those who accept number 3, then it logically follows you reject the current evolutionary aradigm, the Neo-Darwinian Theory. Congratulations! You now are at a new fork in the road. Creation, or the Hoyle-Crick panspermia alien fantasy!

Quetzal, methinks you have been reading too much of the gobblygook at T.O. Yours is of the recent evo standard creationists are mixing definitions reply. Why don’t you just deal with the definition I gave you? If you prefer, remove the sender comment. What are you afraid of? I even offered you the simplest level of information, Shannon info. You simply cannot make a case that the cheetah has not lost genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population.You must have your own idea what Genetic information is. Do you think the cheetah has lost information, yes or no. If no, explain why.

quote:

---

Quetzal: 1. Assume the man notices the tile. What is the information content of this situation?

---

MEGAROTFL! Q, I can’t count the times I’ve been down this road. If it isn’t sand patterns on a beach, or pee messages in snow, or rings in a tree, or arrows shot across a battlefield, or tiles heading for one’s dome. Blah blah blah. These are simply diversions and invariably a big waste of time. Stick to the debate. I again ask,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.

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 GeneticsIt’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.Perhaps the following should be added to my list:#4: claim that all amino-acid-altering mutations add information.PS. I guess you really didn’t pick #3. You ruined my prediction and now everyone knows.

quote:

---

FW: 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?

​

M: Did not say I disagree and in the paragraph above I state this though you ignored it. I disagreed with a Lamarkian mechanism where mutations occur non randomly to pre adapt an organism to novelty i.e. Borger's hypothesis. And as I said, individual cheetah's today have as many genes as each other and their ancestors give or take retrotransposition events. They have less alleles in the population. If you had actually READ what Peter and I were discussing you might not be so confused.

---

Don’t blame the confusion on me. I read your discussion in full with Peter, and the way you wrote your reply implied you believed cheetahs had not lost genetic information from their parent species. So it now appears you agree the cheetah *has* lost genetic information from the pre-bottleneck parent population. So no point arguing this further. I just want to be sure you agree that genetic information has been lost.

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.

---

It’s amazing you cling to this. Since no one here has denied random mutation, the point is a strawman. But let’s be honest. 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)But since you continue to refuse, you win a special prize. Please go here:How to keep an idiot busyI’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!

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

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 ).

minnemooseus:

quote:

---

I personally can't seem to see a direct correlation between "increased diversity" and "increased information".

---

I never said there necessarily was a direct correlation (in fact I can easily think of counter-examples to the above). Let’s deal with what I said, not what someone else said. What I said is that the cheetah has clearly lost genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population. For example, we know the cheetah has a deteriorated immune system and it is likely it has lost some gene segments (via crossover) and thus potential antibodies. This is clearly a loss of information, no way around it.Speaking of diversity, the information problem always spurs an incredible amount of diversity in answers evolutionists come up with when the hot potato is thrown in their lap! Check this thread and you will see that Quetzal & Mammuthus are now stumbing all over each other. Quetzal clearly implies in his response to your message that he does not believe the cheetah has lost genetic information from its parent population, while Mammuthus backpedaled and now agrees information was lost (he blamed me for not understanding him; yea). I suspect Quetzal also originally believed Mammuthus thought the opposite because of what he wrote: They have neither poor genetic content nor have they lost genetic information. Mammuthus apparently confused a lot of people with that statement.

quote:

---

For that matter, any species that gains one useful allele by your definition has increased information in the gene pool.

---

By the definition I have submitted here for debate, yes! Do you have an example of a randomly produced allele that is beneficial to the population as a whole? In other words, do you have an example where the mutated population is clearly more viable than the wild-type population? I’ve seen one questionable example. Maybe you’ll stumble onto that paper and post it here. There was one admission in that paper that questions their claim. Subsequent mutated type generations produced smaller offspring. Their case was very weak (if requested I’ll look for the paper). Perhaps you may have a better example?With a complete definition of information, everyone knows evolution is impossible. Hence evolutionists reject a complete definition. So I have acquiesced for the sake of debate to use a watered-down version. I’m trying to spot you guys points. But you still can’t score. Wazz’s up with that? It’s really no fun arguing from a losing position, is it?

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL! You hang in there Mams. Don’t give in! Keep fighting! Preserve that ego! Why has not a single evolutionist come to your defense on this silly breach of logic you have made? Even if I totally caved and said I don’t believe non-random mutations occur, your point would still be either bogus or a strawman! Is this really that hard to figure out? What I believe about non-random mutations has nothing to do with your error. Please Mams, tell us how Monkenstick’s citation is evidence against non-random mutation. Answer this one request and perhaps it will solve the simple riddle that seems so elusive to you.

quote:

---

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...

---

Hi Mams. I wrote this a while ago for the trolls at the old OCW board: 404 Not Found While you are not a troll or classical evo-babbler, I do think you need to go out on a date or something.