Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 2 of 104 (22184)
11-11-2002 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-10-2002 7:17 PM


However, this is incorrect TB,
: Mamm Genome 2002 Aug;13(8):456-62 Related Articles, Links
Segmental paralogy in the human genome: a large-scale triplication on 1p, 6p, and 21q.
Strippoli P, D'Addabbo P, Lenzi L, Giannone S, Canaider S, Casadei R, Vitale L, Carinci P, Zannotti M.
Research Center for Molecular Genetics "Fondazione CARISBO" at the Institute of Histology and General Embryology, University of Bologna, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
Few cases of large-scale segmental paralogy have been reported in the human genome. We have identified a large (~500 kb) segment on human chromosome (HC) 21 (21q22) that is triplicated on HC 1 (1p35) and HC 6 (6p12-21). We also identified a new member of CLIC (Chloride Intracellular Channel) family on 21q, namely CLIC6. All three segments appear to include three functional members of three different gene families: DSCR1-like (Down Syndrome Candidate Region 1-like), CLIC, and AML/Runt (Acute Myeloid Leukemia/Runt). Molecular evolution analysis shows a common evolutionary origin for the triplicated regions. This finding of a further large-scale genomic triplication that went undetected at previously systematic automated searches provides a new model for gene divergence study and underlines the need for new tools to effectively detect inter-chromosomal similarity. An algorithm to overcome current limitations is proposed.
You are forgetting that there are subsequent duplications, changes in ploidy, and divergence of sequences subsequenlty and variably along different lineages. Evolution does not propose that the common ancestor contained all possible pathways that were then lost. What is maintained, generated anew, or lost will in large part be determined by the environment (selection) i.e. cave fish losing vision etc. and by drift.
TB:In this case it shows clearly that life is contructed of a mosaic of parts each for a specific purpose.
M: What then is that clear purpose and what is the testable hypothesis of this construction? How do you distinguish the constructed parts from those that arose by chance?
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-10-2002 7:17 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 5:45 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 11-20-2002 11:53 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 104 (22324)
11-12-2002 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
11-11-2002 5:45 PM


Hi TB,
Mammuthus
I never said that that there weren't, additionally, completely taxa-specific families & sub-families.
M: The usefulness of each is dependent on the niche that the organism occupies which I will get into more below.
TB:
However, there are huge amounts of sub-families mosaically spread across taxa that, becasue of the assumption of common descent, unambiguously imply the existence of primative common anscestors that embodied most of these within a single organism!
M: No that is not correct. The assumption is not that the common ancestor of all life contained each and every one of the protein families. I refer you to our "kinds" discussion for example where bacteria use hemoglobin for a completely different function than multicellular animals. Gene families will not necessarily coalesce to the common ancestor of all living things for similar reasons. Hox genes are an example, amphioxus only has one Hox cluster and mice four. The coalescence for the duplicates will not be in the common ancestor of mice and amphioxus but after the split. Amphioxus lacks the duplicates completely.....I have not had coffee this morning yet so if this last paragraph makes no sense to you let me know
TB:
These sub-families of paralogs have conserved specific funcitons in widely disparate extant life. Precisely becasue these sub-families (i) are still bioinformatically distinguishable (by sequence) and (ii) also have conserved specializations this implies primative common anscestors with fewer systems but more numeous sub-functions within those systems.
M: Except where duplications occur and the novel duplicates assume new functions. Then they become both functionally and at the sequence level divergent. I think you are falling into the trap of trying to equate species trees with gene trees.
TB:
This emerging mosaic distribution of families and sub-families is a strong arguemnet against common descent. I'm sure you have access to the full text of the TIBs paper - have a read.
M: I'll check it out. But mosaicism is hardly an argument against common descent. Cave salamanders have vestigial eyes but that does not argue against their being related to other salamanders.
TB:
It is the Cambrian Explosion for genes - I'll call it the 'Gene Family Explosion'.
M: An interesting idea but since we cannot get DNA from pre-Cambrian animals it is impossible to evaluate whether there was such an explosion or not.
By the way TB, I am glad to see you posting here again. I missed our "kinds" debate....and you do one heck of a scary accurate impression of Mr. McFall...I almost fell out of my chair laughing
Best wishes,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 5:45 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 104 (22474)
11-13-2002 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-10-2002 7:17 PM


Hi TB,
Here is an article that might be of interest to you on this topic..
cheers,
M
Genome Research Vol. 12, Issue 11, 1625-1641, November 2002
Structural Characterization of the Human Proteome
Arne Mller,1 Robert M. MacCallum,1,4 and Michael J.E. Sternberg1,2,3
1 Biomolecular Modelling Laboratory, Cancer Research UK, London, United Kingdom; 2 Department of Biological Sciences, Structural Bioinformatics Group, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, South Kensington, London, United Kingdom
This paper reports an analysis of the encoded proteins (the proteome) of the genomes of human, fly, worm, yeast, and representatives of bacteria and archaea in terms of the three-dimensional structures of their globular domains together with a general sequence-based study. We show that 39% of the human proteome can be assigned to known structures. We estimate that for 77% of the proteome, there is some functional annotation, but only 26% of the proteome can be assigned to standard sequence motifs that characterize function. Of the human protein sequences, 13% are transmembrane proteins, but only 3% of the residues in the proteome form membrane-spanning regions. There are substantial differences in the composition of globular domains of transmembrane proteins between the proteomes we have analyzed. Commonly occurring structural superfamilies are identified within the proteome. The frequencies of these superfamilies enable us to estimate that 98% of the human proteome evolved by domain duplication, with four of the 10 most duplicated superfamilies specific for multicellular organisms. The zinc-finger superfamily is massively duplicated in human compared to fly and worm, and occurrence of domains in repeats is more common in metazoa than in single cellular organisms. Structural superfamilies over- and underrepresented in human disease genes have been identified. Data and results can be downloaded and analyzed via web-based applications at Structural Bioinformatics Group - Imperial college London.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-10-2002 7:17 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 8:23 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 104 (22638)
11-14-2002 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Randy
11-13-2002 9:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
From Susumo Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Vol 93, No 16, 8475-78, August 6, 1996.
Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10 -9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions.

The paper continues:
quote:
Rather, it is more likely that all the animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities displayed by multitudes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes. This is the very reason for my proposal of the Cambrian pananimalia genome. This genome must have necessarily been related to those of Ediacarian predecessors, representing the phyla Porifera and Coelenterata, and possibly Annelida. Being related to the genome possessed by the first set of multicellular organisms to emerge on this earth, it had to be rather modest in size. It should be recalled that the genome of modern day tunicates, representing subphylum Urochordata, is made of 1.8 3 10 8 DNA base pairs, which amounts to only 6% of the mammalian genome (9).
PNAS is available online for free I think. I assume that is how I got it but I don't have time to find it right now. I just thought others would like to see what Ohno's interpretation of the Cambrian explosion is. I think there may be other explanations of the Cambrian "explosion" as well.
Randy

**********************
Oh Randy, you should know better than to post the entire quote in context...otherwise you will destroy Freddy Fred's poor arguements

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Randy, posted 11-13-2002 9:38 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 11:50 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 16 of 104 (22824)
11-15-2002 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 3:03 PM


FW:
Bottlenecks, subsequent drift, radiation events, all could account for considerable diversity among genomes within 5K years.
M: Bottlenecks and drift generate the genetic diversity we see today ??? LOL! Bottlenecks REDUCE diversity....you might actually want to learn the subject before you debate it. LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 3:03 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Fred Williams, posted 11-15-2002 6:22 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 20 of 104 (22989)
11-17-2002 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fred Williams
11-15-2002 6:22 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
FW:
Uh, Doc, please either return your hasbro PhD, or check carefully what I wrote.
M: Stick to changing lightbulbs...you clearly have no talent for anything else...but it is cute how jeleaous you are of Ph.D.s
FW:
Do you realize the vast number of dog breeds are essentially artificial bottlenecks? You find a trait you like, then you bottleneck a pair, and before long you have another dog breed.
M: And the resultant breed has less genetic variation than the original population..duh
FW:
But I see what you have done, and what your argument amounts to is a strawman. Your mind is locked into intra-species, I am thinking inter-species.
M: You set youself up Fred...you claimed that genetic bottlenecks result in genetic diversity...your own words...that your own words were wrong is your problem.
FW:
I agree that bottlenecks reduce the genetic diversity of the new, bottlenecked species (INTRA). For example, I suspect poodles have much less genetic diversity than wolves. Bye bye strawman.
M: So then why would there be more genetic diversity now than after your mythical flood 6000 years ago after all these bottlenecks occurred? Where is all that genetic diversity you claim would be resulting from all of the genetic bottlenecks?
FW:
But after various bottlenecks, the diversity of the original parent population, at least from a global perspective, has been realized (INTER).
M: Wrong, each bottlenecked group loses some portion of the greater original diversity...it is not sitting there static in wolves who are under selective pressures of their own. If everyone in Africa died tomorrow except for two people, the African population would have suffered a tremendous bottleneck and at the same time, the human gene pool would have lost a tremendous amount of genetic diversity...humanity would not have realized some genetic potential of the original (pre disaster) population as you are claiming.
FW:
In other words, if I saw a picture of the original two domestic dogs, then a picture showing many different dog breeds, I would conclude that the 2nd picture is a reflection of the genetic diversity of the dog. This diversity was the result of various bottlenecks and subsequent mutations.
M: You might actually want to read about the genetics of dog domestication before writing such a bozo paragraph as above...
FW:
Son’s birthday, gotta run
(I'll be back Monday and try to catch up...)
M: Take your time...you have tons of catching up to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fred Williams, posted 11-15-2002 6:22 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Fred Williams, posted 11-18-2002 6:51 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 21 of 104 (22990)
11-17-2002 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by derwood
11-15-2002 1:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
quote:
Bottlenecks, subsequent drift, radiation events, all could account for considerable diversity among genomes within 5K years.
Bottlenecks, now there’s an interesting point. Don’t bottlenecks show up in the genome of species that went through a bottleneck? Why don’t all species show evidence of a bottleneck about 5,000 years ago? You are claiming that the bottleneck was down to 2 of each kind (whatever that is). Why is there no genetic evidence of all these bottlenecks? Why don’t humans have more genetic diversity than most animals? Weren’t there supposed to be 8 humans and only two of each unclean kind on the ark? Humans should have more diversity in our species than the entire genus (or maybe family or at least Kind) of unclean Kinds. Does genetic analysis show this? I don’t think so. Why not?
Randy

I predict that this post will get no reply.
Certainly no substantive one...

===================
You won that bet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:35 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 11-17-2002 7:55 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 24 of 104 (23063)
11-18-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
11-17-2002 7:55 PM


PB:
1) According to the evolutionists paradigm it is expected to do certain observations. The evolutionists paradigm assumes common descent and according to their paradigm this must lead to bottlenecks in the case of the flood.
M: Actually, plain jane genetics demonstrates the effects of bottlenecks on genetic diversity. This is an observable fact experimentally and in nature...not some wishy washy religious paradigm like the truth of the bible or whatnot.
PB:
It is extremely important to note that one paradigm cannot be applied to the other. So, Randy's questions are invalid since he expects something from the one paradigm to be applicable for the other paradigm. They are, however, mutually exclusive and cannot be simultaneously applied.
M: Unfortunatley for your religious paradigm, there is no support from genetics. Thus, your paradigm does not merit consideration...unless you chose to come up with something that is ACTUALLY consistent with what is observed experimentally and in nature.
PB:
In the paradigm of the MPG such bottlenecks are less relevant, since all information is already present in the genome. Besides, mutations can be introduced rapidly through non-random (directed) mechanisms.
M: Unfortunatley, the evidence argues against all genetic information within a single genome...you still have never answered any of my posts regarding the consequences your idea would have for sexual reproduction There is also no evidence for non-random directed mutations...if there are please show the specific non-random mutations in the dataset supplied by SLPx.
PB:
2) The second problem is the DNA dating analysis [see my comments on mtDNA --> 10 mutations/62000 years in human, 24 in chimps (5-10.000.000 years) and 27 in neanderthaler (500.000 years), and see the ZFY region in human/primates].
M: You should read the neandertal paper again...the 27 differences are based on comparisons to a distribution of variation in humans. Since the first publication, there are two more neandertal sequences. 10 mutations in which chimps? Bart the chimp in my freezer? Actually your above statement really does not say anything...it says there is a problem with dating and then you supply no problem.
PB: In conclusion, DNA dating analysis are not accurate, and are probably not even valid. They are always calibrated subject paleontological data, and/or with respect to interspecies comparison.
M: It is irrelevant to the flood coalescence NECESITY. If ALL animals were reduced to a single breeding pair on Noah's Ark (LOL!) (not counting asexual and hermaphroditic organisms) ALL organisms should show a bottleneck of roughly equal magnitude. That is not observed...worldwide biblical flood falsified...you need to convert to a new religion ...I hear the Scientologists are always looking for new members...
PB:
The problem is: the evolutionary paradigm allows for interspecies comparison, while the MPG doesn't (for obvious reasons).
M: Because interspecies comparisons destroy your arguements or because you don't believe there are different species on Earth?
PB:
If for instance only WITHIN species comparisons are carried out we find completely distinct dates for human origin. That is the reason why evolutionists add 1 chimp sequence to 13 human sequences (ref: Nature 2000, vol408, p708-713.) Otherwise the data do NOT fit the evolutionary paradigm!
M: That is your own personal religious fundie paradigm...all it says is that the molecular clock is not accurate which hardly damages the fact of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 11-17-2002 7:55 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 11-18-2002 10:08 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 28 by peter borger, posted 11-18-2002 11:05 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 30 of 104 (23183)
11-19-2002 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Fred Williams
11-18-2002 6:51 PM


M: It is funny that in the post above you claim that all examples that require a substantive answer from you to support your claims you dismiss as irrelevant..and you wonder that people don't take you seriously....as to inablility to engineer retrotransposons...we do it all the time ...read up, learn, then debate.
FW:
I suspect most understand the point I am making, and I suspect you are one of them but are obfuscating with the aid of strawman arguments.
M: Definition of FW strawman: Any question Fred has to answer that he cannot.
FW:
It was asked how the diversity of life can be explained given a starting point of 5K years ago with some number of kinds of animals. I illustrated how bottlenecks and subsequent drift would easily account for some if not much of the diversity we see, and I provided dogs as an illustration.
M: Except that your proposal of dog domestication rests on an incorrect premise. Here is a molecular study on the subject and a releated one for domestication of horses. I don't know if you have access to the second or not.
Vila C, Leonard JA, Gotherstrom A, Marklund S, Sandberg K, Liden K, Wayne RK, Ellegren H.
Widespread origins of domestic horse lineages.
Science. 2001 Jan 19;291(5503):474-7.
Wayne RK, Ostrander EA. Related Articles, Links
Origin, genetic diversity, and genome structure of the domestic dog.
Bioessays. 1999 Mar;21(3):247-57. Review
FW:
I did not say the genome or the gene pool became more diverse. Its diversity was realized . A deck of cards contains some diverse number of different cards (13 in the case of a poker deck). By itself its diversity is not apparent or interesting. When you fan the cards out its diversity is realized, becoming both apparent and interesting.
M: You are making subjective and qualitative statements on what is interesting with regards to diversity...inbreeding does not release "captive" variation. A severe bottleneck would leave you with a four of hearts and no deck of cards...hardly "realized" diversity.
FW:
Bottlenecks in a sense help fan the cards because various traits can be amplified. Radiating a population would also fan the cards (or melt them ).
M: This is X files pseudo science babble and has no bearing on the reality of genetic bottlenecks. Bottlenecks leave you with one or two cards from the deck and at their most extreme..no cards i.e. extinction....
By the way, none of this helps explain why there is no evidence of bottlenecks in ALL species that would have to have occurred if the ark myth were true...yet another bible killer that you ignored.
FW:
Directed mutations (pre-programmed variation) would also fan the cards. Is this really that hard to understand?
M: Not hard to understand but it is a myth with no scientific support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Fred Williams, posted 11-18-2002 6:51 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 1:07 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 31 of 104 (23188)
11-19-2002 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by peter borger
11-18-2002 10:08 PM


PB: It has nothing to do with my own personal religious paradigm. And by the way you know nothing about my religious paradigms. Maybe I do not even have a religious paradigm. All I did is expose your religion as scientifically false.
M: Actually you have exposed your religious agenda on several occasions including references to the "nihlism" and "atheism" of evolution (both of which are false) and have stated on at least one occassion a belief in god. Your religious paradigm and your manner of debate reveal a typical conservative fundamentalist worldview...as to my religion..it is impossible for your to show it is false as I have no religion...I am an atheist after all
PB:
I studied almost all recent papers in Science and Nature on evolutionism and I know I've seen it through.
M: Funny that I have to constantly pull up references for you that you are unaware of including in Nature and Science after you say you have studied all the papers so thoroughly.
PB:
I know how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism.
M: Still angry that your paper was rejected?
PB:
It has, however, nothing in common with science (add one chimp to a couple of human sequences and voila, everything looks fine!!!).
M: Your views on science are hardly the standard by which all science is measured despite your ego and desire that they should be...and by the way, the chimp sequence is called an outgroup..I know all these unfamiliar scientific terms confuse you.
PB:
Now, you try to backpedal by questioning the validity if the genetic clock. I do not only question the validity of the clock, I question the paradigm of common descent in general.
M: I never backpedalled..I stated from the outset that I do not support the accuracy of a molecular clock and explained why...that you claim othewise is dishonest.
PB:
As I see it, evolutionism has fallen through molecular biology. Better believe it!
M: You are free to see floating green bananas with silicon breast implants floating before your eyes yelling "squeeze me" to...but since you fail to support you assertions with evidence I have no reason to believe it...if you could really find compelling evidence that required a paradigm shift I would be there right beside you cheering you on..but you have not.
PB:
By now, you should have convinced me that evolutionism is true.
M: I did not realize this game had a time limit LOL! I guess the quantum physics researchers better be shaking that you will come along and say convince me that the floating green banana is not responsible in 30 seconds or less or I will declare to the world that the banana is responsible for all observed phenomenon..and watch out world..when Peter declares something..well er...does something happen?
PB:
All you do is defend the old paradigm and rebut my new hypothesis.
M: I defend science and the scientific method and your hypothesis in its current form is not science and many of the tenets of your hypothesis are falsified.
PB:
It looks a lot like the up-side-down world.
M: Try standing on your feet instead of your head..it helps ..sorry, smart ass comment but I could not resist.
Again, I would reiterate the request that you show which of the mutations in SLPx alignment are non random. It seems like a golden opportunity to at least describe an example of this phenomenon you claim exists and at the very least would show precisely what your reasoning is for the assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 11-18-2002 10:08 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 11-19-2002 10:30 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 37 of 104 (23327)
11-20-2002 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by peter borger
11-19-2002 10:30 PM


PB: As mentioned before: "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, the theory of evolution is not one if them" (L. Spetner in Not by Chance).
M: I was an atheist long before I studied evolution...long before I studied biology at for that matter.
M: Funny that I have to constantly pull up references for you that you are unaware of including in Nature and Science after you say you have studied all the papers so thoroughly.
PB: you mean the papers that are always discussed subject to evolutionism? You know how I think about these discussions: Useless.
M: Funny, you were the one claiming that you use your keen insights to analyze the data yourself and not rely on the conclusions...now you have flip flopped and clearly state that you just ignore both data and arguments that refute your own....this must also be a tenet of the MPG...like creationism...all evidence against must be ignored...I think this is even a stipulation of working with ICR
PB: No, I am not. I was expecting it anyway. Try to get it in as a commentary to PNAS articles. It should be noted that your answer is not related to my remark, but anyway, I guess you like saying 'nothing'.
M: Doubt it will fly in PNAS..most of the commentaries are general reviews of a given subject for which a paper is appearing in the same issue...but good luck...if it does not work there you might try Current Biology or one of the Current Opinion's journals.
PB:
Here is black on white evidence of the evolutionists trick to get genetic data in accord with their theory. The mtDNA in anient human still conflict these data. The ancient human data on mtDNA in comparison with chimp demonstrate a common ancestor of human and chimp around 150.000 BP (or non-random mechanisms). The ZFY region demonstrated a very recent origin of mankind (0-800.000 BP). Also the above data would imply a recent origin of mankind. THEREFORE, the authors have to introduce ONE chimp sequence. That's the ONLY reason why they introduce the chimp, not because it is the out-group. It's just another TRICK. (I already showed the other trick of gene-tree/family-tree reconciliation). Very unscientific!!!
M: They publish a date of 5 Million and you claim 150,000..where is your number coming from? Which ancient human sequence in Nature? Since you don't cite the authors or the full reference I ended up in an X ray crystalography paper....As to ZFY giving a different coalescent time than mtDNA, I already dealt with this issue and you ignored it...the main tenet of MPG..ignore falsifications of MPG
Do you mean this one?
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 Jan 16;98(2):537-42 Related Articles, Links
Erratum in:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Jan 8;99(1):541
Comment in:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jan 16;98(2):390-1.
Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians: Implications for modern human origins.
Adcock GJ, Dennis ES, Easteal S, Huttley GA, Jermiin LS, Peacock WJ, Thorne A.
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies and John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.
DNA from ancient human remains provides perspectives on the origin of our species and the relationship between molecular and morphological variation. We report analysis of mtDNA from the remains of 10 ancient Australians. These include the morphologically gracile Lake Mungo 3 [ approximately 60 thousand years (ka) before present] and three other gracile individuals from Holocene deposits at Willandra Lakes (
PB: (Yes, I know that population genetics has been proven, but it is NOT evolutionism. Yes, I know that DNA can change over time, but it is not evolutionism. It is the MPG).
M: It might actually help if you demonstrated any knowledge of population genetics...and if you think your Xfiles pseudoscience MPG is population genetics it is laughable that you claim that population genetics has been proven as almost all tenets of your hypothesis go directly against the basis of transmission genetics.
PB:
Thats the difference. You cannot compare them. O yeah, now I see, YOU are allowed to compare them since evolutionists also compare chimp and man. Now I get your logics. We need new logics to understand evolutionism, I guess?
M: Sorry Peter, evolution IS population genetics over varying periods of time...tough crap for you
Funny that you are insulted by human chimp comparisons...kind of like your racist outburst against the Yanomamo.
PB: As shown above evolutionism has nothing to do with science. Making the data fit with a theory is NO science!! It is the up-side-down world! The MPG can be tested, and as demonstred is evne predicts properly. Evolutionism doesn't predict anything, it 'post-dicts'.
M: Acutally you have not shown anything in this post really. Data fits a theory or it does not and the thoery is revised or abandoned..which means MPG is screwed.
Present the tests for MPG...so far you cannot predict anything with it and how would you know what evolution predicts since as you have now revealed, you refuse to even read about it and actually learn what the theory is?
PB: Wish you really had some smart ass comments in stead of this meaningless response.
M: I figured I would flatter you by immitating your meaningless responses
M: Again, I would reiterate the request that you show which of the mutations in SLPx alignment are non random. It seems like a golden opportunity to at least describe an example of this phenomenon you claim exists and at the very least would show precisely what your reasoning is for the assertion.
PB: Where do you think I propose the non-random mutations?
M: You tell me, it is your proposal after all.
PB:
The aligned mutations, of course. THEY will give the assumption of common descent, not the other ones. This should be obvious. As promised I will have a close look at the presented sequences and discuss it in detail (next months or so)
M: If it is so obvious then show us...saying They...not the other ones is so completely meaningless that I start to think you are joking. And if it is so obvious why do you need months to even show 1 freaking non-random mutation from SLPx alignment?..hint...because you cannot...prove me wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 11-19-2002 10:30 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 4:59 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 39 of 104 (23347)
11-20-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by peter borger
11-20-2002 4:59 AM


PB: Apparently you didn’t understand the above sentence. It means that since evolutionism can be demonstrated to be false, atheists do not have a religion anymore.
M: Atheists don't have a religion to begin with...and if you think all atheists are evolutionists you are really naive.
M: Funny, you were the one claiming that you use your keen insights to analyze the data yourself and not rely on the conclusions...now you have flip flopped and clearly state that you just ignore both data and arguments that refute your own....this must also be a tenet of the MPG...like creationism...all evidence against must be ignored...I think this is even a stipulation of working with ICR
PB: You response it a bit vague. What do you mean? All I say is that I can analyse data by myself, and I don’t need the evolutionist’s interpretation and conclusions. That still stands and has nothing to do with the MPG.
M: You claimed you had no need to read any of the papers I cited because you a priori disagree with the papers. Sort of like fundies who protest against movies without actually ever having seen them...since you claim you can analyze the data yourself, it should not matter what conclusions the authors draw...you should be able to read the cited paper, access the data and support you case..you have not.
M: Doubt it will fly in PNAS..most of the commentaries are general reviews of a given subject for which a paper is appearing in the same issue...but good luck...if it does not work there you might try Current Biology or one of the Current Opinion's journals.
PB: I’ve sent it as a commentary.
M: Good luck.
M: They publish a date of 5 Million and you claim 150,000. where is your number coming from? Which ancient human sequence in Nature? Since you don't cite the authors or the full reference I ended up in an X ray crystalography paper....As to ZFY giving a different coalescent time than mtDNA, I already dealt with this issue and you ignored it...the main tenet of MPG..ignore falsifications of MPG
PB: Mammuthus are you serious here, or deliberately obtuse, or not reading my mails, or of short memory? The data in the ancient mtDNA paper demonstrate a common ancestor for chimp and hman around 150.000 BP. The data in Nature are only in accord with evolutionism by addition of ONE chimp sequence. Read the articles!! Find out for yourself.
M: It is you who is obtuse Peter...the paper says nothing about the common ancestor of human and chimp...it is about the most recent common ancestor of humans.
"Although this analysis did not reliably establish an early divergence of the LM3/Insert lineage, it demonstrated that the lineage is unusually long. We confirmed the latter conclusion by comparing the distribution of pairwise differences between the LM3 and 3,453 contemporary human mtDNA sequences, the distribution between the Insert sequence and the same sample of contemporary sequences, and the distribution of differences among the 3,453 contemporary sequences (Fig. 2A). The range of differences between the LM3 sequence and the contemporary sequences (6-21, mode = 12) is at the upper end of the range of differences among contemporary sequences (0-23, mode = 6). The range of differences between the Insert sequence and the contemporary sequences (16-28, mode = 21) extends well beyond the range of differences among contemporary sequences, indicating either that the Insert has evolved faster than sequences in the mitochondrial genome or that the LM3/Insert lineage diverged earlier. The first possibility is unlikely because in mammals the nuclear genome evolves much more slowly that the mitochondrial genome, and because a high rate of substitution at the Insert locus would be associated with a high level of sequence diversity within human populations, which is not observed (49). There is also no indication of an accelerated rate of evolution in other nuclear genome inserts from the mitochondrial genome (57). The more likely explanation is that the lineage leading to the Insert and LM3 sequences diverged before the MRCA of living human mtDNA sequences."
A view of Neandertal genetic diversity
M Krings, C Capelli, F Tschentscher, H Geisert, S Meyer, A von Haeseler, K Grossschmidt, G Possnert, M Paunovic & S Pbo
Nature Genetics 26, 144 - 146 (2000).
PB: No, but thanks for this refernce. From this reference even more dramatic differences between human and Neanderthaler is observed. Far more than between human and chimp!!
The sequences from the two Neandertals differ from those of 663 modern humans sampled from all areas of the world by 34+/- 4 substitutions and by an insertion of an adenosine residue shared by the two Neandertals. They are not closer to 472 contemporary mtDNAs in Europe (35.32.1, range 29—43), the area where they existed until approximately 30,000 years ago, than to, for example, 151 African (33.92.8, range 28—42) or 41 Asian mtDNAs (33.52.1, range 29—38).
LOL...where is the chimp in this example? The pairwise distribution of humans versus chimps do not even overlap!...oh, and didnt you claim you read all Nature and Science articles on evolution? Yet you miss a prominent Nature Genetics article on neandertal's?...glad you are so thorough.
PB:
So, please explain how you see the evolutionary clock. In my opinion these are clear cut falsifications of common descent. You can of course always introduce NON-Random Mutations.
M: What does this have to do with evolutionary clocks? Your opinion is irrelevant since the data does not support your opinion.
PB: To keep up an appearance is very unscientific. If data do not support the MPG hypothesis I would admit it. I am a scientists, I let data speak. Not the other way around.
M: Ok, so support non-random evolution or any other tenet of your MPG or admit that you cannot. Presented with SLPx alignment you could not even show one example of "obvious" non random mutation. Your other examples have been clear lack of any knowledge of pop. gen or totally not even bothering to read the papers you cite yourself.
M: Then Peter you are a liar. I claimed I do not believe molecular clocks are accurate. I provided references on the controversy surrounding using dates from molecular clocks as accurate. I also explained how this has no impact on evolutionary theory. That you go into a hissy fit about what data is produced where and how and claim that I am claiming something other than the above regarding clocks shows again that your arguments have failed and you have no alternative but to make arguments that I did not use to support your unsupportable position..pathetic.
PB: So, now I am a liar. A racistic liar, I guess. Dear Mammuthus, why do you have to be so personal?
If you do not believe in molecular clocks, than even the alignment of shared mutations may be due to a different mechanisms than common descent. It may be non-random mutations.
M: You are a liar because on this issue you constantly and purposefully attibute claims to me which I did not make. Your comments on the Yanomamo were stupid at best, racist at worst.
Do you even know what a molecular clock is? From your question it is clear you do not.
M: And all of these organisms have been returned to the wild to see if they have reduced fitness...doubt it..and you still don't understand fitness or population genetics...Borger fallacy 1000 falsified again...kaching!
PB: I don’t see the link. Please elaborate.
M: LOL!!! That is the problem...that you 1) don't know what fitness is 2) don't see the link is exactly the problem.
PB: You are free to see the one organism floating into the other. I guess you buy yourself a couple of these nice computerized animations that demonstrate the non-existing transitions fluently.
M: Somehow poetic...incomprehensible but poetic
PB: So you agree?
M: Agree with something incomprehensible...no...just said it was poetic A bit drug induced sounding...but poetic.
M: Ok show me the "proof" of quantum physics...
PB: Ask a physic, computer designer, chip technologist.
M: You made the claim..you "prove" quantum physics...or "prove" the theory of gravity....or suddenly you are relying on what a phyiscist tells you because you don't understand it? You claim to be the brilliant super skeptic who can analyze the data and find the truth...prove it hotshot.
M: It might actually help if you demonstrated any knowledge of population genetics...and if you think your Xfiles pseudoscience MPG is population genetics it is laughable that you claim that population genetics has been proven as almost all tenets of your hypothesis go directly against the basis of transmission genetics.
PB: Disciplines NOT supported by contemporary science are indeed pseudosciences. I agree.
According to this criterion evolutionism is pseudo-science.
M: Oh you mean like that real science like "creationism" or "flood" mythology LOL! It is clear you don't actually know the difference between science and pseudoscience.
M: Sorry Peter, evolution IS population genetics over varying periods of time...tough crap for you
PB: You try it again Mammuthus. But you know that it is NOT accepted as evolution. Nothing evolved here. It is actually part of the MPG hypothesis.
M: Keep dreaming Peter...ignorance is your bliss.
M: Funny that you are insulted by human chimp comparisons...kind of like your racist outburst against the Yanomamo.
PB: You are getting personal, Mammuthus. Please keep it scientific.
M: I did not call the Yanomamo the "rape and run indians"....not personal...just a "data supported observation".
M: Acutally you have not shown anything in this post really. Data fits a theory or it does not and the thoery is revised or abandoned..which means MPG is screwed.
PB: Actually, you don’t read my mails or you don’t understand my mails. Or you are deliberately distorting the content of my mails. More fallacies and denial.
M: I read your mails..I actually answer all your posts unlike you. What am I distorting?
PB: I already did that and there is a tremendous amount of data fitting the MPG, not fitting evolutionism. Read what the MPG hypothesis holds and predicts. Letter #1.
M: Already been there...and conveniently, many of my responses falsifying MPG went unanswered...Quetzal's to.
M: Again, I would reiterate the request that you show which of the mutations in SLPx alignment are non random. It seems like a golden opportunity to at least describe an example of this phenomenon you claim exists and at the very least would show precisely what your reasoning is for the assertion.
PB: Where do you think I propose the non-random mutations?
M: You tell me, it is your proposal after all.
PB:
The aligned mutations, of course. THEY will give the assumption of common descent, not the other ones. This should be obvious. As promised I will have a close look at the presented sequences and discuss it in detail (next months or so)
M: If it is so obvious then show us...saying They...not the other ones is so completely meaningless that I start to think you are joking. And if it is so obvious why do you need months to even show 1 freaking non-random mutation from SLPx alignment?..hint...because you cannot...prove me wrong
PB: I will discuss this example in detail both in an evolutionary fashion and a MPG interpretation. I am not in a hurry. This board will be around for ages I guess. It will slowly evolve in a pro-creationism board.
M: Aha, so your "obvious" example requires a huge effort that could take ages? considering how much you blather about non-random mutations I would assume you would be rabidly jumping up and down to show me and SLPx and the others that you are right and we are wrong...yet, this "obvious" phenomenon is not forthcoming any time soon from a data set supplied for you? Answer: there are no non-random mutations in SLPx data set.
As to this site "evolving" into a pro-creation board...only if they employ the favorite creationist board tactic which is to ban anyone who is not a creationist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 4:59 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 10:37 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 42 of 104 (23465)
11-21-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by peter borger
11-20-2002 10:37 PM


PB: Atheists religion = evolutionism. That's why you are the most fanatic defender. Dear Mammuthus, maybe you didn't get it, but I attack you religion.
M: This statement says a lot about you Peter . First, besides your complete lack of knowledge about population genetics, evolution, and swathes of basic molecular biology, you also clearly have no clue about what atheism actually is. If you desire to claim it is a religion then you have to supply the "proof" that all atheists are evolutionists and that all atheists are part of an organized religion.....have fun trying
PB: You response it a bit vague. What do you mean? All I say is that I can analyse data by myself, and I don’t need the evolutionist’s interpretation and conclusions. That still stands and has nothing to do with the MPG.
M: You claim that you don't need to read the papers because you a priori dismiss anything population geneticists or evolutionary biologists say...however, you have also claimed you can brilliantly take the underlying data from papers and analyze it yourself and support the Miles Per Gallon theory. You are being inconsistent..you dismiss the papers and the underlying data and just say bla bla bla...you were even provided with a dataset from SLPx to attempt to support your non-random mutation nonesense but have ducked the issue entirely.
PB: I read these papers and I already know the discussion. Actually, they are no discussions --as we do discussion-- they are just-so stories.
M: Then why did you not get the underlying data, either by requesting it or by downloading it and then analyze it yourself..I mean, if you are such a thorough brilliant and committed research this is obviously the first thing you would do if you think a paper is wrong?
M: They publish a date of 5 Million and you claim 150,000. where is your number coming from? Which ancient human sequence in Nature? Since you don't cite the authors or the full reference I ended up in an X ray crystalography paper....As to ZFY giving a different coalescent time than mtDNA, I already dealt with this issue and you ignored it...the main tenet of MPG..ignore falsifications of MPG
PB: Mammuthus are you serious here, or deliberately obtuse, or not reading my mails, or of short memory? The data in the ancient mtDNA paper demonstrate a common ancestor for chimp and hman around 150.000 BP. The data in Nature are only in accord with evolutionism by addition of ONE chimp sequence. Read the articles!! Find out for yourself.
M: It is you who is obtuse Peter...the paper says nothing about the common ancestor of human and chimp...it is about the most recent common ancestor of humans.
PB: Drawing conclusions from data that are published but not discussed is not allowed in evolutionism? Why? You think that only if a paper says something than it is accepted as fact? Sometimes papers show much more than discussed, Especially papers on evolutionary topics. What I can see in the PNAS data (Adcock et al) --that are not discussed-- is that if modern and ancient (62 kyr BP) human differ in 10 positions, and chimp and modern human differ in 24 positions the common ancestor of both is around 150 kyr BP. Like wise, modern human and Neanderthal differ in 27 positions, and thus a common ancestor around the same time). There is not even a rudimentary clock to be found in this example.
M: Ah, just as I thought..you pulled the number out of your butt and attributed it to the authors...and you might actually want to read what the differences actually are between neandertal and modern human
M: Although this analysis did not reliably establish an early divergence of the LM3/Insert lineage, it demonstrated that the lineage is unusually long. We confirmed the latter conclusion by comparing the distribution of pairwise differences between the LM3 and 3,453 contemporary human mtDNA sequences, the distribution between the Insert sequence and the same sample of contemporary sequences, and the distribution of differences among the 3,453 contemporary sequences (Fig. 2A). The range of differences between the LM3 sequence and the contemporary sequences (6-21, mode = 12) is at the upper end of the range of differences among contemporary sequences (0-23, mode = 6). The range of differences between the Insert sequence and the contemporary sequences (16-28, mode = 21) extends well beyond the range of differences among contemporary sequences, indicating either that the Insert has evolved faster than sequences in the mitochondrial genome or that the LM3/Insert lineage diverged earlier. The first possibility is unlikely because in mammals the nuclear genome evolves much more slowly that the mitochondrial genome, and because a high rate of substitution at the Insert locus would be associated with a high level of sequence diversity within human populations, which is not observed (49). There is also no indication of an accelerated rate of evolution in other nuclear genome inserts from the mitochondrial genome (57). The more likely explanation is that the lineage leading to the Insert and LM3 sequences diverged before the MRCA of living human mtDNA sequences."
PB: What does the above quote refer to? If it demonstrates something is that genetic differences in mtDNA doesn't say anything about evolutionism, common descent or whatsoever. It merely demonstrates that one can NOT use such sequences to do evolutionism related research.
M: I posted it because this is where you claimed to be getting a human chimp divergence of 150 K...And it actually addresses my criticism of the paper which is that they sequenced a modern nuclear insert contamination from Mungo lake and not an ancient mtDNA sequences..it is still possible to do an interesting study of human evolution despite this possibility, but it affects the conclusions drawn...but you would not know that.
A view of Neandertal genetic diversity
M Krings, C Capelli, F Tschentscher, H Geisert, S Meyer, A von Haeseler, K Grossschmidt, G Possnert, M Paunovic & S Pbo
Nature Genetics 26, 144 - 146 (2000).
PB: No, but thanks for this refernce. From this reference even more dramatic differences between human and Neanderthaler is observed. Far more than between human and chimp!!
The sequences from the two Neandertals differ from those of 663 modern humans sampled from all areas of the world by 34+/- 4 substitutions and by an insertion of an adenosine residue shared by the two Neandertals. They are not closer to 472 contemporary mtDNAs in Europe (35.32.1, range 29—43), the area where they existed until approximately 30,000 years ago, than to, for example, 151 African (33.92.8, range 28—42) or 41 Asian mtDNAs (33.52.1, range 29—38).
M: LOL...where is the chimp in this example? The pairwise distribution of humans versus chimps do not even overlap!...oh, and didnt you claim you read all Nature and Science articles on evolution? Yet you miss a prominent Nature Genetics article on neandertal's?...glad you are so thorough.
PB: The chimp sequence can be found in the PNAS article (Adcock et al, PNAS 2001, 98:537-42). It demonstrates 24 differences with respect to the human reference. Your reference demonstrates 34+/-4 differences between human and neanderthal. So, the Neanderthal split off before chimp and human split off? How do you interpret this? [And, yes, I missed this one.]
M: Yes, you did miss this one completely...Krings did a pairwise comparison of humans versus neandertal (at the time only 1), human verusus chimp, and chimp versus neandertal...Homo does not overlap with chimp...neandertal and human overlap very slightly at the most extreme end of the modern human pairwise difference range...
M: What does this have to do with evolutionary clocks? Your opinion is irrelevant since the data does not support your opinion.
PB: As explained above, it does. Please explain why Neanderthal demonstrates far more differences than chimp in comparison to man.
M: Read all the neandertal papers and save me the time...there are only 5 or so.
PB: To keep up an appearance is very unscientific. If data do not support the MPG hypothesis I would admit it. I am a scientists, I let data speak. Not the other way around.
M: Ok, so support non-random evolution or any other tenet of your MPG or admit that you cannot.
PB: the data on the papers we are currently dscussing support a non-random mechanism, not a mechanism that is determined by random mutation alone. If random mutation was all there is, than it was expected that Neanderthal was an intermediate between chimp and man, not the other way around. I mean, now we see chimp as an intermediate between Neanderthal and man. I think, no evolutionist would agree to that.
M: Well if you make up conclusions and divergence dates and attribute it to authors that did not make the claims...then you have a nice talent for lying and building strawmen...in addition you just falsified this "If data do not support the MPG hypothesis I would admit it. I am a scientists, I let data speak. Not the other way around."
PB: I demonstrated two examples. Our problem is that you don't accept them as non-random mutations.
M: You did not support you claim so I did not accept it...and nobody with a degree in biology will either unless they suffer a severe head trauma....or even more catastrophic for the brain..become creationists.
PB:
Probably, the Neanderthalers repair mechanisms were so degenerate, a phenomenon reflected in more differences compared to man than chimp, and therefore it died out.
M: Wow, and plants have even more differences...all those poor dying out degenerate organisms....you should hope you are re-incarnated as a bacteria...they are the most successful group of organisms on the planet...you will be uplifted out of your degeneracy by living in some poor degenerate humans colon as an E.coli...or praise the morphogenetic creaton field!
M: You are a liar because on this issue you constantly and purposefully attibute claims to me which I did not make. Your comments on the Yanomamo were stupid at best, racist at worst.
PB: I didn't do that. Sometimes I draw an obvious evolutionary concluson from presented data, and wait for your response: Whether you agree or not. I like to have YOUR opinion on the topic, not the opinion of another evolutionary reference. I know their opinions. I am interested in your opinion. That's all.
M: If that were the case I would not mind...but don't attribute things to me that I did not say...there is a difference.
PB: If you think so, please explain what a molecular clock is.
M: I gave you an Ayala reference on the subject that should suffice...here are a couple more
Gojobori T, Moriyama EN, Kimura M.
Molecular clock of viral evolution, and the neutral theory.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Dec;87(24):10015-8.
Ayala FJ, Barrio E, Kwiatowski J.
Molecular clock or erratic evolution? A tale of two genes.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 15;93(21):11729-34.
M: And all of these organisms have been returned to the wild to see if they have reduced fitness...doubt it..and you still don't understand fitness or population genetics...Borger fallacy 1000 falsified again...kaching!
PB: I don’t see the link. Please elaborate.
M: LOL!!! That is the problem...that you 1) don't know what fitness is 2) don't see the link is exactly the problem.
PB: If you think so, please explain what 1) fitness is, 2) the link.
M: In the context of this discussion knocking out a gene without lethality does not constitute lack of selection. If that genotype is returned to the wild it could have either a reduced or an increased fitness relative to its competitors in its environment. Survival in the lab says nothing about the relative fitness of the organism...remember all those papers I cited for you on hybrid zones? Similar problem.
M: Agree with something incomprehensible...no...just said it was poetic A bit drug induced sounding...but poetic.
PB: Never seen these animations on dinosaurs? Bob Bakker shows them all the time on telly. How the one kind transforms into the other kind via non-existing transition forms.
M: Barney and the teletubbies are on tv to...your point?
M: Ok show me the "proof" of quantum physics...
PB: Ask a physic, computer designer, chip technologist.
M: You made the claim..you "prove" quantum physics...or "prove" the theory of gravity....or suddenly you are relying on what a phyiscist tells you because you don't understand it? You claim to be the brilliant super skeptic who can analyze the data and find the truth...prove it hotshot.
PB: The fact that you are mailing on line with a guy in Australia via a computer is proof of quantum mechanics. For you it is also proof of evolutionism, I know.
M: That is a non-answer Peter. And entirely inconsistent of you...if your criteria for proof of quantum mechanics is that computers exist or "ask a physicist" (which are both based on belief rather than science at the level you are claiming) then why suddenly the switch when it comes to evolution? I suspect it is because it conflicts with your religious views whereas you can blindly accept quantum mechanics without threatening those views....or are you now going to run all the "proof" for quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity for me? I mean after all...it is just a bunch of dumb "scientists" in labs making inferences and making up stories to explain the data that they indirectly gathered..which you and Fred claims falsifies evolution.
PB: My X-files are backed up by science, your X-files aren't. They are backed up by stories published in peer reviewed papers. It doesn't make them more scientific.
M: So not being taking seriously by the scientific establishment in multiple fields makes creationism equal scientifically? Great..we should then all wear pyramids on our heads and channel the spirit of Andy Kaufman in his pro wrestling days since obviously this is just as valid as actually being sane.
PB: Disciplines NOT supported by contemporary science are indeed pseudosciences. I agree.
According to this criterion evolutionism is pseudo-science.
M: Oh you mean like that real science like "creationism" or "flood" mythology LOL! It is clear you don't actually know the difference between science and pseudoscience.
PB: I know the differnce, and I will admit when the MPG cannot hold
in the light of scientific observations. That makes me a scientist. You never admit when evolutionism cannot hold. You need evolutionism for your worldview.
M: Then define the difference for us...and that you state you will admit when the MPG cannot hold is hardly imagninable since you claim SLPx alignment is full of obvious non-random mutations that you somehow cannot demonstrate by pointing to even one..when are you going to admit that you cannot do that?...hardly seems like you are scientist....you need a creator myth to make it through the day..how does that make you a scientist?
M: Sorry Peter, evolution IS population genetics over varying periods of time...tough crap for you
PB: You try it again Mammuthus. But you know that it is NOT accepted as evolution. Nothing evolved here. It is actually part of the MPG hypothesis.
M: Keep dreaming Peter...ignorance is your bliss.
PB: That how evolutionist keep up the appearance. By using completely wrong definitions.
M: We use wrong definitions? Re-read some of your own posts..LOL!!!
Dear Mammuthus, population genetics deals with GENES that are already present in the POPULATION. That's why it is called POPULATION GENETICS. The GENES of a POPULATION. Rings a bell?
M: And evolution does to...ring a bell...well er obviouly not since you refuse to read papers that deal with evolution on the grounds that they deal with evolution....LOL!
PB:
Evolutionism should be concerned with the origin of genes.
That what is has promised mankind: to provide an explanation for the origin of all life forms, including genes and genetic programs. It has been demonstrated over the years that evolutionism can't do that. Promises promises, nothing but promises.
M: Well, I see you never read Darwin either LOL! And research of origins is called abiogenesis...say it out loud Peter..abiogenesis
Darwin dealt exclusively with existing species and speciation...not with the origin of life. You should at least get your concepts straight.
M: I did not call the Yanomamo the "rape and run indians"....not personal...just a "data supported observation".
PB: I didn't call them "rape and run indians" either. I said, [quote] "you mean the rape an run cultural thing of the yanomani indians". That is what these indians do. It is a cultural thing. As soon as the lawfull husband leaves town, the other men in town rape the woman. It is an observation, and has nothing to do with racism. Do you know what racism means? Apparently not.
According to the Oxford Dictinary,
racism: 1) a belief in superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on race, 2) the belief that human abilities are determined by race.
Neither of these definitions fit my previous statements on the Yanomani. I could demand for an apology, but I am not childish. I forgive you your mistake without conditions.
M: LOL! apology not forthcoming...lawful husband among yanomamo? You should read Chagnon before commenting on their social practices
And you should vehemently disagree with definition 2 from the Oxford dictionary...race cannot exist in the MPG since all similarities among individuals are an illusion of relatedness and obviously one person should be no more similar to another than to a tomato..genetically at least.
M: I read your mails..I actually answer all your posts unlike you. What am I distorting?
PB: Yes, you provide a rebuttal to most of my posts. Usually, quite readable, sometimes delibately obtuse. Often, pretending not to understand the MPG, or making a strawman out of it and attack that For instance, you often refer to the MPG as non-random mutations. However, it has nothing to do with non-random mutations. In letter #1 I stated that in conjunction with non-random mutations MPG is able to explain ALL biological phenomena.
M: So now you claim that non-random mutations are not a part of the MPG? Are you withdrawing this criterion now? ..and just a side thought...if it can explain ALL biological phenomenon...how does it account for Creutzfeld Jakob Disease?
M: Already been there...and conveniently, many of my responses falsifying MPG went unanswered...Quetzal's to.
PB: No, all substantial responses have been addressed.
M: You can declare questions (or even entire threads) unsubstantial but that we either asked questions that throw your entire hypothesis into disarray or falify portions of it and you wave them away without a response hardly argues for MPG...but no, I don't expect you to answer EVERY post I make..particlarly when I make ironic posts...though I notice you rarely let those go unaddressed
Regarding SLPx alignment
PB: I will discuss this example in detail both in an evolutionary fashion and a MPG interpretation. I am not in a hurry. This board will be around for ages I guess. It will slowly evolve in a pro-creationism board.
M: Aha, so your "obvious" example requires a huge effort that could take ages? considering how much you blather about non-random mutations I would assume you would be rabidly jumping up and down to show me and SLPx and the others that you are right and we are wrong...yet, this "obvious" phenomenon is not forthcoming any time soon from a data set supplied for you? Answer: there are no non-random mutations in SLPx data set.
PB: Apparently you didn't have a look at Dr Page's data set. There are both random and non-random sites. The non-random mutations are the mutations you take as evidence for common descent. The random mutations are scattered. As obvious as that.
M: Yes I looked at it...I hope you are joking...so your answer is the non-random mutations are those over there..not the other ones? LOL!!!! My answer then is that the one over there (right there look closely) is random...show that I am wrong
I was hoping you would actually make a real effort to demonstrate this but you obviously have no such intention.
M: As to this site "evolving" into a pro-creation board...only if they employ the favorite creationist board tactic which is to ban anyone who is not a creationist.
PB: So you do not exclude the possibility?
M: I don't exclude the possiblity that Percy or the other Admin's go completely insane...I think it unlikey but I don't exclude the possibility. Would you consider that a good thing? What would it prove? A board where all evolutionists are banned from posting so that you only read creationist drivel without any opposition (well other than all the creationists who can't even agree with each other)? You know, such boards already exist...try Terry's Talkorigins board for example...you could even start your own, anyone who posts support for evolution will be banned and their post edited by you to support creationism...sounds like profound comedy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 10:37 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 60 of 104 (23648)
11-22-2002 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 1:07 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
M: It is funny that in the post above you claim that all examples that require a substantive answer from you to support your claims you dismiss as irrelevant..and you wonder that people don't take you seriously....as to inablility to engineer retrotransposons...we do it all the time ...read up, learn, then debate.
Don’t worry Mams I stopped taking you seriously after your debacle with your random mutation strawman (even the posts’ originator realized his error; only you remain a lone hold-out to your incredible illogic).
M: LOL! Nobody here takes you serious keyboard monkey You are a dim wit by even YEC standards...my random mutation "strawman" was to ask you to provide evidence for non-random mutations...but of course you have to call that a strawman because actually supporting your moronic assertions are impossible.
FW:
As I have always stated, the resulting bottlenecked population has indeed likely lost genetic information from the parent population. It took several posts before you would come right out and agree with this after you had originally claimed cheetahs had not suffered genetic loss (BTW, in case you missed it, I also provided per your request a reference from a researcher who agrees that cheetahs likely have lost genetic segments).
M: Hey stupido...actually read what I wrote before embarrassing yourself even further...YOU have not ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE (look that word up Fred, you don't know what it means) that Cheetah's today are 1) a different species from cheetah's pre-bottleneck 2) that they are missing whole segments of their genomes relative to others...you can stick you thum in you ear and keep re-iterating your nonesense but it is not becoming anymore compelling.
FW:
What you refuse to understand is this vein of the argument is that the entire deck of cards still exists as long as the parent population still exists. Bottlenecking a portion of that population, and subjecting it to subsequent selection may cause some diversity to be realized, not created.
M: LOL!!!!!! The cheetah's were down to one or two breeding pairs...the entire deck of cards was almost gone...same with elephant seals....You are playing without a full deck Fred.
FW:
Wow, big Bible-killer. See my post to Quetzal. To summarize, there are 23K species that would have been required to originate on the ark. Creationist estimates the total number of kinds to be around 16-18K (I apologize for my previous 30K number, I’m not sure where I saw that). That means roughly 1.3 species per kind is all that is needed in 4K years.
M: Though others have trounced this argument before I even logged on today....evidence for an Ark? What about all the extinct animals...you were wrong in your numbers of numbers of species for every group you posted so why would anyone take your estimates seriously? And last but not least...you did not answer the question..why don't ALL (not some not most) but ALL species on Earth evidence of a genetic bottleneck 6Kya?..Bible dead (if you are silly enough to take it literally).
FW:
BTW, some day when you get a job perhaps you might realize the difference between "ignore" and "lack of time".
M: I have two appointments..and niether of them involves changing lightbulbs or playing keyboard as a lounge act at the Holiday Inn. And if you don't have the time to support you stupid statements then keep yer trap shut.
FW:
One of the refreshing things about this board is that I've found that most of the evolutionist requlars here realize the difference.
M: Hmmm from the posts before mine most seem to indicate they think you don't know what you are talking about either.
FW:
Why do you have trouble with this? Taking in too much of Page's canned rhetoric? Perhaps you too have less faith in your arguments, and thus turn to such empty complaints? Just checking.
M: LOL! The absurdity of your unsupported assertions, handwaving, and X-files induced pseudoscience speculation only re-enforces my "faith" in my own arguments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 1:07 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:10 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 61 of 104 (23649)
11-22-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 12:38 PM


FW:
It is obvious you do not know what realize means, and it has led you to erect a strawman. You guys are on a role on this board with these assemblages of straw. I also did not say dog diversity was fully realized via breeding (which I pointed out emulates bottlenecks). In fact I completely agree with your sentence above (beginning at they remain, of course).
M: It is obvious that you are so profoundly ignorant of population genetics and science in general that you have to make up meaningless terms like "realize" genetic potential via bottlenecks....and from the rest of your post on this subject it is also clear you don't know the difference between a genetic bottleneck and a founder event....you should be a standup comedian Fred...you are a laugher...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 12:38 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024