Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:46 AM
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 104 (22137)
11-10-2002 7:17 PM


Although the supposed common anscestor of fungi, worms, flies and humans had far fewer systems than humans these systems were often (i) more complex and (ii) contained the components that seperately distinguish various higher taxa!

This is a genomic comparison result based on the study of one of the largest superfamilies of proteins (kinases):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12368087&dopt=Abstract

Evolution of protein kinase signaling from yeast to man.
Manning G, Plowman G, Hunter T, Sudarsanam S. Trends Biochem Sci 2002 Oct;27(10):514

The point is that the 209 sub-families of kinases are distributed throughout life in a 'mosaic'. Some are shared by humans and flies, some by humans and worms, some by worms and flies, some by humans and yeast, some by flies and yeast and so on. It turns out that many of these families must have existed in the sub-yeast common ancestor of all of these organisms and almost all in an organism as simple as the worm. Not only that this supposed common anscestor would have had more kinase sub-families than other more complex organisms.

These kinases sub-families all do refined jobs in organisms and the fact that they are still separateable suggests that they did those same jobs in the simple organism. So evolution suggests that simple organisms had more complex systems than animals alive today and that todays systems are due to a differnetial picking and choosing of components from a vast array in a simple organism.

As I have predicted genomics will continue to show the utter ridiculousness of macroevoltuion. In this case it shows clearly that life is contructed of a mosaic of parts each for a specific purpose. The concept of common descent requires most of these to have arrived in hypothetical simple systems first becasue of the mosaic distributioon of them in higher life forms. Creation is a far, far better explanation of this mosaic distribution of job-specific protein sub-families.

Common descent can be made to be compatible with anything becasue when you find that A and B have some uniquely shared sytems you simply propose that it was present in a hypothetical common anscestor and has been since lost in every other line. Sounds sensible except that the common ansecstor before that needs to have things that are in other branches as well. Everything is answerable by a hypothetical 'simpler organism' that was actually more complex. When genomics comes into play we see how ridiclous this turns out to be.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-10-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 11-11-2002 6:10 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-13-2002 10:23 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4640 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 responded

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

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 104 (22282)
11-11-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mammuthus
11-11-2002 6:10 AM


Mammuthus

I never said that that there weren't, additionally, completely taxa-specific families & sub-families.

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!

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.

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.

It is the Cambrian Explosion for genes - I'll call it the 'Gene Family Explosion'.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 11-11-2002 6:10 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2002 4:21 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4640 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 yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4640 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 Müller,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 http://www.sbg.bio.ic.ac.uk.


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

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

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3020 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 6 of 104 (22577)
11-13-2002 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
11-13-2002 10:23 AM


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.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-13-2002 10:23 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-13-2002 8:36 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Randy, posted 11-13-2002 9:38 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 104 (22581)
11-13-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
11-13-2002 8:23 PM


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.”


I asked you once before, and you never replied. I have read that wolves and coyotes differ by 6% in their DNA. Did this divergence take 36-60 million years? Actually, you believe this took place in a few thousand, do you not? If so, that pretty much demolishes your point.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 8:23 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4412 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 8 of 104 (22589)
11-13-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
11-13-2002 8:23 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 8:23 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2002 3:24 AM Randy has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4640 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 yet responded

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

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3020 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 10 of 104 (22705)
11-14-2002 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
11-14-2002 3:24 AM


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

Uh, Mams, I don’t think Randy was implying I was taking the quote out-of-context. Explain why you think Ohno’s speculation about differential usage of genes somehow rescues his prior observation from being support for TB’s argument. I did not need Ohno’s speculative conclusion because even it subtly supports TB’s argument.

FYI, I have the paper and was well aware of Ohno’s conclusions based on this unfavorable data for evolution. I cited this paper in my fossil article almost a year ago:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm

I wrote:

“Some evolutionists who realize the soft-bodied excuse no longer carries weight are invoking strange ideas in an attempt to deal with this mammoth problem of the sudden arrival of such complex and diverse life. One evolutionist has proposed that all the animal phyla before the Cambrian explosion had nearly identical genes, and that “differential usage of the same set of genes” accounted for the extreme diversities of body plans.19 There are two primary problems with this: 1) he offers little evidence to support his hypothesis; 2) even if true it would only serve to push the problem back in time - it would then fail to explain why the fossil record left absolutely no trace whatsoever of such a massive accumulation of all this shared genetic information.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2002 3:24 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Randy, posted 11-14-2002 12:04 PM Fred Williams has responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4412 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 11 of 104 (22711)
11-14-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 11:50 AM


Fred,

Do you accept Ohno's claim that it takes about 10,000 million years to get a 1% change in a genome?

If so how much change can one expect in 5,000 Years?

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 11:50 AM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 3:03 PM Randy has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3020 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 12 of 104 (22741)
11-14-2002 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Randy
11-14-2002 12:04 PM


quote:
Fred, Do you accept Ohno's claim that it takes about 10,000 million years to get a 1% change in a genome?

No, I actually believe it’s worse than he states! (he’s assuming none of the mutations are removed via selection)

quote:
If so how much change can one expect in 5,000 Years?

Plenty!

Maybe this is before your time, but do you remember that annoying commercial of a German scientist who said “it’s better to push a car than to pull it” ? Well, imagine him today commenting on this discussion, saying “it’s easier to shuffle a deck than to create it!”.

Bottlenecks, subsequent drift, radiation events, all could account for considerable diversity among genomes within 5K years. Even non-random mutations could play a role!

What do the evolutionists have? Nothing, really. Why can’t you propose the same mechanisms to account for the Cambrian explosion? You even get millions of years as opposed to thousands. That’s a lot of points to spot you.

The reason is due to you starting point - conventional wisdom is that your precursors do not already have the genetic information and need to somehow produce it in a very short period of time. Our starting point is 30K or so kinds, each with an information-rich genome. That is, we can start shuffling the deck right away. You need to first create the deck, then you can start shuffling!

This is why Ohno was forced into his “differential gene” story. He essentially created the deck from scratch. All he really accomplished was to push the problem back in time, kind of like what the panspermia crowd has done!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Randy, posted 11-14-2002 12:04 PM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 4:05 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 15 by Randy, posted 11-14-2002 5:29 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 16 by Mammuthus, posted 11-15-2002 3:00 AM Fred Williams has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 13 of 104 (22756)
11-14-2002 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 3:03 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
Fred, Do you accept Ohno's claim that it takes about 10,000 million years to get a 1% change in a genome?

No, I actually believe it’s worse than he states! (he’s assuming none of the mutations are removed via selection)

quote:
If so how much change can one expect in 5,000 Years?

Plenty!
[/quote]

Quantify please.

quote:

Maybe this is before your time, but do you remember that annoying commercial of a German scientist who said “it’s better to push a car than to pull it” ? Well, imagine him today commenting on this discussion, saying “it’s easier to shuffle a deck than to create it!”.

Bottlenecks, subsequent drift, radiation events, all could account for considerable diversity among genomes within 5K years. Even non-random mutations could play a role!


So why do all of those things (minus the as yet mythical 'non-random mutations - I take it that you are proselytizing something else now?) not help evolution over the course of millions of years?

How can you not see the obvious absurdity of your position?

Drift, exon shuffling, etc. can make millions og extant 'kinds' from a few 'original' kinds off the ark in 5000 years, but those same processes cannot evolve anything in millions!

Makes sense....

Of course, I do hope that you rethink your contradictory positions on neutral mutations....

quote:

Our starting point is 30K or so kinds, each with an information-rich genome.

Please produce the documentation for the existence of these information-rich genome having Kinds. I should like to see the lab reports.

If you cannot produce such evidence, then your entire position will have to be considered baseless speculation.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 5:11 PM derwood has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3020 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 14 of 104 (22778)
11-14-2002 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by derwood
11-14-2002 4:05 PM


quote:
Of course, I do hope that you rethink your contradictory positions on neutral mutations....

You mean that
1) neutrals incur a higher reproductive cost to fix than beneficials?
2) Neutral mutations may play a role in hyperspeciation?

Do you really want to go down this road again, Scott? You apparently still refuse to realize that the above statements are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. I’ll give you a clue: “etar”. What is that spelled backwards?

(that's about all the time I have today...)

PS. Bonus clue: "ycneuqerf"
Super Bonus Clue: "dnas dnuop"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 4:05 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:32 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4412 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 15 of 104 (22781)
11-14-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 3:03 PM


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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:35 PM Randy has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 11-18-2002 6:35 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019