Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
Itzpapalotl
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 317 (22728)
11-14-2002 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 11:46 AM


How about discussing the evidence that the gene was formed by trypsinogen duplication which is strong enough to conclude that the duplication did happen. With regards to the condition 'this must be observed in the lab' i believe is commonly referred to as shifting the goalposts and since the evidence for the duplication is very strong irrelavent. The mutational process for the generation of the antifreeze properties of the genes (expansion of repeats) is also well known.
"New research shows that fish in the Antarctic and Arctic oceans, at opposite ends of the earth, independently evolved nearly identical antifreeze glycoproteins."
Thats some neat selective quoting, you forgot to mention: "the repetitive tripeptide coding sequences in the Arctic cod Bs3—1 AFGP gene have a very different composition"
Could you clearly state exactly what you (although not evolution in the real world) require in a duplicated and diverged gene. maybe even give it its own topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 11:46 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 242 of 317 (22731)
11-14-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by peter borger
11-12-2002 4:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
At least the MPG hypothesis predicts properly. Something NDT/evolutiomnism lacks completely.
best wishes,
Peter

If you say so...
Apparently, you are the only person in the world that knows this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by peter borger, posted 11-12-2002 4:53 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 243 of 317 (22733)
11-14-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Fred Williams
11-13-2002 6:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
You are on a road to nowhere, the information-less abyss. Scott on the other hand provided a hypothetical example of what I have said all along would constitute a gain in information by most info scientist standards (a substantial improvement over his tree rings = code goofiness).
"Hypothetical"? You mean the situation for which there are literally hundreds of published papers on? I am still waitiing for legitimate scientific support for your many delusions of importance.
quote:
Too bad though that Scott was engaging in his characteristic begging the question fallacy.
Only according to you. That really doesn't mean much. At least I do not need to rely on repeated assertions for my "evidence."
quote:
Anyway, here’s the target: gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation that provides a new benefit to the population as a whole. Find this, and you have a BINGO. I’ve spotted you the BING. Just go find the O!
So, as is a common creationist tactic, you have set up an impossible 'challenge.' Apparently, you want something to occur meeting the above criteria in 'real time.' Informed and rational creationists know that this is an unrealistic and therefore fallacious challenge.
quote:
quote:
I am just presenting a scenario that is possible.
In science, if something is observed countless times over throughout time with no observed exceptions, it qualifies as a Law of Nature.
Is that so? Perhaps you can provide some documentation for this.
Of course, I have no doubt that you do not really mean that. Think about it - are you sure you want to take such a position? It will do some damage to your fellow creationists' pet 'theories'...
quote:
It also means it is justified to declare the opposite is impossible. It is impossible to let go of a rock off a building and not have it drop to the earth. It is also impossible for new information to be created naturalistically.
Bullshit. You saying this over and over does not make it so. Ask Dr.Tom Schneider. Ask Kimura. And indeed, ask yourself.
You just said that it is possible, but now you say it is impossible. And you believe it impossible because you personally have not had your 'challenge' met...
What fluff...
quote:
If you guys can produce evidence in the lab of something similar to Scott’s fantasy, then you would have found ONE example of new info in the genome. But you can’t even produce ONE example, despite countless experiments on various rapidly reproducing species. This is a bad sign for evolution. It means evolution of new complex organs and features is impossible.
ROTFLMAO!
Tell us all, wizard, how many lab experiments have verified ANY aspect of your religious fantasy? How many 'kinds' have been descended from some original stock via loss of information that was already there?
What a joke.
Of course, what the creationist demonstrates is that he still does not understand how genomes operate, and I suspect that is why he is ignoring my other citation.
Gene duplications - even without subsequent mutation - can alter function and phenotype. How does that fit your precious "information theory"? According to other creationist information hawks, duplicating genes does not increase information. And when I have asked them the same questions, they clam up, too.
quote:
Yet another bad day for evolution.
The level of delusion displayed by the creationist is truly phenomenal.
By the way - if tree rings are not 'coded information', what are they?
I don't think you understand the amount of 'information' tree rings possess.
That or you are not this 'expert' you keep telling people you are...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 6:46 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:42 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 244 of 317 (22734)
11-14-2002 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by peter borger
11-13-2002 6:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
M: 1. the entire intron is not neutral..you do know that there are conserved features of introns?..guess not.
PB: And that would invalidate all studies on neutral evolution, isn't it? So, you have to either deny Kimura's theory or you have to deny common descent.
You have never read even one of Kimura's papers, have you?
For if you had, you would know that NT does NOT deny selection, nor does selection deny neutrality.
And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by peter borger, posted 11-13-2002 6:48 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by peter borger, posted 11-14-2002 11:04 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 245 of 317 (22736)
11-14-2002 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by peter borger
11-13-2002 8:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear dr Page,
In reposne to
Originally posted by peter borger:
However, are you a neutralist or a selectionist?
Best wishes,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
You say:
Informed scientists understand that the two are not mutually exclusive.
My reponse:
Could you please point out where I say that they are mutually exclusive? It is a common characteristic of evolutionism to conlusion-jump. You once more proof it here,

Why are creationists so purposely obtuse and thickheaded?
If you do not think that they are mutually exclusive, why did you ask?
If you think differently, why did you reply to Mam that conserved regions in introns refute the NT?
You could at least try to be consistent in your rants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by peter borger, posted 11-13-2002 8:29 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 246 of 317 (22740)
11-14-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
LOL! Come on guys, you're killing me!
Itzpapa, please tell us when this event was observed in the lab. Tanks a bunch!
So is observing something in a lab your new criterion for scientiific validity?
Or just when your 'challenges' have been via observations in nature?
Because, if you are going to use observation in a lab as your key scientific criterion, which you seem to be doing, I will like to see the documentation for the observation - in a lab - of creation ex nihilo of a 'kind' by Yahweh.
quote:
What is ironic about your citation is that it is actually evidence for adaptive mutation.
The irony is too rich...
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 11:46 AM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:49 PM derwood has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 247 of 317 (22772)
11-14-2002 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by derwood
11-14-2002 2:32 PM


quote:
Gene duplications - even without subsequent mutation - can alter function and phenotype. How does that fit your precious "information theory"? According to other creationist information hawks, duplicating genes does not increase information. And when I have asked them the same questions, they clam up, too.
Yea, right. O’le Scott shut ‘em up! The truth is, this is a no-brainer. For your answer, why don’t you ask Tom Schnieder if he thinks gene duplications alone represent increased information.
quote:
By the way - if tree rings are not 'coded information', what are they?
Do you know what a code is? Can you speak tree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 2:32 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:44 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 248 of 317 (22774)
11-14-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by derwood
11-14-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
So is observing something in a lab your new criterion for scientiific validity?
Most evo here realize I’ve been asking for observed examples. Giving me examples of duplications that allegedly happened millions of years ago is begging the question.
We have done countless experiments in the lab over many years on organisms with rapid reproductive cycles, yet we cannot find ONE single example of increased genetic information. If evolution is true, we should be able to produce literally millions of examples. But you guys can’t even produce ONE.
quote:
So, as is a common creationist tactic, you have set up an impossible 'challenge.'
No, what is a common evolutionist tactic is to handwave away what should be a common observation. IT is hardly an impossible ‘challenge’.
quote:
Apparently, you want something to occur meeting the above criteria in 'real time.' Informed and rational creationists know that this is an unrealistic and therefore fallacious challenge.
Which creationists are those?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 2:59 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Mammuthus, posted 11-15-2002 3:16 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 253 by Mammuthus, posted 11-15-2002 3:32 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 255 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:52 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 249 of 317 (22814)
11-14-2002 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by derwood
11-14-2002 2:38 PM


dear Dr Page,
In reponse to:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
M: 1. the entire intron is not neutral..you do know that there are conserved features of introns?..guess not.
PB: And that would invalidate all studies on neutral evolution, isn't it? So, you have to either deny Kimura's theory or you have to deny common descent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
You have never read even one of Kimura's papers, have you?
For if you had, you would know that NT does NOT deny selection, nor does selection deny neutrality.
And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say:
Maybe you didn't get how evolutionism works. In brief, since I have not so much time, the intron sequences are assumed to be evolutionary neutral sequences. If the exons of a particular gene change with the same rate as the introns of that gene the sequence is said to be in accord with neutral evolution. [And with the assumption of common descent, of course.]
However, if introns are not neutral --as Mammuthus claims, and I agree-- the major part of evolutionary papers on this topic can be considered useless.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by derwood, posted 11-14-2002 2:38 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Mammuthus, posted 11-15-2002 3:15 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 256 by derwood, posted 11-15-2002 1:54 PM peter borger has replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 317 (22821)
11-15-2002 1:57 AM


borger, what planet are you on? The existence of conserved sites in introns in no way contradicts neutral theory.

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 251 of 317 (22827)
11-15-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by peter borger
11-14-2002 11:04 PM


PB:
However, if introns are not neutral --as Mammuthus claims, and I agree-- the major part of evolutionary papers on this topic can be considered useless.
M: Read what I said. I never said that introns are not neutral. I said that not every site in an intron is neutral. Did you ever learn anything about intron splicing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by peter borger, posted 11-14-2002 11:04 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by peter borger, posted 11-15-2002 5:01 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 252 of 317 (22828)
11-15-2002 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 4:49 PM


FW:
We have done countless experiments in the lab over many years on organisms with rapid reproductive cycles, yet we cannot find ONE single example of increased genetic information. If evolution is true, we should be able to produce literally millions of examples.
M: We have done countless expermeints??? I can count the number of experiments you have done....ZERO..LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:49 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 253 of 317 (22829)
11-15-2002 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 4:49 PM


Most evo here realize I’ve been asking for observed examples. Giving me examples of duplications that allegedly happened millions of years ago is begging the question.
We have done countless experiments in the lab over many years on organisms with rapid reproductive cycles, yet we cannot find ONE single example of increased genetic information. If evolution is true, we should be able to produce literally millions of examples. But you guys can’t even produce ONE.
**********************
This is just two of about 20 papers from just this ONE lab on the subject...you can do your own homework from now on ( or are you to busy doing countless experiments LOL!) and look up the rest yourself.
You can continue to ignore the reality of what experiments have been done as you have persistently done on this board or you can actually learn about the subject and actually adopt an alternative to your ignorance is bliss tactic.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 Sep 25;98(20):11388-93 Related Articles, Links
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli.
Remold SK, Lenski RE.
Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. remold@msu.edu
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (GxE) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to GxE interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37 degrees C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28 degrees C; maltose, 28 degrees C; glucose, 37 degrees C; and maltose, 37 degrees C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this GxE interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that GxE interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12 Related Articles, Links
Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.
Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M.
Abteilung Mikrobiologie, Biozentrum, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.
Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:49 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Fred Williams, posted 11-15-2002 5:40 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 254 of 317 (22875)
11-15-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 4:42 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
Gene duplications - even without subsequent mutation - can alter function and phenotype. How does that fit your precious "information theory"? According to other creationist information hawks, duplicating genes does not increase information. And when I have asked them the same questions, they clam up, too.
Yea, right. O’le Scott shut ‘em up! The truth is, this is a no-brainer. For your answer, why don’t you ask Tom Schnieder if he thinks gene duplications alone represent increased information.[/quote]
Why don't I? Maybe because that is not what I asked.
"How does that fit your precious "information theory"?
is what I aksed. Please do not continue to toss out your red herrings to cover the apparent fact that you have no answer when, as an expert in information theory and genetics, you should.
If you cannot explain the impact on the flow of information in a genome during the phenotypic shift caused by a gene duplication, then just say so.
quote:
quote:
By the way - if tree rings are not 'coded information', what are they?
Do you know what a code is? Can you speak tree?
Thyats right - I forgot that you are an "expert" in Gittian Information Theory. The 'theory' conjured up by a creationist, for creationists.
Because, after all, if the 'code' didn't come from humans of the deity that mooned Moses, it cannot really be a code.
Funny thing - your boy John Paul said that they do contai information - 'code', if you will... but that it took a person to get the information out of it (duh).
But that brings up another point - the ole' cretin definition game. Make up your own defintions that favor cretinism. Thats the ticket!
Like I said, I guess you just have no clue how much 'information' there are in tree rings, if you know what to look for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:42 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 255 of 317 (22877)
11-15-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Fred Williams
11-14-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
So is observing something in a lab your new criterion for scientiific validity?
Most evo here realize I’ve been asking for observed examples. Giving me examples of duplications that allegedly happened millions of years ago is begging the question.
We have done countless experiments in the lab over many years on organisms with rapid reproductive cycles, yet we cannot find ONE single example of increased genetic information. If evolution is true, we should be able to produce literally millions of examples. But you guys can’t even produce ONE.
quote:
So, as is a common creationist tactic, you have set up an impossible 'challenge.'
No, what is a common evolutionist tactic is to handwave away what should be a common observation. IT is hardly an impossible ‘challenge’.
quote:
Apparently, you want something to occur meeting the above criteria in 'real time.' Informed and rational creationists know that this is an unrealistic and therefore fallacious challenge.
Which creationists are those?

So, I guess you can't supply any laboratory observations supporting YECism after all....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Fred Williams, posted 11-14-2002 4:49 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