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:   molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 271 of 317 (23134)
11-18-2002 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Itzpapalotl
11-18-2002 1:41 PM


quote:
Would it be a gain of information if the duplicated gene had a different role from the original gene?.
It depends what the role is. If the new role causes a disease (which is often the case), it would clearly represent a net loss of information. If it could be shown that the new role is useful to the species as a whole, then I would accept it as an example of naturalistic increase of information.
quote:
For example supposing the antifreeze gene was formed from a duplicated trypsinogen gene as the evidence suggests would that fit your definition of an increase in information?.
Only if:
1) It can be shown that the duplication/subsequent mutation events truly are Darwinian (random). The fact you have two independent convergences on the same gene makes me highly skeptical it was purely naturalistic. From my POV, your example has all the ear-markings of a pre-programmed genetic capability (aka directed mutation).
2) The presence of the duplicated gene does not produce a negative impact on the species in a normal environment.
Still, your example is an alleged occurence from millions of years ago. I’ll repeat that if NeoDarwinian evolution is true, there should be myriads of observed examples occurring in our labs. There are NONE. Even if you found a handful this would not be provocative becuase you should find tons and tons of examples. With rapidly reproducing species we can obseve millions of generations in the lab. It turns out mutations invariably lead to reduced genetic information. No sign whatsoever of evolution in the positive, upward direction. None, nada, zippo. This is highly damaging evidence against evolution. Methinks it’s all a fairytale!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Itzpapalotl, posted 11-18-2002 1:41 PM Itzpapalotl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Mammuthus, posted 11-19-2002 3:28 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 279 by derwood, posted 11-19-2002 9:42 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 272 of 317 (23149)
11-18-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Mammuthus
11-18-2002 3:56 AM


Dear mammuthus,
PB:
As mentioned before sensible DNA sequences are sequences that have a function, for instance in splicing, gene regulation, stabilisiation of DNA and/or mRNA, etc. The fact that introns demonstrate conserved regions within species points in the direction of 'sensible sequences' involved in gene regulation.
M: Funny, earlier your debate tactic was to say no site was neutral because nobody had excluded a function for every single base pair in the genome..now you are backpedalling.
PB:
As a matter of fact, sometimes I have to invent a term to describe properly what is observed in the genome.
M: You would not have to if you read primary literature..or even textbooks to find out what the sequences are actually called..but if it massages your ego to make up a language to explain long known phenomenon..knock yourself out..
PB: How are these sequences referred to, then? I would really like to know.
PB:
Since 'sense-' and 'antisense sequences' already have a well defined meaning, I rather use 'sensible sequences' for DNA sequences that serve a function.
M: Which is completely non-descriptive as it does not specificy or even suggest what the function is...and it sounds like a fashion statement like sensible shoes. Or maybe you are advocating sensible shoes in the lab
PB: Please elaborate a bit on this.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2002 3:56 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Mammuthus, posted 11-19-2002 3:27 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 275 by Quetzal, posted 11-19-2002 4:13 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 273 of 317 (23178)
11-19-2002 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by peter borger
11-18-2002 9:48 PM


PB: How are these sequences referred to, then? I would really like to know.
M: For example branch-point sequence: The consenus sequence in mammalian cells, YNCURA, (where Y is a pyrimidine, R is a purine, and N is any base) to which the free 5' end of the intron loops and binds to the A nucleotide in the sequence during intron splicing.
PB: Please elaborate a bit on this.
M: A sensible sequence is one that performs function X? Does what? Has positive or negative impact? See what I mean...it is non-descriptive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by peter borger, posted 11-18-2002 9:48 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 274 of 317 (23179)
11-19-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Fred Williams
11-18-2002 7:10 PM


It's especially convenient when you don't read and ignore the references you are provided with...fingers in ears, eyes closed, Fred shouts La La La La La La

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Fred Williams, posted 11-18-2002 7:10 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 275 of 317 (23189)
11-19-2002 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by peter borger
11-18-2002 9:48 PM


Seeing as how you're back in operation here, Peter, I'm still awaiting your reply to post #205. The reply does not require your "response" from Dr. Peakall (assuming you actually sent him an email). Feel free to use any example of any other organism, or even show conclusively the concepts are in error through a theoretical discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by peter borger, posted 11-18-2002 9:48 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 1:03 AM Quetzal has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 276 of 317 (23210)
11-19-2002 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by peter borger
11-15-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
In mail #10 (thread: molecular genetic proof against random mutations) you wrote
Actually, message #10 in that thread was written by you, not me.
quote:
:
I believe you have make an entirely unwarranted and somewhat bizarre extrapolation.
"a comparison between fixed and polymorphic sites between the two species shows also no significant deviation from the assumption of a neutral evolution in this region.
Apparently, you have never heard of the Neutral Theory?
MY RESPONSE:
From your response above it is immediately clear that it is YOU who apparently never heard of neutral theory since you attacked the authors of the paper (!!).
The sentence you quote above is a quote of Karl J. Schmid and Diethard Tautz in their paper A screen for fast evolving genes from Drosophila.
Your responses get sloppier and more inconsistent. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, why do you mail me this non-sense? It really puzzles me.
Best wishes,
Peter
I don't email you anything. I post to a discussion board, just like you.
However, Peter, there is a pesky thing called context.
What you quote above came from message 26, not 10.
The part you apparently forgot to read - written by YOU - to which I was replyiing:
"Thus, this gene is not under selective constraint and has not been selected for during millions of years. Unless you would like to assume neutral selection. I have posted a couple of e-mails to evolutionary theorist to figure out what they exacly mean by neutral selection. None of them responded, demonstrating the current problem in NDT."
That is what YOU wrote.
Here is what I quoted form your source:
"a comparison between fixed and polymorphic sites between the two species shows also no significant deviation from the assumption of a neutral evolution in this region.
New emphasis mine.
This quote is at odds with your comment that I quote above.
Neutral evolutionis not neutral selection.
Of course, Peter, I am not the one claiming that conserved sequence in introns falsifies the Neutral Theory.
Am I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by peter borger, posted 11-15-2002 4:49 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 277 of 317 (23211)
11-19-2002 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Itzpapalotl
11-15-2002 6:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Itzpapalotl:
Although the ancient examples are unobserved there is good evidence that they occured, do you disagree with the evidence for the duplications and what are your reasons for this?. The evidence could be inconclusive but that should also be possible show with reference to the evidence.
Your position that "gene duplication followed by mutation" does not happen is in direct conflict with Peter Borger's who used the strong evidence for selection on duplicated genes (a high rate of nonsynonymous mutations, clearly "gene duplication followed by mutation") as evidence for his multipurpose genome theory.

Williams has conceded the point that he is not interested in science.
His laughable criterion (observation in a lab) - which of course does not cover his own mythological fantasy - demonstrates this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Itzpapalotl, posted 11-15-2002 6:45 PM Itzpapalotl has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 278 of 317 (23214)
11-19-2002 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Fred Williams
11-18-2002 12:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
I was not saying you believed any specific gene had arisen through duplication just that you were aware of the large amount of research that indicates a high rate of nonsynonymous compared to synonymous mutations in duplicated genes (Kondrashov et al), something which Fred Williams claimed doesn't happen ("gene duplication followed by mutation").
I never said "gene duplication followed by mutation" doesn't happen. What I did say is that there are no observed examples of "gene duplication followed by mutation" that represent an increase in genetic information. Observed examples often show loss of information since they are associated with some disease.
The only examples given for new, useful genetic information for a species (see Page, Mamuthus) are speculative events that allegedly happened millions of years ago. In other words, there is no evidence for increased genetic information - it's all speculation.
Your biased, lopsided, arbitrary, and laughably naive "criterion" is duly noted.
Please Williams, tell us all about the OBSERVED - in a controlled lab setting, that is - science that supports a 10,000 year old earth and subsequent creation (and subsequent slaughter, then subsequent magical regeneration) of all creatures.
Surely, you MUST be able to do this, lest yourb demand that the 'evos' show you the same for their position rings awfully shallow and hollow, no?
Of course, I can see right through this, Williams.
Should such an occurrance be presented, would Williams accept it and say "Oh well, guess I was wrong. Evolution via generation of new information really can happen."
LOL!
No - Williams already has an out.
You see, were this shown to him, he would claim that is was evidence not for evolution, but for creation.
Bcause after all, humans had to "design" the experiments. They had to manipulate nature.
Therefore, it is proof that Goddidit.
This is an old creationist trick. Randy Wysong already pre-rejected any such laboratory science in his laughable 1976 book, and creationists great and small have been using it ever since.
It is a sham.
But the reader willnotice that WIlliams is still ignoring the scenairto in which a gene duplication without subsequent mutation alters phenotype.
The "new information" argument is already moot, and informed creationists know this.
That is why creationists still use this argument - because there is no such thing as an informed creationist...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Fred Williams, posted 11-18-2002 12:43 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by derwood, posted 11-25-2002 8:39 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 279 of 317 (23217)
11-19-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Fred Williams
11-18-2002 7:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Still, your example is an alleged occurence from millions of years ago. I’ll repeat that if NeoDarwinian evolution is true, there should be myriads of observed examples occurring in our labs.
If biblical creation were true, we should find humans and tricertops (or any other actual dinosaur) in contemporaneous strata. Indeed, there shold be thousands of such findings.
Where are they, fred?
quote:
There are NONE. Even if you found a handful this would not be provocative becuase you should find tons and tons of examples.
Yes, we should find tons of human fossils alongside - literally, in some cases, I'm sure - all sorts of leviathans and dinosaurs.
We should have all sorts of creation science 're-creating' the original kinds in a lab. With all the money that these groups haul in, you'd think that maybe the ICR grad school of something would have produced the goods by now.
quote:
With rapidly reproducing species we can obseve millions of generations in the lab. It turns out mutations invariably lead to reduced genetic information. No sign whatsoever of evolution in the positive, upward direction. None, nada, zippo. This is highly damaging evidence against evolution. Methinks it’s all a fairytale!
Again, does anyone really care what a YEC electrical engineer thinks about anything but electrical engineering issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Fred Williams, posted 11-18-2002 7:10 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 280 of 317 (23323)
11-20-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Quetzal
11-19-2002 4:13 AM


Dear Quetzal,
Q: Seeing as how you're back in operation here, Peter, I'm still awaiting your reply to post #205. The reply does not require your "response" from Dr. Peakall (assuming you actually sent him an email). Feel free to use any example of any other organism, or even show conclusively the concepts are in error through a theoretical discussion.
PB: See also mailings #211, #212, #214, #223, and #225. I did not yet contact Dr Peakall. It’s a bit hectic here, but I will contact him as soon as I have my questions formulated.
Q's letter 205:
Alright Peter, last chance.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have before us a question that has yet to be answered. To wit: given the marked genetic homogeniety of Wollemia nobilis, can this observation be ecompassed by current scientific explanations? If so, are the explanations incorrect or inapplicable? If so, why?
PB: I already discussed the invariable DNA with you in detail, but you insist that there is an explanation. I quoted Dr. Peakall on the topic and you still insist that I have to explain the 4 points, since I didn’t address your response properly. Notably, I addressed all your points. It was you who didn’t respond to my mail.
Now I have one chance left?
Q: I have enumerated below the explanations you have been given in this thread that purport to explain the observation in the case of Wollemia nobilis. You have rejected them outright without discussion as "just so stories", etc. This is your last chance to salvage something: explain, in detail, with references, why the following are not acceptable explanations for (or simply don't explain) the observation.
1. clonality. There are two aspects here that must be discussed:
a) Within-stand growth pattern (i.e., coppicing) would lead to the expectation that all mature trees within a given stand would be genetically identical - they represent a single organism.
PB: I know you like to cling to root coppicing, since it would give an explanation for the invariable DNA of the pine. However, it has been demonstrated that --although Wollemia is easy to reproduce through cuttings-- the trees in the stands in the wild are derived from seedlings. I mentioned this before, but you simply ignore this observation (this is what I am going to have confirmed by Dr Peakall).
Q: b) Between stand homogeneity can be explained if all three stands were originally seeded by a single parent, followed by coppicing, it would again be expected that the stands would show not only an internally homogenous genotype, but between-stands as well.
PB: As mentioned, this scenario has been rejected by Dr Peakall (And this is what I am going to have confirmed too)
Q: 2. genetic bottleneck. It has been observed in many wild populations that when a population passes through an extreme population crisis, much of the original variation is lost. Given the relictual nature of Wollemia, there is a high probability that this occurred.
PB: Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. My point wasn’t about loss of original variation; it was about the completely invariable DNA of the organism that conflicts evolutionism, and the inferred ALL-PURPOSE genome from this observation (done by Peakall, and I will ask him what he understands by this).
3. inbreeding depression. Micropopulations, especially plants but also many animal species, that survive extreme bottlenecks or occupy highly restricted ranges, etc, are known to suffer from lack of genetic variability due to inbreeding depression. This observation has been made for both selfed and sexually reproducing species isolated from gene flow. Inbreeding depression, coupled with selection sweep on deleterious mutational load over generations, tends to greatly homogenize genotypes of the effected organisms.
PB: According to your view, the tree must have been reduced to one tree and afterwards spread again. Although, I do not have severe objections to this view, it clearly demonstrates that the conservationists’ stance may be wrong. It strongly supports the MPG hypothesis.
4. genetic drift. A simple statistical random walk in isolated micropopulations can cause substantial loss of variation.
PB: Genetic drift in a cloning population? Please explain.
Furthermore, genetic drift is not disputed and can easily be part of the MPG hypothesis.
Q: Your job, Peter, is to examine each of these four explanations, and provide detailed reasons why any (or a combination) of them are incorrect or impossible in the case of Wollemia. I may have missed one or two (like dominance, imprinting, lack of recruitment from non-Wollemia, etc), but those are something to go on. If you are unable to refute these explanations, then your assertion is falsified.
PB: No, Quetzal, my job is asthma researcher. To be precise my job is studying molecular regulation of genes involved in asthma. On the other hand, my vocation is to show the public how molecular biology obliterates evolutionism.
In conclusion, point 2-4 are irrelevant to our discussion, since they can be integrated in the MPG hypothesis without problems. My point was --and still is-- that the Wollemi pine’s DNA demonstrates NO variation, while at least some variation was expected.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Quetzal, posted 11-19-2002 4:13 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Mammuthus, posted 11-20-2002 3:52 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 284 by Quetzal, posted 11-20-2002 7:21 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 281 of 317 (23329)
11-20-2002 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by peter borger
11-20-2002 1:03 AM


Q: Your job, Peter, is to examine each of these four explanations, and provide detailed reasons why any (or a combination) of them are incorrect or impossible in the case of Wollemia. I may have missed one or two (like dominance, imprinting, lack of recruitment from non-Wollemia, etc), but those are something to go on. If you are unable to refute these explanations, then your assertion is falsified.
PB: No, Quetzal, my job is asthma researcher. To be precise my job is studying molecular regulation of genes involved in asthma. On the other hand, my vocation is to show the public how molecular biology obliterates evolutionism.
M: Hope you are doing a better job with the former than the latter
PB:
In conclusion, point 2-4 are irrelevant to our discussion, since they can be integrated in the MPG hypothesis without problems. My point was --and still is-- that the Wollemi pine’s DNA demonstrates NO variation, while at least some variation was expected.
M: Note boys and girls...Peter' great example of how to totally avoid answering a question (4 in this case at the same time) but still manageing to type letters...bravo bravo...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 1:03 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 5:09 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 282 of 317 (23339)
11-20-2002 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Mammuthus
11-20-2002 3:52 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
I guess it is your vocation to answer all my posts. And as an atheist you have to keep up the appearance of a rebuttal (although you never debunked one of my examples). If I were you I would read my initial mailing #1 carefully and what my comments on the Wollemia nobilis DNA are. The rest is irrelevant. The tree's DNA is NOT in accord with evolutionism. That's all I wanted to show, just one more falsification of evolutinism.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Mammuthus, posted 11-20-2002 3:52 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Mammuthus, posted 11-20-2002 6:27 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 283 of 317 (23344)
11-20-2002 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by peter borger
11-20-2002 5:09 AM


PB:
I guess it is your vocation to answer all my posts.
M: Well, we are different, you neglect most of mine
PB: And as an atheist you have to keep up the appearance of a rebuttal (although you never debunked one of my examples).
M: As an athiest I don't believe in god...did not realize I was required to keep up an appearance of rebuttal...but you are correct, I have no debunked one of you examples...I have debunked them all.
PB:
If I were you I would read my initial mailing #1 carefully and what my comments on the Wollemia nobilis DNA are. The rest is irrelevant. The tree's DNA is NOT in accord with evolutionism. That's all I wanted to show, just one more falsification of evolutinism.
M: I have read your first mailing...it is irrelevant..and since you don't know and refuse to learn what evolution actually IS your so called falsification is irrelevant as well.
Toodloo
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 5:09 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 284 of 317 (23349)
11-20-2002 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by peter borger
11-20-2002 1:03 AM


quote:
PB: See also mailings #211, #212, #214, #223, and #225. I did not yet contact Dr Peakall. It’s a bit hectic here, but I will contact him as soon as I have my questions formulated.
#225 was my response to your non-answer in #223. 214 was also my response to your non-answer in #212 where you asserted that you had answered but actually didn’t address any of my points. #211 was ALSO my post.
quote:
Q's letter 205:
Alright Peter, last chance.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have before us a question that has yet to be answered. To wit: given the marked genetic homogeniety of Wollemia nobilis, can this observation be ecompassed by current scientific explanations? If so, are the explanations incorrect or inapplicable? If so, why?
PB: I already discussed the invariable DNA with you in detail, but you insist that there is an explanation. I quoted Dr. Peakall on the topic and you still insist that I have to explain the 4 points, since I didn’t address your response properly. Notably, I addressed all your points. It was you who didn’t respond to my mail.
Now I have one chance left?
Another non-answer. You have consistently failed to even address — beyond ad hominem, re-assertion, or hand-waving any substantive point that I have raised on this entire thread. You continue to play the same game. It doesn’t work, Peter.
quote:
Q: I have enumerated below the explanations you have been given in this thread that purport to explain the observation in the case of Wollemia nobilis. You have rejected them outright without discussion as "just so stories", etc. This is your last chance to salvage something: explain, in detail, with references, why the following are not acceptable explanations for (or simply don't explain) the observation.
1. clonality. There are two aspects here that must be discussed:
a) Within-stand growth pattern (i.e., coppicing) would lead to the expectation that all mature trees within a given stand would be genetically identical - they represent a single organism.
PB: I know you like to cling to root coppicing, since it would give an explanation for the invariable DNA of the pine. However, it has been demonstrated that --although Wollemia is easy to reproduce through cuttings-- the trees in the stands in the wild are derived from seedlings. I mentioned this before, but you simply ignore this observation (this is what I am going to have confirmed by Dr Peakall).
I don’t cling to root coppicing. It has not been demonstrated that the trees in the wild have been derived from seedlings. Please provide a reference for this assertion — none of the references I provided you so state. This is a new assertion on your part. However, you seem to be indicating that you agree that coppicing — IF SHOWN TO BE THE CASE IN WOLLEMIA — can in fact explain the observed lack of genetic variability. Is this correct?
quote:
Q: b) Between stand homogeneity can be explained if all three stands were originally seeded by a single parent, followed by coppicing, it would again be expected that the stands would show not only an internally homogenous genotype, but between-stands as well.
PB: As mentioned, this scenario has been rejected by Dr Peakall (And this is what I am going to have confirmed too)
Again, this is a new assertion on your part. Please provide the reference that indicates Dr. Peakall has rejected this hypothesis. On the other hand, you have not addressed the point: IF ALL STANDS WERE ORGINALLY SEEDED FROM A SINGLE PARENT ORGANISM, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT ON THE GENETIC VARIABILITY OF THE SPECIES? My contention obviously is that once again we would expect a lack of genetic variability. Please be specific for a change.
quote:
Q: 2. genetic bottleneck. It has been observed in many wild populations that when a population passes through an extreme population crisis, much of the original variation is lost. Given the relictual nature of Wollemia, there is a high probability that this occurred.
PB: Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. My point wasn’t about loss of original variation; it was about the completely invariable DNA of the organism that conflicts evolutionism, and the inferred ALL-PURPOSE genome from this observation (done by Peakall, and I will ask him what he understands by this).
Then you concede that, with or without the MPG nonsense in the mix, the standard evolutionary explanation of genetic bottleneck CAN EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIATION IN THE SPECIES? Yes or no? If not, why not?
quote:
3. inbreeding depression. Micropopulations, especially plants but also many animal species, that survive extreme bottlenecks or occupy highly restricted ranges, etc, are known to suffer from lack of genetic variability due to inbreeding depression. This observation has been made for both selfed and sexually reproducing species isolated from gene flow. Inbreeding depression, coupled with selection sweep on deleterious mutational load over generations, tends to greatly homogenize genotypes of the effected organisms.
PB: According to your view, the tree must have been reduced to one tree and afterwards spread again. Although, I do not have severe objections to this view, it clearly demonstrates that the conservationists’ stance may be wrong. It strongly supports the MPG hypothesis.
No, according to my view, ANY population that is severely reduced — whether selfed or not — and is forced to breed within it’s own restricted population, will suffer from in-breeding depression. Over time, inbreeding depression and selection sweep will homogenize the population. CAN THIS BE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF VARIABILITY IN WOLLEMIA? Yes or no? If not, why not?
On a related note, please explain the assertion the conservationists stance may be wrong. What stance?
In another post-script, who cares about the MPG? We’re not even discussing your absurd hypothesis — rather the possible mainstream explanations for the lack of variation in this species. A species which, in accordance with your post #1 on this thread, allegedly refutes evolution. Your claim concerning MPG as the only viable choice if evolution is refuted is irrelevant to this discussion.
quote:
4. genetic drift. A simple statistical random walk in isolated micropopulations can cause substantial loss of variation.
PB: Genetic drift in a cloning population? Please explain.
Furthermore, genetic drift is not disputed and can easily be part of the MPG hypothesis.
You sound surprised. Pretty amazing for someone who claims to be an expert in biology. Why would you think genetic drift doesn’t apply to clonal micropopulations? In any event, once again, you fail to answer the question: CAN GENETIC DRIFT EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIABILITY WITHIN WOLLEMIA? Yes, or no? If not, why not? And again, who cares about your MPG in the context of this discussion?
quote:
PB: No, Quetzal, my job is asthma researcher. To be precise my job is studying molecular regulation of genes involved in asthma. On the other hand, my vocation is to show the public how molecular biology obliterates evolutionism.
Good luck with your research. My suggestion would be not to quit your day job to pursue your avocation.
quote:
In conclusion, point 2-4 are irrelevant to our discussion, since they can be integrated in the MPG hypothesis without problems. My point was --and still is-- that the Wollemi pine’s DNA demonstrates NO variation, while at least some variation was expected.
In conclusion, you have utterly failed to respond substantively once again. Points 2-4 ARE the discussion, as is point 1. Try again.
Wollemia nobilis[/i] as evidence
2. Since evolution is falsified, your mythical, magical, unreproduceable, undetectable MPG is the default hypothesis
The conclusion, and the reason I state that these points are key, is that if mainstream explanations CAN be used to account for the lack of variability in your evidence, your evidence cannot be used to falsify evolution. Regardless of the truth or validity of MPG, you must show WHY specifically the mainstream explanations are false. Then you must show evidence that MPG actually exists followed by why MPG should be considered the default hypothesis IN THE ABSENCE OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY EXPLANATIONS.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 1:03 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 9:07 PM Quetzal has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 285 of 317 (23426)
11-20-2002 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Quetzal
11-20-2002 7:21 AM


Dear Quetzal,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: See also mailings #211, #212, #214, #223, and #225. I did not yet contact Dr Peakall. It’s a bit hectic here, but I will contact him as soon as I have my questions formulated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#225 was my response to your non-answer in #223. 214 was also my response to your non-answer in #212 where you asserted that you had answered but actually didn’t address any of my points. #211 was ALSO my post.
PB: It is obvious that you do not want to discuss the molecular genetic problem with the Wollemi pine. Instead, you prefer to refer to my posts as non-answers. The only answer you will take as an answer is an answer that is a story told by evolutionism. Even if it isn't explanatory in this case, you prefer an evolutionary story above what is really going on in nature. It keeps science from making progress.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q's letter 205:
Alright Peter, last chance.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have before us a question that has yet to be answered. To wit: given the marked genetic homogeniety of Wollemia nobilis, can this observation be ecompassed by current scientific explanations? If so, are the explanations incorrect or inapplicable? If so, why?
PB: I already discussed the invariable DNA with you in detail, but you insist that there is an explanation. I quoted Dr. Peakall on the topic and you still insist that I have to explain the 4 points, since I didn’t address your response properly. Notably, I addressed all your points. It was you who didn’t respond to my mail.
Now I have one chance left?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Another non-answer. You have consistently failed to even address — beyond ad hominem, re-assertion, or hand-waving any substantive point that I have raised on this entire thread. You continue to play the same game. It doesn’t work, Peter.
PB: Your statements above didn't require an answer. The answers to your questions can not come from the evolutinary paradigm, since there is no answer in the evolutionary paradigm. So, for you there will never be an answer to this question. I guess, you don't mind since you are not interested in what is really going on. To answer your question again: The invariable DNA of the Wollemia nobilis can NOT be explained by the evolutionary paradigm. The only answer you accept is: Yes, it can be explained by conventional wisdom. I have to disappoint you, since it can NOT.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: I have enumerated below the explanations you have been given in this thread that purport to explain the observation in the case of Wollemia nobilis. You have rejected them outright without discussion as "just so stories", etc. This is your last chance to salvage something: explain, in detail, with references, why the following are not acceptable explanations for (or simply don't explain) the observation.
1. clonality. There are two aspects here that must be discussed:
a) Within-stand growth pattern (i.e., coppicing) would lead to the expectation that all mature trees within a given stand would be genetically identical - they represent a single organism.
PB: I know you like to cling to root coppicing, since it would give an explanation for the invariable DNA of the pine. However, it has been demonstrated that --although Wollemia is easy to reproduce through cuttings-- the trees in the stands in the wild are derived from seedlings. I mentioned this before, but you simply ignore this observation (this is what I am going to have confirmed by Dr Peakall).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: I don’t cling to root coppicing. It has not been demonstrated that the trees in the wild have been derived from seedlings.
PB: It has been demonstrated that the Wollemia recruits from seedlings in the wild. The first pines in the nurseries were grown from seedlings colected from the wild population. It was horticultural scientist of the Mount Annan Botanic Gardens Cathy Osford job to do that. "In the first year a mere fifty seed were collected [from the wild]. In the second a more promising quantity was obtained--600." (The wollemi pine, J. Woodford, p125, ISBN 1 876485 48 5). The MPG is demonstrated by "Offord told me [Woodford, not PB] me mortality rate [..] for Wollemia seedlings is almost zero". (p132). Furthermore, and important for our discussion "Offord and colleagues estimate that the twenty-three adult Wollemi pines [..] produce about 150 female cones per year and these cones set between 3000 and 4000 viable seeds" (p134).
So, there is no doubt that seedlings derie from sexual reproduction, and there is no doubt that trees are recruited from ssedlings. Of course you may doubt the words of horticulturist Offord. It is a common habit in evolutionism to doubt the data if they are not in accord with evolutionism (see my mailings to Mammuthus).
Q: Please provide a reference for this assertion — none of the references I provided you so state. This is a new assertion on your part. However, you seem to be indicating that you agree that coppicing — IF SHOWN TO BE THE CASE IN WOLLEMIA — can in fact explain the observed lack of genetic variability. Is this correct?
PB: The issue here is NOT that I do not provide refernces, but that YOU don't accept the reference of being of scientific relevance. You doubt Dr Peakall's words, and you probably doubt Offord's words. You seem to be the 'doubting Thomas'. [Nothing wrong with doubting, it shows that you are.]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: b) Between stand homogeneity can be explained if all three stands were originally seeded by a single parent, followed by coppicing, it would again be expected that the stands would show not only an internally homogenous genotype, but between-stands as well.
PB: As mentioned, this scenario has been rejected by Dr Peakall (And this is what I am going to have confirmed too)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Again, this is a new assertion on your part. Please provide the reference that indicates Dr. Peakall has rejected this hypothesis. On the other hand, you have not addressed the point: IF ALL STANDS WERE ORGINALLY SEEDED FROM A SINGLE PARENT ORGANISM, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT ON THE GENETIC VARIABILITY OF THE SPECIES? My contention obviously is that once again we would expect a lack of genetic variability. Please be specific for a change.
PB: I am not going to say the same over and over. I mentioned it in the first letter #1 of this thread. Of course I was expecting a lot of unbelief, since the tree violates evolutionary principles. However, let me once more quote from Woodford's scientific book:
"Peakall's first thought was that the Wollemia must have become a single organism. He also hypothesised that genetic drift could explain the lack of variability. 'The puzzling thing about that is that while a population of plants may become identical in theory and on computer, in the wild you can lose variability but you NEVER have none.'" (p161). "The easiest explanation of why the two sites where identical is that Wollemia nobilis is a giant clone, spread downstream from the second site and the trees are one enormous organism that has been divided in two by some catastrophe. In this theory, stems would have emerged from roots underground and become new trees. The existence of seedlings added to the confusion; Peakall was under the impression [and I guess Quetzal is too, PB] that both sites consisted only of teenage and adult trees. There was no evidence given to him that any of the seedlings were reaching a reproductive age. According to theory, if this were happening he ought NOT to have found the results that he did: when two genetically identical clone sexually reproduce with each other their offspring should have DNA different from its clonal parents. Even if two identical seedlings had reproduced then Peakall would expect to find variability in the population. (p164). But he didn't although he screened 'over 1000 points in the Wollemi's genome.. [where one].. would normally expect to find variation after searching a handful of them'" (p160-161).
The mystery of the pine deepened further after visting the gorge. "Peakall writes to the head of the Wollemi pine conservation team, Bob Conroy: 'While the distance between the site is not that great as the crow flies, it now seems to me that genetic exchange among populations via pollen flow is very unlikely given the convoluted pathway required and the density of the intervening vegetation, Peakall told Conroy". [..] "A new theory was needed to explain Peakall's results. Wollemi pines, he told Conroy, may not have become identical in the canyon. They must have been extraordinarily genetically similar before climate change forced them in there and this low variability, over thousands of years, has been further exaggerated by cloning in one big stand of pines that had somehow split in two" (p166-167). We [Woodford and Peakall, PB] talked about how, in the case of Wollemi pines [and for sure not the only case as I demonstrated, PB] evolution theory did not sit comfortably." (p169). "Maybe what is happening here, Peakall reflected, is that over a long evolutionary history and despite low diversity these plants have developed an ALL-PURPOSE genotype" (p170).
To get the data in accord with evolutionism a whole lot of story telling is required, but it still doesn't explain the Wollemi's invariable DNA. It becomes Peakall that he recognised the MPG, however. Apparently, more and more molecular scientists recognise the MPG, although they try to fit it in a evolutionary framework. It will never fit, since we are talking about two distinct paradigms.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: 2. genetic bottleneck. It has been observed in many wild populations that when a population passes through an extreme population crisis, much of the original variation is lost. Given the relictual nature of Wollemia, there is a high probability that this occurred.
PB: Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. My point wasn’t about loss of original variation; it was about the completely invariable DNA of the organism that conflicts evolutionism, and the inferred ALL-PURPOSE genome from this observation (done by Peakall, and I will ask him what he understands by this).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Then you concede that, with or without the MPG nonsense in the mix, the standard evolutionary explanation of genetic bottleneck CAN EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIATION IN THE SPECIES? Yes or no? If not, why not?
PB: That you do not understand the MPG doesn't make it nonsense. The MPG hypothesis (ever heard about hypotheses?) predicts a couple of things that can be readily tested (see letter #1), and it is able to explain all biological observations, including the Wollemi's invariabale DNA, and (genetic) redundancies. Thus, it is superior to evolutionism. So please be less condescending. And to be specific, evolutionary theory can NOT explain the invariable DNA data of the Wollemi pine (see above).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. inbreeding depression. Micropopulations, especially plants but also many animal species, that survive extreme bottlenecks or occupy highly restricted ranges, etc, are known to suffer from lack of genetic variability due to inbreeding depression. This observation has been made for both selfed and sexually reproducing species isolated from gene flow. Inbreeding depression, coupled with selection sweep on deleterious mutational load over generations, tends to greatly homogenize genotypes of the effected organisms.
PB: According to your view, the tree must have been reduced to one tree and afterwards spread again. Although, I do not have severe objections to this view, it clearly demonstrates that the conservationists’ stance may be wrong. It strongly supports the MPG hypothesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: No, according to my view, ANY population that is severely reduced — whether selfed or not — and is forced to breed within it’s own restricted population, will suffer from in-breeding depression. Over time, inbreeding depression and selection sweep will homogenize the population. CAN THIS BE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF VARIABILITY IN WOLLEMIA? Yes or no? If not, why not?
PB: Although it could be an explanation to reduce variability, the complete absence of variability can NOT be explained by your proposal. (See above). Neither inbreeding nor selection sweep can help you. BTW, selection sweep is nothing. It was merely introduced to fit data into evolutionism. It is like very weak purifying slection (=almost neutral selection). Meaningless nothingness.
Q: On a related note, please explain the assertion the conservationists stance may be wrong. What stance?
PB: The MPG hypothesis holds that all defence mechanism are present in the origin organism. In an organism where the DNA doesn't degenerate it is expected that all original defence mechanism are still intact (because it didn't degenerated as a result of completely intact DNA repair mechanisms. DNA repair mechanisms are more or less redundant since loss of a couple of repair enzymes will not immediately jeopardise the organism's capacity to reproduce), and we do not have to be concerned about deseases that might wipe out the tree because it doesn't have genetic variability (this is the conservationist's evolutionary vision).
Q: In another post-script, who cares about the MPG?
PB: I do, since evolutionism is false.
Q: We’re not even discussing your absurd hypothesis — rather the possible mainstream explanations for the lack of variation in this species.
PB: Here you demonstrate that you are not interested in science, only in keeping up the appearance of evolutionism. Your socalled mainstream explanations are no explanations, merely stories. However, I am not surprised since evolutionism is synonymous to 'telling each other stories': maybe this and maybe that and so and this and bladidiblabla... Well, not anymore since this is the 21st century. Better provide evidence instead of these stories.
Q: A species which, in accordance with your post #1 on this thread, allegedly refutes evolution. Your claim concerning MPG as the only viable choice if evolution is refuted is irrelevant to this discussion.
PB: No, it is relevant. I demonstrates that the MPG can explain all biologial observations, and the MPG hypothesis doesn't violate any of your explanations. As mentioned, inbreeding, bottlenecks, genetic drift, etcetera can readily be intgerated into the MPG hypothesis. Maybe you are under the impression that these terms are evolutionism, but they aren't. It is population genetics.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. genetic drift. A simple statistical random walk in isolated micropopulations can cause substantial loss of variation.
PB: Genetic drift in a cloning population? Please explain.
Furthermore, genetic drift is not disputed and can easily be part of the MPG hypothesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: You sound surprised. Pretty amazing for someone who claims to be an expert in biology. Why would you think genetic drift doesn’t apply to clonal micropopulations? In any event, once again, you fail to answer the question: CAN GENETIC DRIFT EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIABILITY WITHIN WOLLEMIA? Yes, or no? If not, why not? And again, who cares about your MPG in the context of this discussion?
PB: I am an expert in biology, indeed. That's why I see through evolutionism. However, explain to me how genetic drift is relevant to explain the Wollemi pine complete absence of variability. Maybe I miss your point.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: No, Quetzal, my job is asthma researcher. To be precise my job is studying molecular regulation of genes involved in asthma. On the other hand, my vocation is to show the public how molecular biology obliterates evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck with your research. My suggestion would be not to quit your day job to pursue your avocation.
PB: Vocation.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, point 2-4 are irrelevant to our discussion, since they can be integrated in the MPG hypothesis without problems. My point was --and still is-- that the Wollemi pine’s DNA demonstrates NO variation, while at least some variation was expected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: In conclusion, you have utterly failed to respond substantively once again. Points 2-4 ARE the discussion, as is point 1. Try again.
PB: As long as I do not respond in an evolutionary fashion I will keep failing. You are like Buddika, you only want to hear evolutinary stories. No matter how illogic, unscientific they may be, as long as it sounds like evolutionism, it is okay. Sad.
Q: [Edited to clarify that last statement. You have in this thread stated that:
1. Evolution is falsified, using the lack of genetic variability in Wollemia nobilis as evidence
PB: No, you distort my words. I have shown 10 examples that violate evolutonism, and the Wollemia pine was just another violation.
2. Since evolution is falsified, your mythical, magical, unreproduceable, undetectable MPG is the default hypothesis
PB: Since I am interested in the origin, I had a close look at the scientific content of evolutinsm. It can readily be falsified, and the rest is known. It is not even science, since science is interested in how things work, no matter what the truth is. According to evolutionists evolution is truth, even it can be scientifically falsified.
The MPG is no less mythical than the evolutinary stories. One of the thousands of MPG's is still unchanged present in the Wollemi pine. The MPG can be tested by its predictions. As demonstrated, the MPG predicts properly, even better than evolutionism. And it can be falsified (letter #1). It is a scientific theory that holds that life popped into existance (creation) and it also holds that science is unable to address the questions concerning origin. It is supported by contemporary molecular biology, while evolutionism seems to be supported by biology, while it actually isn't.
Q: The conclusion, and the reason I state that these points are key, is that if mainstream explanations CAN be used to account for the lack of variability in your evidence, your evidence cannot be used to falsify evolution.
PB: For the last time: all examples I've shown can NOT be explained by evolutionism. Either they violate random mutation, or they violate selection, or they violate molecular genetic rules. In my previous letter I mentioned the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn. This observation can NOT be explained by evolutionism. Even Dr page admitted that. It is not even molecular biology, so you should be able to see that too. Of course you can ignore it.
Q: Regardless of the truth or validity of MPG, you must show WHY specifically the mainstream explanations are false.
PB: I did that over and over, with quotes from Dr Peakall, the guy who did the molecular genetic research on the tree. Problem is that you DON'T accept it, since it clashes with your worldview (I guess).
Q: Then you must show evidence that MPG actually exists followed by why MPG should be considered the default hypothesis IN THE ABSENCE OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY EXPLANATIONS.]
PB: Now, I am trying to convey for over 5 months where biology clashes with evolutionism and provided an alternative explanation. For instance, there is the clearcut violation of genetic redundancies. They don't have an association with gene duplcation and do not change faster than essential genes. It is such enormous falsification of evolutionism that even evolutionary scientists do NOT believe that they are around (Surviving a knockout blow, Science 2002). In contrast, genetic redundancies are expected to be found in a MPG. That should be sufficient.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Quetzal, posted 11-20-2002 7:21 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Mammuthus, posted 11-21-2002 7:43 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 287 by Quetzal, posted 11-21-2002 7:54 AM peter borger has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024