SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

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

Fred,I was wondering if you plan on addressing my questions in this post substantively or just with the usual hand-waves and repeated assertions.Thanks.Oh - a reminder.Simply reasserting something is not evidence.Linking to your personal website is not evidence.Please provide the actual primary source documentation indicative of the veracity of your claims.

Or this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
In the paradigm of the MPG such bottlenecks are less relevant, since all information is already present in the genome.

---

What is the evidence that all of this information is already present? Please provide some evidence, perhaps from the Human Genome.

quote:

---

Besides, mutations can be introduced rapidly through non-random (directed) mechanisms.

---

Please provide the evidence that such mechanisms exist. Please also demonstrate why the following article does not demonstrate that 'directed mutations' are not what they are claimed to be:******************************************Amplification-mutagenesis: evidence that "directed" adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2164-9Hendrickson H, Slechta ES, Bergthorsson U, Andersson DI, Roth JR.Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.When a particular lac mutant of Escherichia coli starves in the presence of lactose, nongrowing cells appear to direct mutations preferentially to sites that allow growth (adaptive mutation). This observation suggested that growth limitation stimulates mutability. Evidence is provided here that this behavior is actually caused by a standard Darwinian process in which natural selection acts in three sequential steps. First, growth limitation favors growth of a subpopulation with an amplification of the mutant lac gene; next, it favors cells with a lac(+) revertant allele within the amplified array. Finally, it favors loss of mutant copies until a stable haploid lac(+) revertant arises and overgrows the colony. By increasing the lac copy number, selection enhances the likelihood of reversion within each developing clone. This sequence of events appears to direct mutations to useful sites. General mutagenesis is a side-effect of growth with an amplification (SOS induction). The F' plasmid, which carries lac, contributes by stimulating gene duplication and amplification. ,b>Selective stress has no direct effect on mutation rate or target specificity, but acts to favor a succession of cell types with progressively improved growth on lactose. The sequence of events--amplification, mutation, segregation--may help to explain both the origins of some cancers and the evolution of new genes under selection.

quote:

---

2) The second problem is the DNA dating analysis [see my comments on mtDNA --> 10 mutations/62000 years in human, 24 in chimps (5-10.000.000 years) and 27 in neanderthaler (500.000 years), and see the ZFY region in human/primates]. In conclusion, DNA dating analysis are not accurate, and are probably not even valid. They are always calibrated subject paleontological data, and/or with respect to interspecies comparison.

---

Please explain then how molecular dating techniques (not global clock)are congruent with fossil data. Coincidence?

quote:

---

The problem is: the evolutionary paradigm allows for interspecies comparison, while the MPG doesn't (for obvious reasons). If for instance only WITHIN species comparisons are carried out we find completely distinct dates for human origin.

---

Citation please?

dear Mammuthus,PB: It has nothing to do with my own personal religious paradigm. And by the way you know nothing about my religious paradigms. Maybe I do not even have a religious paradigm. All I did is expose your religion as scientifically false.M: Actually you have exposed your religious agenda on several occasions including references to the "nihlism" and "atheism" of evolution (both of which are false) and have stated on at least one occassion a belief in god. Your religious paradigm and your manner of debate reveal a typical conservative fundamentalist worldview...as to my religion..it is impossible for your to show it is false as I have no religion...I am an atheist after allPB: As mentioned before: "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, the theory of evolution is not one if them" (L. Spetner in Not by Chance).PB:
I studied almost all recent papers in Science and Nature on evolutionism and I know I've seen it through.M: Funny that I have to constantly pull up references for you that you are unaware of including in Nature and Science after you say you have studied all the papers so thoroughly.PB: you mean the papers that are always discussed subject to evolutionism? You know how I think about these discussions: Useless.PB: I know how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism.M: Still angry that your paper was rejected?PB: No, I am not. I was expecting it anyway. Try to get it in as a commentary to PNAS articles. It should be noted that your answer is not related to my remark, but anyway, I guess you like saying 'nothing'.PB: It has, however, nothing in common with science (add one chimp to a couple of human sequences and voila, everything looks fine!!!).M: Your views on science are hardly the standard by which all science is measured despite your ego and desire that they should be...and by the way, the chimp sequence is called an outgroup..I know all these unfamiliar scientific terms confuse you.PB: Here is what the scientists say in the article I referred to:"From the mean genetic distance between all humans and the one chimpanzee sequence (0.17 substitutions per site) and the assumption, based on paleontological and genetic evidence [this evidence has also been derived from paleontology, since there is no direct genetic evidence that advocates the evolutionary vision; PB], of a divergence time between humans and chimpanzees of 5Myr, the mutation rate (mu) for the mitochondrial molecule, excluding the D-loop, is estimated to be 1.70 x 10(-8) substitutions per site per year." (Nature 2000, vol408, p709).Here is black on white evidence of the evolutionists trick to get genetic data in accord with their theory. The mtDNA in anient human still conflict these data. The ancient human data on mtDNA in comparison with chimp demonstrate a common ancestor of human and chimp around 150.000 BP (or non-random mechanisms). The ZFY region demonstrated a very recent origin of mankind (0-800.000 BP). Also the above data would imply a recent origin of mankind. THEREFORE, the authors have to introduce ONE chimp sequence. That's the ONLY reason why they introduce the chimp, not because it is the out-group. It's just another TRICK. (I already showed the other trick of gene-tree/family-tree reconciliation). Very unscientific!!!It is also a common trick to refer to evolutionary papers as evidence. Looking up such papers usually merely bring forth the evolutionary hypothesis. So, hypotheses are referred to as fact. Very unscientific!!!PB: Now, you try to backpedal by questioning the validity if the genetic clock. I do not only question the validity of the clock, I question the paradigm of common descent in general.M: I never backpedalled..I stated from the outset that I do not support the accuracy of a molecular clock and explained why...that you claim othewise is dishonest.PB: Common evolutionists response. As soon as the data are conflicting evolutionism, the data have to be wrong. Evolutionism cannot be wrong, the data are wrong!!! It is common evolutionists reasoning. Their logic goes like: 1) evolutionism is true, 2) data not in accord with evolutionism are wrong.
This is the up-side-down world again and has nothing in common with science. The data are correct, since they have been produced and reproduced over and over again in different laborartories all over the world. So, the data are correct, the theory is wrong. Adapt the theory!! It is no longer credible.Likewise, redundant genes are doubted to be redundant since it conflicts evolutionism's concept of selection. So, redundant genes cannot be true, the must be selected for, so called 'very weak purifying selection'. I call this 'very strong misleading humbug'. The data demonstrate that these genes can be knocked out without affecting the organism. It has been repeated over and over and the data are CORRECT. There can be only one conclusion: the theory is false.PB: As I see it, evolutionism has fallen through molecular biology. Better believe it!M: You are free to see floating green bananas with silicon breast implants floating before your eyes yelling "squeeze me" to...but since you fail to support you assertions with evidence I have no reason to believe it...if you could really find compelling evidence that required a paradigm shift I would be there right beside you cheering you on..but you have not.PB: You are free to see the one organism floating into the other. I guess you buy yourself a couple of these nice computerized animations that demonstrate the non-existing transitions fluently.PB: By now, you should have convinced me that evolutionism is true.M: I did not realize this game had a time limit LOL! I guess the quantum physics researchers better be shaking that you will come along and say convince me that the floating green banana is not responsible in 30 seconds or less or I will declare to the world that the banana is responsible for all observed phenomenon..and watch out world..when Peter declares something..well er...does something happen?PB: Back to fallacies again. Dear Mammuthus, you never learn it, quantum physics has been proven, evolution not. (Yes, I know that population genetics has been proven, but it is NOT evolutionism. Yes, I know that DNA can change over time, but it is not evolutionism. It is the MPG). Thats the difference. You cannot compare them. O yeah, now I see, YOU are allowed to compare them since evolutionists also compare chimp and man. Now I get your logics. We need new logics to understand evolutionism, I guess?PB: All you do is defend the old paradigm and rebut my new hypothesis.M: I defend science and the scientific method and your hypothesis in its current form is not science and many of the tenets of your hypothesis are falsified.PB: As shown above evolutionism has nothing to do with science. Making the data fit with a theory is NO science!! It is the up-side-down world! The MPG can be tested, and as demonstred is evne predicts properly. Evolutionism doesn't predict anything, it 'post-dicts'.PB: It looks a lot like the up-side-down world.M: Try standing on your feet instead of your head..it helps ..sorry, smart ass comment but I could not resist.PB: Wish you really had some smart ass comments in stead of this meaningless response. M: Again, I would reiterate the request that you show which of the mutations in SLPx alignment are non random. It seems like a golden opportunity to at least describe an example of this phenomenon you claim exists and at the very least would show precisely what your reasoning is for the assertion.PB: Where do you think I propose the non-random mutations? The aligned mutations, of course. THEY will give the assumption of common descent, not the other ones. This should be obvious. As promised I will have a close look at the presented sequences and discuss it in detail (next months or so)Best wishes,
peter

Dear Dr Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
In the paradigm of the MPG such bottlenecks are less relevant, since all information is already present in the genome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: What is the evidence that all of this information is already present? Please provide some evidence, perhaps from the Human Genome.PB:1) genetic redundancies having no association with gene duplication and no correlation with mutation rate, 2) jumping DNA elements affecting gene expression, 3) the human genome demonstrates approx 40000 genes, 90% with unknown function (a lot of redundancies included, I expect from MPG).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, mutations can be introduced rapidly through non-random (directed) mechanisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Please provide the evidence that such mechanisms exist.PB: Already discussed the 1G5 gene, and the mtDNA in ancient humans. They demonstrate both random and non-random mutations. Randomness with respect to nucleotide and position. Not yet proven is non-randomness as a response to the environment (when?).Page: Please also demonstrate why the following article does not demonstrate that 'directed mutations' are not what they are claimed to be:******************************************Amplification-mutagenesis: evidence that "directed" adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2164-9Hendrickson H, Slechta ES, Bergthorsson U, Andersson DI, Roth JR.Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.When a particular lac mutant of Escherichia coli starves in the presence of lactose, nongrowing cells appear to direct mutations preferentially to sites that allow growth (adaptive mutation). This observation suggested that growth limitation stimulates mutability. Evidence is provided here that this behavior is actually caused by a standard Darwinian process in which natural selection acts in three sequential steps. First, growth limitation favors growth of a subpopulation with an amplification of the mutant lac gene; next, it favors cells with a lac(+) revertant allele within the amplified array. Finally, it favors loss of mutant copies until a stable haploid lac(+) revertant arises and overgrows the colony. By increasing the lac copy number, selection enhances the likelihood of reversion within each developing clone. This sequence of events appears to direct mutations to useful sites. General mutagenesis is a side-effect of growth with an amplification (SOS induction). The F' plasmid, which carries lac, contributes by stimulating gene duplication and amplification. ,b>Selective stress has no direct effect on mutation rate or target specificity, but acts to favor a succession of cell types with progressively improved growth on lactose. The sequence of events--amplification, mutation, segregation--may help to explain both the origins of some cancers and the evolution of new genes under selection.PB: Most importantly, it involves a DNA region that is PREEXISTING in these bacteria. The genome of E. coli contains the Lac-operon, a coding DNA-sequence alternated by stopcodons. I guess, the organism can drain this operon through recombination. It seems that in the population of E coli examined in the experiment a duplication is already present. Organisms that do not have the proper genomic set up will be selected against. It is the MPG in action. After removal of lactose and addition of complete medium it is likely that the bacteria that amplified part of the genome are selected against, since it takes more time to synthesise their chromosome, and so they will now be overgrown by the wild type.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The second problem is the DNA dating analysis [see my comments on mtDNA --> 10 mutations/62000 years in human, 24 in chimps (5-10.000.000 years) and 27 in neanderthaler (500.000 years), and see the ZFY region in human/primates]. In conclusion, DNA dating analysis are not accurate, and are probably not even valid. They are always calibrated subject paleontological data, and/or with respect to interspecies comparison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Please explain then how molecular dating techniques (not global clock) are congruent with fossil data. Coincidence?PB: They are not. Have a look at the species comparison of the ancient mtDNA. Chimp 24 differences with a human reference sequence, Neanderthaler 27 differences (or 23 or 28 depending on the specimen studied). Furthermore, it depends on the sequence one studies. Cytochrome c, for instance, has only one difference in chimp in comparison with human (0,3% on this gene that is highly variable throughout nature, implicating no selective constraint on the major part of the protein). I expect that one difference on a silent position can also be found in humans. In the ZFY region there is 5% difference between chimp and man. There are even genes in man not in apes (as discussed).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is: the evolutionary paradigm allows for interspecies comparison, while the MPG doesn't (for obvious reasons). If for instance only WITHIN species comparisons are carried out we find completely distinct dates for human origin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Citation please?PB: From the mtDNA in ancient humans and primates (PNAS 2001, vol98, p537-542). It demonstrates a common ancestor 150.000 BP (or non-random mechanisms).Best wishes,
Peter

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

Dear Mammuthus,PB: As mentioned before: "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, the theory of evolution is not one if them" (L. Spetner in Not by Chance).M: I was an atheist long before I studied evolution...long before I studied biology at for that matter.PB: Apparently you didn’t understand the above sentence. It means that since evolutionism can be demonstrated to be false, atheists do not have a religion anymore.M: Funny that I have to constantly pull up references for you that you are unaware of including in Nature and Science after you say you have studied all the papers so thoroughly.PB: you mean the papers that are always discussed subject to evolutionism? You know how I think about these discussions: Useless.M: Funny, you were the one claiming that you use your keen insights to analyze the data yourself and not rely on the conclusions...now you have flip flopped and clearly state that you just ignore both data and arguments that refute your own....this must also be a tenet of the MPG...like creationism...all evidence against must be ignored...I think this is even a stipulation of working with ICRPB: You response it a bit vague. What do you mean? All I say is that I can analyse data by myself, and I don’t need the evolutionist’s interpretation and conclusions. That still stands and has nothing to do with the MPG.PB: No, I am not. I was expecting it anyway. Try to get it in as a commentary to PNAS articles. It should be noted that your answer is not related to my remark, but anyway, I guess you like saying 'nothing'.M: Doubt it will fly in PNAS..most of the commentaries are general reviews of a given subject for which a paper is appearing in the same issue...but good luck...if it does not work there you might try Current Biology or one of the Current Opinion's journals.PB: I’ve sent it as a commentary.PB: Here is black on white evidence of the evolutionists trick to get genetic data in accord with their theory. The mtDNA in anient human still conflict these data. The ancient human data on mtDNA in comparison with chimp demonstrate a common ancestor of human and chimp around 150.000 BP (or non-random mechanisms). The ZFY region demonstrated a very recent origin of mankind (0-800.000 BP). Also the above data would imply a recent origin of mankind. THEREFORE, the authors have to introduce ONE chimp sequence. That's the ONLY reason why they introduce the chimp, not because it is the out-group. It's just another TRICK. (I already showed the other trick of gene-tree/family-tree reconciliation). Very unscientific!!!M: They publish a date of 5 Million and you claim 150,000. where is your number coming from? Which ancient human sequence in Nature? Since you don't cite the authors or the full reference I ended up in an X ray crystalography paper....As to ZFY giving a different coalescent time than mtDNA, I already dealt with this issue and you ignored it...the main tenet of MPG..ignore falsifications of MPGPB: Mammuthus are you serious here, or deliberately obtuse, or not reading my mails, or of short memory? The data in the ancient mtDNA paper demonstrate a common ancestor for chimp and hman around 150.000 BP. The data in Nature are only in accord with evolutionism by addition of ONE chimp sequence. Read the articles!! Find out for yourself.M: Do you mean this one?
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 Jan 16;98(2):537-42 Related Articles, LinksPB: Yes, I mean Adcock et all.M: Comment in:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jan 16;98(2):390-1.PB: The comments you refer to do not affect the observations on chimp and Neanderthaler.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians: Implications for modern human origins.Adcock GJ, Dennis ES, Easteal S, Huttley GA, Jermiin LS, Peacock WJ, Thorne A.Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies and John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.DNA from ancient human remains provides perspectives on the origin of our species and the relationship between molecular and morphological variation. We report analysis of mtDNA from the remains of 10 ancient Australians. These include the morphologically gracile Lake Mungo 3 [ approximately 60 thousand years (ka) before present] and three other gracile individuals from Holocene deposits at Willandra Lakes (
Best wishes,
Peter

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]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.[/QUOTE][/B]I noticed you seperated "&" by 'drift' off. Is this intentional?For my part what is maintainable anew may be that genes as local structures of say class 4 cellular automata make understanding of gene-differences as Huxley thought underlay Fisher's approach to NATURAL SELECTION more accurate able to better predict when combinded with Wright's approach to dominance mathematically becasue Pascal already operated at least textually with Cantory actual infinity and that *pre-ceeding* with Galton's notion of Pascal's triangle and Wolfram's software as A SUBSET of Cantor's "ordertype" and Pascal's "orders of numbers" the scored position effect (see Huxley THE MODERN SYNTHESIS) being thus projectable by exploratory database software visualization hardware that the physical limit of selectability is apporached (Fisher's genes like kinetic gas analogy (homologially?)) where the trait dIFferences recieve a means to bring classifications (baramins or any other pet project etc) into better taxonomies by a metric thus output (bugs and all) which would have facilitated the a posteriori natreu of the gene differences in terms of anlges only for which the chemistry would be needed to specify any projection from the limit (with or without Wolfram) (with or within Gould)into a plenum that represents the pedagocial point of dispute between creationists and"evolutionists".In any respect, if genetic recombination is rigorously analogous to combinations of NUMBERS then technology of the sort will advance the simplistic division of heterzygotes and mutants per population (new grammer up and coming) that (DRIFT??) had been maintained by crude stats (no demon etc) under prejudice of symmetry over transitiveness NO MATTER THE irrevesibility or increase quantitiavely. Croizat's contribution may be used to extend this line Wolfram started but it may be possible only from begining to READ from WITHIN religious content. That is only a guess.

PB: Apparently you didn’t understand the above sentence. It means that since evolutionism can be demonstrated to be false, atheists do not have a religion anymore.M: Atheists don't have a religion to begin with...and if you think all atheists are evolutionists you are really naive.PB: Atheists religion = evolutionism. That's why you are the most fanatic defender. Dear Mammuthus, maybe you didn't get it, but I attack you religion.M: Funny, you were the one claiming that you use your keen insights to analyze the data yourself and not rely on the conclusions...now you have flip flopped and clearly state that you just ignore both data and arguments that refute your own....this must also be a tenet of the MPG...like creationism...all evidence against must be ignored...I think this is even a stipulation of working with ICRPB: You response it a bit vague. What do you mean? All I say is that I can analyse data by myself, and I don’t need the evolutionist’s interpretation and conclusions. That still stands and has nothing to do with the MPG.M: You claimed you had no need to read any of the papers I cited because you a priori disagree with the papers. Sort of like fundies who protest against movies without actually ever having seen them...since you claim you can analyze the data yourself, it should not matter what conclusions the authors draw...you should be able to read the cited paper, access the data and support you case..you have not.PB: I read these papers and I already know the discussion. Actually, they are no discussions --as we do discussion-- they are just-so stories.M: Doubt it will fly in PNAS..most of the commentaries are general reviews of a given subject for which a paper is appearing in the same issue...but good luck...if it does not work there you might try Current Biology or one of the Current Opinion's journals.PB: I’ve sent it as a commentary.M: Good luck.M: They publish a date of 5 Million and you claim 150,000. where is your number coming from? Which ancient human sequence in Nature? Since you don't cite the authors or the full reference I ended up in an X ray crystalography paper....As to ZFY giving a different coalescent time than mtDNA, I already dealt with this issue and you ignored it...the main tenet of MPG..ignore falsifications of MPGPB: Mammuthus are you serious here, or deliberately obtuse, or not reading my mails, or of short memory? The data in the ancient mtDNA paper demonstrate a common ancestor for chimp and hman around 150.000 BP. The data in Nature are only in accord with evolutionism by addition of ONE chimp sequence. Read the articles!! Find out for yourself.M: It is you who is obtuse Peter...the paper says nothing about the common ancestor of human and chimp...it is about the most recent common ancestor of humans.PB: Drawing conclusions from data that are published but not discussed is not allowed in evolutionism? Why? You think that only if a paper says something than it is accepted as fact? Sometimes papers show much more than discussed, Especially papers on evolutionary topics. What I can see in the PNAS data (Adcock et al) --that are not discussed-- is that if modern and ancient (62 kyr BP) human differ in 10 positions, and chimp and modern human differ in 24 positions the common ancestor of both is around 150 kyr BP. Like wise, modern human and Neanderthal differ in 27 positions, and thus a common ancestor around the same time). There is not even a rudimentary clock to be found in this example.M: Although this analysis did not reliably establish an early divergence of the LM3/Insert lineage, it demonstrated that the lineage is unusually long. We confirmed the latter conclusion by comparing the distribution of pairwise differences between the LM3 and 3,453 contemporary human mtDNA sequences, the distribution between the Insert sequence and the same sample of contemporary sequences, and the distribution of differences among the 3,453 contemporary sequences (Fig. 2A). The range of differences between the LM3 sequence and the contemporary sequences (6-21, mode = 12) is at the upper end of the range of differences among contemporary sequences (0-23, mode = 6). The range of differences between the Insert sequence and the contemporary sequences (16-28, mode = 21) extends well beyond the range of differences among contemporary sequences, indicating either that the Insert has evolved faster than sequences in the mitochondrial genome or that the LM3/Insert lineage diverged earlier. The first possibility is unlikely because in mammals the nuclear genome evolves much more slowly that the mitochondrial genome, and because a high rate of substitution at the Insert locus would be associated with a high level of sequence diversity within human populations, which is not observed (49). There is also no indication of an accelerated rate of evolution in other nuclear genome inserts from the mitochondrial genome (57). The more likely explanation is that the lineage leading to the Insert and LM3 sequences diverged before the MRCA of living human mtDNA sequences."PB: What does the above quote refer to? If it demonstrates something is that genetic differences in mtDNA doesn't say anything about evolutionism, common descent or whatsoever. It merely demonstrates that one can NOT use such sequences to do evolutionism related research.A view of Neandertal genetic diversityM Krings, C Capelli, F Tschentscher, H Geisert, S Meyer, A von Haeseler, K Grossschmidt, G Possnert, M Paunovic & S Pbo
Nature Genetics 26, 144 - 146 (2000).PB: No, but thanks for this refernce. From this reference even more dramatic differences between human and Neanderthaler is observed. Far more than between human and chimp!!The sequences from the two Neandertals differ from those of 663 modern humans sampled from all areas of the world by 34+/- 4 substitutions and by an insertion of an adenosine residue shared by the two Neandertals. They are not closer to 472 contemporary mtDNAs in Europe (35.32.1, range 29—43), the area where they existed until approximately 30,000 years ago, than to, for example, 151 African (33.92.8, range 28—42) or 41 Asian mtDNAs (33.52.1, range 29—38).M: LOL...where is the chimp in this example? The pairwise distribution of humans versus chimps do not even overlap!...oh, and didnt you claim you read all Nature and Science articles on evolution? Yet you miss a prominent Nature Genetics article on neandertal's?...glad you are so thorough.PB: The chimp sequence can be found in the PNAS article (Adcock et al, PNAS 2001, 98:537-42). It demonstrates 24 differences with respect to the human reference. Your reference demonstrates 34+/-4 differences between human and neanderthal. So, the Neanderthal split off before chimp and human split off? How do you interpret this? [And, yes, I missed this one.]PB: So, please explain how you see the evolutionary clock. In my opinion these are clear cut falsifications of common descent. You can of course always introduce NON-Random Mutations.M: What does this have to do with evolutionary clocks? Your opinion is irrelevant since the data does not support your opinion.PB: As explained above, it does. Please explain why Neanderthal demonstrates far more differences than chimp in comparison to man.PB: To keep up an appearance is very unscientific. If data do not support the MPG hypothesis I would admit it. I am a scientists, I let data speak. Not the other way around.M: Ok, so support non-random evolution or any other tenet of your MPG or admit that you cannot.PB: the data on the papers we are currently dscussing support a non-random mechanism, not a mechanism that is determined by random mutation alone. If random mutation was all there is, than it was expected that Neanderthal was an intermediate between chimp and man, not the other way around. I mean, now we see chimp as an intermediate between Neanderthal and man. I think, no evolutionist would agree to that.M: Presented with SLPx alignment you could not even show one example of "obvious" non random mutation. Your other examples have been clear lack of any knowledge of pop. gen or totally not even bothering to read the papers you cite yourself.PB: I demonstrated two examples. Our problem is that you don't accept them as non-random mutations. Probably, the Neanderthalers repair mechanisms were so degenerate, a phenomenon reflected in more differences compared to man than chimp, and therefore it died out.M: Then Peter you are a liar. I claimed I do not believe molecular clocks are accurate. I provided references on the controversy surrounding using dates from molecular clocks as accurate. I also explained how this has no impact on evolutionary theory. That you go into a hissy fit about what data is produced where and how and claim that I am claiming something other than the above regarding clocks shows again that your arguments have failed and you have no alternative but to make arguments that I did not use to support your unsupportable position..pathetic.PB: So, now I am a liar. A racistic liar, I guess. Dear Mammuthus, why do you have to be so personal?
If you do not believe in molecular clocks, than even the alignment of shared mutations may be due to a different mechanisms than common descent. It may be non-random mutations.M: You are a liar because on this issue you constantly and purposefully attibute claims to me which I did not make. Your comments on the Yanomamo were stupid at best, racist at worst.PB: I didn't do that. Sometimes I draw an obvious evolutionary concluson from presented data, and wait for your response: Whether you agree or not. I like to have YOUR opinion on the topic, not the opinion of another evolutionary reference. I know their opinions. I am interested in your opinion. That's all.M: Do you even know what a molecular clock is? From your question it is clear you do not.PB: If you think so, please explain what a molecular clock is.M: And all of these organisms have been returned to the wild to see if they have reduced fitness...doubt it..and you still don't understand fitness or population genetics...Borger fallacy 1000 falsified again...kaching!PB: I don’t see the link. Please elaborate.M: LOL!!! That is the problem...that you 1) don't know what fitness is 2) don't see the link is exactly the problem.PB: If you think so, please explain what 1) fitness is, 2) the link.PB: You are free to see the one organism floating into the other. I guess you buy yourself a couple of these nice computerized animations that demonstrate the non-existing transitions fluently.M: Somehow poetic...incomprehensible but poeticPB: So you agree?M: Agree with something incomprehensible...no...just said it was poetic A bit drug induced sounding...but poetic.PB: Never seen these animations on dinosaurs? Bob Bakker shows them all the time on telly. How the one kind transforms into the other kind via non-existing transition forms.M: Ok show me the "proof" of quantum physics...PB: Ask a physic, computer designer, chip technologist.M: You made the claim..you "prove" quantum physics...or "prove" the theory of gravity....or suddenly you are relying on what a phyiscist tells you because you don't understand it? You claim to be the brilliant super skeptic who can analyze the data and find the truth...prove it hotshot.PB: The fact that you are mailing on line with a guy in Australia via a computer is proof of quantum mechanics. For you it is also proof of evolutionism, I know.M: It might actually help if you demonstrated any knowledge of population genetics...and if you think your Xfiles pseudoscience MPG is population genetics it is laughable that you claim that population genetics has been proven as almost all tenets of your hypothesis go directly against the basis of transmission genetics.PB: My X-files are backed up by science, your X-files aren't. They are backed up by stories published in peer reviewed papers. It doesn't make them more scientific.PB: Disciplines NOT supported by contemporary science are indeed pseudosciences. I agree.
According to this criterion evolutionism is pseudo-science.M: Oh you mean like that real science like "creationism" or "flood" mythology LOL! It is clear you don't actually know the difference between science and pseudoscience.PB: I know the differnce, and I will admit when the MPG cannot hold
in the light of scientific observations. That makes me a scientist. You never admit when evolutionism cannot hold. You need evolutionism for your worldview.M: Sorry Peter, evolution IS population genetics over varying periods of time...tough crap for youPB: You try it again Mammuthus. But you know that it is NOT accepted as evolution. Nothing evolved here. It is actually part of the MPG hypothesis.M: Keep dreaming Peter...ignorance is your bliss.PB: That how evolutionist keep up the appearance. By using completely wrong definitions. Dear Mammuthus, population genetics deals with GENES that are already present in the POPULATION. That's why it is called POPULATION GENETICS. The GENES of a POPULATION. Rings a bell?
Evolutionism should be concerned with the origin of genes. That what is has promised mankind: to provide an explanation for the origin of all life forms, including genes and genetic programs. It has been demonstrated over the years that evolutionism can't do that. Promises promises, nothing but promises.M: Funny that you are insulted by human chimp comparisons...kind of like your racist outburst against the Yanomamo.PB: You are getting personal, Mammuthus. Please keep it scientific.M: I did not call the Yanomamo the "rape and run indians"....not personal...just a "data supported observation".PB: I didn't call them "rape and run indians" either. I said, [quote] "you mean the rape an run cultural thing of the yanomani indians". That is what these indians do. It is a cultural thing. As soon as the lawfull husband leaves town, the other men in town rape the woman. It is an observation, and has nothing to do with racism. Do you know what racism means? Apparently not.
According to the Oxford Dictinary,
racism: 1) a belief in superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on race, 2) the belief that human abilities are determined by race.
Neither of these definitions fit my previous statements on the Yanomani. I could demand for an apology, but I am not childish. I forgive you your mistake without conditions.M: Acutally you have not shown anything in this post really. Data fits a theory or it does not and the thoery is revised or abandoned..which means MPG is screwed.PB: Actually, you don’t read my mails or you don’t understand my mails. Or you are deliberately distorting the content of my mails. More fallacies and denial.M: I read your mails..I actually answer all your posts unlike you. What am I distorting?PB: Yes, you provide a rebuttal to most of my posts. Usually, quite readable, sometimes delibately obtuse. Often, pretending not to understand the MPG, or making a strawman out of it and attack that For instance, you often refer to the MPG as non-random mutations. However, it has nothing to do with non-random mutations. In letter #1 I stated that in conjunction with non-random mutations MPG is able to explain ALL biological phenomena.PB: I already did that and there is a tremendous amount of data fitting the MPG, not fitting evolutionism. Read what the MPG hypothesis holds and predicts. Letter #1.M: Already been there...and conveniently, many of my responses falsifying MPG went unanswered...Quetzal's to.PB: No, all substantial responses have been addressed.M: Again, I would reiterate the request that you show which of the mutations in SLPx alignment are non random. It seems like a golden opportunity to at least describe an example of this phenomenon you claim exists and at the very least would show precisely what your reasoning is for the assertion.PB: here you deomonstrae my previous point. Stressing that there is no evidence for non-random (mutation while there is) and than attacking MPG. The MPG hypothesis and the NRM hypothesis and creatons-morphogenetics hypotheis together comprise the Grand Unifying Theory of Biology.PB: Where do you think I propose the non-random mutations?M: You tell me, it is your proposal after all.PB:
The aligned mutations, of course. THEY will give the assumption of common descent, not the other ones. This should be obvious. As promised I will have a close look at the presented sequences and discuss it in detail (next months or so)M: If it is so obvious then show us...saying They...not the other ones is so completely meaningless that I start to think you are joking. And if it is so obvious why do you need months to even show 1 freaking non-random mutation from SLPx alignment?..hint...because you cannot...prove me wrongPB: I will discuss this example in detail both in an evolutionary fashion and a MPG interpretation. I am not in a hurry. This board will be around for ages I guess. It will slowly evolve in a pro-creationism board.M: Aha, so your "obvious" example requires a huge effort that could take ages? considering how much you blather about non-random mutations I would assume you would be rabidly jumping up and down to show me and SLPx and the others that you are right and we are wrong...yet, this "obvious" phenomenon is not forthcoming any time soon from a data set supplied for you? Answer: there are no non-random mutations in SLPx data set.PB: Apparently you didn't have a look at Dr Page's data set. There are both random and non-random sites. The non-random mutations are the mutations you take as evidence for common descent. The random mutations are scattered. As obvious as that.M: As to this site "evolving" into a pro-creation board...only if they employ the favorite creationist board tactic which is to ban anyone who is not a creationist.PB: So you do not exclude the possibility?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-20-2002]

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

PB: The ancient human data on mtDNA in comparison with chimp demonstrate a common ancestor of human and chimp around 150.000 BP (or non-random mechanisms) [b]Wow, Borger the creationist really is on the incompetent side. I do hope the research he does in his area of expertise is of higher quality.Pete - can I call you Pete? - The LCA being referred to here is between modern Homo and Neanderthal, noit human and chimp.I mean, really....

PB:
"PB: Apparently you didn't have a look at Dr Page's data set. There are both random and non-random sites. The non-random mutations are the mutations you take as evidence for common descent. The random mutations are scattered. As obvious as that." [b]What hokum.I guess YOU did not look at the data.If you did, please tell us in which genomic areas the bulk of your 'directed mutations' occurred in, and please explain how that would be.

PB:
"PB: Atheists religion = evolutionism. That's why you are the most fanatic defender. Dear Mammuthus, maybe you didn't get it, but I attack you religion." [b]So you are a religious bigot?