|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] quote: No, I actually believe it’s worse than he states! (he’s assuming none of the mutations are removed via selection)
quote: Plenty!
[/quote] Quantify please.quote: So why do all of those things (minus the as yet mythical 'non-random mutations - I take it that you are proselytizing something else now?) not help evolution over the course of millions of years? How can you not see the obvious absurdity of your position? Drift, exon shuffling, etc. can make millions og extant 'kinds' from a few 'original' kinds off the ark in 5000 years, but those same processes cannot evolve anything in millions! Makes sense.... Of course, I do hope that you rethink your contradictory positions on neutral mutations....quote: Please produce the documentation for the existence of these information-rich genome having Kinds. I should like to see the lab reports. If you cannot produce such evidence, then your entire position will have to be considered baseless speculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] quote: You mean that1) neutrals incur a higher reproductive cost to fix than beneficials? 2) Neutral mutations may play a role in hyperspeciation? Do you really want to go down this road again, Scott? You apparently still refuse to realize that the above statements are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. I’ll give you a clue: etar. [/quote] You can give me all of the asinine clues you want to, and you are still making contradictory, unrealistic claims. If they incur a higher reproductive cost, where are all of the excesses coming from? If the original kind disembarks 5000 years ago, what must the neutral rate be to account for the extant diversity? What is the evidence for this rate? And if we start with only two individuals, please explain how the costs can be paid in so short a time. Where did all the expendable individuals come from? And what is the evidence for this?And please explain - with supporting docuemntation - how neutral mutations can result in speciation. Also, please explain - with documentation - how if these things can rescue creationary genetics in the YEC timeframe, why the same processes - which you have of course co-opted from evolutionary biology anyway - can't "help" evolution with much longer timeframes? I'm sure you will be able to provide documentation for your claims. Documentation that, unlike Borger's, actually supports what you state. Because if you can't, all will realize that you are just talking creationism. heres a hint for you:ytilaer Look into it. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I predict that this post will get no reply. Certainly no substantive one...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Or this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What is the evidence that all of this information is already present? Please provide some evidence, perhaps from the Human Genome.quote: 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):2164-9 Hendrickson 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: Please explain then how molecular dating techniques (not global clock)are congruent with fossil data. Coincidence?quote: Citation please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Just a few comments:
quote: Speculation all.quote: So that is a zero.quote: That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the mutations involved were non-random. Red herring noted.quote: Indeed.[hoping this reproduces properly] This is from my dissertation: *****************************************************************Estimates of Branching-Times Within the families Cercopithecidae and Hominidae Branch-Point Local Clock DNA-DNA Hybridization Fossil Based Clock Estimates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Colobinae - 15-14 Ma 14 Ma ~12-14 Ma Cercopithecinae Asian — 10- 9 Ma 10 Ma ~12-13 Ma African Colobines Nasalis - 6-5 Ma n/a ~3-4 MaTrachypithecus Cercopithecini - 10-9 Ma 10 Ma ~9 Ma Papionini Macaca - 8 Ma 7 Ma ~7-8 Ma rest of Papioninin/a Hylobatini — 17-18 Ma 16 Ma 14 MaHominini Homo — Gorilla 6-10 Ma 8 Ma 8 Ma Homo(Homo) — 5- 6 Ma 6 Ma 6 Ma Homo(Pan)***************************************************************** The local clock calculations were done using the dataset I have linked to. Yeah, just coincidence, I suppose...quote: You know, its funny. I just downloaded that paper and there is nothing even remotely indicated that your 'interpretation' is based in reality. Indeed, the date of 150,000 years does not even appear in the paper, but it is clear that the ancestor being mentioned is not the LCA of chimps and humans. I do suggest that your zeal to be 'right' has clouded your ability to think straight. This is a clear misrepresentation of that paper. Unless you are citing the wrong one - this is the Adcock et al. paper, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: LOL! No, Williams, there are over 900 species of bat. No wonder creationism makes sense to layman - they have no idea what they are talkiing about from the get-go...
quote: Is there any actual evidence for this (on the ark), or is it just cretin number games? [This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Please provide the documentation that there are new species of cheetah due to their bottleneck.quote: Documentation please.quote: See above. Sounds like the usual Williams ad hoc unsupported gibberish. quote: I am still waiting for evidence that evolution requires it - at least as it is impklied by the likes of internet pseudogeniuses and experts. I am also still waiting for controlled lab experiments demonstrating Yahweh's creative abilities.I would also settle for lab observations of information arising supernaturally
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I have the paper in my hand.quote: Like I said, there is no such figure anywhere in the paper (150,000 kyr ancestor). It goes undiscussed, apparently, because it s not in existence. I submit, Borger, that you simply do not know how to interpret the tree. In fact, and I suggest you actually look at it for comprehension THIS TIME, in the tree humans branch first from Neanderthals, THEN the great apes. There is no time scale given at all, so your 150,000 bit seems completely fabricated. The scale bar in that figure is for branch length changes, not time.quote: Pardon my language, but Borger, you are so full of shit that I have a hard time forcing myself to read your incoherent creationist claptrap anymore. I understand full well that you simply do not know how to understand raw data. Your treatment of the alignment I linked to demonstrated that nicely - your naive, unsupported assertions were comically inept, to say the least. You and WIlliams are a wonferful pair. Again - Borger has totally made up this common ancestor of chimps and humans at 150,000 years nonsense. The paper that HE cited does not contain the "facts" he claims - and still is claiming, apparently - are in it. I therefore consider Borger to be a charlatan, and no longer worth wasting time on. He is incompetent, dishonest, and clearly quite ignorant of the very topics he brings up. Good day to you Borger - I sincerely hope the output in your ACTUAL area of research is not plagued with such incompetentce and dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
FW:Why do you have trouble with this? Taking in too much of Page's canned rhetoric?
[b]Canned rhetoric? Is that like saying that you want observed instances of evolution, lest it must be false, then IGNORING requests for observed evidence for the YEC cult beliefs? Your projection is starting to exceed your pseudocertainty. Everyone, Fred, EVERYONE can see that you toss out ad hoc nonsense, just-so stories, and repeated assertions as your 'evidence.' And EVERYONE can see that you IGNORE requests for ACTUAL evidence. You and Borger... Put Rowan and Martin to shame... Oh - still waiting for observed occurrances of information arising supernaturally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
FW:We are not required to account for all the species of algae, fungi, insects, fish, mollusks, etc. (note that there are almost a million catalogued species of insects/spiders!).
[b]Well, if some of those things were not on the ark, how did they survive? Surely you do not think that freshwater molluscs and plants could have survived for more than a yewar in salt water? Insects? How did they survive? The creationist has to go way extra-biblical to try to amke sense of the bible. Look at Woodmorappe and his pelletized food and animals trained to poop into buckets on command...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024