molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

So is observing something in a lab your new criterion for scientiific validity?

---

​

Most evo here realize I’ve been asking for observed examples. Giving me examples of duplications that allegedly happened millions of years ago is begging the question.

​

We have done countless experiments in the lab over many years on organisms with rapid reproductive cycles, yet we cannot find ONE single example of increased genetic information. If evolution is true, we should be able to produce literally millions of examples. But you guys can’t even produce ONE.

​

quote:

---

So, as is a common creationist tactic, you have set up an impossible 'challenge.'

---

​

No, what is a common evolutionist tactic is to handwave away what should be a common observation. IT is hardly an impossible ‘challenge’.

​

quote:

---

Apparently, you want something to occur meeting the above criteria in 'real time.' Informed and rational creationists know that this is an unrealistic and therefore fallacious challenge.

---

​

Which creationists are those?

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Dr Page,

​

In reponse to:

​

quote:

---

What monkenstick said...You are really out there...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,

​

In mail #10 (thread: molecular genetic proof against random mutations) you wrote

---

Actually, message #10 in that thread was written by you, not me.

quote:

---

:

​

I believe you have make an entirely unwarranted and somewhat bizarre extrapolation.

​

"a comparison between fixed and polymorphic sites between the two species shows also no significant deviation from the assumption of a neutral evolution in this region.

​

Apparently, you have never heard of the Neutral Theory?

​

MY RESPONSE:

​

From your response above it is immediately clear that it is YOU who apparently never heard of neutral theory since you attacked the authors of the paper (!!).

​

The sentence you quote above is a quote of Karl J. Schmid and Diethard Tautz in their paper A screen for fast evolving genes from Drosophila.

​

Your responses get sloppier and more inconsistent. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, why do you mail me this non-sense? It really puzzles me.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

I don't email you anything. I post to a discussion board, just like you.However, Peter, there is a pesky thing called context.What you quote above came from message 26, not 10.The part you apparently forgot to read - written by YOU - to which I was replyiing:"Thus, this gene is not under selective constraint and has not been selected for during millions of years. Unless you would like to assume neutral selection. I have posted a couple of e-mails to evolutionary theorist to figure out what they exacly mean by neutral selection. None of them responded, demonstrating the current problem in NDT."That is what YOU wrote.Here is what I quoted form your source:"a comparison between fixed and polymorphic sites between the two species shows also no significant deviation from the assumption of a neutral evolution in this region.New emphasis mine.This quote is at odds with your comment that I quote above.Neutral evolutionis not neutral selection.Of course, Peter, I am not the one claiming that conserved sequence in introns falsifies the Neutral Theory.Am I?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itzpapalotl:
Although the ancient examples are unobserved there is good evidence that they occured, do you disagree with the evidence for the duplications and what are your reasons for this?. The evidence could be inconclusive but that should also be possible show with reference to the evidence.

​

Your position that "gene duplication followed by mutation" does not happen is in direct conflict with Peter Borger's who used the strong evidence for selection on duplicated genes (a high rate of nonsynonymous mutations, clearly "gene duplication followed by mutation") as evidence for his multipurpose genome theory.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

I was not saying you believed any specific gene had arisen through duplication just that you were aware of the large amount of research that indicates a high rate of nonsynonymous compared to synonymous mutations in duplicated genes (Kondrashov et al), something which Fred Williams claimed doesn't happen ("gene duplication followed by mutation").

---

​

I never said "gene duplication followed by mutation" doesn't happen. What I did say is that there are no observed examples of "gene duplication followed by mutation" that represent an increase in genetic information. Observed examples often show loss of information since they are associated with some disease.

​

The only examples given for new, useful genetic information for a species (see Page, Mamuthus) are speculative events that allegedly happened millions of years ago. In other words, there is no evidence for increased genetic information - it's all speculation.

---

Your biased, lopsided, arbitrary, and laughably naive "criterion" is duly noted.Please Williams, tell us all about the OBSERVED - in a controlled lab setting, that is - science that supports a 10,000 year old earth and subsequent creation (and subsequent slaughter, then subsequent magical regeneration) of all creatures.Surely, you MUST be able to do this, lest yourb demand that the 'evos' show you the same for their position rings awfully shallow and hollow, no?Of course, I can see right through this, Williams.Should such an occurrance be presented, would Williams accept it and say "Oh well, guess I was wrong. Evolution via generation of new information really can happen."LOL!No - Williams already has an out.You see, were this shown to him, he would claim that is was evidence not for evolution, but for creation.Bcause after all, humans had to "design" the experiments. They had to manipulate nature.Therefore, it is proof that Goddidit.This is an old creationist trick. Randy Wysong already pre-rejected any such laboratory science in his laughable 1976 book, and creationists great and small have been using it ever since.It is a sham.But the reader willnotice that WIlliams is still ignoring the scenairto in which a gene duplication without subsequent mutation alters phenotype.The "new information" argument is already moot, and informed creationists know this.That is why creationists still use this argument - because there is no such thing as an informed creationist...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Still, your example is an alleged occurence from millions of years ago. I’ll repeat that if NeoDarwinian evolution is true, there should be myriads of observed examples occurring in our labs.

---

If biblical creation were true, we should find humans and tricertops (or any other actual dinosaur) in contemporaneous strata. Indeed, there shold be thousands of such findings.Where are they, fred?

quote:

---

There are NONE. Even if you found a handful this would not be provocative becuase you should find tons and tons of examples.

---

Yes, we should find tons of human fossils alongside - literally, in some cases, I'm sure - all sorts of leviathans and dinosaurs.We should have all sorts of creation science 're-creating' the original kinds in a lab. With all the money that these groups haul in, you'd think that maybe the ICR grad school of something would have produced the goods by now.

quote:

---

With rapidly reproducing species we can obseve millions of generations in the lab. It turns out mutations invariably lead to reduced genetic information. No sign whatsoever of evolution in the positive, upward direction. None, nada, zippo. This is highly damaging evidence against evolution. Methinks it’s all a fairytale!

---

Again, does anyone really care what a YEC electrical engineer thinks about anything but electrical engineering issues?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Hi Peter,

​

I beleive the following lends support to predictions 1 & 5 of your MPG theory:

---

Apparently, you missed the part where Borger lets it slip that his ... 'theory' is actually not cretinism friendly..Of course, one would have to be a complete moron to think that any of this anti-evolution claptrap has merit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
The only examples given for new, useful genetic information for a species (see Page, Mamuthus) are speculative events that allegedly happened millions of years ago. In other words, there is no evidence for increased genetic information - it's all speculation.

---

Mantras aside, Williams simply misrepresents the situation. His naivete in science shines brightly, and grows stronger with nearly every post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

I was not saying you believed any specific gene had arisen through duplication just that you were aware of the large amount of research that indicates a high rate of nonsynonymous compared to synonymous mutations in duplicated genes (Kondrashov et al), something which Fred Williams claimed doesn't happen ("gene duplication followed by mutation").

---

​

I never said "gene duplication followed by mutation" doesn't happen. What I did say is that there are no observed examples of "gene duplication followed by mutation" that represent an increase in genetic information. Observed examples often show loss of information since they are associated with some disease.

​

The only examples given for new, useful genetic information for a species (see Page, Mamuthus) are speculative events that allegedly happened millions of years ago. In other words, there is no evidence for increased genetic information - it's all speculation.

---

​

Your biased, lopsided, arbitrary, and laughably naive "criterion" is duly noted.

​

Please Williams, tell us all about the OBSERVED - in a controlled lab setting, that is - science that supports a 10,000 year old earth and subsequent creation (and subsequent slaughter, then subsequent magical regeneration) of all creatures.

​

Surely, you MUST be able to do this, lest yourb demand that the 'evos' show you the same for their position rings awfully shallow and hollow, no?

​

Of course, I can see right through this, Williams.

​

Should such an occurrance be presented, would Williams accept it and say "Oh well, guess I was wrong. Evolution via generation of new information really can happen."

​

LOL!

​

No - Williams already has an out.

​

You see, were this shown to him, he would claim that is was evidence not for evolution, but for creation.

​

Bcause after all, humans had to "design" the experiments. They had to manipulate nature.

​

Therefore, it is proof that Goddidit.

​

This is an old creationist trick. Randy Wysong already pre-rejected any such laboratory science in his laughable 1976 book, and creationists great and small have been using it ever since.

​

It is a sham.

​

But the reader willnotice that WIlliams is still ignoring the scenairto in which a gene duplication without subsequent mutation alters phenotype.

​

The "new information" argument is already moot, and informed creationists know this.

​

That is why creationists still use this argument - because there is no such thing as an informed creationist...

​

---

Funny how Williams blows this all off with his childish mantra about 'rhetoric'....Guess the cretin doesn't like it when his own ... 'logic'.... is thrown back in his face...