molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

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

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

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

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

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

PB: Although it could be an explanation to reduce variability, the complete absence of variability can NOT be explained by your proposal. (See above). Neither inbreeding nor selection sweep can help you. BTW, selection sweep is nothing. It was merely introduced to fit data into evolutionism. It is like very weak purifying slection (=almost neutral selection). Meaningless nothingness.M: Why? How much genetic variation does a population reduced to a single individual carry?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
PB: Although it could be an explanation to reduce variability, the complete absence of variability can NOT be explained by your proposal. (See above). Neither inbreeding nor selection sweep can help you. BTW, selection sweep is nothing. It was merely introduced to fit data into evolutionism. It is like very weak purifying slection (=almost neutral selection). Meaningless nothingness.

​

M: Why? How much genetic variation does a population reduced to a single individual carry?

​

---

********************Oh yeah and to do something profoundly annoying to creationists..actually back up my claims with data...of course it will then be duly ignored since after all ignorance is blissCurr Biol 2000 Oct 19;10(20):1287-90
An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck.
Weber DS, Stewart BS, Garza JC, Lehman N.
Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.A bottleneck in population size of a species is often correlated with a sharp reduction in genetic variation. The northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) has undergone at least one extreme bottleneck, having rebounded from 20-100 individuals a century ago to over 175,000 individuals today. The relative lack of molecular-genetic variation in contemporary populations has been documented, but the extent of variation before the late 19th century remains unknown. We have determined the nucleotide sequence of a 179 base-pair segment of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region from seals that lived before, during and after a bottleneck low in 1892. A 'primerless' PCR was used to improve the recovery of information from older samples. Only two mtDNA genotypes were present in all 150+ seals from the 1892 bottleneck on, but we discovered four genotypes in five pre-bottleneck seals. This suggests a much greater amount of mtDNA genotypic variation before this bottleneck, and that the persistence of two genotypes today is a consequence of random lineage sampling. We cannot correlate the loss of mtDNA genotypes with a lowered mean fitness of individuals in the species today. However, we show that the species historically possessed additional genotypes to those present now, and that sampling of ancient DNA could elucidate the genetic consequences of severe reductions in population size.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,
{left out all irrelevant stuff}

​

Maybe you didn't get it but I am going to change biology.
Good luck with the old paradigm

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

****************+Wow..what stunning replies to the posts from yesterday...I mean..I am in awe at the concise logic and multiple rebuttals....LOL! you are going to grow old and bitter when you don't become as famous as you hope...oh well...sad...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]Hi Peter,I beleive the following lends support to predictions 1 & 5 of your MPG theory:Nature 403, 616 (2000) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.Conservation biology: 'Ghost' alleles of the Mauritius kestrelJIM J. GROOMBRIDGE*, CARL G. JONES, MICHAEL W. BRUFORD & RICHARD A. NICHOLS* Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
Mauritius Wildlife Foundation, Black River, Mauritius
School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary & Westfield College, London E1 4NS, UK
Present address: Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3TL, UKThe population of Mauritius kestrels is thought to have recovered from a single wild breeding pair in 1974, when its prospects were considered to be hopeless, to over 200 pairs today. Here we evaluate the loss of genetic variation that resulted from this bottleneck by typing 12 microsatellite DNA loci in museum skins up to 170 years old and from modern kestrels. We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species. This shows that the unexpected resilience of the population could not have been due either to benefits contributed by an undetected remnant population or to reduction of the inbreeding genetic load by a history of small population size.
*******************M: Bwaahaaahaaahaaa!!!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!!1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.From the abstract of your own reference:
"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species."Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass Fred5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes.And again:
We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot air Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-22-2002]

And so you can indulge you dog fixation...Genetic Evidence for an East Asian Origin of Domestic DogsPeter Savolainen, Ya-ping Zhang, Jing Luo, Joakim Lundeberg, and Thomas Leitner
Science Nov 22 2002: 1610-1613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material]Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World DogsJennifer A. Leonard, Robert K. Wayne, Jane Wheeler, Ral Valadez, Sonia Guilln, and Carles Vil
Science Nov 22 2002: 1613-1616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material]The Domestication of Social Cognition in DogsBrian Hare, Michelle Brown, Christina Williamson, and Michael Tomasello
Science Nov 22 2002: 1634-1636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material]All todays issue of Science....no poodles magically turning into St. Bernards here SLPx and Quetzal...care to place your bets on which of the ten creationist debate commandments will be employed to dismiss these studies?

PB: It is clear now that you do not know the differnce between a gene and microsatelite DNA. How did I ever, I wonder, get involved in this discussion with morons? M: LOL! there are also microsatellites in genes...oh but you knew that already of course seems that you must be the moron tenet 1 still falsified...hear that sound...Peter the great's grand schemes falling down M: From the abstract of your own reference:
"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species."PB: This in respect to microsattelite DNA, not genes. How did I ever, I wonder, .... etc. M: You obviously never wondered or YOU would know something about microsatsPB:
My conclusion: MPG (meaning 'Multi-Purpose Genome', not 'Mammuthus Powered Gobbledegook' )M: Based on too heavy consumptions of drugs inducing denial of the falsification of the Mentally Poor Garbage hypothesisM: Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass FredPB: I noticed that you regard Fred an illiterate. You could brush up on your reading capacity as well.M: Says the guy who never cracked open a book on pop gen or read a single citation provided for him....I never claimed Fred is an illiterate..I claimed he is an imbecile 5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes.PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT).M: And again:
We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.
Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..PB: It is easy to falsify theories.M: Your hypothesis certainly was..and your old buddy Fred provided the reference falsifying two of your hypothesis predicitions..you guys make a great team...you are the Jamaican bobsled team of creationism.PB:
The evolutionary theory can aslobe readily falsified. Falsification apparently doesn't matter for the validity of origin theories. Ultimately it is all a matter of believe.M: You mean evolution or abiogenesis..surely the great Peter Borger would not confuse them?M: Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot airPB: Still defending your religion, Mammuthus? I mean the Theory of Illusion; survival of fiction through random evasion and rejection.M: Nope..still an atheist....2 minutes go by...check..nope still an atheist...M: Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense.PB: Seeing your believe system going down hill can be painfull. So take care. I think, you wish (deep inside) that you never had registered. M: LOL!!!!!!!!! I am delighted that I registered..you and Fred have provided me with more comic relief than I have had in a long time.Best wishes,
M[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-22-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear Mammuthus,You said in your previous letter:"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.
Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..""What does the MPG say?M: Not very much really...at least not much that is consistentPB:The multipurpose genome (MPG) hypothesis holds that:1) DNA sequences within species —-although plastic-- are stable throughout time,
2) organisms demonstrate genetic redundancies that reside in the genome without selective constraint,
3) adaptive phenotypes are due to duplication and/or shuffling of preexisting DNA elements —either genes or other non-coding elements-- that affect gene expression, or due to loss of (redundant) genes/DNA [=degeneration theory],
4) the function of natural selection is to remove degenerate organisms, and
5) there is/has been creation (=creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field giving rise to genes and genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs).Have a look at point #3. Loss of genes/DNA is expected to take plce over time. Especially when populations are split, reduced etcetera. I have mentioned this several times before. Loss of DNA is part of the degeneration theory, that is part of the MPG that is part of the GUToB.M: Ok...which gene or genes are the kestrels missing? Point 1 is falsified as the amount of variation in the populations has changed over time...and there was variation before the split...(hardly stabile DNA sequences).So point 1 is invalid...so is point 3..and point 5 has no supporting evidence and is in such a sorry state that you won't even debate the subject i.e. ignoring Quetzal's thread on the subject.Are you going to support 2 and 3 with evidence or should we quickly falisfy them and bring the MPG back into comfortable retirement in pseudoscience?Best wishes,
M

PB: I already discussed the contemporary definition of a gene with Dr Page. It was obvious he didn't know much about genes. Do you propose to include microsatelites in this definition? For instance as DNA element affecting gene expression. If yes, then I don't see a problem for the MPG hypothesis. If no, than I was right in claiming that you don't know the difference between an gene and microsatelite DNA.M: One example of many...is there actually anything about molecular biology that you do have a firm understanding of???Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 Nov;87(11):4984-90 Related Articles, LinksAssociation Studies between Microsatellite Markers within the Gene Encoding Human 11beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 and Body Mass Index, Waist to Hip Ratio, and Glucocorticoid Metabolism.Draper N, Echwald SM, Lavery GG, Walker EA, Fraser R, Davies E, Sorensen TI, Astrup A, Adamski J, Hewison M, Connell JM, Pedersen O, Stewart PM.Division Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital (N.D., G.G.L., E.A.W., M.H., P.M.S.), Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom B15 2TH.PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over.M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised?PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer.M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genes PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution.M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited.PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT).M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case.PB: How is your answer related to my reponse? I was talking about the W. nobilis, not the raptor.M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well.PB: Actually, Fred provided further evidence for the MPG hypothesis. It is incredible how evolutionists are able to bend evidence for the MPG hypothesis in favour of their views.M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignment PB: The atheistic religion is called evolutionism. As mentioned "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but the theory of evolution is not one of them (L. Spetner, and proven by contemporary molecular biology)"M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now PB: Here you introduce another evolutionary trick. (Like you did before when you refered to population genetics as evolution).M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick.PB:
The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells.M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further.PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy.M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news.PB:
Anyway, if you don't wanna discuss this topic let's talk about the RAG2 gene in mammals. Here you must give an evolutionary explanantion, since we are halfway evolution from microbe to man, and the gene just drops out of the sky. Likewise the TcR gene drops out of the sky. Gene duplication and mutations will not help you here.M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them.PB: I can't see why you consider falsifications of evolutionism so funny. Anyway, now evolutionism has been falsified beyond any doubt, we can use some good molecular scientists in medicine.M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as well.cheers,
M

M: One example of many...is there actually anything about molecular biology that you do have a firm understanding of???Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 Nov;87(11):4984-90 Related Articles, LinksAssociation Studies between Microsatellite Markers within the Gene Encoding Human 11beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 and Body Mass Index, Waist to Hip Ratio, and Glucocorticoid Metabolism.Draper N, Echwald SM, Lavery GG, Walker EA, Fraser R, Davies E, Sorensen TI, Astrup A, Adamski J, Hewison M, Connell JM, Pedersen O, Stewart PM.Division Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital (N.D., G.G.L., E.A.W., M.H., P.M.S.), Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom B15 2TH.PB: So they have a regulatory function?M: You told me that microsats had nothing to do with genes and now you are asking me? I thought I was the stupid evolutionist and you were the expert who would clear my head? PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over.M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised?PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer.M: Still waiting on your proof of quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity Peter...you brought it up so you have to support it.M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genes PB: That doesn't answer the question, isn't it? You already mentioned that they are sometimes present in genes and I claim them as proof for the MPG since I say they have a regulatory function. And indeed your reference confirms my prediction. THEY HAVE A REGULATORY FUNCTION, and they will contribute to phenotypic variation. Simelarly, RNA editing gives rise to variability. Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. We don't need 'genetic variability' to get phenotypic variation! It's already present in the MPG. Isn't that great! While evolutionism can be falsified on all levels, the MPG seems to do the right predictions on all levels. Isn't that curious for 'a whole lot of bogus'?M: First off, you claimed microsats cannot be in genes, they can, you were wrong. Second, expansion repeats don't just regulate, they cause diseaes..look up fragile X. Third, I don't see how RNA editing falsifies evolution. Actually, anything that provides variablility falsifies MPG since you say the genome is dedicated to remaining stable. But since you claim that MPG answers everything I guess you will now address all those posts you ignored on such thing as evidence for creatons? morphogenetic field? non-random mutation?PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution.M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited.PB:
1)I know what genomic imprinting is and I know the underlying mechanisms. It is part of the MPG, and it also contributes to phenotypic variations not due to genetic variations.M: Oh, so you know what the mechanisms underlying imprinting are? Please expand on this as the rest of the scientific community does not. What is the role of H19? How exactly does Prader Willi syndrome work at the molecular level..always wanted to know.2) I know what fitness is: adaptability or suitability.M: Wrong, try again.3) You say that evolutionism is equivalent to population genetics. Of course it is not. Futuyma and you use the definition of population genetics to keep up the appearance of evolution. As mentioned before, if population genetics is evolutionis I would also be an evolutionist. However, as mentioned several times before, "evolution is the hypothetical, never observed process that all life descended from one single celled organism by the utter naturalistic mechanism of random mutations and selection."M: Already addressed this in another thread but wrong again Peter.4)It was you who said that thalidomide is a mutagens, while I said it inhibits angiogenesis. I am right (see abstract below).M: That is very revisionist of you Peter...I asked you how thalidomide works or if you knew what it was and you asked me to tell you Rather different than what you have stated above...So of 1-4 you did not know 2 and 3, made a claim without support abot 1 and revised the history of 4 to make it look like you knew it all along...very interesting for the molecular biology expert. And what was that you were ranting about in the other thread...you know about arguments from authority are not valid M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case.PB: Quetzal is like you. He prefers story telling above scientific facts. It is vanity to discuss with people who's first rule of life is 'evolutionism is true. period'. They cannot think beyond this paradigm.M: So I take it you concede you cannot address Quetzal's 4 points or Quetzal's thread on morphogenetic fields and creatons for that matter. Though you somehow seem to view me as your nememsis on this board, you are overlooking the amount of time you spend avoiding Quetzal. I guess I am an easier target M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well.PB: I debunked all his arguments. In fact there were only 2 relevant arguments the rest fits the MPG as well.M: Interesting, this must have been done in your head and you forgot to post it since I never saw a response to his four points.M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignment PB: I know how the evolutionary disciplin works, and how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism. I wouldn't call it science, however. Real science shows all data and discusses the data unbiased. (since we don't know how nature works, you know).M: We don't know how nature works? You claimed that the MPG explains ALL biological phenomenon...how can you then say you don't know how nature works?PB:
Would be nice that when I write a paper that the discussion is every time the same: there would be nothing to discuss since evolution did it anyway.M: No offense but many of your papers are very similar.M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now.PB: Atheism is not the issue here. The issue is evolutonism, and why it is false. However, if I don't know anything about it please explain what atheism is.M: YOU brought atheism into this not me! Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods/supernatural donuts etc. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Many scientists who study and except evolution are christians. Your attempt to link evolution and atheism with some sort of negative connotation demonstrates you are a bigot...I guess you voted for Pym Fortuyn also.M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick.PB: The subject was evolutionism and abiogenesis.M: No the subject was evolution...you are now for the first time claiming a debate on abiogenesis.PB:
Abiogenesis is the evolution of lifeless matter into replicators, into the first single celled replicating organism.M: Abiogenesis is the ORIGIN of all life, not its evolution.PB:
Therefore, it IS evolution. So, not addressing it demonstrates that you and your evo friend are playing us a trick. A trick that is eagerly propagated in the media to keep people from the truth.M: It reflects you inability to deal with the concepts of evolution by claiming that its definition is something that suits you rather than arguing the merits of the actual theory....in that case the MPG is falsified because you cannot show the proof for quantum mechanics and the MPG is all about quantum mechanics...so there.PB:
The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells.M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further.PB: Even if you called it 'blind-the-public-with-another-meaningless-term' it still involves evolution from life less matter into organic matter into organic replicators into replicating cells into replicating organisms. THAT IS EVOLUTION!M: mis-define-rant-rave-repeate...still not true...misdefine-rant-rave-repeat...still not true..keep trying Peter..maybe you can convince your local preist.PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy.M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news.PB: Here you demonstrate the summit of evolutionism's fallacies and it gives the readers a good insight in your logics: "Since we are here there is evolutionism." Incredible, the fact that we are here is taken as evidence for evolutionism! You call that science? I call that conclusion-MEGA-jumping-humbug.M: I was making fun of you...but I see you are incapable of understanding even that...and I thought the Germans were tight asses..guess the Dutch trump them.M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them.PB: I take this as a non-answer. However, if you have a proposal for the RAG2 I am happy to find out about it.M: It is not a non-answer..in this and other threads you have claimed you will not read literature that I post because it might force you to actually think...before I hunt down the RAG2 references I want to know if you will read them so I can save myself the time if you will not.M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as wellPB: What is the best review on prions? Like to read it.M: That is a tough one Peter. There are so many papers coming out all the time on prions that the most up to date reviews are almost always immediately out of date. Here is one current review: Curr Protein Pept Sci 2001 Sep;2(3):191-204 Related Articles, LinksInfective proteins: the prion puzzle.Ceciliani F, Pergami P.Dipartimento di Patologia Animale, Igiene e Sanita Pubblica Veterinaria, Universita di Milano, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy. Fabrizio.Ceciliani@unimi.itAccording to the Koch postulates an infectious organism is the one that can be isolated from an host suffering from a disorder, can be propagated in laboratory, can cause the same disease when introduced in another host, and finally, can be re-isolated from the host itself. If we change the word "organism" with the word "protein" we have a quite exact description of prions. Prion related disorders are a very unique category of infectious diseases. The ethiology of the so-called prionoses is related to the conversion of a normal protein (PrP(C), the cellular isoform of the prion protein) into a pathological form (the scrapie isoform of the prion protein, PrP(Sc)) which is able to propagate. The striking difference between the two forms seems to consist in a conformational modification of a mainly alpha-helix structured PrP(C) into a mainly beta-sheet PrP(Sc). The latter forms amyloid-like fibrils which precipitate into insoluble aggregates leading to the neurodegenerative changes specific of Spongiform Encephalopathies. This review will focus on the structure of the prion proteins and on PrP(C) cellular cycle, and it will discuss some hypothesis about the protein biochemical function. Finally, the various molecular mechanisms proposed for the development of conformational modifications will be reviewed, i.e. how a protein can become infectious by simply changing its structure.PB:
Best wishes, and good luck with your research.M: Same for you
cheers,
M

Deleted text of duplicate post. --Admin[This message has been edited by Admin, 11-28-2002]