Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 74 of 104 (23788)
11-22-2002 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 12:51 PM


FW:
The cheetah is a cat kind. A branch of this cat kind became isolated. This resulted in the CHEETAH. The cheetah has LESS information than its parent, pre-bottleneck cat kind. I already provided a citation from a CHEETAH expert who agrees it is likely the cheetah has lost gene segments.
Lions and Tigers also share a common cat kind ancestor. Each likely has less information than their common ancestor cat kind. Savvy?
M: Oh so the cheetah is a cat kind? And what are the cheetah's post the bottleneck they suffered? Answer for the learning impaired aka Fred..cheetah's
Your argument is really stupid.
FW:
No, what I wish is that you would follow the discussion. I do not know of a single evolutionist trained in info science who thinks the appearance of a new allele necessarily represents new information. Yet this is what you keep claiming, because you cannot get it through your thick skull. Find me ONE evolutionist who has a background in info science who thinks a new allele always equals new information. If this is true, then DISEASE = new information by this standard. Utter nonsense.
M: LOL! HIV and other retroviruses integrate into the host genome...some of these elements as retrotransposons can take over functions of (syncytin), delete, or modify gene expression..so the utter nonesense is 100% of the posts you have written on this board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 12:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 75 of 104 (23793)
11-22-2002 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I believe Mams has blown a gasket. I'd recommend pursuing immediate medical attention!
Regarding founder vs bottleneck, I know the difference. In a sense a small founder population is really no different than a bottleneck. DO you deny this? If so, please educate me, oh wise one.

M: At least I have gaskets that can be blown out...you apparently lack any thinking mechanisms
And you managed to yet again, not answer anything from the post....
And as to the founder population versus genetic bottleneck...they are different though I will grant you..similar. However, a founder event would be more as you incorrectly tried to illustrate with dogs and decks of cards etc. The original population is still in existence...new species eventually forms from the founders..both species (original population and new species) exist...a bottleneck like the cheetah experienced, the entire population collapses...there is no other population and no genetic diversity anywhere else because the population has crashed to a remnant...get it? I doubt it. In both cases, allelic variation is lost..in the founder event by drift and by severe bottlenecks for obvious reasons....but I am sure you read all this in the papers I cited on bottlenecks since you have shown such a propensity to read the scientific literature LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:10 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Fred Williams, posted 11-23-2002 2:01 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 77 of 104 (23795)
11-22-2002 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 1:25 PM


FW:
Oh please. Like I said, hairsplit... but I didn't expect this specific hairsplit from you.
M: Hairsplit? Everything in your posts was incorrect! If that is what you call hairsplitting you are not self critical enough.
FW:
See my comments to Page, who appears to be a bad influence on some of you.
M: Oh you mean his annoying tendency to back up his arguments with cited references and actual data...or that he actually answers questions put to him in posts instead of ignoring, handwaving, or insulting? Yes, what a terrible influence.
FW:
Do you want provocative, reasonable debate, or silly nonsense?
M: We certainly get plenty of the latter from you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:25 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 78 of 104 (23796)
11-22-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 6:12 PM


No, and to be honest I don’t care much. Certain topics interest me, and this ain’t one of them.
M: Oh you mean supporting your claims does not interest you ? Why keep stating the obvious?
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I am off next week, and doubt this board will be one of my big priorities.
M: I am sure Borger will take up the slack

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 6:12 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 81 of 104 (23888)
11-23-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Fred Williams
11-23-2002 2:01 AM


M: Oh so the cheetah is a cat kind? And what are the cheetah's post the bottleneck they suffered? Answer for the learning impaired aka Fred..cheetah's
FW:
Your question was incoherent.
M: Must be, I used YOUR stupid terminology (kind) so of course it is unintelligible...are cheetah's today the same species as cheetah's pre-bottleneck? (hint, the answer is easy...which means you will get it wrong anyway)
quote:
F: If this is true, then DISEASE = new information by this standard. Utter nonsense.
M: LOL! HIV and other retroviruses integrate into the host genome...some of these elements as retrotransposons can take over functions of (syncytin), delete, or modify gene expression..so the utter nonesense is 100% of the posts you have written on this board.
ROTFL! HIV creates new genetic information? Tell that to AIDS sufferers!
M: LOL! You are so dumb it is wonderful to observe. Exogenous retrovirus with full complement of genes inserts into the genome in germ cells and becomes a fixed trait...this is new information...and 8% of the human genome is made up of just such events...try taking a course in something relevant to this subject Fred..or go back to kindegarten.
FW:
For over three years now I have asked evolutionists who believe diseases such as sickle cell, cancer, and now HIV, add genetic information to the genome, to find any information scientist from their side to support their claim. No one has ever stepped forward. Why?
M: Because you are to ignorant to understand the information presented to you...8% of the genome Fred...your genome if full of new information even if you brain is devoid of it.
M:
quote:
And as to the founder population versus genetic bottleneck...they are different though I will grant you..similar. However, a founder event would be more as you incorrectly tried to illustrate with dogs and decks of cards etc. The original population is still in existence...new species eventually forms from the founders..both species (original population and new species) exist...a bottleneck like the cheetah experienced, the entire population collapses...there is no other population and no genetic diversity anywhere else because the population has crashed to a remnant...get it?
Take it up with the evolutionist author of Principles of Planetary Biology. Here’s a portion of the 'Population Genetics and Random Evolution' chapter from his book, emphasis mine:
http://www.planetarybiology.com/evolution_random/random8.htm
Generally, a genetic bottleneck is any circumstance that results in a very small population where there was once a large population. Bottlenecks include catastrophes, diversions of small groups of out migrants as founders of new populations, or even a prolonged episode of hard times at home like drought or disease.
Also, see page 304 and 305 of Futuymas’ Evolutionary Biology (1998). Nowhere does he define bottlenecks such that the original parent population is gone. In fact on page 305 he describes an experiment where various houseflies are bottlenecked. This is entirely consistent with my dog breed analogy.
What’s your PhD in?
M: Human genetics...you ever even go to high school Fred?
And since you are both mentally handicapped and reading impaired..
"[quote]And as to the founder population versus genetic bottleneck...they are different though I will grant you..SIMILAR. However, a founder event would be more as YOU incorrectly tried to illustrate with dogs and decks of cards etc.
Bottlenecks include CATASTROPHES....where is the rest of the cheetah genetic diversity that YOU claim exists...floating in the air around the dead cheetah's channeling itself into the last remaining breeding pair? LOL! Boreger would call it a morphogenetic creaton wave
diversions of small groups of out migrants as founders of new populations,
M: This is a founder event...do you see the difference between the cheetah example (or elephant seals) and dog breeding?
If ya don't then shut yer trap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Fred Williams, posted 11-23-2002 2:01 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 84 of 104 (24161)
11-25-2002 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by peter borger
11-25-2002 12:01 AM


Don't know what you are talking about Peter..the Nature Genetics paper with 359 chimps, all 3 sequenced neandertals and 5530 humans show NO overlap in sequence diversity between the neanderal-human clade and chimps.
Nat Genet 2000 Oct;26(2):144-6 Related Articles, Links
A view of Neandertal genetic diversity.
Krings M, Capelli C, Tschentscher F, Geisert H, Meyer S, von Haeseler A, Grossschmidt K, Possnert G, Paunovic M, Paabo S.
And even in Adcock, the pairwise sequence diversity figure (which also in large sample of chimps showed no overlap with humans) shows the relationships of the various sequences to one another....still don't see where you magically pulled the number out or got a human chimp split before neandertal.
Also from Krings original paper:
The Neandertal sequence was compared to a collection of 2051 human and 59 common chimpanzee sequences over 360 bp of the sequence determined from the Neandertal (positions 16,024 to 16,383). Among the 27 nucleotide differences to the reference sequence found in this segment, 25 fall among the 225 positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences, and one of the two remaining positions varies among the chimpanzees. Thus, the types of differences observed (e.g., an excess of transitions over transversions), and the positions in the Neandertal sequence where they occur, reflect the evolutionary pattern typical of mtDNA sequences of extant humans and chimpanzees.
And figure 6 shows ABSOLUTELY NO overlap between pairwise sequence comparsions between humans and chimps or neandertal and chimps.
Cell 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30
Comment in:
Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):1-3.
Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans.
Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Paabo S.
So make up numbers, make false claims about the published literature, and then repeat it ad nauseum...it seems to be the only argument you can bring to the table.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 12:01 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by derwood, posted 11-25-2002 8:56 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 86 of 104 (24199)
11-25-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by derwood
11-25-2002 8:56 AM


I saw on another board a few years ago a guy who postulated creationism was like a viral infection with consistent observable symptoms and with ignorance being the major determinant of susceptibility....he called it the RVirus, his hypothesis is compelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by derwood, posted 11-25-2002 8:56 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 7:42 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 88 of 104 (24361)
11-26-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Chara
11-25-2002 7:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I saw on another board a few years ago a guy who postulated creationism was like a viral infection with consistent observable symptoms and with ignorance being the major determinant of susceptibility....he called it the RVirus, his hypothesis is compelling
*sigh*

*******
Hi Chara, If you are reading the thread..would you care to elaborate?
Best wishes,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 7:42 PM Chara has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 91 of 104 (24444)
11-26-2002 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Adminnemooseus
11-26-2002 9:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
Getting a little obnoxious here SLPx?
Admin (aka Percy) also gave you a warning yesterday, on another of your messages that was posted about the same time.
Now, don't start a forum guidlines debate.
{Adminnemooseus topic watch flag}
Adminnemooseus

++++++++++++++
While you may have found the titles of SLPx threads offensive, what about the content? I thought the blood clotting argument he posted in particular is interesting. I deleted my post in that thread on the assumption the thread would be deleted. Will that thread continue?
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-26-2002 9:47 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 95 of 104 (24557)
11-27-2002 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by peter borger
11-26-2002 7:48 PM


quote:
{Entire previous message quoted - Deleted - Adminnemooseus}
++++++++++++++++++++
If Page is your "proof" against evolution and your "reason" for your unwillingness to inform youself about it then your scholarship is truly poorer than I could ever have imagined. What next? You will change your field of disciplines and not "believe" in gene expression because you don't like Rudolph Jaenisch? Great criteria....
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 7:48 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-27-2002 6:55 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 100 by derwood, posted 11-28-2002 5:44 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 97 of 104 (24749)
11-28-2002 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by peter borger
11-27-2002 6:55 PM


deleted by M due to duplication
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-27-2002 6:55 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 98 of 104 (24750)
11-28-2002 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by peter borger
11-27-2002 6:55 PM


What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it?
M: You hitting on me there big boy? Actually very loose..drank some spoiled milk and well..you know what happens next
PB:
Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes.
M: But he has extra copies of the actually-support-his-claims-genes
Creationists seem to be homozygous deletion mutants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-27-2002 6:55 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by John, posted 11-28-2002 10:46 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 103 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 8:02 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 104 of 104 (24907)
11-29-2002 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by peter borger
11-28-2002 8:02 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 8:02 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024