SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

quote:

---

ark lover: whole orders of insects could not have survived on or off the ark and it has not been discussed much here.

---

Even though most Bible scholars believe the text supports they were not on the ark, for the sake of argument let’s assume they were on the ark. Why could they not have survive on the ark? (there certainly would have been plenty of room for them).

quote:

---

ark lover: Many species of fresh water fish and many plants are also big problems as well. Why don’t YECs do the experiment of soaking a wide variety of plant seed in salty water for a year and then throwing them out on ground that had been under salt water to see if they grow? I think I know why. Do you?

---

No, and to be honest I don’t care much. Certain topics interest me, and this ain’t one of them.Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I am off next week, and doubt this board will be one of my big priorities.

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

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

quote:

---

Fairy Tale Lover: Even though most Bible scholars believe the text supports they were not on the ark, for the sake of argument let’s assume they were on the ark. Why could they not have survive on the ark? (there certainly would have been plenty of room for them).

---

Were there free flowing streams on the ark for the 1500 species of the order Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), which only live in fresh water? Were there living milkweed plants for Monarch butterflies to lay their eggs on? Were there living trees on board so that Cicada larva could live at their roots? Were there flowers for the bees and all the thousands upon thousands of insects that need nectar in their adult stages to feed on? Did the all insects come on two at a time or were colonies of social insects allowed to board?The problem is not the physical space but the requirements for housing and caring for so many organisms with such complex and varied life cycles.I also find it very amusing that you can claim that "most Biblical Scholars" don’t think the people who wrote the Bible thought insects were living things (since Genesis clearly says that all living things outside the ark died) and still claim that the Bible is inerrant.Randy

quote:

---

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 question was incoherent.

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!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?

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.htmGenerally, 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: 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'sFW:
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.htmGenerally, 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.

You're losing track of the conversation here, Fred. Let's take it from the top:

quote:

---

Hence why I followed-up with the top paragraph. I thought it was clear as a whistle. Even the emphasized sentence you quoted should have been clear. It is simply true that bottlenecks and subsequent drift help us SEE the diversity. It does not create the diversity, it helps us SEE it. Realize, see, all words with solid definitions. I am not the one having grammar problems here. You too appear to be equivocating/hairsplitting. But I’m used to it. I really in a sense don’t blame you. If the point you are defending is specious, well

---

This STILL doesn't make any sense (hey, I'm just an ignorant evilutionist, right?) What do you mean by "helping us SEE diverstity"? How do you see diversity? Numbers of species? Variation/clines within a population? Demes? Please provide a simple, easy-to-follow explanation - with at least one example of a specific organism - of how bottlenecks "realize" diversity. IOW, trace the pop gen of an organism pre-bottleneck, bottleneck, post-bottleneck to illustrate your point. I'm not hairsplitting/equivocating - I literally have no idea what you're on about. Since this is your contention, you ought to be able to provide a succinct, comprehensible explanation, right?

quote:

---

Q: Besides the obvious error on the number of bat species (like by an order of magnitude),

​

F: Oh please. Like I said, hairsplit... but I didn't expect this specific hairsplit from you. See my comments to Page, who appears to be a bad influence on some of you. Do you want provocative, reasonable debate, or silly nonsense?

---

Interesting that you deleted/ignored the rest of that sentence. If you hadn't, you'd have realized that the point wasn't your (rather large) error on the numbers of bat species - it was only mentioned in passing - but rather contesting your previous assertion:

quote:

---

It is one mechanism that has surely produced new species, we have observed it. I remind you that species is a man-made, subjective term. I have debated some biologists who say that merely isolating a population can qualify the isolated group as a new species. Consider that there are at least 32 species of bats. Each species could easily be the result of population isolation (pseudo-bottleneck) from a parent population (bat kind).

---

Here again you're proclaiming bottlenecks cause speciation. This is the point I brought out in the remainder of the sentence you didn't quote. Although I would NEVER accuse you of equivocating, your attempt to focus on the bat part to the exclusion of the meat of the paragraph certainly lends itself to that interpretation.So, do bottlenecks cause speciation as you've asserted in several posts, or not?

quote:

---

This is your way of avoiding the fact you were orders of magnitude off? The Bible did not require insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc. Your argument was based on what the Bible required on the ark.

---

Nope, wrong again. My argument isn't based on what the "bible required". I couldn't care less what the bible wants. I'm challenging the creationists who claim the bible is a science text to show how the modern diversity of life - all life - is possible from the X number of kinds allegedly on the ark. I used the starting numbers from creationists, and the ending numbers from biologists who study diversity. Not my problem if the creationists can't get their collective act together. If YOU - Fred Williams - are going to exclude whole kingdoms of organisms from being on the ark, YOU need to supply the rationale and explanation of where those organisms were during the global flood and how they survived. It isn't a separate topic - it IS the topic: explain current biodiversity from a global bottleneck 4500 years ago. YOUR contention = YOUR requirement to provide evidence of your assertion. I'm not orders of magnitude off - you have to account for your "orders of magnitude" error. Try again.

Dear Dr Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,PB: Before you reply have a look at the papers.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------SLP: I have the paper in my hand.PB: Now open up your eyes and your mind and have an unbiased look at the data in the table of sequences. Do it!quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figure demonstrates a bonobo, a chimp, a Neanderthaler and (ancient) human. A lot of data go undiscussed. Like the common ancestor for chimp and human around 150 kyr BP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------SLP: 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.PB: It is a table!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are so obtuse, there wouldn't be any better evidence for you being wrong.SLP: 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.PB: The RAW data Mr Page, not the manipulated data. As a molecular biologist, I can interpret the RAW data myself. I do not have the manipulate them. To spell it out for you: the human reference sequence and neanderthal demonstrate 27 differences; the human reference sequence and chimp demonstrate 24 differences; the human reference sequence and bonobo 22 differences; the human refernce sequence and the ancient human (62 kyr) 10 differences. Yes, Dr Page, the authors neither counted nor showed the differences. I did that for them and it implies a common ancetsor 150 kyr BP. As mentioned before, if I were an evolutionist I would NOT show the sequences anymore, since they contain much more information than discussed in the paper. Not showing and/or discussing data doesn't sound like science to me. It looks a lot like pseudoscience. As a scientist I recognise science from pseudoscience. It is what we learn during our education.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recommend evolutionists not to show the raw sequence data anymore, since it immediately falsifies their own theories. Read the papers, otherwise, don't waste my time with.Best wishes,
Peter--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dr PAge: 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.PB: Exposing the evolutionary tricks will not make me popular among evolutionists. I don't mind. All that matters is the truth. Instead of your rude language you better PROOF evolutionism. As I asked you before, WHY DID YOU REGISTER TO THIS BOARD? All you do is being delibartely obtuse and being rude. I was under the impression that you are a scientist, but you never answer in a scientific way. All you produce is nonsense. And that for PhD-ed! Incredible! Listen, DR Page, you are the one that makes extraordinary claims so PROOF IT! And don't bore me.SLP: 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.PB: The ancient evolutionary closet of tricks is wide open. Here is another one: I don't understand raw data (usually they say: you don't understand evolutionism). The usual stuff, and I am NOT at all impressed. You were the one who didn't even know a contemporary definition of a gene, demonstrating that evolutionism is propagated by a bunch of 'lagging behinds'.
Listen, Dr Page, you scoff everybody not having a PhD and overbluff them with your grade. Now, you met your match and are terribly loosing. You weren't able to addres a single one of my evolutionism-killers, and still propagate this non-sense. Incredible!SLP: You and WIlliams are a wonferful pair.PB: Thanks.SLP: 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.PB: Again - Dr Page has demonstrated that he is not able to read molecular data on evolutionary subjects (you're an selfproclaimed 'anatomist by education', so it makes sense). The paper I refered to DOES contain these facts but are NOT mentioned neither discussed. I recommend you and your evo-friends not to show the sequences anymore. (Actually this is becoming the trend in literature. Probably the trick is to easy to see through?)SLP: 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.PB: I consider a disciplin that DOESN'T SHOW or DOESN'T DISCUSS ALL PRESENTED DATA as PSEUDOSCIENCE.SLP: Good day to you Borger - I sincerely hope the output in your ACTUAL area of research is not plagued with such incompetentce and dishonesty.PB: After having exposed another evolutionary trick to keep people from the truth, this is probably the last thing I will hear from Dr Page. VERY UNSCIENTIFIC DR PAGE, calling me a charlatan, while it is the other way around. Anybody who look up the paper can see that I am right on this topic (Adcock et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 2001, vol98, p537-542). So, Dr Page owes me another apology. And don't worry about my output.I wish you all the best defending the old paradigm. And remember the harder you kick, the harder I rebut. I always win, since evolutionism is false!Peter

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
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.
...
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.

---

[b]Indeed. It appears that El Retardo is applying some sort of molecular clock, which I believe he earlier had some big problems with.It is amazing how these imbeciles can so handily and almost boastfully apply and utilize such obvious double standards and simplistic 'science' when it suits their needs.I also find it funny that ElRetardo is actually trying to play the 'authority' game with me...Reading through Williams' and Borgers' posts, I am more convinced than ever that creationists suffer from a common mental defect. And I am not just writing that to be clever, I truly believe this. No rational, sane person could write such contradictory, simple-minded gibberish and actually think that they have 'scored' some sort of victory. It boggles the mind.

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

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*

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

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------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
Getting a little obnoxious here SLPx?

---

No, just pointing out the obvious.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why would I?