context and how to ignore it to make it appear as though...

... you actually 'proved' something.
In the now closed thread, I had written:"Never mind that he [Borger] has claimed - and been unable to support (because there IS NO support) - that conserved sequences in introns falsifies the neutral theory."The cretinist in question responded with:

quote:

---

I say:
Wanna have proof? Take a subscribtion to JBC:

​

WBlanc V, Davidson NO. Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

​

C to U RNA editing: Mechanisms leading to genetic diversity.
J Biol Chem. 2002 Nov 20 [epub ahead of print]
PMID: 12446660 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

​

The autors show that RNA editing requires intron-exon alignment and that implicates conserved regions in the intron. Case proven.

---

I ask the rational reader - Did the creationist prove that conserved sequence in introns - which I mentioned some time ago - falsifies the Neutral Theory with his citation?Or was the creationist's response utterly irrelevant, as it seems to me?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-30-2002]

Hi SLPx
Actually, it all started when PB claimed that introns have to be completely neutral and I pointed out that there are conserved motifs within introns i.e. splice acceptors and donors. I compared it to the conserved regions within the hypervariable regions of the mtDNA Dloop.I was assuming a level of understanding that did not exist given the response I got and the context of the debate you are experiencing.On the other hand, given that several creationists have claimed that population genetics and evolution have nothing to do with each other..what do you expect other than completely ridiculous assertions about RNA editing or conserved regions of introns as they relate to evolution?[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-02-2002]