Where is the evidence for evolution?

quote:

---

Yes, I later read up on GUToB. I hope Peter can educate me sometime, because off-hand I dont think it makes too much sense.

---

I believe most of us share that sentiment. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The problem is not WHETHER dr. Borger can educate you fine people, but rather if you are WILLING to clear your minds of your pre-conceived views, and learn something new.cheers,
S

quote:

---

The GUToB is new, my friend. Did you check all 235 google hits?

---

A demonstration of a lack of comprehension.The bulk of the returns are for an Indian language dialect.Several are for a bay.The only ones having to do with a megalomaniacal creationist point to discussion board posts made by or in response to Borger.Of ocurse, this is a guy that insists that I think DNA is only about length because I downloaded a locus of mtDNA of approximately the same length as the one he has referred to.What a loon.

PeterB has been trounced at every turn. I don't think it we who need to learn something.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

[deleted duplicate][This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-28-2003]

dear Hans,The papers you have to read since they confirm my assertions:1) Winzeler EA, et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science, 1999; 285:901-6.It demonstrated that a major part of the genes can be knocked out without an effect on growth/reproduction. And that there wasn't an association with duplication.2) Tautz D. A genetic uncertainty problem. Trends in Genetics 2000; 16:475-7.Tries to solve the riddle of genetic redundancies by the introduction of an uncertainty relationship for duplicated genes.3) Hurst LD, et al. Do essential genes evolve more slowly? Current Biology 1999; 9: 747-50.It demonstrates that essential genes do NOT change more slowly.Best wishes,
peter

quote:

---

, but rather if you are WILLING to clear your minds of your pre-conceived views, and learn something new.

---

So are you ready to put down your old creationist belief and learn something new? Like something that is actually confirmed by evidence?

john:
PeterB has been trounced at every turn. I don't think it we who need to learn something.Judge:
Hi John..I have been following these threads with much interest, and it appears you have as well. Very interesting aren't they! Sequence similarity is an important pillar in the evidence for common descent, and creationists arguments in this area have been criticised in the past on the basis that the protagonists weren't trained in the area. It is certainly interesting for me to see Dr Borger look at this alternative.I wonder would you be able to explain concisely exactly how PB has been trounced at every turn?
Can you explain how he was trounced in his analysis of mtDNA?It does not seem clear but perhaps you can explain it a bit better?
I am no expert here so I may be missing somethign obvious, and it usually pays to consider all perspectives.Thanking you in advance.[This message has been edited by judge, 01-29-2003]

Using the current view of information wrt genetics if you
knock out a redundant gene you lose information.Redundant in the PB sense is simply a statement if that
gene's contribution to viability, not to fitness to a
particular habitat. Knock out the gene without killing
the creature and it has lost some of it's adaptability
to changing/new environments.I've suggested before that redundancy does not even indicate
design, let alone proove it.For ToE to work we would require in the genome genes which
can be modified, deleted, or duplicated without producing
non-viable offspring. That this is found in nature is
good for ToE.I'm still (after reading many PB-posts) unclear as to the
nature of the mutation rate argument (perhaps I'm just being
dense).

quote:

---

I wonder would you be able to explain concisely exactly how PB has been trounced at every turn?
Can you explain how he was trounced in his analysis of mtDNA?

---

This stuff spans twenty pages and several threads. Is there a specific claim? Looks like the bulk of the mtDNA material involves randon vs. non-random material. Is this the subject you intend? Let me know. I'll deal with it later today, I hope. Looks like a busy one. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear Peter BorgerI will seek to read those papers you suggested, provided they are available for me somewhere, but it may take some time. In the meantime: This theory of yours seems rather sensational. Also I have not seen it elsewhere. This is of course an appeal to authority, but, I think, a justified one, since I am not a specialist in molecular biology myself: Why is it this theory has not made a heavier impression throughout the scientific world? I do trust you have published it in the appropriate places?Best regards, HansEdited to add "Borger" in the heading as I now realize that just "Peter" is a different poster. My error, sorry.[This message has been edited by MRC_Hans, 01-30-2003]

quote:

---

Son:
The problem is not WHETHER dr. Borger can educate you fine people, but rather if you are WILLING to clear your minds of your pre-conceived views, and learn something new.

---

Oh, the irony!

quote:

---

judge:
Can you explain how he was trounced in his analysis of mtDNA?

---

Borger's supposed analysis, based on a locus in a paper by Adcock et al., was flawed in several respects, as I indicated in this post http://EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA -->EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNAFor example, the locus in question is quite small - ~350 base pairs form the mitochondrial genome if ~16,000 base pairs. As I pointed out, and Borger later claimed ot have been "saying all along", individual loci can mutate at different rates. Indeed, when I checked Borger's claims, I downloaded a similarly sized locus (~350 bp) from the hypervariable region (HV) in mtDNA and showed (implicitly) that the numbers varied substantiually - the differences, for example, between human and chimp were nearly double in this locus. And between individual modern humans, varied by as much as 8 bp.The flaw pertinent ot this is that Borger extrapolates his 'findings' from this one small locus to the entire genome - indeed, to the entire organism.
I pointed out that this is an erroneous extrapolation, especially in the mtDNA. Borger then started his mantra about me thinking DNA is just about length. A red herring, not to mention an utter distortion and misrepresentation. That, of course, did not stop him from repeating his new mantra over and over. The HV region in question had also been sequenced for Neanderthal. My analysis of this locus came to different conclusions than did Borger's locus.
He later claims that not even a million observations would undo his one.But I went on. I downloaded and analyzed the ENTIRE mitochondrial genomes for several species, including human, chimp, and mouse. First, Borger implied that I was lying about this, because I gather he did not know that the human mt genome had been sequenced.He then went on about how I think DNA=length and that my analysis has nothing to do with his, that the analysis based on the Adcock paper dealt with ancient humans and such, and that I was trying to compare apples and oranges.But the sequence for chimp in the Adcock paper was not ancient.
Apparently, comparing apples and oranges is OK when is stands to prop up a creationist position.Nonetheless, I did an anlysis on the entire mt genome. It contradicted Borger's claims and pointed out some of the absurd fallout of adopting Borger's claim. I also cited one of my own papers dealing with some 13,000 bps from the nuclear genome that contradicts Borger's fringe "interpretation." This was essentially ignored - blown off by the "millions will not undo my one observation" bit.In summary, Borger's 'analysis' of mtDNA was flawed on at least the following grounds:-It is contradicted by analyses of both the entire mtDNA genome and analyses of orders of magnitude more sequence form the nuclear genome.
That is, even if we grant Borger's analysis credibility fo rthe sake of discussion, it would be an anomoly, and a small one at that, and anomolies do not supercede the preponderance of evidence. Basically, 96% of the mt genome supports the standard evolutonary position, 4% does not (again, allowing for legitimacy in Borger's analysis), not including any of the nuclear genome.- By Borger's own "apples and oranges" criterion, his analysis was flawed because it compared "ancient" human samples to modern chimps ones.There are some other reasons, but I am pressed for time right now, and those should be sufficient.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-29-2003]

john:This stuff spans twenty pages and several threads. Is there a specific claim? Looks like the bulk of the mtDNA material involves randon vs. non-random material. Is this the subject you intend? Let me know. I'll deal with it later today, I hope. Looks like a busy one.judge:
More specifically the most recent stuff, on divergence between modern humans neandethals and chimps. (added in edit) woops just noticed SLP's reply..this may give me something to chew on[This message has been edited by judge, 01-29-2003]

And here I refuted all your claims and I demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the assumptions are false:http://EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA -->EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNAYou know that and that is why you completely went mad.However, I decided to not accept any more of your insults. And if you are under the impression that your analysis was okay, well I think I'll leave you dreaming.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-29-2003]