Where is the evidence for evolution?

Hi Dave,In response to:
We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!You say:
That is either a statement from ignorance, or a conscious lie. Unless you have evidence of what a 'supreme god' can and cannot create, and whether there is such a thing as a supreme god, or any gods, or how your logic explains how life cannot possibly exist without design yet a god can just exist without design, then have a good think about what you're saying.I say:Design can be concluded from genetic redundancies. If they don't demonstrate association with gene duplication and do not change faster than essential genes they can be taken as proof for design. That's exactly what we see in life. So, the debate can be concluded: design.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Andya,AP: Dr Borger said: 'Animal phyla archetypes were created sometime during the Cambrian with a MPG, then they [d]evolved into various creatures we see today.'
Now, does the derived creatures have a more limited genome than the ancestral creatures?PB: That depends. The GUToB says that adaptive phenotypes can arise through loss of (redundant) genes/DNA elements, or through duplication of preexisting genes/DNA elements. So, both mechanisms are possible. Therefore, a derived creature can have a more diverse genome. It is not the DNA content (amount) that matters, it is the quality (interactions) of the DNA content.Best wishes,
Peter

Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know that you:
1.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adaptive phenotypes can arise through loss of (redundant) genes/DNA elements,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------refuted Behe (this is Thornhill & Ussery's 'scaffolding' argument)PB: I don't know how anybody can refuse that genes can get lost? We see it all the time. However, according to my knowledge Behe does not work with MPGs so I don't see your point.2.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
through duplication of preexisting genes/DNA elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------PB: To deny that DNA elements are able to duplicate/triplicate etcetera would be denying sceintific observations. If you apply a lot of constraint the MPG establish an appropriate response, that may include duplications. So, what's your point.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, both mechanisms are possible. Therefore, a derived creature can have a more diverse genome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------AP: refuted the 'information loss' theorists.PB: If the IL theorists depend on: one gene = one bit of information, it could refute the IL Theorist. But, one gene unquals one bit of information. Besides, IL theorist do not work with multipurpose genomes. I don't see a problem for a MPG.
I already asked the question on this board: if you knock out a redundant gene do you loose information? I didn't get a response.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Andya,No, I am not personally against you (because I am not molecular-savvy, I work like 18th century naturalists which collects animals in a preservation jar). I am curious of where your GUTOB will lead a taxonomist like me.PB: I know you are not personally against me, you are simply curious how life works. Me too.It seems that you acknowledge that redundancies can be eliminated to construct an irreducible complexity structures, and information quantity can increase.PB: That is not what I try to convey. I say that all (an excess) info is already present in the MPG. Info gets activated and inactivated, but also gets lost or duplicated. But having info doesn't do the trick, it is the EXPRESSION of info on the right time, and on the right place.
With the MPG differences between species can easily be explained. In my opinion, (sub)species is all their is, the others classifications is due to manmade subjectivity. And that in general the genes follow the pattern of the classification is because the complexity of similar organisms require the same protein-protein interactions.Thanks for your responseBest wishes,
Peter

Dear Dave:Read what the GUToB holds. It explains all these phenomena.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dave,The GUToB is new, my friend. Did you check all 235 google hits?best wishes,
Peter

[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

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]

All you demonstrate is that you are unable to listen.best wishes,
Peter

Dear WI,I've read Dawkins answer and if you read carefully he doesn't address the question. He spend about 8000 words saying nothing. (What els is new.) But, maybe you could point out where he addresses the question.He is however still under the OUTdated impression that [quote]:"Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% - considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it."That Dawkins doesn't understand DNA was already known (as demonsatred on this site), but that he doesn't read contemporary journals to get updated....Silly Dawkins, he will never understand life. Best wishes,[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-07-2003]

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They all regard their subject as an art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'd say so too. Math lacks several components associated with science-- like experiment, and observation.PB: You probably mean that math is like evolutionism? Both are tautological.Best wishes,
Peter

Pecipient says:
If you think through the examples and the explanations that have been provided to you, you'll see that Gitt is wrong. The simplest example of creation of new information is any simple copying error in a gene during reproduction.PB: Dear P, if you think through examples and the explanations that have been given to you, you'll see that YOU are wrong. It only requires a close up look at genetic redundancies, i.e. the alpha actinin gene or the src gene family. And as long as there is no association with duplication and redundancies it is your theory that is in trouble not Sonnike. How many times do I have to reiterate this. Till the end of days, I guess.Percipient: If the gene is unique then it represents a new allele not previously present in the population, ie, new information.PB: A unique gene? Where did it come from, then? And, it would be great that you are able to demonstrate an observed example. "If the gene is not unique, what then? Wanna have a look at the src family of phosphatases, and how they violate your idea? Just let me know.Percipient: Where the population previously had n alleles for that
gene it now has n+1. The longer explanation is in Message 64.PB: Point is where did you get n? n+1 is easy to understand.Percipient: Before you imbue Gitt's views with any credibility you should first answer for yourself how Gitt could be right when almost any reproductive copying error can add information.PB: Before we believe you, please give a couple of information adding errors. Are these really 'errors' or NRM? In the MPG? GUToB?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-11-2003]

Dear Perciepient,Letter #64 is utter speculation. Is is theoretical biology. I could have made that up. However, as soon as one translates it into biology it doesn't work. As demonstrated for the alpha actinin genes. And if you like we could have a look at the 8 members of the src gene family. Although individual members can be knocked out in animal models they cannot be explained by gene duplication since point mutations give rise to lethal phenotypes. A nice piece of created redundancy.best wishes,
Peter

dear Percy,Your reference does not show what you claim. They are all about recombination and horizontal gene tranfer (it is GUToB). Maybe you could point out where you read that point mutations lead to new phenotypes. That would be great. Thanks,best wishes,
Peter