|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 28 From: New Mexico Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genetic Equidistance: A Puzzle in Biology? | |||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Just a few thoughts on this.
It appears that Huang is one of those few scientific folks who simply cannot accept the notion that humans are closely related to chimps and so goes to great lengths to try to justify his prejudices. One should check out his amazon.com review of Coyne's book - he comes across more as an anti-evolution zealot than a legitimate scientist. His frequent references to Lovtrup and the like indicate a rather skewed view of what constitutes valid science.He is a classic ReMine-style huckster - from one of his comments on Amazon: "If this result supports rather than contradicts NeoDarwinism, Coyne's book or any Darwinist's would be all over it. Instead, the Darwinists have managed to keep this result unknown to 100% of lay people and 99% of all biologists for 46 years. I have to re-discover it independently a few years ago." He is talking about genetic equidistance. Something one can read about in any molecular biology textbook. And something one does not actually see when one looks at large datasets. I liked this response to Huang as well: "To those who are wondering, Nature describes the forum in which Huang deposited his work thusly: "Documents on Nature Precedings are not peer-reviewed and, as such, should not be considered 'published' works." IOW, Huang, on these issues anyway, has about as much credibility as Rush Limbaugh has on family values. Edited by derwood, : added link
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:As it appears that Huang has read the Wiki entry on the molecular clock (as he uses the same ref and quote found there in one of his Amazon.com comments), I should like ot also quote the Wiki entry on Molecular Clocks in regards to equidistance: For example, the difference between the cytochrome C of a carp and a frog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse is a very constant 13% to 14%. Similarly, the difference between the cytochrome C of a bacterium and yeast, wheat, moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse ranges from 64% to 69%. 1% off here, 5% off there, but 'equidistance' nonetheless. As has been, I believe, pointed out, the 'epi' part of epigenetics must work on the 'genetics' part. Methylation, etc. does not constrain the underlying sequence; quite the opposite.Epigenetics is the new buzzword, especially among anti-evolutionist propagandists. But buzzwords co-opted by such folk often have a way of biting them in the arse, once their intellectually capable targets actually look into the issues themselves and discover that their handlers have been overstating their case, such as what happened re: junkDNA. quote: Which is probably why DNA sequence data is preferred in such analyses.
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Especially when "complexity" is defined idiosyncratically and arbitrarily.
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: You can use noncoding DNA in larger scale phylogenetic analyses as well, such all vertebrates. Humans to yeast is a stretch, to say the least, but humans and alligators could still be done.
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: But he comes across so level-headed and open minded and objective....
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Why, because orangs do not know Jesus, of course. After reading through Huang's screeds at Amazon.com, I would not be surprised if he, in fact, was to make such a claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Which is simply factually incorrect. Surely Mr.Morford knows this? Edited by derwood, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:And as such, it is wise for one with common sense and bit of relevant knowledge to believe that Shi is a crackpot and a poseur.
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I wonder if Mr.Morford realizes that Naegleria and Dictyostelium are from different PHYLA, whereas humans and tuna are not?
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
The accumulation of mutations in tissue-specific genes would have no affect on tissues in which the genes are not used.
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:Then I submit that Huang has never bothered to do sequence comparions. Even comparing members of the same species one can find numerous real differences. Steven Pinker and Craig Venter's genomes, for example, differed by many millions of bps, in addition to a nearly 1 million bp indel. Is the correct conclusion really that only a few thousand of those were neutral? Absurd. What is Huang's actual area of expertise? Does anyone know?
|
|||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I see that Huang has also had a paper published in Rivista di Biologica, that crack outfit run by a creationist in which one can find pubs by Johnny Wells and John Davison. Of note is how Huang responds to criticisms.
Classic crackpottery. Shame so many have latched onto his nonsense. Molbiogirl also mentioned this conversation.Reading Huang's comments, it comes across as classic 'angry arrogant IDcreationist' boilerplate stuff - none of his coworkers thnk much of evolution, evolutionists hatemath, blah blah blah. Pathetic. Edited by derwood, : No reason given. Edited by derwood, : addenda
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024