You agreed we were talking about "a modern contemporary spontaneous beneficial frameshift mutation in the human population" and then changed it into just being any somatic frameshift.
Huh! I am still waiting for a human to human beneficial frameshift mutation as we previously discussed. All the examples so far relate to the negative impact of a frameshift event. Your last example and links relate to frameshifts which result in cancer tumours. Hardly a beneficial mutation!
Anyway, I am still waiting but I won't hold my breath.
I told you why finding such mutations would be incredibly challenging
Ok, you finally admit that 'I got you'. Why the pulava over this minor point any how. I am simply trying to progress this discussion in a meaningful way.
I am pretty sure that if I had made a random claim without backing it up with evidence you guys would have been very quick to slam me for it. Hence I tend to ask for evidence before progressing to the next point. If you had just been open and forthright about your spurious claim we could have skipped over it and moved onto a discussion which might be more meaningful to yourself.
The '30bp further downstream' that you quote from me is in relation to the site of mutation. There is a 2bp deletion and this causes the codon which starts 30bp further downstream from the mutation site to become a stop codon.
Actually, this raises another point about which is the mutant strain. MYH16 in humans is classed as the defective frameshifted version whereas it seems just as likely that the chimp version is the effective frameshifted version. The 2bp deletion could equally be considered a 2bp addition. Chimps and humans after all are both modern species and it could be that the human version is the original but became a rather successful alternate allele in other primates. I suggest this because it strikes me that a frameshift is more likely to result in a spontaneous stop codon later in the DNA sequence rather than earlier. It's simple statistics and probability.
On a separate point the gene SIGLEC-13 has been completely deleted from the human genome but appears amongst the other great apes. No pseudogenization, frameshift or point mutation here just a complete deletion. Maybe one of the biologists can explain how selective forces might apply to eradicate all traces of a gene?
The genetic evidence from other species contradicts this as indeed does the phylogenetics of the primates. For the human state to be ancestral would require the 2bp insertion you hypothesise to have ocurred independently in multiple lineages unless we just ignore the patterns of conservation from almost the entire rest of the genome and reroot the phylogenetic tree with humans being the earliest branching lineage.
I appreciate that what I am implying is revolutionary and almost certainly wrong. The idea that red and blue assed baboons actually evolved from a human like ancestor rather than the other way round isn't likely to go down well. But you make a noteworthy point here. The area of the genome we are discussing is a highly conserved area as almost all other primates have this gene. This means that the human version is also a highly conserved area. It begs the question of how a frameshift like this could occur in such a highly conserved area.
In fact something rang a bell here and looking back I see that Siglec13 was actually referenced in one of the papers I cited earlier
Yes, I am just running through the list of genes that were provided earlier. If you want the credit for finding the list of genes that is fine. Well done and congratulations! I was actually looking for trends. I know it's a small list and I can't really form any realistic conclusions but I thought it was worthy of investigation.
So what is your source for the complete deletion of Siglec13 in humans?
Robert was claiming that the diversity of species we see today is due to accelerated evolution over a short period after the flood. Do you have any evidence that anything like this ever took place?
My point was simply about what constitutes evidence. Robert claims that he sees diversity of species today. Eye witness accounts still constitute evidence (especially in court) from what I understand. Furthermore, Robert refers to the bible, an ancient text which must have had an author. This also is valid evidence (even if you disagree with its contents). Robert has therefore supplied his evidence but Taq isn't offering any evidence to counter Robert's claims.
I claim that I see diversity of species today. Eye witness accounts still constitute evidence (especially in court) from what I understand. Furthermore, I refer to "On The Origin Of Species", a text which must have had an author. This also is valid evidence (even if you disagree with its contents). I have therefore supplied evidence to counter Robert's claims.
Ok, so Robert has supplied evidence and Huntard has countered with evidence too. This should now make for a lively debate. Enjoy you guys. I will be watching this thread with eager anticipation.
Hate to burst your bubble, but neither Robert nor I posted anything coming even remotely close to what would be considered evidence
I think it's fair to say that we have always disagreed on our interpretations of evidence (other threads demonstrate this). Therefore I am not going to continue to flog the dead horse. You go evidence hunting if you like. I'll sit here and have a cuppa.