request for Borger - challenge, really....

Borger writes at T.O.:"Molecular genealogy of cytochrome c - a pillar of molecular evolution - was also recently falsified, so stop propagating a theory that is not longer supported by molecular evidence! "I will ignore now the typical creationist rhetoric, but I would like you to expand on this.Please explain and support with documentation the above accusation.

SLPx,Didn't you know? Hovind did this years ago, humans are more closely related to sunflowers than chimps, so says cytochrome c!!All evolutionary theory is falsified by this, so are humans & sunflowers, presumably, following PeterB's logic of what is & isn't falsified.......You really need to get current.... Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear SLPx,You ask about the cytochrome c incongruenc. I discussed the cytochrome c incongruence already with Dr. Theobald of the Talk -Origin. I backed my claim with the reference of Zhang and Chinappa. (Zhang, X.H. and Chinnappa C.C. Molecular cloning of a cDNA encoding cytochrome c of Stellaria longipes (Caryophyllaceae).... - and the evolutionary implications. Mol Biol Evol 1994, vol 11; p365-375). )The authors demonstrated that and I quote two flowering plants - Stellaria longipes and Arabidopsis thaliana - share a low degree (18.9 %) of sequence dissimilarity [of cytochrome c]. Both are similar to fungus Neurospora crassa. It is surprising that these two plants exhibit higher sequence divergence from other plants than from species of fungi and animals. [] The phylogenetic tree shows that the S. longipes cytochrome c is unexpectedly grouped with Neurospora as well as with Arabidopsis and separate from other plants and protists.
Furthermore, Zhang and Chinnappa demonstrate that two flowering plants are more closely related to yeast, drosophila and rat, than to other flowering plants. The authors propose several hypotheses to get these highly peculiar data - for they violate the paradigm of common descent - into agreement with the theory of evolution. They assert that both plants - that are otherwise not closely related — recently acquired the genes from Neurospora, but even the authors admit that their explanation is far from satisfactory. Ultimately, they conclude it is hard to explain why 26 of 28 plant cytochrome c amino acid sequences are very similar to each other while very dissimilar to the two other plant sequences deduced from DNA sequences.Although Dr Theobald and I didn't come to a compelling conclusion (since one of the cyt C sequence hasn't been annotated yet), now it is my opinion that the cytochrome c incongruence may have been falsely reported in this journal, and is probably due to contamination. However, there has never been a rectification for these data (maybe I will do that), so I rather not use it to falsify common descent. There are much better genes that do that, for instance the IL-1beta incongruence. Let's discuss a bit more on this one. Yet, it is up to you: either you spend a lot of research in Plant genomes and Fungi genomes or leave it. I don't mind, I have all data on the topic present.best wishes
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

You ask about the cytochrome c incongruenc. I discussed the cytochrome c incongruence already with Dr. Theobald of the Talk -Origin. I backed my claim with the reference of Zhang and Chinappa. (Zhang, X.H. and Chinnappa C.C. Molecular cloning of a cDNA encoding cytochrome c of Stellaria longipes (Caryophyllaceae).... - and the evolutionary implications. Mol Biol Evol 1994, vol 11; p365-375). )

​

The authors demonstrated that and I quote two flowering plants - Stellaria longipes and Arabidopsis thaliana - share a low degree (18.9 %) of sequence dissimilarity [of cytochrome c]. Both are similar to fungus Neurospora crassa. It is surprising that these two plants exhibit higher sequence divergence from other plants than from species of fungi and animals. [] The phylogenetic tree shows that the S. longipes cytochrome c is unexpectedly grouped with Neurospora as well as with Arabidopsis and separate from other plants and protists.
Furthermore, Zhang and Chinnappa demonstrate that two flowering plants are more closely related to yeast, drosophila and rat, than to other flowering plants. The authors propose several hypotheses to get these highly peculiar data - for they violate the paradigm of common descent - into agreement with the theory of evolution. They assert that both plants - that are otherwise not closely related — recently acquired the genes from Neurospora, but even the authors admit that their explanation is far from satisfactory. Ultimately, they conclude it is hard to explain why 26 of 28 plant cytochrome c amino acid sequences are very similar to each other while very dissimilar to the two other plant sequences deduced from DNA sequences.

​

Although Dr Theobald and I didn't come to a compelling conclusion (since one of the cyt C sequence hasn't been annotated yet), now it is my opinion that the cytochrome c incongruence may have been falsely reported in this journal, and is probably due to contamination. However, there has never been a rectification for these data (maybe I will do that), so I rather not use it to falsify common descent. There are much better genes that do that, for instance the IL-1beta incongruence. Let's discuss a bit more on this one. Yet, it is up to you: either you spend a lot of research in Plant genomes and Fungi genomes or leave it. I don't mind, I have all data on the topic present.

​

best wishes
Peter

---

Odd then that you have continued to use this as a 'falsification'....How shall I interpret that, Dr. Hov - I mean, Borger?

And that's it?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Indeed - I find it odd that just yesterday Borger was hawking this cyt-c stuff as evolution busting.Perhaps he was hoping nobody would call him on it.But we must remember - he is going to bring down evolution. Because of its nihilism.
Apparently by any means possible.But I find it unwarranted to believe that evolution is nihilistic. Sounds like a psychological issue to me.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 10-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

​

But we must remember - he is going to bring down evolution. Because of its nihilism.

​

---

Isn't all science nihilistic, by definition?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear SLPx,At least someone around that checks evo-claims. If I see something strange I check it.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear SLPx,The issue here is that you are unable to read properly. Like Schrafinator, you think you read something and than you try to kick my butt. For instance, a few mails ago you thought I referred to you when I referred to Roderick Page, and you immediately --in utter desparation-- accused me of false testamonies. (In fact you owe me another apology for false accusations). I didn't even know that your name was Page too. So, your sweat is showing. Better respond to my IL-1 beta example. That would be a challenge, really. And the last word hasn't been spoken about the cytochrome c incongruence. I will keep a close eye on it.In the meantime I'm absolutely unimpressed by your 'rebuttals'.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear SLPx,What do you think all the fuss is about? I got spammed by several atheist, including a guy who calls himself Tom Beasley. I checked him out on the internet and it turns out that he is as rude as you are in response to people with a distinct worldview. I really feel sorry for you and him. Better respond in a scientific way. Can you?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page (now I know your name, I can call you that),You write:
Odd then that you have continued to use this as a 'falsification'....I say:
Where did I continue this example as falsification? When you make a statement could you please give a refernce? If you mean that I said: "anybody for the cyt c incongruence" in a previous letter, than I now understand how you jump to your conclusions. Thanks for illustrating this.You say:
How shall I interpret that, Dr. Hov - I mean, Borger?I say:
Dr. Hov? Do you mean Dr. Hof?Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

The issue here is that you are unable to read properly. Like Schrafinator, you think you read something and than you try to kick my butt. For instance, a few mails ago you thought I referred to you when I referred to Roderick Page, and you immediately --in utter desparation-- accused me of false testamonies. (In fact you owe me another apology for false accusations). I didn't even know that your name was Page too. So, your sweat is showing. Better respond to my IL-1 beta example. That would be a challenge, really. And the last word hasn't been spoken about the cytochrome c incongruence. I will keep a close eye on it.

​

In the meantime I'm absolutely unimpressed by your 'rebuttals'.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

Gee, Peter B the creationist isn't impressed by my rebuttals, and he says that I can't read.Wow. I guess he really put me in my place...Of course, I still have yet to claim that articles that run counter to my claims are actually support for it, so I am still on pretty firm ground.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

What do you think all the fuss is about? I got spammed by several atheist, including a guy who calls himself Tom Beasley. I checked him out on the internet and it turns out that he is as rude as you are in response to people with a distinct worldview. I really feel sorry for you and him. Better respond in a scientific way. Can you?

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

I am still waiting for your explanation on why you think all gene trees should be identical.*yawn*