Looking for a good book

...but one accesible to a layman, which will help me understand the genetic evidence linking man and chimps.
Specifically one which will help me get a better understanding of Dr Borgers ideas.A good website will be appreciated as well. [This message has been edited by judge, 02-18-2003]

quote:

---

Judge:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...but one accesible to a layman, which will help me understand the genetic evidence linking man and chimps.
Specifically one which will help me get a better understanding of Dr Borgers ideas.

---

No book will help you better understand Borger's ideas. They are not in print anywhere. They are supported only by his rhetoric and wild extrapolations.As far as lay books on this issue, I know of none that deal specifically with this.
I, however, did my graduate research on the molecular (genetic) sytematics of Primates including humans and hcimps.I can answer any questions you might have on the subject (hopefully).------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

quote:

---

As far as lay books on this issue, I know of none that deal specifically with this.
I, however, did my graduate research on the molecular (genetic) sytematics of Primates including humans and hcimps.

---

...talking of which, I noticed this article on BBC online today about the Tre2 gene, but I can't find the actual paper it refers to (needs a subscription).PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-18-2003]

The talk origins FAQ site (TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy) is probably a good place to start.But if you want a better understanding of Peter Borger then you want a book on the psychology of cranks. For a start it would help if you realised that the "GUToB" is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it's just a bundle of guesses and speculations that he seems to be largely making up as he goes along.

But if you want a better understanding of Peter Borger then you want a book on the psychology of cranks. For a start it would help if you realised that the "GUToB" is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it's just a bundle of guesses and speculations that he seems to be largely making up as he goes along.Judge:
This is fine, but what I would like to do is look at as much of the data as I can and make up my own mind about the ideas.

Judge:
Thanks for the link.SLP:
No book will help you better understand Borger's ideas. They are not in print anywhere. They are supported only by his rhetoric and wild extrapolations.Judge:
Can you explain Peters extrapolations and why they are wild. I am not a scientist so don't be afraid to "dumb it down". I figure that although I may not pick up all the deatail if the extrapolations really are "wild" then i should be able to see it.SLP:
As far as lay books on this issue, I know of none that deal specifically with this.
I, however, did my graduate research on the molecular (genetic) sytematics of Primates including humans and hcimps.I can answer any questions you might have on the subject (hopefully).Judge:
Well I'll come back hopefully with good questions

Perhaps it would be better if you picked a specific argument ?And perhaps it would be best if you explained what you think the argument is supposed to be because from my reading Peter Borger is often none too clear on that point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------PaulK--------
Perhaps it would be better if you picked a specific argument ?
And perhaps it would be best if you explained what you think the argument is supposed to be because from my reading Peter Borger is often none too clear on that point.Judge:
Here is where I am at. Shared mutations/mistakes/sequences seems to be one of the if the strongest argument that chimps and man share a common anscestor. This is argued on the basis that these sequences are passed on to the children.
It appears however that the same sequences could arise another way, by these so called "non random mutations". Work such as that done by Lynn Ripley(?) would seem to confirm this.So I am trying to get an idea as to the following questions.
1.How many mutations do chimps and man share?
2.How many mistakes do they not share?
3.Were these percentages predicted in advance?
4.If not how do we guage that they are what would be expected?
5.Do these common mutations occur in areas that are so called "hot spots"?
6.If shared sequences can arise by two different methods then, how many would we expect to be there by inheritance as compared to those arising by "non random mutations"?In other words what is it about the data (when we look at it in it's entirety) that is compelling?

dear Judge,You have excellent questions! Let's have a look at the 'ad hoc-ness' of evo's.Best wishes from 'the crank' Peter

You might like to look at the t.o FAQ "Plagiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics" which deals with shared mutatiosn as evidence of common descent.Plagiarized Errors and Molecular GeneticsSection 5.9 deals with a similar argument.

quote:

---

Judge:
Thanks for the link.
SLP:
No book will help you better understand Borger's ideas. They are not in print anywhere. They are supported only by his rhetoric and wild extrapolations.

​

Judge:
Can you explain Peters extrapolations and why they are wild. I am not a scientist so don't be afraid to "dumb it down". I figure that although I may not pick up all the deatail if the extrapolations really are "wild" then i should be able to see it.

---

It seems ot me that if you thought his ideas were valid in the first place that you would understand them.
Just goes to show one of my contentions...First, it appears that you have not found much out about Borger's amazing evolution-disproving 'theory' - the one that he set out to conjure up because he is offended by the supposed "atheistic nihilism" of evolution. Idiology is a bad impetus to begin a research program. Look at Lysenkoism.Anyway, I suggest that you ask him about "creatons" and "morphogenic fields" .As far as his wild extrapolations and such, here are two examples:1.He read a paper on 'ancient' mtDNA seuences by Adcock et al. in PNAS.
From the data they used, he declared that humans and chimpos must have diverged only 150,000 years ago, thus evolution is wrong.But there are a few problems.1. The locus used was only ~350 bases in length. The mitochondrial genome is ~15,000 bases in length. The nuclear genome is ~3.2 billion bases in length.He wants to extrapolate from a single 350 base locus to the entire genome.If this were the only locus that had ever been studied, he might have a point.Howerver, the ENTIRE mitochoindrial genome has been sequenced for a number of organisms. And comparisons using the entire mitochondrial genome contradict his claims.Not to mention the tens or hundreds of thousands of bases from nuclear genome studies which do the same. And, of course, DNA-DNA hybridization studies, which compare the entire single-copy genome (essentially most of the genome) also contradict Borger's claims.This is where he started the strawman schtick about me thinking "DNA=length". Whatever that was supposed to mean.he claimed that the Adcock study was more important because it compared 'ancient' DNA. Yet the chimpanze data used was not ancient. It was modern. So how it was that he conlcuded that his 'interpretation' of this small locus usurps overhw;lming evidence to the contrary is can only be accounted for by wild extrapolation.And a few other things...So, would you consider a 350 base analysis more informative that a 15,000 base analysis?2. His claims about "non-random mutation" in a couple of loci.He found a another 350 base locus in a gene form the X and Y chromosomes that exhibited some interesting conservation patterns. he declared that there should be much more disparity between the sequences, and becasue there was not, evolution must be false. he declared it to be evidence of "non-random mutation".See above (and below)as to why this doesn't make sense.In addition, I downloaded additional sequences form the locus in question and made an alignment and linked to it for Borger.
He blew it off for the most part, until recently when he mentioned an interesting amount of change between "subspecies" of chimp.It was pointed out that these are not subsepcies, but different individuals of the same species.IF "non-random mutations" were really the cause of the observed conservation in this locus, how in the owrld could it be that individuals of the same species could have such disparity? If "non-random mutations" wee in effect here, why were not these sequences identical?He has yet to provide even an attempt at answer.The real answer is, of course, that these "non-random mutations" as he defines them do not exist.[quote] SLP:
As far as lay books on this issue, I know of none that deal specifically with this.
I, however, did my graduate research on the molecular (genetic) sytematics of Primates including humans and hcimps.I can answer any questions you might have on the subject (hopefully).Judge:
Well I'll come back hopefully with good questions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Judge:
Here is where I am at. Shared mutations/mistakes/sequences seems to be one of the if the strongest argument that chimps and man share a common anscestor. This is argued on the basis that these sequences are passed on to the children.
It appears however that the same sequences could arise another way, by these so called "non random mutations". Work such as that done by Lynn Ripley(?) would seem to confirm this.

---

Here is where you are being lead astray.
The work by Lynn Caporale does not, in fact, suggest this. If you read this thread:
http://EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genome -->EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genome
you will see that Dr.Caporale in fact explains that the data she used for the book does not indicate what Borger claims it does.
In addition, Dr.Caporale's links to papers dealing with the issue of NRM on phylogeny were very informative.
The impact is hardly what you seem to have gleaned from Borger, and Borger apparently does not understand the effects himself.
This is not an issue of these 'NRM' making it appear that humans and chimps are related while in fact they are not related at all.That is utter nonsense and a complete misrepresentation of the work and its implications. Indded, here is what Borger writes in that thread:"Dr Caporale also concurred that NRM has important implications for phylogeny, a vision that I share. But I am more extreme. "Why is Borger "more extreme"? Because he is a crank. Dr.Caporale has done extensive research on this very subject fo many years. Boger is an asthma researcher with a dislike fo what he erroneoulsy believes are the idiological underpinnings of evolution.I thin k I wiull take the work of an actual relevant researcher n this topic than an ideology pusher.How about you?In addition, i that thread, Dr.Caporale asked Borger this:"Peter-
When you say it will be confirmed at the molecular level soon: what kind of data at the molecular level would confirm your theory, and what kind of data would make it less likely to be true?
Lynn "on Jan. 11.Borger never answered.Back to the phylogeny issue - now I see where you got Lynn Ripley from. Here are the liks I referred to elsewhere, papers used by Ripley in a presentation on this subject:The effects of variable mutation rates across sites on the phylogenetic estimation of effective population size or mutation rate of DNA sequences - PubMedA Bayesian model for detecting past recombination events in DNA multiple alignments - PubMedReading the abstracts shows what Borger ignores - that the impact is minimal and is already taken into account.

quote:

---

So I am trying to get an idea as to the following questions.
1.How many mutations do chimps and man share?
2.How many mistakes do they not share?

---

'Mistakes' is a loaded term.How many substituions do we share?
I do not have a precise number, but we share more unique substitutions than chimps do with gorillas.

quote:

---

3.Were these percentages predicted in advance?

---

'Predicted'? No. Because we do not yet know the precise number of genes or control elements are present in the genome, any such prediction would have been folly. Actual scientists do not like to make proclamations without at least some data to go by.
However, the initial estimates, gleaned fom direct DNA sequence comparions, have been borne out by numerous additional studies.

quote:

---

4.If not how do we guage that they are what would be expected?

---

What would we expect if humans and chimps were 'independant creations'?

quote:

---

5.Do these common mutations occur in areas that are so called "hot spots"?

---

Some do. many do not.
it is not just point mutations that indicate descent - it is insertions and deletions, pseudogenes, etc.
However, even if all of the shared substitutions were in hot spots, would that negate the inferrence?We would still have more of these in common with chimps than with anything else.Just a coincidence?Just a coincidence that the patterns of nucleotide substitution matches phylogenies constructed using morphological data?That would be one hell of a coincidnece, don't you think?

quote:

---

6.If shared sequences can arise by two different methods then, how many would we expect to be there by inheritance as compared to those arising by "non random mutations"?

---

The odds would be vanishingly small that we would 'share' unique substitutions at all.But you are getting ahead of yourself.The mechanisms implied by Borger do not exist. "Non random" with respect to fitness mutations have not been shown to occur. I presented a long list of publications demonstrating this here:http://EvC Forum: for Conspirator -->EvC Forum: for ConspiratorNon-random as described by Dr.Caporale, that is, with respect to position in the genome, have been shown to occur, and for some time. The 'hot spots' are old news. But even within the 'hot spots' there are observable patterns of mutation.Still more coincidence, I suppose...

quote:

---

In other words what is it about the data (when we look at it in it's entirety) that is compelling

---

Look here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignment1.htmand see for yourself...------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

And keep in mind - Borger claims that the 'shared' mutations are the result of their position. If that were so, why then is there any difference between species at all, considering the overall similarity of their sequences?Borger's pap is refuted.Thje fact that there is so much disparity between individual chimps in the zfy locus alone did that.

Scott,

quote:

---

Thje fact that there is so much disparity between individual chimps in the zfy locus alone did that.

---

I think you mean, "The disparity between individual chimps in the zfy locus alone falsifies the GUToB"?It works for PB, or should.....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thje fact that there is so much disparity between individual chimps in the zfy locus alone did that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I think you mean, "The disparity between individual chimps in the zfy locus alone falsifies the GUToB"?

​

It works for PB, or should.....

---

Indeed.