Hi all, (moved this from
Message 53 so it would have its own topic)
This is something that was posted over at EvolutionFairyTale but I never got around to discussing it because those guys over there don’t even have a grip on the basic pricipals of science, let alone the ability to comprehend something like this. So now that I am banned from there, I want to see what people who actually know stuff have to say about it.
So this is the video
Refuting Ken Miller on chromosome 2 (the refutation starts at 6:24 - references are listed in the video description)
He claims that there is a 95,313BP difference between the predicted site and the purported site of fusion. I am uncertain how he determined where the predicted site was. He makes this quote in the references
quote:
The article mentions the region name, which contains more than 160,000 BP. I copied the entire sequence into a text editor, then searched for part of the sequence that was displayed in the article, for which I found one match as predicted. I then recorded the location that the 798 BP sequence started relative to my starting point, and then recorded the location of the predicted fusion relative to the start of the 798 BP sequence.
The article I think he is referring to is
Chromosome 2 fusion.
It appears that what they did was to find a location that had the highest concentration of telomeric repeats and called that the predicted site. The purported site would then be where the fusion is claimed to have occurred. But what confuses that interpretation was that they claimed that the predicted site looks more like a fusion than the purported site. Well if they chose that site because it looks more like a fusion site then of course it looks more like a fusion site. It doesn’t seem to me to be the proper way to predict where the fusion site should be.
Has anyone heard this claim before and know anything about it?
Another major claim they are making is that the telomeric sequences around the fusion site are degenerate beyond what should be expected. The reasoning is that regions surrounding a centromere should be well conserved due to lack of recombination. I suspect that since this is in an intergenetic region that SNPs would be common. If I remember correctly, purine to purine and pyrimidine to pyrimidine substitutions are relatively common and I suspect that if this was taken into account that the presence of telomere repeats would be much higher in this region.
It seems that the major sources for these claims are
http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2http://www.nature.com/...al/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.htmlhttp://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full.pdf+html(other sources in the video description)
So what do you think?
Another part of this discussion may include some help understanding how to use sequence search tools and blastn alignments. I can't figure out how they searched for these sequences. The reference he uses in the video is
here
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
