"Must be that genetic redundancy and the creatons...."
Since you require a bit of a read-up, why don't you go to the library and get the Nature (=leading scientific journal) paper by Gu et al, 2 January 2003. Hopefully it will give you a bit of an understanding of genetic redundancies.
And this has what to do with your supposed 'papers' that question my methods?
And where are the papers dealing with creations?
I will look at the paper, however, considering your performance on such things as the citations disproving NRMs and Dr.Caporale's book, I have little reason to believe that this paper in any way supports any of your many disjointed claims.
quote: Here we show that there is a significantly higher probability of functional compensation for a duplicate gene than for a singleton, a high correlation between the frequency of compensation and the sequence similarity of two duplicates, and a higher probability of a severe fitness effect when the duplicate copy that is more highly expressed is deleted"
Borger implies that this demonstrates the "redundancy" implicit in his made-up gibberish.
But is it? Not really.
First of all, if the MPG already had all the "information" it needed, why would there be singletons at all (singletons being single-copy genes)? Does it not stand to reason that redundancy is worthwhile only if all the systems were redundant? Why only some? The abstract also mentions that in yeast, about 1/4 of deleted genes wiht no phenotypic effects are compensated for by duplicate genes.
What about the rest?
And does this apply to multicellular eukaryotes as well?
Also of note - the compensatory gene will have a high sequene similarity to the deleted gene. That is, it will express a similar (and probably identical in function) protein. No big surprise there.
All in all, it looks as though this is another wild extrapolation.
I will coin a new term - the word "borger".
1. To "borger" something means to ascribe a meaning not indicated by the data. (Although planetary weather data indicate that the predictions of "global warming" are coming to pass, anti-global warming advocates simply borger the data and claim that it shows that global warming is not occurring.)
2. To "pull a borger" means to conclude something not implied by the data, or to come to contrary conclusions in spite of the evidence. (The consensus of the panel was that nicotine is addictive, but the scientists employed by Big Tobacco pulled a borger and claimed that it is not.)
3. To "borger it", as in "borgered the data", means that data are wildly extrapolated or twisted to fit one's preconceived notions. Similar to 1. above, but more forceful. (The data clearly indicated the suspect's guilt, but his lawyer borgered it to make it appear that the data actually indicated that the victim had committed the crime.)
This is fun and easy.
===================================================================== "There are only two groups of people that I can't stand: Those who hate groups of people based solely on their heritage or culture, and the Dutch." -Nigel Powers
I am still waiting for Borger to borger the paper indicating that in fact the alpha actinin genes show good evidence of arising via duplication and subsequent mutation, or any of the substantive issues I brought up above.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, since we are all Panomo's let's have a look at your brilliant analysis concerning your utmost evidence of common descent: http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm
I have a couple of remarks and questions about your analysis:
Let start here:
1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?
quote:PB: I am still waiting for Page. He is going to provide the full terms for all abbreviations and a phylo-tree. [Still waiting Page]
You do not appear to have requested these data on this thread. And you did not seem to need such before posting message #4. Why would you even require a phylo-tree if you believe that they are based on faulty Darwinian evolutionary theory?
quote:You do not appear to have requested these data on this thread. And you did not seem to need such before posting message #4. Why would you even require a phylo-tree if you believe that they are based on faulty Darwinian evolutionary theory?
Borger did not ask for such information.
It is simply the creationists deceptive way of trying to wiggle out of a tight spot.
Of course, Borger previously claimed to have read my and Goodman's 'stuff". If this were so, he would know what the "phylo-tree" is and what the codes stand for.
I have to conclude that Borger lied about having read any of my stuff. That or he simply did not understand it.
In addition, I have previously provided a link to another alignment which contained the codes used.
Looks like Borger has been getting advice from Sarfati and crew.