Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
448 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, GDR, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (5 members, 443 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,801 Year: 21,837/19,786 Month: 400/1,834 Week: 400/315 Day: 78/78 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 360 of 450 (625032)
07-21-2011 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Percy
07-21-2011 8:01 AM


Re: Frameshifts
WK and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum in interpreting your posts

One minute WK suggests that frameshifting is likely to be evident even in my own body and the next he says that there is no chance of getting any hard evidence to prove this point.

All I asked for was some examples of this and some evidence. How can this possibly be misinterpreted?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Percy, posted 07-21-2011 8:01 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 8:42 AM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 364 of 450 (625065)
07-21-2011 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Wounded King
07-21-2011 8:42 AM


Re: Frameshifts
WK writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 8:42 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 10:20 AM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 365 of 450 (625066)
07-21-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Wounded King
07-21-2011 8:39 AM


Re: Gene Deletion
WK writes:

looks like you cut and pasted some text from your link and didn't bother to tell us you were plagiarising

How is it plagiarism when I've given you the link?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 8:39 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 10:23 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 368 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 10:24 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 369 of 450 (625087)
07-21-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Wounded King
07-21-2011 10:20 AM


Re: Frameshifts
WK writes:

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.

Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 10:20 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 11:07 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 371 of 450 (625101)
07-21-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Wounded King
07-21-2011 8:39 AM


Re: Gene Deletion
WK writes:

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.

Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 8:39 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 1:37 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 373 of 450 (625307)
07-22-2011 7:00 AM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Wounded King, posted 07-22-2011 9:54 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 376 by derwood, posted 07-22-2011 10:37 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 377 of 450 (625447)
07-23-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Wounded King
07-22-2011 9:54 AM


Re: No pesudogenisation? Are you sure?
WK writes:

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.

WK writes:

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.

WK writes:

So what is your source for the complete deletion of Siglec13 in humans?

link as requested


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Wounded King, posted 07-22-2011 9:54 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Wounded King, posted 07-23-2011 1:09 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 382 of 450 (625582)
07-24-2011 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Wounded King
07-23-2011 1:09 PM


Re: No pesudogenisation? Are you sure?
WK writes:

Your link doesn't really seem to provide any evidence at all supporting a deletion, so I suppose the contributor who made the entry may just have made a mistake.

I found a number of sources which stated the same thing ie that the gene was specifically deleted (whatever that means). Here is another
source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Wounded King, posted 07-23-2011 1:09 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 383 of 450 (625584)
07-24-2011 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Wounded King
07-23-2011 1:09 PM


Re: No pesudogenisation? Are you sure?
WK writes:

Your link doesn't really seem to provide any evidence at all supporting a deletion, so I suppose the contributor who made the entry may just have made a mistake.

Actually, I have found an even better link. This one categorically tells us the following;

Siglec-11 - gene conversion
Siglec-12 - binding specificity changes
Siglec-13 - deletion
Siglec-14 - pseudogenization

source

Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Wounded King, posted 07-23-2011 1:09 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2011 7:51 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 438 of 450 (653002)
02-17-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Taq
07-27-2011 11:35 AM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Taq writes:

We are more interested in what you can evidence, not what you can see.

Please could you provide evidence that "what you can see" does not constitute evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Taq, posted 07-27-2011 11:35 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Percy, posted 02-17-2012 12:10 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 440 of 450 (653377)
02-20-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Percy
02-17-2012 12:10 PM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Percy writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Percy, posted 02-17-2012 12:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2012 1:18 PM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 442 by Percy, posted 02-20-2012 1:23 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 443 of 450 (653392)
02-20-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Huntard
02-20-2012 1:18 PM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Huntard writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2012 1:18 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2012 4:15 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 445 by Percy, posted 02-20-2012 5:02 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 446 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2012 5:34 PM Big_Al35 has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 447 of 450 (653448)
02-21-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Huntard
02-20-2012 5:34 PM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Huntard writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2012 5:34 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019