stilllll waiting, Peter B...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,

​

You write:

​

I know what ISOMORPHIC means. I also know what IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION means.

​

Do you?

​

MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Implicit, 1) implied though not plainly expressed; 2) virtually contained; 3) absolute, unquestioning, unreserved.

​

Which one do you prefer?

​

My disctionary also says: Assumption, 1) the act or an instance of assuming; 2) the act of an instance of accepting without proof, 3) arrogance; 4) the reception of the Virgin Mary bodily in heaven, according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine.

​

Which one do you prefer? Not #4, I guess

​

YOU SAY:
Do you understand what reconciliation means?

​

It seems not.

​

MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Reconcile = harmonise; make compatible.

​

YOU SAY:
I suggest you read R. Page's book again, and this time for reasons other than finding a few key quotes that you can spin.

​

MY RESPONSE:
Actually I have it right here on my desk, and I rather like his work.

​

YOU SAY:
As you have been unable to substantiate your claims re: 'discipline' devoted to 'reconsiling' trees and evolutionary biologists needing gene trees and species trees to be the same, I will conclude that you cannot.

​

MY RESPONSE:
According to the meaning of the words (see above), I substantiated my claim and you are in denial. However, if gene trees do not have to be in accord with species trees, what is all this fuss about? And also, what is the reconciliation good for? Please explain, so I can understand it. Thanks in advance,

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

**************************If I can jump in briefly as you and SLPx slug it out, there is no reason to expect all gene trees to be identical to species trees. Horizontal transfer precludes the transferred genes from matching a species tree...in fact this is how I look for transfer events. i.e.the Bov-B elements present in snakes are shared almost identically by some but not all ungulates such as cows. The sequence divergence is not very pronounced. This is not true of other genes in snakes and cows. The Bov-B element is a retrotransposon which can jump from species to to species. Thus, no expectation that this genetic element when analyzed would give an identical gene and species tree.

I actually went through Page and Holmes this weekend and also an older Mol Evol book of John Avise and they both explicitly state that it would be naive to assume that gene trees are always identical to species trees....how did this supposed "controversy" start in the first place in this thread?cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I actually went through Page and Holmes this weekend and also an older Mol Evol book of John Avise and they both explicitly state that it would be naive to assume that gene trees are always identical to species trees....how did this supposed "controversy" start in the first place in this thread?

​

cheers,
M

---

​

Borger had claimed that "evolutionary biologists" expect gene trees and species trees to be congruent, and the fact that he found a couple incongrencies in the literature lead him to the 'conclusion' that therefore evolution did not happen.
He also claimed that becasue of these incongruencies, evolutionists set in place a 'discipline' whose sole role was to 'reconsile'[sic] this incongruence. The implication is that this 'reconciliation' is to smooth over the 'rough spots' for the poor evos. Unfortunately, it is not how Borger implies (as usual).

​

---

******************************I get it now. Thanks. This is akin to his "Dawkin's has no right to talk about evolution since he is a zoologist" post. Or the "you cannot run a gel in a tube" blunder

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Guys (Mammuthus, Mark24, Dr Page),

​

All you do is avoid the problem. I quoted Page and Holmes and I was right there. However that wasn't the problem. The actual problem I mentioned was the IL-1beta incongruence. I checked the claim on IL-1beta in the human genome. If the duplication that reconciles the trees is present it should be traced back in chromosome 2 (as emphasised several times). The duplication that can be found in this chromosome, however, gave rise to IL-1 alpha. That is the problem. Horizontal transfer? From mouse to human? Everything is possible in evolutionism, I guess. All I wanted to demonstrate is that evolutionism can readily be falsified at the genomic level now the human genome has been sequenced. That was my intial statement; that the genome is not in accord with evolutionism. And I gave you several examples. More?

​

Best wishes, and have a nice day,
Peter

​

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-21-2002]

---

***********************And yet another reason why you are incorrect...Hughes AL.
Evolution of the interleukin-1 gene family in mammals.
J Mol Evol. 1994 Jul;39(1):6-12.And horizontal transer of genes from mouse to humans is hardly far fetched as they have actively transposing ERVs that can form infectious viral particles....and pigs ERVs can infect human cells....and snake retroelements have integrated intot the ungulate germ line and so on and so on...

Why not? Many integrations are by homologous recombination. Especially retroviral integration events. That is why you often see concentration of independent integration events i.e. LINE elements integrating into HERVs etc.