Macroevolution: Its all around us...

I did not make the term up. It's not my fault if you won't take the time to read the paper and consider what they are talking about. No, the discussion clearly also involved coding DNA since they consider their findings applicable to discovering when harmful mutations might occur, and they specifically conducted the study to consider the validity of the molecular clock.You have just failed to consider the intent and implications of the paper.Have you read it, and the other paper/letter commenting on it?

If you ask for proof that the ball will not bounce, then yes, you are asking to prove a negative. Even if we try 1,000,000 conditions and the ball still does not bounce, we haven't shown that the ball cannot bounce. If the ball bounces once, we know that it can bounce. If it doesn't bounce a trillion times, we still don't know if it can bounce. Get it?So when you ask for proof that certain types of DNA sequence are NOT convergently evolving, you are asking for proof of a negative. I can only respond that much analysis has been done on such sequence and no one has published any evidence supporting convergence of the type described by V&A. The presence of a microsatellite within coding sequence does mean that the coding sequence is undergoing convergent evolution at the molecular genetic level.It means that there is a mutational bias flanking the microsatellite. That mutational bias does not equal convergent evolution, since there are other selective forces to be taken into account.An example: A microsatellite within a gene sets up a mutational bias that commonly causes a mutation of C>G at position 722 of gene X. However, such a mutation renders protein X inactive, and results in the failure of any embryo carrying that mutation to implant, and thus all such embryos die, and the allele never appears in a living individual, and is thus never found in the population.The microsatellite exists. The mutational bias exists. But the convergent evolution at the molecular-genetic level does not exist.

I can't help you if you don't want to understand.1. By preventing, it is clear I mean preventing a mutation from being selected for, although a series of mutations could well prevent some mutations that were more likely before from occuring. That does and can happen, but that's not the point. The point is that once a mutation, a solution, is selected for and implemented in a species and causes a widespread change, alternative mutations that could have also provided an alternate solution may not longer be good for that species, and in that way, the solutions more predisposed to occur within the DNA will tend to crowd out and prevent mutations that could even be better at an earlier time from ever occuring because the earlier mutations "got there first."if you don't understand this by now, after repeating it so many times, I am frankly not interested in continuing to try to explain it. It's as simple as if someone makes a right turn on a road, drives 20 miles, the next best route to get the original destination (natural selection) may not be to turn around and backtrack, but to take a different route that cuts over to where you want to be, unless we are dealing with very straight roads, which is usually not the case.That's not a perfect example, obviously, but it does illustrate the principle that once a change is made, it changes the situation of what the best course of action is. So we are back to insisting the whole theory must be challenged instead of just looking at each piece of evidence.Frankly, you just need to read the paper. One of it's claims does address what ought to be a modification of ToE concepts, which is that DNA mutation is non-random.It does not challenge the theory otherwise, but properly sets itself upon the details of what and why DNA does what it does.Considering we are so new to understanding some of these basic properties of DNA, I find evolutionists dogmatic attitude to be inherently unscientific.

I just did a text search of both the original paper and the review.The term "convergent DNA" was not used a single time. Perhaps you should "take the time to read the paper and consider what they are talking about," since you are claiming a term that is never used.If you didn't make it up, where did it come from? Again, you don't seem to have very good reading comprehension.Nothing in my line you quote is in opposition to your response.I agree with you. The bias likely involves coding DNA - I discussed that with WK a page back and even provided a reference in support of it.I also agree with you that the bias has implications for the interpretation of data in establishing the molecular clock. I mentioned that in the very post you were responding to.But I do NOT agree with your assertion that this data refutes common ancestry, which was the specific claim I asked you to back up with mention in the paper or review.Apparently you couldn't find any mention, and so you had to resort to your typical twisting and hand-waving.

You are still missing the point. You are claiming that mutations are random, but with qualifications since we know they are not random, but still that is the general claim.I am saying you offer no evidence DNA is random. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove your assertion. Randomness is assumed. It's never been proven, and the more we study it, the less random mutations appear to be.You play semantics by saying disproving convergency, but that's all this is because I'm not asking you to disprove that convergency can happen, I am asking you to offer evidence that mutations are random.They don't appear to be random.Why do you say they are?This study and others cited in the paper indicate mutations are not random. So really you are asking me to accept an unproven assertion, randomness, and reject the evidence that mutations contain convergent predispositions to mutate according to rules or a pattern.

If you wish, dig out and spin off a new topic.Adminnemooseus

---