Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 12:36 PM
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,838 Year: 6,875/19,786 Month: 1,416/1,581 Week: 238/393 Day: 61/110 Hour: 11/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 214 (14381)
07-29-2002 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by peter borger
07-29-2002 12:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

2) redundant genes are supposed to change with a faster rate than essential genes (neutral theory prediction), since they are not under selective constraint. It is not true. Redundant genes do not change faster or slower in comparison with essential genes. Thus, we have another falsification.

2) how do they reside stable in the genome?


Sorry Peter B, you canít make any judgement on neutral/non-neutral rate until you can scientifically prove there is absolutely no function in the genes that you purport should display neutral rate mutation.

This is your own standard, remember?

No judgement allowed = no falsification.

These genes do not reside stable in the genome, except perhaps at the 100% fixation level. Genetic drift acts upon their frequencies.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 12:24 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 8:40 PM mark24 has responded
 Message 37 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:48 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 31 of 214 (14486)
07-30-2002 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by peter borger
07-29-2002 8:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,

Firstly, I recommend you to read a book on neutral evolution.


What has this got to do with your hypocrisy? Iím well aware of neutral theory.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Secondly, problem is that evolutionists NEVER make any predictions. So I have taken the opportunity to do it for them by applying the rules that are operable at the molecular level. None of the predictions can hold, demonstrating the weakness of the theory. (I already did an evolutionary prediction that can readily be checked in the genome)

Thirdly, you are entitled to have your opinions/beliefs. I do not mind. The only thing I show is that evolution does not work at the molecular level, and this should be conclusive to any scientist (why do you think molecular biologist increasingly object to evolution theory? Most molecular biologist I know are agnostics: they simply don't know).

Best wishes
Peter


You have not shown evolution cannot work at the molecular level without being a hypocrite. Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons.

In fact all youíve done is to hit upon the pseudogene in question having some function.

This is the third or fourth time Iíve posted this, why arenít you addressing the main point?

YOU CANíT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!!!!!!

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 8:40 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 5:34 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 38 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:57 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 214 (14488)
07-30-2002 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by mark24
07-30-2002 5:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,

Firstly, I recommend you to read a book on neutral evolution.


What has this got to do with your hypocrisy? Iím well aware of neutral theory.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Secondly, problem is that evolutionists NEVER make any predictions. So I have taken the opportunity to do it for them by applying the rules that are operable at the molecular level. None of the predictions can hold, demonstrating the weakness of the theory. (I already did an evolutionary prediction that can readily be checked in the genome)

Thirdly, you are entitled to have your opinions/beliefs. I do not mind. The only thing I show is that evolution does not work at the molecular level, and this should be conclusive to any scientist (why do you think molecular biologist increasingly object to evolution theory? Most molecular biologist I know are agnostics: they simply don't know).

Best wishes
Peter


You have not shown evolution cannot work at the molecular level without being a hypocrite. Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons.

In fact all youíve done is to hit upon the pseudogene in question having some function, because neutral rate mutation was not seen to occur in the entire sequences. Meaning functional constraint was potentially observed.

This is the third or fourth time Iíve posted this, why arenít you addressing the main point?

YOU CANíT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!!!!!!

Unless you can show the sequences you have chosen to "falsify" evolution have had actual scientific attempts made to show that they are actually functionless, then your argument is utterly undone.

Mark

[/B][/QUOTE]

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 5:02 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-30-2002 11:39 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 214 (14499)
07-30-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Admin
07-30-2002 11:39 AM


Percy,

Using one strict standard as a criteria in an attempt to weaken your opponents argument, & then completely ignore it to strengthen your own argument, is hypocritical.

I am happy to qualify that I mean no insult whatsoever to Peter, or use the word hypocrite as an attack on Peters character in general. I only use the word in it's strict sense, & in this situation only.

If possible, I'll try to find a less inflammatory word in future, but I do maintain I'm using the word correctly.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-30-2002 11:39 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 07-31-2002 10:27 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 40 of 214 (14551)
07-31-2002 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by peter borger
07-30-2002 9:57 PM


Peter B,

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

The redundant genes can be knocked out, so knocking them out does not say anything about the function of genes (or pseudogenes for that matter). Genes that can be knocked out are (at least) non-essential genes and that means -- according to NET -- that they suppose to change with faster rate than essential genes since there is no selective constraint on these genes (deduced from non-phenotype knock-outs). Is this so hard to comprehend? If it is, I recommend you to study the neutral theory. There are some excellent reviews written by Kimura himself. I invite you to do a search on the NCBI homepage.

Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

"Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons."

See my previous letter to you.


I did, but cannot see how you have addressed the point above. Please be more specific. You need to show me that either,

1/ You are not relying on substitution rate to determine whether neutral rate substitution is occurring.

Or,

2/ You need not determine whether the sequence is functionless (or never had function) or not, before claiming that neutral rate substitution is not observed & neutral theory is overthrown.

How can you be sure that function in the knocked out gene isnít redundant, with weak selection occurring upon it, or perhaps more importantly, that it never had a secondary function, never, EVER? Is this so hard to comprehend?

If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation regarding falsification of neutral theory, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS!!!!!!!!! DO YOU GET IT NOW!!!!?????

This point of this exercise is to expose your double standards, nothing more.

You are perfectly content to tell me that function must be SHOWN to be absent before phylogenies can be inferred from transposons, & at the same time feel SURE that neutral theory is overthrown without showing the same.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"This is the third or fourth time Iíve posted this, why arenít you addressing the main point?"

Because it is irrelevant to my falsifications of NDT.


I am commenting on your attempt to falsify neutral theory, not the NDT in itís entirety, letís leave the goalposts where they are, please.

So, how is the above point irrelevant to your attempt to falsify neutral theory?

It seems to me that you are applying ďcontradictoryĒ standards.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:57 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 43 of 214 (14568)
07-31-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Admin
07-31-2002 10:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Admin:
The preference here is that discussion focus on the arguments rather than the people making the arguments. This is a good dissection:

Mark writes:

Using one strict standard as a criteria in an attempt to weaken your opponents argument, & then completely ignore it to strengthen your own argument, is hypocritical.

But another interpretation is that this is simply a clever and commonly used debating device. Calling attention to uses of this fallacy is often sufficient.


Admin,

You will note my last post uses "contradictory standards", so at the very least, I'm towing the line.

Also, the entire point of my argument with Peter B is that he is using this fallacy, so in this case calling attention to it isn't sufficient!

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 07-31-2002 10:27 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 07-31-2002 12:01 PM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 46 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 12:49 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 214 (14964)
08-07-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by peter borger
08-07-2002 12:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mark,
Could you please point out exactly where you think I use fallacies (mailnumber and quote) to support my view. It will make it a lot easier for me to respond,

Peter


Yup, here she is....

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=6#6 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=6#6">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=6#6

I never said you used fallacies to support your view, just that you allow yourself the luxury of not being able to show function/non-function of a sequence, yet absolutely require it for phylogenetic analysis that supports evolution.

quote:

You also wonder:

"Functioning transposons are just as good an evidence of common descent as functional gene sequences. Why does them having function represent a falsification?"

As mentioned before, you cannot take DNA sequences in the same spot of the chromosome that we do not know the function of as proof for common descent.


In the very same thread you are assuming the total non-functionality of the GLO pseudogene.

Functionality doesnít have to be known for phylogenetic inference, but it does have to be known if your argument depends on the lack of function of a particular sequence.

Since you have used the GLO vit c pseudogene as your evidence;

1/ Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out, which you claim shows lack of function.

2/ Assuming you can cite the studies of the knockouts above, how can you show the sequences never had a secondary function at some point, never, ever, EVER? Remember, you are claiming a falsification here, you need to be in possession of this knowledge.

If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation, as regards falsification of neutral theory, or the NDT for that matter.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-07-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 12:49 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by peter borger, posted 08-12-2002 9:17 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 55 of 214 (15043)
08-08-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by peter borger
08-08-2002 8:02 PM


Peter B,

Message 49 please,

Thanks,

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by peter borger, posted 08-08-2002 8:02 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 08-08-2002 8:58 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 214 (15272)
08-12-2002 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by peter borger
08-07-2002 2:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
In the meantime I also provided a falsification (do you know what a falsification is, and why it is not so good for a theory?) of natural selection and thus demonstrated the NDT not to be valid on the level of the genome. What else do you want me to falsify?
Best wishes
Peter

Falsification of natural selection?

Natural selection has been demonstrated umpteen times experimentally.

I'll use a single example, the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. In waters populated by the predator Crenicichla, males have smaller less conspicuous spots that match the gravel bottom (different bottoms elicit different patterns). In effect the guppy has evolved camouflage. The alleles that express phenotypes are under SELECTIVE pressure.

Guppies that exist in waters that lack Crenicichla display a much wider range of colouration. That is to say the alleles that affect skin colour are no longer under selective pressure.

Guppy populations that are in waters that have Crenicichla populations, & are placed in waters without the predator soon display a wider variety of colouration. Again, the skin colouration alleles aren't selectively constrained, & are able to increase via genetic drift, since they are now "neutral" alleles.

If guppies from non-predatorial waters are placed in water with Crenicichla, the colourations soon begin to match the gravel bottom. That is, alleles responsible for skin colouration are under selective pressure.

(Endler 1980)

Now, given you have "falsified" natural selection, can you explain the above within your shining new paradigm?

I don't think so, there is no other explanation other than non effectively camouflaged guppies end up as lunch for Crenicichla, those that have camouflage go on to repopulate. Namely, natural selection. If allele frequencies are being affected by natural selection, & natural selection is part of the NDT, then how can you possibly conclude that the NDT can't be seen to work at the genome level?

Falsification of natural selection? Not.

As regards neutral theory:

quote:

Peter Borger says:

Ever heard of neutral evolution theory? What does it say for DNA sequences that are not under selective constraint? Indeed, the suppose to change more rapidly!! In fact this has been well established. I recommend you to read reviews by Kimura on the topic, than you will find out. So either Kimura isn't right or NDT isn't, or both aren't.


You admit that DNA there are sequences not under selective constraint, & that sequence changes occur. You also admit that it is "well established". I think you will find it is also at the "genome level". How can you accept something is well established & have claimed a falsification at the same time?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 2:05 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 68 of 214 (15381)
08-13-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by peter borger
08-12-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mark,

You say:
"I never said you used fallacies to support your view, just that you allow yourself the luxury of not being able to show function/non-function of a sequence, yet absolutely require it for phylogenetic analysis that supports evolution."

Distortion. I said that since you don't know how viruses came into being you assume that they integrated in the DNA of an assumed ancestor and are now present in the same spot of the DNA in primates that descended from this ancestor. I've turned it up-side-down. I say that since we do not know the origin of (retro)viruses --but for sure they have there origin in the genome-- it may as well be assumed that the retroviruslike sequence fulfilled a role in speciation, genome stabilisation or other unknown function. A very close look at the DNA sequences within (sub)species would provide more clarity. (I said this before, but apperently you don't get that there are always more ways to interpret data. I also stated that the current data are discussed according to the paradigm of common descent through evolution, and --as you should know by now-- I objected to that).


Bullshit.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

As mentioned before, you cannot take DNA sequences in the same spot of the chromosome that we do not know the function of as proof for common descent.

You clearly, demonstrably, claim that function that isnít known in DNA SEQUENCES (not retrovirusí) & that therefore they canít be used as proof of common descent (phylogenetic inference).

Much of your subsequent arguments revolve around non-neutral substitution/mutations being evident in functionless sequences, when all that should be evident is neutral rate substitution. You claim to falsify the NDT/neutral theory without being able to demonstrate the lack of function in sequences, & therefore show that neutral rate substitution is all that should be seen.

THEREFORE, you require function to be known to infer phylogenies, but donít need it to falsify the NDT when non-neutral constraint is evident????

Would you like to retract one, or the other?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

You also say:
"In the very same thread you are assuming the total non-functionality of the GLO pseudogene."

Well, I am not the only one who is [I][b]ASSUMING[/I][/b] that. It is generally acknowledged as a pseudogene.


Highlight mine.

You cannot falsify anything whilst relying on an untested [I][b]assumption[/I][/b]. Your argument fails here.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"Functionality doesnít have to be known for phylogenetic inference, but it does have to be known if your argument depends on the lack of function of a particular sequence.

Since you have used the GLO vit c pseudogene as your evidence;

1/ Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out, which you claim shows lack of function."

Here, I do not get your point. The GLO gene is a naturally knocked out gene in all species you cite above. According to the articlein PNAS it has been knocked out about 25 million years ago due to the introduction of a non-sense mutation in exon X (=ten).


Actually, youíre right, I went off on a tangent.

Please allow me to redirect my argument.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

I checked one claim about the GLO pseudogene (the gene that catalyses the final step in vitamin c synthesis) that has been inactivated in the same spot in primates and is taken as proof for common ancestry. And, indeed a superficial look would immediately convince any evolutionist. However, if you have a careful look at the presented sequences you will discover that the replacement of nucleotides is not at random between the distinct species.

How can you tell non-random (statistically speaking) mutation from conserved loci?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Secondly, you will discover that it does not make a difference for the mutation rate of this gene whether it is functional or not, in contrast to what evolution theory would predict.

Again, how can you tell the mutation rate at a particular locus of an ancestral sequence?

See www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=38#38 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=38#38">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=38#38 (At the bottom).

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

If you have a close look you will see that the rate of change between rat and human, chimp, orang and macaque is almost constant 26/164, 25/164, 26/164 and 29/164, respectively. If we compare human with chimp, orang and macaque one finds 4/163, 7/163 and 15/163, respectively. However, if we compare chimp and orang, and chimp and macaque we find 9/163 and 15/163. Thus, while we observe 4/163 between human and chimp, human and chimp are equally similar to macaque. Thus if we reason from the macaque's position human and chimp coincide. Still, we "know" there is time difference of 6 million years.

These figures are entirely consistent with the currently accepted phylogeny of apes. If the rat & ape clade diverge at the bottom of the phylogeny, then subsequent divergence up the ape clade is macaque, orangutan, chimp, human.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

If you have a close look you will see that the rate of change between rat and human, chimp, orang and macaque is almost constant 26/164, 25/164, 26/164 and 29/164, respectively.

Yup, the rat is the outgroup, similar substitution rates are expected.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

If we compare human with chimp, orang and macaque one finds 4/163, 7/163 and 15/163, respectively.

Chimps arwe closest to human, so we expect least difference 4/163. Orangutans next, 7/163. Finally macaques, 15/163, that diverged earliest, & therefore have the greatest difference to humans.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

However, if we compare chimp and orang, and chimp and macaque we find 9/163 and 15/163.

Again correct, chimps are more closely related to orangutans than macaques, & therefore show fewer substitutions.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Thus, while we observe 4/163 between human and chimp, human and chimp are equally similar to macaque.

Again, as expected! Chimps & humans are closely related & show only 4 substitutions between each other since divergence. All substitutions from macaque to most recent common ancestor of humans & chimps have exactly the same substitutions. After divergence they part at a roughly equal rate of substitutions. Meaning they have similar numbers of substitutions relative to each other, but very different numbers of subs to a macaque.

FinallyÖÖÖ.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation, as regards falsification of neutral theory, or the NDT for that matter."

I only quoted the authors.


Theyíre wrong then, arenít they?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by peter borger, posted 08-12-2002 9:17 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 2:36 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 214 (15443)
08-14-2002 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by peter borger
08-14-2002 2:36 AM


Peter,

I have decided to sum all our posts in one thread. It allows me to pull all the strings together, & re-ask questions that were looked over. It also gives others the opportunity to get a summary of what we have been arguing. I apologise now to other readers, I am repeating argument made before, that were not substantially/meaningfully responded to. It seems thereís no other way.

You have provided arguments that you think are falsifications. If you are going to falsify anything, then the tentativity in your arguments must be near zero. You cannot falsify anything whilst relying on an untested assumption.

Unless I am much mistaken, your present & previous arguments are summed below. A to E.

A/ Random mutation isnít random, so, the tenet that says evolution is random mutation culled by natural selection falsifies the NDT.

quote:

Mutation as a Random Process

Mutations occur at random. It is extremely important to understand what this statement does & does not mean. It does not mean that all conceivable mutations are equally likely to occur, because, as we have noted, the developmental foundations for some imaginable transformations do not exist. It does not mean that all loci, or regions within a locus, are equally mutable, for geneticists have described differences in mutation rates, at both the phenotypic & molecular levels, among & within loci (Woodruff et al. 1983; Wolf et al. 1989). It does not mean that environmental factors cannot influence mutation rates: ultraviolet & other radiation, as well as various chemical mutagens & poor nutrition, do indeed increase rates of mutation.

Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous


(Evolutionary Biology 2nd Edition, Douglas Futuyma p281-2)

One of the reasons I felt I had to get everything under one roof was the opportunity to reiterate this argument. You have never substantially responded to the issue of the intended definition of random, as outlined above. It is incorrect to insist on a definition that was never intended, & as such, applying a strict statistical definition of random falsifies nothing.

YET, you still insist you have falsified the NDT because of the statistical non-randomness displayed in mutations. You do this without bringing anything new to the discussion, & I must therefore conclude you are using the time honoured tactic of, ďI have no argument, so Iíll repeatedly reassert my initial premiseĒ. I am giving you the opportunity to bring a new argument to the debate, rather than your reassertions.

The intended meaning of random, is that if the locus of a particular mutation cannot be predetermined, it is random (among other things, above).

This means hotspots, & even directed evolution (should such a thing exist), are random.

Let us assume that directed evolution exists, & is active in a population of 1,000 individuals. One locus is under potential directed evolution, the other 499 nucleotide sites exhibit statistically random mutational probability. After 1 generation, 250 of the organisms have had the sequence undergo directed mutation, 500 experienced no mutation at all, & 250 experienced statistically random mutation. Could you have predicted the mutation loci deterministically in a given sequence? No, of course not. Ergo, even directed evolution is random (Futuymas definition).

You cannot gainsay evolutions intended meaning of random. Only the definer/author can do that.

Given that you canít put words in peoples mouths, & tell them what they are supposed to have meant by random, you cannot insert XXX meaning of random in order to falsify ďrandomĒ mutation
being required for evolution. It ainít allowed.

The next time you say you have falsified the NDT because of ďrandomnessĒ, it had better come with a bloody good reason, or I claim victory. Iím tired of explaining the same thing over & over, & you just reasserting your original position without explanation.

OK?

Itís reassertions like thisÖÖ.

quote:

since I demonstrated that some genes change non-randomly and that falsifies NDT

ÖÖ..that ignore everything that has been said, & itís beginning to piss me off.

B/ You believe you have falsified neutral rate mutation/ neutral theory. Therefore phylogenetic analysis cannot be inferred because directed evolution cannot be excluded. Put simply, you are saying that because alleged neutral sequences display non-neutral behaviour, this must be directed mutation, because itís supposed to be neutral.

Given you accept functional constraint, or at least accept that itís well established.

quote:

Ever heard of neutral evolution theory? What does it say for DNA sequences that are not under selective constraint? Indeed, the suppose to change more rapidly!! In fact this has been well established.

Then what do you infer from a nucleotide site that doesnít display neutral rate substitution? It seems to me that you disregard your acceptance of functional constraint, even though it is a perfectly plausible explanation, in favour of ďit was designed to mutate there!Ē.

This means that previously functionless sequences may have loci that have function, after all, since functional/selective constraint is observed. Remember, it is YOU who are claiming a falsification, & it is YOUR argument that must therefore have near zero tentativity. Therefore you must SHOW that an ENTIRE sequence is functionless. I donít deny that the original transcribed protein has been ruined. But I do not accept that there is no function at any locus, or never has been, unless you show otherwise. But given that there are pseudogenes/transposons that HAVE been shown to have function, it is imperative that you investigate for this possibility before claiming falsifications.

If you cannot do this, then you cannot infer falsification from non-neutral rate loci in alleged functionless sequences.

C/ You assert it is possible to locate hotspots in ancient sequences, in order to be able to infer that pseudogenes (GLO) were wrecked by hotspot mutation.

Firstly, I doubt this very much, since GLO genes are active in more mammals than not. If a hotspot destroyed our GLO function, then why not a cows? Given it has hotspots too.

Secondly, why would an ID design a functioning gene with a built in self destruct? It's like building a plane with wings that fall off, or a car where the steering wheel comes off in your hand above a certain speed.

But I digressÖÖÖ.

I agree, you can take an extant sequence, ďmutateĒ it a thousand times, then examine where the sequences mutate most in order to demonstrate where the hot spots are.

But, this is entirely different a proposition from being able to infer hotspots from ancestral sequences. The best you can see from an ancestral sequence is that a loci mutated a maximum of three times, that is, from A to G, A to T, A to C, certainly not from within your paradigm. There is no way you can quantify a hotspot that has a thousand-fold higher probability of mutation than a statistically random probability. You may look at loci that appear to be random to you, but have mutated thousands of times more than adjacent loci, but because it started as A, & finished as A, you will never know.

This is probably best illustrated in the form of a question;

Q/ There is a single homologous locus in a gene in eight different related organisms.

1/The nucleotides are A,G,T,C,A,G,T, & C. Is the locus a hotspot?

2/The nucleotides are A,A,A,A,A,A,A, & A. Is the locus a hotspot?

3/The nucleotides are A,A,A,A,A,A,A, & T. Is the locus a hotspot?

So, how can you tell the location of hotspots in ancestral DNA?

D/ You claim to have falsified natural selection, specifically.

Natural selection has been demonstrated umpteen times experimentally.

I'll use a single example, the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. In waters populated by the predator Crenicichla, males have smaller less conspicuous spots that match the gravel bottom (different bottoms elicit different patterns). In effect the guppy has evolved camouflage. The alleles that express phenotypes are under SELECTIVE pressure.

Guppies that exist in waters that lack Crenicichla display a much wider range of colouration. That is to say the alleles that affect skin colour are no longer under selective pressure.

Guppy populations that are in waters that have Crenicichla populations, & are placed in waters without the predator soon display a wider variety of colouration. Again, the skin colouration alleles aren't selectively constrained, & are able to increase via genetic drift, since they are now "neutral" alleles.

If guppies from non-predatorial waters are placed in water with Crenicichla, the colourations soon begin to match the gravel bottom. That is, alleles responsible for skin colouration are under selective pressure.

(Endler 1980)

Now, given you have "falsified" natural selection, can you explain the above within your shining new paradigm?

I don't think so, there is no other explanation other than non effectively camouflaged guppies end up as lunch for Crenicichla, those that have camouflage go on to repopulate, taking their existing/newly appeared alleles with them. Namely, natural selection. If allele frequencies are being affected by natural selection, & natural selection is part of the NDT, then how can you possibly conclude that the NDT can't be seen to work at the genome level?
Falsification of natural selection? Not.

I saved the best Ďtill lastÖÖÖ

E/ You assert that statistical non-randomness as evidence of design.

How can you tell a naturally occurring system/object from a designed one?

Since you are attempting to show ID, then if you canít answer this question, then ALL your arguments come to nought.

Retrospectively, your problem is your own use of language. You drop the word "falsification" in to your argument, without realising it requires you to have all bases covered. You simply have to have a lot more information before you can get anything like a falsification of the NDT.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 2:36 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by peter borger, posted 08-15-2002 3:34 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 97 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 1:54 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 78 of 214 (15471)
08-15-2002 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by peter borger
08-15-2002 3:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Gene,

"If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?"

As you can see more and more people who do not like the overthrow are getting involved.

Do a wild guess why it will not be published in a peer reviewed journal. Read Spetner. He tried several times to get articles that disprove evolution in peer reviewed journals. But such articles simply keep coming back: rejected. (Read: Communication with Dr Max on the True Origin Site). Yes, it is a hard world for defenders of the truth.

I wish you well,
Peter


Not the the evilutionist conspiracy again?!

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by peter borger, posted 08-15-2002 3:43 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 85 of 214 (15661)
08-19-2002 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by peter borger
08-19-2002 2:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear AS,

You write:
What overthrow? All the facts and observations are building an intricate pattern supporting evolution. There, I just wanted to say that.

I say:
What I question is randomness of NDT. If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true.
Peter


1/ But mutation IS random!!!!!!! AAAAAAGH. The NDT HASN'T BEEN FALSIFIED.

See part A/ of message 73, & you'll see this is exactly why your pissing people of with this repetitive-I-have-no-argument-so-I'll-reassert-myself-ad-nauseum crap.

DEAL SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE QUESTION!!!!!

2/ The NDT is both random & non-random anyway, statistically speaking, NS=non-random. GD=random.

So at best you have another strawman.

3/ Answer part E/ of message 73. If you can't do this, then you cannot assert that non-randomness = design. Statistical non-randomness exists in nature, demonstrably so. How can you tell the difference?

Another reassertion-without-answering-the-pertinent-question.

This is getting boring.

[quote][b]
I will have a careful look at your summary this weekend. Await my response.[/quote]

[/b]

And?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by peter borger, posted 08-19-2002 2:05 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2002 5:31 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 214 (15663)
08-19-2002 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Mammuthus
08-19-2002 5:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
2)Falsifying evolution would not make creation true! I could substitute Puff the Magic Dragon Invention for creation in his sentence.

I missed that one!

Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2002 5:31 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by blitz77, posted 08-19-2002 8:58 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 90 of 214 (15694)
08-19-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by blitz77
08-19-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:
Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing.

Not really. Maybe you are confusing atheistic and agnostic? Agnostics don't know. What he said just says that you can't disprove creation if NDT is not true.


Blitz,

perhaps you should read his post......

[B][quote]Peter B said:
If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true..[/B][/QUOTE]

He says that if evolution is non-random (which the NDT professes to be anyway), then [i][b]nothing can prevent creation to be true[/i][/b]. ie if the NDT is false, nothing can prevent creation being true.

1/ Falsifying the NDT doesn't make creation true.

2/ Professing creation to be true ISN'T agnosticism OR atheism. It's theism. Peter Borger claims to be agnostic. A dichotomy?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by blitz77, posted 08-19-2002 8:58 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019