More non-random evolution

You fellas got it all wrong - ALL wrong.You see, evidence for hot spots is really evidence for directed mutation.Evidence against directed mutation is REALLY evidence fo rit - you just have to know how to interpret it.Providing requested quotes is is not providing requested quotes, it is bowing to one's god.See? All much clearer now...And besides, Peter Borger is an amazing scientist, and what he says goes, regardless of discipline.

I am still waiting for you to explain why all gene trees are supposed to be identical.Afterall, someone with such an in depth knowledge of genomics and gene activity should be able to explain off the top of his head...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Seebs,

​

You say:
"This doesn't imply planning, design, or volition; it just recognizes that some structures break more easily than others."

​

I say:
"Exactly, and that may contribute to the alignment of mutations in DNA. Such mutations may look like common descent."

​

best wishes,
Peter

​

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

---

Shame for Peter that there are TESTED methodologies employed to distinguish between homoplasy and phylogenetic signal.But you must know that, being as well read as you are...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,

​

If you like to educate me, go ahead and provide me with the refernces and I will have a look at the methodology.
Convince me that you are right and try to overcome your condescending attitude.

---

"My" condesacending attitude? That is rich ... Hmmm... Let's see - an asthma researcher comes here proclaiming that he has falsified NDT, and "I" am being condescending?Well, anyway, again, I should have thought that someone that argues about phylogenetics methods would at least be familkiar with them, but I guess not. I should have remembered - creationists always argue well outside of their actual fields of knowledge, and do so with an unwarranted air of authority.Here is one of many:Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.Atchley WR, Fitch WM.From the abstract:"Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains... "

PB writes:

quote:

---

Actually, what I say is that aspecific damage to DNA (by radiation, oxidation, etc) will be repaired, and that the repair mechanism may introduce the same nucleotide on the same spot over and over. This induces the illusion of common descent. Moreover, if comparable mechanisms exist as observed with 5-methylcytosine induced C-->T transitions than this may also contribute to the illusion of common descent.

---

Wow...So disparate - non-related, of course - species have DNA repair mechanisms that do the exact same thing to the exact same nucleotides AT the EXACT SAME LOCUS.Truly amazing discovery...Odd then that when one looks at actual data (I assume that PB has yet to actually look at any data) one sees nothing at all like what should be expected if repair mechanisms in unrelated taxa worked as indicated above.

Gee - why isn't Peter B. blowing off my citation on the accuracy of molecular phylogenetics?I'm sad...

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
The word random doesn't even appear in the article. The sentence you quoted only notes that, as was already well known, some parts of the genome are more susceptible to mutation than others, and the increased levels of radiation have a greater impact on these "hotspots". Where the mutation takes place is random, but the probability of where the mutation might occur is not equal everywhere.

​

An analogy would be buildings in an earthquake. Which buildings fall is random, but weaker buildings are more likely. Correspondingly, some portions of the genome are more resistant to change than others.

​

--Percy

---

​

As is usually the case, buildings are designed by an intelligent designer, including being specifically designed to withstand earthquakes. Great analogy to show that Intelligence is required, NOT random mutation or natural selection.

​

Regards,
S

​

---

Yup - and all animals are human, too.Can't beat this sort of logic....