|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome | |||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
PB:
"And apparently, you --like Dr Page-- seem to find it pleasing to be condescending." Remind me - who was it that came in here, with no pertinent educational or reseach experience, claiming to have falsified evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
PB:
"The ZFX gene doesn't change for 20 million years as demonstrated by biomolecular scientists and you call that a fallacy? " Why do you keep misrepresenting this, Peter? Again I ask if you know the difference between a gene and an exon. I ask this because you keep saying "gene" and yet your citations only deal with a single exon. Are you hoping everyone will simply forget all of your misrepresentations and hyperbolic statmnents? Guess again...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: No, I know that you do not seem to know the difference between "gene" and "exon." If you did, you would not keep referring to the ZFX/ZFY as the "gene." It is but a small portion of the gene, as I alreeady explained, and, as I already explained, there is no reason to assume that it should have accumulated mutational change. You never did supply your math demonstrating that there should have been change in that particular exon. And, no, PB, I do not know that you are 'right'. About this or anything else, though I have found your repeated claims that Dawkins is out of his league when writing on such things... The irony is just too rich...quote: I already provided one, as have others. Your continued ignoring of them and continued insistence that you are right about everything smacks of a neurosis, not a conspiracy of denial.quote: I have asked repeatedly for a citation. I do not feel like rummaging through your voluminoouis diatribes looking for one passing mention of a concrete document.quote: Now you are just being obtuse. I already commented on that. You ignored it, apparently.quote: Sure - ref please.quote: Oh - I forgot that Your Grae had disproved evolution already, and that we underlings have simply not realized it yet. But I am still wondering why Your Grace prattled on about LCRs and such....quote: You are doing that to yourself by continuing ot refer to the study by Kim et al. as one in which a "gene" is used.quote: Eukaryotic gene: a sequence of DNA that encodes one (or more) protein produts. consists of intronic (non-protein encoding) and exonic (protein encoding) portions. exons and introns are of variable lengths and number. Now maybe PB can provide a contemporary justification for referring to an exon as a gene?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What are you blabbering about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Creationist 'challenges' are bogus. All such 'challenges' are of the Kent Hovind type - no matter what is presented, the challenge will never be met. Borger has expressed this type of activity numerous times already - simply ignoring or hand-waving any and all explanations presented to him for his many 'challenges' and 'refutations of darwinism.' But it is true that an asthma resarcher is just another layman when discussing evolutionary biology. Ask Phil Johnson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Case in point:
PB:"I didn't forget about this reference. I read it last weekend and the content of the article simply doesn't rebut my observation that the ZFX gene is completely stable during '20 million' years. That there are genetic elements jumping around in the genome and accumulate on the X chromosome in this region is in accord with the vision of a multipurpose genome where variation is induced by such elements, not by accumulation of SNPs or other mutations. These jumping elements affect gene expression and thus induce phenotypic variations." As mam has pointed out, THE GENE is NOT stable over that period. You then just ramble on and on about how there are no mutations at neutral sites blah blah blah.... Ignoring evidence doesnot mean that it is not there. No wonder professionals tend not to respond to your hysterical diatribes... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 10-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: And so you keep repeating. You never did explain why there must be mutations in that one exon under NDT. You never did comment on the alignment that I took the time to make for you. I doubt you even looked at it. I think I know why, of course, but I would like to give you the opportunity to explain this spate of blinder-wearing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Ahh - the semantics queen strikes! Here's a poser for an information theory expert. What impact on 'information' occurs in the following scenarios: 1) An insertion (mutation) ina gene results in an increase in gene exppression. The product is not altered, there is just more of it. This increase in product confers pesticide resistence. 2) A gene duplication results in a modified phenotype. Is the 'information' in the above situations increased, decreased, or the same? If the information remains the same or decreases, how does one explain the acquired phenotypic changes? In any event, what is the relationship between "information" and phenotype? A precise definition of information will be necessary to address these issues. The definiiton will need to be legitimate, applicable to biological systems (genomes), and accepted by those in the field. Lacking such a definition of 'information' will be indicative that the presenter is simply engaging in just-so story telling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I did not realize that Kim's group had sequenced the entire gene. Perhapos it is in a different publication - other than the one you cited - and one for which the DNA sequences are not yet available? Because, you see, the Kim et al. paper you cite refers only to one exon, and the nucleotide links from the paper only produce DNA sequence data for the region for which I made an alignment (and you deigned not to even look at).Please supply the citation or the GENBANK numbers for the DNA sequences for the entire ZFX gene. I would most like to see them and analyze them for myself. quote: I'm sure you can, being a creatonist and all. However, I most certainly did face the facts, and unlike you, Peter, I seem to be able to understand them. The only fallacy I see is the continued reference to the ZFX "GENE" being stable for 20 million years. I already presented you with 'my math' demonstating why chance alone can account for why there are no substitutions in the referred to 300+ bp locus. You simply ignored it and continued on with your mantra. Mantra spewing is a common creationist characteristic. Sad.quote: There is no gene in an LCR as you have already 'admitted'. I have been unable to find your reference to such a paper describing a gene in an LCR. Searching Medline for "LCR16a" produced only the paper I already cited, and it mentioned nothing of genes.I have also been unable to find your specific reference for the paper you believe props up your claims re: IL-beta 1. One would thnk that since these are such linchpiuns for your falsification of NDT that you would gleefully cite them at every request. quote: The recipient probably saw through the facade...quote: What about them?quote: This is a discussionboard. Were you to write an 'official' email or letter to me prattling on about these 'unanswered questions' and 'anomolies' and such I probably would not respond, either.While it is true that research for me is on a back burner these days, I do still consider myself a 'professional' in that I have the requisite background education, experience, and pertinent publications. I would not even consider proclaiming some other field of science 'unscientific' or to have 'falsified' something that I am clearly unable to comprehend sufficiently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: "Everyone"? Don't you mean just you?quote: Please demosntrate that I have done so. Creationist religious nutrs like to lie about their opponants all the time. Thius is what you are doing here. Have you NOT repeatedly referred to the "ZFX/ZFY GENES"? And claimed that THE GENES have remained stable in hominoids for 20 millions years, thus falsifying NDT? When in reality the very papers you cited indicated that only part of one exon had been sequenced? That is not distortion at all. It is your own words coming back to bite you in the ass. Did you not claim that the papers I cited refuting 'directed mutations' were in fact proof of them?quote: : J Pers Soc Psychol 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34 Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Kruger J, Dunning D. Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601, USA. jkruger@s.psych.uiuc.edu People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Regulatory sequence is not expressed.quote: A pseudogene is a gene that has suffered a debilitating mutation in its promoter. You asked for my definition of gene because apparentrly you do not knoiw that exons are only a part of a gene. You di dnot ask for expanded discussion of eukaryotic genes and their flanking regions. If you even know what those are...quote: Well, I guess you must be Johnny on the spot with the definitons. I wonder - does the new-fangled definiton that you apparently prefer indicate that the terms "gene" and "exon" are synonymous, as you have been using them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: One will notice that Fred Williams the young earth creationist electrician focuses on what he thinks are 'math erros' by evolutionists iunstead of addressing issues that he portrays himself as being an 'expert' in.... : J Pers Soc Psychol 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34 Related Articles, Links Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Kruger J, Dunning D. Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601, USA. jkruger@s.psych.uiuc.edu People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Yes, you are right Borger. I guess I should busy myself making bizarre extrapolations, unwarranted assumptions, and repeated assertions. I guess I should find three or four actual research papers and cling to my twisted interpretations of them no matter what. Yes, I guess I am a sad guy.Of course, I am still wondering why you keep referring to the Sequence in the Kim paper as a 'gene' when it is not. quote: Proff what? Please proof that Williams has these superior math skills. Of course, I never claimed to be a math wiz. Unlike creationists, I tend to stick to areas that I actually know about.quote: Thanks. Where did you take yours? Patriot University?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: No, you are just a pompous, self-absorbed, arrogant pseudocertain creationist blabbering on topics that you have no business blabbering about.The creationist keeps yammering about "misrepresentations" as if it means something. Talk abot useless drivel - like how Williams' dream date ReMine cries "Misrepresentation!" whenever someone points out that ReMine believes that there is a conspiracy to keep Haldane's 'dilemma' quiet - you se4e, he never actually writes or says "conspiracy", so saying he does is a "misrepresentation." Because, you see, claims of keeping things hushed up, brushing them aside, and keeping H's D 'hidden' for 40 years in no way indicates the ReMine thinks there is a conspiracy...quote: No it isn't. The implication of Borger are clear. That you 'side' with him is a no-brainer - heck, thats probably why you're doing it!quote: Yes, I am sure they do.quote: Blatant nonsense? Like claiming that the bible is "100% accurate and error free" or whatver gibberish you like to belive? LOL!quote: Sorry, ass - unlike the creationist, these real scientists make it clear form the FIRST SENTENCE that they are referring to a "partial exon". From there on, writing "gene" is a convenience. You see, non-scientist Williams, professionals know what other professionals mean. Or at least should. Can't speak for Borger or most creationists. Borger, on the other hand, made it pretty obvious from the posts of his that I have read (haven't read them all) that he is referring to the gene as a whole. Now I know that you think the use of PROPER TERMINOLOGY is silly, for some bizarre creationist reason, but it makes it much easier to know what someone is talking about (also indicates whether or not they know what they are talking about) when proper terminology is used. So, for example, when someone writes "analogy" when the appropriate term should have been "homology", one can be fairly certain that the writer is just spewing goo. Now, little Freddie (aka Moderator 3) - don't you have some more people to ban from your 'guest book' for exposing youas the fraud and charlatan you are, ? [This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Now, now.... I don't hate anybody. Well, I almost hate Williams, but only because of his personality and his frequent misreporesentation and making of unsuppoorted claims... What I Do hate is seeing miscreants claim to have 'falsified' thius or 'proved' that and be wholly unable to support such fantastic claims. That gets old fast, and I have no patience at all for such insolence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024