Dear paul,
In response to:
PB:
Thanks for your non-answers. Since you seem to hold scientific truth let's try again to start up a scientific debate on the topic. These are the points I have made and are still unsolved.
PK says:
If you want a scientific discussion we can start with your explanation of how non-random mutations actually refute NDT - after all refusing to explain your criticisms is non-scientific as you said. But it seems that you do not want to discuss that.
I also notice that providing the link to prove my claim - as you demanded seems to be considered a "non-answer".
PB2: Your link is a non-answer for I already rebutted mail #47 in mail #48. And, since you keep repeating that I have to demonstrate NRM to refute NDT (what I did months ago, but apparently you don't read my mails) let's find out what Dr Caporale has to say about this in her excellent book that is a big thorn in the eye of the orthodox evolutionists. From Darwin in the Genome:
"Once we learned about DNA, we saw that mistakes in copying generate mutations and so we've assumed that random mutation followed by selection underlies evolution. However, I have come to the conclusion
that using our current knowledge to expand on Darwin's insights does not require that all mutations be random with respect to their potential effects on biological function". (page 42).
"So, E coli cannot randomly try every possible change and then wait for selection to capture the very best one". (page72).
"Randomly trying out mutations in each copy of each of many thousands of gene families could mean eons spent wandering lost through the broad mutation landscape, in spite of the fact that information could be could be available to help guide the journey. Still, most people assume that mutaions happen randomly throughout the duplicated genes, and that natural selection picks those that lead to a useful new function". (page 129).
"New levels of interaction and regulation rarely arise through letter by letter random mutations of random DNA sequences". (page 144).
"The genomic landscape is huge. Random wandering through the landscape of possible mutations is no the most efficient strategy for long term survival. In our own case, random mutation would mean that any one of the more than 3 billion spots in our genome had the same probablity of each kind of change." (page 185).
"Current evolutionary theory states that variation results from genetic changes that remain forever random, and that selection operates upon the results of this random genetic variation. It is time to incorporate the observations described in this book into evolutionary biology". (page 192).
I completely agree and I already mentioned this in a mail in May 2002: NDT RIP. Then, it was firmly denied and now here we have Dr Caporale with exactly the same claim. You can of course deny her, too.
PK (cont): As is my list of examples which show that _Darwin in the Genome_ refutes your claim that information is never added to the genome (proving my point that the book is a greater problem for your views than for NDT).
PB: Apparently you didn't read the book properly. The mechanisms described are included in GUToB.
PK (cont): In short your idea of a "scientific" discussion means dropping the discussion because your errors are being revealed.
PB: What a humbug. I've never dropped a discussion. As a matter of fact, I have won all my discussions with evo's. (Till now, Dr Douglas Theobald from the Talk-origin was the best defender of evolutionism, but not good enough. He couldn't defend the IL-1 beta incongruence).
In response to:
PB: 1) Non-Random Mutations type 1 (NRM1). This type of NRM introduces mutations on the same positions and the position where they are introduced depends on the flanking DNA regions. NRM1 are also known as ‘positional NRM’. NRM1 have been also observed in the ZFY region and in mtDNA. NRM1 has been observed in T4 by Lynn Ripley and was described in Caporale’s book (page 37, 38).
Implications: NRM1 will line up and give the illusion of common descent in phylogenetic analysis. Since phylo-geneticists cannot exclude NRM1, this type of mutations invalidates the evolutionary conclusions that the alignment of genes and shared mutations is proof for common descent.
PK says:
Anyway to deal with your assertions.
1) p37-38 deal with the "hairpin" model. Since such models require that the existing sequence is similar they can only upset phylogenetic analysis at fine resolutions- which you apparently accept, unless you wish to claim each species is a seperate creation (which would then pose the question of why the sequences are similar enough to see such mutations). It poses no threat to the larger scale phylogenies which you seem to object to.
PB2:
At present, the hairpin model is able to explain specific NRM in T4. There is no reason to assume that additional mechanism are not operative in the genome. As mentioned several times before, since you cannot exclude NRM, evidence of common descent based upon shared mutations is a non scientific conclusion. You have to exclude NRM in the assessed sequence. I have demonstrated NRM for the ZFY region and mtDNA on this board and that should have far reaching consequences for evolutionism (if it is science).
In response to:
PB: 2) Non-Random Mutations type 2 (NRM2). This type of NRM is mediated by protein and/or RNA driven mechanism that translocate preexisting DNA elements, or vary nucleotides in genes in a similar fashion as observed for immunoglobulins. NRM2 also plays a pivotal role in parasite-host interactions, and are likely to be abundant in other interactions between organisms where ‘evolutionary armsrace’ is ongoing. They have been demonstrated beyond any doubt for the 1G5 gene in Drosophila.
Implications: Alignment of mutations (‘shared mutations’) in related MPGs. Variation is preexisting.
PK says:
2) Translocations - since these require that the material to be translocated is already present in the genome it would seem that your "related MPGs" are related by common descent. I thought your assertion was that MPGs were NOT related in that way.
PB2: Correct, there is only common descent within MPGs. Related MPGs have been created. Why would the Creator reinvent the wheel? It is illogic. A gene encoding cytochrome in chimp works as good as it works in human. So, if it mutates nonrandomly in human, also in chimp. What you observe is the illusion of common descent. I have provided evidence for this view in the ZFY region in primates.
PK (cont): It seems to me that again translocations can only interfere with phylogenies at the fine resolution of individual branch points and can only do so because large scale evolution is correct.
PB: Tranlocation of genetic elements may affect gene expression and thus induce variation within the MPG. That was my claim, not that they affect the illusion of common descent. It probably depends on the DNA sequences (docking sites, recognition sites) where the elements translocate to. If the MPG is similar probably such nonrandom translocation of DNA elements also line up. "Expect the unexpected"
In response to:
3) NRM1 and NRM2 explain observed biological variation. It tells us that the mechanisms for biological variation are already preexistent in the genomes of organisms (=multipurpose genome) and can be activated upon the right triggers. Darwin was the first to discover the MPG, but his extrapolation of microbe-to-man evolution is completely, entirely unwarranted because the phenomena are unequal. (Unless you assume an uncommitted MPG of the original microbe we all evolved from). That Darwin’s extrapolation on variation in Galapagos finches to support ‘microbe-to-man-evolution’ is unwarranted is also demonstrated by observations that ‘his’ finches are still able to interbreed (Science, 26 April 2001). Thus, they are still the same MPG.
PK says:
3) Your list is hardly exhaustive and so to suggest that these two factors alone account for all variation would be an obvious error. However unless you make that error your assertion is clearly unproven.
PB: Of course there are many more preexisting/preprogrammed mechanism to induce variation in the MPG, but where does help that help you? Why would it unprove my assertion?
PK (cont): I also note that you insist on repeating your false claim about Darwin, despite the fact that you know it to be untrue. The former is unscientific, the unscientific and dishonest.
PB: None of these remarks relates to my claim that Darwin made an unwarranted extrapolation. Maybe you could point it out. I mean how is your answer related to my claim? I almost have to believe that you agree with me on Darwin's unwarranted extrapolation.
Since you were unable to rebut my claims, evolutionism still stands refuted. But at least you gave it a try.
Finally, I owe you the Dr Caporales vision on Junk DNA:
"Now that our genome is available, we will be able to connect these slippery DNA regions to their-fine tuning-knob role, if they have one. But we will be able to do this only if we look into our genome with some respect, seeking to learn. We will not find them if we dismiss boring repetitive sequences as junk DNA". (page 69).
"Transposons are found among the many repetitive sequences in the genome that have been called 'junk DNA'. They are by no stretch of imagination useless junk, however." (page 149).
PB: Dawkins is out.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-12-2003]
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-12-2003]
™ Version 4.2
