|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Go back and read the post immediately before yours. It gives the units, and also explains why Nachman and Crowell's equation is just fine for single-base substitutions. Think about it until you understand it. quote:Which is it? The number of mutations or the percentage difference? If you have two identical genomes, except that one of them has had an insertion mutation of 30 million base pairs, 1 out of 100 bases is different, but only 1 out of 3,000,000,000 sites has mutated. The mutation rate counts this as 1 event, while the percentage difference counts it as 30,000,000 differences. Counting the number of mutations is never going to get you to the percentage difference unless you know how big the mutations are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:The population in question -- the people migrating out of Africa -- was small, and probably only a handful of matings between anatomically modern humans took place. Only about a third of the Neandertal genome is preserved in the descendants of those matings; there's no reason that mitochondrial DNA should be part of it. quote:Show your work: given a plausible demographic model of the Out of Africa migration, and estimates for the amount of Neandertal admixture, calculate the probability that Neandertal mtDNA would have survived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:No, mutations represent mutations. How much divergence they represent depends on big they are. This is simply a fact. There's no opinion here: what you've been saying is wrong. quote:Fine. To go along with that, we'll also need the mutation rate in base pairs per generation. Do you know what it is for indels? It's not the rate you've been quoting -- that's the rate of mutations per generation. If you don't know it, you can't do the calculation. quote:They don't adjust anything. Alignment tools align the parts that align and show gaps where they don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Of course they are. But since we don't have a good direct estimate of their mutation rate, you can't independently check to see whether human/chimpanzee divergence in indels fits with the mutation rate. There's nothing to compare it to. quote:The vast majority of papers dealing with indels having to do with similarity. Indeed, the overall percentage similarity is of very little scientific interest. quote:What paper discounted indels? And what paradigm changed? quote:That depends on what you're calculating and why. So far, in this thread, you haven't been calculating anything connected to the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:That's one issue. Another is that it's much harder to accurately detect indels, especially ones that are more than a few base pairs. The direct estimate of mutation rates in humans that I'm most familiar with (this one) only looked at single base substitutions. They're just a lot easier to deal with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I'm not a sequencer, so I don't know all of the issues. With diploid sequence, you'll have some reads with and some without the indel. If you're doing lowish coverage, short-read sequencing, there may not be very many reads of both type, and the indel is going to be near the end of some of them, making it hard to distinguish indels from SNPs. BACs would definitely be easier, since they're haploid. Of course, you'd need to sequence multiple BACs from the same chromosome segment, since you'd need to have BACs with both versions of the sequence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Which part of "largely complete" did you not understand? The paper looked at (nearly) the entire genome. quote:Which was nearly all of them. quote:Of course you can get to 5% -- provided you account for the size of the indels. But you've only been told that 10 or 20 times now, so I'm sure you're not going to understand it yet. In fact, this paper does say the difference is 5%. (Well, actually it says something more accurate than that, but let's try to stick to the simplest story here.) And no, it's not because of the genes that were investigated. (In fact, genes constitute only a tiny fraction of the genomes being compared.) quote:Incorrect calculations don't become correct by repeating them. quote:And as people who know far more about the subject than you do have replied over and over, you're wrong. I do wonder about the source of this idea that anybody's interpretation of a scientific paper is a valid as anybody else's. I wonder if some kind of misbegotten offspring of the protestant doctrine that everyone should be able to read and interpret scripture for themselves. I dunno. In any case, you're claiming to understand these papers better than their authors, which is kind of silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:In particular, the coding sequence of genes makes up less than 2% of the genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:If by "hashed out", you mean that you made rambling, inaccurate claims, I corrected you, and you ignored me, then yes, we hashed it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I don't know how many encounters we've had. The one I found is the one where I wrote the following: "What you've written is complete gibberish." It was. Everything else you wrote in that thread was also either wrong or completely meaningless. Of course you think you prevailed. That's because, as is obvious from this thread, that you understand so little of what you're talking about that you can have no way of telling when you're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined:
|
quote: Amounting to 1.5% of the human sequence being different from the chimp sequence and another 1.5% of the chimp being different from the human. Added to the 1.3% from substitutions, and you get ~4.3% divergence(*). As the paper says, "Insertion and deletion (indel) events are fewer in number than single-nucleotide substitutions, but result in 1.5% of the euchromatic sequence in each species being lineage-specific." All the studies give similar answers. (*)No, you really shouldn't measure divergence this way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Quite right. Unfortunately, you are not able to add them correctly. You've been trying for years, and you still can't add them correctly. You've been given trivial examples, and you can't parse them correctly. Perhaps you should find something else to do with your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: pretty well sums it up. Edited by Admin, : Make link to YouTube video into a YouTube insertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined:
|
quote:Note that all I did was take the 5 million indels from the chimpanzee genome paper and divide by the 35 million substitutions. (Also, I suspect the reason he's tried to denigrate the chimp genome paper and suggest it's been superseded is that he knows I'm one of the authors.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Simple is good. Let's use a cartoon organism. It has a mutation rate of 1x10^-9/bp/gen and a genome of 1 billion base pairs, so on average there is 1 mutation per generation. Half of its mutations are single-base substitutions, and half are large indels. Let's look at a copy of the genome from each branch just one generation after they split. In that 1 generation, one copy acquired one single-base substitution. The other copy acquired an insertion of 10 million base pairs. As a result, the genomes now differ by 10,000,001 base pairs, or just over 1%. Using your formula, t = 0.5*(.01/1e-9) = 5,000,000 generations. That's wrong by a factor of 5 million. What do you think might be wrong with your formula?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024