Darwin in the Genome

quote:

---

Percy:
And that list is probably incomplete - Scott should take a look

---

More late, but I noticed that borger claims that "neutral purifying selection" must have taken place.If the mutations were neutral, and they exist in the extant genes, then there was no selection 'required' at all. For a neutral mutation would not BE under selective constraint.Looks like he borgered it.

Another 'unanswered letter'....One day when I was a graduate student, I brought my advisor his mail from the department office. As we chatted, he leafed through the many letters and larger envelopes he received that day. One had some dinosaur stickers on it. It caught his attention. It was a letter from one "Kelly Segraves", who, if I am not mistaken, is or was at one time a well known creationism advocate. The letter contained several "questions" regarding my advisor's work and the usual 'challenges' for him to 'justify' his conclusions based on the unsupported assertions made by him (Segraves). Which is odd, since my advisor worked with Primates, and most of these assertions and questions dealt with dinosaurs.My advisor chuckled and tossed it into the garbage.I can only imagine that this Segraves, upon not getting a response for several weeks, declared that because there was no response, there must have been bo good answers to his questions and that therefore he (Segraves) must be right.Borger - an unanswered "letter" is more likely a sign that the recipient found its contents unworthy of reply, rather than the recipient being 'troubled' by the implications.Up your dose.

quote:

---

Borger:
The real problem is that evo's don't understand their own theory

---

Isn't this the guy that conjures up imaginary particles ot 'explain' his alternative "theory"?Isn't this the guy that ignores evidence contrary to his claims and then insists that none has been presented?isn't this the guy that claims a book disproves NDT when the author of that very book expl;icitly said - in this thread - the opposite?
Only to later say that the author is wrong and that yes, it does disprove NDT?Yeah, I guess it must be everyone else that doesn't understand evolution.It never is the megalomaniacal paranoid neurotic that imagines his troubles - it IS that everyone else is wrong and/or out to get him..

Asking the same questions, making the same assertions, etc. over and over again will not change their irrelevance.It would be nice if you could stick to topics at hand instead of trying to divert attention form your foibles every time you stick your head in your rectum.TobCapOh - perhaps you should read and address the citation I presented on the a-actinin family. You can direct your list of questions to the authors of the paper. And be sure to tell them that you have disproved their work.Also, I have addressed the citation you provided on redundancies. Your questions seem to imply that, in fact, YOU didn't check it out, at least not in any depth.If you are going to produce citations that you claim prove your point, in the future it would be helpful to your position if they actually did.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-26-2003]

quote:

---

PB: Apparently you still don't get the example: it was on a 360 bp mtDNA region in ancient human mtDNAs (0-62 kY BP). Maybe you could provide the other references on ancient human mtDNA in several ancient human species.

---

Maybe you can point out out for us where in the Adcock et al. paper it is explained that their chimp samples are also ancient.
For if they are not, your "take home message" is premised on what YOU considewred comparing 'apples and oranges'.

quote:

---

Maybe I should also mention that a good theory requires to be right in extreme conditions. For instance Einsteins' gravitational theory proven over and over through extraordinary predicted observation. The mtDNA could be such extraordinary case. It turns out to falsify evolutionary assertions. To me it is clear that evolutionism is a bad theory.

---

Borgerism.Police develop a 'theory' about a serial arsonist. 100 fires have been set. They catch the crook in action. He admits to setting 99 of the 100 fires, but has a rock-solid alibi for the 100th.The police scratch their heads.."I guess we should let him go" one finally utters."Yup" says another "if he didn't do all of them, I guess he must not have done any. Our theory is refuted."

quote:

---

PB, after pasting part of an abstract that I had provided some days ago:
PB: The paper is on gene classification.

---

Why, yes it is, in part. But how is it, Dr.Borger, that these folks went about their classification? Guesswork? mere assertion? The results of their analyses do not seem to jive with your repeated unsupported assertions, that there was no evidence of 'descent', right?

quote:

---

And the explicit assumption that the one gene arose from the other.

---

Why do you suppose that they use that assumption?
And if the reults had not conformed to that assumption, (if we are to accept your interpretation), what would we have expected?

quote:

---

However, my comments posted to you yesterday questioned this scenario.

---

Of ocurse they do. All creationists are required to question valid, evidence backed assumptions when they are contrary to the creationist line.

quote:

---

It is my comments that I would like to have addressed, pubmed abstracts I can find for myself.

---

Really? I find it odd then that you had not seen that one, considering the fact that some very important keywords are right in the title.

quote:

---

Anyway, the final addition is interesting and in accord with Austin Hughes work: genomes can not be explained by chromosome duplications (e.g. Genome Res 2001, vol11, p771-780; J Mol Evol, vol48, p565-576).

---

And th red herring swims by...

quote:

---

So, the only remaining possibility for genome expansion is duplication of preexisting genes and other DNA elements. This scenario is based upon assertions that duplication and divergence of the duplicates yield new genes.

---

Please stop borgering the data. In reality, it is not ASSERTIONS that indicate this, it is DATA.
Please stop projecting your way of doing 'science' upon others.

quote:

---

If genes are around that can not be explained accordingly (and they are), I see a little evolutionary paradox. [Also, preexisting sound a lot like........yep, GUToB]

---

Such as?

quote:

---

Page wonders: Who to believe?

​

PB: That's a very good question. Although I do not object to the data, the evolutionary interpretation is questionable (at the least).

---

Hardly...Now, did you or did you not read mine and Goodman's stuff?you claimed to have done so; your words indicate that you did not...

quote:

---

Even your best evidence of common descent is not free from NRM (as I will point out later), and thus not compelling.

---

But it seems that you are the only one that sees this 'NRM', so I am not concerned about it i n the least.

quote:

---

It should be obvious that you cannot convince me with such data.

---

It was obvious long ago that you already have your mythology in place and have no intention of budging one micrometer, evidence be damned. This is demonstrated in your tendency to claim evidence against your position is really evidence for it, as you have done on several occasions.

quote:

---

If you are going to claim common descent you have to exclude all other possibilities (that is the scientific method), since 'evolution-from-microbe-to-man' is an extraordinary claim. And as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

---

As youi are the only one that seems to see 'alternative possibilities', again, I am not that concerned with what you think about anything.As for extraordinary evidence - got any for creatons?Or MPG, for that matter?

Borger's (and to be fair, many if not all creationists share this ignorance based sentiment) notion that NRM is anti-evolutionary stems form the typical misdefinition applied by non-scientists (which makes it all the more odd that Borger would fall into this trap).This has been addressed ad nauseum on this board alone, and if I recall correctly, it has been explained repeatedly to Borger, you simply refuses to accept his error.In real science, 'non-random' means, as Percy recently addressed, 'non-random' as in, for example, the tendency of mutations to occur at certain loci due to, for example, physicochemical properties of particular sequences - 'hot spots' as they are generally known, and have been for some time.'Non-random' to the creationist means that there was some sort of intervention or 'direction' in these mutations.To make matters more confusing, Cairnsian mutation, the formerly called "directed" or also "non-random" or even "adaptive mutation", originally appeared to, indeed, be mutations that were directed to specific loci at certain times, certainly a non-Darwinian phenomenon.Additional experimentation and analyses - some done by Cairns himself - demonstrated conclusively that these mutations were not directed at all, rather were the chance results of genome wide stress induced hypermutation.By chance - that is, randomly - some clones acquired mutations in genes that allowed them to metabolize the medium.One of the problems with this NRM/MPG schtick is that in order for this mechanism to be 'real', it stands to reason that ALL individuals possessing the same genes should, in fact, exhibit identical substitutions at identical sites in the same circumstances, which, of course, they do not.Borger can claim "Oh look, that is NRM... and so is that... and so is that...", but it means nothing because he has no way of establishing that his criteria have merit. Indeed, the last time he addressed on the alignments I presented (could have been the same one), he not only misidentified some sites, but his criteria for what he claimed showed NRM seemed totally rbitrary and frequently contradictory.Then, of course, there was the "so non-random it appears random" 'explanation.That reminded me of the creationist positon on criteria for establishing what a 'kind' is - hybridization. If two species can produce a viable hybrid, they would be of the same kind... Of course, if they can't, it does not mean that they are not of the same kind...