Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
wj
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 274 (21747)
11-06-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by peter borger
11-06-2002 7:54 PM


PB, any answer to my question at #249?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 7:54 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by peter borger, posted 11-07-2002 5:38 PM wj has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6562 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 257 of 274 (21759)
11-07-2002 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by peter borger
11-06-2002 7:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mammuthus,
Phenotype without genotype?
best wishes,
Peter

Dear Peter,
Selection is on the.....?
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 7:40 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by peter borger, posted 11-07-2002 5:13 PM Mammuthus has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 258 of 274 (21795)
11-07-2002 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Mammuthus
11-07-2002 3:07 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
You say:
Dear Peter,
Selection is on the.....?
.......Redundant genes?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Mammuthus, posted 11-07-2002 3:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Mammuthus, posted 11-08-2002 3:04 AM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 259 of 274 (21796)
11-07-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by wj
11-06-2002 10:47 PM


Dear WJ,
Genetic analysis of subpopulations. Read my message #97 (thread: scientific end of evolution theory2) and #184 in this thread.
best wishes
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by wj, posted 11-06-2002 10:47 PM wj has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6562 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 260 of 274 (21838)
11-08-2002 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by peter borger
11-07-2002 5:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mammuthus,
You say:
Dear Peter,
Selection is on the.....?
.......Redundant genes?
Best wishes,
Peter

+++++++++++++++++++++
Well, at least now it is firmly established that you don't know evolutionary theory...so I guess it is pure opposition out of religious zealotry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by peter borger, posted 11-07-2002 5:13 PM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 274 (21957)
11-09-2002 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by peter borger
11-06-2002 4:18 AM


Thank you for finally defining NDT. I was assuming that's what you meant, but I could find no explicit definition in this thread. Judging by other threads, explicit definitions do not appear to be your strong point.
Since you have now defined NDT in terms of "random mutations" I now have to ask you exactly what you mean by "random mutation" - what is your definition of random in this context?
Borger: "You are among the deniers."
Deniers of what? I am simply asking you to set down some solid information as a starting point. In the absence of that information I am not in a position to deny or accept anything you say.
Borger: "Whatever the mechanism behind the mutations in the Ig5 gene in Drosophila, it defies NDT since they are non randomly introduced in a neutral evolving gene."
And your evidence of this is where? Either detail it here or refer me to the message(s) in this thread where you have detailed it. I don't think your case is very strong based simply on this one quote (above), since you seem to be saying that you have no idea what the mechanism is, but you *know* it defies NDT! I don't see that you can possibly be in a position to make such a statement, especially in light of the criticism your claims have received in this thread.
You have not published anything in refereed science papers to establish your case, nor can you point to anyone else who has done so and demonstrated how it calls NDT into question. Nor have you made a case for how this one claim (even if it were true) manages to overthrow NDT in the light of the overwhelming multi-disciplinary evidence that scientists have built up over the last 140 years supportive of NDT.
All you appear to be doing is leaping to a conclusion based on your personal interpretation of a paper which was not designed to demonstrate the claims you are making. Have you raised this issue with the people who published that paper? If so, what did they say?
Borger: "Of course, evolutionism is not equal to atheism. However, in popular media it is often used synonymously: evolutionism equals atheism."
I disagree. In creationism, it is all too frequently used synonymously. I do not believe that it is so used in the popular media. Do you have examples to support this claim?
Borger: "You introduced "God did it", although you may be --and likely are-- right."
I introduced nothing. The previous post was my very first contribution to this thread. You are the one who raised the issue of atheism ("Only atheists will object to that"), which has no place in a science thread. For the record, I do not believe that any god ever did anything.
Borger: "As pointed out in several letters (for instance to Mark24) genetic redundancies are compelling evidence for ID. A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints. I provided scientific evidence for that observation. It once more overturns NDT."
Once again you fail to provide specific references. Can you give me a URL or a message number where I can find this, or am I going to have to search through every Mark24 message? Was this in this thread? Was it recently, or more towards the start of the thread? Where is your evidence for this claim: "A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints."
Borger: "I already explained these concepts in detail on this site, and why they are evolutionism killers."
Then you shouldn't have any difficulty, once again, providing references. I have noted repeatedly in interactions with you that you reference almost nothing. At the very least, whenever you refer to something like this, you need to specify the thread and message number or give a URL, or indicate if it was recently or earlier in the thread. If you cannot do this, I can only assume you have no reference to offer.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:18 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 12:19 AM Budikka has replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 274 (21962)
11-09-2002 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by peter borger
11-06-2002 7:54 PM


You referred me to
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36a.htm
(although I am curious as to why you did not refer further to Korthof's response), but I am not impressed by Spetner's response. He seems to have dug himself some contradictory holes.
For example, at one point, early in his response, he claims "Evolution A, on the other hand, is a phenomenon that may or may not have occurred. You assume it has; I am agnostic on the matter." ("Evolution A" is defined as "the descent of all life from a putative single primitive source"), but at the end of his response he says, "I am a creationist: I believe life was created by a higher intelligence."
So is he agnostic, or is he creationist? These two are not necessarily mutally exclusive, despite creationist claims to the contrary, but unless Spetner qualifies these claims, it is difficult to know exactly what he is espousing. Is he claiming, as young Earth creationists (YECs) do, that God created everything just 6,000 years ago, or is he claiming that God created the basics 13 or 14 billion years ago and left everything since then to develop on its own?
The first position is untenable, and the second meaningless.
Worse than this, Spetner says "My objective here was to point out that because of the great difference between Evolution A and Evolution B, one cannot justifiably use the observation of the latter to confirm the former." ("Evolution B" is defined as "any kind of change of a population")
I have several problems with this. First, Spetner is muddying the waters here, as all creationists do by failing to give evolution its due.
As far as I am aware, evolution means nothing more than a change in allele frequency of a population. Spetner's "Evolution B" vaguely matches this, and he does distinguish between this and what he calls "Evolution A", but really his definitions do nothing more than equivocate around the meaning of macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution. None of this creationist "dancing around the issue" helps anything.
What bothers me most about the Spetner quote above, however, is that he is claiming that there is a "great difference" between these two (Evolution B and Evolution A, or micro- and macro-evolution, and that the first cannot explain the second, yet I have never seen any creationist offer any evidence whatsoever that there is any difference between the two.
This brings us right slam-bang back into the definitions of "kind" and the definition of a mechanism that prevents one "kind" changing into another "kind", which is being pursued (if I can optimistically label it so) in another thread. No creationist has ever, to my knowledge, effectively answered those questions, so for Spetner to suggest there is a difference without articulating what it is, is disingenuous.
In short, nothing that you have offered with your genetic claims, unless you can explain it in a lot more and a lot better detail does anything to defeat NDT.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 7:54 PM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 263 of 274 (22166)
11-11-2002 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Budikka
11-09-2002 6:22 AM


Dear Buddika,
You write:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for finally defining NDT. I was assuming that's what you meant, but I could find no explicit definition in this thread. Judging by other threads, explicit definitions do not appear to be your strong point.
Since you have now defined NDT in terms of "random mutations" I now have to ask you exactly what you mean by "random mutation" - what is your definition of random in this context?
Borger: "You are among the deniers."
B: Deniers of what? I am simply asking you to set down some solid information as a starting point. In the absence of that information I am not in a position to deny or accept anything you say.
PB: See the 1g5 gene. My letter #52 in the "molecular genetic evidence against random mutations-thread".
Borger: "Whatever the mechanism behind the mutations in the Ig5 gene in Drosophila, it defies NDT since they are non randomly introduced in a neutral evolving gene."
B: And your evidence of this is where? Either detail it here or refer me to the message(s) in this thread where you have detailed it. I don't think your case is very strong based simply on this one quote (above), since you seem to be saying that you have no idea what the mechanism is, but you *know* it defies NDT! I don't see that you can possibly be in a position to make such a statement, especially in light of the criticism your claims have received in this thread.
PB: Message 1-32 in the "mol gen ev ag rand mut thread" constitutes the complete falsification and overturn of NDT.
B: You have not published anything in refereed science papers to establish your case, nor can you point to anyone else who has done so and demonstrated how it calls NDT into question. Nor have you made a case for how this one claim (even if it were true) manages to overthrow NDT in the light of the overwhelming multi-disciplinary evidence that scientists have built up over the last 140 years supportive of NDT.
PB: Apparently evolution --if extant-- isn't a random process. Sent in a letter on the topic. Rejected. Current status: submitted.
B: All you appear to be doing is leaping to a conclusion based on your personal interpretation of a paper which was not designed to demonstrate the claims you are making. Have you raised this issue with the people who published that paper? If so, what did they say?
PB: Conlusion jumping has been discussed extensivenly in another thread, previously. I am not yet fisnished with unwarranted conclusion in evolutionism-thread. I will continue one day soon.
Borger: "Of course, evolutionism is not equal to atheism. However, in popular media it is often used synonymously: evolutionism equals atheism."
B: I disagree.
PB: of course you do.
B: In creationism, it is all too frequently used synonymously. I do not believe that it is so used in the popular media. Do you have examples to support this claim?
PB: From scientifically peer reviewed journals you mean? Turn on a television, turn up a paper, magazine, etc. Wait and see.
Borger: "You introduced "God did it", although you may be --and likely are-- right."
B: I introduced nothing. The previous post was my very first contribution to this thread. You are the one who raised the issue of atheism ("Only atheists will object to that"), which has no place in a science thread. For the record, I do not believe that any god ever did anything.
PB: You mentioned "God did it" in your previous letter. I didn't.
Borger: "As pointed out in several letters (for instance to Mark24) genetic redundancies are compelling evidence for ID. A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints. I provided scientific evidence for that observation. It once more overturns NDT."
B: Once again you fail to provide specific references. Can you give me a URL or a message number where I can find this, or am I going to have to search through every Mark24 message? Was this in this thread? Was it recently, or more towards the start of the thread? Where is your evidence for this claim: "A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints."
PB: The concept of genetic redundancies has been discussed with refernces in my thread: "scientific end of evolutionism". It is the death blow to evolutionism.
Borger: "I already explained these concepts in detail on this site, and why they are evolutionism killers."
B: Then you shouldn't have any difficulty, once again, providing references. I have noted repeatedly in interactions with you that you reference almost nothing. At the very least, whenever you refer to something like this, you need to specify the thread and message number or give a URL, or indicate if it was recently or earlier in the thread. If you cannot do this, I can only assume you have no reference to offer.
PB: since you are the new one here, I recommend to read al my posts (400 or so). All relevant literature is referred to. To name a few:
1) Bouche, N. and Bouchez, D. Arabidopsis gene knockout: phenotypes wanted. Current Opinions in Plant Biology 2001, Volume 4: p111-117.
2) North, K.N. et al. A common non-sense mutation results in a-actinin 3 deficiency in the general population: Evidence for genetic redundancy in humans. Nature Genet 1999, Volume 21: p353-354.
3) Zhang, P. The cell cycle and development: redundant roles of cell cycle regulators. Current Opinions Cell Biololgy 1999, Volume 11: 655-662.
4) Tautz, D. A genetic uncertainty problem. Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477.
5) Winzeler, E.A. et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 1999, Volume 285: p901-906.
6) Kolisnychenko, V, et al. Engineering a reduced Escherichia coli Genome. Genome Research 2002, 12: 640-647.
Or do a pubmed (NCBI homepage) search on 'genetic redundancy'. It will give you 871 hits.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Budikka, posted 11-09-2002 6:22 AM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Budikka, posted 11-12-2002 8:49 PM peter borger has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1566 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 264 of 274 (22192)
11-11-2002 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by peter borger
10-31-2002 12:16 AM


What provokes these non-random mutations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 12:16 AM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 265 of 274 (22216)
11-11-2002 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by peter borger
11-06-2002 7:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,
You write:
Comments on Borger's opening message:
Borger seems to indicate that he is a big fan of Lee Spetner, who is not a biologist or a geneticist, but a physicist, but Spetner's work is flawed:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm
MY RESPONSE:
I know Korthof's work. He writes book reviews related to evolutionism-creationism. I recommend you to read his discussion with Spetner. It can be found here:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36a.htm
Best wishes,
Peter

Yes, I recommend reading that exchange too. Spetner comes off looking like a desperate, egomaniacal, backpeddaling, red herring-spewing, minutiae-monger...
No wonder Borger recommends it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 7:54 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 6:02 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 266 of 274 (22261)
11-11-2002 2:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Maybe Scott is ready to shatter the world with the example he implies he has in his hand. Let’s see if he plays the card, or keeps us all in suspense!
What example? Oh yes - an example of a gene duplication and subsequent mutation that conferred a benefit to the population.
The series of gene duplications in what we now call the beta globin gene cluster, a group of 5 genes and a pseudogene. Epsilon-globin, which is expressed in the embryo, has a higher affinity for oxygen than does the adult-expressed beta and delta globin, thereby making it easier for an embryo to gets its 'fair share' of oxygen. Epsilon arose via a duplication from other genes starting with proto-beta.
Healthy embryos make for healthy offspring, and healthy offspring are beneficial to the population.
What about an insertion that confers pesticide resistence?
A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila
P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*
Science 297:2253-7.
Some interesting findings:
From the abstract:
"Transgenic analysis of Cyp6 1 shows that overtranscription
of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated wit a single Cyp6 1 allele that has spread globally. The is allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6 1 gene."
From the paper:
"First, resistance to DDT was wide-spread, as expected, and second, resistance can persist in laboratory strains in the absence
of pesticide selection, which suggests that little or no fitness cost is associated with this mechanism."
"The observation that the nucleotide sequence around the first intron in Cyp6g1 (291 bp away from the site of the insertion) is identical in all the resistant alleles supports the concept of this global spread and suggests strong linkage disequilibrium or hitchhiking of nucleotide variation with the spread of DDT resistance."
I was especially interested in your Information Theory expertise on this, because: there is no change in the expressed protein, just more of it, and this confers an advantage. Is this 'new information'? If not, why not? If it is, how is so when the expressed protein has not changed?
The ref for how Gene duplication can result in altered phenotype is at the office, will post that later.
But I did come across this pertinent ref (pay attention Freddie and Borger), emphases mine:
*************************************************
Amplification-mutagenesis: evidence that "directed" adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2164-9
Hendrickson H, Slechta ES, Bergthorsson U, Andersson DI, Roth JR.
Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
When a particular lac mutant of Escherichia coli starves in the presence of lactose, nongrowing cells appear to direct mutations preferentially to sites that allow growth (adaptive mutation). This observation suggested that growth limitation stimulates mutability. Evidence is provided here that this behavior is actually caused by a standard Darwinian process in which natural selection acts in three sequential steps. First, growth limitation favors growth of a subpopulation with an amplification of the mutant lac gene; next, it favors cells with a lac(+) revertant allele within the amplified array. Finally, it favors loss of mutant copies until a stable haploid lac(+) revertant arises and overgrows the colony. By increasing the lac copy number, selection enhances the likelihood of reversion within each developing clone. This sequence of events appears to direct mutations to useful sites. General mutagenesis is a side-effect of growth with an amplification (SOS induction). The F' plasmid, which carries lac, contributes by stimulating gene duplication and amplification. Selective stress has no direct effect on mutation rate or target specificity, but acts to favor a succession of cell types with progressively improved growth on lactose. The sequence of events--amplification, mutation, segregation--may help to explain both the origins of some cancers and the evolution of new genes under selection.
********************************************
Looks like the ball is in William's court now.
Let the hand waving, insults, backpedalling, and story-telling begin!

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 267 of 274 (22284)
11-11-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by derwood
11-11-2002 9:03 AM


Dear Dr Page,
You write:
Yes, I recommend reading that exchange too. Spetner comes off looking like a desperate, egomaniacal, backpeddaling, red herring-spewing, minutiae-monger...
No wonder Borger recommends it...
I say:
.........I am always so impressed by your 'scientific' replies and rebuttals.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by derwood, posted 11-11-2002 9:03 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2002 5:51 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 269 by derwood, posted 11-12-2002 11:02 AM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6562 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 268 of 274 (22333)
11-12-2002 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by peter borger
11-11-2002 6:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
You write:
Yes, I recommend reading that exchange too. Spetner comes off looking like a desperate, egomaniacal, backpeddaling, red herring-spewing, minutiae-monger...
No wonder Borger recommends it...
I say:
.........I am always so impressed by your 'scientific' replies and rebuttals.
Best wishes,
Peter

*********************
Then perhaps you have a "scientific" rebuttal to post 266?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 6:02 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by peter borger, posted 11-13-2002 7:00 PM Mammuthus has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 269 of 274 (22352)
11-12-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by peter borger
11-11-2002 6:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
You write:
Yes, I recommend reading that exchange too. Spetner comes off looking like a desperate, egomaniacal, backpeddaling, red herring-spewing, minutiae-monger...
No wonder Borger recommends it...
I say:
.........I am always so impressed by your 'scientific' replies and rebuttals.
Best wishes,
Peter

What was to rebut? You were engaging in hero-worship, I point out your delusions.
I have yet to see you post anything scientific, frankly - using scientific words, posting citations to the literature, etc. are not necessarily scientific, especially when one considers the degree of delusion inherent in your interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 6:02 PM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 274 (22401)
11-12-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by peter borger
11-11-2002 12:19 AM


Borger: "See the 1g5 gene."
I have no idea what you mean by that. You want me to actually look at an IG5 gene?
Borger: "My letter #52 in the "molecular genetic evidence against random mutations-thread"."
Your "letter #52" was written by SLPx, not by you. I don't believe SLPx supports your position, and message #52 actually refutes a point you made! You are going to have to do better than to reference a message written by someone who opposes your point and claim the message supports you!
BTW, the message title is "molecular genetic proof against random mutation", not "molecular genetic evidence against random mutations". Your sloppiness does not induce in me a real urge to take your word for anything.
Borger: "Message 1-32 in the "mol gen ev ag rand mut thread" constitutes the complete falsification and overturn of NDT."
I am on a cable connection tonight but the response time is appallingly slow. However, I skimmed many of these messages, and most of them are not from you, but are rebuttals from other people of points you are trying to make, so, contrary to your claim above, messages 1-32 do not falsify and overturn NDT - not even close.
You still do not explain how this one tiny piece of your evidence, even if correct (and it certainly looks like it is not), overthrows the whole of NDT, which does not rest on this one tiny matter. If it did rest entirely on this, and you were precisely correct in your claims, then you may have an argument to make, but since neither of these cases holds, then neither does your argument!
Borger's support for his claim that the media equates evolution with atheism: "Turn on a television, turn up a paper, magazine, etc. Wait and see."
I am sorry, but even in the worst debate this argument would suck. You are going to have to do considerably better than this or admit you cannot support even the simplest of the points you try to make. I have already told you I disagree, and the reason is that I do follow the media, and I do not see anything like the equation between evolution and atheism that you claim exists. In other words *support your claim* or withdraw it.
Borger: "You mentioned "God did it" in your previous letter. I didn't."
In response to this I requote the exact wording of my original quote which you failed to even begin to answer: "The previous post was my very first contribution to this thread. You are the one who raised the issue of atheism ("Only atheists will object to that"), which has no place in a science thread."
Now, again, who is it who is equating atheism with evolution? Again, where is your evidence for this? Are you ever actually going to answer my challenges anywhere in any of these boards, or is this going to be a never-ending merry-go-round in which you offer nothing, argue nothing, establish nothing and achieve nothing? Once again, for the learning-impaired, *you* are the one who raised the ahtiesm issue *in this thread* before I ever came on board. I am *still* awaiting your explanation.
Once again Borger compeltely fails to cite a reference: "The concept of genetic redundancies has been discussed with refernces (sic) in my thread: "scientific end of evolutionism". It is the death blow to evolutionism."
In your fairytale world, maybe it is, but unfortunately for you, the rest of us live in the real world. Now are you going to offer a URL, or *at the very least* a message number (that is, a message number of a message *you* have written, not a message number that was written by someone refuting you), so that when the lines speed up, I can go read this?
Borger: "since you are the new one here, I recommend to read al my posts (400 or so). All relevant literature is referred to. To name a few:"
Dream on. I have better things to do with my time than run around after your blather. Now if you cannot give good references to the arguments *you* have made (not to other people's hard work that you have appropriated and misinterpreted and adopted to your own strange needs) you are not worth my time.
You list:
1) Bouche, N. and Bouchez, D. Arabidopsis gene knockout: phenotypes wanted. Current Opinions in Plant Biology 2001, Volume 4: p111-117.
2) North, K.N. et al. A common non-sense mutation results in a-actinin 3 deficiency in the general population: Evidence for genetic redundancy in humans. Nature Genet 1999, Volume 21: p353-354.
3) Zhang, P. The cell cycle and development: redundant roles of cell cycle regulators. Current Opinions Cell Biololgy 1999, Volume 11: 655-662.
4) Tautz, D. A genetic uncertainty problem. Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477.
5) Winzeler, E.A. et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 1999, Volume 285: p901-906.
6) Kolisnychenko, V, et al. Engineering a reduced Escherichia coli Genome. Genome Research 2002, 12: 640-647.
7) Or do a pubmed (NCBI homepage) search on 'genetic redundancy'. It will give you 871 hits.
Now which of the above state (as their purpose) the overthrow of NDT, and which of them, in their conclusions, actually state that the research the paper discusses (including the 871 hits) actually overthrows NDT?
Or is that just your opinion? If it is your opinion, then please support it **or refer me to your own posted material** which demonstrates that such conclusions are valid.
When you can make an argument do, please, let me know. Otherwise, don't waste my time and more importantly, don't waste the time of hard-working scientists who have better things to do with *their* time than babysit you.
BTW, I am still waiting on you answering my question as to whether you contacted the authors of the IG5 paper you are so excited about, and asked them what they think of the conclusions you have drawn from it. I would have thought if you were serious about your claims, they would have been the first people you would have contacted. Am I to understand that you have raised none of these issues with them? If not, why not? If so, what did they say?
To sum up, you have not given me straight answers to anything I have asked of you except to define NDT. You have not answered my follow-up question to your definition of NDT, concerning defining random (mutations). You have offered no references **to your material in on these boards** that explains your dramatic conclusions. In short, you have done precisely in this thread what you did in the other thread in which we clashed - nothing.
I am not at all impressed.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 12:19 AM peter borger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024