Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (JAM @ Oct. 17 2007,20:35) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 17 2007,18:31) | | Yes, I would be interested in seeing that. |
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/174/24/7948?view=long&pmid=1459943
I apologize because I garbled it; unfortunately, it's more bad news for your hypothesis.
It turns out that it was the same bug, Flavobacterium. One of the nylonase genes was deleted, and selection produced a completely new one. |
While these results are interesting, they don't really meet the criteria of my prediction since they started with the already frame-shifted bacteria. If you remember, my prediction involved the pre-frame-shifted bacteria Acromobacter guttatus. My prediction was that if that bacteria was subjected to nylon, the same frame shift would occur.
This study appears to involve a mutation of the Flavobacterium sp. strain KI72 - which already has the plasmid pOAD2 that was the result of the original frame shift.
DISCLAIMER - I'm not calling you a liar or anything - I'm just hoping you can appreciate the difference from my perspective. - END DISCLAIMER
| Quote |
| Quote | | Thank you for the explanations and the data. The second page you cited really helped me understand what I was looking at (and not understanding) in the VISTA program. |
You're most welcome. How's your hypothesis? |
It's not in as bad of shape as you think it is. | Quote |
| Quote | | The rat genome appears to be a re-arrangement of the mouse genome, so how do we know that the "junk" (as you call it) wasn't rearranged in similar manner? |
It clearly was--it just wasn't conserved, as is clearly shown by the spaces between the pink humps of conserved sequences. Why are you not acknowledging my point about all the breakpoint sequences? |
In order to acknowledge that you are correct, I must first determine what exactly you're talking about, (no small task for me!), then I have to know what the parameters of VISTA are (does it ignore the non-coding sites? etc.), and finally I have to interpret these results in the light of designed descent. If, after careful examination, it appears your evidence falsifies my hypothesis, I'll surely admit it. I am not going to just throw up my hands and give up because you say so though! | Quote |
| Quote | | Does the VISTA program check for this? |
Specifically? No, but it answers your question clearly. The spaces between conserved sequences are mostly still there, but they aren't conserved. Do you understand that the spaces in between the conserved pink humps mean that your hypothesis is DOA? |
No, I don't understand that - because there's no data showing me what those spaces represent. The only thing I have to go on is your insistence that they falsify my hypothesis.
What I really need is a program that will...
a.) allow me to select any region (coding or non-coding) of the mouse genome and
b.) search the rat genome for a closely matching sequence.
That's what I'd like to do. Is there such a program?
| Quote |
| Quote | | Or does it only compare genes? |
It compares genomes. Genes are only a part of it. |
Obviously I have much more research to do, but I find it extremely hard to believe that you can take a working genome, cut it into pieces, shuffle it around, and come up with another working genome. It defies credulity. It's like taking a book, cutting up all the pages, shuffling them around and coming up with an equally coherent story.
I know you'll probably say that millions of years+selection can accomplish this, but where's the data to support that assumption?
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
