JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2007,14:00) | | Quote (JAM @ Oct. 10 2007,10:40) |
Here's an opposing hypothesis:
Known functional sequences will be evolutionarily conserved. Most sequences will not be conserved. We will continue to find functions for some conserved sequences for which no function has been identified.
What do you think? Shall we look at the evidence to see which hypothesis is better supported? |
Yes, let's look. But be warned, I'll be approaching the evidence from a different perspective than you and won't accept any preconceived ideas as part of the interpretation. |
Daniel, this is why real, honest scientists make predictions BEFORE they get the data.
My hypothesis predicts that when we graph position on the x axis and % identity on the Y axis, we will see this, with the high points representing conserved sequences, which include, but are definitely not limited to, protein-coding sequences:
/\_/\___
Your hypothesis predicts that we will see a flat line wherever we look:
--------------
| Quote | | What I mean is that the perceived "rate of mutation" is often calculated by a comparison of species that are assumed to have evolved from a common ancestor via an accumulation of random mutations. |
Not even remotely close, Daniel. Mutation rates are much more directly measured by quantitating new mutations; for example, we can measure the rate of new cases of autosomal dominant diseases that aren't inherited from parents. No assumptions are necessary to distinguish between our hypotheses. We are simply looking at differences between lineages for orthologous regions of the genome.
| Quote | | Since I am opposing that theory, I won't accept that assumption. |
I'm not making any such assumption, so your desperate evasion won't work. You might want to reread the hypothesis we're testing.
| Quote | | You must show me that the evidence supports this assumed buildup of random mutations first, then we can move on from there. |
Nope. That's not how science works. We use hypotheses to make predictions, and then we look at the evidence to see whether it is consistent or inconsistent.
Only pseudoscientists who have zero confidence in their hypotheses make petulant demands like yours.
|
