JAM
Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007
|
Daniel Smith,Oct. 22 2007,19:26: "- not that all of it will be conserved. I never said that!"
Daniel Smith,Oct. 08 2007,04:27 - "My prediction is that the coding and non-coding sequences (basically all sequences) will show an equal amount of evolutionary constraint."
JAM: What exactly does basically all sequences mean, then?
Here's a question for you. Why didn't you answer that question? You even italicized "all" for emphasis. Now, you didn't mean "all"? Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2007,18:14) | If, after careful examination, it appears your evidence falsifies my hypothesis, I'll surely admit it. |
Quote | First, why did you take my prediction out of context? |
No, first, the evidence falsified your hypothesis and you said that you would admit it.
Instead, your un-Christian pride and your inability to be objective led you to make a patently false claim--that everything within a gene was coding sequence.
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 08 2007,04:27) | Take two members of the same species that have been geographically and reproductively isolated for a long period of time (the longer the better), sequence their genomes and compare them.
My prediction is that the coding and non-coding sequences (basically all sequences) will show an equal amount of evolutionary constraint. |
Not a problem. We have loads of sequences from mice that can be crossed with each other, despite the fact that they have been classified as different species, and we have inbred strains of house mice, which have been artificially, and completely, inbred for a century. Take your pick. Quote | I also said this: Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 06 2007,20:10) | My prediction is that there are many functional sequences that are different (even radically so) amongst related lineages - this due to their being of designed, not mutational, origin. |
|
Yes, and noting that, I asked you to make a simple prediction in response to a simple question: Quote (JAM @ Oct. 14 2007,14:59) | 2) Again, with man vs. mouse (but not synteny), each has ~30,000 genes. According to your hypothesis, how many human genes won't have a mouse ortholog and vice versa? |
You can make predictions for: race vs. race strain vs. strain mouse vs. man chimp vs. man, etc.
Your hypothesis makes clear predictions in all those cases, doesn't it? Why did you run away from my simple question? [quote]And this: Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 08 2007,02:18) | 1. Sequence comparisons between related lineages will result in a mixture of like and unlike functional sequences.
2. Sequence comparisons within the same lineage will show evolutionary constraint across the board - even in what are presently considered neutral sites.
|
Yes, and you've just seen that your hypothesis is dead wrong. Quote | Now, I'm not sure how closely related rats and mice are, but I think the data suggests that they're at least closely related species, within the same lineage. |
We can do the same thing for mouse strains, or mouse "species" that interbreed to yield fertile offspring. It's just not as easy as it is with VISTA, where you had to change basic facts, falsifying your promise to admit that your hypothesis was incorrect. Quote | The true test however, (as I've said all along) is to take samples from geographically isolated specimens of the same species and see how close they are. |
No, only if you are comparing/contrasting coding and noncoding sequences. You're fudging your hypothesis in addition to the facts now. Quote | I've recently learned of two examples where this was done and the results are consistent with my hypothesis.
The first was a study of the Ascension Island green sea turtles. These turtles, which are notoriously faithful in returning to their breeding grounds every year, have been geographically isolated from other sea turtle populations for 60-80 million years (since the separation of South America and Africa). |
False. That was THE HYPOTHESIS BEING TESTED, for Christ's sake. Quote | A study by Brian Bowen and John Avise (abstract) |
Why would you only read/link to the abstract, when the whole paper is freely available? Quote | found that the turtles are too genetically similar to other turtles to have been isolated for that length of time. Their estimate - based on a sequence divergence rate of 2% per million years - was less than 1 million years. They then go on to postulate that these sea turtles probably interbred with other populations; this despite the fact that sea turtles have never been observed to do so. |
The BS is getting deep. 1) They looked at RFLPs in mitochondrial DNA. That's coding. Do you know what is special about mtDNA, Daniel? 2) Breeding in this species occurs offshore, so "never been observed" is nothing but pure BS to feed your ego. The authors note this clearly. Quote | In fact, of the 28,000 females tagged over the past 30 years (at another rookery in Costa Rica), none has ever been observed at another nesting site. |
So what? The males aren't tagged. Quote | Another example is a study done by Scott Baker (from the abstracts on Google Scholar, I was unsure which one corresponds to this study) |
Abstracts aren't evidence. You need to look at the DATA, not your misrepresentations of abstracts.
Quote | between Atlantic and Pacific humpback whales - which have been geographically isolated for 3 million years (since the isthmus of Panama separated the two oceans). |
I'm sorry, Daniel, but that is just a desperate fabrication: Humpbacks hang out in Tierra del Fuego. Can you be more blatantly dishonest than that? Quote | Again - based on a sequence divergence rate of 2% per million years - the estimated difference between these two isolated species was 6%. The actual difference however, was found to be 0.27%. Again, this forced the scientists to speculate about gene flows occurring between the oceans from time to time, or much slower sequence divergence rates. |
It did, eh? The scientists weren't forced to do anything. Quote | In any event, the results in both of these studies are consistent with, and predicted by, my hypothesis, but are not consistent with, or predicted by, the current theory of evolution. |
False on both counts. Quote | My hypothesis accommodates the known 60-80 million year isolation of the turtles... |
Daniel, that is a hypothesis, it is not known. Quote | and the known 3 million year isolation of the humpbacks with no extra speculations added to make the data fit! |
And that's just a lie. How can humpbacks be isolated given that they are common in Tierra del Fuego? Quote | And, I'll go out on a limb and make another prediction here: Whenever studies of this type - between geographically isolated members of the same species - are done, the results will be consistent with my hypothesis. |
Your limb was gone with the VISTA data. You've proven that you'll fabricate rather than test your hypothesis, Daniel.
|