Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > BIO-Complexity

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

clamboy Posts: 281 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2016,20:05    Denyse O'Leary! Jonathan Wells! Casey Luskin! Hugh Ross! It's truly a "who's who" of "who's a purveyor of ignorant twaddle"!

sparc Posts: 2031 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2018,09:09    Just opened Bio-Complexity and found the following from 2014 Quote This document doi:10.5048/BIO-­‐C.2011.1.e1 Published: November 19, 2014 Erratum for: Gauger AK, Axe D (2011) The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme functions: A case study from the biotin pathway. BIO-­‐Complexity 2011(1):1-­‐ 17. doi:10.5048/BIO-­‐C.2011.1 Using genes from E. coli, we previously found one instance where a single amino acid replacement in BioF that increases sequence identity with Kbl appeared to eliminate the BioF2 function in vivo. We reported this substitution to be H152N. In the course of further study, we discovered that our original plasmid that fails to confer BioF2 function actually has a second mutation in the bioF gene, this one encoding the substitution S265G. By making new plasmid constructs carrying the H152N mutation alone and the S265G mutation  alone,  we determined  that neither  of these  mutations  eliminates  BioF2 function  on its own. Function is lost only when the two are combined. This  correction  reduces  our  previous  estimate  of  the  minimum  number  of  nucleotide  substitutions required  for  conversion  from  seven  to  six,  with  corresponding  revisions  needed  in  our  Results  and Discussion  sections.  In  particular,  most  of  the  first  three  paragraphs  under  the  subheading  Stage  2: Testing short-­‐listed  candidates  by BioF →Kbl mutation are now irrelevant, as they discuss the essential role  of  an  amino-­‐acid  residue  now  known  not  to  be  essential.  Also,  the  following  sentence  in  our discussion (page 12) should be revised: In fact, even the unrealistically favorable assumption that kbl duplicates carry no fitness cost leaves the conversion just beyond the limits of feasibility. The corrected sentence should read: Only under the unrealistically favorable assumption that kbl duplicates carry no fitness cost does the Kbl→BioF conversion fall just within the limits of feasibility. The main point of the paper is unchanged. Further details, including a brief discussion of the functional significance of H152 and S265, may be found in a forthcoming paper (in press): Reeves MA, Gauger AK, Axe DD (2014) Enzyme families—Shared evolutionary history or shared design? A study of the GABA-­‐aminotransferase family. BIO-­‐Complexity 2014 (4). doi:10.5048/BIO-­‐C.2014.4. I am just wondering if the main point of the paper really remained unchanged if it now says that even their own unrealistic assumptions that were designed to let evolution look impossible would now allow for Kbl turn into BioF. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

sparc Posts: 2031 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2018,11:46    Günter Blechly describes a new fossil insect species Chrismooreia michaelbehei sp in Bio-Complexity which Quote is named in honor of Professor Michael Behe (Lehigh University) for his groundbreaking contributions to intelligent design theory, which had great influence on the personal views of the author [Blechly]. linky: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.....2018.1 -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

stevestory Posts: 12278 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2019,17:39    Oh this amuses me to no end-- Which "peer-reviewed journal" published more research papers in 2018? A) BIO-Complexity, the ID journal -or- B) Correlation, the Astrological Association Journal of Research in Astrology Edited by stevestory on Mar. 28 2019,18:41

fnxtr Posts: 3281 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2019,18:18    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2019,15:39) Oh this amuses me to no end-- Which "peer-reviewed journal" published more research papers in 2018? A) BIO-Complexity, the ID journal -or- B) Correlation, the Astrological Association Journal of Research in Astrology Well, you know, they're both   Quote All original and all irrefutable science . -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

stevestory Posts: 12278 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2019,13:51    ID is such a failed dumpster fire. The Young Earth Creationists already have six research papers out in 2019. ID has diddly-shit. Some halfwits posting on a blog about the shroud of Turin and shit. Calling ID creationism may technically be true but it's an insult to the honest and productive creationists.

DiEb Posts: 296 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2019,06:40    A Single-Couple Human Origin is Possible Ola Hössjer, Ann GaugerOla Hössjer, Ann Gauger Quote Abstract The problem of inferring history from genetic data is complex and underdetermined; there are many possible scenarios that would explain the same data. It can be made more tractable by making reasonable simplifications to the model, but it is continually important to remember what has been demonstrated and what is merely a parsimonious working assumption. In this paper we have chosen to model the demographic ancestry of humanity using the simplest of assumptions, with a homogeneous population whose size can vary over time. All other assumptions such as the mutation rates were standard, and no natural selection was in operation. Using a previously published backwards simulation method and some newly developed and faster algorithms, we run our single-couple origin model of humanity and compare the results to allele frequency spectra and linkage disequilibrium statistics from current genetic data. We show that a single-couple origin of humanity as recent as 500kya is consistent with data. With only minor modifications of our parsimonious model assumptions, we suggest that a single-couple origin 100kya, or more recently, is possible. Adam and Eve! I have not read the article yet, so I do not know whether the insertion of an apple is necessary.

stevestory Posts: 12278 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2019,07:01    Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 22 2019,07:40) A Single-Couple Human Origin is Possible Ola Hössjer, Ann GaugerOla Hössjer, Ann Gauger Quote Abstract The problem of inferring history from genetic data is complex and underdetermined; there are many possible scenarios that would explain the same data. It can be made more tractable by making reasonable simplifications to the model, but it is continually important to remember what has been demonstrated and what is merely a parsimonious working assumption. In this paper we have chosen to model the demographic ancestry of humanity using the simplest of assumptions, with a homogeneous population whose size can vary over time. All other assumptions such as the mutation rates were standard, and no natural selection was in operation. Using a previously published backwards simulation method and some newly developed and faster algorithms, we run our single-couple origin model of humanity and compare the results to allele frequency spectra and linkage disequilibrium statistics from current genetic data. We show that a single-couple origin of humanity as recent as 500kya is consistent with data. With only minor modifications of our parsimonious model assumptions, we suggest that a single-couple origin 100kya, or more recently, is possible. Adam and Eve! I have not read the article yet, so I do not know whether the insertion of an apple is necessary. it's the end of October, and all they've managed to publish all year in their own journal is "Adam and Eve totally could have been real you guys"? Jesus Christ Answers Research Journal has published 11 papers so far.

Bob O'H Posts: 2391 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2019,09:37    Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 22 2019,06:40) A Single-Couple Human Origin is Possible Ola Hössjer, Ann GaugerOla Hössjer, Ann Gauger Quote Abstract The problem of inferring history from genetic data is complex and underdetermined; there are many possible scenarios that would explain the same data. It can be made more tractable by making reasonable simplifications to the model, but it is continually important to remember what has been demonstrated and what is merely a parsimonious working assumption. In this paper we have chosen to model the demographic ancestry of humanity using the simplest of assumptions, with a homogeneous population whose size can vary over time. All other assumptions such as the mutation rates were standard, and no natural selection was in operation. Using a previously published backwards simulation method and some newly developed and faster algorithms, we run our single-couple origin model of humanity and compare the results to allele frequency spectra and linkage disequilibrium statistics from current genetic data. We show that a single-couple origin of humanity as recent as 500kya is consistent with data. With only minor modifications of our parsimonious model assumptions, we suggest that a single-couple origin 100kya, or more recently, is possible. Adam and Eve! I have not read the article yet, so I do not know whether the insertion of an apple is necessary. They simulate these two scenarios: Quote Scenario 1 A single couple 100,000 generations ago (about 2mya) having zero heterozygosity (identical homozygous chromosomes), grows rapidly to a population of 10,000 people, then grows slowly and linearly to 16,000 people near the present. Scenario 2 A single couple 25,000 generations ago (about 500kya) having primordial heterozygosity of 0.012,5 grows rapidly to a population of 16,000 people, then holds steady So they are assuming if you live anywhere larger than a small town, most of the people you live with are imaginary. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Texas Teach Posts: 1968 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2019,16:53    Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 23 2019,09:37) Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 22 2019,06:40) A Single-Couple Human Origin is Possible Ola Hössjer, Ann GaugerOla Hössjer, Ann Gauger   Quote Abstract The problem of inferring history from genetic data is complex and underdetermined; there are many possible scenarios that would explain the same data. It can be made more tractable by making reasonable simplifications to the model, but it is continually important to remember what has been demonstrated and what is merely a parsimonious working assumption. In this paper we have chosen to model the demographic ancestry of humanity using the simplest of assumptions, with a homogeneous population whose size can vary over time. All other assumptions such as the mutation rates were standard, and no natural selection was in operation. Using a previously published backwards simulation method and some newly developed and faster algorithms, we run our single-couple origin model of humanity and compare the results to allele frequency spectra and linkage disequilibrium statistics from current genetic data. We show that a single-couple origin of humanity as recent as 500kya is consistent with data. With only minor modifications of our parsimonious model assumptions, we suggest that a single-couple origin 100kya, or more recently, is possible. Adam and Eve! I have not read the article yet, so I do not know whether the insertion of an apple is necessary. They simulate these two scenarios: Quote Scenario 1 A single couple 100,000 generations ago (about 2mya) having zero heterozygosity (identical homozygous chromosomes), grows rapidly to a population of 10,000 people, then grows slowly and linearly to 16,000 people near the present. Scenario 2 A single couple 25,000 generations ago (about 500kya) having primordial heterozygosity of 0.012,5 grows rapidly to a population of 16,000 people, then holds steady So they are assuming if you live anywhere larger than a small town, most of the people you live with are imaginary. 16000 vs 7.53 billion is 99.9998% error. 6000 vs 4.5 billion is 99.9999% error. So right on message. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard