|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Shared mutations: Common descent or common mechanism?
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 13. July 2006 05:42
quote:
The only thing I have suggested is that life may have been created and/or front-loaded more than once and quite frankly I don't see how anyone can ever deny that possibility.
In my opinion, this is equivalent to proposing special creation. There is only a gradual difference: Special creation holds all organisms were created, while you say several organisms were frontloaded to evolve ito all niches. Darwinians will never accept either of them.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. July 2006 10:11
Peter
You have proposed special creation as an established fact in some of your statements here. That is a strategic error on your part. If you insist on doing that, don't expect the scientific establishment to ever take you seriously. There is absolutely nothing that proves more than one origin of life. Everything beyond that is pure speculation and cannot be supported by facts. More important it will label you as a Creationist with a capital C. If that is what you want, that is what you will get. It will make publication difficult for you. Trust me.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 13. July 2006 10:39
John,
the biological data can only be explained as special creation events or as directed, non-random saltionism.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 13. July 2006 14:34
Peter,
You said, quote:
Any homologous sequence is consistent with common descent. As is any homologous characteristic.
I disagree. Position 55 is homolgous between the Orangutan and the Human but is not consistent with common descent because it is not homolgous with the Chimp.
You also said, quote:
The issue is that we are unable to discriminate between a mechanism of non-random mutations that gives an illusion of common descnet and common descent.
Well when a mutation only occurs in a few organisms and in a manner that is consistent with common descent what would suggest a nonrandom mutation?
You also said, quote:
My proposal of common mechanims is the alternative to common descent. Isn't that obvious. I am not a chimpanzee, and I do not want to be one.
I think your proposal is tantalizng. However, the question is whether it is persuasive at this juncture. Based on the few genes that are compared, I don't t see that it is.
For example, I pointed out that positions 75, 85, and 95 are consistent with common descent and do not seem occur at any hot spot. Conversely, position 55 is inconsistent with common descent and also does not seem to occur at any hot spot. If other genes had mutations at 55, 75, 85, and 95, to an unexpected frequency then I think you would have a stronger argument that we are seeing nonrandom mutations giving the illusion of common descent.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. July 2006 10:06
quote:
positions 75, 85, and 95 are consistent with common descent and do not seem occur at any hot spot.
Positions 75, 85 and 95 may form hotspots (NRM) in primates only. Rule of GUToB: similar genetics + similar biochemistry = similar mutational hotspots. For the CpG dinucleotide this already has been scientifically demonstrated. We only have to elucidate the other NRM mechanisms and we understand the illusion of common descent.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. July 2006 10:11
quote:
position 55 is inconsistent with common descent and also does not seem to occur at any hot spot.
Positions such as 55 can be used to identify NRM in the GULO gene. That is why I followed up on the gentic analyses of this (pseudo)gene. And it turned out that I am right about the genes: NRM. As mentioned previously, most phylogenetic analyses show such NRM positions. It proofs my stance.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. July 2006 10:29
Sorry Peter but I don't see common mechanism as an alternative to common descent. I see them as both compatible with reproductive continuity which is another name for evolution. Words have meaning.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 18. July 2006 08:42
quote:
Sorry Peter but I don't see common mechanism as an alternative to common descent. I see them as both compatible with reproductive continuity which is another name for evolution. Words have meaning.
What I have shown:
1) common descent is false,
2) non-random mutations give an illusion of common descent.
All biological observations now have an alternative explanations independent of common descent and evolution.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 20. July 2006 02:33
quote:
All biological observations now have an alternative explanations independent of common descent and evolution.
Let me see if I get this.
Shared mutations can either be the result of
(a)Common descent.
or
(b)Common mechanism.
We currently have no test to determine whether a particular shared mutation is the result of common descent as opposed to a common mechanism.
Therefore we have an alternative explanation for shared sequences.
Further to this we can test whether some shared sequences are the result of common descent, and at times we can deduce they are not.
Is this right?
Question. What then explains the nested heirarchy?
Do similar organisms produce similar patterns as a result of epigenetic factors which are a function of the whole organism rather than just one part (reductionism)?
[ 20. July 2006, 02:35: Message edited by: adhitthana ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. July 2006 04:25
quote:
What then explains the nested heirarchy?
Do similar organisms produce similar patterns as a result of epigenetic factors which are a function of the whole organism rather than just one part (reductionism)?
Nested hierarchy may be the result of epigenetic factors indeed, and the DNA context. It shows that simialr sequences in the same or similar genomic context and the same biochemistry (epigenetics) "attracts" the same mutations. This has already been shown in microorganism, where the nonrandom mutations in insertable vectors depended on the integration site.
[ 20. July 2006, 04:25: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 20. July 2006 07:48
quote:
Sorry Peter but I don't see common mechanism as an alternative to common descent. I see them as both compatible with reproductive continuity which is another name for evolution. Words have meaning.
Hi John, can you explain what you mean when you say a common mechanism is "compatible with reproductive continuity"?
Thanks
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. July 2006 11:39
Sure
I have no truck with special creation. Even if life were created more than once it in no way will alter the notion that once created there has been reproductive continuity up until the complete extinction of that line. The key word here is "continuity." That I am not prepared to ever abandon. Man is an animal and you will never convince me otherwise.
"Here I stand. I can do no otherwise."
Martin Luther
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 20. July 2006 19:45
quote:
I have no truck with special creation. Even if life were created more than once it in no way will alter the notion that once created there has been reproductive continuity up until the complete extinction of that line.
But if there was more than one creation (hypotheically) then would this not open the door for common mechanism as an alternative to common descent in some instances, as a way of explaining common sequences?
IP: Logged
|
|
Mesk
Member
Member # 630
|
posted 22. July 2006 06:31
quote:
Mesk:
Basically, the common descent of two organisms implies the common descent of all of their genes (except in unicellular organisms, where genes can be transferred independently of normal vertical inheritance). In other words, if there is a specific pattern of relationship between a group of organisms, all of the genes you look at should display that pattern of relationship. You can't simply dismiss incongruency in a subset of genes as "evidence of a separate evolutionary history", as that would imply that this subset of genes had somehow followed a different evolutionary trajectory to the organisms that carried them - which is impossible in most multicellular organisms. ...
So basically, all genes sitting within the informative range of mutation rates should provide congruent trees.
Jehu:
No. When this does not occur Darwinism has an explanation for it. Take for example the Chimp and Human Genom where the genes do not display a uniform distance of separation but rather deviate by millions of years. The present theory is that certain genes "followed a different evolutionary trajectory" and then were imported into the human genome at a later date through a hybrid species.
Jehu, these genes are not phylogenetically incongruent - if you compared them with their gorilla equivalent, you'd find that all human genes were still closer to their chimp homologue than to the gorilla copy.
Mesk.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic