Date:   10/23/2006 6:07:57 PM ( 19 y ago)
Hits:   1,736
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=759307

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Corinithian you are so full of it....I'm going take your "statements" one at a time.

1) "Once again, SS and others like him fail to understand what they read. This is what Sanjuan and Elena really wrote (my emphasis) and in no way falsifies modern theory:

Whether systematic genetic interactions (epistasis) occur at the genomic scale remains a challenging topic in evolutionary biology. Epistasis should make a significant contribution to variation in complex traits and influence the evolution of genetic systems as sex, diploidy, dominance, or the contamination of genomes with deleterious mutations. We have collected data from widely different organisms and quantified epistasis in a common, per-generation scale. Simpler genomes, such as those of RNA viruses, display antagonistic epistasis (mutations have smaller effects together than expected); bacterial microorganisms do not apparently deviate from independent effects, whereas in multicellular eukaryotes, a transition toward synergistic epistasis occurs (mutations have larger effects together than expected). We propose that antagonistic epistasis might be a property of compact genomes with few nonpleiotropic biological functions, whereas in complex genomes, synergism might emerge from mutational robustness."

So Corinthian....why was the article called "Neo-darwinism falsified in the Lab?"

here's the actual quote from the geneticists who wrote the paper:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0404125101v1

"The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components."

Too bad...you lose.

---------------------------------------------------------


3) On several cases, I and others have shown that this is not so. Yet you keep repeating it in hopes of making it true. The beaks did not "evolve", rather the conditions made it so that one aspect of the population was over-represented. When conditions reversed the opposite happened. Industrial melanism is clearly explained. The moths always had a subsection that carried the dark pigmented gene, and as conditions changed the light moths suffered predation at greater rates to change the make up of the population, but the light colored gene is still in the population.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selecti...

Wrong again....birds...like every creature developes traits purposefully during developement...as even this god-hating evolutionists admits

"In other words, the existing alleles for such a trait would bias subsequent mutations in the "direction" of larger beaks, simply because the pool of potential new alleles would already start out biased in that direction. Therefore, the mutations and developmental changes that were available from one generation to the next would be biased."

"This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new Science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete"

sorry...you lose.
--------------------------------




"4) There is mountain of homonid bones, leading back to the earliest primates. You are just making up more lies."

Prove it......you don't have jack. What is the name of this creature that is our ancestor?
----------------------------------


"5) Several animals have very clear and complete fossil evidence that shows the transition from the previoius form to their mondern form. This is also the case for some animals that came to a dead end and are now extinct."

Such as? I noticed you didn't back up your rhetoric with actual evidence. You lose again.
-----------------------------

"6) Your numbers are made up, your math sucks as does you reasoning abilities."


http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm You lose again.


-------------------------------



"7) Humans and monkeys and mice and insects all share the same sets of genes. No they don't. They have some ancestral commonalities, but are also very different in function, loci and size. If you knew how to use BLAST you know this is another false statement."

Monkeys and mice and humans don't share the same genes?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/051024crbo_books1

"Evo devo’s first big finding is that all animals are built from essentially the same genes....What’s more, plenty of important genes turn out to be this old."

"Why, then, do different creatures look so different? How do penguins and people emerge from the same genes? Evo devo’s answer to this question represents its second big finding. Different animal designs reflect the use of the same old genes, but expressed at different times and in different places in the organism...The basis of this selective expression involves that part of the DNA which is noncoding. Most genes, like most light fixtures, have “switches” near them."

"The real excitement about evo devo, however, has to do with its third claim. Carroll and others have taken the next, and by far the most radical, step and argue that evolution is mostly a matter of throwing these switches."

sorry....you lose again.
----------------------------------

"8) Monkeys cannot breed with humans. If they could, we'd have to do some thinking on the subject of speciation and evolution"

thats exactly what I said.

-----------------------------------------

The rest of your nonsense isn't worth responding to. Thank you, come again.





 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=759307