I didn't really want to reply to this post. I really didn't want to reply to this post.
I have posted eight times, this will be my ninth time. Dandan has posted eight times, plus one post right at the beginning and one post explaining an earlier post. In that time, we've talked about platypus venom in Dandan's first post and in his second and in his third and in his fourth and in his... and finally in his eighth. Never during this whole debate have have we really talked about anything that wasn't covered in my second post. I then merely expanded on that, and explained, and explained, and expanded, and explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entirely different argument.
I specifically quoted portions where you said "exact same mutations" and "same genetic material". You are now trying, in retrospect I might add, to change the intent of what you said.
Not necessarily, but in essence correct. I'll explain that comment shortly.
Again, not with absolute necessity, but in essence correct.
It is possible, though not particularly likely, that a particular gene under a set of similar circumstances can be subject to extreme purifying selection. In that case, it could happen that two gene sequences are almost identical, even though the lineages may have split some time ago. It's not particularly likely, I'm not even sure if an instance of this has been found, but it is theoretically possible. I merely mention this for the sake of accuracy.
Given no further information, this would appear to be the most likely explanation. Why, will you claim that FOXP2 shows that they're differently related? Good luck with that...
As far as I'm aware we're talking about "Prestin", not several others?
I already told you a few times that this is wrong, but I'll give you the chance to actually prove your point.
The following is the gene Slc26a5, also known as Prestin. In this particular example, it's the variant from Mus musculus or the common house mouse.
A search for orthologues yields 104 results. Sticking with a dolphin/bat comparison, I chose Tursiops truncatus (bottlenosed dolphin) and either Myotis lucifugus (little brown bat), Myotis brandtii (Brandt's bat) or Eptesicus fuscus (big brown bat). By clicking on "FASTA", you can see the whole nucleotide sequence.
Now show me the 200 sites.
First, I already told you that "suffer" is not the word to be used.
Second, having asked both Rumraket and a biologist from my circle of friends, I still believe I'm correctly interpreting the results and you're dead wrong. Like you were with the platypus-papers, I might add. You made such a fuss for such a long time and you still haven't conceded that you're wrong, you've simply dropped it.
Third, valid argument? It wasn't even a coherent idea most of the time.
I quoted her E-Mail in the previous post, you simply have to read it. It is now early September, did she answer?
No, they're not.
As I explained, you didn't correctly substitute your terms. The two are not the same, can you see that?
However, I myself have now made a mistake and I wish to correct that. In the last post, I claimed that Pf = 1/2Ps while it's actually Pf = 1/(2Ps). I then erroneously claimed that the problem is with the 0.5, while it really lay with the number of base pairs, Nb. You suddenly dropped them, which confused the hell out of me. Apologies for the confusion, but to be honest it's quite difficult following posts.
In any case, it doesn't matter because I already presented the correct ones very early on. Do you accept that the ones I provided are correct and accepted by scientists?
That being said, I want you to admit to a very particular point. A post back, I showed that even if I substitute the population of 1 (which you claim helps me) by a population of 1,000,000 (which you claim is detrimental to my position), we find that it actually agrees with what I've been saying all along. I explained that here:
Do you admit that your equation is simply wrong, that it's never been used in academia?
Not impossible, merely very unlikely.
I am still arguing the point because you're still claiming things that I've shown to be false nearly two months ago.
I have posted eight times, this will be my ninth time. Dandan has posted eight times, plus one post right at the beginning and one post explaining an earlier post. In that time, we've talked about platypus venom in Dandan's first post and in his second and in his third and in his fourth and in his... and finally in his eighth. Never during this whole debate have have we really talked about anything that wasn't covered in my second post. I then merely expanded on that, and explained, and explained, and expanded, and explained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dandan said:No same genes doesn´t mean identical genes, for example humans, chimps and all mammals have the FOXP2 gene, it is said to be the “same gene” but the gene is not identical in all species, if you compare the FOXP2 gene in humans and chimps you will find some differences.
An analogy would be the bible (King James version) and the bible (new international version) it is said to be the same book, but it is not identical.
Entirely different argument.
I specifically quoted portions where you said "exact same mutations" and "same genetic material". You are now trying, in retrospect I might add, to change the intent of what you said.
dandan said:Obviously since we are suppose to share a common ancestor with chimps, originally chimps and humans where the same animal and therefore we had the same FOXP2 gene, according to evolution, the differences between the human FOXP2 gene and the Chimp FOXP2 gene evolved after they diverged. ¿Agree?
Not necessarily, but in essence correct. I'll explain that comment shortly.
dandan said:Obviously if we compare the human FOXP2 gene with the Cow FOXP2 gene we would expect to find even more differences because we diverged from cows longer ago than we did from chimps ¿Agree?
Again, not with absolute necessity, but in essence correct.
It is possible, though not particularly likely, that a particular gene under a set of similar circumstances can be subject to extreme purifying selection. In that case, it could happen that two gene sequences are almost identical, even though the lineages may have split some time ago. It's not particularly likely, I'm not even sure if an instance of this has been found, but it is theoretically possible. I merely mention this for the sake of accuracy.
dandan said:From an evolutionary perspective if humans and cows have a common mutation in the FOXP2 gene, that is absent in other primates, evolutionists would say that cows and humans received the same mutation independently ¿agree?
Given no further information, this would appear to be the most likely explanation. Why, will you claim that FOXP2 shows that they're differently related? Good luck with that...
dandan said:This is what happened; scientists study a series of genes that are related to echolocation, these genes are present in all mammals however only a particular variant of these genes allows echolocation.
As far as I'm aware we're talking about "Prestin", not several others?
dandan said:The problem is that bats and dolphins being far relatives, have the same variation at least in 200 sites, (closer relatives don´t have these variatons) the implication is that bats and dolphins received the same mutations 200 times independently.
I already told you a few times that this is wrong, but I'll give you the chance to actually prove your point.
The following is the gene Slc26a5, also known as Prestin. In this particular example, it's the variant from Mus musculus or the common house mouse.
A search for orthologues yields 104 results. Sticking with a dolphin/bat comparison, I chose Tursiops truncatus (bottlenosed dolphin) and either Myotis lucifugus (little brown bat), Myotis brandtii (Brandt's bat) or Eptesicus fuscus (big brown bat). By clicking on "FASTA", you can see the whole nucleotide sequence.
Now show me the 200 sites.
dandan said:So unless you prove that it is statistically possible and reasonable for 2 independent clades to suffer from the same mutations 200 times independently, I think you are forces to admit that I least this is a valid argument against evolution.
First, I already told you that "suffer" is not the word to be used.
Second, having asked both Rumraket and a biologist from my circle of friends, I still believe I'm correctly interpreting the results and you're dead wrong. Like you were with the platypus-papers, I might add. You made such a fuss for such a long time and you still haven't conceded that you're wrong, you've simply dropped it.
Third, valid argument? It wasn't even a coherent idea most of the time.
dandan said:It seems to be a similar case as it is with echolocation, I emailed the author but she told me that she was out of town and that was going to answer until mid-august.
I quoted her E-Mail in the previous post, you simply have to read it. It is now early September, did she answer?
dandan said:PF = 0.5 in a hypothetical population of 1 individual, with that clarified, do you agree that both equations are the same one?
No, they're not.
Inferno said:As I explained, your original one is: (I erroneously wrote Pt while it should have been Pf in the first post.)
(Mt x Ps x Pf x Nb)/Gs
Your new one is
(Mt x Ps)/Gs x 0.5
As I explained, you didn't correctly substitute your terms. The two are not the same, can you see that?
However, I myself have now made a mistake and I wish to correct that. In the last post, I claimed that Pf = 1/2Ps while it's actually Pf = 1/(2Ps). I then erroneously claimed that the problem is with the 0.5, while it really lay with the number of base pairs, Nb. You suddenly dropped them, which confused the hell out of me. Apologies for the confusion, but to be honest it's quite difficult following posts.
In any case, it doesn't matter because I already presented the correct ones very early on. Do you accept that the ones I provided are correct and accepted by scientists?
That being said, I want you to admit to a very particular point. A post back, I showed that even if I substitute the population of 1 (which you claim helps me) by a population of 1,000,000 (which you claim is detrimental to my position), we find that it actually agrees with what I've been saying all along. I explained that here:
Inferno said:You originally claimed
((100)(1)/3,000,0000,000)) x (1/2)
so all we have to do is substitute 1 by 1,000,000 so the new equation looks like this:
((100)(1,000,000)/3,000,0000,000)) x (1/2)
Correct?
Here's an oopsie: When I calculate that, I get 1:60 or one mutation every 60 years. So following your advice, I multiply 1/60 x 1/14 and I get 1/840. Meaning we should hit the 14-amino-acid lottery every 840 years. Strange, didn't you say using a larger population size should give us a lower probability? That's funny, it almost seems like your "equation" doesn't calculate what you think it does.
Do you admit that your equation is simply wrong, that it's never been used in academia?
dandan said:However we both agree that it would be impossible for 2 independent clades to suffer from the same 200 mutations, so why are you still making a big deal with the equation?
Not impossible, merely very unlikely.
I am still arguing the point because you're still claiming things that I've shown to be false nearly two months ago.