tas8831
Well-Known Member
Right. And? Even your hero Tomkins looked at sequences longer than 4 bp. Why do you continue to lie about how any of these sorts of analyses are done? Is it out of desperation? Ignorance? Malice? You really should re-examine your faith position if it requires you to lie/distort/ignore like this so often.
I guess you ignored/missed/are hoping nobody noticed that I showed using your favorite BLAST that we are talking sequences on the order of several THOUSAND bps in length, not 4.
Nice dodge. Typical for you.
One will note that the creationist did not even try to demonstrate his claims, as is his hos norm. One can also see that the creationist, yet again, totally ignored 90+% of my demonstration of his errors and ignorance.
That this creationist (and creationists in general) so readily and frequently engage in such dishonest 'debate', one has to wonder what
if anything, they actually have going for their cause.
A reminder of the things the creationist ignored/distorted/dodged:
Well... if the sequences matched, it isn't really random, is it, genius? You have never done a BLAST search, have you?
Here - give it a try:
BLAST: Basic Local Alignment Search Tool
Here is the FOXP2 gene in mice:
Foxp2 forkhead box P2 [Mus musculus (house mouse)] - Gene - NCBI
You can see that it is on Chromosome 6 in the mouse.
Here are mRNA transcript sequences for the mouse:
RefSeq RNA Links for Gene (Select 114142) - Nucleotide - NCBI
On the right side of that page, there is a menu, one of the buttons of which is "Run BLAST".
Click on it. Don't worry about all the options, just click the button "BLAST" on the bottom left.
In about 15 seconds, you will get your results. Since I doubt you will do this, I will provide a few observations -
There are hundreds of returns. Keep in mind that the search sequences are all 6kb (NOT 4 bases in length as you mentioned as a dodge/act of mendacity) or so in length - since you know so much about genome sequences, how often do you think a 6kb (NOT 4 bases in length as you mentioned as a dodge/act of mendacity) sequence will randomly match another taxon's sequence by 80% or more?
You must believe it is very common to write the things you do.
Here is another one - human msx1 gene:
human msx1 - Nucleotide - NCBI
Let's pick the complete cds (this is the DNA sequence), about 5kb (NOT 4 bases in length as you mentioned as a dodge/act of mendacity):
Homo sapiens muscle segment homeobox 1 (MSX1) gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBI
Again, on the right, click "Run BLAST"
When you get the results, mouse over the red lines - the 4th one down is to a gibbon. Click on it. Click 'Alignment'. It shows that there is a 97% identity.
Looking for the chimp version, 98%.
With your vast understanding of genetics and statistics and the like, what are the odds, do you think, that a 5 kilobase human sequence would just randomly match - at 98% identity - a sequence in a chimp? And at but a single locus?
You make it very, very obvious that you have no experience whatsoever in doing any of these sorts of analyses.
Amazing. How do YOU know if these things are found in multiple places in the genome?
And isn't it odd that when I did that BLAST for the human genes, that there were not multiple returns to the human genome?
Kind of blows your made-up claims out of the water.
Like how you just ignored the fact that I DESTROYED your ignorant claim about courts and and DNA testing?
Anyway - what did I ignore, exactly? You have made these charges but all you ever do is repeat them - you have never once provided any rationale for your claim, no sources that support them, and you've never made an attempt to demonstrate them at all.
Yes - those people are called morons.
People that actually understand these issues and have backgrounds and experience in such things can tell when poseurs are pretending to know things that not only can they not know, but are in fact rather foolish and naive.
Your lame repetitious assertions may impress the simpletons at the water cooler, but to anyone with a biology background, you just come across as desperate and uninformed.
But no, you go ahead and embarrass me - prove that you are right and I am wrong.
SHOW that sequence matches of hundreds or thousands of bps in length just pop up haphazardly all over the genome. SHOW that these identical sequence has different functions. SHOW that we cannot use such sequences to infer phylogeny - to do so, you will have to show that all of those papers that I paste now and then are demonstrably wrong, and that all of the hundreds of other such papers are also demonstrably wrong, and so on. I'm sure you can do it!
SHOW that courts really do compare complete genomes "loci by loci", thus negating all of the information available from the FBI and the National Institute of Justice - I am sure they will want to update their records based on your documentation!
Can't wait!
Really? Tell me more!
Same Gene, Different Functions
Interesting - the sub-title is:
"Proteins encoded by the same gene can play very different roles in the cell, scientists show."
Hmmm... Did you read beyond the title? Or how about the keywords at the bottom - did you see them:
Keywords: alternative splicing, protein, protein isoforms
Nothing about being randomly placed around genomes?
If I were you, I would immediately contact the publisher and let them know that the subtitle and the keywords counter your 100% correct implication and interpretation that this is about and supports the notion that this is really about how random matching sequences show up all over the genome, and that there are multiple gens or something, not sure what you mean.
Oh and the content, too - because it talks about alternative splicing and how a gene's [protein can be altered in different tissues and such, and nothing about how the gene cannot be used to infer phylogeny or anything like that, as it really must since you implied it does.
But seriously - as far as you reading it beyond the title, it seems not, because the subtitle kind of shoots down your implication that this brief news release somehow supports your repeated and unsupported notion that there are "randomly matching similar sequences regardless of their actual position or function in the genome".
But go ahead, continue to preach your pseudoscience that similar sequences mean ancestors when it is placement within the genome that defines function, not just similarity between random sequences...
Cool distraction, champ!
Looking forward to you DEMONSTRATING any of your claims for once:
- placement within the genome that defines function
- courts compare entire genomes
- phylogenetics relies on randomly matching sequences that are apparently all over the genome
I comprehend entirely that you are so spectacularly clueless re: genetics and evolution and biology that you cannot even tell how completely naive and, frankly, idiotic you sound when you keep repeating these claims that you have never once even attempted to justify or support.
I did my first alignment in 1996, and there was nothing 'random' about it at all. You've never taken a biology class.
And it is so cool how you just totally ignored my complete demolition of your sheer stupidity re: courts and DNA testing all so you could just regurgitate your laughably naive nonsense about which you are clueless.
I hope you are fooling yourself, because you are not fooling anyone else.
But do keep it up - I enjoy watching the farce that is creationism crumble due to the ignorance of its adherents.
