Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry Arequipa, but why is it around a half of your posts either barely make sense or go off on a complete tangent to the topic being discussed?
Youseff, why is it that you have not the brain capacity to make sense of my posts, or the mental flexibility to spot the relevance?
Just for once, I am going to tell one of you tossers without two brain cells to bang together to go *********rself in the hope of injecting some brain cells.
I am talking about how Pseudogenes are used in evolution. I have posted several current papers to demonstrate this.
You made the claim that using Pseudogenes is outdated. Again I have posted current peer reviewed articles and publications that prove otherwise.
All of this orthology falls under the umbrella of phylogenetics, so it is one subject. For the simple purpose of delineating common ancestries, the difference between coding and non-coding markers (including pseudogenes) is largely arbitrary.
No she edited it right after she posted it due to misreading the abstract.
But in no way did I ever suggest that phylogenetic analysis stems from days before sequencing data was available.
If I recall what you wrote before you modified your post, it was based on this quote:
"Here we consider how LGT and endosymbiosis bear on contemporary views of microbial evolution, most of which stem from the days before genome sequences were available."
Your interpretation of it was that the paper (which clearly presents phylogenetic data from the offset) was using data from before genome sequencing was available to assert contemporary models of microbial evolution.
It's not relevant to the topic at hand, but I'm just pointing out what I was responding to.
All of this orthology falls under the umbrella of phylogenetics, so it is one subject. For the simple purpose of delineating common ancestries, the difference between coding and non-coding markers (including pseudogenes) is largely arbitrary.
LOL I know what I wrote and I was laughing at the abstract because I thought it was making a claim that I knew could not be true.
Your Creation twisting of the facts is not going to work.
We know that orthologous loci are genes that have evolved directly from an ancestral gene.
We also know that pseudogenes are vitally important since they provide a record of how the genomic DNA has been changed without such evolutionary pressure and can be used as a model for determining the underlying rates of nucleotide substitution, insertion and deletion in the greater genome.
Your outdated paper from 2006 has nothing to do with what I am discussing.
Your Creation Myth is still a myth and your 2006 outdated paper does nothing to disprove molecular evolution or the value of pseudogenes used in proving evolution.
LOL I know what I wrote and I was laughing at the abstract because I thought it was making a claim that I knew could not be true.
Your Creation twisting of the facts is not going to work.
We know that orthologous loci are genes that have evolved directly from an ancestral gene.
We also know that pseudogenes are vitally important since they provide a record of how the genomic DNA has been changed without such evolutionary pressure and can be used as a model for determining the underlying rates of nucleotide substitution, insertion and deletion in the greater genome.
Your outdated paper from 2006 has nothing to do with what I am discussing.
Your Creation Myth is still a myth and your 2006 outdated paper does nothing to disprove molecular evolution or the value of pseudogenes used in proving evolution.
Okay, it looks like you've now come full circle and are just repeating points that we've already covered several times.
I think this is as far as we can take this topic (at least without you getting more agitated than you are).
Just one point that needs addressing is that not all orthologous markers stem from common ancestry because some mechanisms of gene transfer show site-selection specificity. But that's a topic for another discussion.
Okay, it looks like you've now come full circle and are simply repeating points that we've already covered several times.
I think this is as far as we can take this topic without you getting more agitated.
Just one point that needs addressing is that not all orthologous markers stem from common ancestry because some mechanisms of gene transfer show site-selection specificity. But that's a topic for another discussion.
Glad you just edited it from trying to tell me that I am all wrong.
You have been all wrong and off topic from any points I've been making with respect to Pseudogenes and evolution.
I would be interested in seeing a recent published paper that supports your claim that not all orthologous markers stem from common ancestry.
We know without a doubt that Orthologs are genes in different species that evolved from a common ancestral gene by speciation. Normally, orthologs retain the same function in the course of evolution. Identification of orthologs is critical for reliable prediction of gene function in newly sequenced genomes. This is good enough for me and proves my points perfectly.
I would be interested in seeing a recent published paper that supports your claim that not all orthologous markers stem from common ancestry.
We know without a doubt that Orthologs are genes in different species that evolved from a common ancestral gene by speciation. Normally, orthologs retain the same function in the course of evolution. Identification of orthologs is critical for reliable prediction of gene function in newly sequenced genomes.
I briefly looked at all of the articles (none of which are current) and no where do they infer or suggest what you claimed about orthologous markers.
Which is why you can't find what you are trying to claim supported anywhere.
This really has nothing to do with Pseudogenes and how they are used to prove evolution.
Evolution is not in question at all which is why I find it puzzling that you keep posting useless outdated published papers that have nothing to do with debunking molecular evolution or evolution in general.
What is your real agenda? This is how Creationist try to twist the data and put up smokescreens. You don't seem to understand that the molecular world today is far different than just 4 years ago. This is why I keep suggesting that you need to update you knowledge.
There is no question about Pseudogenes and how they prove evolution...there are many current published papers about this as well. Molecular Evolution is exploding and this is a very fun time to be in the world of Molecular Diagnostics which is where I am
I briefly looked at all of the articles (none of which are current) and no where do they infer or suggest what you claimed about orthologous markers.
Which is why you can't find what you are trying to claim supported anywhere.
This really has nothing to do with Pseudogenes and how they are used to prove evolution.
Evolution is not in question at all which is why I find it puzzling that you keep posting useless outdated published papers that have nothing to do with debunking molecular evolution or evolution in general.
What is your real agenda? This is how Creationist try to twist the data and put up smokescreens. You don't seem to understand that the molecular world today is far different than just 4 years ago. This is why I keep suggesting that you need to update you knowledge.
There is no question about Pseudogenes and how they prove evolution...there are many current published papers about this as well. Molecular Evolution is exploding and this is a very fun time to be in the world of Molecular Diagnostics which is where I am
What it means is that gene transfer vectors (in this case retroviruses) can transmit DNA code "horizontally" across species boundaries altering orthologous locations on chromosomes of different organisms.
Some postulate that up to 50% of the human genome is derived from these mechanisms rather than through "vertical" gene transfer (directly from ancestor to offspring), so the implications are significant if one is intending to formulate some taxonomic scheme based on sequence similarities in orthologous loci.
If you don't understand the significance of this, and you think that local taxonomic data on pseudogenes refutes these broader mechanisms of gene transfer, then you don't understand the subject matter and are simply out of your depth on this topic.
Last edited by DUMBONyc; 06-13-2015 at 09:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
