Posted on 04/21/2006 9:17:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
You can assume what you like.
Knock off the side issue of typos and your irrational dislike of non-native speakers or people you wrongly assume to be something they are not
Why do you think I dislike you? I was just trying to help you.
Everyone makes typos apparently including even you (gasp), I make more than most.
You make more than just typos.
Isn't this fun?
OK, you have said someone of actual substance! Hallelujah.
What was the answer of questionable relevance and why was it questionable?
And I appreciate it.
You made the claim that genetics had driven evolution, and not vice versa. Stultis pointed out in 44 that this was indubitably not true about population genetics, which was developed by evolutionary biologists fro evolutionary biology. In 46 you simply reiterated your claim without addressing the point about population genetics, except to make an idiotic and profoundly ignorant cheap shot about population genetics 'to the extent there is any merit to it'.
Stultis replied that the founders of pop. gen. (Fisher, Haldane and Wright) were evolutionary biologists. You never replied to that -- I don't blame you, the only rational reply would be to admit you were wrong, and you seem incapable of that -- instead going off on a tangent about McClintock and transposons.
Driven evolutionary understanding, yes.
My point is made by the contributions of those three (eugenicist propaganda being the main contribution of one of them) compared to those of Hunt and McClintock.
Transposable elements and their relation to evolution is a major example. Genomic comparison that is possible today focus largely on repeat element distribution because it turns out that this type of DNA discovered by McClintock doing structural chromosomal work in tandem with genetics is a major portion of the genome. These elements are now known to have been a major driving force in evolution -- and in my opinion the major driving force.
King Prout actually made the same point as I as well.
It was not a tangent but came directly in response to Stultis citing "fragile breakage" and referencing a paper looking at genomic rearrangements.
Also, if you were aware of the latest understanding of genomic evolution made possible by the various genome projects and bioinformatic analyses of the data you'd know the centrality of transposable elements to evolution.
Which, however, I retracted as coming solely/directly out of evolutionary research when you demonstrated that it had been recognized previously wrt cancer research, etc. (Although it does still appear to me that the recent recognition of fragile breakage as a much more general phenomena and a "normal" process, i.e. not just associated with disease processes, stemmed from the evolutionary research.)
I note that you have not retracted your claim about evolutionary biology never internally generating important insights in spite of the example of population genetics, which still stands, and was a central element in a broad and revolutionary advancement of theory and research (i.e. "neodarwinism").
King Prout actually made a good point.
So, population genetics?
Hand waving.
More advice: 'genomic comparison' is singular and the subject of the sentence; 'focus' must agree in number with it. Hence, this should read 'Genomic comparison that is possible today focuses largely on repeat element distribution.'
It's difficult for those whose native language contains no such subject verb agreement, but perseverance is important. You also need some commas in there.
Your main point is nonsense in any case. Most molecular evolution analysis is done using genes, ribosomal RNA, and mitochondrial DNA. Transposable elements are of limited use for large scale phylogeny, precisely because they're so mobile. As an example, here's the table of contents for the current issue of MBE. Of fourteen papers, I count two that discuss transposable elements in any respect; almost all of them, however, discuss gene phylogeny.
I expect you're just down on population genetics because you don't have the mathematical background to understand it.
Was done. Genes, rRNA and mitochondrial DNA have been used prior to full genome sequences because they were available.
Transposable elements are of limited use for large scale phylogeny, precisely because they're so mobile.
Their mobility is why they were the driving force for the chromosomal rearrangements associated with evolution.
You simply do not follow, nor understand, genomic evolution -- which is one and the same with evolution at its most basic level. This has ben my observation on these threads that the people most vociferous for evolution don't even know the research. At least you've moved in to the 1980's. Most here are still in the 19th century.
And, focusing on typos or grammar issues is a sign of not having anything else to harp on.
The way you do it it is also a personal attack, but hey that's you.
Now try and actually focus on something concrete. What of the following is nonsense:
Genomic comparison that is possible today focus largely on repeat element distribution because it turns out that this type of DNA discovered by McClintock doing structural chromosomal work in tandem with genetics is a major portion of the genome.
bump
I posted the table of contents for the last issue of MBE. Oh, I'm sorry, I should have spelled it out; Molecular Biology and Evolution. It's a journal. A journal is a place scientists publish their work. This month's TOC is a fair reflection where the field was 6 months ago. Only a tiny minority of papers was concerned with transposons.
h. At least you've moved in to the 1980's. Most here are still in the 19th century.
I posted an analysis of a 2006 table of contents. Ignoring unfortunate facts doesn't make them go away; it makes you mendacious by omission. When someone posts a rebuttal of some point you make, as Stultis did, as I have, you just ignore it. But hey, that's you.
And, focusing on typos or grammar issues is a sign of not having anything else to harp on.
I'm disappointed you don't appreciate my well-intentioned attempts to help you.
The way you do it it is also a personal attack, but hey that's you.
You have no basis for complaint. I asked you to stop posting personal insults. You refused. Now you're trying to represent my constructive suggestions on how you might improve your own posts as attacks.
Now try and actually focus on something concrete. What of the following is nonsense: Genomic comparison that is possible today focus largely on repeat element distribution because it turns out that this type of DNA discovered by McClintock doing structural chromosomal work in tandem with genetics is a major portion of the genome.
It's false. Apparently your reading is as weak as your writing. Published genomic comparison still focuses mainly on genes and other coding elements.
That's your final answer? That it is false that "Genomic comparison that is possible today focus largely on repeat element distribution" and that "this type of DNA [repeat elements] is a major portion of the genome" is also false or nonsense?
Are you really so stupid you can't understand what has been posted at least twice? I guess so. It is false, based on current contents of the journals, to state that "Genomic comparison that is possible today focus largely on repeat element distribution". It does not. It focuses largely on genes.
OK, you are parsing. "Largely" is your issue.
Do you agree that repeat element analysis and distribution is of great significance in understanding evolution?
No, you're parsing. If the population of the United States is 14% African American, is it largely African American?
Your statement was false, unless you redefine 'largely' as 'far less than 20%'. Admit you were wrong, and we can proceed further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.