Common DNA Sequences: Evidence of Evolution or Efficient Design? (apoptosis section fascinating!)

Acts & Facts ^ | August 2009 | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

[CottShop]

[[We have shown that immunoreactive amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH is identical with the mammalian decapeptide in chromatographic properties and in its interaction with region-specific LH-RH antisera, while immunoreactive LH-RHs from avian, reptilian, and piscine hypothalami are structurally different (King and Millar, 1979, 1980, 1981). These structural differences of LH-RH-like peptides in submammalian vertebrates have not been determined ]]

Hmmm- seems awful similar to what pitman orioginally said

[count-your-change]

The contention was not over a statement Pitman made though early on I said Pitman's statements were not my concern but the characterization of the tests, and therefore their results, as outdated.

From post#135’
“Again (for, what? the third time now? the fourth?) Pitman wrote:
For example, mammalian and amphibian “luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone” (LHRH) is identical.
Note this is a full sentence. He writes that the hormone — not some partial aspect of the hormone, not data from some immunological probe indirectly detecting the hormone — but just the hormone “is identical”.
However the paper he cites says NO SUCH THING. It says only that they are “similar”.

However the research paper says exactly what the poster claims it did not say:

“....amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH
is identical with the mammalian decapeptide.....”

You can find the paper and read it yourself. If the paper was not appropriate for Pitman's conclusions drawn that is a side issue that was not MY contention or that I discussed.

“That excerpt, for example, supports the idea that the test is very good at detecting whether a substance is present. That doesn’t mean it’s any good at telling you what the substance is, or that better tests haven’t been developed in the past 30 years.”

I gave a reference (among many available if you look) that explains:

“”radioimmunoassay
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright
radioimmunoassay (RIA), highly sensitive laboratory technique used to measure minute amounts of substances including antigens, hormones, and drugs present in the body. The substance or antigen (a foreign substance in the body that causes antibody production) to be measured is injected into an animal, causing it to produce antibodies. Serum containing the antibodies is withdrawn and treated with a radioactive antigen and later with a nonradioactive antigen. Measurements of the amount of radioactivity are then used to determine the amount of antigen present. The technique was developed by Solomon Berson and Rosalyn Yalow . Yalow was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her work.”

NOTICE THE WORDS “HIGHLY SENSITIVE”, “MINUTE AMOUNTS”.

The tests are specific so your statement is wrong.

If there are newer and better tests for the same thing I invite you to present them, please do but then neither I nor anyone else said there wasn't.

If the tests are to be characterized as “outdated”, “smoke signals to computers”, crude, etc. and your statement on what the results of the tests mean or don't mean then I really must ask wherein the error. If there is no error, what's your problem, if my reasoning is flawed show it, if you've citations to share, do so, but I'll not do your research for you.

My knowledge? I have very little but I do know how to find what I want to know.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

“First off (and there doubtless many problems with this which I, as a laymen, am not catching, but I caught enough that it reeks...) the article Pitman cites does NOT say, “mammalian and amphibian “luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone” (LHRH) is identical.” It said (underline added): “

Nope- the article certainly doesn’t state that AND pitman NEVER stated that the article did-

What do you mean??? Pitman wrote, "For example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone" (LHRH) is identical" and linked to the article. It was your reference? How can you say Pitman didn't claim the article said that?

Talk about making stuff up!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

If you can’t see that quoting “amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH is identical with the mammalian decapeptide” and leaving out “...in chromatographic properties and in its interaction with region-specific LH-RH antisera”—phrases that restrict the meaning of “identical” to very specific circumstances—is blatantly dishonest, then there’s really no more use talking with you about this.

[count-your-change]

I know what is in the articles, I found them for myself and I posted them,, in part that included “THE WHOLE QUOTE”, and I showed where others could read the complete work.

As I said before: That doesn’t cut it, either you can show the tests were inaccurate/erroneous or you can’t.
Either you can demonstrate your expertize (or even comprehension) in the matter or you can’t.
Since you cannot do either you have nothing to add here.

[count-your-change]

Yeee hawww! And I’ve quit beating my wife too!

[count-your-change]

The poor fellow seemed a bit fixated on kicking Pitman’s shins, which is not so smart when the kicker is shoeless.

[CottShop]

And he also wrote ““However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH.”

you are reading more into the WHOLE statement than it says- NOWHERE does pitman claim the article states the two are identical- he simply made the statement, then made ANOTHER statement (which you conveniently left out) which IS backed up by the article he linked to- that the two systems between differign species ARE different types of LHRH- As I said- either you folks are readign what you want to into pitman’s statements, or you’re beign intentionally deceitful. The evidence linked by pitman show that the data does NOT back up the hypothesis because the suppoedly linked species have different LRHR- you are combining two seperate STATEMENTS, and claimign he MUST have moronically meant the article makes hte claim that mammalian and reptile LHRH are the same when any dolt can see it most certainly does not- but what it DOES state is exactyl what pitman says, that supposedly linked species LRHR are NOT infact identical, and show a serious flaw in phylogenic hypothesis

The link to the article was at the end of the WHOLE of the two statements- and again, it’s so obvious what he was referrign to that only someone totally misreadign hte WJHOLE statement coudl come to hte conclusion you folks are comming to- pitm,an was NOT claiming hte article he linked to showed identical LHRH- he simpyl made that statement, then made the statement that EVIDENCE infact shows dissimilarity between supposedly similar species which blows a hole in the hypothesis of phylogeny

[[Talk about making stuff up!]]

We ARe talking abotu hwo is making what up, and it’s clear who is, and hwo has based their whole argument and attempted discreditting accusaiton on- IF you can hsow me where pitman states “In the article I’m abotu to refer to, you’ll see that it says the two species LHRH is identical’ then you’ve got yourself a leg to stand on- but it’s obvious pitman was NOT ifnact ifnerrign hte article made any such statement, but rather that it was showign the DIFFETRENCES between supposedly related species CONTRARY to the hypothesis that had stood for so long- it takes a SERIOUS MISREADING of pitman’s whole statement in order to come to the silly conclusion that pitman must have been so stupid as to claim soemthign that was obviously not said i nthe article

[CottShop]

[[The poor fellow seemed a bit fixated on kicking Pitman’s shins, which is not so smart when the kicker is shoeless. ]]

It seems that way- but blatant misrepresentation (hoping noone will notice, nor call them on it) is unfortunately al lthey have left

[CottShop]

[[Yeee hawww! And I’ve quit beating my wife too!]]

Just don’t push her too far, she might fall off the edge of hte earth

[count-your-change]

There’s three reasons why I quit beating my wife:

One...She’s very big and tough and

Two...I have to sleep sometime and fear a woman’s revenge and

Three....I DON’T HAVE A WIFE!

[CottShop]

Let’s not forget the REST of htwe quote eh? Pitman said ““However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH.” He then points to hte article showign this VERY FACT, reptiles, birds, and certain fish do indeed have different LHRH- Since reptiles, birds, and certain fish have diff LHRH just as p[itman showed- by linkign to hte article, are you goign to retract your accusation against him? The FACTS show that what pitman linked to supported his claim that reptiles, birds, and certain fish differ in LHRH- infact DOES support that claim- Cripes!

[CottShop]

[[Three....I DON’T HAVE A WIFE!]]

Me either- but I sure wish i did so a coulds beat her!

[count-your-change]

Retraction? Not when Dis traction is available.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Let’s not forget the REST of htwe quote eh? Pitman said ““However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH.”

So let me get this straight: your contention is that when Pitman wrote

There are many other interesting little problems concerning commonly used phylogenic tracing genes and proteins. For example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone" (LHRH) is identical. However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH. Are humans therefore more closely related to frogs than to birds? Not according to standard evolutionary phylogeny trees. Again, the data does not match the classical theory in this particular situation.[15]

he didn't mean the footnote to apply to the whole paragraph, or to the second sentence in the paragraph, but only to the third sentence in the paragraph? That seems ludicrous. Especially in light of the fact that the third sentence only talks about birds, reptiles, and fish. The only way his point in the final sentence ("the data does not match the classical theory")--the sentence to which the footnote is actually appended--makes sense is by comparison to the statement in the second sentence.

Or are we just supposed to take his word for the idea that mammalian and amphibian LHRH are identical? If the footnote doesn't apply to the whole paragraph, what is that assertion based on?

[CottShop]

[[he didn’t mean the footnote to apply to the whole paragraph, or to the second sentence in the paragraph, but only to the third sentence in the paragraph?]]

Absolutely- common sense dictates this, and notto just go and insinuate that he is so ignorant that he likens ‘similar’ to ‘identical’ when it is clear he makes a statement, then states somethign compeltely different, THEN directs the reader to the article that backs that second point up- there is no reasonable reason why the first statement is the one linked to in the article when the facts show that his third statement is the one being discussed i nthe article

The data in the thrid statement does infact show arem ore closely related to frogs than to birds IF we’re discussing the fact that homology automatically means common descent- which of course, as we’ve found out numerous itmes ghere on FR- homology in no way implies common descent, and infact argues against it because similar systems often ‘arise’ from wholly different processes which can’t be explained in terms of macroevolution

[[Or are we just supposed to take his word for the idea that mammalian and amphibian LHRH are identical?]]

Nope- count your change linked to several reports that do show that there are ifnact identical processes goign on- however, the fact is that these ‘identical’ processes don’t follow the phylogentic hypothesis as made very clear by pitman’s linked article showing hte differences are too great to simply discount between bird and mammal. The phylogenic tree falls apart at the roots I’m afraid.

[Wacka]

Sorry, but you and Pitman have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[CottShop]

[[Sorry, but you and Pitman have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.]]

Sorry- but you don’t belong in this conversation, and it’s obvious you can’t follow along- so run along now

[count-your-change]

Remember this comment?:

“The Crevo cited a 1980 paper! That’s almost 30 years ago. The methods compared to today’s methods are like smoke signals compared to computers.”

However:

““”radioimmunoassay
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright
radioimmunoassay (RIA), highly sensitive laboratory technique used to measure minute amounts of substances including antigens, hormones, and drugs present in the body. The substance or antigen (a foreign substance in the body that causes antibody production) to be measured is injected into an animal, causing it to produce antibodies. Serum containing the antibodies is withdrawn and treated with a radioactive antigen and later with a nonradioactive antigen. Measurements of the amount of radioactivity are then used to determine the amount of antigen present. The technique was developed by Solomon Berson and Rosalyn Yalow . Yalow was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her work.”

Did you notice: “.....radioimmunoassay (RIA), highly sensitive laboratory technique used to measure minute amounts of substances...........”

We know who it is that has no idea of what they're talking about and you keep confirming it.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Absolutely- common sense dictates this, and notto just go and insinuate that he is so ignorant that he likens ‘similar’ to ‘identical’ when it is clear he makes a statement, then states somethign compeltely different, THEN directs the reader to the article that backs that second point up- there is no reasonable reason why the first statement is the one linked to in the article when the facts show that his third statement is the one being discussed i nthe article

I'm sorry, but that's one of the most tortured defenses of an erroneous statement I've ever read. Like I said, it's ludicrous to parse it that way.

count your change linked to several reports that do show that there are ifnact identical processes goign on

Yes, and as I pointed out a couple of times already, "identical processes going on" =/= "identical."