Atheistoclast wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:I strongly recommend that everyone read this paper on the fate of duplicate genes:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1929130/

Gene duplicates, as well as serving as backups, also are retained due to stoichiometric reasons.

And this disprove macro-evolution how?
It doesn't.....

Tolman is right to point out that the paper focuses on whole genome duplication. However, evolutionists have long held the belief that chromosomal or genome duplications are essential for macroevolutionary changes such as the emergence of the vertebrate skeleton. But, as we know from polyploidy in plants, duplicating a genome does not have any major phenotypic effect.

If at any point in the future you are willing to address the current theory of evolution, as proposed by evolutionary biologists, and then explain exactly how you have disproved it, I would be inclined to listen.
Until then your continued diatribe of name-calling and references to irrelevant and/or disregarded theories, is merely fit for amusement.

Atheistoclast wrote:Doesn't matter. I actually mentioned dosage compensation in my paper and stoichiometry. Duplicates can be retained for a number of reasons. But dosage factors do not lead to any functional divergence which is the focus of my research.

Dosage factors would seem to be something driving duplicates away from each other in non-whole-genome-copying situations, acting against the redundancy you want to pretend acts to stop change.

In reality, once a 'clean' copy ceases to have the original function, it ceases to be under the influence of conservation-via-redundancy, so redundancy-linked limits would be irrelevant.

And given that some copies resulting from small duplication events wont be clean ones, they could very easily start off without any braking effects from redundancy.

tolman wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Doesn't matter. I actually mentioned dosage compensation in my paper and stoichiometry. Duplicates can be retained for a number of reasons. But dosage factors do not lead to any functional divergence which is the focus of my research.

Dosage factors would seem to be something driving duplicates away from each other in non-whole-genome-copying situations, acting against the redundancy you want to pretend acts to stop change.

Having a double dose of something often maintains a chemical balance. The duplicate is not redundant but it is still functionally conserved.

In reality, once a 'clean' copy ceases to have the original function, it ceases to be under the influence of conservation-via-redundancy, so redundancy-linked limits would be irrelevant.

Duplicates retained for reasons due to dosage compensation remain "clean".

And given that some copies resulting from small duplication events wont be clean ones, they could very easily start off without any braking effects from redundancy.

Many duplicates are actually "born dead". These are produced by reverse transcription which separates them from their introns and proomoters.

Atheistoclast wrote:However, evolutionists have long held the belief that chromosomal or genome duplications are essential for macroevolutionary changes such as the emergence of the vertebrate skeleton. But, as we know from polyploidy in plants, duplicating a genome does not have any major phenotypic effect.

There's a huge difference between saying 'does not necessarily have any major phenotypic effect' and 'can't possibly result in any major phenotypic effect, whatever happens'.

The impression you seem to be giving is of someone starting with the former while wanting to conclude the latter.

Atheistoclast wrote:Having a double dose of something often maintains a chemical balance. The duplicate is not redundant but it is still functionally conserved.

'Often' does not mean 'always'.

For you to justify your religiously-based prejudices regarding biology, 'sometimes' or 'often' simply isn't enough, especially when dealing with an area where it is perfectly well known by pretty much everyone, as it has been for generations, that events which lead to selective advantage are very much in a minority compared to ones which don't, with natural selection acting as a sieve tending to keep/reward advantageous changes and discard/penalise deleterious ones.

You're apparently trying to prove always/never based on often/rarely, which is a scientifically and intellectually bogus endeavour.

Atheistoclast wrote:Duplicates retained for reasons due to dosage compensation remain "clean".

And clean single-gene duplicates where there is pressure to maintain stochiometry can be in a situation where change is meaningfully rewarded.

Atheistoclast wrote:Many duplicates are actually "born dead". These are produced by reverse transcription which separates them from their introns and proomoters.

Which isn't relevant to the issue of whether copying events can produce functioning-but-different genes, which it seems they can.
Again, you seem to be focussing on the existence of events which don't produce things you don't want in order to shore up a belief that things you don't want never happen.

Like with your model - if you were really trying to prove the conclusion you evidently want to believe, you'd try and falsify your ideas by running models based on what you think are the least-favourable practically possible starting conditions, and see if the results failed to show you were wrong.

Oh well, here's a professor of mathematics and an expert in information theory telling us that Clastie's information crap is just that, crap:
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2012/02/yet-another-creationist-misunderstands.html

Jeffrey Shallit wrote:Sunday, February 26, 2012
Yet Another Creationist Misunderstands Information Theory
It's always funny to see a creationist try to use information theory, because they almost always get it wrong. Here we have Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr, who posts under the name "Atheistoclast", demonstrating his ignorance:

"Matzke misunderstands what is meant by "new information".

He apparently thinks that new genes, produced by duplication, represent novel information. But if you copy one gene 1000 times over, the information content remains the same even though you have created many more genes.


Poor Bozorgmehr needs to sit in on my course CS 462 at the University of Waterloo, where we will shortly discuss this very issue. Then he can prove the following theorem:

Theorem: If K denotes Kolmogorov information, then K(xn) - K(x) is unbounded as n tends to infinity.

This would be regarded as a relatively simple exercise in my course.
Posted by Jeffrey Shallit at 5:27 PM

Rumraket wrote:Oh well, here's a professor of mathematics and an expert in information theory telling us that Clastie's information crap is just that, crap:
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2012/02/yet-another-creationist-misunderstands.html

Jeffrey Shallit wrote:Sunday, February 26, 2012
Yet Another Creationist Misunderstands Information Theory
It's always funny to see a creationist try to use information theory, because they almost always get it wrong. Here we have Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr

Whatever anyone else says about the Clast, you have to admit that's a radical name.

I'm envious, and I picked my name myself.

quixotecoyote wrote:Whatever anyone else says about the Clast, you have to admit that's a radical name.

I'm envious, and I picked my name myself.

How do you know he didn't?

For all I know, it was invented as a fictional character as part of a grand trolling plan.

I'm beginning to suspect the same, what with him posting scalding criticisms of his work on a semi-regular basis. Almost as if he's doing the Aristotle, "Evidence/CounterEvidence" method, only presenting the side he ends up being against.