Now where was I...
OK - done.
The Case for Junk DNA
PLoS Genet. 2014 May; 10(5): e1004351.
Published online 2014 May 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351
The Case for Junk DNA
"...there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers and science writers to proclaim the demise of junk DNA on a regular basis without properly addressing some of the fundamental issues that first led to the rise of the concept."
"By far the dominant type of nongenic DNA are transposable elements (TEs), including various well-described retroelements such as Short and Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (SINEs and LINEs), endogenous retroviruses, and cut-and-paste DNA transposons. Because of their capacity to increase in copy number, transposable elements have long been described as “parasitic” or “selfish” [22], [23]. However, the vast majority of these elements are inactive in humans, due to a very large fraction being highly degraded by mutation. Due to this degeneracy, estimates of the proportion of the human genome occupied by TEs has varied widely, between one-half and two-thirds."
"Another large fraction of the genome consists of highly repetitive DNA. These regions are extremely variable even amongst individuals of the same population (hence their use as “DNA fingerprints”) and can expand or contract through processes such as unequal crossing over or replication slippage. Many repeats are thought to be derived from truncated TEs, but others consist of tandem arrays of di- and trinucleotides [30]. As with TEs, some highly repetitive sequences play a role in gene regulation (for example, [31]). Others, such as telomeric- and centromeric-associated repeats [32], [33], play critical roles in chromosomal maintenance. Despite this, there is currently no evidence that the majority of highly repetitive elements are functional."
And so on.
We can identify pseudogenes and mutated TEs because enough of their sequence remains intact to see sequence identity with more intact versions.
Thus, it should be a piece of cake for you to find many examples of original Wolf-kind alleles that have been degraded via mutation (which you claim does not exist... or something) in dog genomes.
Can't wait!
Maybe you can ask Jeff Tomkins to look into it - maybe he can take a break from nitpicking real science (and getting exposed as being deceptive) and actually try to find support for YECism.
See above.
Waiting for your supporting evidence that counters what we know.
I am aware that this is what ancient superstitious numerologists wrote, yes.
How do we "understand" that given what the bible actually says?
I already debunked this ignorance - more than once - but I thought I would pull up some refutations from the previous times he's made these silly claims - I should also point out that others have also explained his errors to him.
Please understand that the above quote is what justa interprets to mean that the Grants declared that hybridization CREATES new alleles, as opposed to what anyone that understands basic genetics will see - that hybridization merely INTRODUCES new alleles into a different population. Hybridization does NOT 'create' new alleles. Why creationists cannot understand this is a most interesting phenomenon.
I should also point out that when I had debunked this claim before, I also pointed out that the paper he chose to cite to prop up his unfounded claims also contained a devastating rebuke for his claim that all extant diversity arises from hybriodization:
" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of
G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to
G. fortis.
The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."
Sort of blows the whole Asians arose via hybridization (between which populations? He never says) thing out of the water - hybridization, according to justa's own citation, DECREASES variation, it does not create it.
Love that unwitting projection.
Hilarious, for many reasons.
Thank you so much for the lesson in genetics! But, please tell me what does "DIVERGED" mean in your quote?
Are you claiming that DIVERGENCE is produced by hybridization?
If so, who hybridized with who to get the 'modern gray wolf' FROM the extinct european wolf?
You don't understand the material well enough to see how you keep contradicting yourself, that is true.
The mixing of alleles sure is important - but you continue to simply ignore a simple fact - those alleles don't just pop out of nowhere, and they are NOT produced via hybridization (though I do detect the groundwork for a "I knew it all along" escape/defense at some point - pity that your old posts will be there to embarrass you for some time).
Wow... OK...
Interbreeding gave us Asians and Africans.
But in the post I am responding to (and all of your previous posts on this subject), all you can seem to 'document' is a homogenization of forms via hybridization (from the Grant paper). Your ignorance of genetics and populations and such informed you that because they found hybridization was more important locally in the short term that new alleles produced via mutation were, that ALL variation must be produced that way - but once you got your money quote, you stopped reading (or couldn't understand any other parts), like where they explained that the hybrids exhibited LESS diversity.
So, in the Grant paper, what you fail to grasp, is that the individual species that interbred had to come from somewhere - they came from a long-term acquisition of NEW alleles, and the more recent rounds of hybridization were due to rapid changes in habitat.
Another quote from the paper that I pointed out to you before that fell on deaf ears:
“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”
Do you know what a continuous trait is?
A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.
Enough of the Grant misinterpretations - this page from another thread:
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
contains some of my previous rebuttals to justa's silly misinterpretations and such, no need to reinvent the wheel.
Ok, wow... UM...
A phylogenetic analysis does NOT seek to find the mutated alleles of the original kind...
My gosh...
I mean, did you even look at the picture on that webpage? No wolves were even in the analysis!
Did you bother to click the link to see the actual scientific paper? Of course not! More in a moment...
LOL!!
Um.. No - 1. that cladogram only referred to modern domestic dog breeds, not ALL canids.
2. The root of the tree is unlabeled, so you cannot even claim that it 'goes back to 2'.
Also - I do enjoy demonstrating that you do not even read, much less understand, the things you reference.
If you had actually read the paper, you would have seen:
"Our analyses were designed to detect recent admixture; therefore, we were able to identify hybridization events that are described in written breed histories and stud-book records. Using the most reliably dated crosses that produced modern breeds, we established a linear relationship between the total length of haplotype sharing and the age of an admixture event,
occurring between 35 and 160 years before present (ybp) "
So unless you think all dogs 'hybridized' away from a single species (impossible!) of wolf in 160 years... Well, never mind. Suffice it to say this is a huge fail on your part.
But I digress.
Ok - I need to copy paste this line from justa here again:
"By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that."
Keep that in mind for a second - he says it traces back to just 2 -
So is it "just two" or "a group"?
And 40,000 years ago? Oh, right - this is where you accept the part that you misinterpret to support your claim but reject the parts that don't.
Great.
And?
From the
actual research paper that press release was based on:
"By calibrating the mutation rate using our oldest dog, we narrow the timing of dog domestication to 20,000–40,000 years ago. "
Mutation rate? What?
UH-OH:
"Furthermore, we detect an additional ancestry component in the End Neolithic sample,
consistent with admixture from a population of dogs located further east that may have migrated concomitant with steppe people associated with Late Neolithic and Early Bronze age cultures, such as the Yamnaya and Corded Ware culture."
So much for that "single wolf kind" magically diversifying via hybridization with... itself.. to magically create diversity by somehow mixing up its already present alleles...
Unless you want to posit at least 2 creation events of the original dog-kind?
And it gets worse for you, pally:
"Our results are consistent with continuity of a European-like genetic ancestry from modern dogs through the entire Neolithic period. However, the slightly displaced position of the ancient samples from the European cluster in the PCAs (particularly for CTC) suggests a complex history. We therefore performed unsupervised clustering analyses with ADMIXTURE (SNP array data; Supplementary Fig. 15) and NGSadmix (whole-genome data; Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 16) (Supplementary Note 9) and found that, unlike contemporary European village dogs, all three ancient genomes possess a significant ancestry component that is present in modern Southeast Asian dogs. This component appears only at very low levels in a minority of modern European village dogs. Furthermore, CTC harbours an additional component that is found predominantly in modern Indian village as well as in Central Asian (Afghan, Mongolian and Nepalese), and Middle Eastern (Saudi Arabian and Qatari) dogs (concordant with its position in the PCA), as well as some wolf admixture."
So, sure, MODERN European dog breeds can be traced back to a GROUP of dogs, but ALL MODERN dogs show a MIXTURE of genetic inputs from multiple earlier dog populations.
Looks like it is back to the drawing board for your "hybridization all the way down" farce.
I also suggest you stop relying on press releases, and even more strongly suggest you stop pretending to make scientific arguments until after you take a few years-worth of college classes on the relevant science.
MASSIVE FAIL.
Pity that your 'references' completely contradict your layman's conclusion.
The saddest part is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is so powerful in you that you will actually think you somehow proved your point and DIDN'T, yet again, make a fool of yourself.
