Preadaptations

[alloytoo]

Natural selection does nothing.

Desist with this misleading statement.

This has explained to you ad nauseam.

Your persistant repetition indicates you are either an idiot, or a calculating liar.

You choose.

 

[alloytoo]

READ AGAIN! It plays a role in IFN-gamma mediated autophagy. Without it, autophagy induction through IFN-gamma is abrogated.

In mice.

FFS, now you are just quote mining! It is clearly not redundant or less crucial, as explained and evidenced by the association of disease caused by dysregulation of the gene.

Quotemining is abridging six pages with "...." and failing to either link or attribute the quote.

Quoting whole paragraphs in order and without abridgement (and with source link) may seem strange to you, but it's actually quite acceptable.

Still, Eichler and his colleagues cautioned, there is at least one alternative explanation for their data: it's possible that IRGM is actually non-functional in humans and great apes, just as it is monkeys. They argued that this explanation is unlikely, though, since a deletion upstream of IRGM has been linked to Crohn's disease.

In addition, Eichler said, some orangutans carry a copy of the dead gene while others carry a copy of the functional gene suggesting IRGM has "'one foot in the grave and one out"' in that species, which sits at the first branching point in the great ape lineage. Even so, while Eichler said he is about 90 percent convinced that their resurrected gene theory is correct, he'd like to see more experiments done to assess IRGM's function in humans.

If the resurrected gene notion is right, Eichler said, it raises a host of questions about IRGM. For instance, since IRGM appears to play a critical role in bacterial immunity in mice, it's unclear what led to this gene's obsolescence in the monkey-ape ancestor. And more research is needed to address whether the revitalized form of the gene has the same function as its predecessor or whether it now has additional roles.

For his part, Eichler believes the locus is probably still involved in immunity and possibly auto-immunity. He speculated that another immune mechanism may have evolved around the same time that IRGM became a pseudogene, making it redundant and less crucial.

Either way, Eichler said, it's clear that the genome is a dynamic and plastic place. His advice: don't count a gene out until it's completely gone.

ROFL, actually you were by misrepresenting them. Your summary was woefully inaccurate and misrepresented what they said (or did not). Glad you apologized for it .

You said Abby was wrong (She is flat out wrong.)

Were you lying, or were you wrong, or both?

(don't worry we already know you're dishonest"...")

 

[rwenzori]

FFS, now you are just quote mining!

You, of course, would NEVER do that!!! Mu ha ha ha mu ha ha ha!

She is flat out wrong.

They are not wrong,

Difficult stuff, this "right" and "wrong" stuff, in the TelePhronetic world. Sometimes we have things that are right, but, no, maybe they are actually wrong, no, can't be sure, yes, they are right. Sometimes we have things that are wrong, but, no, maybe they are actually right, no, can't be sure, yes, they are wrong. In fact, "right" and "wrong" are synonyms and can mean "right" or "wrong" - it just depends on how the debate is going!

Mu ha ha ha mu ha ha ha!

 

[alloytoo]

I'm quoting this message for future generations.

I'm deferring to ERV's Opinion:

ERV:
No yay! Cause IRGM isnt the same IRGM that we had 50 million years ago. Its now got an ERV LTR for a promoter, it sits in a different part of the genome, and its surrounding genome landscape has changed dramatically-- 33 retrotransposons (LINES/SINES/LTRs) have taken up residence upstream of IRGM!! Some people have a 20,000 base-pair deletion upstream from IRGM. This leads to expression of IRGM in wrong tissues at wrong levels, which could be a potential cause of Crohns disease

She is flat out wrong. IRGM is an important regulator of autophagy and disregulation of this gene is speculated to be associated with Crohn's disease. SNPs and deletions upstream of this gene (near the transcription site) are associated with Crohn's disease. Read for yourself.
McCarroll, S. A. et al. Deletion polymorphism upstream of IRGM associated with altered IRGM expression and Crohn's disease. Nature Genet. 40: 1107-1112, 2008.

Perhaps you didn't read their analysis?

Perhaps you are just unaware of the difference between the structure of a gene and the structure of the protein after processing. Perhaps you don't know the difference between an intron and an exon and alternative splicing. The structure of the gene changed, yes. Heck, the ERV9 insertion coincides with the transcription start signal. However after RNA splicing, the protein pretty much does what the IRGM protein does in mice. And dysfunctional IRGM genes (NOT PROTEINS) are associated with Crohn's disease. Got it?

But the copying mechanisms didn't keep the genes intact. Ed Yong again:

The part of the gene coding for the protein was kept in tact. The transcription site was the part that was affected .

It perfectly demonstrates why FLE is nonsense. A random event restoring a gene to functionality that may actually do more harm than good.

The gene works fine. Dysfunctional IRGM genes are associated with Crohn's disease. From a FLE perspective, it makes sense that old genes can become functional again (junk DNA is an argument from ignorance) due to the inherent optimal properties of the genetic code, the robustness of mutation induction and subsequent repair and viewing retroviral elements as vectors of optimization .

They will note the Phrony protestations about my "summary" being misleading are pretty hollow since phrony's "She is flat out wrong" was in response to a direct (and attributed) ERV quotation. (Emphasis is mine), and my summary (accurate or not) was at the very end of my post.

Note how phrony tactics evolve.

1. Phrony introduces new item for discussion, with hidden creationist agenda.

2. Prhony's response to follow up questions clearly demonstate that prhony hasn't actually comprehended the articles.

3. Prhony attempts to overwhelm the users of an IT forum with technical jargon related to genetics.

4. Subsequent material (sans technical jargon) adequately answers the questions posed.

5. Prhony denies, reintroduces technical Jargon, and Strawman/Red Herrings (JunkDNA)

6. Prhony is proven wrong (not once, but repeatedly)

7. Prhony denies, and attempts to shift blame on my summary which appeared after the quotation which he so vehemently denied (and was proven wrong), also maintains strawman, and further technical jargon.

8. It's pointed out that Technical Jargon appears to be inapplicable to humans (supported by linked quotations).

9 Phrony denies and accuses me of quotemining.

Anybody care to add or amend my analysis? (Not you Prhony)

 

[alloytoo]

You, of course, would NEVER do that!!! Mu ha ha ha mu ha ha ha!




Difficult stuff, this "right" and "wrong" stuff, in the TelePhronetic world. Sometimes we have things that are right, but, no, maybe they are actually wrong, no, can't be sure, yes, they are right. Sometimes we have things that are wrong, but, no, maybe they are actually right, no, can't be sure, yes, they are wrong. In fact, "right" and "wrong" are synonyms and can mean "right" or "wrong" - it just depends on how the debate is going!

Mu ha ha ha mu ha ha ha!

Quantum Wrongness?

 

[rwenzori]

Note how phrony tactics evolve.

1. Phrony introduces new item for discussion, with hidden creationist agenda.

2. Prhony's response to follow up questions clearly demonstate that prhony hasn't actually comprehended the articles.

3. Prhony attempts to overwhelm the users of an IT forum with technical jargon related to genetics.

4. Subsequent material (sans technical jargon) adequately answers the questions posed.

5. Prhony denies, reintroduces technical Jargon, and Strawman/Red Herrings (JunkDNA)

6. Prhony is proven wrong (not once, but repeatedly)

7. Prhony denies, and attempts to shift blame on my summary which appeared after the quotation which he so vehemently denied (and was proven wrong), also maintains strawman, and further technical jargon.

8. It's pointed out that Technical Jargon appears to be inapplicable to humans (supported by linked quotations).

9 Phrony denies and accuses me of quotemining.

Anybody care to add or amend my analysis? (Not you Prhony)

You've left out the usual petulance, insults and ad hominems, and the repetition of the same posted quotes over and over and over.... ad nauseam. But otherwise - pretty well spot on.

 

[rwenzori]

Quantum Wrongness?

Brilliantly put! Quantum indeterminacy - it can be right or wrong depending on your measurement LOL!


Or was it Brownian motion....????

 

[alloytoo]

You've left out the usual petulance, insults and ad hominems, and the repetition of the same posted quotes over and over and over.... ad nauseam. But otherwise - pretty well spot on.

Didn't want to appear petty, despite the my irritation.

 

[alloytoo]

Brilliantly put! Quantum indeterminacy - it can be right or wrong depending on your measurement LOL!


Or was it Brownian motion....????

Of mice and men?

 

[Phronesis]

In mice.

Can you read? In HUMAS TOO!!

You said Abby was wrong (She is flat out wrong.)

Well, after reading your OBVIUOS misrepresentation, she would have been wrong. After re-reading what she actually said, I was wrong in saying she is wrong. You however still misrepresented what she said, and it probably because she did not give all the necessary information for you not to misrepresent her. Mamma ERV is not going to be happy with you. Next time rather ask mamma ERV to explain these type of things to you .

Were you lying, or were you wrong, or both?

I was wrong in saying she was wrong. However she did not give all the information which lead to you misrepresenting her. At least you apologized for this.

 

[Phronesis]

1. Phrony introduces new item for discussion, with hidden creationist agenda.

Right.... so discussing evolution and genetics is a creationist agenda? O righty then...

2. Prhony's response to follow up questions clearly demonstate that prhony hasn't actually comprehended the articles.

ROFL, you still don't how IRGM works in humans? I think you should rather not say "other" people don't understand articles. Standard trash talk of course.

3. Prhony attempts to overwhelm the users of an IT forum with technical jargon related to genetics.

you seem to be the only person that is overwhelmed by simple genetics.

4. Subsequent material (sans technical jargon) adequately answers the questions posed.

Ruueally. If you don't even understand the "technical jargon", how would you know?

5. Prhony denies, reintroduces technical Jargon, and Strawman/Red Herrings (JunkDNA)

Ugh . Standard trash-talk.

6. Prhony is proven wrong (not once, but repeatedly)

Wrong in saying ERV is wrong. Right about the function of IRGM in HUMANS. Right that ERV did not present the necessary facts for you not to misrepresent her.

7. Prhony denies, and attempts to shift blame on my summary which appeared after the quotation which he so vehemently denied (and was proven wrong), also maintains strawman, and further technical jargon.

8. It's pointed out that Technical Jargon appears to be inapplicable to humans (supported by linked quotations).

ROFL, and still you don't get how IRGM applies to HUMANS.

Got any more article written by others you wish to misrepresent? i was wrong in saying mamma ERV is wrong (my apologies), right in saying you misrepresented her, and you did the right thing.
Could you send the message to mamma ERV to give a little more information next time so you don't misrpresent her?

 

[alloytoo]

Can you read? In HUMAS TOO!!

Maybe in Humas, what ever they are:

For instance, since IRGM appears to play a critical role in bacterial immunity in mice, it's unclear what led to this gene's obsolescence in the monkey-ape ancestor. And more research is needed to address whether the revitalized form of the gene has the same function as its predecessor or whether it now has additional roles.

You do really need to get that comprehension problem addressed.

Well, after reading your OBVIUOS misrepresentation, she would have been wrong. After re-reading what she actually said, I was wrong in saying she is wrong. You however still misrepresented what she said, and it probably because she did not give all the necessary information for you not to misrepresent her. Mamma ERV is not going to be happy with you. Next time rather ask mamma ERV to explain these type of things to you .

Oh OK my bad, you clearly read from the bottom to the top of posts.

You responded to my quote from Abby. (it's very plain to see) and it's painfully obvious that you did so before actually reading it. (Or Ed Wong for that matter)

My little summary is hardly relevant in this instance. You can carry on squirming, but it will only make you look like more of an idiot.

I was wrong in saying she was wrong. However she did not give all the information which lead to you misrepresenting her. At least you apologized for this.

Now you're just pathetic.

 

[alloytoo]

ROFL, you still don't how IRGM works in humans? I think you should rather not say "other" people don't understand articles. Standard trash talk of course.

Dr. Evan Eichler says that more research is needed to determine exactly what it does (if anything). If he's a trifle uncertain, I have to confess so am I.

Got any more article written by others you wish to misrepresent? i was wrong in saying mamma ERV is wrong (my apologies), right in saying you misrepresented her, and you did the right thing.
Could you send the message to mamma ERV to give a little more information next time so you don't misrpresent her?

The very reason I quoted the entire post you made was precisely to answer this sort of misrepresentation.

Your reply to the quote of her I posted was "She is Flat Out Wrong".

You weren't replying to my summary, you wrote something else there.

When I addresses the contents of the quote, disproving your baseless assertion then all of a sudden my tailend summary is responsible for your idiocy.

Your duplicity is disgusting.

 

[alloytoo]

If anything? Uncertain?
Let's go over this SLOOOWLY for you so that you can actually UNDERSTAND what it does.

Your assertion that this abreviated hybrid gene is "crucial" for the human immune system.

...re-activation of an old gene that plays a crucial role in immunity...

Singh et al said in 2006:

"Immunity-related p47 guanosine triphosphatases (IRG) play a role in defense against intracellular pathogens. We found that the murine Irgm1 (LRG-47) guanosine triphosphatase induced autophagy and generated large autolysosomal organelles as a mechanism for the elimination of intracellular Mycobacterium tuberculosis. We also identified a function for a human IRG protein in the control of intracellular pathogens and report that the human Irgm1 ortholog, IRGM, plays a role in autophagy and in the reduction of intracellular bacillary load."

"Plays a roll" <> "Crucial"

The more recent study refers to the Singh paper:

"There are two possible interpretations of our results. First, the IRGM gene is not functional in humans having lost its role in intracellular parasite resistance ~40 million years ago when the gene family experienced a contraction from a set of three tandem genes to a sole, unique member whose ORF was disrupted by an AluSc repeat in the anthropoid primate ancestor. In light of the detailed functional studies [11]* and the recent associations of this gene with Crohn's disease [6],[7], we feel that this interpretation is unlikely.

*Singh SB, Davis AS, Taylor GA, Deretic V (2006) Human IRGM induces autophagy to eliminate intracellular mycobacteria. Science 313: 1438–1441.



Note they don't say the detailed functional studies found Crucial function. But then Singh et al didn't actually make the claim.

Now you're sighting Singh et al in support of your claim and reverting to tactic #3

Prhony attempts to overwhelm the users of an IT forum with technical jargon related to genetics.

You're digging a larger and larger slimy stinky hole for yourself.

 

[rwenzori]

Looks like Mr. Censor is getting hyperactive here on this thread.

The screeds of jargon are thrilling I am sure, but just tell me this - did Jesus stuff it up via a retrovirus on purpose, and then resurrect it, Lazarus-wise, in a different position and somewhat chopped, on purpose, or is all this just the usual randomness of natural biology?

Can we debate the principles, and not quibble about the detail please.

 

[cyghost]

There is no empirical evidence for a creator or any God in any science we have covered so far in our short existence as a species. (an anomalous species?)

I find phrony's use of others' good science for these nefarious purposes distasteful, dishonest and certainly not worthy of a science section.

I formally protest this thread and the Bio Molecular Machine thread as not worthy of a science sub forum.

One should practice and approach science as unbiased as is umanly possible. Phrony, with a reputable love for science, shames his chosen profession if such is really the nature of his studies / work. I have my doubts.

 

[Phronesis]

There is no empirical evidence for a creator or any God in any science we have covered so far in our short existence as a species. (an anomalous species?)

Yay, another philosophical argument from ignorance in the science section. That all you have?

I formally protest this thread and the Bio Molecular Machine thread as not worthy of a science sub forum.

Another one of those who do not like biomolecular machines . Hilarious that the protestations come from a certain demographic. You guys seem to hate to learn about biomolecular machines and how they control just about every aspect of your being.
Talk about cognitive dissonance ROFL .

 

[Phronesis]

Your assertion that this abreviated hybrid gene is "crucial" for the human immune system.



Singh et al said in 2006:


"Plays a roll" <> "Crucial"

The more recent study refers to the Singh paper:

[/i]

*Singh SB, Davis AS, Taylor GA, Deretic V (2006) Human IRGM induces autophagy to eliminate intracellular mycobacteria. Science 313: 1438–1441.



Note they don't say the detailed functional studies found Crucial function. But then Singh et al didn't actually make the claim.

You have the function, you have read about, you know what it does, you know that dysregulation of the gene is associated with Crohn's disease, and you want to argue it is not crucial? Why don't you go to a lab and ask them to silence or delete the gene so that you can understand how crucial the gene is in immune-related autophagic processes .
Got any other bright arguments bright-spark?

 

[alloytoo]

Looks like Mr. Censor is getting hyperactive here on this thread.

The screeds of jargon are thrilling I am sure, but just tell me this - did Jesus stuff it up via a retrovirus on purpose, and then resurrect it, Lazarus-wise, in a different position and somewhat chopped, on purpose, or is all this just the usual randomness of natural biology?

Can we debate the principles, and not quibble about the detail please.

In principle for a Front loading entity to use an ERV insertion event to resurrect a dead gene like this is so astronomically far fetched, I'd rather believe it was done directly by the noodle of FSM.

 

[cyghost]

yay, another philosophical argument from ignorance in the science section. That all you have?

Please elaborate on this. I think you have problems with the formal fallacy we call argument from ignorance.

Please show how the quoted part is an argument from ignorance

As I see it, you will now have to provide evidence that science have encountered empirical evidence for God. If you can not, I have not argued from ignorance and clearly I am right in my assessment that you do not understand this fallacy and thus should refrain from trying to argue it until such time you actually do understand it. I'll be happy to provide you with links but am sure that a google search will stand you well.

Another one of those who do not like biomolecular machines . Hilarious that the protestations come from a certain demographic. You guys seem to hate to learn about biomolecular machines and how they control just about every aspect of your being.
Talk about cognitive dissonance ROFL .

I have no problem with bio molecular machines. I have a problem with your using of the terms and your sly and sickening way of promoting your beliefs.

That is all.