Re: Spin - John Part 3.

On Sep 26, 1:00 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 25, 9:00 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You have the most unoriginal delusions of adequacy spintwitty.

Your 'more actual data' is more evidence that you don't know what you
are talking about - you have vomited up conserved gene sequences.  It
has been known for YEARS that the CNOT2 gene is highly conserved in
vertebrates, yet here you are, prancing about as if you have said
anything novel or important.

Err, Sorry, I didn't notice.

Probably because you've shoved your head three feet up your own arse
to evade being shown to be wrong once again.

Did I find a gem that probably took baffons like you many years to find.

Nope. The researchers knew they were looking at homologous genes,
SINCE THEY NAMED THE GENE THE SAME, TWIT !

Hence, CNOT2 is in many organisms - human, rat, mouse, canine, bovine,
chicken, Pongo, Pan, etc.

Danio (zebrafish) also has CNOT2, but it has a few differences.

Kool. Next time I may try.

Try what ? To NOT look like an idiot ? To actually KNOW what you are
talking about ?

One example of spintwittian arrogance :

On Sep 26, 6:05 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sequence #118083777 - hypothetical protein, Gallus gallus
Sequence #56968081 - 18S RIBOSOMAL RNA, turtle

As birds and reptiles are related, and all metazoan critters that make
proteins from mRNA have 18S ribosomes, you have once again found
highly conserved sequences.

spintwitty : "Go have a think about this squark, and come back to
apologise."

Apologize for what ? BEING RIGHT ? AGAIN ?

That Gallus HYPOTHETICAL protein only matches ribosomal RNA sequences
(the part that matches the turtle sequence) at the end; it matches
many, many, MANY bird 18S ribosomal RNA sequences just as well.

They entered chicken DNA into the database and used a gene finder
program (GNOMON) to look for genes (hence the term 'HYPOTHETICAL'
protein). I know from personal experience that GNOMON does make
mistakes sometimes - it fused the canine genomic sequence of LGALS4 to
LGALS7B to LGALS7, making LGALS4 look like a huge gene with 3 GLECT
domains, when in reality LGALS4 just has the standard 2 GLECTs.

How do I know that ? BECAUSE I ISOLATED AND SEQUENCED BOTH LGALS4 AND
LGALS7 from dog cDNA.

More of spintwitty proudly displaying his absolute stupidity :

Wow - you are STILL vomiting up highly conserved sequences

spintwitty : "Yes, I could do it until the chickens lay turtle eggs."

And you'd still be a blithering idiot, given the FACT that the
sequence is 18S ribosomal RNA.

And big numbers as if anyone were silly enough to think they'd match
purely by chance.

Sequence # 157074071 - Bos taurus CNOT2 gene
Sequence # 38649288 - mus musculus CNOT2 gene
As this protein is highly conserved in vertebrates, and both cows and
mice are vertebrates, finding a high match is not overly surprising.

spintwitty : "Finding a 100% match is. Not only that but finding
loads of them is even more of a suprise. "

Where did you find a 100% match ? You got blocks of 93% - 97%, but no
100%. Did you
do some selective 'editing' to boost the numbers ?

Sequence #118083777 - hypothetical protein, Gallus gallus
Sequence #56968081 - 18S RIBOSOMAL RNA, turtle

As birds and reptiles are related,

spintwitty : "Lool, not 100%. (How did I know you were gonna say
that) You are getting rusty."

Not rusty, just right again. That HYPOTHETICAL protein matches 18S
ribosomal RNA. GNOMON called it a protein when it probably isn't
(hence the term : 'HYPOTHETICAL' protein).

and all metazoan critters that make
proteins from mRNA have 18S ribosomes, you have once again found
highly conserved sequences.

spintwitty : "How many *should* I find, before you change your
objection? "

Phylogenies are based on SHARED DIFFERENCES, not brute similiarities,
twit.

Harshman stated with his example that bases THAT ARE THE SAME IN ALL
ANIMALS CONSIDERED ARE UNINFORMATIVE AS TO RELATIONSHIPS, and were
removed.

So, if 499 out of 500 bases match between a chicken gene and a turtle
gene, 499 of them are uninformative for determining relationships.

spintwitty : "Let me see, There was a few with the EST's"

Easily recognized as contamination, given that the genes are NOT found
in the genome they supposedly came from.

spintwitty : "then a few with the others then a few with the next
ones."

Your second vomiting was a 57 base sequence. IT WAS FROM A CLONING
VECTOR.

Your third vomiting was highly conserved sequence of CNOT2.

spintwitty postures some more : "Hmm, you should have an epiphany any
second by my reconing. "

Yes ! spintwitty is a gibbering, bellicose idiot with delusions of
adequacy !

spintwitty : "But then so will I, and we go round again."

Yes - you're epiphany will be : "SH*T !! My bluffing and posturing
isn't working ! Best become even more
pompous and arrogant !!!"


If you had bothered to do a BLAST search,

spintwitty admits he's and idiot : "You give me too much credit. I
know I'm good."

Good at what ? Misrepresenting things ? Misunderstanding things ?
Gibbering about things you don't understand ?

So how, EXACTLY, does any of this detritus you've yarked up so far
support your delusion that genes (and entire chromosomes) leap about
the animal kingdom willy-nilly, often enough to confound phylogenies
again ?

spintwitty : "Phylogenetics is confounded by DNA sequences anyway. It
needs no help
from me."

Nope - YOU are confounded by DNA sequences, then PRESUME that everyone
is as slack-witted as you.

The FACT that you can't understand any of the data does not in any way
suggest that other people are equally ignorant.

spintwitty looks in the mirror and screams : "Ping, time for his
meds."

More of spintwitty's vainglorious and empty posturing :

On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 25, 9:00 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And if you select a small enough chunk of a HIGHLY CONSERVED GENE to
check, of course you will find bits that show a 100% match.

spintwitty : "Highy conserved"? "Small enough"? Perhaps you could
set some boundaries here.

Or - perhaps you could learn some biology.

Naaaah - that would involve work and actually thinking.

spintwitty : "What do you think is :

"Highly conserved"? - high degree of similarity explainable by
positive selection (vital genes don't vary much, buffoon)

"Small enough"? - small enough to show a 100% match that really isn't
significant. If you have a 455/500 match, you can easily select a 400
base sequence that shows a 100% match.

"Distant enough"? - when did I use that term ?

Further your argument was this sequence is in anything from chickens
to monkeys.

Which I would say qualifies as an interchangeable part, and buggers
your tree up.

Only if one were STUPID enough to do a phylogeny off a SINGLE, HIGHLY
CONSERVED GENE.

spintwitty goes for the ricochet bluff : "Like John did? Are you
calling John 'STUPID' ?"

No, I am stating that YOU are stupid, you festering sack of manure.

One gene shared between many organisms, if PROPERLY ANALYZED, can
produce a phylogeny.

You, of course, have NOT done anything close to that.

As he stated, bases shared between all organisms under consideration
ARE NOT INFORMATIVE OF RELATIONSHIPS, AND ARE DISCARDED FROM ANALYSIS.

So a gene that is 100% similar between all organisms gives NO
information as to what is more closely related to what.

Inheritance from a common ancestor is a far better, more sane and
rational explanation than your silly 'teleporting chromosome'
delusion.

spintwitty ignores his responsibility to SUPPORT HIS ASSERTION with :
"Hmm."

In order to qualify as an 'interchangeable part', THERE MUST BE A
MECHANISM FOR THE GENE SEQUENCE TO MOVE FROM ONE ORGANISM TO ANOTHER.

spintwitty : "Would that be like a bacteria ?"

How many bacteria move DNA from one metazoan into another metazoan,
gongoozler ?

You have leaped from 'endoparasitic bacterial DNA has been found in
their HOST'S genomes' to 'chromosomes leap about the animal kingdom
willy-nilly, confounding all phylogenies !!1!1!111!!!'

Such a move would be easily detected, and accounted for when
generating phylogenies - the researchers could just use the other
THOUSANDS of genes that haven't been leaping about, or vast amounts of
other data.

You have not provided such a mechanism.

spintwitty deludes himself once more : "Ah, you were asleep again.
Please try to keep up."

I'm light years AHEAD OF YOU, buffoon. You have not demonstrated that
genes leap from flies to sea urchins or from dogs into chickens -
you've just found some similarities, then leaped to the silly
conclusion that you are right, and everyone else on the planet is
wrong.

Thus, you are still a blithering idiot ranting about things
you know nothing about.

spintwitty admits I'm right : "Loool"

If all cars use spark plugs, trying to generate a tree from spark
plugs would be stupid - which explains why you actually tried to do
it!

spintwitty displays ignorance again : "Ah, so because most organisms
have this sequence, we *cannot* make a
tree ?

Kool."

As John stated when he gave his example of a phylogeny : 'bases that
are the same in all organisms under consideration ARE NOT INFORMATIVE
AS TO RELATIONSHIPS, AND ARE REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION.'

It is not brute similarity that generates phylogenies - it is shared
differences.

Please go through your CNOT2 sequences and delete all the letters that
are the same in all organisms under consideration. The letters left
over MIGHT be useful for determining what is more closely related to
what using that particular gene.

THAT data might actually be useful - as John's example showed.

And there are thousands of other genes you could try ....

spintwitty clenches his mighty buttocks and farts : "Before you spuot
'WE CAN we use other data'
So did I, so *** you!"

And that 'other data' you used was just more of the same that shows
you are a blithering idiot ranting about things you do not understand.

.

Loading