dano,
anyman wrote:
"lots of folks like to talk about the molecular data but it too is based on a huge and numerous (not to mention faulty) assumptions"
you said:
Faulty assumption? Really? Name them! And provide a reference to an objective source supporting your nonsense that the assumptions are faulty.
sigh...again?
MORE THAN HALF of all published studies...
More than half of all published studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences contain mistakes, according to a geneticist at the University of Cambridge.
To the occasional chagrin of his peers, Peter Forster has repeatedly pointed out errors in published mtDNA sequences, the genetic material from cells' mitochondria, which are inherited from the mother. But his commentary in the latest issue of Annals of Human Genetics1 argues that the problem is far bigger than researchers had imagined.
The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions in studies of human populations and evolution, says Forster. They may also confuse forensic analyses that rely on the published sequences, he adds.
"I was surprised by the number of errors," says Eric Shoubridge, a geneticist at McGill University's Montreal Neurological Institute in Canada, who investigates human diseases that result from problems with mtDNA. "What concerns me most is that these errors could be compounded in the databases."
Published mtDNA sequences are popular tools for investigating the evolution and demography of human populations. ...
...
... His colleagues' responses when he informs them of errors are varied. "Antagonism would be an understatement in some cases," he says. ...
...
Forster notes that nuclear DNA [nDNA, as opposed to mtDNA] sequences in public databases are also plagued by errors, and that this may be an even bigger problem, as such mistakes are more difficult to detect. (bold emps and bracket insertion mine ? am)
okay, let's see...
More than half of all published studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences contain mistakes, according to a geneticist at the University of Cambridge.
whoa...how's that for scientific accuracy
hoooouuie...how's that for assumptions gone wild
and all you wanted was one, eh :-)
To the occasional chagrin of his peers, Peter Forster has repeatedly pointed out errors in published mtDNA sequences, the genetic material from cells' mitochondria, which are inherited from the mother. But his commentary in the latest issue of Annals of Human Genetics1 argues that the problem is far bigger than researchers had imagined.
"occassional chagrin" = dramatically mild understatement
he has "repeatedly pointed out errors" but they still keep on citing the same data to support the conclusions in their published work
(mtDNA is now known to not even be exclusively acquired matrilineally but can at times be acquired patrilineally...throwing the data off by an even greater factor than the already acknowledged radical margin of error in the article...but we'll save that for another time :-)
and he writes elsewhere (
annals of human genentics) that the prob is WAY BIGGER than anybody imagined...even after his repeated notifications
this more than satisfies your skeptical request criterion, blows it away, in fact...but we are not done yet...
The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions in studies of human populations and evolution, says Forster. They may also confuse forensic analyses that rely on the published sequences, he adds.
part a here is radically understated...it's leading to massive error, period
part b translated to common language says:forensic analyses are case by case observable data...but they are ignoring that data and opting for the easy way by simply applying the paradigms accepted rates/sequences that are already **known and calculated** (NOT) rather than report the real observable individual data
then since the data in the reports and papers conform to the **known and calculated paradigmatic rates/sequences** they are sure to pass muster in the almighty
peer-review process...and then the results are published...further confirming and adding to the
**mountains of evidence** that so many love to site in support of their evolutionary paradigm
pretty tidy, eh :-)
yeah...that's the way, uh huh uh huh, we likes it...
get it? got it!
oh...he said
confusing the results, NOT confirming the mountains of evidence
well, no matter, just ignore all that, sweep it under the rug, because we already know what the rates/sequences are/should be...and let's get back about the business of publishing more papers to confirm the paradigm and build our mountains of evidence rather than waste time on the confusion and conflict...don't worry, those are just anomolous data...go to the established table/database and use that; it gives the big picture and everything is already nicely worked out
"I was surprised by the number of errors," says Eric Shoubridge, a geneticist at McGill University's Montreal Neurological Institute in Canada, who investigates human diseases that result from problems with mtDNA. "What concerns me most is that these errors could be compounded in the databases."
he was *surprised*...hmm, this is one of the most common words used in association with new discoveries, realizations by those in the evolutionary camp...
why...because reality doesn't fit with their philosophical evolutionary predictions/assumptions/expectations...that's why
he's concerned that this massive number of errors "could be" compounded in the databases...they use waffle language throughout to try and dilute the devastating but necessary inferences...but the massive errors are indubitably in the databases and they are without doubt
compounded Published mtDNA sequences are popular tools for investigating the evolution and demography of human populations. ...
these data are commonly, virtually exclusively used in ?evolutionary? biology and ?evolutionary developmental" (evo-devo) biology...not to mention the negative affect on REAL biology :-)
stop it, you're killing me...no there's more
... His colleagues' responses when he informs them of errors are varied. "Antagonism would be an understatement in some cases," he says. ...
yeah...don't confuse me with the facts, don't bother me with trifles; the study is done, the paper is already written (not going to go to the trouble of rewriting, especially since if it doesn't conform to known data, it might get bounced in peer-review), the paper's already been published (what, you think i'm going to just withdraw it/them; don't you know that academia and the science communities are *publish or perish* societies...)
yeah...antagonism is generally an understatement
Forster notes that nuclear DNA [nDNA, as opposed to mtDNA] sequences in public databases are also plagued by errors, and that this may be an even bigger problem, as such mistakes are more difficult to detect. (bold emps and bracket insertion mine ? am)
not only is the mtDNA data bogus but so is the nDNA...and it's not just a little mistake, it's a big mess, "plagued by errors"
more difficult to detect, bigger problem
the problem is exponentially worse than the already radical acknowledgement...errors compounded on top of compounded errors on top of buku/beaucoup bad assumptions
MORE THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED STUDIES...
c'mon guys, this is not just a little mistake or even several mistakes...this is egregious error, willful ignorance exponentially compounded based on wrong assumptions and leading to woefully bogus conclusions
there's more but that'll do for now...that'll do
ps -- got other interesting references, at least one of which i'll post in the next frame...and it too is a doozy :-)
