It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So feel free to shred, tear, rip up at it gents.

Gents? Why do you assume only gents discuss with you?


citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...


Please indicate where ID is mentioned in this article when it's all about adaptive evolution?


www.sciencedirect.com...


I need the whole article to analyze properly.


www.discovery.org...


The Discovery Institute claims to have peer reviewed articles when in reality they have none (I can post evidence if you wish). The article by Meyer was indeed published with the Biological Society of Washington but without proper review. When the review was done the publisher withdrew the article due to not being peer reviewed.


journals.plos.org...


The authors of the article have said it was a mistranslation issue, from Chinese to English. Here's what they said:


We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding. We have spent seven months doing the experiments, analysis, and write up. I hope this paper will not be discriminated only because of this misunderstanding of the word. Please could you read the paper before making a decision.
LINK


I'm sorry but I don't see any proof of intelligent design in the articles you have posted.




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.





Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth


Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.





www.scimagojr.com...



Please phantom don't site these crackpot fundamental religious lunatic journals at me

Sick of your preaching.


If they were science they would have evidence, they wouldn't have to dump truckloads of stuff to pass off as evidence

That there is your argument and the way scientists present it to the world.
"Her is all this stuff that we believe, now I have shown you the amount of stuff we have, believe it"

No real explanation, no real detail, just a simple and silly, I believe so should you.

Science run by dictators

That's not evidence, that's a link

Pure religios fundamentalism, thanks phantom, but no thanks


You're a joke. Of course the biological sciences aren't correct - that's why you go to the doctor when you're sick, right?

Your responses always provide validation for what the rest of us know - evolution is a fact.

You're wrong and we're right. Simple as that. Get over it.

"Don't confuse me with the facts!" Raggedyman, 675888 B.C.





Nice straw man
I am not arguing that biological science is false

Just biological science related to proving evolution.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Someone has to keep your vitriol in check. Freedom of speech applies to everyone and some of us have enough time to dilute your misinformation with actual facts, step for step.



originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.





Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth


Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.





www.scimagojr.com...



Please phantom don't site these crackpot fundamental religious lunatic journals at me

Sick of your preaching.


If they were science they would have evidence, they wouldn't have to dump truckloads of stuff to pass off as evidence

That there is your argument and the way scientists present it to the world.
"Her is all this stuff that we believe, now I have shown you the amount of stuff we have, believe it"

No real explanation, no real detail, just a simple and silly, I believe so should you.

Science run by dictators

That's not evidence, that's a link

Pure religios fundamentalism, thanks phantom, but no thanks


You're a joke. Of course the biological sciences aren't correct - that's why you go to the doctor when you're sick, right?

Your responses always provide validation for what the rest of us know - evolution is a fact.

You're wrong and we're right. Simple as that. Get over it.

"Don't confuse me with the facts!" Raggedyman, 675888 B.C.





Nice straw man
I am not arguing that biological science is false

Just biological science related to proving evolution.


But...you have no argument. Only your opinion.


edit on 9-5-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Someone has to keep your vitriol in check. Freedom of speech applies to everyone and some of us have enough time to dilute your misinformation with actual facts, step for step.



originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.





Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth


Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.





www.scimagojr.com...



Please phantom don't site these crackpot fundamental religious lunatic journals at me

Sick of your preaching.


If they were science they would have evidence, they wouldn't have to dump truckloads of stuff to pass off as evidence

That there is your argument and the way scientists present it to the world.
"Her is all this stuff that we believe, now I have shown you the amount of stuff we have, believe it"

No real explanation, no real detail, just a simple and silly, I believe so should you.

Science run by dictators

That's not evidence, that's a link

Pure religios fundamentalism, thanks phantom, but no thanks


You're a joke. Of course the biological sciences aren't correct - that's why you go to the doctor when you're sick, right?

Your responses always provide validation for what the rest of us know - evolution is a fact.

You're wrong and we're right. Simple as that. Get over it.

"Don't confuse me with the facts!" Raggedyman, 675888 B.C.





Nice straw man
I am not arguing that biological science is false

Just biological science related to proving evolution.


But...you have no argument. Only your opinion.



Strutt this is hard

My argument is that there is no empirical evidence for evolution, just theory and assumption.

I am a Christian, my belief is a faith, my faith could change should valid evidence be shown

I am not claiming my opinion is a science, evolution is claiming their opinion is science, they lack evidence, peer reviews are not science evident



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Someone has to keep your vitriol in check. Freedom of speech applies to everyone and some of us have enough time to dilute your misinformation with actual facts, step for step.



originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.





Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth


Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.





www.scimagojr.com...



Please phantom don't site these crackpot fundamental religious lunatic journals at me

Sick of your preaching.


If they were science they would have evidence, they wouldn't have to dump truckloads of stuff to pass off as evidence

That there is your argument and the way scientists present it to the world.
"Her is all this stuff that we believe, now I have shown you the amount of stuff we have, believe it"

No real explanation, no real detail, just a simple and silly, I believe so should you.

Science run by dictators

That's not evidence, that's a link

Pure religios fundamentalism, thanks phantom, but no thanks


You're a joke. Of course the biological sciences aren't correct - that's why you go to the doctor when you're sick, right?

Your responses always provide validation for what the rest of us know - evolution is a fact.

You're wrong and we're right. Simple as that. Get over it.

"Don't confuse me with the facts!" Raggedyman, 675888 B.C.





Nice straw man
I am not arguing that biological science is false

Just biological science related to proving evolution.


But...you have no argument. Only your opinion.



Strutt this is hard

My argument is that there is no empirical evidence for evolution, just theory and assumption.

I am a Christian, my belief is a faith, my faith could change should valid evidence be shown

I am not claiming my opinion is a science, evolution is claiming their opinion is science, they lack evidence, peer reviews are not science evident


What exactly are you denying occurs. You don't believe species adapt to their surroundings. We have documented evidence they do from micro organisms to insects to mamals. Now if your problem is with evolution which is an attempt to explain why this process occurs then what's the alternative? Does God get bored with fruit flies and decide to change them on the lab?? I really don't think you understand what your arguing against.

IF you are attempting to argue orgin that is something completely outside of evolution. Evolutuon is simply a way to explain why the changes we observe occur. Now if your saying their is no evidence that species evolve then you haven't looked very hard it is covered I'm multiple areas of science from studying DNA fossil records anatomy microbiology etc.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am not claiming my opinion is a science, evolution is claiming their opinion is science, they lack evidence, peer reviews are not science evident


However, the OP is not about providing proof for evolution, the OP is about proving Intelligent Design is real...... and we are yet to see the proof.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
It's clear the ragman thinks if they twist, contort and outright lie about the science, that it some how validates their magic man delusion.
But of course, being dishonest only pushes people away. Too bad these creationist are blind to this fact as they continue to watch sheeple abandoning the fold.
edit on fMonday161351f131801 by flyingfish because: Doh



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.





Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth


Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.





www.scimagojr.com...



Please phantom don't site these crackpot fundamental religious lunatic journals at me

Sick of your preaching.


If they were science they would have evidence, they wouldn't have to dump truckloads of stuff to pass off as evidence

That there is your argument and the way scientists present it to the world.
"Her is all this stuff that we believe, now I have shown you the amount of stuff we have, believe it"

No real explanation, no real detail, just a simple and silly, I believe so should you.

Science run by dictators

That's not evidence, that's a link

Pure religios fundamentalism, thanks phantom, but no thanks


You're a joke. Of course the biological sciences aren't correct - that's why you go to the doctor when you're sick, right?

Your responses always provide validation for what the rest of us know - evolution is a fact.

You're wrong and we're right. Simple as that. Get over it.

"Don't confuse me with the facts!" Raggedyman, 675888 B.C.





Nice straw man
I am not arguing that biological science is false

Just biological science related to proving evolution.


I know facts are hard to accept when you're committed to a lie. But I'll continue to post the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE anyway.
Maybe you can pick out a few articles and tell us why the observations, methods and conclusions are not EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.





Raggedyman, circa 65789765 B.C.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

So you figure two big images constitutes evidence, you think a big picture of the word journals is evidence.
There is a big flaw in your logic.

Why is the scientific argument so disingenuous , why does it always turn into a smear campaign

Anybody who question the science of evolution is attacked, belittled, patronized and ridiculed, why?
Because the science of evolution can not defend itself with evidence, the emperors new clothes, it doesn't exist.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am not claiming my opinion is a science, evolution is claiming their opinion is science, they lack evidence, peer reviews are not science evident


However, the OP is not about providing proof for evolution, the OP is about proving Intelligent Design is real...... and we are yet to see the proof.



Agatha that's silly

I was just showing you how silly he evolutionist argument was by saying peer reviews prove science, peer reviews don't prove science

Any one who thinks peer reviews prove science should hang their heads collectively in shame

I am sorry you can't read words and understand context, maybe I should have said "sarcasm" or used the word "Not" after



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Anybody who question the science of evolution is attacked, belittled, patronized and ridiculed,


Except these are your tactics, not theirs...

When these things actually do occur its out of pure frustration due to the fact that you've stated many times... You won't even read whats presented to you.

You say things like this...

I am a Christian, my belief is a faith, my faith could change should valid evidence be shown


Which is obviously a lie because you don't even attempt to read the evidence people give you...

You dismiss... You don't learn or read

Some of these guys should get an award for the patience they've given you when dealing with your utter nonsense...

How they continue to deal with it is beyond me honestly.




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

So you figure two big images constitutes evidence, you think a big picture of the word journals is evidence.
There is a big flaw in your logic.

Why is the scientific argument so disingenuous , why does it always turn into a smear campaign

Anybody who question the science of evolution is attacked, belittled, patronized and ridiculed, why?
Because the science of evolution can not defend itself with evidence, the emperors new clothes, it doesn't exist.


So which research article from over 120,000 which appear in recognized scientific journals is wrong? Which article does not present empirical evidence? Show me which article(s) - then you may have some credibility.
You haven't read a single article, have you????
So how do you know there isn't any empirical evidence????



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The creation sites say so...




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Phantom423

The creation sites say so...



That's correct. Raggedyman belongs to a Creationist cult - similar to the Jonestown gang.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

So you figure two big images constitutes evidence, you think a big picture of the word journals is evidence.
There is a big flaw in your logic.

Why is the scientific argument so disingenuous , why does it always turn into a smear campaign

Anybody who question the science of evolution is attacked, belittled, patronized and ridiculed, why?
Because the science of evolution can not defend itself with evidence, the emperors new clothes, it doesn't exist.


I'll do a little homework for you - since you're incapable of doing it yourself. Here's the Materials and Methods plus Results and Discussion from a research article on evolution. This is empirical evidence - get it???

Pervasive Adaptive Evolution in Mammalian Fertilization Proteins Willie J. Swanson,*† Rasmus Nielsen,‡ and Qiaofeng Yang† *Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington; †Departments of Biology and Genetics, University of California, Riverside; and ‡Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, Cornell University

Mammalian fertilization exhibits species specificity, and the proteins mediating sperm-egg interactions evolve rapidly between species. In this study, we demonstrate that the evolution of seven genes involved in mammalian fertilization is promoted by positive Darwinian selection by using likelihood ratio tests (LRTs). Several of these proteins are sperm proteins that have been implicated in binding the mammalian egg coat zona pellucida glycoproteins, which were shown previously to be subjected to positive selection. Taken together, these represent the major candidates involved in mammalian fertilization, indicating positive selection is pervasive amongst mammalian reproductive proteins. A new LRT is implemented to determine if the dN/dS ratio is significantly greater than one. This is a more refined test of positive selection than the previous LRTs which only identified if there was a class of sites with a dN/dS ratio 1 but did not test if that ratio was significantly greater than one.

Materials and Methods

We used likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) to determine if any codon positions were associated with  signifi- cantly 1 and hence possibly subjected to positive Darwinian selection (Nielsen and Yang 1998; Yang et al. 2000). The power of these tests increases with increased sequence diversity and number. Simulation studies show that the tests are robust when the tree length is approximately one substitution per codon. All data sets analyzed had tree length greater than one substitution per codon (table 1). However, it should be noted that the low number of species may reduce the power and accuracy of these analyses (Anisimova, Bielawski, and Yang 2001, 2002). A neutral model (M7) with  assumed to be beta-distributed was compared with a selection model (M8) with two additional parameters: ps, the proportion of codons with dN/dS  1, and s, the value of  in these sites. Positive selection is inferred if the estimate of s is larger than one if an LRT is significant. The LRT is performed by taking the negative of twice the log-likelihood difference between the nested models (M7 and M8) and comparing this to the 2 distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the number of parameters between the models (test I; table 1). For the M7 versus M8 comparison, there are two degrees of freedom. However, as noted in Yang et al. (2000) under the null hypothesis, one of the parameters is on the boundary of the parameter space and another parameter is not estimable. The use of two degrees of freedom is therefore an approximation that results in a conservative test. Another problem is that test I may result in a high proportion of significant tests even when there is no positive selection if the beta-distribution provides a poor fit to the true distribution of  in the interval (0, 1). For example, if much of the probability mass is located around   0.5 and   1.0, M8 may provide a significantly better fit to data than M7, with an estimate of s  1 with probability 0.5, although no positive selection occurs. We, therefore, implemented a new version of the LRT which is robust to the assumptions regarding the distribution of  in (0, 1). It has the additional advantage that the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic follows from standard theory in contrast to test I. The test is performed by adding a category of sites with s  1 to the null model. The new modified null model M8A then specifies that the distribution of  follows a mixture between a beta-distribution and a point mass at   1. Model M8A is then compared with a version of model M8, constrained such that s  1, using an LRT. The only difference between the models is that under the null model (M8A) s  1, whereas in the more general model (M8) s  1. From standard theory (Chernoff 1954), it follows that the log-likelihood ratio statistic is asymptotically distributed as a 50:50 mixture of a point mass at zero and a 1 2-distribution.

Test II may in some cases have more power than test I because of the reduction in the degrees of freedom and because the true asymptotic distribution, and not an ad hoc approximation, is used. However, it may in other cases have less power if there exists a category of positively selected sites with a value of  that is only slightly larger than one.


con't

edit on 9-5-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

edit on 9-5-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
con't

Results and Discussion

Using test I, there is evidence that most mammalian reproductive genes examined for positive selection have a class of sites with s  1, although -galactosyltransferase does not appear to contain any codons under putative positive selection. This indicates that these mammalian reproductive proteins are possibly subjected to positive Darwinian selection. In some cases, when positive selection was identified in a data set, the corressponding s was barely greater than one. We, therefore, used the new version of the LRT described above (test II), which is robust to the distribution of  in (0, 1). All comparisons except for acrosin remained significant with this more stringent test of selection (test II; table 1). Thus, there is robust evidence that a large number of mammalian reproductive genes are subjected to positive Darwinian selection. Sites predicted to be the targets of positive Darwinian selection were identified using an empirical Bayes approach (Nielsen and Yang 1998; Yang et al. 2000). In a few of the proteins studied, the active sites implicated to be involved in sperm-egg interaction have been identified. For example, a disintegrin-like domain in fertilin has been implicated in sperm-egg binding (Zhu, Bansal, and Evans 2000). Remarkably, the majority (90%) of the sites in our analysis predicted to be under positive Darwinian selection with posterior probabilities greater than 0.90 fall in the C-terminal portion of the molecule containing this putative sperm-egg– binding domain (see supplementary material: http:// www.molbiolevol.org). A similar result was obtained for fertilin (Wong et al. 2001). Although the selective pressure remains unknown, the observation that the sites predicted to be subjected to positive selection fall in putative sperm-egg–binding domains suggests a selective force relating to male-female interaction, in this case fertilization. These results combined with those of earlier studies (Swanson et al. 2001) suggest that evolutionary analyses such as those described in this study may be a powerful way to identify regions with putative functional significance, which could be tested in functional assays. The finding of a large number of mammalian reproductive proteins being subjected to positive Darwinian selection may have profound implications on studies of fertility. For example, rapidly evolving reproductive molecules could lead to a mismatch in sperm-egg proteins, which could contribute to infertility. This would be analogous to matches in class I major histocompatibility complex molecules necessary for successful skin grafts or matching blood-type groups for blood transfusions. In sea urchins, there is a significant effect of the genotype of reproductive proteins and the success of individual crosses within a population of one species (Palumbi 1999). The sites predicted to be subjected to positive Darwinian selection in this study could be involved directly in sperm-egg interaction and thus may be good targets to develop nonhormonal means of contraception aimed at disrupting sperm-egg interaction. Finally, inclusion of evolutionary diversification may help clarify some of the controversies in mammalian fertilization that have arisen due to diverse experimental observations (Wassarman 1999). Our results suggest that analyses for the coevolution of rapidly evolving malefemale reproductive proteins may provide evidence that is consistent with interaction between some of the proposed, yet controversial, sperm-egg–binding pairs. Currently, sufficient data are not available to perform these coevolution analyses



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
double post
edit on 9-5-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join