A new paper by dr tomkins try to disprove that claim about the vitellogenin pseudo gene

[Joao]

@dcscccc

i will answer to your point 2- we can predict that bacause there is 4 kind of nocleotides, in a random sequence of 1000 bases we will get something like 250 matchs. or about 25% similarity.

25% identity. Similarity doesn’t apply to nucleotides.

So when you claim 10%, that’s decidedly nonrandom. What does that mean?

And why don’t you address my question #1?

[dcscccc]

what is your main point joao? if you have something to say just say it. do you have the real numer of the sequence similarity?

[Joao]

@dcscccc

what is your main point joao? if you have something to say just say it.

My main points are:

1. Tomkins either doesn’t understand what he is claiming or is being deliberately deceptive; and
2. You parrot what Tomkins writes without understanding anything of relevance. When challenged, you just fabricate.

I thought that I was making that clear. Your avoidance of my questions further emphasizes that you don’t understand, and more importantly that YOU KNOW that you don’t understand.

do you have the real numer of the sequence similarity?

Yes, I can derive it in 5 minutes from public databases. How many corrections will it take for you to understand that “similarity” is only relevant to protein sequences and not to DNA/RNA sequences?

Do you realize that a single number is not very relevant, but that claiming that the homology is limited to 150 bases is spectacularly wrong? Why do you think I keep asking you if you understand the significance of the diagonal?

[dcscccc]

“Yes, I can derive it in 5 minutes from public databases”-

great. so what is the real similarity? i remember in an old discussion that the similarity is about 5% in human-chicken and even less in some other mammals. do you have any other numbers?

[Joao]

How many corrections will it take for you to understand that “similarity” is only relevant to protein sequences and not to DNA/RNA sequences?

How do you get from apparently understanding that 25% identity is not statistically significant to claiming an absurd 5% similarity for human-chicken?

[dcscccc]

“How do you get from apparently understanding that 25% identity is not statistically significant to claiming an absurd 5% similarity for human-chicken?”-

true. i do think he talk about amino acid similarity. even if it have a similarity (in amino acid level) of about 5%. do you think it enough to claim that is a real vit gene?

[Joao]

[quote=“dcscccc, post:26, topic:3198”]
true.[/quote]
The question was “how” so that’s not an answer.

i do think he talk about amino acid similarity.

Who is “he”?

even if it have a similarity (in amino acid level) of about 5%.

I don’t think you have a clue. 5% is far below random, so much so that it is nonrandom.

[quote] do you think it enough to claim that is a real vit gene?
[/quote]Why do you think I keep asking you about the significance of the diagonal in Fig. 2?

[dcscccc]

joao- you talk in clues. so i realy dont know what do you want.

[Joao]

@dcscccc

joao- you talk in clues. so i realy dont know what do you want.

I want you to simply admit the truth–that you don’t understand either paper.

[dcscccc]

if you say so…