DNA barcoding: According to their kinds

(Martin R) #22

yes, a lesson on DNA barcoding…

What in particular did i misinterpret? Could you be more specific?

(Haywood Clark) #23

So why not try to learn BEFORE judging?

Pretty much everything, starting with your opening “UNIQUE.” It’s not unique at all–it just varies more than a lot of other genes do in a small region. It’s more similar the more closely related two species are.

Perhaps you should look at the sequences before rushing to judgment and capitalizing a false claim?

I also strongly suggest that you avoid vague words like “similarity.” Use numbers instead.

(Martin R) #24

no metaphor allowed?

(Martin R) #25

if the sequence is not unique, how the DNA barcoding identification works?

(Martin R) #26

what should i learn? Where?

“What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species?”

Please advice where to look to get this question answered… where to learn BEFORE judging…

(Martin R) #27

yes Bill, i know, i looked in a dictionary, to got this right.

so let me use that quote again “New work by a pioneering scientist details how subtle changes in mitochondrial function may cause a broad range of common metabolic and degenerative diseases.”

… yes, small changes in mitochondrial genome do a lot of harm…everywhere… that is why i used the metaphor (a fragile mitochondrial genome)


@martin_r You keep saying you are an engineer (what kind by the way?) so I assume you would want to be precise. I know I am.

to get this right (sorry couldn’t resist)

That wouldn’t be a metaphor. Yes I know English is hard for non-native speakers.

(Martin R) #29

mechanical engineer

(Martin R) #30

yes Bill, i am used to people like you… if nothing to say, my bad English is under attack… .no problem Bill… you welcome…

(Martin R) #31

ok Bill, you welcome, again.

(Martin R) #32

and Bill, have you noticed the title of this thread? i bet you never heard of DNA barcoding… (sorry couldn’t resist)


Sorry but you would lose that bet.

The (sorry couldn’t resist) means I made the comment in jest. I am not attacking your bad English but you kept repeating the metaphor statement and I just wanted to let you know you were not getting your message across.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #34

Okay, Bill, and @martin_r … let’s get back on topic (or give it a break) as necessary.

(Martin R) #35

okay Bill, so if i would lose the bet, why we are still talking about some silly metaphor? Bill, do you even get how big is the problem with DNA barcoding for your evolution theory?

Do you even get it?

Bill, have you noticed, i have started this thread a day ago, since then, everybody complains about my bad English, but nobody replied on the topic? Do you even get how serious it is? To be honest, i have not expected such a silence (if i overlook some very confused answers)

Bill, you said you are an engineer too… What kind of engineer? And do you have some education in Biology? What kind? Because this is a very complex topic…

(Martin R) #36

Mervin, thumb up!


Sorry but I don’t see the problem. The “barcoding” is the result of evolution and not a problem. The papers on the subject make that clear. Which is why you are not getting much response.

BSEE, MSCS, 45 years experience in the field. Biology is a hobby.

Edit to add: @martin_r If you don’t mind could you provide the source that brought this to your attention?

(Steve Schaffner) #38

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have not got the foggiest idea in the world why you think DNA barcoding is a problem for evolution. And this is from someone who actually analyzes DNA barcoding data, who has helped develop DNA barcodes, and who is (I just noticed) actually wearing a “Malaria Barcode(*) Workshop 2016” t-shirt right now. What the heck are you talking about?

(*) Only it’s not the word ‘barcode’ – it’s an actual barcode. It’s clever, you see.


Martin, there is a problem with the hermeneutical approach to scripture which assumes that the writers of scripture were teaching science. It can be demonstrated that this concordist approach repeatedly fails when we encounter passages dealing with nature. The key is recognizing that God accommodated through an ancient understanding of science in the Bible to deliver timeless messages of truth. The ancients would have had no idea about the modern scientific facts we take for granted, including evolutionary biology.

(Haywood Clark) #40

Because “unique” is not used that way in biology, and it is the foundation of your misrepresentation of this as some sort of problem for evolutionary theory.

What’s the percent IDENTITY for this sequence between you and a dog?

Why do you use vague words instead of actual measurements, Mr. Engineer?

(Haywood Clark) #41

No, we don’t, and we understand it.

How about explaining it to us with actual sequences instead of with your misunderstandings of words not in your native language?

Explain the alleged seriousness of it to us using sequences.