|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,475 Year: 3,732/9,624 Month: 603/974 Week: 216/276 Day: 56/34 Hour: 2/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7687 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days)  Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7687 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mammuthus,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------PB: It is clear now that you do not know the differnce between a gene and microsatelite DNA. How did I ever, I wonder, get involved in this discussion with morons? M: LOL! there are also microsatellites in genes...oh but you knew that already of course seems that you must be the moron PB: I already discussed the contemporary definition of a gene with Dr Page. It was obvious he didn't know much about genes. Do you propose to include microsatelites in this definition? For instance as DNA element affecting gene expression. If yes, then I don't see a problem for the MPG hypothesis. If no, than I was right in claiming that you don't know the difference between an gene and microsatelite DNA. M: tenet 1 still falsified...hear that sound...Peter the great's grand schemes falling down PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over. M: From the abstract of your own reference:"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species." PB: This in respect to microsattelite DNA, not genes. How did I ever, I wonder, .... etc. M: You obviously never wondered or YOU would know something about microsats PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer. PB:My conclusion: MPG (meaning 'Multi-Purpose Genome', not 'Mammuthus Powered Gobbledegook' ) M: Based on too heavy consumptions of drugs inducing denial of the falsification of the Mentally Poor Garbage hypothesis PB:  M: Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass Fred PB: I noticed that you regard Fred an illiterate. You could brush up on your reading capacity as well. M: Says the guy who never cracked open a book on pop gen or read a single citation provided for him....I never claimed Fred is an illiterate..I claimed he is an imbecile PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution. 5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes. PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT). M: And again:We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species. Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified.. PB: How is your answer related to my reponse? I was talking about the W. nobilis, not the raptor. PB: It is easy to falsify theories. M: Your hypothesis certainly was..and your old buddy Fred provided the reference falsifying two of your hypothesis predicitions..you guys make a great team...you are the Jamaican bobsled team of creationism. PB: Actually, Fred provided further evidence for the MPG hypothesis. It is incredible how evolutionists are able to bend evidence for the MPG hypothesis in favour of their views. PB:The evolutionary theory can also be readily falsified. Falsification apparently doesn't matter for the validity of origin theories. Ultimately it is all a matter of believe. M: You mean evolution or abiogenesis..surely the great Peter Borger would not confuse them? PB: Here you introduce another evolutionary trick. (Like you did before when you refered to population genetics as evolution). The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells. Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy. Anyway, if you don't wanna discuss this topic let's talk about the RAG2 gene in mammals. Here you must give an evolutionary explanantion, since we are halfway evolution from microbe to man, and the gene just drops out of the sky. Likewise the TcR gene drops out of the sky. Gene duplication and mutations will not help you here. M: Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot air PB: PB: Still defending your religion, Mammuthus? I mean the Theory of Illusion; survival of fiction through random evasion and rejection. M: Nope..still an atheist....2 minutes go by...check..nope still an atheist... PB: The atheistic religion is called evolutionism. As mentioned "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but the theory of evolution is not one of them (L. Spetner, and proven by contemporary molecular biology)" M: Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense. PB: Seeing your believe system going down hill can be painfull. So take care. I think, you wish (deep inside) that you never had registered. M: LOL!!!!!!!!! I am delighted that I registered..you and Fred have provided me with more comic relief than I have had in a long time. PB: I can't see why you consider falsifications of evolutionism so funny. Anyway, now evolutionism has been falsified beyond any doubt, we can use some good molecular scientists in medicine. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7687 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days)  Posts: 3228 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
PB: I already discussed the contemporary definition of a gene with Dr Page. It was obvious he didn't know much about genes. Do you propose to include microsatelites in this definition? For instance as DNA element affecting gene expression. If yes, then I don't see a problem for the MPG hypothesis. If no, than I was right in claiming that you don't know the difference between an gene and microsatelite DNA.
M: One example of many...is there actually anything about molecular biology that you do have a firm understanding of??? Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 Nov;87(11):4984-90 Related Articles, Links Association Studies between Microsatellite Markers within the Gene Encoding Human 11beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 and Body Mass Index, Waist to Hip Ratio, and Glucocorticoid Metabolism. Draper N, Echwald SM, Lavery GG, Walker EA, Fraser R, Davies E, Sorensen TI, Astrup A, Adamski J, Hewison M, Connell JM, Pedersen O, Stewart PM. Division Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital (N.D., G.G.L., E.A.W., M.H., P.M.S.), Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom B15 2TH. PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over. M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised? PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer. M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genes PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution. M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited. PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT). M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case. PB: How is your answer related to my reponse? I was talking about the W. nobilis, not the raptor. M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well. PB: Actually, Fred provided further evidence for the MPG hypothesis. It is incredible how evolutionists are able to bend evidence for the MPG hypothesis in favour of their views. M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignment PB: The atheistic religion is called evolutionism. As mentioned "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but the theory of evolution is not one of them (L. Spetner, and proven by contemporary molecular biology)" M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now  PB: Here you introduce another evolutionary trick. (Like you did before when you refered to population genetics as evolution). M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick. PB:The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells. M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further. PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy. M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news. PB:Anyway, if you don't wanna discuss this topic let's talk about the RAG2 gene in mammals. Here you must give an evolutionary explanantion, since we are halfway evolution from microbe to man, and the gene just drops out of the sky. Likewise the TcR gene drops out of the sky. Gene duplication and mutations will not help you here. M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them. PB: I can't see why you consider falsifications of evolutionism so funny. Anyway, now evolutionism has been falsified beyond any doubt, we can use some good molecular scientists in medicine. M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as well. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
derwood Member (Idle past 1898 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7687 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]PB: I already discussed the contemporary definition of a gene with Dr Page. It was obvious he didn't know much about genes. Do you propose to include microsatelites in this definition? For instance as DNA element affecting gene expression. If yes, then I don't see a problem for the MPG hypothesis. If no, than I was right in claiming that you don't know the difference between an gene and microsatelite DNA. M: One example of many...is there actually anything about molecular biology that you do have a firm understanding of??? Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 Nov;87(11):4984-90 Related Articles, Links Association Studies between Microsatellite Markers within the Gene Encoding Human 11beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 and Body Mass Index, Waist to Hip Ratio, and Glucocorticoid Metabolism. Draper N, Echwald SM, Lavery GG, Walker EA, Fraser R, Davies E, Sorensen TI, Astrup A, Adamski J, Hewison M, Connell JM, Pedersen O, Stewart PM. Division Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital (N.D., G.G.L., E.A.W., M.H., P.M.S.), Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom B15 2TH. PB: So they have a regulatory function? PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over. M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised? PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer. M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genes PB: That doesn't answer the question, isn't it? You already mentioned that they are sometimes present in genes and I claim them as proof for the MPG since I say they have a regulatory function. And indeed your reference confirms my prediction. THEY HAVE A REGULATORY FUNCTION, and they will contribute to phenotypic variation. Simelarly, RNA editing gives rise to variability. Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. We don't need 'genetic variability' to get phenotypic variation! It's already present in the MPG. Isn't that great! While evolutionism can be falsified on all levels, the MPG seems to do the right predictions on all levels. Isn't that curious for 'a whole lot of bogus'? PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution. M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited. PB:1)I know what genomic imprinting is and I know the underlying mechanisms. It is part of the MPG, and it also contributes to phenotypic variations not due to genetic variations. 2) I know what fitness is: adaptability or suitability. 3) You say that evolutionism is equivalent to population genetics. Of course it is not. Futuyma and you use the definition of population genetics to keep up the appearance of evolution. As mentioned before, if population genetics is evolutionis I would also be an evolutionist. However, as mentioned several times before, "evolution is the hypothetical, never observed process that all life descended from one single celled organism by the utter naturalistic mechanism of random mutations and selection." 4)It was you who said that thalidomide is a mutagens, while I said it inhibits angiogenesis. I am right (see abstract below). [Thalidomide: new uses for an old drug] [Article in Dutch] Wu KL, Sonneveld P. Erasmus Medisch Centrum, locatie Dijkzigt, afd. Hematologie, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam. Thalidomide was withdrawn from the market in the early sixties because of its teratogenic effects. Despite forty years of research, the mechanism of thalidomide embryopathy has remained unsolved. Thalidomide has various immunomodulatory effects. Thalidomide inhibits TNF alpha production, has T-cell costimulatory properties and modulates the expression of cell surface molecules on leukocytes in vivo. Thalidomide also has anti-angiogenic activity in vivo. Angiogenesis plays an important role in the pathogenesis of both solid tumours and hematologic malignancies such as multiple myeloma and lymphoma. In clinical studies, thalidomide has been used as an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Erythema nodosum leprosum is the only registered indication for the use of thalidomide in the United States of America. Thalidomide is also effective in the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease, mucocutaneous lesions in Behcet's syndrome and HIV infections, and multiple myeloma. PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT). M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case. PB: Quetzal is like you. He prefers story telling above scientific facts. It is vanity to discuss with people who's first rule of life is 'evolutionism is true. period'. They cannot think beyond this paradigm. PB: How is your answer related to my reponse? I was talking about the W. nobilis, not the raptor. M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well. PB: I debunked all his arguments. In fact there were only 2 relevant arguments the rest fits the MPG as well. PB: Actually, Fred provided further evidence for the MPG hypothesis. It is incredible how evolutionists are able to bend evidence for the MPG hypothesis in favour of their views. M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignment PB: I know how the evolutionary disciplin works, and how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism. I wouldn't call it science, however. Real science shows all data and discusses the data unbiased. (since we don't know how nature works, you know).Would be nice that when I write a paper that the discussion is every time the same: there would be nothing to discuss since evolution did it anyway. PB: The atheistic religion is called evolutionism. As mentioned "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but the theory of evolution is not one of them (L. Spetner, and proven by contemporary molecular biology)" M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now. PB: Atheism is not the issue here. The issue is evolutonism, and why it is false. However, if I don't know anything about it please explain what atheism is. PB: Here you introduce another evolutionary trick. (Like you did before when you refered to population genetics as evolution). M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick. PB: The subject was evolutionism and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the evolution of lifeless matter into replicators, into the first single celled replicating organism. Therefore, it IS evolution. So, not addressing it demonstrates that you and your evo friend are playing us a trick. A trick that is eagerly propagated in the media to keep people from the truth. PB:The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells. M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further. PB: Even if you called it 'blind-the-public-with-another-meaningless-term' it still involves evolution from life less matter into organic matter into organic replicators into replicating cells into replicating organisms. THAT IS EVOLUTION! PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy. M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news. PB: Here you demonstrate the summit of evolutionism's fallacies and it gives the readers a good insight in your logics: "Since we are here there is evolutionism." Incredible, the fact that we are here is taken as evidence for evolutionism! You call that science? I call that conclusion-MEGA-jumping-humbug. PB: Anyway, if you don't wanna discuss this topic let's talk about the RAG2 gene in mammals. Here you must give an evolutionary explanantion, since we are halfway evolution from microbe to man, and the gene just drops out of the sky. Likewise the TcR gene drops out of the sky. Gene duplication and mutations will not help you here. M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them. PB: I take this as a non-answer. However, if you have a proposal for the RAG2 I am happy to find out about it. PB: I can't see why you consider falsifications of evolutionism so funny. Anyway, now evolutionism has been falsified beyond any doubt, we can use some good molecular scientists in medicine. M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as well PB: What is the best review on prions? Like to read it. Best wishes, and good luck with your research. Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
M: One example of many...is there actually anything about molecular biology that you do have a firm understanding of???
Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 Nov;87(11):4984-90 Related Articles, Links Association Studies between Microsatellite Markers within the Gene Encoding Human 11beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 and Body Mass Index, Waist to Hip Ratio, and Glucocorticoid Metabolism. Draper N, Echwald SM, Lavery GG, Walker EA, Fraser R, Davies E, Sorensen TI, Astrup A, Adamski J, Hewison M, Connell JM, Pedersen O, Stewart PM. Division Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital (N.D., G.G.L., E.A.W., M.H., P.M.S.), Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom B15 2TH. PB: So they have a regulatory function? M: You told me that microsats had nothing to do with genes and now you are asking me? I thought I was the stupid evolutionist and you were the expert who would clear my head? PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over. M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised? PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer. M: Still waiting on your proof of quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity Peter...you brought it up so you have to support it. M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genes PB: That doesn't answer the question, isn't it? You already mentioned that they are sometimes present in genes and I claim them as proof for the MPG since I say they have a regulatory function. And indeed your reference confirms my prediction. THEY HAVE A REGULATORY FUNCTION, and they will contribute to phenotypic variation. Simelarly, RNA editing gives rise to variability. Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. We don't need 'genetic variability' to get phenotypic variation! It's already present in the MPG. Isn't that great! While evolutionism can be falsified on all levels, the MPG seems to do the right predictions on all levels. Isn't that curious for 'a whole lot of bogus'? M: First off, you claimed microsats cannot be in genes, they can, you were wrong. Second, expansion repeats don't just regulate, they cause diseaes..look up fragile X. Third, I don't see how RNA editing falsifies evolution. Actually, anything that provides variablility falsifies MPG since you say the genome is dedicated to remaining stable. But since you claim that MPG answers everything I guess you will now address all those posts you ignored on such thing as evidence for creatons? morphogenetic field? non-random mutation? PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution. M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited. PB:1)I know what genomic imprinting is and I know the underlying mechanisms. It is part of the MPG, and it also contributes to phenotypic variations not due to genetic variations. M: Oh, so you know what the mechanisms underlying imprinting are? Please expand on this as the rest of the scientific community does not. What is the role of H19? How exactly does Prader Willi syndrome work at the molecular level..always wanted to know. 2) I know what fitness is: adaptability or suitability. M: Wrong, try again. 3) You say that evolutionism is equivalent to population genetics. Of course it is not. Futuyma and you use the definition of population genetics to keep up the appearance of evolution. As mentioned before, if population genetics is evolutionis I would also be an evolutionist. However, as mentioned several times before, "evolution is the hypothetical, never observed process that all life descended from one single celled organism by the utter naturalistic mechanism of random mutations and selection." M: Already addressed this in another thread but wrong again Peter. 4)It was you who said that thalidomide is a mutagens, while I said it inhibits angiogenesis. I am right (see abstract below). M: That is very revisionist of you Peter...I asked you how thalidomide works or if you knew what it was and you asked me to tell you Rather different than what you have stated above... So of 1-4 you did not know 2 and 3, made a claim without support abot 1 and revised the history of 4 to make it look like you knew it all along...very interesting for the molecular biology expert. And what was that you were ranting about in the other thread...you know about arguments from authority are not valid M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case. PB: Quetzal is like you. He prefers story telling above scientific facts. It is vanity to discuss with people who's first rule of life is 'evolutionism is true. period'. They cannot think beyond this paradigm. M: So I take it you concede you cannot address Quetzal's 4 points or Quetzal's thread on morphogenetic fields and creatons for that matter. Though you somehow seem to view me as your nememsis on this board, you are overlooking the amount of time you spend avoiding Quetzal. I guess I am an easier target  M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well. PB: I debunked all his arguments. In fact there were only 2 relevant arguments the rest fits the MPG as well. M: Interesting, this must have been done in your head and you forgot to post it since I never saw a response to his four points. M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignment PB: I know how the evolutionary disciplin works, and how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism. I wouldn't call it science, however. Real science shows all data and discusses the data unbiased. (since we don't know how nature works, you know). M: We don't know how nature works? You claimed that the MPG explains ALL biological phenomenon...how can you then say you don't know how nature works? PB:Would be nice that when I write a paper that the discussion is every time the same: there would be nothing to discuss since evolution did it anyway. M: No offense but many of your papers are very similar. M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now. PB: Atheism is not the issue here. The issue is evolutonism, and why it is false. However, if I don't know anything about it please explain what atheism is. M: YOU brought atheism into this not me! Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods/supernatural donuts etc. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Many scientists who study and except evolution are christians. Your attempt to link evolution and atheism with some sort of negative connotation demonstrates you are a bigot...I guess you voted for Pym Fortuyn also. M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick. PB: The subject was evolutionism and abiogenesis. M: No the subject was evolution...you are now for the first time claiming a debate on abiogenesis. PB:Abiogenesis is the evolution of lifeless matter into replicators, into the first single celled replicating organism. M: Abiogenesis is the ORIGIN of all life, not its evolution. PB:Therefore, it IS evolution. So, not addressing it demonstrates that you and your evo friend are playing us a trick. A trick that is eagerly propagated in the media to keep people from the truth. M: It reflects you inability to deal with the concepts of evolution by claiming that its definition is something that suits you rather than arguing the merits of the actual theory....in that case the MPG is falsified because you cannot show the proof for quantum mechanics and the MPG is all about quantum mechanics...so there. PB:The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells. M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further. PB: Even if you called it 'blind-the-public-with-another-meaningless-term' it still involves evolution from life less matter into organic matter into organic replicators into replicating cells into replicating organisms. THAT IS EVOLUTION! M: mis-define-rant-rave-repeate...still not true...misdefine-rant-rave-repeat...still not true..keep trying Peter..maybe you can convince your local preist. PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy. M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news. PB: Here you demonstrate the summit of evolutionism's fallacies and it gives the readers a good insight in your logics: "Since we are here there is evolutionism." Incredible, the fact that we are here is taken as evidence for evolutionism! You call that science? I call that conclusion-MEGA-jumping-humbug. M: I was making fun of you...but I see you are incapable of understanding even that...and I thought the Germans were tight asses..guess the Dutch trump them. M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them. PB: I take this as a non-answer. However, if you have a proposal for the RAG2 I am happy to find out about it. M: It is not a non-answer..in this and other threads you have claimed you will not read literature that I post because it might force you to actually think...before I hunt down the RAG2 references I want to know if you will read them so I can save myself the time if you will not. M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as well PB: What is the best review on prions? Like to read it. M: That is a tough one Peter. There are so many papers coming out all the time on prions that the most up to date reviews are almost always immediately out of date. Here is one current review : Curr Protein Pept Sci 2001 Sep;2(3):191-204 Related Articles, Links Infective proteins: the prion puzzle. Ceciliani F, Pergami P. Dipartimento di Patologia Animale, Igiene e Sanita Pubblica Veterinaria, Universita di Milano, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy. Fabrizio.Ceciliani@unimi.it According to the Koch postulates an infectious organism is the one that can be isolated from an host suffering from a disorder, can be propagated in laboratory, can cause the same disease when introduced in another host, and finally, can be re-isolated from the host itself. If we change the word "organism" with the word "protein" we have a quite exact description of prions. Prion related disorders are a very unique category of infectious diseases. The ethiology of the so-called prionoses is related to the conversion of a normal protein (PrP(C), the cellular isoform of the prion protein) into a pathological form (the scrapie isoform of the prion protein, PrP(Sc)) which is able to propagate. The striking difference between the two forms seems to consist in a conformational modification of a mainly alpha-helix structured PrP(C) into a mainly beta-sheet PrP(Sc). The latter forms amyloid-like fibrils which precipitate into insoluble aggregates leading to the neurodegenerative changes specific of Spongiform Encephalopathies. This review will focus on the structure of the prion proteins and on PrP(C) cellular cycle, and it will discuss some hypothesis about the protein biochemical function. Finally, the various molecular mechanisms proposed for the development of conformational modifications will be reviewed, i.e. how a protein can become infectious by simply changing its structure. PB:Best wishes, and good luck with your research. M: Same for youcheers, M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7687 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mammuthus,
PB: (about microsats) So they have a regulatory function ? M: You told me that microsats had nothing to do with genes and now you are asking me? I thought I was the stupid evolutionist and you were the expert who would clear my head? PB: I DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT. I asked you whether you regard microsats as part of these genes, or not. I think, since they affect gene transcription they serve a regulatory function. They are among the jumping DNA elements that contribute to genetic variability as predicted by the MPG hypothesis. PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over. M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised? PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer. PB: SINCE I DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE, are microsast part of these genes or not? M: Still waiting on your proof of quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity Peter...you brought it up so you have to support it. M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genes PB: That doesn't answer the question, isn't it? You already mentioned that they are sometimes present in genes and I claim them as proof for the MPG since I say they have a regulatory function. And indeed your reference confirms my prediction. THEY HAVE A REGULATORY FUNCTION, and they will contribute to phenotypic variation. Simelarly, RNA editing gives rise to variability. Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. We don't need 'genetic variability' to get phenotypic variation! It's already present in the MPG. Isn't that great! While evolutionism can be falsified on all levels, the MPG seems to do the right predictions on all levels. Isn't that curious for 'a whole lot of bogus'? M: First off, you claimed microsats cannot be in genes, they can, you were wrong. Second, expansion repeats don't just regulate, they cause diseaes..look up fragile X. Third, I don't see how RNA editing falsifies evolution. Actually, anything that provides variablility falsifies MPG since you say the genome is dedicated to remaining stable. But since you claim that MPG answers everything I guess you will now address all those posts you ignored on such thing as evidence for creatons? morphogenetic field? non-random mutation? PB: MICROSATS CANNOT BE IN GENES? Apparently they can and have regulatory functions. However, the gene cannot be at random interrupted by microsats since then the gene would become non-functional. That how knockouts are generated. So, there must be an eleborate protein/RNA driven mechanism involved. It sound a lot like preexisting mechanism that induce variation. It is pointing towards a MPG. Maybe there is also degeneracy in this mechanism and can give rise to genetic disorders when these elemenst are integrated in the wrong spot. PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution. M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited. PB:1)I know what genomic imprinting is and I know the underlying mechanisms. It is part of the MPG, and it also contributes to phenotypic variations not due to genetic variations. M: Oh, so you know what the mechanisms underlying imprinting are? Please expand on this as the rest of the scientific community does not. What is the role of H19? How exactly does Prader Willi syndrome work at the molecular level..always wanted to know. PB: HAVE ALOOK HERE: Am J Med Genet. 2002 Dec 1;113(3):307-8. Prader-Willi syndrome due to 15q11-q13 deletion in a girl with an inherited (13;14) Robertsonian translocation. Apparently it involves a deletion on chromosome 15. The non-traceable form may be due to degeneracy in the histone-code. Most likely, the genes in this region are silenced while they shouldn’t. It gives a similar effect as the deletion is my guess. Yes, Mammuthus, there is much more than plain genetics. I postulate that the major part of the diseases is due to regulatory aberrations. 2) I know what fitness is: adaptability or suitability. M: Wrong, try again. PB: IF YOU KNOW SO WELL, why don’t you tell me? 3) You say that evolutionism is equivalent to population genetics. Of course it is not. Futuyma and you use the definition of population genetics to keep up the appearance of evolution. As mentioned before, if population genetics is evolutionist I would also be an evolutionist. However, as mentioned several times before, "evolution is the hypothetical, never observed process that all life descended from one single celled organism by the utter naturalistic mechanism of random mutations and selection." M: Already addressed this in another thread but wrong again Peter. PB: No, YOU ARE TAKING THE definition for population genetics for evolution. Maybe you can claim population genetics as part of evolutionism. But you can’t interchange the definitions. Taking part for the whole is a ‘PARS PRO TOTO FALLACY’. 4)It was you who said that thalidomide is a mutagens, while I said it inhibits angiogenesis. I am right (see abstract below). M: That is very revisionist of you Peter...I asked you how thalidomide works or if you knew what it was and you asked me to tell you Rather different than what you have stated above... PB: IN ANOTHER THREAD YOU said that is a mutagens. It isn’t. It is an inhibitor of angiogenesis. That’s what I said. You cannot always be right. M: So of 1-4 you did not know 2 and 3, made a claim without support about 1 and revised the history of 4 to make it look like you knew it all along...very interesting for the molecular biology expert. And what was that you were ranting about in the other thread...you know about arguments from authority are not valid PB: If we make up the score anyway, than you didn’t know 1, 3 and 4, while you don’t provide an answer to 2. That’s 0 out of 4. I am leading. M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case. PB: Quetzal is like you. He prefers story telling above scientific facts. It is vanity to discuss with people who's first rule of life is 'evolutionism is true. period'. They cannot think beyond this paradigm. M: So I take it you concede you cannot address Quetzal's 4 points or Quetzal's thread on morphogenetic fields and creatons for that matter. Though you somehow seem to view me as your nememsis on this board, you are overlooking the amount of time you spend avoiding Quetzal. I guess I am an easier target PB: Easier target? Don't underestimate yourself. However, Quetzal is wrong. (That makes me remind that I still have to write a letter to Dr peakall who will confirm my assertions.) M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well. PB: I debunked all his arguments. In fact there were only 2 relevant arguments the rest fits the MPG as well. M: Interesting, this must have been done in your head and you forgot to post it since I never saw a response to his four points. PB: RECENTLY, I READDRESSED ALL HIS COMMENTS (See my mail #285). Problem with you and Quetzal is that you don’t take it as answers since evolutionism is 'a priori' the only possible explanation. Even when there is no explanation you prefer evolutionary stories above a scientific alternative. In fact is has not so much to do with science, but with your worldviews. M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignment PB: I know how the evolutionary disciplin works, and how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism. I wouldn't call it science, however. Real science shows all data and discusses the data unbiased. (since we don't know how nature works, you know). M: We don't know how nature works? You claimed that the MPG explains ALL biological phenomenon...how can you then say you don't know how nature works? PB: TILL NOW, I MEANT. The MPG in conjunction with NRM explains all biological phenomena. PB:Would be nice that when I write a paper that the discussion is every time the same: there would be nothing to discuss since evolution did it anyway. M: No offense but many of your papers are very similar. PB: Similar indeed. But at least all data are discussed. M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now. PB: Atheism is not the issue here. The issue is evolutonism, and why it is false. However, if I don't know anything about it please explain what atheism is. M: YOU brought atheism into this not me! Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods/supernatural donuts etc. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Many scientists who study and except evolution are christians. PB: As a scientist I do not accept a theory that can not be tested, doesn’t do predictions, and is unchanged after being falsified.What Christians? Evolutionism makes Christ completely redundant. They are mutually exclusive. M: Your attempt to link evolution and atheism with some sort of negative connotation demonstrates you are a bigot...I guess you voted for Pym Fortuyn also. PB: ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, isn’t it? Mammuthus back to basics, I guess. Remember your first mail? It contained almost nothing but fallacies. M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick. PB: The subject was evolutionism and abiogenesis. M: No the subject was evolution...you are now for the first time claiming a debate on abiogenesis. PB:Abiogenesis is the evolution of lifeless matter into replicators, into the first single celled replicating organism. M: Abiogenesis is the ORIGIN of all life, not its evolution. PB: THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN ONE STEP? At once? I also heard Margulis claim this. Then, it is not evolution, it is CREATION, Mammuthus. Creation followed by evolution. But since evolution is demonstratebly wrong, all that remains is creation. PB:Therefore, it IS evolution. So, not addressing it demonstrates that you and your evo friend are playing us a trick. A trick that is eagerly propagated in the media to keep people from the truth. M: It reflects you inability to deal with the concepts of evolution... PB: And not only my inability. There is not a single person on this earth who can say what evolution is and mankind eludes the underlying mechanisms completely. If such mechanism are present they violate the known laws ruling the universe, and that also points in the direction of creation. M (cont): ...by claiming that its definition is something that suits you rather than arguing the merits of the actual theory....in that case the MPG is falsified because you cannot show the proof for quantum mechanics and the MPG is all about quantum mechanics...so there. PB:The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells. M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further. PB: Even if you called it 'blind-the-public-with-another-meaningless-term' it still involves evolution from life less matter into organic matter into organic replicators into replicating cells into replicating organisms. THAT IS EVOLUTION! M: mis-define-rant-rave-repeate...still not true...misdefine-rant-rave-repeat...still not true..keep trying Peter..maybe you can convince your local preist. PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy. PB: DEAR MAMMUTHUS, IT IS A FALLACY: PSEUDO ARGUMENTATION TO CIRCUMVENT A PROBLEM. M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news. PB: Here you demonstrate the summit of evolutionism's fallacies and it gives the readers a good insight in your logics: "Since we are here there is evolutionism." Incredible, the fact that we are here is taken as evidence for evolutionism! You call that science? I call that conclusion-MEGA-jumping-humbug. M: I was making fun of you...but I see you are incapable of understanding even that...and I thought the Germans were tight asses..guess the Dutch trump them. PB: Oh, I see. M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them. PB: I take this as a non-answer. However, if you have a proposal for the RAG2 I am happy to find out about it. M: It is not a non-answer..in this and other threads you have claimed you will not read literature that I post because it might force you to actually think...before I hunt down the RAG2 references I want to know if you will read them so I can save myself the time if you will not. PB: If you have a scientific explanation, I am eager to hear about it. M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as well PB: What is the best review on prions? Like to read it. M: That is a tough one Peter. There are so many papers coming out all the time on prions that the most up to date reviews are almost always immediately out of date. Here is one current review : Curr Protein Pept Sci 2001 Sep;2(3):191-204 Related Articles, Links Infective proteins: the prion puzzle. Ceciliani F, Pergami P. Dipartimento di Patologia Animale, Igiene e Sanita Pubblica Veterinaria, Universita di Milano, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy. Fabrizio.Ceciliani@unimi.it According to the Koch postulates an infectious organism is the one that can be isolated from an host suffering from a disorder, can be propagated in laboratory, can cause the same disease when introduced in another host, and finally, can be re-isolated from the host itself. If we change the word "organism" with the word "protein" we have a quite exact description of prions. Prion related disorders are a very unique category of infectious diseases. The ethiology of the so-called prionoses is related to the conversion of a normal protein (PrP(C), the cellular isoform of the prion protein) into a pathological form (the scrapie isoform of the prion protein, PrP(Sc)) which is able to propagate. The striking difference between the two forms seems to consist in a conformational modification of a mainly alpha-helix structured PrP(C) into a mainly beta-sheet PrP(Sc). The latter forms amyloid-like fibrils which precipitate into insoluble aggregates leading to the neurodegenerative changes specific of Spongiform Encephalopathies. This review will focus on the structure of the prion proteins and on PrP(C) cellular cycle, and it will discuss some hypothesis about the protein biochemical function. Finally, the various molecular mechanisms proposed for the development of conformational modifications will be reviewed, i.e. how a protein can become infectious by simply changing its structure. PB: THANKS A LOT Have a good one,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
PB: I DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT. I asked you whether you regard microsats as part of these genes, or not. I think, since they affect gene transcription they serve a regulatory function. They are among the jumping DNA elements that contribute to genetic variability as predicted by the MPG hypothesis.
M: To my knowledge they have nothing to do with "jumping elements". Some are in genes and different kinds of repeats can occur in introns or exons. Some cause disease i.e. Huntingtons chorea...so sorry, they don't support MPG is that is what it is based on. You can also look in medline for how they are used in forensics to identify crime victims if you are interested. M: Still waiting on your proof of quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity Peter...you brought it up so you have to support it. M: First off, you claimed microsats cannot be in genes, they can, you were wrong. Second, expansion repeats don't just regulate, they cause diseaes..look up fragile X. Third, I don't see how RNA editing falsifies evolution. Actually, anything that provides variablility falsifies MPG since you say the genome is dedicated to remaining stable. But since you claim that MPG answers everything I guess you will now address all those posts you ignored on such thing as evidence for creatons? morphogenetic field? non-random mutation? PB: MICROSATS CANNOT BE IN GENES? Apparently they can and have regulatory functions. However, the gene cannot be at random interrupted by microsats since then the gene would become non-functional. That how knockouts are generated. So, there must be an eleborate protein/RNA driven mechanism involved. It sound a lot like preexisting mechanism that induce variation. It is pointing towards a MPG. Maybe there is also degeneracy in this mechanism and can give rise to genetic disorders when these elemenst are integrated in the wrong spot. M: Aside from your ignoring my questions again...then the microsats that are not in genes falsify your MPG. Microsats are protein driven...the expand or contract dependent on DNA polymerase slipping up...or by recombination which is also protein dependent...this is nothing new and does not remotely suggest a pre-determined mechanism..if you want to demonstrate non-random how about finally getting to SLPx's aligment? PB:1)I know what genomic imprinting is and I know the underlying mechanisms. It is part of the MPG, and it also contributes to phenotypic variations not due to genetic variations. M: Oh, so you know what the mechanisms underlying imprinting are? Please expand on this as the rest of the scientific community does not. What is the role of H19? How exactly does Prader Willi syndrome work at the molecular level..always wanted to know. PB: HAVE ALOOK HERE: Am J Med Genet. 2002 Dec 1;113(3):307-8. Prader-Willi syndrome due to 15q11-q13 deletion in a girl with an inherited (13;14) Robertsonian translocation. Apparently it involves a deletion on chromosome 15. The non-traceable form may be due to degeneracy in the histone-code. Most likely, the genes in this region are silenced while they shouldn’t. It gives a similar effect as the deletion is my guess. Yes, Mammuthus, there is much more than plain genetics. I postulate that the major part of the diseases is due to regulatory aberrations. M: Interesting that as an expert you completely missed that this is an imprinted locus. Could it be you are not such the expert you claim to be? And before you go on a trip about telling me there is more than "plain genetics" I am the one who brought imprinting, phenocopy and a whole host of other phenomenon you knew nothing about to your attention in the first place. 2) I know what fitness is: adaptability or suitability. M: Wrong, try again. PB: IF YOU KNOW SO WELL, why don’t you tell me? M: You claim to be an expert and claim that I and everyone else is wrong about population genetics...Notice that I am not prefacing all of my statements with I am an expert in this or that...this is your claim so it is up to you to show us wrong...now tell me again..what is fitness? 3) PB: No, YOU ARE TAKING THE definition for population genetics for evolution. Maybe you can claim population genetics as part of evolutionism. But you can’t interchange the definitions. Taking part for the whole is a ‘PARS PRO TOTO FALLACY’. M: Sorry Peter, but evolutionary biologists and population geneticists know that this is the correct definition. They are interchangeable because they involve the exact same phenomenon. From your posts you have made it clear that you have no interest in informing yourself on population genetics and you clearly have read very little on evolutionary biology...so how do you know what the defintion is? 4)M: That is very revisionist of you Peter...I asked you how thalidomide works or if you knew what it was and you asked me to tell you Rather different than what you have stated above... PB: IN ANOTHER THREAD YOU said that is a mutagens. It isn’t. It is an inhibitor of angiogenesis. That’s what I said. You cannot always be right. M: No I am not always right..funny but you seem to imply in your posts that I am always wrong so this last statement is funny...but in any case, no thalidomide is not a mutagen though it was thought to be previously...but that still does not obviate the first part of my argument here which was YOU asked me what thalidomide does..you never said anything about inhibition of angiogenesis when it was brought up in the first place...so if you did not know then, looked it up after the fact and after asking me..then how are you an expert? I never claimed to be an expert in the study of thalidomide effects...you claimed to be the expert. M: So of 1-4 you did not know 2 and 3, made a claim without support about 1 and revised the history of 4 to make it look like you knew it all along...very interesting for the molecular biology expert. And what was that you were ranting about in the other thread...you know about arguments from authority are not valid PB: If we make up the score anyway, than you didn’t know 1, 3 and 4, while you don’t provide an answer to 2. That’s 0 out of 4. I am leading. M: How so? I showed that you could not support 1, and 3, 2 you failed to answer and 4 is a case of your revisionism...I win hands down M: So I take it you concede you cannot address Quetzal's 4 points or Quetzal's thread on morphogenetic fields and creatons for that matter. Though you somehow seem to view me as your nememsis on this board, you are overlooking the amount of time you spend avoiding Quetzal. I guess I am an easier target PB: Easier target? Don't underestimate yourself. However, Quetzal is wrong. (That makes me remind that I still have to write a letter to Dr peakall who will confirm my assertions.) M: You could also address his 4 points...I am also curious about your answers to him. M: Interesting, this must have been done in your head and you forgot to post it since I never saw a response to his four points. PB: RECENTLY, I READDRESSED ALL HIS COMMENTS (See my mail #285). Problem with you and Quetzal is that you don’t take it as answers since evolutionism is 'a priori' the only possible explanation. Even when there is no explanation you prefer evolutionary stories above a scientific alternative. In fact is has not so much to do with science, but with your worldviews. M: If you cannot support your statements, assertions, hypothesis they will not be accepted as valid. Thus far you have not. I will modify, revise, or dump a theory when a better one comes along...thus far a better one has not. PB: I know how the evolutionary disciplin works, and how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism. I wouldn't call it science, however. Real science shows all data and discusses the data unbiased. (since we don't know how nature works, you know). M: We don't know how nature works? You claimed that the MPG explains ALL biological phenomenon...how can you then say you don't know how nature works? PB: TILL NOW, I MEANT. The MPG in conjunction with NRM explains all biological phenomena. M: Then explain the exact timing and mechanism by which Xist works in X chromsome inactivation. Othewise your above statement is false...in addition, it should be very easy for you to demonstrate non-random mutation in SLPx alignment if your MPG, NRM explains all biological phenomenon. Also, can you list all biological phenomenon for us please and then how the MPG and NRM explains them...a comprehensive list please...it was your claim so lets see the support. M: No offense but many of your papers are very similar. PB: Similar indeed. But at least all data are discussed. M: Did you directly observe changes in gene expression? Or are you going to retract the papers because you assume changes in gene expression because of a dogmatic gene expression paradigm...and why did you not claim in any of your papers that MPG and NRM explain your data..it is notably absent..even in your most recent publications? PB: Atheism is not the issue here. The issue is evolutonism, and why it is false. However, if I don't know anything about it please explain what atheism is. M: YOU brought atheism into this not me! Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods/supernatural donuts etc. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Many scientists who study and except evolution are christians. PB: As a scientist I do not accept a theory that can not be tested, doesn’t do predictions, and is unchanged after being falsified.What Christians? Evolutionism makes Christ completely redundant. They are mutually exclusive. M: Oh, they are mutually exclusive? Um..you might want to inform all the scientists that accept evolution AND are christians of their error...you might also want to "correct" the catholic church which also accepts evolution..I am sure the pope is just itching to talk to you. M: Your attempt to link evolution and atheism with some sort of negative connotation demonstrates you are a bigot...I guess you voted for Pym Fortuyn also. PB: ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, isn’t it? Mammuthus back to basics, I guess. Remember your first mail? It contained almost nothing but fallacies. M: All of your mails contain almost nothing but fallacies Peter..and why is asking if you voted for Pym Fortuyn and Ad Hominem attack?...and you have been denouncing evolution as an atheistic religion and made claims about both which are false based on your religious beliefs...that is by definition bigotry. M: Abiogenesis is the ORIGIN of all life, not its evolution. PB: THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN ONE STEP? At once? I also heard Margulis claim this. Then, it is not evolution, it is CREATION, Mammuthus. Creation followed by evolution. But since evolution is demonstratebly wrong, all that remains is creation. M: "Creation followed by evolution"..this is your own quote so you at least instinctively see the difference between abiogenesis and evolution..and why would abiogenesis have to occur in one step? We can take that arugment over to the Origin of Life forum if you wish? PB:Therefore, it IS evolution. So, not addressing it demonstrates that you and your evo friend are playing us a trick. A trick that is eagerly propagated in the media to keep people from the truth. M: It reflects you inability to deal with the concepts of evolution... PB: And not only my inability. There is not a single person on this earth who can say what evolution is and mankind eludes the underlying mechanisms completely. If such mechanism are present they violate the known laws ruling the universe, and that also points in the direction of creation. M: Your first two sentences I do not understand for grammatical reasons...could you please rephrase them. And evidence against evolutoin is not evidence for creation...that is a very odd assertion. PB:The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells. M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further. PB: Even if you called it 'blind-the-public-with-another-meaningless-term' it still involves evolution from life less matter into organic matter into organic replicators into replicating cells into replicating organisms. THAT IS EVOLUTION! M: mis-define-rant-rave-repeate...still not true...misdefine-rant-rave-repeat...still not true..keep trying Peter..maybe you can convince your local preist. PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy. M: Agreed Peter, your assertion is false. PB: DEAR MAMMUTHUS, IT IS A FALLACY: PSEUDO ARGUMENTATION TO CIRCUMVENT A PROBLEM. M: You are the one re-defining everything to suit your own agenda...not me. M: I was making fun of you...but I see you are incapable of understanding even that...and I thought the Germans were tight asses..guess the Dutch trump them. PB: Oh, I see. M: PB: I take this as a non-answer. However, if you have a proposal for the RAG2 I am happy to find out about it. M: It is not a non-answer..in this and other threads you have claimed you will not read literature that I post because it might force you to actually think...before I hunt down the RAG2 references I want to know if you will read them so I can save myself the time if you will not. PB: If you have a scientific explanation, I am eager to hear about it. M: One more time...will you read references that I post or not? PB: What is the best review on prions? Like to read it. M: That is a tough one Peter. There are so many papers coming out all the time on prions that the most up to date reviews are almost always immediately out of date. Here is one current review PB: THANKS A LOT M: No problem...there are references to other current literature on the specifics. But it should give you at least a current overview...sucky protein to work with...it is really infectious and hard to destroy in the mis-folded form. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7687 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
