Darwin in the Genome

Dear Percy,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must confess this isn't the direction I hoped this thread would take. I expected that PB and Dr. Caporale would engage in a longer dialogue. Dr. Caporale said that non-random mutations fit within a Darwinian framework, thereby disagreeing with PB's views on their origins. PB has ignored this but keeps painting a picture that attempts to make it seem like Dr. Caporale supports his views, like mentioning areas of inconsequential agreement such as the impact on phylogenetics and expressing support for her book. I would have liked to see a discussion about the origins of non-random mutations, which is the primary area of disagreement that evolutionists here have had with PB.PB: My problem was the blindness of NDT and atheistic nihilism (as mentioned on this board, so it should be known), not Darwin or Wallace. They were the first to discover the MPG in action. They simply made some false 19th century deductions. Now NRM is scientifically proven, the GUToB is complete. The debate creation versus evolutionism can be concluded: creation.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-14-2003]

Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear Paul,[Edited irrelevant stuff]PK: Peter, (B) so far you have not explained your argument at all. YOu just contnue to make assertions without support.PB: That is because you are new here. I've explained my stance over and over and over in several threads on this board. Before Dr Caporale posted her link to her book 'Darwin in the Genome' (with exactly the same conclusion I've been repeating for months now: nonrandom mutations) several evolutionists on this board (in particular dr Page is very rude ) kicked my but, scoffed, mocked... well, the usual childish behaviour. So, I recommend to get acquianted to what I have contributed to this board over the last six months.PK2 : Peter if you cannot give references to your arguments then it would seem necessary to at least repeat sufficient information to explain what you are talking about. If you do not wish to repeat your arguments provide links to the relevant messages or bettter collect your arguments on a web page where it will be easier to make sense of them.PK: You have not explained how redundancy is related to how easy the genes are to knock out,...PB: the more redundant the gene, the easier lost through inactivating mutationsPK2 : It seems that you still do not want to explain your argument. I begin to suspect thaty you have none.PK: ...nor do you supply any reasoning as to how your "GuToB" would explain the mechanisms if they were redundant (indeed so far as I can tell your GuToB renders these mechanisms not only unnecesary but a potentital liabilility so it is highly questionable if their very existence is compatible with your views).PB: This sounds interesting, so could you please expand. I am aware that the GUToB requires some tiny aesthetic additions, so please elaborate.PK2 : the sloppy polymerases seem to contradict your view since they represent a very different strategy to the elusive "adaptive mutation". Rather than delivering precisely targetted mutations they take more of a "shotgun" approach - increasing the mutation rate.PK: Nor do you even say how the other mechanisms from _Darwin in the Genoome_ fit inot your views.PB: I will fit them in. The are part of the GUToB and will find their place in the MPG. Dr Caporale's work is very timely.PK: As for your final paragraph to the best of my knowledge neither Darwin nor Wallace worked with your mechanisms at all and certainly they did not have the knowledge of molecular biology required to investigate those from _Darwin in the Genome_. Nor does the book validate your other assertions.PB: What D and W really observed was the MPG in action. Their extrapolation was entirely unwarranted. They observed an active mechanism already present in the genome (of course you are right they didn't kow about that) that generates variation over time.PK2 : This doesn't seem to really have much to do with the actual observations of Darwin and Wallace. They were certainly not extrapolating a mechanism of variation because they had none. Indeed I would suggest that their work could be better termed an interpolation because it starts with an overarching view of taxonomy, biogeography and the fossil record and seek to explain the pevasive patterns observed in terms of what is observed at the level of individual animals and populations over relatively restricted geographic and temporal ranges.PB (CONT) Now, the elucidaation of the underlying mechanisms demonstrate the extrapolation of evolution from microbe to man to be a nonsequitur. We are looking at two unequal phenomena here. The one that has been demontrated to operate in the genome to induce variation CANNOT be taken to demonstrate evolution from micobe to man. If you propose to do that than you have also to propose that evolution from microbe to man is mechanistically determined. That's creation.PK2 : This simply demonstrates your failure to understand the actual arguments for evolution. As I have stated above it ismore of an interpolation than an extrapolation. The overall view of evolution is an inference from other data entirely - and scientists, quite properly, attempt to explain how it happened by extrapolating known mechanisms. But that extrapolation is HOW it happened - not that it DID happen which is based on other liens of evidence entirely.PK: The lack of discussion seems to be due to your preference for "just so stories".PB: I've explained my position over and over on this board; NONRANDOM mutations with repect to position and nucleotide are found in TH 1G5 gene, mtDNA and the ZFY region. All I got: denial and ignorance, so you can imagine that I am very glad with this new thread. And it confirms my opinion on evolutionism: unfair and outdated.PK2 : As has been shown on this thread your own knowledge of evolution seems to be very weak - to the point that you were claiming a refutation of evolution based on an obvious error. As you could have found out from a vey famous popular book written in 1986. Talk about outdated.PK: Certainly you do not seem willoing to go into the necessary details to back up your claims nor do you seem willing to discuss the refutation of your original claims that the "non-random" mechanisms refuted NDT (an error based on your failure to understand the very point of the theory you vlaim to have been falsified!).PB: I already did that and I am getting a bit tired of reiteraing the details over and over. They can be found on this board. However, I am very glad with the publication of Dr Caporale's book; it saves me a lot of time finishing my own.PK2 : So far I have seen no significant connection between Dr. Caporale's book and your assertions. How, for instance does Huntington's disease fit into your views ? It is caused by one of the mechanisms discussed by Dr. Caporale and it is not only detrimental but additional mutations based on the same mechanism have a tendancy to reduce the age at which the condition appears. It is certainly not an adaptive mutation.

dear Paul,Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear Paul,
[Edited irrelevant stuff]PK: Peter, (B) so far you have not explained your argument at all. YOu just contnue to make assertions without support.PB: That is because you are new here. I've explained my stance over and over and over in several threads on this board. Before Dr Caporale posted her link to her book 'Darwin in the Genome' (with exactly the same conclusion I've been repeating for months now: nonrandom mutations) several evolutionists on this board (in particular dr Page is very rude ) kicked my but, scoffed, mocked... well, the usual childish behaviour. So, I recommend to get acquianted to what I have contributed to this board over the last six months.PK2 : Peter if you cannot give references to your arguments then it would seem necessary to at least repeat sufficient information to explain what you are talking about. If you do not wish to repeat your arguments provide links to the relevant messages or better collect your arguments on a web page where it will be easier to make sense of them.PB2: Look here for all relevant references:http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)andhttp://EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genomeandhttp://EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToBandhttp://EvC Forum: More non-random evolutionandhttp://EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2)PK: You have not explained how redundancy is related to how easy the genes are to knock out,...PB: the more redundant the gene, the easier lost through inactivating mutationsPK2 : It seems that you still do not want to explain your argument. I begin to suspect thaty you have none.PB2: see the other threads.PK: ...nor do you supply any reasoning as to how your "GuToB" would explain the mechanisms if they were redundant (indeed so far as I can tell your GuToB renders these mechanisms not only unnecesary but a potentital liabilility so it is highly questionable if their very existence is compatible with your views).PB: This sounds interesting, so could you please expand. I am aware that the GUToB requires some tiny aesthetic additions, so please elaborate.PK2 : the sloppy polymerases seem to contradict your view since they represent a very different strategy to the elusive "adaptive mutation". Rather than delivering precisely targetted mutations they take more of a "shotgun" approach - increasing the mutation rate.PB2: How do you think this works according to molecular evolutionism? The initial copy of the polymerase has to duplicate (non-traceable I presume). After duplication the gene is redundant since there is no constraint on the second copy. So it gets easily lost through inactivating mutations or is expelled from the genome through recombination to get rid of this energy consuming embellishment. Or, according to evolutionism it starts to change randomly (mutations, you know). By the way, which one? (genetic uncertainty, you know). Until the error prone polymerase has evolved. Now what is the constraint to keep this new error prone stable in the genome? Since it is only induced upon stress. So evolutionism must predict that these error prone polymerases should change with a higher rate than the essential polymerase. I predict it doesn't, for genetic redundancies do not mutate faster than essential genes.
So, I foresee another false prediction. (Hay, evolutionism is a false prophet! )PK: Nor do you even say how the other mechanisms from _Darwin in the Genoome_ fit inot your views.PB: I will fit them in. The are part of the GUToB and will find their place in the MPG. Dr Caporale's work is very timely.PK: As for your final paragraph to the best of my knowledge neither Darwin nor Wallace worked with your mechanisms at all and certainly they did not have the knowledge of molecular biology required to investigate those from _Darwin in the Genome_. Nor does the book validate your other assertions.PB: What D and W really observed was the MPG in action. Their extrapolation was entirely unwarranted. They observed an active mechanism already present in the genome (of course you are right they didn't kow about that) that generates variation over time.PK2 : This doesn't seem to really have much to do with the actual observations of Darwin and Wallace. They were certainly not extrapolating a mechanism of variation because they had non....PB2: they've postulated the evolution theory from microbe to man. Probably from one or a few initial bio-forms (sounds like GUToB, isn't it). I will look up what Darwin postulated exactly, a quote.PK2: ...Indeed I would suggest that their work could be better termed an interpolation because it starts with an overarching view of taxonomy, biogeography and the fossil record and seek to explain the pevasive patterns observed in terms of what is observed at the level of individual animals and populations over relatively restricted geographic and temporal ranges.PB2: ....and which can also be interpolated differently. The GUToB can explain this equally well.PB (CONT): Now, the elucidation of the underlying mechanisms demonstrate the extrapolation of evolution from microbe to man to be a nonsequitur. We are looking at two unequal phenomena here. The one that has been demontrated to operate in the genome to induce variation CANNOT be taken to demonstrate evolution from micobe to man. If you propose to do that than you have also to propose that evolution from microbe to man is mechanistically determined. That's creation.PK2 : This simply demonstrates your failure to understand the actual arguments for evolution. As I have stated above it is more of an interpolation than an extrapolation....PB2: No, it is an extrapolation from the finches he encountered on Galapagos and from some fossils known to science.PK2: ...The overall view of evolution is an inference from other data entirely - and scientists, quite properly, attempt to explain how it happened by extrapolating known mechanisms. But that extrapolation is HOW it happened - not that it DID happen which is based on other lines of evidence entirely.PB2: It happened through the MPG present in created archetypes. That's what can be inferred from contemporary biology.PK: The lack of discussion seems to be due to your preference for "just so stories".PB: I've explained my position over and over on this board; NONRANDOM mutations with repect to position and nucleotide are found in TH 1G5 gene, mtDNA and the ZFY region. All I got: denial and ignorance, so you can imagine that I am very glad with this new thread. And it confirms my opinion on evolutionism: unfair and outdated.PK2 : As has been shown on this thread your own knowledge of evolution seems to be very weak - to the point that you were claiming a refutation of evolution based on an obvious error.PB2: I've been defending nonrandom mutations for six months against evolutionist's attacks. You --as an obvious evolutionist-- will always claim that I am in error. It is the Dr Page style. Listen, Mr Paul, I know what the data holds and what they indicate. It is you and the evolutionists that have been hit by blindness, and that explains why you don't see your error. (140 years of wasted time is hard to swallow. Well, not completely wasted: at least we know now how it did NOT happen).
In the meantime I was not hindered by blindness, and I've set up an alternative to evolution that explains what we observe on this planet. That should be sufficient. (What do we need a theory for that tries to explain the never-observed? It is gratuitous.)
Also, my knowledge on molecular evolution is excellent. The problem is that evolutionism isn't explanatory since the paradigm is wrong. It is NOT common descent from one/few living single cell by random mutations and selection. It is common descent from archetypes geared with MPG's through nonrandom mutations, shuffling/rearrangement and duplication of preexisting DNA elements and loss of genes.
Nowadays, evolutionists have to twist and turn facts to try to fit them in their paradigm. Fortunately, adaptive --and non-random-- mutations, and genetic redundancies are the end of the story. At last, in 2003 science can make a fresh start. We've all been deluded for about 140 years.PK: As you could have found out from a very famous popular book written in 1986. Talk about outdated.PB: You mean the work by my favorite author R.D.? (Not to be confused with the other excellent story teller R.D: Roald Dahl).
By the way it was published almost 20 years ago. THAT is outdated.See: http://EvC Forum: Richard Dawkins lack of knowledge on DNA exposedPK: Certainly you do not seem willoing to go into the necessary details to back up your claims nor do you seem willing to discuss the refutation of your original claims that the "non-random" mechanisms refuted NDT (an error based on your failure to understand the very point of the theory you vlaim to have been falsified!).PB: I already did that and I am getting a bit tired of reiteraing the details over and over. They can be found on this board. However, I am very glad with the publication of Dr Caporale's book; it saves me a lot of time finishing my own.PK2 : So far I have seen no significant connection between Dr. Caporale's book and your assertions. How, for instance does Huntington's disease fit into your views ? It is caused by one of the mechanisms discussed by Dr. Caporale and it is not only detrimental but additional mutations based on the same mechanism have a tendancy to reduce the age at which the condition appears. It is certainly not an adaptive mutation.PB2: No, it is degeneracy. It is the GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter

So if I sum up your position.
1) In your opinion your GuToB explains the evidence as well as evolution. Since your GuToB relies on mechanisms that have not been observed it should be rejected in favour of evolution even if your opinion is correct2) If anyone points out errors in your claims it is because they are prejudiced against you. no matter what the truth is. Rejecting points out of hand without discussion is hardly the stuff of rational debate3) You don't really know what you are talking about. Your rejection of Dawkins' points sbout randomness on the grounds of age ignores the fact that Dawkins is expressing a view that is stll the mainstream - as explained in the book that this thread is about and which you claim to have read !As to your assertions that the experts are blind because they do not share your view such views are common to cranks. When such a claim is made as an excuse to avoid admitting to the existence of your errors - well, everythingAnd no, provided links to the heads of long theads is still not an adequate reference. One of these threads is at least 19 pages long!One of the shorter threads ("More Non-Random Evolution") does not seem to have much in the way of substance. Indeed so far as I can tell it outright rejects many of the mechanisms mentioned by Dr. Caporale in favour of some unspecified mechanism of "directed mutation" which supposedly always produces exactly the same mutations. It also repeats the same misunderstanding of "random" as it applies in mainstream evolutionary theory that you still insist on. This only reinforces my negative view of your claims and your tactics in advancing those claims.

The significant issue is the causative agent of NRM. Dr. Caporale argues it fits within a Darwinian framework, while you, other than repeating your initial premise, have suddenly clammed up. Why are you replying to me and not Dr. Caporale?--Percy

Dear Percy,Percy: The significant issue is the causative agent of NRM. Dr. Caporale argues it fits within a Darwinian framework,PB: Yes, let's discuss this. I bet it is more in accord with the GUToB than with NDT. And of course one can claim that it still is Darwinism. That selection is involved doesn't mean it is Darwinism, the GUToB also includes selection, but holds that selection is predominantly a mechanism to get rid of degenerate genomes.PB: I wouldn't mind discussing this with Dr Caporale. However, and not unimportantly, if one is to say that molecular genetics is not in accord with NDT in public, it would be --to speak with Dr Page's words-- 'career ending nonsense'. Apparently, it is better to watch your words in the evo community. Since I am not looking for a career in evolutionism (I don't like keeping up appearances), I don't mind.Furthermore, I really start to believe that evo's don't understand their own theory. And I am not surprised since the paradigm it rests on has been demonstrated over and over to be completely, entirely wrong.Percy: ...while you, other than repeating your initial premise, have suddenly clammed up. Why are you replying to me and not Dr. Caporale?PB: Dr Caporale is free to respond to my vision, isn't it? I already had a little communication with Dr Caporale, and she agrees with me on implications for phylogentics (although my stance is probably much more rigorous) and I have the feeling that she doesn't advocate NDT either. So, let's wait for her reply to this mail.Best wishes,
Peter

So, by following your theory, I have a scenario where the arthropod archetype existed in the Cambrian with a multipurpose genome preadapted to make every innovation within the phylum Arthropoda; the classes Crustacea, Arachnida, Myriapoda, Trilobita, Insecta & others branched off from the arthropod archetype by reducing the variation within the multipurpose genome to achieve current diversity. This process is directed by creaton particles (sensu Borger, but I am still skeptical about this part).Back to the wood-eaters. A commonly held hypothesis about termite phylogeny is that they evolved from some ancient wood-eating cockroach. If your theory be true, then we should expect the cockroach genome to include information to 'build' termites, since your version of evolution is the reduction of possibilities from the multipurpose genome.What do you think?

I believe Dr. Caporale is probably waiting for a reply to her Message 41. She doesn't use the reply button that's at the end of messages, so perhaps you didn't notice it.--Percy

Isn't this interesting. I did not realize that Dr.Caporale had made an appearance.What is not surprising is that despite the fact the she clarified her position and the evidence for it, Borger still maintains that her book supoorts essentially the opposite of what it does.Of course, this sort of thing is commonplace when the true motivations for one's scientific" pursuits are an aversion to "atheistic nihilism."

Page: What is not surprising is that despite the fact the she clarified her position and the evidence for it, Borger still maintains that her book supoorts essentially the opposite of what it does.PB: You read the book, I presume? Anyway, you still dont get it Page. Let me explain to you once more. The mechanisms described by Dr Caporale have been observed over and over on the organism level, for instance by Darwin and Wallace: variation within species. Now, 144 years after Darwin, we know that the mechanism for variation are preexisting in the genomes of organisms. So, you can NOT take Darwin's observations to extrapolate evolution from microbe to man, since if you do so than you have to also concur that evolution from microbe to man is mechanistically determined.Best wishes,
Peter

I note that Peter Borger is still continuing his misrepresentations fo evolutionary theory.The fact is that the observations of Darwin and Wallace remain relevant and remain strong evidence for common descent. _Darwin in the Genome_ makes no change to that at all. What it does do is add to our knowledge of how the variation required by Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory is generated.

Dear Paul,In response to:
The mechanisms described by Dr Caporale have been observed over and over on the organism level, for instance by Darwin and Wallace: variation within species. Now, 144 years after Darwin, we know that the mechanism for variation are preexisting in the genomes of organisms. So, you can NOT take Darwin's observations to extrapolate evolution from microbe to man, since if you do so than you have to also concur that evolution from microbe to man is mechanistically determined.Paul says:
I note that Peter Borger is still continuing his misrepresentations fo evolutionary theory.
The fact is that the observations of Darwin and Wallace remain relevant and remain strong evidence for common descent. _Darwin in the Genome_ makes no change to that at all. What it does do is add to our knowledge of how the variation required by Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory is generated.PB says:
Now Paul has a nice opportunity to show where my claim quoted above is wrong. If you think that we are allowed to extrapolate the observations on the genome to evolution from microbe to man, please explain in detail. I am very curious. Thanks in advance.Best wishes,
Peter

Peter, YOU have just proved my point. You continually repeat falsehoods despite being corrected.The observations of Darwin and Wallace that support microbes to man evolution do not involve an extrapolation Nor do they rest on mechanisms to generate variation. I pointed that out long ago, you have offered nothing to dispute it.

quote:

---

PaulK:
Peter, YOU have just proved my point. You continually repeat falsehoods despite being corrected.

---

And folks don't understand why I get so frustrated with people like him...

The frustration is well understood, but giving vent to it? Well, that's understandable, too, I guess, but it can make it hard to tell which person in a debate is the rational one. If you really have the evidence on your side then you don't need the help of sarcasm and disparagement.--Percy