Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 214 (14488)
07-30-2002 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by mark24
07-30-2002 5:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,
Firstly, I recommend you to read a book on neutral evolution.

What has this got to do with your hypocrisy? I’m well aware of neutral theory.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Secondly, problem is that evolutionists NEVER make any predictions. So I have taken the opportunity to do it for them by applying the rules that are operable at the molecular level. None of the predictions can hold, demonstrating the weakness of the theory. (I already did an evolutionary prediction that can readily be checked in the genome)
Thirdly, you are entitled to have your opinions/beliefs. I do not mind. The only thing I show is that evolution does not work at the molecular level, and this should be conclusive to any scientist (why do you think molecular biologist increasingly object to evolution theory? Most molecular biologist I know are agnostics: they simply don't know).
Best wishes
Peter

You have not shown evolution cannot work at the molecular level without being a hypocrite. Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons.
In fact all you’ve done is to hit upon the pseudogene in question having some function, because neutral rate mutation was not seen to occur in the entire sequences. Meaning functional constraint was potentially observed.
This is the third or fourth time I’ve posted this, why aren’t you addressing the main point?
YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!!!!!!
Unless you can show the sequences you have chosen to "falsify" evolution have had actual scientific attempts made to show that they are actually functionless, then your argument is utterly undone.
Mark
[/B][/QUOTE]
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 5:02 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-30-2002 11:39 AM mark24 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 214 (14497)
07-30-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by peter borger
07-30-2002 1:32 AM


I'm running late, but one quick question.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

2) These data mean that it would take about 10(exp)6 years for 3 random mutations to occur in the duplicated gene. Thus 150 million years for 450 neutral mutations.

The genes in question, are they specific to humans?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 1:32 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:20 PM John has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 34 of 214 (14498)
07-30-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mark24
07-30-2002 5:34 AM


Accusations of hypocrisy are fairly personal and probably not in accord with the Forum Guidelines. Perhaps you could refer to the opposition's position as contradictory?
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 5:34 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 12:03 PM Admin has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 214 (14499)
07-30-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Admin
07-30-2002 11:39 AM


Percy,
Using one strict standard as a criteria in an attempt to weaken your opponents argument, & then completely ignore it to strengthen your own argument, is hypocritical.
I am happy to qualify that I mean no insult whatsoever to Peter, or use the word hypocrite as an attack on Peters character in general. I only use the word in it's strict sense, & in this situation only.
If possible, I'll try to find a less inflammatory word in future, but I do maintain I'm using the word correctly.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 07-30-2002 11:39 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 07-31-2002 10:27 AM mark24 has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 36 of 214 (14530)
07-30-2002 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
07-30-2002 11:28 AM


Dear John,
No, but they are highly conserved in mammals,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 07-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 07-30-2002 11:28 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John, posted 08-02-2002 1:22 AM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 37 of 214 (14531)
07-30-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mark24
07-29-2002 8:01 AM


dear mark,
You say:
"you can’t make any judgement on neutral/non-neutral rate until you can scientifically prove there is absolutely no function in the genes that you purport should display neutral rate mutation."
The redundant genes can be knocked out, so knocking them out does not say anything about the function of genes (or pseudogenes for that matter). Genes that can be knocked out are (at least) non-essential genes and that means -- according to NET -- that they suppose to change with faster rate than essential genes since there is no selective constraint on these genes (deduced from non-phenotype knock-outs). Is this so hard to comprehend? If it is, I recommend you to study the neutral theory. There are some excellent reviews written by Kimura himself. I invite you to do a search on the NCBI homepage.
and:
"No judgement allowed = no falsification."
That is why evolution can not be falsified, and therefor it is no science. As soon as one treats ET as science -- as I did in all my examples -- it falls. I don't understand why it doesn't make you a bit suspicious about the validity of the theory. When I found out I immediately recognized the theory as pretty feeble.
As I mentioned before everyone in free to believe whatever he/she wants, but don't tell me NDT (already forgotten about my falsification of random mutation?) is backed up by science, since it is NOT!!
Best wishes,
peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 07-29-2002 8:01 AM mark24 has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 38 of 214 (14533)
07-30-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mark24
07-30-2002 5:02 AM


dear Mark,
You say:
"I’m well aware of neutral theory."
If so, what --according to you-- does it hold?
And:
"You have not shown evolution cannot work at the molecular level without being a hypocrite."
Strong words!
"Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons."
See my previous letter to you.
And:
"This is the third or fourth time I’ve posted this, why aren’t you addressing the main point?"
Because it is irrelevant to my falsifications of NDT.
In fact, you should be convinced now that NDT is not valid at the molecular level. I mean after I showed a falsification of random mutation and a falsification of natural selection.
Best Wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 5:02 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 07-31-2002 7:33 AM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 39 of 214 (14537)
07-30-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peter
07-30-2002 3:46 AM


dear Peter,
Your say:
"Why should these 'redundancies' (and you have yourself
stated that they are more likely to be 'of unknown function'
in any case) have a different mutation rate than any other
section of DNA ? (I've asked this before and you haven't given
an answer)"
Ever heard of neutral evolution theory? What does it say for DNA sequences that are not under selective constraint? Indeed, the suppose to change more rapidly!! In fact this has been well established. I recommend you to read reviews by Kimura on the topic, than you will find out. So either Kimura isn't right or NDT isn't, or both aren't.
And:
"If we didn't have sections of genetic make-up (with currently
unknown function and apparently no survival benefit to the
organism) we couldn't have natural selection at all, could we?
(This has been asked before and you have not answered)."
That is exactly the point! I try to show that natural selection does not work at the level of the genome and therefor the pardigm is wrong!!!!!! At last someone who gets the point.
And:
"You have in no way refuted random mutation."
Denial. One of evolutionists primary tactics. I clearly demonstrated with the Drosophila example that in this particular gene there is non-random (directed?) mutation, and if you had read the thread properly you would have seen that one of the first tenets of NDT is that non-random muations do NOT exist. You are free to ignore that, I don't mind. If you like I will also falsify common descent, and show that reconsiliation of gene and species trees is nothing but a mathematical trick to get the data in accord with the theory. (as a matter of fact, I already mailed the example of IL-1beta to you. Maybe we have to discuss that too).
And:
"Giraffes don't generate mutations to neck lenght control mechanisms becuase they need longer necks."
How do you know that?
And:
"Peppered moths (and they MUST rest somewhere during in the day
even if it is not near a biologist's trap ... most moths I have
seen during the day are sitting high on the wall of my house, or
on a high window) show a natural variation, and the distribution
of that variation can be affected by environmental conditions.
That IS natural selection isn't it?"
Yep, and it doesn't help NDT.
And:
"That we haven't found the exact molecular level explanation does
not refute the theory ... it just means there are pieces of the
puzzle missing ... we already know that."
That is a completely different issue. What I did is falsify the theory, and thus demonstrated the theory to be not good/wrong/incomplete.
As I mailed to John, there are not only a couple of pieces missing, but the ET cannot explain: 1) the origin of life, 2) the origin of genes, 3) (the origin of) biodiversity. I wouldn't call that just a couple of pieces. They are the quintessence.
And:
"Redundancy doesn't refute ToE, it is an expected feature."
We are starting to move in circles. I am not going to explain again that redundancies do not have a correlation with gene duplication etc... I already did that several times. Apparently, nobody gets the point.
You finally say that:
"Mutation enables evolution, and mutation happens."
I do not doubt that mutations happen. I am sure that they do not lead to evolution.
Also: Here you show your strong believe in mutations as the driving force of ET (I recommend you to read Spetner. At least his book is scientifically backed up).
"You have not shown that there are any non-random mutations in the sense that 'randommutation' is used in ToE, only that some sites are more prone to copy errors. This is good for ToE, it means that there is an observed mechanism that can explain away the 'you can't get enough mutations for that' arguments."
Wow, do you propose integration of this mechanism in the NDT?
That is pretty quick. So your conclusion will be: Peter Borger did not falsify anything?
I wish you well,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 3:46 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peter, posted 07-31-2002 8:40 AM peter borger has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 40 of 214 (14551)
07-31-2002 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by peter borger
07-30-2002 9:57 PM


Peter B,
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

The redundant genes can be knocked out, so knocking them out does not say anything about the function of genes (or pseudogenes for that matter). Genes that can be knocked out are (at least) non-essential genes and that means -- according to NET -- that they suppose to change with faster rate than essential genes since there is no selective constraint on these genes (deduced from non-phenotype knock-outs). Is this so hard to comprehend? If it is, I recommend you to study the neutral theory. There are some excellent reviews written by Kimura himself. I invite you to do a search on the NCBI homepage.

Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
"Why? Because for your argument to be true, you need to demonstrate that the sequences you purport to be functionless, are. This is exactly the criteria you say evolutionists need to meet before they can derive phylogenies from transposons."
See my previous letter to you.

I did, but cannot see how you have addressed the point above. Please be more specific. You need to show me that either,
1/ You are not relying on substitution rate to determine whether neutral rate substitution is occurring.
Or,
2/ You need not determine whether the sequence is functionless (or never had function) or not, before claiming that neutral rate substitution is not observed & neutral theory is overthrown.
How can you be sure that function in the knocked out gene isn’t redundant, with weak selection occurring upon it, or perhaps more importantly, that it never had a secondary function, never, EVER? Is this so hard to comprehend?
If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation regarding falsification of neutral theory, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS!!!!!!!!! DO YOU GET IT NOW!!!!?????
This point of this exercise is to expose your double standards, nothing more.
You are perfectly content to tell me that function must be SHOWN to be absent before phylogenies can be inferred from transposons, & at the same time feel SURE that neutral theory is overthrown without showing the same.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"This is the third or fourth time I’ve posted this, why aren’t you addressing the main point?"
Because it is irrelevant to my falsifications of NDT.

I am commenting on your attempt to falsify neutral theory, not the NDT in it’s entirety, let’s leave the goalposts where they are, please.
So, how is the above point irrelevant to your attempt to falsify neutral theory?
It seems to me that you are applying contradictory standards.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:57 PM peter borger has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 41 of 214 (14555)
07-31-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by peter borger
07-30-2002 10:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Your say:
"Why should these 'redundancies' (and you have yourself
stated that they are more likely to be 'of unknown function'
in any case) have a different mutation rate than any other
section of DNA ? (I've asked this before and you haven't given
an answer)"
Ever heard of neutral evolution theory? What does it say for DNA sequences that are not under selective constraint? Indeed, the suppose to change more rapidly!! In fact this has been well established. I recommend you to read reviews by Kimura on the topic, than you will find out. So either Kimura isn't right or NDT isn't, or both aren't.

I have read some articles by Kimura, and he doesn't himself
seem to doubt natural selection as acting, just not on ALL
traits.
I'll look up some more though.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
And:
"If we didn't have sections of genetic make-up (with currently
unknown function and apparently no survival benefit to the
organism) we couldn't have natural selection at all, could we?
(This has been asked before and you have not answered)."
That is exactly the point! I try to show that natural selection does not work at the level of the genome and therefor the pardigm is wrong!!!!!! At last someone who gets the point.

I understand what you are saying (I think), but it seems
backward logical to me.
If there are parts of the genome which are neutral in terms of
survival at the level of the organism now, then something
changes that makes that very feature important ... then
that's exactly what we need for ToE to work.
You have said that we do have sections of the genome which have
no selective pressure associated at the point in time when the
genome was investigated.
For mutations to drive evolution, we would require areas of the
genome which, if changed, would not outright kill the carrier,
but on subsequent changes might promote new function.
You said we do find that ... or at least apparently functionless
junk sections.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"You have in no way refuted random mutation."
Denial. One of evolutionists primary tactics. I clearly demonstrated with the Drosophila example that in this particular gene there is non-random (directed?) mutation, and if you had read the thread properly you would have seen that one of the first tenets of NDT is that non-random muations do NOT exist. You are free to ignore that, I don't mind. If you like I will also falsify common descent, and show that reconsiliation of gene and species trees is nothing but a mathematical trick to get the data in accord with the theory. (as a matter of fact, I already mailed the example of IL-1beta to you. Maybe we have to discuss that too).

I'll re-read to check.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"Giraffes don't generate mutations to neck lenght control mechanisms becuase they need longer necks."
How do you know that?

Reasonable point ... it's an assumption on my part.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"Peppered moths (and they MUST rest somewhere during in the day
even if it is not near a biologist's trap ... most moths I have
seen during the day are sitting high on the wall of my house, or
on a high window) show a natural variation, and the distribution
of that variation can be affected by environmental conditions.
That IS natural selection isn't it?"
Yep, and it doesn't help NDT.

Why?
If it supports natural selection as a process, how is that bad
for NDT?
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"That we haven't found the exact molecular level explanation does
not refute the theory ... it just means there are pieces of the
puzzle missing ... we already know that."
That is a completely different issue. What I did is falsify the theory, and thus demonstrated the theory to be not good/wrong/incomplete.
As I mailed to John, there are not only a couple of pieces missing, but the ET cannot explain:
1) the origin of life,
2) the origin of genes,

It doesn't seek to ... so that's a given (hey we agree on something!)
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
3) (the origin of) biodiversity. I wouldn't call that just a couple of pieces. They are the quintessence.

We are in disagreement over 3), so stating your conclusion is
not marking a hole in the theory.
Many of us are of the opposite opinion, and thus the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"Redundancy doesn't refute ToE, it is an expected feature."
We are starting to move in circles. I am not going to explain again that redundancies do not have a correlation with gene duplication etc... I already did that several times. Apparently, nobody gets the point.

I mention it again because you are still hanging on to duplications,
which I said I wasn't talking about, and not responding to the
suggestion that some 'by default' selection goes on because
many genes are physically linked on one chromosome.
If I have three books each containing three stories, but I only
want to keep one story ... by default I have to keep the other
two in the same book (assuming I don't rip it out of course).
I have 'selected' two stories indirectly because I had no choice.
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

You finally say that:
"Mutation enables evolution, and mutation happens."
I do not doubt that mutations happen. I am sure that they do not lead to evolution.

How do you know that ?
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Also: Here you show your strong believe in mutations as the driving force of ET (I recommend you to read Spetner. At least his book is scientifically backed up).
"You have not shown that there are any non-random mutations in the sense that 'randommutation' is used in ToE, only that some sites are more prone to copy errors. This is good for ToE, it means that there is an observed mechanism that can explain away the 'you can't get enough mutations for that' arguments."
Wow, do you propose integration of this mechanism in the NDT?

It's already in ... has been since people knew about genetics.
It says that mutations + selection drive evolution.
Anything relating to the mechanisms behind mutation (barring a
serial number on a genome) is OK.
I'll re-read some of the examples you give, but if you can show
me a mutation that couldn't have happened by chance I'll go
'Hmmm .... er .... ' and start making stuff up
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

That is pretty quick. So your conclusion will be: Peter Borger did not falsify anything?

My current opinion is that nothing that you have put forward
FALSIFY's ToE, that's true.
Provide me with some more compelling analysis of data and I
will change my mind on that.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 10:43 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 2:05 AM Peter has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 214 (14566)
07-31-2002 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mark24
07-30-2002 12:03 PM


The preference here is that discussion focus on the arguments rather than the people making the arguments. This is a good dissection:
Mark writes:

Using one strict standard as a criteria in an attempt to weaken your opponents argument, & then completely ignore it to strengthen your own argument, is hypocritical.
But another interpretation is that this is simply a clever and commonly used debating device. Calling attention to uses of this fallacy is often sufficient.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 12:03 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 07-31-2002 10:54 AM Admin has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 43 of 214 (14568)
07-31-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Admin
07-31-2002 10:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Admin:
The preference here is that discussion focus on the arguments rather than the people making the arguments. This is a good dissection:
Mark writes:

Using one strict standard as a criteria in an attempt to weaken your opponents argument, & then completely ignore it to strengthen your own argument, is hypocritical.
But another interpretation is that this is simply a clever and commonly used debating device. Calling attention to uses of this fallacy is often sufficient.

Admin,
You will note my last post uses "contradictory standards", so at the very least, I'm towing the line.
Also, the entire point of my argument with Peter B is that he is using this fallacy, so in this case calling attention to it isn't sufficient!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 07-31-2002 10:27 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 07-31-2002 12:01 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 46 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 12:49 AM mark24 has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 44 of 214 (14572)
07-31-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by mark24
07-31-2002 10:54 AM


Mark writes:

You will note my last post uses "contradictory standards", so at the very least, I'm towing the line.
These responses are offered as clarification, not criticism.

Also, the entire point of my argument with Peter B is that he is using this fallacy, so in this case calling attention to it isn't sufficient!
This often happens, and you are understandably trying to break out of the "reply contains fallacy", "point out fallacy", "next reply contains same fallacy" loop. But just as you cannot push on a string, neither is there any way to force someone to accept that his approach is fallacious, which is not a very satisfying situation here where the more aggressive approaches are discouraged, thereby removing an emotionally satisfying though often unproductive avenue.
In formal adjudicated debate you would have the satisfaction of piling up debate points and likely winning the debate if the particular issue was key, but here, if attempts to discourage use of the fallacy are ineffective then one can only point it out each time it appears.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 07-31-2002 10:54 AM mark24 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 214 (14709)
08-02-2002 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by peter borger
07-30-2002 9:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
No, but they are highly conserved in mammals,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 07-30-2002]

The question then is how long have these genes been around? And 'highly conserved' meaning what exactly?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:20 PM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 46 of 214 (14936)
08-07-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mark24
07-31-2002 10:54 AM


Dear Mark,
Could you please point out exactly where you think I use fallacies (mailnumber and quote) to support my view. It will make it a lot easier for me to respond,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 07-31-2002 10:54 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 08-07-2002 11:24 AM peter borger has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024