dear Mammuthus,
Obviously, I said something that affected your temper, although that was not my intention. This happened before (several times) while discussing examples that seriously doubt the vision of NDT. As a matter of fact, I have the feeling (NB: feeling, not conclusion) that you did not read any of my threads and your reaction clearly demonstrates that you are not able to think beyond the current paradigm.
You say:
"If you could actually knock down any part of genetics or evolution by discovering something that nobody has seen that would be great. Upheavels in science are fantastic and bring about new discoveries...nay saying does not."
I recommend you to have a careful look at the data of Schmid and Tautz (see my posting). And I also invite you to point out where my reasoning goes wrong. As a matter of fact it is a falsification of NDT, and that is all I wanted to show on this site. However, since there was a lot of skepticism I was dragged into a discussion I was not really eager for. You will be dragged in the discussion too as you will find out.
Because, I take myself seriously, I defended my opinion where ever I could (as you will, either). I discovered the (undiscussed) data in S & T paper that falsified NDT and now, I cannot retreat by admitting that these data do not falsify NDT. Since they do.
Furthermore mammuthus says:
Peter says:
"The word "it" in you last sentence refers to the foregoing sentence? Please be more specific in your statements."
I say:
Unless you are being purposely obtuse you realize what the "it" refers to.
Actually, there could be different interpretations.
Peter says:
"This immediately falsifies NDT. Furthermore, it is known that subtilisin and interferon alpha also demonstrate directed mutations. Even viruses and bacteria are able to shuffle their genome in response to the environment and --whether you like it or not-- this falsifies NDT."
I say (mammuthus):
And I am the one with a logic problem? All this proves is that you do not understand the meaning of random mutation.
My response (pb)
O yes, I know what you are going to say. I do not know anything about evolution. Well, I heard this before as soon as I come up with examples that questions the valididty of random mutations and selection. (I'm sure I will hear these fallacies again as soon as I start my discussion on genes not present in apes but present in human and their alleged random origin. Of course, you are also invited to respond. The more scientific input the better. Certainly it will improve the discussion.)
And you (mammuthus) say:
Where is your proof in any of this that mutations are not random?
My say (pb):
Where is your proof that any of these mutations are random? Come on how can we discuss like this?
And you say (mam):
Where is the data that says you can predict in any given gamete where the next mutation occurs even for a "hot spot"? How does viral activation falsify NDT? You make bold statements but never elaborate as to exactly how this falisfies anything. Please be specific.
I say (pb)
I cannot yet be specific, since the underlying mechanisms are not yet clear. Time will reveal.
I said (mammathus):
"There is not one piece of physical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus."
Peter replies:
fallacy #2: How does the foregoing sentence relate to your extensive conclusion? Apparently it is you who needs to brush up logics. Not only are these 'unwarranted conclusions', but they are also 'pars pro toto' fallacies. If this is your logics than I suddenly understand evolution much better.
Notably, your conclusion based on the above statement (thatis not even backed up by evidence, on the contrary) is:
"Therefore, the bible must be false, an intelligent designer does not exist and all ID based hypotheses are refuted. Ta da! Just disproved your side! So we can all get on with it and support the one true god...Homer Simpson..doh! This would be analagous to the I don't know what the pseudogene does so therefore it must do something and therefore it was designed and therefore evolution did not occur argument."
In addition, it should be noted that religion is per definition NO science, and if evolution IS science than I will treat it like that."
I reply (mammuth):
1) Show me then one piece of evidence that Jesus lived (extra-biblical of course. You merely state that I am incorrect in saying there is no evidence that he lived.
My response (pb):
Ever heard of the 1st century jewish-roman historic Josephus Flavius? I recommend you to read his works.
2) It it gratifying that you listed intelligent design as not being a science but a religion.."it should be noted that religion is per definition NO science"
Peter says:
....and still propagated by evolutionists on internet, the papers, television etc. I strongly object to that!!"
I say (mammuth):
Please try and keep your emotions under control.
My response (pb):
Since when is objection an emotion?
Mammuth says:
The term junk DNA has been propagated primarily by the genomics community rather than specifically evolutionists...you really don't hold yourself to the standards of discourse you expect of others
I say (pb)
Junk DNA is an abused word that is eagerly spelled out by evolutionists. The layman who hears this on the TV/internet is completely overwhelmed by so much non-sense. It is misleading.
Similarly. The hoax around this socalled 7 million years missing link in the lineage of great apes. I've seen the skull (and with me the complete earth has seen it) on three different channels. All it is is a female gorilla. I didn't see it on TV that is was a female gorilla, I had to find out in the science section of a paper. I call this misleading of the public. Propaganda!
Peter says:
(Dawkins, who else. But what does he know about genes? He is a zoologist).
I replied (mammuth):
Ok Mr. Borger...what exactly are your credentials???
Peter replies:
MSc (biochemistry, molecular biology), PhD (molecular medicine, gene expression and regulation)
I said (mammuth):
"Since you don't accept the hypothesis/views/data of those who are not specialists in exactly the field under debate, show me what your credentials are regarding 1)evolutionary biology 2) "junk DNA"....if you do not hold a Ph.D. in a field directly related to these topics I guess we can say what does Mr. Borger know about genes? He is just a (profession unknown)."
Peter says:
What are you up to? Is this some kind of debating trick? Besides, my profession is mentioned on this site."
I say (mammuth):
Um...how is this a trick? YOU said that Richard Dawkins cannot be taken seriously ....
My comments:
This is distortion of my words (=fallacy). I said: "what does he know about genes". That is --in my opinion-- something different).
Mammuth continues:
...in discussing genetic evolution because he is a zoologist. 1) that assumes that he had no training in genetics as a zoologist which is very often an incorrect assumption (you jumping to conclusions)
I reply (pb):
So you infer that dawkins has a training in genetics? Could you substantiate that assumption?
2) you not having a background in evolution would exclude you from having an opinion by your own standard...no trick...your logic.
I say (pb):
Again distortion of my words. All I said that is: "Dawkins? What does he know about genes? He's a zoologist." Of course he is entitled to his opinions.
Peter says:
"What makes you think I cannot analyse the data the authors present in literature? It is jumping to conclusions, again. (=fallacy #? I lost thread)"
Re read what I said....you are not analyzing the raw data but you are JUMPING to the CONCLUSION that you are always right and they are wrong.
I say (pb):
You keep distorting my words. Where exactly do I say that I am always right? As a matter of fact I said in a reply to mark --about shared retroviruses-- that "I don't know, that he doesn't know and that nobody knows." That all I know: that I don't know!
You say (mammuth):
However, you never propose what the correct interpretation is I notice.
I say (pb):
Because we do not know the correct interpretation, the only thing we can do is have faith in paradigms. I said this before, but apparently you don't read what I write in other threads.
And you (mammuth) continue:
You merely say that they are incorrect but do not support or even give an alternative explanation...so yes, I do not think you are able to analyze the data the authors present in the literature as well as they do.
I say (pb):
As long as they can be falsified they are incorrect. What you fail to see is that I interpreted the data beyond the current paradigm.
Peter says regarding his study of evolution:
"I has my special interest although I do not come to the same conclusions as evolution biologists copy from the theory."
I say:
This statement makes no sense...another sweeping statement that everyone is wrong but you are right? Just a question of interest..have you ever read any of Darwin's works?
My reply (pb):
Let me be more specific. I did my evolutionclasses at Uni, and I passed. I read all about it for the last 10 years or so; from Darwin to Dawkins and from Behe to Spetner. (I prefer to read opposite opinions, it keeps me from being teneted). And I follow all articles on molecular evolution in Science and Nature.
Peter says:
"I agree, but you could have a much better opinion if you took some particle physics classes. You would be independent of the opinion of others. I am independent of the opinions of other biologists, since I perfectly well understand the data they present in literature."
1) You assume that I am dependent on the opinions of others
My response (pb):
On particle physics I presumed it. Yes.
2) You are completely dependent on the presentation of the data (rarely raw) of those biologists you claim to be independent of. We all are and that is why some of choose to do experiments on the subject ourselves...i.e. so as not to be dependent on the opinions of others.
My response (pb):
Data ara data. I am idenpendent of teir interpretation since I can interpret the data for myselfs. Often I encounter weard stuff, meaning: not in accord with the current paradigm.
3) You are certainly dependent on your opinion to the exclusion of all other considerations which is just as unfortunate as a blind follower.
Give me hard evidence that you can really
1) understand the theory of evolution
My response (PB):
That I am able to falsify the NDT should be sufficient.
2) propose an alternative
I say (pb):
Not here. But you will read about it.
3) show any support for that alternative
My response (pb):
I will.
4) really "with data" disprove that evolution can occur.
I say (pb):
I don't have to do that anymore, since Spetner already did this in a very scientific (mathematical) way. I will provide biological support for his vision.
You say (mammuth):
Peter says regarding Mark24's post (apologize but do not know which number it was)
"Of course you liked it since it was an inappropriate analogy. I recommend you to brush up on your logics."
I reply (mammuth):
I like Mark's analogy because it was funny and very appropriate.
My response (pb):
It was funny, although it was a faulty analogy.
You conclude (mammuth):
It is you who should brush up on your logics.
My response (pb):
No comments.
Peter says:
"Finally I would like to say to Mammuthus:
If you specialise in only one thing, you will never come to greater things than this one specialty. If one integrates several disciplines one will come to different insight that were beyond reach/imagination before.
I have the feeling that you work as follows:
Axioma 1: there is no creation,
Axioma 2: there is evolution.
And you are entitled to this, I don't mind.
But, who are you to tell other people that they are wrong in their axioma's. A PhD-ed molecular evolutionist? It doesn't impress me at all. Better try to integrate unbiased objective thinking in your 'Weltanschauung'."
I reply:
1) I do not specialize in one thing...again you make the assumption though you accuse me of making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and uttering fallacies...rather amusing.
I say (pb):
Misinterpretation of my words. I said IF. You interpreted it as being meant personally. It wasn't, it was a general If-statement. Maybe I should have written: If ONE.... etc.
You say (mammuth):
correction:
Axioma 1) there is not a shred of evidence for creation
My response (pb):
I have the feeling that we have to define "evidence" first. But than we will get lost in setting up definitions. But why not? It's going to be along hot summer, anyway. And I have lots of --incubation-- time.
Axioma 2) there is a ton of evidence for evolution but an enormous amount of data missing as to how it works...not unlike the Law of Gravity. That is what makes it interesting.
All the socalled evidence have been obtained by verification of the old paradigm. Let's have a look whether the old paradigm can be falsified (on all levels). That would make it more interesting and more scientific. Let's redefine evolution theory.
Since we are in assumption mode in this part of the post..Peter Borger
Axioma 1) evolution cannot happen
If you mean that by application of the current knowledge on the laws of physics/biology evolution is impossible, I agree. (also read Spetner on the maths)
Axioma 2) My interpretations are always correct
Distortion. I offer another interpretation that is as correct as yours.
Peter says:
"But, who are you to tell other people that they are wrong in their axioma's. "
I reply:
Who exactly are you to tell people that they are wrong with their axioma's? Right back at you. I guess because I do not agree with you that I am not allowed to say you are wrong though you are free to do so?
Peter says:
"A PhD-ed molecular evolutionist"...get the facts straight...where did I claim to be a PhD-ed molecular evolutionist? And I really do not give a rats behind if my credentials impress you or not. I only put them out there as a bit of background information for others reading the posts.
I reply (pb):
Okay, I got carried away. And about the background, that's exactly what I do, but from a different stance.
Peter claims I need to:
"Better try to integrate unbiased objective thinking in your 'Weltanschauung'."
I reply:
Gleichfalls! You could use a heavy dose of this as well. Also support your ASSUMPTION that I do not use objective thinking. I will make an assumption given the tone of your responses to myself and others. Unbiased objective thinking means those who agree with you and nobody else...that is a poor way to engage in any endeavor much less a scientific one.
By all means attack the theory of evolution but
1) show that you understand the basics
2) propose the alternative
3) support it with hard data
You're repeating yourself. (I responded to these questions above).
If you could actually knock down any part of genetics or evolution by discovering something that nobody has seen that would be great.
My reply (pb):
Actually I focussed the attention at something that nobody had seen before and it instigated a big fuss (and you are part of it now, reluctantly I presume, but anyway). [See also my response above].
Upheavels in science are fantastic and bring about new discoveries...nay saying does not.
My reply (pb):
Maybe you could back me up as I try to get my discovery in a peer-reviewed journal? Co-authorship?
I like to conclude (pb):
Thanks for your responses and I hope for your future contribution.
"Final question to mammuthus, just to satisfy my scientific interest:
When can we expect the first cloned mammuth? That's what it's all about isn't it (not a conclusion, but my intuition).
Best wishes and have a nice day,
Peter
™ Version 4.2