Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:12 AM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
gene90
Member (Idle past 1996 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 62 of 214 (15092)
08-09-2002 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Mammuthus
08-09-2002 9:52 AM


A little too "direct" but otherwise a good post. I am in complete agreement. I don't suppose you could find the time to lurk a little less and participate a little more?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Mammuthus, posted 08-09-2002 9:52 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Mammuthus, posted 08-10-2002 12:49 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 63 of 214 (15154)
08-10-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by gene90
08-09-2002 12:09 PM


Hi gene90,
I barely have time to skim through the forum. But I will try to jump in when I can

And you are correct, in retrospect I was way to harsh in my response to Peter Borger....just had an experiment in the lab tank and I was feeling a bit aggressive
I still stand by my criticism of his post however.

By the way, a bit off topic, but if anyone is interested in a really fun book on retroelements (particularly human endogenous retroviruses) in the genome and evolution read Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio. There is actually a lot of technical information in the book for a thriller (though some of it is wrong). Still, gets one thinking about speciation and is not the typical type of book about science that is really restricted to specialists to understand.

For those inclined to read up in any specific area of evolution the most direct way in is

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
click on PubMed
to save yourself trouble click on limits and select Title/Abstract

This is the National Institutes of Health literature database. Almost all peer reviewed journals are listed. By going into options such as limits you can save yourself from entering a word and getting 2 million hits. For example I would limit my search to say Title/Text Word, limit to reviews and limit to 1995-2002 and then for example in the search field type evolution retroelements if that is what I was interested in. You would then get a bunch of reviews with citations in them that would lead you to other literature. The advantage here is that many of the pre-2002 articles will be free online. And the actual literature is better than trusting what you read on a website in terms of accuracy....just thought I would throw that out there...for those of you who already know about Medline feel free to ignore what I just wrote

Til later
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 12:09 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 64 of 214 (15268)
08-12-2002 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by peter borger
08-07-2002 2:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter,

You write:
"My current opinion is that nothing that you have put forward
FALSIFY's ToE, that's true."

You are of very short memory.
Three weeks ago I mailed the topic: "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation" and thus I falsified the NDT.


But have consistently failed to answer the criticism that you
use two different interpretations of random to do so.

Evolution requires mutation + selection. Mutation is considered
random in the sense that it is not a response to an environmental
stimulus per-se ... and that the time and site of the mutation
cannot be predicted in advance.

Not even sure whether 'randomness' is 'required by' or 'assumed by'
evolutionary theory ... and that would be important.

What ToE does suggest is that mutation is a naturalistic process,
and it has long been assumed to be accidental.

There is an article in New Scientist or Scientific American (I'll
try to dig it out for a proper reference) which suggests that
DNA in brain cells is deliberately re-arranged ... perhaps as a
quantum memory store ... which suggests a mechanism for
deliberately changing cell DNA sequence.

Does that refute NDT? Mutation + Selection = NDT, does it
really make any difference if there is some unknown natural
process that aids mutation ... or does that help ToE?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Although not admitted by Percy (maybe she should do that to create some clarity) it still stands as a falsification of the atheistic version of evolution theory (=NDT). I recommend you to read the thread again. Maybe that will open your eyes.

I have read the thread ... maybe you could answer your critics?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

In the meantime I also provided a falsification (do you know what a falsification is, and why it is not so good for a theory?)

Perhaps you could be less condescending and more informative ...
what do YOU mean by falsification?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

of natural selection and thus demonstrated the NDT not to be valid on the level of the genome. What else do you want me to falsify?
Best wishes
Peter

You have NOT falsified natural selection.

You have suggested that not all traits in the genome are subject
to selective pressure ... NDT doesn't say they are either ...
does it? Perhaps you could cite the NDT references where this
is stated.

Even Kimura says that some ARE subject to selective pressure.

You have still not expressed an opinion on gene selection due to
location on the same chromosome as a gene subject to selective
pressure as in the book+story analogy I suggested previously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 2:05 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 214 (15272)
08-12-2002 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by peter borger
08-07-2002 2:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
In the meantime I also provided a falsification (do you know what a falsification is, and why it is not so good for a theory?) of natural selection and thus demonstrated the NDT not to be valid on the level of the genome. What else do you want me to falsify?
Best wishes
Peter

Falsification of natural selection?

Natural selection has been demonstrated umpteen times experimentally.

I'll use a single example, the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. In waters populated by the predator Crenicichla, males have smaller less conspicuous spots that match the gravel bottom (different bottoms elicit different patterns). In effect the guppy has evolved camouflage. The alleles that express phenotypes are under SELECTIVE pressure.

Guppies that exist in waters that lack Crenicichla display a much wider range of colouration. That is to say the alleles that affect skin colour are no longer under selective pressure.

Guppy populations that are in waters that have Crenicichla populations, & are placed in waters without the predator soon display a wider variety of colouration. Again, the skin colouration alleles aren't selectively constrained, & are able to increase via genetic drift, since they are now "neutral" alleles.

If guppies from non-predatorial waters are placed in water with Crenicichla, the colourations soon begin to match the gravel bottom. That is, alleles responsible for skin colouration are under selective pressure.

(Endler 1980)

Now, given you have "falsified" natural selection, can you explain the above within your shining new paradigm?

I don't think so, there is no other explanation other than non effectively camouflaged guppies end up as lunch for Crenicichla, those that have camouflage go on to repopulate. Namely, natural selection. If allele frequencies are being affected by natural selection, & natural selection is part of the NDT, then how can you possibly conclude that the NDT can't be seen to work at the genome level?

Falsification of natural selection? Not.

As regards neutral theory:

quote:

Peter Borger says:

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.


You admit that DNA there are sequences not under selective constraint, & that sequence changes occur. You also admit that it is "well established". I think you will find it is also at the "genome level". How can you accept something is well established & have claimed a falsification at the same time?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 2:05 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 66 of 214 (15317)
08-12-2002 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
08-07-2002 11:24 AM


dear mark,

You say:
"I never said you used fallacies to support your view, just that you allow yourself the luxury of not being able to show function/non-function of a sequence, yet absolutely require it for phylogenetic analysis that supports evolution."

Distortion. I said that since you don't know how viruses came into being you assume that they integrated in the DNA of an assumed ancestor and are now present in the same spot of the DNA in primates that descended from this ancestor. I've turned it up-side-down. I say that since we do not know the origin of (retro)viruses --but for sure they have there origin in the genome-- it may as well be assumed that the retroviruslike sequence fulfilled a role in speciation, genome stabilisation or other unknown function. A very close look at the DNA sequences within (sub)species would provide more clarity. (I said this before, but apperently you don't get that there are always more ways to interpret data. I also stated that the current data are discussed according to the paradigm of common descent through evolution, and --as you should know by now-- I objected to that).

You also say:
"In the very same thread you are assuming the total non-functionality of the GLO pseudogene."

Well, I am not the only one who is assuming that. It is generally acknowledged as a pseudogene.

And:
"Functionality doesn’t have to be known for phylogenetic inference, but it does have to be known if your argument depends on the lack of function of a particular sequence.

Since you have used the GLO vit c pseudogene as your evidence;

1/ Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out, which you claim shows lack of function."

Here, I do not get your point. The GLO gene is a naturally knocked out gene in all species you cite above. According to the articlein PNAS it has been knocked out about 25 million years ago due to the introduction of a non-sense mutation in exon X (=ten).

2/ Assuming you can cite the studies of the knockouts above, how can you show the sequences never had a secondary function at some point, never, ever, EVER? Remember, you are claiming a falsification here, you need to be in possession of this knowledge.

Distortion. I said I COULD take the GLO gene as proof against random mutation (see also my comments to you in the other thread). I didn't do it because I have better examples.

And:
"If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation, as regards falsification of neutral theory, or the NDT for that matter."

I only quoted the authors.

Best wishes
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 08-07-2002 11:24 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 08-13-2002 2:50 PM peter borger has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 67 of 214 (15330)
08-13-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Mammuthus
08-09-2002 9:52 AM


dear Mammuthus,

You say:
"I lurk here from time to time because I find it facinating that anyone can be a creationist/IDer/Elvis Presley worshipper/my god can beat up your god etc. etc. in 2002 (not that it ever made any sense)."

The word "it" in you last sentence refers to the foregoing sentence? Please be more specific in your statements.

And:
"First, that is very arrogant of Mr. Borger to claim that Diethard Tautz and Karl Schmid do not know what they are talking about in their papers. (I will be glad to tell them next time I see them though they will both laugh and wonder why I am wasting the few minutes to type this here). Please explain why two people who studied biology (evolution in particular), generated the data, analyzed it, and yes, even published it are less qualified to draw their conclusions than Mr. Borger?"

First of all it is distortion of my words (which is a fallacy). If they studied the data they show, they would also have recognised non-random mutation in the 1G5 gene. (Since you seem to know the authors, please focus their attention to this peculiar phenomenon they did not discuss. Therefore I did it for them).
These authors discuss their data according to the current paradigms. These paradigms do not have to be correct. All I demonstrated is that if you have a careful look at the presented data we find a violation of random mutationand that falsifies NDT. Thus, the NDT is not complete, maybe even complete wrong. (as a matter of fact we are observing more and more genes that change in a directed manner:e.g. a very recent online article in JBC showed that the gene encoding the CD80 molecule --that is involved in costimulation of T cells-- is directed (JBC online august 2002; www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/M205808200v1). 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.

You also state:
"I could use Mr. Borger's logic to disprove creationsim."

I say:
Go ahead. Let's stick to the evidence, and watch out for fallacies.

You say:
"There is not one piece of physical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus."

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 did this and I demonstrated the ToE to be falsifiable at all levels, in particular at the level of the genome. This is unacceptable for a scientific theory, at least, it SHOULD be unacceptable. So, what you --as an evolutionary biologist-- have to do is to get the theory in accordanc with the data, not the data in accordance with the theory! (If you don't know what I am referring to, please let me know, and we will discuss, for instance, the IL-1 beta genes)

You say:
"More seriously though, I work on "junk DNA" have a Ph.D. in human genetics and have been a working biologist for 12 years.

Congratulations!!

And:
"The last six on evolution..." (variation in DNA sequences, I presume?)"...and analyzing DNA from extinct animals such as mammoths. I can agree on Mr. Borger that Junk DNA is an awful term that was adopted prematurely..."

I say:
....and still propagated by evolutionists on internet, the papers, television etc. I strongly object to that!!

And:
"(the only thing we would agree on) ."

That remains to be seen. Do I notice 'jumping to conclusions' here?

And:
"However, there are functionless sequences that could be considered junk DNA but to many functionally uncharacterized sequences given this designation.

Mr. Borger says:
(Dawkins, who else. But what does he know about genes? He is a zoologist).

Ok Mr. Borger...what exactly are your credentials???

MSc (biochemistry, molecular biology), PhD (molecular medicine, gene expression and regulation)

"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)."

I say:
What are you up to? Is this some kind of debating trick? Besides, my profession is mentioned on this site.

Furthermore you say:
"It seems from Mr. Borger's posts that he is intelligent..."

(thanks)

"...but has had no exposure to science or scientific method.

I say:
Based on what? Do I notice jumping to conclusions, again?

And:
"If he were truly interested in the topic he would take some classes in 1) scientific philosphy"

I did

"(2) biology"

I did a lot

"3) genetics (molecular or 'plain'?)"

I did both

"4)evolutionary biology"

I has my special interest although I do not come to the same conclusions as evolution biologists copy from the theory.

"and then with a few clicks at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov"

I say:
It is one of my favorite sites.

Furthermore, you state:
"...click on PubMed and actually find out about pseudogenes, hotspots, etc. rather than spout out that he is more able to evaluate a field than anyone who actually makes a living at it."

What makes you think I cannot analyse the data the authors present in literature? It is jumping to conclusions, again. (=fallacy #? I lost thread)

And you say:
"As a biologist I would assume that I am in no position to evaluate the current state of particle physics. That does not mean I cannot develope an informed opinion on the subject but it will not be worth much unless I really study and work on the subject."

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.

And:
"Mr. Borger and others seem to just say they have refuted a biological principle without even demonstrating that they are informed on the subject."

Based on...? You draw conclusion without any information. Are you an evolutionist?

Finally you say:
"Sorry to single you out Mr. Borger..."

(Thanks I'm flattered)

followed by:
"...but your post was inappropriate..."

Could you point out where exactly.

and:
"...in principle one could cut and paste the name of any of the anti-evolution posters on this board...except for Brad McFall who would require a Rosetta stone to understand in the first place.

(This is no argument)

Well, enough of that...at least before I bring down the wrath of Percipient...which would be ashame on my first post

Mark..if you are reading this, I really enjoyed your probability of rain post...very clever."

I say:
Of course you liked it since it was an inappropriate analogy. I recommend you to brush up on your logics.

And:
"Well, back to lurking...better yet..working"

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 wish you well,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Mammuthus, posted 08-09-2002 9:52 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Mammuthus, posted 08-14-2002 7:44 AM peter borger has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 68 of 214 (15381)
08-13-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by peter borger
08-12-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mark,

You say:
"I never said you used fallacies to support your view, just that you allow yourself the luxury of not being able to show function/non-function of a sequence, yet absolutely require it for phylogenetic analysis that supports evolution."

Distortion. I said that since you don't know how viruses came into being you assume that they integrated in the DNA of an assumed ancestor and are now present in the same spot of the DNA in primates that descended from this ancestor. I've turned it up-side-down. I say that since we do not know the origin of (retro)viruses --but for sure they have there origin in the genome-- it may as well be assumed that the retroviruslike sequence fulfilled a role in speciation, genome stabilisation or other unknown function. A very close look at the DNA sequences within (sub)species would provide more clarity. (I said this before, but apperently you don't get that there are always more ways to interpret data. I also stated that the current data are discussed according to the paradigm of common descent through evolution, and --as you should know by now-- I objected to that).


Bullshit.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

As mentioned before, you cannot take DNA sequences in the same spot of the chromosome that we do not know the function of as proof for common descent.

You clearly, demonstrably, claim that function that isn’t known in DNA SEQUENCES (not retrovirus’) & that therefore they can’t be used as proof of common descent (phylogenetic inference).

Much of your subsequent arguments revolve around non-neutral substitution/mutations being evident in functionless sequences, when all that should be evident is neutral rate substitution. You claim to falsify the NDT/neutral theory without being able to demonstrate the lack of function in sequences, & therefore show that neutral rate substitution is all that should be seen.

THEREFORE, you require function to be known to infer phylogenies, but don’t need it to falsify the NDT when non-neutral constraint is evident????

Would you like to retract one, or the other?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

You also say:
"In the very same thread you are assuming the total non-functionality of the GLO pseudogene."

Well, I am not the only one who is [I][b]ASSUMING[/I][/b] that. It is generally acknowledged as a pseudogene.


Highlight mine.

You cannot falsify anything whilst relying on an untested [I][b]assumption[/I][/b]. Your argument fails here.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"Functionality doesn’t have to be known for phylogenetic inference, but it does have to be known if your argument depends on the lack of function of a particular sequence.

Since you have used the GLO vit c pseudogene as your evidence;

1/ Please cite the studies where human, chimp, orangutan, & macaque had their GLO genes knocked out, which you claim shows lack of function."

Here, I do not get your point. The GLO gene is a naturally knocked out gene in all species you cite above. According to the articlein PNAS it has been knocked out about 25 million years ago due to the introduction of a non-sense mutation in exon X (=ten).


Actually, you’re right, I went off on a tangent.

Please allow me to redirect my argument.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

I checked one claim about the GLO pseudogene (the gene that catalyses the final step in vitamin c synthesis) that has been inactivated in the same spot in primates and is taken as proof for common ancestry. And, indeed a superficial look would immediately convince any evolutionist. However, if you have a careful look at the presented sequences you will discover that the replacement of nucleotides is not at random between the distinct species.

How can you tell non-random (statistically speaking) mutation from conserved loci?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Secondly, you will discover that it does not make a difference for the mutation rate of this gene whether it is functional or not, in contrast to what evolution theory would predict.

Again, how can you tell the mutation rate at a particular locus of an ancestral sequence?

See www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=38#38 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=38#38">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=17&m=38#38 (At the bottom).

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

If you have a close look you will see that the rate of change between rat and human, chimp, orang and macaque is almost constant 26/164, 25/164, 26/164 and 29/164, respectively. If we compare human with chimp, orang and macaque one finds 4/163, 7/163 and 15/163, respectively. However, if we compare chimp and orang, and chimp and macaque we find 9/163 and 15/163. Thus, while we observe 4/163 between human and chimp, human and chimp are equally similar to macaque. Thus if we reason from the macaque's position human and chimp coincide. Still, we "know" there is time difference of 6 million years.

These figures are entirely consistent with the currently accepted phylogeny of apes. If the rat & ape clade diverge at the bottom of the phylogeny, then subsequent divergence up the ape clade is macaque, orangutan, chimp, human.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

If you have a close look you will see that the rate of change between rat and human, chimp, orang and macaque is almost constant 26/164, 25/164, 26/164 and 29/164, respectively.

Yup, the rat is the outgroup, similar substitution rates are expected.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

If we compare human with chimp, orang and macaque one finds 4/163, 7/163 and 15/163, respectively.

Chimps arwe closest to human, so we expect least difference 4/163. Orangutans next, 7/163. Finally macaques, 15/163, that diverged earliest, & therefore have the greatest difference to humans.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

However, if we compare chimp and orang, and chimp and macaque we find 9/163 and 15/163.

Again correct, chimps are more closely related to orangutans than macaques, & therefore show fewer substitutions.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Thus, while we observe 4/163 between human and chimp, human and chimp are equally similar to macaque.

Again, as expected! Chimps & humans are closely related & show only 4 substitutions between each other since divergence. All substitutions from macaque to most recent common ancestor of humans & chimps have exactly the same substitutions. After divergence they part at a roughly equal rate of substitutions. Meaning they have similar numbers of substitutions relative to each other, but very different numbers of subs to a macaque.

Finally……….

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And:
"If you cannot show that a nucleotide sequence never had function, then you cannot make a judgement on neutral rate mutation, as regards falsification of neutral theory, or the NDT for that matter."

I only quoted the authors.


They’re wrong then, aren’t they?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by peter borger, posted 08-12-2002 9:17 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 2:36 AM mark24 has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 69 of 214 (15409)
08-14-2002 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by mark24
08-13-2002 2:50 PM


dear Mark,

You state:
"Bullshit."

What do you mean? If you think this is an argument than you are wrong.
Let me explain once more. Some sequences --they do not have necessary to code for proteins-- may contribute to speciation, since they may fold the DNA in such way that certain genes are transcribes and others aren't. It is a huge mistake to think that the differences between species is the result of distinct genes. I know that the difference between species is mainly at the level of gene expression. It may well be that the observed shared retroviruses --as they are called since they resemble certain RNA viruses-- may have had a function in speciation, or maybe in stabilisation of the genome. Your interpretation of these sequences --I think-- is that they are junk DNA due to an inactive integrated virus in a common ancestor. But maybe your vision is entirely wrong. (I have the feeling that I keep repeating myself).
If we have a look in the DNA, some other primates also demonstrate shared retroviruses that are not present in human. So, maybe these sequences has a role in speciation in that lineage. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. Al you do is give it an interpretation according to common descent. And you even take them as evidence of common descent. But, what about genes that do not fit in the family tree? Are they evidence against common descent? As mentioned, I could take them as evidence against common descent and nobody would be able to proof that my vision is wrong. It all depends on the paradigm one holds. That is what I say.
(I recommend you to read this several times.)

You say:
"Actually, you’re right, I went off on a tangent.

Please allow me to redirect my argument."

I say:
Allowed.

In response to your comments on the GLO gene:
I do not have any objections to your statement that Chimps & humans are closely related & show only 4 substitutions between each other since divergence. This is what we see and I do not dispute this. What I dispute, however, is that you take it as evidence of common descent through evolution as a utterly naturalistic process. Only one of the nucleotides of the sequence of the GLO gene has to behave strangly in this inactivated gene --and it does, as pointed out in previous letter-- and it is no longer valid as proof. Why? Since we than cannot exclude directed mutation.

And you say about the authors Schmid and Tautz:
"They’re wrong then, aren’t they?"

I say:
Wrong with respect to what?

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 08-13-2002 2:50 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 08-14-2002 5:10 PM peter borger has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 70 of 214 (15421)
08-14-2002 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by peter borger
08-13-2002 12:38 AM


Dear Peter,

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.

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:
And I am the one with a logic problem? All this proves is that you do not understand the meaning of random mutation. Where is your proof in any of this that mutations are not random? 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 said:
"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:
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.
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:
Please try and keep your emotions under control. 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

Peter says:
(Dawkins, who else. But what does he know about genes? He is a zoologist).

I replied:
Ok Mr. Borger...what exactly are your credentials???

Peter replies:
MSc (biochemistry, molecular biology), PhD (molecular medicine, gene expression and regulation)

I said:
"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:
Um...how is this a trick? YOU said that Richard Dawkins cannot be taken seriously 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) 2) you not having a background in evolution would exclude you from having an opinion by your own standard...no trick...your logic.

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. However, you never propose what the correct interpretation is I notice. 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.

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?

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
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.
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 2) propose an alternative 3) show any support for that alternative 4) really "with data" disprove that evolution can occur.

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:
I like Mark's analogy because it was funny and very appropriate. It is you who should brush up on your logics.

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.

correction:
Axioma 1) there is not a shred of evidence for creation
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.

Since we are in assumption mode in this part of the post..Peter Borger
Axioma 1) evolution cannot happen
Axioma 2) My interpretations are always correct

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.

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

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.

Have a nice day,

Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by peter borger, posted 08-13-2002 12:38 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by gene90, posted 08-14-2002 10:11 AM Mammuthus has responded
 Message 74 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 11:06 PM Mammuthus has responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1996 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 71 of 214 (15428)
08-14-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Mammuthus
08-14-2002 7:44 AM


If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Mammuthus, posted 08-14-2002 7:44 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 08-14-2002 12:00 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 76 by peter borger, posted 08-15-2002 3:43 AM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 121 by nator, posted 08-28-2002 10:25 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 72 of 214 (15431)
08-14-2002 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by gene90
08-14-2002 10:11 AM


"If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?"

Hi gene90

If he had any substantive data that could overthrow the basic tenets of evolution (not to mention basic genetics)he would publish it in a peer reviewed journal rather than coming onto a message board and saying nja nja I disproved evolution.

Coming to this board has been a very amusing distraction

ciao,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by gene90, posted 08-14-2002 10:11 AM gene90 has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 214 (15443)
08-14-2002 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by peter borger
08-14-2002 2:36 AM


Peter,

I have decided to sum all our posts in one thread. It allows me to pull all the strings together, & re-ask questions that were looked over. It also gives others the opportunity to get a summary of what we have been arguing. I apologise now to other readers, I am repeating argument made before, that were not substantially/meaningfully responded to. It seems there’s no other way.

You have provided arguments that you think are falsifications. If you are going to falsify anything, then the tentativity in your arguments must be near zero. You cannot falsify anything whilst relying on an untested assumption.

Unless I am much mistaken, your present & previous arguments are summed below. A to E.

A/ Random mutation isn’t random, so, the tenet that says evolution is random mutation culled by natural selection falsifies the NDT.

quote:

Mutation as a Random Process

Mutations occur at random. It is extremely important to understand what this statement does & does not mean. It does not mean that all conceivable mutations are equally likely to occur, because, as we have noted, the developmental foundations for some imaginable transformations do not exist. It does not mean that all loci, or regions within a locus, are equally mutable, for geneticists have described differences in mutation rates, at both the phenotypic & molecular levels, among & within loci (Woodruff et al. 1983; Wolf et al. 1989). It does not mean that environmental factors cannot influence mutation rates: ultraviolet & other radiation, as well as various chemical mutagens & poor nutrition, do indeed increase rates of mutation.

Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous


(Evolutionary Biology 2nd Edition, Douglas Futuyma p281-2)

One of the reasons I felt I had to get everything under one roof was the opportunity to reiterate this argument. You have never substantially responded to the issue of the intended definition of random, as outlined above. It is incorrect to insist on a definition that was never intended, & as such, applying a strict statistical definition of random falsifies nothing.

YET, you still insist you have falsified the NDT because of the statistical non-randomness displayed in mutations. You do this without bringing anything new to the discussion, & I must therefore conclude you are using the time honoured tactic of, “I have no argument, so I’ll repeatedly reassert my initial premise”. I am giving you the opportunity to bring a new argument to the debate, rather than your reassertions.

The intended meaning of random, is that if the locus of a particular mutation cannot be predetermined, it is random (among other things, above).

This means hotspots, & even directed evolution (should such a thing exist), are random.

Let us assume that directed evolution exists, & is active in a population of 1,000 individuals. One locus is under potential directed evolution, the other 499 nucleotide sites exhibit statistically random mutational probability. After 1 generation, 250 of the organisms have had the sequence undergo directed mutation, 500 experienced no mutation at all, & 250 experienced statistically random mutation. Could you have predicted the mutation loci deterministically in a given sequence? No, of course not. Ergo, even directed evolution is random (Futuymas definition).

You cannot gainsay evolutions intended meaning of random. Only the definer/author can do that.

Given that you can’t put words in peoples mouths, & tell them what they are supposed to have meant by random, you cannot insert XXX meaning of random in order to falsify “random” mutation
being required for evolution. It ain’t allowed.

The next time you say you have falsified the NDT because of “randomness”, it had better come with a bloody good reason, or I claim victory. I’m tired of explaining the same thing over & over, & you just reasserting your original position without explanation.

OK?

It’s reassertions like this…….

quote:

since I demonstrated that some genes change non-randomly and that falsifies NDT

……..that ignore everything that has been said, & it’s beginning to piss me off.

B/ You believe you have falsified neutral rate mutation/ neutral theory. Therefore phylogenetic analysis cannot be inferred because directed evolution cannot be excluded. Put simply, you are saying that because alleged neutral sequences display non-neutral behaviour, this must be directed mutation, because it’s supposed to be neutral.

Given you accept functional constraint, or at least accept that it’s well established.

quote:

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.

Then what do you infer from a nucleotide site that doesn’t display neutral rate substitution? It seems to me that you disregard your acceptance of functional constraint, even though it is a perfectly plausible explanation, in favour of “it was designed to mutate there!”.

This means that previously functionless sequences may have loci that have function, after all, since functional/selective constraint is observed. Remember, it is YOU who are claiming a falsification, & it is YOUR argument that must therefore have near zero tentativity. Therefore you must SHOW that an ENTIRE sequence is functionless. I don’t deny that the original transcribed protein has been ruined. But I do not accept that there is no function at any locus, or never has been, unless you show otherwise. But given that there are pseudogenes/transposons that HAVE been shown to have function, it is imperative that you investigate for this possibility before claiming falsifications.

If you cannot do this, then you cannot infer falsification from non-neutral rate loci in alleged functionless sequences.

C/ You assert it is possible to locate hotspots in ancient sequences, in order to be able to infer that pseudogenes (GLO) were wrecked by hotspot mutation.

Firstly, I doubt this very much, since GLO genes are active in more mammals than not. If a hotspot destroyed our GLO function, then why not a cows? Given it has hotspots too.

Secondly, why would an ID design a functioning gene with a built in self destruct? It's like building a plane with wings that fall off, or a car where the steering wheel comes off in your hand above a certain speed.

But I digress……….

I agree, you can take an extant sequence, “mutate” it a thousand times, then examine where the sequences mutate most in order to demonstrate where the hot spots are.

But, this is entirely different a proposition from being able to infer hotspots from ancestral sequences. The best you can see from an ancestral sequence is that a loci mutated a maximum of three times, that is, from A to G, A to T, A to C, certainly not from within your paradigm. There is no way you can quantify a hotspot that has a thousand-fold higher probability of mutation than a statistically random probability. You may look at loci that appear to be random to you, but have mutated thousands of times more than adjacent loci, but because it started as A, & finished as A, you will never know.

This is probably best illustrated in the form of a question;

Q/ There is a single homologous locus in a gene in eight different related organisms.

1/The nucleotides are A,G,T,C,A,G,T, & C. Is the locus a hotspot?

2/The nucleotides are A,A,A,A,A,A,A, & A. Is the locus a hotspot?

3/The nucleotides are A,A,A,A,A,A,A, & T. Is the locus a hotspot?

So, how can you tell the location of hotspots in ancestral DNA?

D/ You claim to have falsified natural selection, specifically.

Natural selection has been demonstrated umpteen times experimentally.

I'll use a single example, the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. In waters populated by the predator Crenicichla, males have smaller less conspicuous spots that match the gravel bottom (different bottoms elicit different patterns). In effect the guppy has evolved camouflage. The alleles that express phenotypes are under SELECTIVE pressure.

Guppies that exist in waters that lack Crenicichla display a much wider range of colouration. That is to say the alleles that affect skin colour are no longer under selective pressure.

Guppy populations that are in waters that have Crenicichla populations, & are placed in waters without the predator soon display a wider variety of colouration. Again, the skin colouration alleles aren't selectively constrained, & are able to increase via genetic drift, since they are now "neutral" alleles.

If guppies from non-predatorial waters are placed in water with Crenicichla, the colourations soon begin to match the gravel bottom. That is, alleles responsible for skin colouration are under selective pressure.

(Endler 1980)

Now, given you have "falsified" natural selection, can you explain the above within your shining new paradigm?

I don't think so, there is no other explanation other than non effectively camouflaged guppies end up as lunch for Crenicichla, those that have camouflage go on to repopulate, taking their existing/newly appeared alleles with them. Namely, natural selection. If allele frequencies are being affected by natural selection, & natural selection is part of the NDT, then how can you possibly conclude that the NDT can't be seen to work at the genome level?
Falsification of natural selection? Not.

I saved the best ‘till last………

E/ You assert that statistical non-randomness as evidence of design.

How can you tell a naturally occurring system/object from a designed one?

Since you are attempting to show ID, then if you can’t answer this question, then ALL your arguments come to nought.

Retrospectively, your problem is your own use of language. You drop the word "falsification" in to your argument, without realising it requires you to have all bases covered. You simply have to have a lot more information before you can get anything like a falsification of the NDT.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 2:36 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by peter borger, posted 08-15-2002 3:34 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 97 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 1:54 AM mark24 has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 74 of 214 (15455)
08-14-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Mammuthus
08-14-2002 7:44 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Mammuthus, posted 08-14-2002 7:44 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-15-2002 4:26 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 82 by Mammuthus, posted 08-16-2002 4:42 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 91 by derwood, posted 08-21-2002 12:03 PM peter borger has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 75 of 214 (15464)
08-15-2002 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by mark24
08-14-2002 5:10 PM


dear mark,

I will have a careful look at your summary this weekend. Await my response.

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 08-14-2002 5:10 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 76 of 214 (15465)
08-15-2002 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by gene90
08-14-2002 10:11 AM


dear Gene,

"If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?"

As you can see more and more people who do not like the overthrow are getting involved.

Do a wild guess why it will not be published in a peer reviewed journal. Read Spetner. He tried several times to get articles that disprove evolution in peer reviewed journals. But such articles simply keep coming back: rejected. (Read: Communication with Dr Max on the True Origin Site). Yes, it is a hard world for defenders of the truth.

I wish you well,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by gene90, posted 08-14-2002 10:11 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by mark24, posted 08-15-2002 5:02 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 79 by axial soliton, posted 08-15-2002 2:07 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 80 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-15-2002 8:17 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019