scientific end of evolution theory (2)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
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![/B][/QUOTE]Mr. Borger, it seems that you just invited somebody else in. You were talking about 'Toumai', Sahelanthropus, the 7 million years man? Try have a look at the original paper here'Sahelanthropus is distinguished as a hominid...from Gorilla by smaller size, a narrower and less prognathic lower face, no supratoral sulcus, and smaller canines and lower-cusped cheek teeth;'Not a gorilla. Precursor maybe, but more inclined towards the human lineage. Check its skull, bottom-view. You'll see a large oval foramen magnum positioned quite anteriorly.or (shameless self-promotion) my response to another creationist's (Harun Yahya) article, claiming that Toumai messes up with the 'evolutionary sequence'. Have a look!

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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Do a wild guess why it will not be published in a peer reviewed journal.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

---

Not the the evilutionist conspiracy again?!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

There is something new in Nature and the Washington Post that applies to this dialog:
Nature - Not Found
Titled, "Gene explains dumb apes", it has results of an analysis of a gene that is mutated in 15 family members of a family in England. These people have "profound speech defects". The specific gene in question, and its mutations were presented in this work.In the Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...icles/A17863-2002Aug14.html
Since gorillas can can learn ASL, fairly quickly (and evolve it further to GSL), it does appear that this specific gene mutation gave us another outlet for our thoughts that other animals don't have.What overthrow? All the facts and observations are building an intricate pattern supporting evolution. There, I just wanted to say that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
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[/B][/QUOTE]Peter,If you want to publish your ideas, you must be careful not to present your arguments as Creationist arguments or make claims to have overturned the ToE. If you present your findings without doing so, you should have no trouble getting your ideas published if they are with merit. People get controversial ideas published all the time. You just have to present your evidence for nonrandom mutations, etc. and let the scientific community digest this.FK

It would appear that Peter Borger is to be added to the long list of (peer review) unpublished intelligent designers. Another Nobel Prize goes begging. Is there something in the bible about hiding one's light under a bushel?

Dear Peter
Thank you for your reply. As we are going in circles I am going to direct you to Mark24s post number 73 as he did an excellent job of framing the major points of discussion in this thread. They should be addressed and not just by either of us but by all interested parties in this forum.The two points from your reply I will address come from near the end of your post.
First, if you are having trouble publishing your objections to evolution in a mainstream peer reviewed journal I have a suggestion. Write it as a book and find a publisher. If it has any merit it will get attention. Even if it does not have merit but is well written and controversial it could very well get attention. A few weeks ago Nature reviewed (I believe Brian Charlesworth was the reviewer..don't have it handy) an intelligent design book. So with effort and perhaps through other another medium than Nature or Science, you can have controversial ideas published.Second, no I am not trying to clone a mammoth. It will not happen in our lifetimes. After 10-100,000 years of oxidative and hydrolytic damage, even permafrost preserved samples yield nothing better than DNA of fragment lengths in the range of 0-3kb. But there are enough samples available that such sequences are useful for population genetics and phylogenetic analysis. We can even study the pathogens that infected them (which may also be extinct).Tschuss
Mammuthus

Dear AS,You write:
What overthrow? All the facts and observations are building an intricate pattern supporting evolution. There, I just wanted to say that.I say:
What I question is randomness of NDT. If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true.
Peter

you mean apart from the fossil record, the genetic evidence and the urate oxidase pseudogene

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear AS,

​

You write:
What overthrow? All the facts and observations are building an intricate pattern supporting evolution. There, I just wanted to say that.

​

I say:
What I question is randomness of NDT. If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true.
Peter

​

---

1/ But mutation IS random!!!!!!! AAAAAAGH. The NDT HASN'T BEEN FALSIFIED.See part A/ of message 73, & you'll see this is exactly why your pissing people of with this repetitive-I-have-no-argument-so-I'll-reassert-myself-ad-nauseum crap.DEAL SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE QUESTION!!!!!2/ The NDT is both random & non-random anyway, statistically speaking, NS=non-random. GD=random.So at best you have another strawman.3/ Answer part E/ of message 73. If you can't do this, then you cannot assert that non-randomness = design. Statistical non-randomness exists in nature, demonstrably so. How can you tell the difference?Another reassertion-without-answering-the-pertinent-question.This is getting boring. [quote][b]
I will have a careful look at your summary this weekend. Await my response.[/quote][/b]And?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-19-2002]

Hi Mark,
It is certainly getting old. I really thought he might take a stab at your post 73 but he did not. He also revealed a profound inability to reason in his last sentence "If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true." 1) Evolution has not been falisified...the understanding of "random" and evolution by creationists has been falsfied multiple times on this board (not just by him) 2)Falsifying evolution would not make creation true! I could substitute Puff the Magic Dragon Invention for creation in his sentence.I'll be interested to see if post 73 gets any attention in the future.ciao,
MammuthusMessage 85 of 85 08-19-2002 04:10 AM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear AS,
You write:
What overthrow? All the facts and observations are building an intricate pattern supporting evolution. There, I just wanted to say that.I say:
What I question is randomness of NDT. If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true.
Peter--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1/ But mutation IS random!!!!!!! AAAAAAGH. The NDT HASN'T BEEN FALSIFIED.See part A/ of message 73, & you'll see this is exactly why your pissing people of with this repetitive-I-have-no-argument-so-I'll-reassert-mtself-ad-nauseum crap.DEAL SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE QUESTION!!!!!2/ The NDT is both random & non-random anyway, statistically speaking, NS=non-random. GD=random.So at best you have another strawman.3/ Answer part E/ of message 73. If you can't do this, then you cannot assert that non-randomness = design. Statistical non-randomness exists in nature, demonstrably so. How can you tell the difference?Another reassertion-without-answering-the-pertinent-question.This is getting boring.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
2)Falsifying evolution would not make creation true! I could substitute Puff the Magic Dragon Invention for creation in his sentence.

---

I missed that one!Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing.

---

Not really. Maybe you are confusing atheistic and agnostic? Agnostics don't know. What he said just says that you can't disprove creation if NDT is not true.

Nope, he claims that if evolution is wrong than the only other possibility is creation which is false. And there is a difference between being an agnostic and claiming that creation is a viable alternative..it implies he believes in a specific religion as opposed to simlpy "not knowing"....his slip is showing.Also, this part of your sentence does not make sense.."you can't disprove creation if the NDT is not true." Evidence that does not support one theory does not automatically support another theory (or a myth i.e. creation).And to get back to the point again which is getting lost yet again...when are the creationists going to address post 73?Cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing.

---

​

Not really. Maybe you are confusing atheistic and agnostic? Agnostics don't know. What he said just says that you can't disprove creation if NDT is not true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing.

---

​

Not really. Maybe you are confusing atheistic and agnostic? Agnostics don't know. What he said just says that you can't disprove creation if NDT is not true.

---

Blitz,perhaps you should read his post...... [B][quote]Peter B said:
If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true..[/B][/QUOTE]He says that if evolution is non-random (which the NDT professes to be anyway), then [i][b]nothing can prevent creation to be true[/i][/b]. ie if the NDT is false, nothing can prevent creation being true.1/ Falsifying the NDT doesn't make creation true.2/ Professing creation to be true ISN'T agnosticism OR atheism. It's theism. Peter Borger claims to be agnostic. A dichotomy?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

​

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

​

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

---

I find that hard to believe. Do you have any relevant publication? Relevant to the issue of biological evolution, for example? Are you from ther Netherlands?

quote:

---

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.

---

Spetner did this? In his book? Ok - I will ask you this. I have asked John Paul and other Spetner mongers, but none have taken up the torch. What is Spetners evidence for 'directed mutation' in multicellular eukaryotes?
And did Spetner try to submit his fact-filled disproofs of Evolution before or after he tried to prove that one fossil of Archaeopteryx was a fraud (and shown to be wrong)?See http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html