|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific end of evolution theory (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What is the evidence for non-randomness? Citing a paper and saying Non-random! is not really evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I never did such a thing, I merely said that I find it hard to believe that you are a 'molecular biology researcher'. Where in that is the statment that I think you are a liar?As an aside, I KNOW that Jon Wells has a PhD in molecular biology, yet I find it 'hard to believe' considering his piss-poor scientific output and the length of time it took him to get it. quote: What weakness might that be? I do not reall reading a paper containing good evidence for creation (well, there aren't any, for one thing) and claiming that, in reality, it is good evidence for my falsification of it. Have I?quote: It is relevant, as the only "Borger P" that I found as an autrhor on papers in PubMed is from the Netherlands. I was just trrying to corroborate your story.It is not a fallacy to wonder whether or not a creationist has the credentials they claim to have. If you are involved in this debate at any level and approach it HONESTLY, you would know - and hopefully be quite embarrassed - that creation 'scientists' have a long, rich history of embellishing and even fabricating their credentials. To impress laymen, no doubt. Your righteous indignation is quite misplaced. quote: Yeah... I already did, you twisted it into support for yourself. VCreationists seem to do that quite a bit.Your so-called 'falsification' of NDT seems to stem from, it seems to me, simplistic definitions and wishful thinking. I do not think you will be up for the Nobel Prize any time soon.quote: Better you should pray that you can actually come up with evidence that really does support your grandiose claims. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: How is this possible when you are clearly looking - hard - for anything thast you think will prop up your claims?quote: That is why I asked if you are from the Netherlands. If you are the Borger P from the Netherlands, then I noticed that, like so many creationists, your research has noithing to do with evolutionary biology. According to Phil Johnson, you then are just another layman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Indeed. ------------------"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade." Page Not Found | University of Chicago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I would say yes, but the real reason I use that quote is because 'John Paul' (Joe Gallien) has used other quotes from that paper to try to argue in support of ReMine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I would say yes, but the real reason I use that quote is because 'John Paul' (Joe Gallien) has used other quotes from that paper to try to argue in support of ReMine. ------------------"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade." Page Not Found | University of Chicago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: If the zoologist researched the topic, that is fine. However, your dossier does not read like a that of someone that has researched evolution or any aspect of it. And keep in mind that the zoologist writing about selfish genes is not repeatedly claiming to have falsified the reigning biological paradigm. I wonder- why didn't you send a letter to Nature outlining all of your amassed evidence falsifying evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]dear SLPx, You write:"If the zoologist researched the topic, that is fine. However, your dossier does not read like a that of someone that has researched evolution or any aspect of it." I say:I think it is about time that molecular biologists have a careful look at the NDT claims and check them whether they can hold in the light of new discoveries.I know that the NDT cannot hold, [/quote] You "know" this, do you? Your posts read more like a creationist's faith than anything else. As others have pointred out and demonstrated, your knowledge about evolution and biology in general is severely limited, if not intriguingly lacking. So forgive me if I do not believe that you "know" anything about NDT.quote: They do? Like what? quote: So let me get this straight: Even if you are right about this, which I have little confidence of being true, how is it again that such an occurrance negates all of the other evidence?If I can take an elevator to the top of the Empire State Building, does that falsify the fact that you can also get to the top by using the stairs? quote: Well, maybe those biologists see your writings the same way I do and decided not to waste the time.quote: No, I think that because you have done no pertinent research AND the clearly shallow grasp you have on related issues relegates your opinions to the "dime a dozen creationist tripe" bin.quote: I am in denial?Remind us all again who it was that took the evidence presented showing that non-random mutations aren't and tried to claim that the papers actually supported the opposite view? quote: That was noted some time ago.quote: If you say so. I can't wait to see you shaking hands with the King od Sweden for amassing all this amazing evidence and overturning the dominant biological paradigm. I just can't wait to see what you and your cohorts are going to replace it with.quote: Better get started.quote: I must habve m,issed that. In this thread?[quote]
You also say:"I wonder- why didn't you send a letter to Nature outlining all of your amassed evidence falsifying evolution?" "Maybe I'll do that."
[QUOTE]
Sure you will....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What if it is YOUR interpretations that are in error? If it comes down to the interpreted evidence that favors an evolutionary explanation and the evidence interpreted by a distinct minority that have a particular agenda to push, I think I know whom I will side with. Of course, in my mind, my own data -interpreted logically - clearly supports the NDT.If you disagree, I would say that it is simply due to your biased interpretations. quote: Thats just it. I have read dozens of your posts, and I see little more than your repeated say so and your tendency to 'interpret' evidence in a, shall we say, unique fashion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Please start making sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Perhaps you can explain how the neutral theory differs from NDT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I do not believe that you understrand the paper.That, or you did not see this: "However, there are also differences in the structure of the proteins encoded by the genes, which undoubtedly account for some of the observed differences in phenotypes.Structural differences in proteins cause those proteins to function differently, especially in the way that multiple proteins interact with each other. This paper examines those structural changes, called nonsynonymous substitutions at the DNA level.." So your 'conclusion' seems unwarranted. You see, Peter, I know the authors of that paper. I know what type of data they looked at and have looked at in the past. They have been involved in all sorts of protein expression studies and have investigated the phylogenetic patterns in regulatory sequence (as have I). So, you see, we actually do know about those things. Did you have anything sunstantive? Of course, regulatory sequence determines the amount of gene expression, and regulatory sequence is often what is looked at in such analyses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: This may come as a shock, Peter, but actual scientific theories adapt to changing information. The NT may not have been part of the NDT that was originally formulated in the 30s, however, it is foolish to suggest that the NT does not play a role in the ToE of today.quote: Yes, they were skeptical about it. It was 'anti-Darwinian' - and yet, it made it past the evilutionist conspiracy to get published in a series of papers by Kimura. Why? Because Kimura, unlike you, did research to test his hypotheses. The neutral theory does not preclude beneficial mutations at all. Not one bit. The NTs central tenet is that most molecular change is neutral or nearly so. You are right, Kimura acknowledged beneficial mutations. Why wouldn't he have?Looks like you are pulling your semantics games, again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I reiterate my request. SO? Your claim does not follow from the actual contents of the paper. You write as if you are the first person to think that amounts of expression are important; that is clearly not the case.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024