Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 10:34 AM
38 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,150 Year: 5,187/19,786 Month: 1,309/873 Week: 205/460 Day: 21/29 Hour: 3/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
15Next
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 107 of 214 (15973)
08-23-2002 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Fedmahn Kassad
08-22-2002 11:56 PM


dear FK,

It is very well possible to do science in an agnostic way. All I said in a previous mail is that I am a "agnostic scientist". Not an agnostic person. It means that I do science without any prejudices: I look at my data and try to conceive them independent of any paradigm. (= free science).

For publications: check pubmed, NCBI homepage.

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-22-2002 11:56 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by derwood, posted 08-23-2002 8:40 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 108 of 214 (15974)
08-23-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by John
08-22-2002 10:59 PM


dear John,

You say:

"So if we stack up lots of evidence then you'll accept it? The cranium is not the only portion of anatomy that can suggest bipedalism. Hip structure, knee structure, back structure, foot structure all work as well. Want I should look all of this up for you?"

I say:
"If you show me the bones of 'sahel-man' we could speculate on it. Besides, even if the bones demonstrate that the organism walked upright. How does it proof evolution?"

And you say:
"Genetic redundancies also argue for evolution."

No, they do not. I've tried to explain this several times. Since there is NO correlation between redundant genes and duplication it is NOT in accord with molecular evolution.

And you say:
"Your evidence, despite your claims, doesn't support your position."

I say:
"Please expand and be specific. What exactly does not support what, and why."

You say:
"I disagree. Not everything can be explained within multiple paradigms. The evidence itself is independent of our interpretations, ultimately. It sometimes takes awhile for old ideas to die, of course, and in the meantime evidence is twisted to fit prevailing opinion."

With evidence you mean "data", or "interpreted data"?

As long as you have an unbiased look at data and try to come forward with a frame that fits, I agree. I do object to twisting evidence to fit an opinion. That is what ET does. If you don't buy this I will also demonstrate that reconciliation of gene trees with family trees is a trick that keeps the NDT from falling. I already mentioned the IL-1beta family of genes a couple of times but none was eager to discuss them. They falsify common descent beyond doubt.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by John, posted 08-22-2002 10:59 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by John, posted 08-23-2002 9:11 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 123 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 1:47 AM peter borger has responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 214 (15984)
08-23-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by derwood
08-21-2002 12:04 PM


Let's retreat to the facts.

"NDT" does not have to be based on random mutations of base pair sequences or genes. I have been trying to explore in other threads a series of phenomena that rationally support this. Randomness can be used in a general class of thermodynamics working with probabilities to establish what might be called envelopes of probability in which mutation rates can be predicted for genes. However, there may be a way to turn this into an engineering problem. By "this", I mean where mutations are likely to occur and how often. Some here might be familiar with the phenomenon known as tunneling. In tunneling, an electron can cross through an energy barrier without having (probably) enough energy to do so. This is an artifact of the tails of the wave (psi^2) being outside the barrier. This is the probability part. It works. I can honestly say that I have seen electrons tunnel, with my own instruments. Magic is not needed to explain or use this as a tool. Going a level deeper into the phenomena at work, it becomes apparent that charge gradients shift at 10^15 Hz rates and act locally to the nanometer range due to the shape and strain on local bonds. What this means is that there can be a confluence of energy or momentum in a nanometer-scale region for a very short period of time in separate parts of one macromolecule. What that means is that chemical bonds in this region of confluence may transition through phases of vulnerability as these "confluences" of energy or momentum move through the region. A technical name for the confluence is phonon. This is something like sound energy except in the quantum regime and at quantum speeds. It is obvious that there is such a charge gradient in DNA since the 4 components have an affinity in 2 groups of 2. So what is needed is a study using AFM-based methods to learn where these tiny local gradients are for known sequences. Then it can be simulated. After that, it can be engineered. Check out "femtosecond chemistry". This new realm of physical chemistry is exploring atomic bond formation as it happens. None of this is mysterious. It is all step A-to-step B stuff. Some of the principals may be a bit arcane to some of the interested readers, but know this. If a program running on a computer can model it, it ain't creation. It is science.

One more time. What overthrow? What are you talking about? Unless creation is a physical phenomenon I can cause on my Pentium PC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by derwood, posted 08-21-2002 12:04 PM derwood has not yet responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 214 (15987)
08-23-2002 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by John
08-22-2002 10:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Theories based on indirect shouldn't have to be bad, although I prefer to have them confirmed several times. gravity has been confirmed over and over. It has also not been falsified, so there is no doubt about it (although the mechanism is still not yet clear).

So if we stack up lots of evidence then you'll accept it? The cranium is not the only portion of anatomy that can suggest bipedalism. Hip structure, knee structure, back structure, foot structure all work as well. Want I should look all of this up for you?

quote:
Not so for 'science' based on n=1. Conclusions drawn from n=1 are usually found to be wrong.

n=1 ?????


I don't think peter's interested, but I am. Anyway, Sahelanthropus' foramen magnum position is the same as australopiths' F.m., and australopiths (Australopithecus, Paranthropus) are clearly bipedal. We know that there are more than one australopith fossil available for theories to be based on, So the theory that Sahelanthropus might be bipedal is not based on just one evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by John, posted 08-22-2002 10:59 PM John has not yet responded

derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 111 of 214 (15990)
08-23-2002 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by peter borger
08-22-2002 4:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

Thanks for suggesting that I am a liar.


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:

It only demonstrates your own weaknesses.

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 not of any relevance whether I am from the Netherlands, Australia, or where ever, or whether I have an academical degree or not (another fallacy, often used to bluff off laymen).

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:

You should come up with hard arguments that overthrow my claim otherwise I claim the NDT officially demised!

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:

If this is all you can, I feel really sorry for you (I will pray for you),

Best wishes,
Peter


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 4:50 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 112 of 214 (15991)
08-23-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by peter borger
08-23-2002 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear FK,

It is very well possible to do science in an agnostic way. All I said in a previous mail is that I am a "agnostic scientist". Not an agnostic person. It means that I do science without any prejudices: I look at my data and try to conceive them independent of any paradigm. (= free science).


How is this possible when you are clearly looking - hard - for anything thast you think will prop up your claims?

quote:

For publications: check pubmed, NCBI homepage.

Peter


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by peter borger, posted 08-23-2002 12:08 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 214 (15996)
08-23-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by peter borger
08-23-2002 12:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
If you show me the bones of 'sahel-man' we could speculate on it.

For the moment, the skull of sahelanthropus is it. You threw me for a second with 'sahel-man'. This species could hardly be called man. Its a precursor or cousin from around the time the human line and chimp line split.

quote:
Besides, even if the bones demonstrate that the organism walked upright. How does it proof evolution?

It doesn't, taken alone. I don't think anyone is trying to make it prove evolution. It could suggest common descent.

quote:
No, they do not. I've tried to explain this several times. Since there is NO correlation between redundant genes and duplication it is NOT in accord with molecular evolution.

I have read your posts on the subject and I don't buy it. You haven't proven your case. There is already a thread for this so I am not going into it here.

quote:
Please expand and be specific. What exactly does not support what, and why.

There is also a thread for this, and I believe I have posted some objections on that thread.

quote:
With evidence you mean "data", or "interpreted data"?

Data. Though it is hard to seperate the two.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 08-23-2002 12:29 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Mammuthus, posted 08-23-2002 12:05 PM John has not yet responded
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 09-06-2002 2:58 AM John has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 114 of 214 (15998)
08-23-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by John
08-23-2002 9:11 AM


Hmmm, why would gene duplication, which can be mediated by HERVs, unequal crossover, and any of several well documented and well known mechanisms pose a problem for evolutionary theory???

I also thought Peter made an interesting comment about pre-existing alleles that then sort out by naturalistic process...so what came before the "pre-existing" alleles? Why do they have to be pre-existing...only if one has to force their worldview (dogma not agnosticism) to literal biblical interpretation does this constraint occur....hope this paragraph was not to Brad McFallian but I'm in a rush

As for the gravity analogy...given the illogic of creationism...why not presuppose that gravity is caused by invisible aliens pushing on every individuals head? There are as many heavy invisible aliens as there are lifeforms on the planet (extra for increasing populations) and they push on our heads....we can only fly by balloon because the aliens worship round shapes and release their pressure...airplanes outpush them....since we don't know the mechanism by which gravity functions, my Alien Push Model is just as valid as any other phyisical model (even if there is tons of supporting data) so the theory of gravity is dead....does this logic sound familiar to anyone

Sorry to respond to some of Peter's comments through your post John but it was easier than having to cut and paste out of each message.

Thanks for clearing up sahelanthropus...I was wondering what sahel-man was.

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by John, posted 08-23-2002 9:11 AM John has not yet responded

SalmonHunter
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 214 (16022)
08-24-2002 2:19 AM


Last time i checked, gravity hadn't been proved... But hey, what do i know? I'm only 17...

Wow, a molecular scientist who is a creationist... Almost as weird as my old neighbor who was a hard-core fundamentalist christian (might i add he was a creationist) who was also a microbiologist.


Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 214 (16029)
08-24-2002 11:26 AM


Mammuthus,

I am ready to defend your Alien theory of gravity with all of my resources. It is because our modern age has abandoned belief in the aliens that press down on our heads that all forms of sin and evil have become common in our country. It is the duty of every Alien believing person in this country to defend the theory of aliens pushing on our heads in order to protect our way of life from destruction.

To that end, I propose that we point out to scientists that they do not know how gravity works, and that they can not prove that aliens are NOT pushing down on our heads. Not only that, but the scientific establishments commitment to a purely materialistic explanation for gravity automatically and unfairly prejudices it against more plausible explanations such as alien head pushing.

If we are to defend our great nation against the growing tide of abortion, teen pregnancy, drugs, pornography, and other evils, we must defend the alien head pushing theory of gravity at all costs. To do less would be to side with Satan in a war against God himself.


Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by John, posted 08-24-2002 12:31 PM Rationalist has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2002 9:56 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 214 (16032)
08-24-2002 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rationalist
08-24-2002 11:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Rationalist:
I am ready to defend your Alien theory of gravity with all of my resources. It is because our modern age has abandoned belief in the aliens that press down on our heads that all forms of sin and evil have become common in our country. It is the duty of every Alien believing person in this country to defend the theory of aliens pushing on our heads in order to protect our way of life from destruction.

To that end, I propose that we point out to scientists that they do not know how gravity works, and that they can not prove that aliens are NOT pushing down on our heads. Not only that, but the scientific establishments commitment to a purely materialistic explanation for gravity automatically and unfairly prejudices it against more plausible explanations such as alien head pushing.

If we are to defend our great nation against the growing tide of abortion, teen pregnancy, drugs, pornography, and other evils, we must defend the alien head pushing theory of gravity at all costs. To do less would be to side with Satan in a war against God himself.


Let me know if you need a trusty side-kick in this noble crusade.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rationalist, posted 08-24-2002 11:26 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 118 of 214 (16041)
08-24-2002 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by peter borger
08-22-2002 1:54 AM


[I][b]A/[/I][/b]

[QUOTE]
[B]
Mark:
"You cannot gainsay evolutions intended meaning of random. Only the definer/author can do that."

Peter B:
"So, you agree that it is all a matter of opinions of experts?"
[/quote]

[/b]

You have tried to reduce Futuymas definition (& all other evolutionary biologists BTW, in this context) of “random” to a mere opinion. Well, of course it is, in a sense. But then YOUR definition of random is opinion also. The question is, not whether definitions are opinions, but whether an opinion/meaning that is pre-defined in advance for context, for the purpose of subsequent discussion, can be gainsaid by another definition, that hasn’t been defined in the same context. Um, that would be a “no”!

As long as I defined potato as “spice, common ginger, latin name Zingiber officinale, makes curries taste nice!”, then no one is in any confusion that I don’t mean the same plant that makes chips, fries, crisps etc. You may not agree with my meaning of potato, but it simply doesn’t matter, I’ve defined a word, so when I subsequently use it, you all know what I mean. Same goes with evolutionary biologies meaning of “random”. You HAVE to accept it at face value or you won’t make any sense out of the ensuing discussion. To NOT accept this definition is up to you, but when you attempt a falsification of the NDT, AND AT THE SAME TIME REJECT THE GIVEN CONTEXTUAL DEFINITION, you have a fallacy.

You have accused me of using definitions as a debatorial tactic. Shame you can’t see the wood for the trees. It is YOU who are using this tactic. The word “random” HAS been defined in this context. It is YOU who are removing this defined meaning & inserting your own, not me. I couldn’t give a shit whether you like Futuymas definition, or not. Tough. He has gone to the trouble of defining the word in it’s evolutionary biology context of “random mutation & natural selection”, it’s you who seem to be saying. “Hey, you can’t define words & use them in your own context! I’M THE ONLY ONE WHO IS ALLOWED TO DO THAT. Here, let me redefine your meaning of random in order to falsify what you say.”

I’ve given a similar example before, but it clearly hasn’t sunk in, so…

I define “transport” as to mean “all means of moving people from location to another”. Using this definition, I maintain that slaves were transported across the Atlantic from Africa to the Americas.

Person X, who shall remain nameless, comes along with another definition of transport that is perfectly good within it’s own context. “Transport is a means of moving people & goods via four wheeled engines, namely cars & trucks from A to B”. THEREFORE PERSON X MAINTAINS THAT HE HAS FALSIFIED MY CONTENTION THAT SLAVES WERE TRANSPORTED ACROSS THE ATLANTIC? Cars & trucks don’t float, right? So it must be falsified.

Nope, fallacy by out of context redefinition.
This is exactly what you are attempting.

Regardless,

[I][b]In order to falsify the “random” part of the NDT, you need to show that a strict statistical meaning is intended & in context, to the exclusion of all other meanings, & do so with near zero tentativity. If you can’t do that, you falsify nothing, nada, zip, zero……..[/I][/b]

Good luck.

[QUOTE]
[B]
I say:
"You admitted the falsification one mail ago, and now you don't. So, it is you who gives me opposite signals and thus I should be tired, not you. [/quote]

[/b]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Sweet Jesu, you do enjoy taking things out of context, don’t you!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]
Mark:
“Adaptive evolution is caused by all loci being subject to the probability of mutation, that mutation being culled by natural selection.

So what? It’s hardly falsified, is it?"

Peter B:

HARDLY isn't synonymous to NOT.

(Thanks for admitting NDT has been falsified). [/quote]

[/b]

“Hardly” may not be synonymous with “not”, the way you WANT it to mean, but it is synonymous with “not” the way I actually mean it. You really do think you can change intended meanings to suit yourself, don’t you?

When I “admit” the NDT has been falsified, I’ll say so, OK? Have you no shame?

[I][b]B/ [/I][/b]

[QUOTE]
[B]
Mark:
"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.

Peter B:
"Better would be that I used a DNA region that behaves according to neutral theory to demonstrate that mutations are not RANDOM in this particular region, and that alone overturns NDT". I did not say anywhere in my mailings that I've overthrown neutral theory. Actually, Neutral Theory it is well established (although it depends on the DNA regions you study. [/quote]

[/b]

OK, but neutral theory is part of the NDT that you claim to have overthrown, yet claim NT is well established. Duh?

[QUOTE]
[B]
"I have the feeling that you mix up "function" and "neutral rate of evolution". In biology it is accepted that functional --protein-coding-- DNA sequences demonstrate an open reading frame. Such regions can perfectly well change at a neutral rate, demonstrating that there is no selective constraint on the protein."

You say:
"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."

I say:
"Here you refer to pseudogenes, and in particular to the GLO example.
I don't get your point. The GLO gene is inactivated by a stop codon in exon X, and in the paper the authors claim that this is the reason why primates do not produce vitamin C". If other loci have functions than for sure they do not contribute to synthesis of GLO protein, since it is absent in all great apes. The degeneration is a perfect example of what happens to redundant genes (and the GLO protein is redundant --> see a previous letter) over time: degradation, information to synthesise Vit C more efficiently is lost. It is de-evolution. In fact, if we had had the present knowledge on vit C synthesis before, we had been able to predict which genes might be inactivated over time. In general, redundant genes are supposed to be inactivated over time, since they are not under selective constraint. [/quote]

[/b]

You seem to be equating “function” with “coding sequences”. The ATAT box has function, yet is not a coding sequence. All those transposons (that don’t end up in the middle of a coding sequence) that you & I accept have function, are not in coding sequences.

Therefore, you still need to show that alleged neutral sequences are neutral at all loci, & have always been, since the wrecking event, or you cannot infer falsification from non-neutral rate loci in alleged functionless sequences. Put another way, you are making inferences from loci that you assume are neutral without demonstrating that they in fact, are. Since your “falsification” is based on so called aberrant behaviour of neutral loci, don’t you think you should make sure before coming to a conclusion?

[QUOTE]
[B]
Peter B:

"All I claim is that if a non-functional gene demonstrates a NON-RANDOM position you cannot claim it as proof for common descent, since it might be due to a mechanism. And, if a mechanism is involved the other mutations might as well be introduced similarly." [/quote]

[/b]

If it’s heritable & mutable, you can infer phylogeny from it.

[I][b]C/ [/I][/b]

[QUOTE]
[B]
Mark:
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.

Peter B:

"By comparison of subpopulations.
To stick to your example. In subpopulations we find the following sequences:

sequence 1: tattgattagtgg
sequence 2: -------------
sequence 3: --c----------
sequence 4: -----g---a---
sequence 5: -------------
sequence 6: -------------
sequence 7: --a--ag--a-a-
sequence 8: -------------
sequence 9: --a--gg--a-a-
sequence10: -------------
sequence11: -------------
sequence12: --a--tg--a-a-
sequence13: -----------a-

[- = same nucleotide as sequence 1]

Furthermore, if it is demonstrated that the sequence is not under selective constraint my conclusion would be that in this particular DNA segment the mutations observed in the subpopulations are introduced NON-RANDOMLY. Why? Because the same spots and same nucleotides are involved (compare this with the 1G5 gene).
[/quote]

[/b]

You’re going to have to spell it out, Peter, I’m afraid. I STILL can’t tell where the hotspots were in the ancestral sequence.

Take the 4th from last loci, for example, the nucleotide is either g or a. This would seem to suggest that the ancestral state was either g or a, let’s call it a, for the sake of argument. A perfectly plausible explanation would be that a single mutation from a to g got fixed in one population, & that population was directly ancestral to 1,2,3,5,6,8,10,11,&,13. There is absolutely nothing that specifically suggests that more than one mutation took place at this locus.

Nevertheless, more mutations may well have occurred, from g to c, & g to t, but since they never got fixed, those polymorphisms/alleles were lost. According to you, any mutation that gets fixed “early” in a phylogeny, then multiple speciation/segregation takes place, is evidence of hot-spots. Meaning, multiple sub-populations/species that exhibit that one, single mutation, are evidence of hot-spot style mutability, despite the FACT that only one mutation may have been responsible for the same character state across multiple populations. If I had to sum up my argument in one sentence, it would be; I can see qualitative differences, but not quantitative ones.

You need to explain this in such a way that mutations can be quantitatively determined, beyond A-T, A-G, A-C etc, & demonstrate that those mutations “fail” a Poisson distribution test, & can be determined as non-random. But showing there is one, or up to 4 character states at one locus doesn’t exactly pass muster on this score, especially since SNPs are subject to the vagaries of fixation, which further compounds the issue. The last loci on your examples, that actually shows no change, may have experienced five times the rate of mutation than the fourth from last, but because pure chance never got any of those mutations fixed, the extant alleles do not reflect the quantitative value.

[I][b]D/[/I][/b]

[QUOTE]
[B]
Mark:

"You claim to have falsified natural selection, specifically."

Peter B:
"No, I demonstrated that that there examples of protein-coding genes that do question the validity of natural selection as being responsible for the residence of these genes in the genome. For instance, the a-actinin genes, and in fact all other redundant genes." [/quote]

[/b]

Then why do you claim to have provided a FALSIFICATION OF NATURAL SELECTION, here?

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?


Silly man.

I refer you to post 73, D/ & Endlers observations with Guppies, rather than paste them here again, in order to shorten an already long post.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter Borger:
[B]
I say:
"Where does this example help evolution? Nothing was created here by evolutionary forces. All your example demonstrates is that PREEXISTING alleles may vary in frequency in response to the environment. This is the role of natural selection: choose from alleles that are already present in the population, so the organisms do not become extinct immediately. [/quote]

[/b]

Wha? YOU claimed to have falsified natural selection (see your own words), not me. Now back up, or back off.

"Where does this example help evolution?” Natural selection is a part of the NDT , & you claim to have falsified both. Natural selection doesn’t create alleles, it affects their frequencies where selective pressure can be brought to bear. I’m not claiming that anything was created by “evolutionary forces”. I AM claiming that natural selection can be seen to be at work in Endlers observations. What did you think I was trying to show? Alleles exist at the genome level, so natural selection can be seen to to occur at the genome level, in direct opposition to your claim of falsification.

[I][b]Since you have claimed to have falsified natural selection, please explain Endlers observations on Guppy camouflage, without resorting to natural selection, or any of the mechanisms involved therein.[/I][/b]

Can you?

[I][b]E/[/I][/b]

[QUOTE]
[B]
Peter B:
NON-RANDOM mutations indicate that all information is already present in organisms. Why? Because, the proteins and/or RNA that directs this are specified in the genome………… [/quote]

[/b]

Can you show me a protein that “directs” mutation? Cite please.

[QUOTE]
[B]
…………..and it is reasonable to assume that no selective constraint is on these proteins, since they are only induced in response to the environment. If no selective constraint is involved it requires another mechanism to maintain in the genome as a functional gene. It is my personal opinion that the major part of the genome contributes to these mechanisms. It should be realized that only the minor part of the 40000 genes of man are of known function. Yes, only a couple of thousands have been described (5% or so), the rest is just there. Function unknown. I postulate that these proteins may be involved in maintenance of genes and stabilize the genome. In addition, these proteins may be involved in directing mutations towards the genes in response to the environment. Time will learn.

However, since all these genes are around without selective constraint (e.g. 98 % of the genes of Arabidopsis is redundant) it clearly demonstrates that there is a creator who designed them (for later use).”

You say:
"How can you tell a naturally occurring system/object from a designed one?"

I say:
"By redundancies: convenient to have and ready to use if needed. The genome anticipates on changes" [/quote]

[/b]

Can you show that selective constraint is not observed on redundant genes?

There IS work going on regarding evolution of redundant genes.

quote:

Genetic redundancy caused by gene duplications and its evolution in networks of transcriptional regulators.

Wagner A
Biol Cybern 1996 Jun 74:557-67

Abstract

In various organisms loss-of-function mutations of individual genes with unexpectedly weak or no phenotypic effects in the homozygous state have been observed. In several of these case, independent evidence shows that the respective gene products do have essential biological functions. An explanation emerging from detailed biochemical and genetic studies on such genes is that two or more genetically redundant genes contribute to that function, i.e., a group of genes that is able to substitute partially for a loss of function in one member of that group. The often-observed sequence similarity among redundant genes suggests gene duplications as a frequent source of genetic redundancy. Aside from this observation, the evolution of genetic redundancy is poorly understood. Genetic redundancy is potentially of great relevance to organismal evolution, since it may (i) 'protect' organisms from potentially harmful mutations, and (ii) maintain pools of functionally similar, yet diverse gene products, and thus represent a source of evolutionary novelty at the biochemical level. The question of how genetic redundancy evolves should ideally be answered by experimentation. However, the large time scales involved and insufficient quantitative understanding of the underlying regulatory pathways are likely to preclude such an approach in the foreseeable future. Preliminary answers are sought here by using a biochemically motivated model of a small but central part of a developmental pathway. Sets of transcription regulators are modeled that mutually regulate each other's expression and thereby form stable gene expression patterns. It is then studied how genetic redundancy caused by gene duplications might evolve in such networks. [I][b]The results obtained suggest that redundancy may, at least in some cases, be a global property of gene interactions within a regulatory pathway, rather than a local property of genes in that pathway. They also raise the possibility that duplications of a whole regulatory gene network, as may have taken place during the evolution of HOM/Hox genes in chordates, are less likely to be reversible (by gene deletions) than duplications of individual network genes. These findings are discussed with reference to experimental evidence on the evolution of HOM/Hox genes.[/I][/b]


quote:

Evolution of genetic redundancy for advanced players.

Dover GA
Curr Opin Genet Dev 1993 Dec 3:902-10

Abstract

An ever expanding database on the sequence organization and repetition of genic and non-genic components of nuclear and organelle genomes reveals that the vast majority of sequences are subject to one or other mechanism of DNA turnover (gene conversion, unequal crossing over, slippage, retrotransposition, transposition and others). Detailed studies, using novel methods of experimental detection and analytical procedures, show that such mechanisms can operate one on top of another and that wide variations in their unit lengths, biases, polarities and rates create bizarre and complex patterns of genetic redundancy. The ability of these mechanisms to operate both within and between chromosomes implies that realistic models of the evolutionary dynamics of redundancy, and of the potential interaction with natural selection in a sexual species, need to consider the diffusion of variant repeats across multiple chromosome lineages, in a population context. Recently, important advances in both experimental and analytical approaches have been made along these lines. [I][b]There is increasing awareness that genetic redundancy and turnover induces a molecular co-evolution between functionally interacting genetic systems in order to maintain essential functions. [/I][/b]


Even the maintenance of those redundant systems, have potential explanations.

quote:

Evolution of genetic redundancy.

Nowak MA, Boerlijst MC, Cooke J, Smith JM
Nature 1997 Jul 388:167-71

Abstract

Genetic redundancy means that two or more genes are performing the same function and that inactivation of one of these genes has little or no effect on the biological phenotype. Redundancy seems to be widespread in genomes of higher organisms. Examples of apparently redundant genes come from numerous studies of developmental biology, immunology, neurobiology and the cell cycle. Yet there is a problem: genes encoding functional proteins must be under selection pressure. If a gene was truly redundant then it would not be protected against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. A widespread view is therefore that such redundancy cannot be evolutionarily stable. [I][b]Here we develop a simple genetic model to analyse selection pressures acting on redundant genes. We present four cases that can explain why genetic redundancy is common. In three cases, redundancy is even evolutionarily stable. [/I][/b] Our theory provides a framework for exploring the evolution of genetic organization.


The inference of design you make here is primarily a god-of-the-gaps argument. Genetic redundancy is at a very early stage of understanding, so you infer design from an argument-from-personal-incredulity. This is an incredibly weak position from which to infer anything, let alone design.

Give me something that is well understood to infer from, please.

Mark

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

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 1:54 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Peter, posted 08-29-2002 7:58 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 119 of 214 (16109)
08-27-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rationalist
08-24-2002 11:26 AM


Hi Rationalist

But to further our cause we must all wear bright neon yellow hats to identify ourselves as the keepers of Alien goodwill and to prevent ourselves from getting alien thumbprints on top of our heads

We must also vow to not let any silly scientists dissuade us from our views of the Alien theory of gravity whether they supply a counter theory supported by evidence or not (pesky people like Darwin for example)!

Wow...Michael Behe will surely write a book about this theory soon!

quote:
Originally posted by Rationalist:
Mammuthus,

I am ready to defend your Alien theory of gravity with all of my resources. It is because our modern age has abandoned belief in the aliens that press down on our heads that all forms of sin and evil have become common in our country. It is the duty of every Alien believing person in this country to defend the theory of aliens pushing on our heads in order to protect our way of life from destruction.

To that end, I propose that we point out to scientists that they do not know how gravity works, and that they can not prove that aliens are NOT pushing down on our heads. Not only that, but the scientific establishments commitment to a purely materialistic explanation for gravity automatically and unfairly prejudices it against more plausible explanations such as alien head pushing.

If we are to defend our great nation against the growing tide of abortion, teen pregnancy, drugs, pornography, and other evils, we must defend the alien head pushing theory of gravity at all costs. To do less would be to side with Satan in a war against God himself.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rationalist, posted 08-24-2002 11:26 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 214 (16119)
08-27-2002 12:49 PM


I know if we work hard, witnessing to those who will listen, that we can bring this nation back to a belief in aliens who press down on our heads to keep us from floating into space.

[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-27-2002]


nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 214 (16170)
08-28-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by gene90
08-14-2002 10:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
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?

I have wondered this myself, reading this thread.

I also wonder if Mr. Borger is representing his educational background, um, completely accurately.

I mean, in one post he says he has a Biology degree, and then in the next he doesn't seem to understand that the location of the foramen magnum on various primate skulls implies how generally upright/bipedally the individuals carried themselves. Furthermore, he also rejects the idea that one can trust any information gleaned from an inference, when this is most of what is done in scientific research, suggesting (inferring?!) that he does not understand the inferrential nature of science as a whole.

So, Mr. Borger, I think that it is time for some direct questioning.

Where and when did you earn your undergraduate and graduate degrees, and in what disciplines?

Which journals have you published in, and can you please provide a few citations for us to review?

Please understand that it is not a requirement, in my mind, that someone be a PhD in order for their views be correct or respected. I do require someone to represent themselves truthfully, however. Any misrepresentation of your credentials would be viewed by most as a valid reason to seriously question your integrity.

It is not unusual at all for creationists to misrepresent their credentials. It's been done on this very board, in fact. Moreover, it's been done by "leaders" in the movement for decades.

So, put me in my place and provide the information I ask for.


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 122 by Mammuthus, posted 08-28-2002 11:23 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019