scientific end of evolution theory (2)

Hi Schrafinator,
This is what I found in medline searching for Borger PAre any of these you Peter???Sorry the list is a mess but I just copied and pasted the results page from medline.Cheers,
Mammuthus: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Scholma J, Timmerman JA, Koeter GH. Related ArticlesHuman allogeneic CD2+ lymphocytes activate airway-derived epithelial cells to produce interleukin-6 and interleukin-8. Possible role for the epithelium in chronic allograft rejection.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2002 May;21(5):567-75.
PMID: 11983547 [PubMed - in process]2: Ikram MK, Borger PH, Assink JJ, Jonas JB, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Related ArticlesComparing ophthalmoscopy, slide viewing, and semiautomated systems in optic disc morphometry.
Ophthalmology. 2002 Mar;109(3):486-93.
PMID: 11874749 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]3: Wolfs RC, Borger PH, Ramrattan RS, Klaver CC, Hulsman CA, Hofman A, Vingerling JR, Hitchings RA, de Jong PT. Related ArticlesChanging views on open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalences--The Rotterdam Study.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Oct;41(11):3309-21.
PMID: 11006219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]4: Kauffman HF, Tomee JF, van de Riet MA, Timmerman AJ, Borger P. Related ArticlesProtease-dependent activation of epithelial cells by fungal allergens leads to morphologic changes and cytokine production.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000 Jun;105(6 Pt 1):1185-93.
PMID: 10856154 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]5: Borger P, Postma DS, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF. Related ArticlesRegulation of asthma-related T-cell cytokines by the cyclic AMP-dependent signalling pathway.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2000 Jul;30(7):920-6. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 10848913 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]6: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Timmerman JA, Scholma J, van den Berg JW, Koeter GH. Related ArticlesCyclosporine, FK506, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisolone differentially modulate cytokine gene expression in human airway-derived epithelial cells.
Transplantation. 2000 Apr 15;69(7):1408-13.
PMID: 10798763 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]7: Borger P, Koeter GH, Timmerman JA, Vellenga E, Tomee JF, Kauffman HF. Related ArticlesProteases from Aspergillus fumigatus induce interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-8 production in airway epithelial cell lines by transcriptional mechanisms.
J Infect Dis. 1999 Oct;180(4):1267-74.
PMID: 10479157 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]8: Borger P, Jonker GJ, Vellenga E, Postma DS, De Monchy JG, Kauffman HF. Related ArticlesAllergen challenge primes for IL-5 mRNA production and abrogates beta-adrenergic function in peripheral blood T lymphocytes from asthmatics.
Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Jul;29(7):933-40.
PMID: 10383594 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]9: Borger P, Ten Hacken NH, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF, Postma DS. Related ArticlesPeripheral blood T lymphocytes from asthmatic patients are primed for enhanced expression of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-5 mRNA: associations with lung function and serum IgE.
Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Jun;29(6):772-9.
PMID: 10336593 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]10: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Esselink MT, Vellenga E. Related ArticlesInterleukin-15 differentially enhances the expression of interferon-gamma and interleukin-4 in activated human (CD4+) T lymphocytes.
Immunology. 1999 Feb;96(2):207-14.
PMID: 10233697 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]11: Borger P, Hoekstra Y, Esselink MT, Postma DS, Zaagsma J, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF. Related ArticlesBeta-adrenoceptor-mediated inhibition of IFN-gamma, IL-3, and GM-CSF mRNA accumulation in activated human T lymphocytes is solely mediated by the beta2-adrenoceptor subtype.
Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 1998 Sep;19(3):400-7.
PMID: 9730867 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]12: Borger P, Vellenga E, Gringhuis SI, Timmerman JA, Lummen C, Postma DS, Kauffman HF. Related ArticlesProstaglandin E2 differentially modulates IL-5 gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes depending on the costimulatory signal.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Feb;101(2 Pt 1):231-40.
PMID: 9500757 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]13: Gringhuis SI, de Leij LF, Verschuren EW, Borger P, Vellenga E. Related ArticlesInterleukin-7 upregulates the interleukin-2-gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes at the transcriptional level by enhancing the DNA binding activities of both nuclear factor of activated T cells and activator protein-1.
Blood. 1997 Oct 1;90(7):2690-700.
PMID: 9326236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]14: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related ArticlesIL-7 differentially modulates the expression of IFN-gamma and IL-4 in activated human T lymphocytes by transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms.
J Immunol. 1996 Feb 15;156(4):1333-8.
PMID: 8568231 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]15: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Vijgen JL, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related ArticlesActivation of the cAMP-dependent signaling pathway downregulates the expression of interleukin-3 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in activated human T lymphocytes.
Exp Hematol. 1996 Feb;24(2):108-15.
PMID: 8641331 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]16: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related ArticlesInterleukin-4 gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes is regulated by the cyclic adenosine monophosphate-dependent signaling pathway.
Blood. 1996 Jan 15;87(2):691-8.
PMID: 8555492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]17: Kiel JA, ten Berge AM, Borger P, Venema G. Related ArticlesA general method for the consecutive integration of single copies of a heterologous gene at multiple locations in the Bacillus subtilis chromosome by replacement recombination.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Dec;61(12):4244-50.
PMID: 8534091 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]18: Dokter WH, Borger P, Hendriks D, van der Horst I, Halie MR, Vellenga E. Related ArticlesInterleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor expression on human T cells is affected by different intracellular signaling pathways and by IL-4 at transcriptional and posttranscriptional level.
Blood. 1992 Dec 1;80(11):2721-8.
PMID: 1450403 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]19: Camakaris J, Danks DM, Ackland L, Cartwright E, Borger P, Cotton RG. Related Articles, OMIMAltered copper metabolism in cultured cells from human Menkes' syndrome and mottled mouse mutants.
Biochem Genet. 1980 Feb;18(1-2):117-31.
PMID: 7387619 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

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.

​

---

Mr./Dr. Borger, et al, You know, the specific arguments that you and your peers have tried to make in using certain nucleotides, sequences, genes,... to argue support for creation would not have been possible 20 years ago. Science had not filled in these voids with discoveries yet. And, your antecedents were using arguments based on what they knew of the gaps in the database of science at that time.Taking a step back, what the creation group is attempting to do is make an argument supporting creation using technology that was 30 centuries beyond the people who wrote the creation stories. These people feared god in everything they thought and did. In fact, those people thought god made seeds sprout, seasons change, and women have babies. So, this creationist line of argument raises objections on more levels than I can shake a finger at.Just as sure as DNA was a threshold discovery and human DNA was decoded 10 years faster than predicted at the start, science will continue this path of discovery. In another generation, some smart people will have figured out the molecular dynamics I was asking about earlier in this thread. What then will become of the creationists? If man can do it too, does that mean we are gods?[This message has been edited by axial soliton, 08-29-2002]

If I understand it correctly PeterB is saying that the
existence of regions which have a higher probability
of undergoing mutation makes mutations non-random.If my interpretation is correct, then I think the logic is
skewed to say the least.Because a region is more likely to be subject to a copying error
does not make any actual instance of a copy error non-random.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
If I understand it correctly PeterB is saying that the
existence of regions which have a higher probability
of undergoing mutation makes mutations non-random.

​

If my interpretation is correct, then I think the logic is
skewed to say the least.

​

Because a region is more likely to be subject to a copying error
does not make any actual instance of a copy error non-random.

---

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

After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?

quote:

---

Originally posted by axial soliton:
After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.

​

Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by axial soliton:
After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.

​

Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?

---

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

Peter Borger's argument is this:1. It appears that mutations are not completely random in the genome.
2. Evolution posits a "uniform" randomness.
3. Therefore these areas of non-random mutation must be from a process other than evolution.
4. Therefore this process is "directed" mutation.
5. This means that the coding of these genes was caused by intelligence and not a random process.
6. The only intelligence that could produce such genes is the Christian God.I think that about sums it up. All dillydallying aside.. it's a pretty weak argument. It goes down in flames on #2. Evolution does not require mutations to be entirely random. It works well with not completely random mutations, and it also works with psuedo-random change, or any sort of stochastic process, where variation is generated in the genome that can be culled by selection.In any case, you can't jump to #3, or to #4 without assuming facts not in evidence.

dear Mammuthus, dear all,This is the evolution-versus-creation discussion site, not the Peter Borger-discussion site. Please let's keep it that way.
In the meantime I've sent a "Letter to Nature" on the peculiar phenomenon of non-random mutation in the 1G5 gene and I will keep you informed.
Thanks.Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-05-2002]

Dear Peter,
If you feel picked on it may be because you are one of the few anti-evolution proponents that is consistently engaged in discussion. And with perhaps a few exceptions people are attacking your ideas and not you personally. If you are a research scientist you must be used to this by now.Good luck with Nature.cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Mammuthus, dear all,

​

This is the evolution-versus-creation discussion site, not the Peter Borger-discussion site. Please let's keep it that way.
In the meantime I've sent a "Letter to Nature" on the peculiar phenomenon of non-random mutation in the 1G5 gene and I will keep you informed.
Thanks.

​

Peter

​

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-05-2002]

---

Peter B., you're back!I wonder if you would mind telling us when and where you earned your undergrad and graduate degrees, and also please provide some citations of published papers you have been an author on.Thanks in advance.

In following these discussions, I have learned so much. Maybe this won't sound the way I want it too, but I would like to understand how another species like chimpanzees see the world and us. You know, meet an evolutionary peer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by axial soliton:
In following these discussions, I have learned so much. Maybe this won't sound the way I want it too, but I would like to understand how another species like chimpanzees see the world and us. You know, meet an evolutionary peer.

---

Don't do it! You'll start craving bananas & finding bright red buttocks attractive! (I might be getting my primates mixed....)Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear schrafinator,I do not have to do that anymore, since Mammuthus already took the opportunity. However, he forgot to mention another work I wrote on gene regulation, entitled: Regulation of T cell cytokine gene expression. ISBN 90-9011922-1.
I wonder however what difference does it makes in a discussion whether you have a degree or not? Discussions are about arguments not academical degrees. And, as long as zoologists are allowed to write about (selfish) genes, for sure I am.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear AS,You write:"Mr./Dr. Borger, et al,"Thanks for the 'pluralis' However, I am alone.And you say:
"You know, the specific arguments that you and your peers (peers? what peers? pb) chave tried to make in using certain nucleotides, sequences, genes,... to argue support for creation would not have been possible 20 years ago."I say:
Exactly, and I've already claimed that NDT is an outdated theory that has fallen beyond repair, so it cannot bring truth.And:
"Science had not filled in these voids with discoveries yet.I say:
Science will have to introduce non-random mutation soon, and that overturns NDT.You say:
And, your antecedents were using arguments based on what they knew of the gaps in the database of science at that time.
Taking a step back, what the creation group is attempting to do is make an argument supporting creation using technology that was 30 centuries beyond the people who wrote the creation stories. These people feared god in everything they thought and did. In fact, those people thought god made seeds sprout, seasons change, and women have babies. So, this creationist line of argument raises objections on more levels than I can shake a finger at."I say:
All these ancient arguments are still valid, since we do not know anything more about truth than 3000 years ago. The only thing that changed is that we are able to describe it in terms of science. Science does not provide an explanation, it only demonstrates HOW it works. Knowing how something works, or decribing reality in a mathematical model (which is tautological anyway), does not mean that there is no creation. That is conclusion jumping. It is no science and illogic.In my opinion your reasoning goes as follows:
1) we can describe HOW seeds spout
2) we can describe HOW seasons change
3) we can describe HOW women have babies
4) so there is no God
Well, if this is your logic...... (correct me if I am wrong).And:
"Just as sure as DNA was a threshold discovery and human DNA was decoded 10 years faster than predicted at the start, science will continue this path of discovery. In another generation, some smart people will have figured out the molecular dynamics I was asking about earlier in this thread. What then will become of the creationists?
If man can do it too, does that mean we are gods?"I say:
Yes, you would be the God over your creation.Best wishes
Peter