scientific end of evolution theory (2)

Ha Ha. I already like bananas. Let me assure you that I will not get my primates mixed. My fixation on buttocks is in a very narrow range of human females, and one Vulcan.Seriously though, it is a haunting and sad notion to me that religion and associated creationism have obfuscated any thought of communication with other sentient species here on this planet. It isn't the religious who want to save the primates, it's the scientists. When I was young, religion taught racism. My son met Jane Goodall at Cornell where she gave a colloquia on her time with the mountain gorillas. She was truly fortunate to know many of them personally. Wouldn't you talk to a Chimp, gorolla, dolphin, elephant, or whale if you could?

Dear John,You write: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.I say:
"anthropus" means "man" in greek. Misleadingname isn't it?And you say: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.I say:
It could suggest common design.You say: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.I say:
Save your money, you don't have to buy it. This knowledge is for free.You say: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."Exactly my point"best wishes,peter

to be fair Peter...in one of your posts you specifically disallowed comments on molecular evolution by Richard Dawkins because he is a zoologist yet here claim that qualifications are irrelevant.Schrafinator also stated her reasons for wanting to know your background. I think she is surprised that as a biologists you have such a poor grasp of the concept of random mutation and selection. Also that you are so quick to declare yourself correct and having "proved" something does not readily suggest someone with scientific training.And the list of publications included a Peter Borger but that does not mean you are the same Peter Borger. I simply queried medline with your name and that is what returned. I was not intentionally excluding your other publication that you mentioned.Cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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

---

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.I say:
It could suggest common design.Ok Peter..how...what is the testable hypothesis or experiment that would support common design whatever the hell that means.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.__________________________________Peter, you have not supported your case with anything but a misunderstanding of random mutation and selection (not to mention the neutral theory)...please go into "it" here.I say:
Save your money, you don't have to buy it. This knowledge is for free.
__________________________hmmm snide remarks...a great sign of compelling arguments 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.
___________________________________Belief is for the religious...let's see some scientific data supporting your theory. Actually, you have not posted at any point what your "theory" is. You have merely claimed to have disproven evolution...Let's hear your counter theory please (with supporting data from several independent fields would be preferable).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With evidence you mean "data", or "interpreted data"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Data. Though it is hard to seperate the two."Exactly my point"__________________________________________Umm is there any such thing as non-interpreted data? What is the point?cheers,
Mammuthus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]to be fair Peter...in one of your posts you specifically disallowed comments on molecular evolution by Richard Dawkins because he is a zoologist yet here claim that qualifications are irrelevant.Schrafinator also stated her reasons for wanting to know your background. I think she is surprised that as a biologists you have such a poor grasp of the concept of random mutation and selection. Also that you are so quick to declare yourself correct and having "proved" something does not readily suggest someone with scientific training.And the list of publications included a Peter Borger but that does not mean you are the same Peter Borger. I simply queried medline with your name and that is what returned. I was not intentionally excluding your other publication that you mentioned.Cheers,
Mammuthus[/QUOTE]You have correctly described my motivations.Peter B., where and when did you receive your undergraduate and graduate degrees, and in what disciplines?Many of the things you have said strongly implies to me that you are not actually as well-trained in Biology and science as your credentials would imply. Your confusion about how the location of the foramen magnum in various primate skulls would be evidence for how upright they walked, and your subsequent denial as scientific evidence anything that was "implied" were big red flags for me. Anyone with a degree in Biology should understand the foramen magnum evidence, and anyone with a PhD in science should understand that basically all of science is implied; that that is how science is done.So, I have serious suspicions that you have misrepresented your credentials. That's why I am asking you for more details....Check-up-on-able details.In the original message in which I asked you for this information, I made sure to mention that someone's university credentials, or lack of them, did not make their statements more or less valid, neccessarily.However, if one is found to have lied about their credentials, it would reflect very strongly upon that person's integrity.Creationists have been doing so for decades, so it's not a preposterous notion at all.So, how about it, Peter B.?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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

---

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?

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, and with me a lot of evolutionary theorists know that some strange things are going on in the genome that cannot be explained by random mutation and selection alone. The problem is known in literature and the recent introduction of very weak selection demonstrates the problem.
I already demonstrated that if you wanna explain the alpha-actinin genes and the 1G5 genes in D melanogaster you have to introduce either neutral selection or non-random mutation. That's the end of NDT, and you know that too. I decided to blow the whistle as soon as we require to introduce neutral selection or non-random mutation. As a matter of fact, I wrote several letters to biologists in the field to ask for clarifications without response, so...[By the way, do you think that I am not able to discuss evolutionary aspects of molecular biology, because I did not publish on it?]You say:
"And keep in mind that the zoologist writing about selfish genes is not repeatedly claiming to have falsified the reigning biological paradigm."I say:
"I had to reiterate myself several times, since Mark24 and you (and others) are in the denial mode. It should also be noted that I didn't falsify NDT. The phenomena observed on the 1G5 gene did (also the ZFY region in the human Y chromosome falsifies NDT -> see my comments to Percy. Also the human alpha-actinin genes do).
Moreover, the zoologist does not have to fight the reigning paradigms since he is an advocate. If one does not believe the reigning paradigm (and I don't believe it for several good reasons) the first thing to do is to falsify it. Next, one has to come with an alternative, that explains all phenomena (I did that in my final letter to Mark24). That is how it works."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."Best wishes
Peter

dear Schrafinator,Even if Einstein was a liar, it would NOT make his E=MC2 invalid.Best wishes,Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-09-2002]

Dear mammuthus,1) I have nothing to hide, so why would I take a pseudonym?2) I still fail to see why you had to present my references on this discussion site. It didn't contribute anything to the discussion. Why didn't you present all your publications? Maybe you didn't because it IS irrelevant to this discussion.3) If a zoologist has a good argument I will credit that.Best wishes
Peter

Dear Peter,
I am not really clear as to why you want to hide your publications because you specifically use your real name here? I don't really see why you would be upset by this. All I did was a medline search which Schrafinator could have done herself. There were two Peter Borger's that returned on the search and it is not clear which one you are. However, anyone reading the papers will see that you collect data and INFER your conclusions like in any other scientific discipline. But for some personal reason, you check this abilitiy at the door when you try to apply your mind to evolution. By your logic as applied to evolution, the changes in gene expression you observe in your studies could be due to little sub-microscopic fairies and there is not way you can disprove this.And I don't post under my name because the last time I did so on a board similar to this I kept getting spammed.As to your third point, you often do not credit anyones argument...or even consider it. Mostly you just say no it cannot be regardless of how it is presented.Finally, if you have studied evolutionary theory on your own you are certainly entitled to weigh in on the subject. However, certain blatant holes in your understanding of molecular evolution suggest you have only recently read a few papers on the subject with the pre-agenda of trying to support your religious views.What I would find more useful is the following:1) Can you present an alternative hypothesis?
2) Supply supporting data
3) Find supporting data from other fields i.e. chemistry, paleontology
4) demonstrate how your hypothesis is falsifiable?This would make the debate more productive rather than the peter says evolution is wrong, everyone else says no it is not circle that is evolving in this forum. How about showing us precisely how it works and the evidence that supports it if your alternative is so strong...you said you have nothing to hide.Cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mammuthus,

​

1) I have nothing to hide, so why would I take a pseudonym?

​

2) I still fail to see why you had to present my references on this discussion site. It didn't contribute anything to the discussion. Why didn't you present all your publications? Maybe you didn't because it IS irrelevant to this discussion.

​

3) If a zoologist has a good argument I will credit that.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Schrafinator,

​

Even if Einstein was a liar, it would NOT make his E=MC2 invalid.

​

Best wishes,

​

Peter

​

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

---

LOL!You are correct.But you are also not Einstein.Please answer my questions. When and where did you receive your undergraduate and graduate degrees, and in what disciplines?

[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:

---

and with me a lot of evolutionary theorists know that some strange things are going on in the genome that cannot be explained by random mutation and selection alone.

---

They do? Like what?

quote:

---

The problem is known in literature and the recent introduction of very weak selection demonstrates the problem.
I already demonstrated that if you wanna explain the alpha-actinin genes and the 1G5 genes in D melanogaster you have to introduce either neutral selection or non-random mutation. That's the end of NDT, and you know that too.

---

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:

---

I decided to blow the whistle as soon as we require to introduce neutral selection or non-random mutation. As a matter of fact, I wrote several letters to biologists in the field to ask for clarifications without response, so...

---

Well, maybe those biologists see your writings the same way I do and decided not to waste the time.

quote:

---

[By the way, do you think that I am not able to discuss evolutionary aspects of molecular biology, because I did not publish on it?]

---

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:

---

You say:
"And keep in mind that the zoologist writing about selfish genes is not repeatedly claiming to have falsified the reigning biological paradigm."

​

I say:
"I had to reiterate myself several times, since Mark24 and you (and others) are in the denial mode.

---

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:

---

It should also be noted that I didn't falsify NDT.

---

That was noted some time ago.

quote:

---

The phenomena observed on the 1G5 gene did (also the ZFY region in the human Y chromosome falsifies NDT -> see my comments to Percy. Also the human alpha-actinin genes do).

---

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:

---

Moreover, the zoologist does not have to fight the reigning paradigms since he is an advocate. If one does not believe the reigning paradigm (and I don't believe it for several good reasons) the first thing to do is to falsify it.

---

Better get started.

quote:

---

Next, one has to come with an alternative, that explains all phenomena (I did that in my final letter to Mark24). That is how it works."

---

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....

dear SLPx,Thanks for your response.We will see who is right ultimately.
Let's also wait for Nature's response (didn't get any yet).You say:
"..an occurrance negates all of the other evidence?"I say:"What evidence? Interpreted data, that's all there is. I could reinterpret them. As soon as non-random mutations are scientificly accepted, I will"And you say:
"I just can't wait to see what you and your cohorts are going to replace it with."There are no cohorts, I'm operating alone. And currently I am writing on an alternative of ET, and if you had read all my posts you would have had a bit of a clue already.Best wishes
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-09-2002]

Peter B,

quote:

---

Next, one has to come with an alternative, that explains all phenomena (I did that in my final letter to Mark24). That is how it works.

---

And I showed why you hadn't, in message 118, which is still waiting for a response.Mark

Dear S,Am I a suspect, or what? Are you accusing me of something? Is this an interogation?Get real, Schraf, better face the facts.Peter