Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:50 PM
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, GDR, Jon, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (10 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 152 of 214 (17022)
09-09-2002 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by mark24
09-09-2002 7:59 PM


dear mark,

Do I really have to respond to your letter? I don't see new issues I have to respond to. (please point out if I am wrong)

However, I could start by explaining to you that neutral evolution theory is not part of NDT (as you claim), but I am not going to do that now. Maybe Mammuthus could explain it to you, or SLPx. They are the evolutionary experts of this site.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by mark24, posted 09-09-2002 7:59 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 3:01 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 165 by mark24, posted 09-10-2002 12:15 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 170 by derwood, posted 09-11-2002 1:36 PM peter borger has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 153 of 214 (17035)
09-09-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Mammuthus
09-09-2002 4:40 AM


dear Mammuthus,

Although I don't mind about the presentation of my papers on this site, maybe my coauthors do. I didn't inform them that I am involved in this discussion site, and it may well be that they do not wish to be displayed on this site. Maybe you could remove their names. I think it was a bit inconsiderate of you.

And about your: "sub-microscopic fairies" --> We call them proteins nowadays.

And you say (in addition to some condescending assumptions that I will not repond to):
" 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?"

I say:
1 & 2) "wait and see, but I already gave an impression of it in my mailings and reponses"
3) chemistry, what do you mean? Abiogenesis? What evidence from paleontology? That tremendous amount of transition forms?
4) I will.

Best wishes
Peter B


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 4:40 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 5:53 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 177 by nator, posted 09-12-2002 9:35 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 154 of 214 (17039)
09-09-2002 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by derwood
08-30-2002 10:54 AM


dear SLPx,
The flaw in the paper you refer to is their tacit assumption that phenotypes are determined by coding genes. I really doubt that. It will turn out that phenotypes are predominantly determined by the level of gene expression.

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by derwood, posted 08-30-2002 10:54 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 6:06 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 171 by derwood, posted 09-11-2002 1:46 PM peter borger has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 155 of 214 (17048)
09-10-2002 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by axial soliton
09-06-2002 12:00 AM


Have you heard of a gorilla named (and I'm not sure
of the spelling) Koko ?

She was taught sign language, and can use a keypad that
speaks the words of the picture on it (like 'banana' or
whatever).

There seems to be a bias in thinking that this cannot be
language use because she's only a gorilla ... but I think
you are right that this bias is from the religous viewpoint
of man as the pinnacle of creation.

Perhaps this is why there is such a strong feeling against evolution,
after all, if ToE is correct we are just animals like every other
creature on the planet ... nothing any more special than a
gorilla, chimp, okapi, frog, ant, etc. etc. etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by axial soliton, posted 09-06-2002 12:00 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 156 of 214 (17049)
09-10-2002 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by axial soliton
09-06-2002 12:00 AM


[This appears to have been put in twice]

[This message has been edited by Peter, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by axial soliton, posted 09-06-2002 12:00 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 3:28 AM Peter has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 157 of 214 (17050)
09-10-2002 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
09-09-2002 8:23 PM


I'll ask again :-

Isn't 'neutral evolution' just a side effect of the
way genetic material (i.e. chromosomes) are passed
from one generation to the next ?

My analogy previously was in having three books each containing
three stories.

I only actually want one story from each, but in order to
keep them (nicely bound) I have to keep all nine stories.

I haven't 'selected' the seven I'm not interested in, they
just came along with the bits that I did select.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 8:23 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 3:35 AM Peter has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 158 of 214 (17053)
09-10-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Peter
09-10-2002 2:56 AM


dear peter,

Yes, I know about Koko, and I am very intruiged by gorilla's abilities to communicate with human (or is it the other way around? Humans communicating with gorilla's?).

You also say:
"There seems to be a bias in thinking that this cannot be
language use because she's only a gorilla ... but I think
you are right that this bias is from the religous viewpoint
of man as the pinnacle of creation."

I say:
I do not object to the fact that gorilla's are pretty intelligent creatures. Maybe they have even better language-understanding capacities than chimps.
However, I don't understand how you link the gorilla's ability to communicate to my posts. Could you please explain. (If you think that this proves common descent, than I really have to disappoint you: it doesn't. We are also able to communicate with dolphins. It doesn't say anything, except that these are very intelligent sociable animals)

And you say:
"Perhaps this is why there is such a strong feeling against evolution,
after all, if..

(yes indeed IF)

..ToE is correct we are just animals like every other creature..

(if EoT is correct there are NO creatures)

..on the planet ... nothing any more special than a
gorilla, chimp, okapi, frog, ant, etc. etc. etc. "

I say:
"These are not the reasons why I object to NDT. If these were my reasons I wouldn't have registered for this forum. I reject NDT because it doesn't work at the level of the genome. And if it doesn't work there it cannot be extrapolated to higher levels".

Maybe it is time that you read some opposite opinions.

best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 2:56 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 6:01 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 164 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 6:15 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 159 of 214 (17054)
09-10-2002 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Peter
09-10-2002 3:01 AM


dear Peter

Your example is analogous to linkage, not neutral evolution. Neutral evolution is genetic variation not leading to phenotypic variation. For instance, mutations in third codon positions will usually still specify the same aminoacid.

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 3:01 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 6:03 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 160 of 214 (17057)
09-10-2002 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by peter borger
09-09-2002 10:27 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]dear Mammuthus,

Although I don't mind about the presentation of my papers on this site, maybe my coauthors do. I didn't inform them that I am involved in this discussion site, and it may well be that they do not wish to be displayed on this site. Maybe you could remove their names. I think it was a bit inconsiderate of you.

While I am sorry you are offended by the listing of your papers, to avoid this you could have also posted under a pseudonym...anybody could have done exactly what I did with a few key strokes in medline.

And about your: "sub-microscopic fairies" --> We call them proteins nowadays.

And you say (in addition to some condescending assumptions that I will not repond to):
" 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?"

I say:
1 & 2) "wait and see, but I already gave an impression of it in my mailings and reponses"
3) chemistry, what do you mean? Abiogenesis? What evidence from paleontology? That tremendous amount of transition forms?
4) I will.

1 and 2) I rather not hae an "impression of it" but rather have you state it explicitiy
3) No I do not mean abiogenesis. I mean does your as yet unpresented hypothesis have support from other disciplines.
4) Why wait?

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 10:27 PM peter borger has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 161 of 214 (17059)
09-10-2002 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by peter borger
09-10-2002 3:28 AM


Apologies ... this was a comment in message 137, somehow
I must have got mixed up ... thought I had posted
twice by mistake and deleted-by-edit one.

Sorry.

[This message has been edited by Peter, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 3:28 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 162 of 214 (17060)
09-10-2002 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by peter borger
09-10-2002 3:35 AM


But if you get a mutation of that type, and it is
preserved due to linkage doesn't that cover what
you are saying refutes NDT?

Or am I missing something here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 3:35 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 163 of 214 (17061)
09-10-2002 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by peter borger
09-09-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,
The flaw in the paper you refer to is their tacit assumption that phenotypes are determined by coding genes. I really doubt that. It will turn out that phenotypes are predominantly determined by the level of gene expression.

Peter


Um...so you are saying that if one expresses RNA from any random sequence you will get a phenotype? Instead of Hox genes just overexpressing ACGTCCCGTTTTCCCC will lead to fly segment development....then I guess alchemy must work to. ..the way you wrote that in addition to evolution, you do not believe in classical genetics or developmental biology either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 11:13 PM peter borger has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 164 of 214 (17062)
09-10-2002 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by peter borger
09-10-2002 3:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear peter,

Yes, I know about Koko, and I am very intruiged by gorilla's abilities to communicate with human (or is it the other way around? Humans communicating with gorilla's?).


It's not communication unless it's two-way (the recipient has
to understand the transmission surely).

Also Koko was asked about past experience, and described the hunt
in which she was captured as juvenile (she refers to people
as 'feet' incidently, which implies languistic capability
since she chose that word to describe people out of the set
of words that she is capable of using).

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

You also say:
"There seems to be a bias in thinking that this cannot be
language use because she's only a gorilla ... but I think
you are right that this bias is from the religous viewpoint
of man as the pinnacle of creation."

I say:
I do not object to the fact that gorilla's are pretty intelligent creatures. Maybe they have even better language-understanding capacities than chimps.
However, I don't understand how you link the gorilla's ability to communicate to my posts. Could you please explain. (If you think that this proves common descent, than I really have to disappoint you: it doesn't. We are also able to communicate with dolphins. It doesn't say anything, except that these are very intelligent sociable animals)


Already apologised for this error ... wrong post.

I don't suggest anything in linguistic capability that is
concerned with common descent ... we can also communicate
with dogs and cats and probably pretty much anything else
provided we know its method of communication.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

And you say:
"Perhaps this is why there is such a strong feeling against evolution,
after all, if..

(yes indeed IF)

..ToE is correct we are just animals like every other creature..

(if EoT is correct there are NO creatures)


Eh?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

..on the planet ... nothing any more special than a
gorilla, chimp, okapi, frog, ant, etc. etc. etc. "

I say:
"These are not the reasons why I object to NDT.


Glad to hear it ... so long as you are sure.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

If these were my reasons I wouldn't have registered for this forum.

Are you sure about that? Motivations for belief can be convoluted
at best, and the sources of bias within our own thinking need to
be constantly addressed.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

I reject NDT because it doesn't work at the level of the genome. And if it doesn't work there it cannot be extrapolated to higher levels".

At the level of the genome all that we require is mutations,
and we have those.

Do we fully understand what the entire genome is for, or how
it relates to phenotypes?

If we don't then the leap you have made is based upon incomplete
information, and therefore unfounded (presently).

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Maybe it is time that you read some opposite opinions.

I don't usually respond to personal comments, but I find this
last point somewhat patronising ... is that a debating ploy to
undermine credibility?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 3:28 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 165 of 214 (17090)
09-10-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
09-09-2002 8:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mark,

Do I really have to respond to your letter? I don't see new issues I have to respond to. (please point out if I am wrong)

However, I could start by explaining to you that neutral evolution theory is not part of NDT (as you claim), but I am not going to do that now. Maybe Mammuthus could explain it to you, or SLPx. They are the evolutionary experts of this site.

Best wishes,
Peter


The issues are pertinent to the claims you are making, such as how you infer hot-spots from DNA sequences we no longer have. I can think of a possible way, but it requires a LOT of extant species/sub-populations (that you don't have), & phylogenetic analysis, that you don't accept as evidence of common descent, so you lucked out, mate.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 8:23 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 166 of 214 (17102)
09-10-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by peter borger
09-09-2002 7:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

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"


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:

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.


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 7:58 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 9:01 PM derwood has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019