|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific end of evolution theory (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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 wishesPeter B
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 thatspeaks the words of the picture on it (like 'banana' or whatever). There seems to be a bias in thinking that this cannot belanguage 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
[This appears to have been put in twice]
[This message has been edited by Peter, 09-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'll ask again :-
Isn't 'neutral evolution' just a side effect of theway genetic material (i.e. chromosomes) are passed from one generation to the next ? My analogy previously was in having three books each containingthree stories. I only actually want one story from each, but in order tokeep them (nicely bound) I have to keep all nine stories. I haven't 'selected' the seven I'm not interested in, theyjust came along with the bits that I did select.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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 agorilla, 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7686 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
[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 explicitiy3) No I do not mean abiogenesis. I mean does your as yet unpresented hypothesis have support from other disciplines. 4) Why wait? Cheers,Mammuthus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: It's not communication unless it's two-way (the recipient hasto understand the transmission surely). Also Koko was asked about past experience, and described the huntin 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: Already apologised for this error ... wrong post. I don't suggest anything in linguistic capability that isconcerned 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: Eh?
quote: Glad to hear it ... so long as you are sure.
quote: Are you sure about that? Motivations for belief can be convolutedat best, and the sources of bias within our own thinking need to be constantly addressed. quote: 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 howit relates to phenotypes? If we don't then the leap you have made is based upon incompleteinformation, and therefore unfounded (presently). quote: I don't usually respond to personal comments, but I find thislast point somewhat patronising ... is that a debating ploy to undermine credibility?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1897 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What if it is YOUR interpretations that are in error? If it comes down to the interpreted evidence that favors an evolutionary explanation and the evidence interpreted by a distinct minority that have a particular agenda to push, I think I know whom I will side with. Of course, in my mind, my own data -interpreted logically - clearly supports the NDT.If you disagree, I would say that it is simply due to your biased interpretations. quote: Thats just it. I have read dozens of your posts, and I see little more than your repeated say so and your tendency to 'interpret' evidence in a, shall we say, unique fashion?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024