scientific end of evolution theory (2)

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

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 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]

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

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

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

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

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

dear PeterYour 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

dear SLPx,You wonder:
"What if it is YOUR interpretations that are in error?"I say:
"Than we have two interpretations that are in error."Best wishes,
Peter

dear Mammuthus,Be patient. You can trust me, I will come with something new. And maybe I will discuss it first on this site. One of the reasons for my registration is to get as much as comments as possible on my examples. Anticipation, you now.Peter

Dear SLPx,For instance, NDT was set up in the 1930th and 1940th. The Neutral theory (NT) was set up in the 1960th and 1970th. So, NT can not be part of NDT. As a matter of fact Darwinian evolutionists were very sceptic about NDT when it was introduced. Why? Since NT does NOT include beneficial mutations (although they are acknowledges by Kimura).Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-11-2002]

Dear SLPx,You ask:"Did you have anything substantive?"I say:Ever contemplated trisomy 21? The only difference between diploid 21 and triploid 21 is that the approx 150 genes of chrom 21 are present 3-fold instead of 2-fold. So the phenotypic changes observed in trisomy 21 are NOT due to mutations in proteins or mutations in regulatory sequences. They reside in the amount of gene expression. This completely deregulates phenotypic development.best wishes
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-11-2002]