|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific end of evolution theory (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: How can we know Peter? You ignored (or dismissed) my post and refuse to propose your theory, demonstrate how it is falsifiable, and provide supporting data from multiple disciplines....As yet you have presented nothing but an absolute inability to grasp what a random means but have proposed no alternative hypothesis. Please propose your alternative hypothesis as requested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1877 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Please start making sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1877 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Perhaps you can explain how the neutral theory differs from NDT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1877 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I do not believe that you understrand the paper.That, or you did not see this: "However, there are also differences in the structure of the proteins encoded by the genes, which undoubtedly account for some of the observed differences in phenotypes.Structural differences in proteins cause those proteins to function differently, especially in the way that multiple proteins interact with each other. This paper examines those structural changes, called nonsynonymous substitutions at the DNA level.." So your 'conclusion' seems unwarranted. You see, Peter, I know the authors of that paper. I know what type of data they looked at and have looked at in the past. They have been involved in all sorts of protein expression studies and have investigated the phylogenetic patterns in regulatory sequence (as have I). So, you see, we actually do know about those things. Did you have anything sunstantive? Of course, regulatory sequence determines the amount of gene expression, and regulatory sequence is often what is looked at in such analyses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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 wishesPeter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, yes, you are a suspect, and I am accusing you of something. I am accusing you of lying about your educational credentials in an attempt to make yourself appear authoritative and competent in this debate and on this site. Your lack of understanding of basic aspects of Biology and of the nature of scientific inquiry seems to indicate that you are not what you have represented yourself to be. I am seriously questioning your credibility and integrity, Peter. I suspect that those P. Borgers on MedLine aren't you at all. I somewhat suspect that you don't have a PhD, but if you do, it isn't in a natural science. I strongly suspect that you don't have a Biology degree at all.
quote: I'd love to get real, Peter, and you can help by telling us where and when you received your undergraduate and graduate degrees and in what disciplines. What facts did you want me to face, Peter? You haven't given me the ones I want. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: I see no reason to trust you. You will more likely just say you are right, everyone else is stupid, and then fade away from the forum like so many other creationists before you.... You are confirming the link between the stork theory of reproduction and creationism (as if it needed more!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor 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.
[/QUOTE] What a strange thing for a scientist to say. We cite papers here all the time. That is what is done with scientific papers. They are published without any secrecy; anyone can look up anything they want to in a scientific journal. ...in fact, that's the whole point of science; the free exchange of information among all for the purpose of expanding understanding and knowledge. What strange collegues you must have if they don't want their names and work out there in the public-access on Medline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Old testament came before the new testament so obviously they cannot have anything to do with each other.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1877 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: This may come as a shock, Peter, but actual scientific theories adapt to changing information. The NT may not have been part of the NDT that was originally formulated in the 30s, however, it is foolish to suggest that the NT does not play a role in the ToE of today.quote: Yes, they were skeptical about it. It was 'anti-Darwinian' - and yet, it made it past the evilutionist conspiracy to get published in a series of papers by Kimura. Why? Because Kimura, unlike you, did research to test his hypotheses. The neutral theory does not preclude beneficial mutations at all. Not one bit. The NTs central tenet is that most molecular change is neutral or nearly so. You are right, Kimura acknowledged beneficial mutations. Why wouldn't he have?Looks like you are pulling your semantics games, again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1877 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I reiterate my request. SO? Your claim does not follow from the actual contents of the paper. You write as if you are the first person to think that amounts of expression are important; that is clearly not the case.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024