scientific end of evolution theory (2)

[QUOTE] ASSUREDLY, THE THEORY HAS FALLEN!![/B][/QUOTE]Amazing, truly!When can we expect to see your analysis published in "Science" and "Nature"?When will you know when you have won the Pulitzer?What will you do with the money and fame, I wonder?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Shane,

​

You laugh that:
"genetic redundancies seems like the most laughable example"

​

Apparently you've never heard of genetic redundancies and the problems they cause evolution-theorists. I recommend you to read relevant literature on the topic. That would improve our discussion.
Best Wishes.
Peter

---

You know, maybe you would like to provide some references to the literature which supports your position.Genetic redundancies are PREDICTED by evolutionary theory. They are not a problem for it.Remember that web search I did? I found over 9,000 hits when I searched Google for "genetic redundancy evolution".How is it that I do a search on this phrase and come up with lots and lots of hits which consist of scientific articles which talk about genetic redundancy in an evolutionary context in a way which strongly suggests that it is expected and not a surprise nor a problem?Here are some of the examples:On the Evolution of Redundancy in Genetic Codes
www-evo.stanford.edu/~ardell/ArdellSella01.pdfWagner, A. (1996) Genetic redundancy and its evolution in networks of transcriptional regulators. Biological Cybernetics 74, 559-569.
http://samba.unm.edu/~wagnera/Publications.htmlBrookfield, J.F.Y. (1997) Genetic redundancy. Advances in Genetics 36: 137-155.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/genetics/publications/1997publications.htmlNowak, M. A., M. C. Boerlijst, J. Cooke, j. Maynard Smith. 1997. evolution of genetic redundancy. Nature 388:167-171.
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/freemanea2/chapter2/custom3/deluxe-content.html(Emphasis added below)Molecular Coevolution amongst Genes Controlling Morphology in Species of Drosophila and Musca
Project supervisorrofessor G.A. DoverThere are several thousand species of Drosophila which differ in the genetic operations leading to species-specific, and presumably adaptive, morphologies. Development in D.melanogaster is controlled by a defined number of genes that interact one with another in precisely controlled hierarchies. Interestingly, there is genetic redundancy at both the DNA level and in terms of the developmental pathways. As with other multiple-copy systems, the internal tolerance provided by such redundancy allows for a molecular co-evolution between pairs of interacting genes, envisaged as the product of turnover amongst repeats and selection in the establishment of species-specific ontogenies.
http://www.le.ac.uk/ge/staff/gad_2.htmlThese are only a few examples.Tell me again how genetic redundancy is a problem, or at all unexpected, or NOT actually predicted and required, for/in Evolutionary Theory?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?

---

I have wondered this myself, reading this thread.I also wonder if Mr. Borger is representing his educational background, um, completely accurately.I mean, in one post he says he has a Biology degree, and then in the next he doesn't seem to understand that the location of the foramen magnum on various primate skulls implies how generally upright/bipedally the individuals carried themselves. Furthermore, he also rejects the idea that one can trust any information gleaned from an inference, when this is most of what is done in scientific research, suggesting (inferring?!) that he does not understand the inferrential nature of science as a whole.So, Mr. Borger, I think that it is time for some direct questioning.Where and when did you earn your undergraduate and graduate degrees, and in what disciplines?Which journals have you published in, and can you please provide a few citations for us to review?Please understand that it is not a requirement, in my mind, that someone be a PhD in order for their views be correct or respected. I do require someone to represent themselves truthfully, however. Any misrepresentation of your credentials would be viewed by most as a valid reason to seriously question your integrity.It is not unusual at all for creationists to misrepresent their credentials. It's been done on this very board, in fact. Moreover, it's been done by "leaders" in the movement for decades.So, put me in my place and provide the information I ask for.

Peter B., you're back!I wonder if you would mind telling us when and where you earned your undergrad and graduate degrees, and also please provide some citations of published papers you have been an author on.Thanks in advance.

[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,

​

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:
Dear S,

​

Am I a suspect, or what? Are you accusing me of something? Is this an interogation?

---

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:

---

Get real, Schraf, better face the facts.

---

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]

[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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear Schraf,Do I have to start feeling sorry for you?
While you are so suspicious, why don't you write a letter to my coauthors? [/QUOTE]Wasn't it you who, just a few posts ago, thought it was rude and inconsiderate for us to include your co-authors' names along with yours in a message? Now you want me to contact them directly?This is very contradictory and strange. But then again, that has been your MO in all things all along.However, since you insist, can you please provide a ".edu" e-mail address for one or two of your co-authors, or even a snail mail address? I'd love to confirm your credentials with several of them since you have decided it is a really big secret.I really don't mind calling your bluff.