scientific end of evolution theory (2)

Dear SLPx,
The good part about the NT theory is that it can be tested and it has been shown to be right (to a certain level, it depends on the DNA region, genes one studies). That's why I like the NT. And that's why I can use it as a scientist. And that's where it differs from the hypothesis of evolution that has never been and cannot be proven.
Best wishes.
PeterPS. I happen to like this game.

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?Have a nice day,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-12-2002]

Dear SLPx,You say:"So your 'conclusion' seems unwarranted."Do you wanna discuss unwarranted conclusions? For instance with respect to the hypothesis of evolution?Please let me know.Best wishes
Peter

Dear Mammuthus,In response to my quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
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]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say:"Old testament came before the new testament so obviously they cannot have anything to do with each other......."I say:"This is how logic (I know you have a problem with it so let me explain again) works:1) Old testament was written
2) New testament was written
3) So, new testament is not a part of old testament.Yes, Mammuthus, although the old and new testament together comprise the bible, the new testament is NO part of the old testament.
Likewise, the Neutral Theory is NO part of NDT.So, you once more provided me a faulty analogy. In this case it is called a DISTORTION. It is a fallacy!!!!"Best wishes,
Peter

Dear SLPx,In response to your writing:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.I say:
How exactly does your answer relate to my previous response?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.My response:
"My hypotheis is that NDT is wrong in their assumption of randomness of mutations. Next, I did some literature research and found several examples in favour of my hypothesis (as presented on this site). Now, you and Mark24 and Peter (from Birmingham, UK) are in denial, and another one is even trying to discredit me (Schrafinator). Why I wonder, is that? Afraid that the NDT is wrong?"And you say:
"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?"I say (as mentioned earlier):
"What on earth do you require a neutral theory for anyway? If it demonstrates something it is stability of phenotype. Not change, or evolution as you like to have it"And you:
Looks like you are pulling your semantics games, again.I say:
I like games, as long as they are played fair.Best wishes
Peter

[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.

dear Schraf,You say:
"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."No, Schraf it is not a big secret. I cannot remember that I mentioned it to be a secret. However, it doesn't contribute to the discussion and it certainly does not say anything about my posts, statements, examples that falsify NDT etcetera. You are free to contact my coauthors, but I will not provide you with their email addresses (privacy-reasons). You could have had the addresses already just by looking it up in pubmed (look for corresponding authors).Best wishes,
Peter

Dear mammuthus,In response to my comments to 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
************************************You write:
"Ever heard of genomic imprinting? Obviusly not."I say:
"Please expand a bit on genomic imprinting in the context of trisomy 21 (I am here to learn, too.)."You say:
So you claim that mutations in promoter regions have no effect on gene expression? Wow, alert the papers..you have just overthrown genetics and developmental biology.I say:
"You are extremely good in distortions (=fallacy). Where exactly do I say this?"You say:
"At first I did not question your having a degree in biology but now I like Schrafinator am seriously beginning to wonder."I say:
"There are many thing one can wonder about. For instance, I could wonder about where you finished your kindergarten or prime school or whatever. But I don't, since I find it a waste of my time. I have better things to wonder about"You say:
"Still waiting for you to propose your theory....*sounds of crickets chirping*"As said before say:
Please, have a little patience. Why don't you have a look at my reply to Mark24 mail #73, and maybe provide me with some good scientific comments.best wishes,
Peter

This is how logic (I know you have a problem with it so let me explain again) works:1) Old testament was written
2) New testament was written
3) So, new testament is not a part of old testament.Yes, Mammuthus, although the old and new testament together comprise the bible, the new testament is NO part of the old testament.
Likewise, the Neutral Theory is NO part of NDT.So, you once more provided me a faulty analogy. In this case it is called a DISTORTION. It is a fallacy!!!!"Best wishes,
Peter
**************************LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!!!!!!
I have the problem with logic...look at your three points!
1)donuts have a hole
2)bagels have a hole
3)therefore bagels are not baked according to the Borger treatise on logic.As for distortions...you also distorted what I posted...I said have nothing to do with each other..not part of...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear mammuthus,In response to my comments to 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
************************************You write:
"Ever heard of genomic imprinting? Obviusly not."I say:
"Please expand a bit on genomic imprinting in the context of trisomy 21 (I am here to learn, too.)."As the human genome is further studied, the rest of the imprinted genes should be identified...imprinting has not been extensively studied in trisomy 21 as a causal factor specifically but more as a factor in the variation of the phenotype of Down's. Here is one reference followed by several review papers.(Hopefully you can get access to them as they may require a subscription)Muller F, Rebiffe M, Taillandier A, Oury JF, Mornet E. Parental origin of the extra chromosome in prenatally diagnosed fetal trisomy 21.Hum Genet. 2000 Mar;106(3):340-4.Tycko B, Morison IM. Related Articles, Links
Physiological functions of imprinted genes.
J Cell Physiol. 2002 Sep;192(3):245-58. Review.
PMID: 12124770 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]2: Baylin S, Bestor TH. Related Articles, Links
Altered methylation patterns in cancer cell genomes: cause or consequence?
Cancer Cell. 2002 May;1(4):299-305. Review.
PMID: 12086841 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]3: Baroux C, Spillane C, Grossniklaus U. Related Articles, Links
Genomic imprinting during seed development.
Adv Genet. 2002;46:165-214. Review.
PMID: 11931224 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]4: Sleutels F, Barlow DP. Related Articles, Links
The origins of genomic imprinting in mammals.
Adv Genet. 2002;46:119-63. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 11931223 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]You say:
So you claim that mutations in promoter regions have no effect on gene expression? Wow, alert the papers..you have just overthrown genetics and developmental biology.I say:
"You are extremely good in distortions (=fallacy). Where exactly do I say this?
*****************************************************You have no sense of irony and you mistate my posts selectively (the only proof of anything non-random you have) constantly
"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. " Please be so kind as to show the data that no mutation leads to the non-disjunction causing trisomy 21 in the first place....As far as I can tell the cause of trisomy 21 is as yet unknown.You say:
"At first I did not question your having a degree in biology but now I like Schrafinator am seriously beginning to wonder."I say:
"There are many thing one can wonder about. For instance, I could wonder about where you finished your kindergarten or prime school or whatever. But I don't, since I find it a waste of my time. I have better things to wonder about"
**********************************************************Wonder harder, you have a knack for telling everyone they are wrong or do not know their own subject material while refusing to back up you alternative (or even propose it) and claiming as your evidence for the refutation of evolution the fact that you don't understand molecular biology. I guess pharmacologists in Australia don't get much training in the basics anymore You say:
"Still waiting for you to propose your theory....*sounds of crickets chirping*"As said before say:
Please, have a little patience. Why don't you have a look at my reply to Mark24 mail #73, and maybe provide me with some good scientific comments.
*******************************************++duck and run again....Peter, just admit that you are a fundamentalist christian who is so scared of how science conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible and will distort or willfully misunderstand an entire biological discipline in order to hold on to a comfortable fantasy...otherwise post your theory and the supporting evidence as requested...this is getting old.have an nice weekendMammuthus

Dear SLPx,
In response to your writing:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.I say:
How exactly does your answer relate to my previous response?
***********************************************************Only fundamentalist religion attempts to maintain a static worldview...science incorporates new data (and actively seeks it out). Do you really think nobody has done any research in evolution since Darwin? That is the context I get from SLPx's post...why do you feel that nobody considers the NT as playing a role in ToE?I say (as mentioned earlier):
"What on earth do you require a neutral theory for anyway? If it demonstrates something it is stability of phenotype. Not change, or evolution as you like to have it"Peter, please get a book and actually learn something about evolution before spouting such nonsense as these last three sentences.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear SLPx,
The good part about the NT theory is that it can be tested and it has been shown to be right (to a certain level, it depends on the DNA region, genes one studies). That's why I like the NT. And that's why I can use it as a scientist. And that's where it differs from the hypothesis of evolution that has never been and cannot be proven.
Best wishes.
Peter
****************************
"Please define the NT in its entirety, show the tests that have been done, provide the relevant citations, and the areas of controversy. Which DNA regions....oh and how exactly do YOU use the NT as a pharmacologist?And more disturbingly, since when are things "proven" in science? You may want to brush up on the scientific method.
___________________________PS. I happen to like this game.Always happy to see someone who enjoys losing

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
The good part about the NT theory is that it can be tested and it has been shown to be right (to a certain level, it depends on the DNA region, genes one studies). That's why I like the NT. And that's why I can use it as a scientist. And that's where it differs from the hypothesis of evolution that has never been and cannot be proven.
Best wishes.
Peter

---

Yes, and therefore where is the bad news for evolution as a whole? Or is your beef just with the original formulation of the NDT form the 1930s?

quote:

---

PS. I happen to like this game

---

What game is that? The one in which you take evidence for evolution and use it to claim the opposite?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
So, NT can not be part of NDT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

​

I say:
How exactly does your answer relate to my previous response?

---

You said that the NT can not be part of NDT. You then blabber on about the NDT being formulated in the 1930s and 1940s. You write as if that were the end of it.
In creationism, once an idea is established, that is it. No change possible. In science, however, ideas change as warranted. Since the NT was shown to have merit, its supported tenets have become part of the ToE, whether you like it or not.

quote:

---

quote:
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

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.

​

My response:
"My hypotheis is that NDT is wrong in their assumption of randomness of mutations. Next, I did some literature research and found several examples in favour of my hypothesis (as presented on this site). Now, you and Mark24 and Peter (from Birmingham, UK) are in denial, and another one is even trying to discredit me (Schrafinator). Why I wonder, is that? Afraid that the NDT is wrong?"

---

Yes, we are in denial that the handful of what you claim to be examples in favor of your hypothesis disproves or falsifies anything. You ingored my analogy - if we can provide evidence that you can get to the top of the Empire State building by using the stairs, does this falsify the fact that you can also get their by elevator?
Even if your examples have merit, they do not - can not - negate other aspects that do support randomness, such as the NT which you claimn to like.[/quote]And you say:
"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?"I say (as mentioned earlier):
"What on earth do you require a neutral theory for anyway? If it demonstrates something it is stability of phenotype. Not change, or evolution as you like to have it"[/quote]Nobody 'requires' it. Kimura formulated it and tested his hypotheses regarding it due to his observations of amino acid substituion. The only 'need' was to explain the data, which is contrary to your position, which seems to be hunt for data to support the hypothesis.

quote:

---

And you:
Looks like you are pulling your semantics games, again.

​

I say:
I like games, as long as they are played fair.

​

Best wishes

---

Well, some of us are forced to play with our ears plugged and eyes closed, aren't we?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

You say:

​

"So your 'conclusion' seems unwarranted."

​

Do you wanna discuss unwarranted conclusions? For instance with respect to the hypothesis of evolution?

​

Please let me know.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

Sure, creationist. Anytime you'd like.