Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 194 of 214 (17383)
09-13-2002 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by peter borger
09-12-2002 8:08 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 8:08 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 195 of 214 (17385)
09-13-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by peter borger
09-12-2002 10:44 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 10:44 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Fred Williams, posted 09-13-2002 7:56 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 196 of 214 (17386)
09-13-2002 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by peter borger
09-12-2002 8:38 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 8:38 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:48 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 204 of 214 (17593)
09-17-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fred Williams
09-13-2002 7:56 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
Nobody 'requires' it. Kimura formulated it and tested his hypotheses regarding it due to his observations of amino acid substituion.
This isn’t entirely accurate, or at least is not telling the whole story. Kimura formulated the neutral theory because the mathematics did not support NeoDarwinian evolution, not because of direct observation of amino acid substitution. [/quote]
More mnisrepresentation from engineer creationist Williams. Hey Fred - hadn't you heard? Saying something over and over again does not make it true.
quote:
I’m sure you’ve seen this important snippet before:
Under the assumption that the majority of mutant substitutions at the molecular level are carried out by positive natural selection, I found that the substitutional load in each generation is so large that no mammalian species could tolerate it. This was the main argument used when I presented the neutral mutation-drift hypothesis of molecular evolution — The Neutral theory of Molecular Evolution, Kimura 1983, p 26 [via W. Remine, p 239]
Yes, I have read your repeated use of this cribbed ReMine quote. Have you read the original source, I wonder? If so, you might have noticed that the NT was FORMULATED via observation of evidence.
quote:
The neutral theory was formulated to combat Haldane’s Dilemma, plain and simple.
If you say so. Hey - I was wondering - how does one go about making evidence fit a theory? You must know, as it is your position that Kimura formulated the NT for the purpose of 'combatting' Haldane's dilemma. I mean if Haldane's model was completekly accurate, as you imply, then there must have been lots of evidence for it. If this is so, how did Kimura find evidence to support the NT?
quote:
Haldane (1957, p 520-521) illustrates clearly the problem. He gives an example showing how increasing selection has a negative proportional impact on fitness. He had to slow evolution to a crawl (n = 300 generations per substitution under positive selection) to keep fitness at reasonable levels. He plugged in 7.5 generations and showed that fitness was reduced to e^-4, which he correctly called hardly compatible with survival (it means 109 offspring required per breeding couple just to maintain constant population size!).
Ahh - here we go with the large number of births argument. I have asked - what, about 8 times now? - for you to tell us all what your "40 births per breeding couple just to maintain equilibrium" really means, as you must know. As of yet, no reply.
But why would the population need to be maintained?
Oh - because Haldane's model required it. Thats right. Say - have you evidence that the population of all extinct primates remained ocnstant throughout their existence such that Haldanbe's model applied to them at all times?
quote:
Of course recent data has exacerbated the problem, with unwitting support from Scott. See 404 Not Found and note the last addendum item at the bottom. Thanks Scott!
[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 09-13-2002]
Yeah - it is cute how the lay creationist twists reality to prop up their poor grasp of the science.
Williams does that quite a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fred Williams, posted 09-13-2002 7:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 205 of 214 (17594)
09-17-2002 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by peter borger
09-15-2002 9:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Fred,
I've read your reference and the references therein. Quite compelling I must say, and in conclusion: the ToE is in a deep crisis thanks to molecular biology. That's for sure!
best wishes,
Peter

Wow - tweedles dum and dummer, together at last!
Funny thing though - it is only internet creationists that seem to think this... Wonder why that is....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:38 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 11:16 AM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 207 of 214 (17608)
09-17-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by peter borger
09-17-2002 2:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,
You write:

Snore.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by peter borger, posted 09-17-2002 2:06 AM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 208 of 214 (17609)
09-17-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by peter borger
09-15-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
You and Mammuthus really like to label people, isn't it? As soon as I start to ask some critical questions about the alleged randomness of NDT I am labeled. Well if it makes you both happy, why not. I like happy people!
Best wishes,
Peter

Well, humans do like to classify things.
Once enough criteria have been met, it is difficult not to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:48 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by peter borger, posted 09-20-2002 1:42 AM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 209 of 214 (17611)
09-17-2002 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by peter borger
09-12-2002 8:38 PM


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

Please, start a new thread.
-----
Note from Adminnemooseus - The new thread, "Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory", is at:
http://EvC Forum: Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory -->EvC Forum: Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 8:38 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 212 of 214 (19550)
10-10-2002 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by peter borger
07-09-2002 1:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
A complete subdiscipline of phylogeny is concerned with reconsiliation of these trees through hypothetical additions and/or deletions of putative duplicated genes.
Pardon my language, but that is complete bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 1:26 AM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 213 of 214 (19554)
10-10-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by peter borger
07-09-2002 1:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
I would like you to have a look at chromosome 2. Eight members of the IL-1 related genes are present in man’s chromosome 2, to be precise in location 2q11-2q14. Sequence comparison of the IL-1 related genes does not present evidence that a recent duplication of IL-1 beta took place in this region. On the contrary, the dendrogram of the IL-1 genes clearly demonstrates that the common ancestor copy of the IL-1 beta gene duplicated 3 times maximally, and gave rise to IL-1alpha (Smith, D.E. et al. Four new members expand the interleukin-1 superfamily Journal Biological Chemistry 2000, vol275, pp1169-1175
Hmmm...J Interferon Cytokine Res 2001 Nov;21(11):899-904
Identification of a novel human cytokine gene in the interleukin gene cluster on chromosome 2q12-14.
Bensen JT, Dawson PA, Mychaleckyj JC, Bowden DW.
Program in Molecular Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Genes in the interleukin-1 (IL-1) gene cluster on human chromosome 2 play an important role in mediating inflammatory responses and are associated with numerous diseases. We have identified a novel IL-1-like gene, IL-1F10, on human chromosome 2q13-14.1 near the IL-1 receptor antagonist gene (IL-1RN). The IL1F10 gene is encoded by 5 exons spanning over 7.8 kb of genomic DNA. The 1008-bp IL-1F10 cDNA encodes a 152-amino acid protein that shares between 41% and 43% amino acid identity with human IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra) and FIL-1delta, respectively. IL-1F10 shares characteristics of the IL-1Ra family, including key amino acid consensus sequences and a similar genomic structure. By multitissue first-strand cDNA PCR analysis, IL-1F10 mRNA is expressed in heart, placenta, fetal liver, spleen, thymus, and tonsil. The expression in a variety of immune tissues and similarity to IL-1Ra suggest a role of IL-1F10 in the inflammatory response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 1:26 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by peter borger, posted 10-10-2002 10:08 PM derwood has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024