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

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

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

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

dear mammuthus,As mentioned before, I will present a hypothesis that is able to explain the things we observe in the genome. What do we need a theory for that tries to explain things that have never been observed (such as the evolution of bats from some kind of rodent, or abiogenesis).But anyway, in the meantime you could give some comments on my initial thoughts (#97 this thread).best wishes,
Peter

dear SLPx,You write:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.I say:
I am not the first one to claim this and therefore you should know that the size of genetic changes is unrelated to the size of phenotypic changes, and thus much gentic change may be irrelevant to evolutionary change.
McDonald et al demonstrated the lack of correlation between sizes of phenotypic change and DNA change. differences in DNA between species seem to be unrelated to their supposed evolutionary divergence (Bioscience 1990, vol 40, p183). For instance there are two frogspecies that are very much alike but significantly differ in their genomes. On the other hand, mammals are very much alike with respect to genome and very dissimilar with respect to appearance. Similarly, trisomy 21 demonstrates that mutation in genes or regulatory sequences do not have to be per se the cause of phenotypic change. Maybe the role of such mutations is overestimated. Maybe all characteristics is already present in the genome and only need to be activated by shuffling, deletions and/or insertions.Peter

Dear SLPx,You say:
Well, humans do like to classify things.I say:
Reference: Genesis 2, 19-20?And you say:
Once enough criteria have been met, it is difficult not to.I say:
Please name the criteria, and show me how you draw this (unwarranted) conclusion.BW
Peter

dear Dr Page,I checked the human genome on IL-1 related genes (NCBI homepage, OMIM) and there are 8 members. The putative duplication still doesn't fit in. If it has been present than it gave rise to the IL-1 alpha. So the incongruence cannot be solved.best wishes,
Peter