Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 163 of 214 (17061)
09-10-2002 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by peter borger
09-09-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,
The flaw in the paper you refer to is their tacit assumption that phenotypes are determined by coding genes. I really doubt that. It will turn out that phenotypes are predominantly determined by the level of gene expression.
Peter

Um...so you are saying that if one expresses RNA from any random sequence you will get a phenotype? Instead of Hox genes just overexpressing ACGTCCCGTTTTCCCC will lead to fly segment development....then I guess alchemy must work to. ..the way you wrote that in addition to evolution, you do not believe in classical genetics or developmental biology either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 11:13 PM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 168 of 214 (17147)
09-11-2002 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by peter borger
09-10-2002 9:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 9:01 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 7:52 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 176 of 214 (17252)
09-12-2002 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by peter borger
09-11-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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

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!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 7:52 PM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 178 of 214 (17254)
09-12-2002 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by peter borger
09-11-2002 8:07 PM


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.
best wishes
Peter
************************************
Ever heard of genomic imprinting? Obviusly not.
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.
At first I did not question your having a degree in biology but now I like Schrafinator am seriously beginning to wonder.
Still waiting for you to propose your theory....*sounds of crickets chirping*
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 8:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by peter borger, posted 09-13-2002 2:22 AM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 179 of 214 (17255)
09-12-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by peter borger
09-11-2002 7:58 PM


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]

Old testament came before the new testament so obviously they cannot have anything to do with each other.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 7:58 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 9:02 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 190 of 214 (17332)
09-13-2002 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by peter borger
09-12-2002 9:02 PM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 9:02 PM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 191 of 214 (17333)
09-13-2002 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by peter borger
09-13-2002 2:22 AM


[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 weekend
Mammuthus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by peter borger, posted 09-13-2002 2:22 AM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 192 of 214 (17335)
09-13-2002 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by peter borger
09-12-2002 10:44 PM


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.

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

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 193 of 214 (17336)
09-13-2002 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by peter borger
09-12-2002 8:08 PM


[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

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

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 200 of 214 (17509)
09-16-2002 4:42 AM
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

No, I criticize other evolutionary biologists all the time to just not on this board
However, I keep asking you to present your hypothesis and you refuse so it is hard to really believe that you have anything substantial to say. If you read the Free for All response I gave, I am not asking you for a hypothesis on abiogenesis. Only your speciation hypothesis and the evidence. Also how it is a testable hypothesis.
Oh yeah, I am a happy person to
cheers,
Mammuthus
Adminnemooseus edit: Touched up UBB code
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-16-2002]

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 201 by peter borger, posted 09-16-2002 11:59 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 203 of 214 (17574)
09-17-2002 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by peter borger
09-16-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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

Hi Peter,
I look forward to the hypothesis. Post 97 does not present a hypothesis. It is mostly you saying that Futuyma is wrong without backing up the statement with data. Nothing that you wrote is new. And bacteria obtain antibiotic resistance from one another via conjugation by the way.
But aside from that I rather you post the hypothesis itself and then we can argue it and the data that supports it that I also ask you to present. Otherwise this thread is merely becoming the Peter Borger does not beleive in evolution thread which is boring.
Cheers,
Mammuthus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by peter borger, posted 09-16-2002 11:59 PM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 206 of 214 (17596)
09-17-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by derwood
09-17-2002 11:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
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....

***************************************************+
Why limit it to internet creationists? If you could convince them that the bible tells them to paint their butts red and swing from a tree at noon every day you can guess what they would all be doing on their lunch hour...and it should not be hard to convince them to do this since they require no evidence to backup their claims or beliefs...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 11:01 AM derwood has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 211 of 214 (17833)
09-20-2002 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by peter borger
09-20-2002 1:42 AM


Well Peter, another new thread of yours and yet still no proposal of a testable hypothesis, supporting data, or a theory....what a surprise.
I'm off line for the next week because of travelling and I can make a non-random assumption that you will spend the next week posting your misunderstandings of evolution but not propose your alternative theory...and that is a warranted conclusion based on weeks of your posts.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by peter borger, posted 09-20-2002 1:42 AM peter borger 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