molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

If I understand his last sentence properly, he says: "All regions are not equal"

​

In my opinion not equal means that a mechanism (=non-random) is involved, isn't it?

​

---

Does this mean that road traffic accidents (RTA's) are directed?There are certain sections of road which are more prone
to accidents than others, therefore the accidents which occur
are not random instances ???????Does that sound like logical reasoning to you?

Dear Peter,Could yo please elaborate a bit on the road. What kind of road? Where does it wind, become unsealed, is a bar nearby, etcetera. That would shed some light on the cause (mechanism) of the accidents.best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter,

​

Could yo please elaborate a bit on the road. What kind of road? Where does it wind, become unsealed, is a bar nearby, etcetera. That would shed some light on the cause (mechanism) of the accidents.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

****************************************************+
A wet curving road 50 meters from a bar known for customers who drink heavily. Now can you say exactly at what time and under what conditions in exactly what part of the road the accident will happen?Methylated CpG island 1 Kb upstream of a gene....when exactly will you see the next transition?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter,

​

Could yo please elaborate a bit on the road. What kind of road? Where does it wind, become unsealed, is a bar nearby, etcetera. That would shed some light on the cause (mechanism) of the accidents.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

The difference which I was attempting (again) to elaborate is
the meaning of 'random' in the context of evolution.Disproving 'random mutation' is not about finding that some
locii are more likely to undergo copy errors. In the same
way that the random nature of RTA's is nothing to do with
black-spots per-se.In an evolutionary context, random means we do not know:When the mutation will occur.
What the mutation will effect/cause in the phenotype.
How that mutation will effect fitness.The higher tendency of some areas to undergo copy errors would
better be described as a chemical property, surely.

Hi "Peter B",I was wondering if you had planned to address my posts 133 and 134?

Hi SLPx,Sorry that I didn't get there yet, but I do not get messages in my mail (anymore), so I miss a lot (may send a direct mail to my email address too). But I will have a look at them and respond.best wishes
Peter

dear SLPx,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
I had a bit of time to spare so I read a couple of articles you refered to in an attempt to disprove non-random mutations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You mean the ones that you had already claimed in fact support your version of non-random mutations? You hadn't even read them yet, but were claiming them as support for your position?I'm shocked!Guess I hit that nail on the head, eh "Peter"?I say:
Why reiterate this, while I already explained to you that the article you referred to was in a mail to Fred Williams not a message addressed to me, so I missed it (look it up, if you like, it was a Science paper in a mailing to Fred. But anyway, it is nit-picking)quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the guys in field of hypermutations says in the article that you refer to says:
"Over the past decade, researchers have been dissecting the molecular underpinnings of these so-called adaptive mutations. And within the last 2 years, they have made impressive strides. They have found, for example, that although these mutations are not directed to particular genes, as Cairns originally suggested, they don't uniformly pepper the bacterial genome either. "There are hot and cold regions for hypermutation," says Rosenberg, who is now working on defining these regions. "All regions are not equal.""
If I understand his last sentence properly, he says: "All regions are not equal"In my opinion not equal means that a mechanism (=non-random) is involved, isn't it?----------------------------------------------------------------------If by mechanism you mean some guiding force, I say LOL!I say:
The driving force could be the environment that induces certain proteins (e.g. polymerases) that carry out the mutations.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And how does your 'conclusion' of non-random mutation falsifying NDT follow from that? In your selective readings of the papers I cited, did you not notice that the mutations were not centered - directed - specifically to the genes 'needed'?
Or did that slip by your razor-keen scientific insight?I say:
Probably prokaryotes differ from eukaryotes in this respect (although they have lots of redundant genes too). In comparison, it was long thought that prokaryotes do not have introns, but now we know that some have. So, a mechanism not optimal/fully present in prokaryotes may be fully operative in eukaryotes. Nobody looked at it yet, so it is a perfect valid hypothesis based on the Ig5 gene in Drosophila. Another difference may be that prokaryotes can be considered as one huge "gene exchanging-organism-that-makes-the-world-go-round", and do not need to have an optimal system to generate mutations.you quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say:
If by mechanism (ahh - I love the sound of a semantics game coming!) you mean a tendency to do one thing over another, than of course., However, as has explained to you repeatedly on this board, there are simple physicochemical reasons for mutations occurring in some areas over others.I say:
"Molecular mechanism in biology usually involve proteins and/or RNA molecules. If so, all necessities are present in the genome"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------LOL! Yeah, I guess those "kinds" must have been jammy-packed with all sorts of genes that they didn't need and that are, dammit, no longer present in their in-kind descendants...I say:
Loss of genes is a common mechanism in evolutionism to explain observations. There is even a discipline in evolutionism that postulates utter hypothetical gene additions and gene deletions to reconcile gene trees with species tree.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
Water tends to collect in low areas rather than high ones.
Are you going to suggest that some Ubermensch plays a role in that, too?I say:
You use similar faulty analogies as Mark24. You cannot compare gravity and protein mediated mechanism. I know you have to use such analogies, since you need naturalistic explanations for NDT. However, if all things are in the genome to respond to environmental change, a naturalistic explanations is untenable."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say:
My "analogy" was not to NDT, rather it was to demonstrate that there are perfectly natural reasons for apparently 'specified' outcomes. As is so often the case, the creationist eads too much into posts and tries to make much of their shallow comprehensive skills.I say:
Here you demonstrate again your condescending (dumb and dumber, remember) overconfinced attitude. Challenge me and I will falsify common descent beyond doubt. I will open a new thread, if you like.
And concerning the Uebermensch: you were the one that introduced space-aliens to explain genes in humans not present in apes. I can think of several better 'scientific' non-testable explanations.You say:
I am still waiting for your unequivocal evidence that these unused but maybe someday necessary genes are in the genomes of all creatures......(Creatures? When did you become a creationist? )....just waiting for that one lucky mutation - in the right conditions, of course - to be turned on.I say:
Redundant genes are 'non per niente' in the genome. Yes, my hypothesis of "(non-)random mutation in a multipurpose genome" is ALMOST as incredible as evolutionism. Probably we have to wait for another decade and we will know. At least if the appropriate experiments are carried out. That is: the comparison of subspecies with related species. That is not: the comparison of individuals of distinct species.You say:
Your silly (and typically overconfident) position simply supports something I have believed for some time now - evolutionists base their thoughts on what is known, creationists base theirs on what is not.I say:
The real silly thing is that even the major part of the tiny bit that we know from the genome does NOT point in the direction of evolution. (ever heard of the second DNA associated code of transcription? And there may even be a third code involved in coactivation of transcription. Firstly, there is NO evolutionary explanation for the first code. And now we find that the first code gives rise to a second code through possible another code. So you better present a pretty good story to explain this by a random mechanism). BTW, I already gave an alternative explanation for all observations in the genome. Yes, it is a HYPOTHESIS --just like evolutionism is-- and it should be tested.
Furthermore, I have to admit that the hypothesis of evolution was a nice 19th century attempt to explain life without external intervention (although Darwin acknowledged the need for external intervention to give rise to first living cell). However, the hypothesis that a random mechanism underlays life becomes more and more untenable in the light of 21st century knowledge.
And in regard to "overconfident": All I did was demonstrating that evolution is NOT a fact. Present it as a hypothesis and I don't have a problem, and I wouldn't even have registered to this board. Present it "overconfidently" as FACT and I will blow it up! No problem, just show the right examples.best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
I had a bit of time to spare so I read a couple of articles you refered to in an attempt to disprove non-random mutations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean the ones that you had already claimed in fact support your version of non-random mutations? You hadn't even read them yet, but were claiming them as support for your position?

​

I'm shocked!

​

Guess I hit that nail on the head, eh "Peter"?

​

I say:
Why reiterate this, while I already explained to you that the article you referred to was in a mail to Fred Williams not a message addressed to me, so I missed it (look it up, if you like, it was a Science paper in a mailing to Fred. But anyway, it is nit-picking)

---

I have no need to look it up. It is right here:http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)Message 96. I DIRECTLY address you in reply to a request from you. You replied in Message 97 that these citations support your position. As is so common with creationists, you then actually went on condescendingly how I must not understand the content of the papers (message 102, Aug.22) and such.Yet it was not until SEPTEMBER 12 that you actually even read the papers! (YOUR message 123 in the linked thread).So, "Peter B", your 'memory' is a bit clouded. You have: 1)Tried to misrepresent the situation by claiming that I was writing to Williams, not you. That is demonstably false. 2) You arrogantly and overconfidently implied that it was I that had not read the papers or could not understand them when in reality it took you nearly a month to get around to looking at them DESPITE the fact that you had previously proclaimed them supportinve of your claims, and then still ignored the fact that not of them even comes close to supporting the notion of 'directed mutation' as you describe it.Nitpicking, indeed...

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the guys in field of hypermutations says in the article that you refer to says:
"Over the past decade, researchers have been dissecting the molecular underpinnings of these so-called adaptive mutations. And within the last 2 years, they have made impressive strides. They have found, for example, that although these mutations are not directed to particular genes, as Cairns originally suggested, they don't uniformly pepper the bacterial genome either. "There are hot and cold regions for hypermutation," says Rosenberg, who is now working on defining these regions. "All regions are not equal.""
If I understand his last sentence properly, he says: "All regions are not equal"

​

In my opinion not equal means that a mechanism (=non-random) is involved, isn't it?

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

If by mechanism you mean some guiding force, I say LOL!

​

I say:
The driving force could be the environment that induces certain proteins (e.g. polymerases) that carry out the mutations.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

And how does your 'conclusion' of non-random mutation falsifying NDT follow from that? In your selective readings of the papers I cited, did you not notice that the mutations were not centered - directed - specifically to the genes 'needed'?
Or did that slip by your razor-keen scientific insight?

​

I say:
Probably prokaryotes differ from eukaryotes in this respect (although they have lots of redundant genes too). In comparison, it was long thought that prokaryotes do not have introns, but now we know that some have. So, a mechanism not optimal/fully present in prokaryotes may be fully operative in eukaryotes.

---

Just so stories form the creationist. You have learned well from creationist Spetner, who also had no actual supportive evidence for his fairy tales occurring in multicellular eukaryotes.

quote:

---

you quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

You say:
If by mechanism (ahh - I love the sound of a semantics game coming!) you mean a tendency to do one thing over another, than of course., However, as has explained to you repeatedly on this board, there are simple physicochemical reasons for mutations occurring in some areas over others.

​

I say:
"Molecular mechanism in biology usually involve proteins and/or RNA molecules. If so, all necessities are present in the genome"

​

---------------------------------------------------------------------

​

LOL! Yeah, I guess those "kinds" must have been jammy-packed with all sorts of genes that they didn't need and that are, dammit, no longer present in their in-kind descendants...

​

I say:
Loss of genes is a common mechanism in evolutionism[sic] to explain observations. There is even a discipline in evolutionism that postulates utter hypothetical gene additions and gene deletions to reconcile gene trees with species tree.

---

Please expand on this. Please provide citations, as well. Also, please explain why it is that you believe that all gene trees should be exactly the same.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
Water tends to collect in low areas rather than high ones.
Are you going to suggest that some Ubermensch plays a role in that, too?

​

I say:
You use similar faulty analogies as Mark24. You cannot compare gravity and protein mediated mechanism. I know you have to use such analogies, since you need naturalistic explanations for NDT. However, if all things are in the genome to respond to environmental change, a naturalistic explanations is untenable."

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

You say:
My "analogy" was not to NDT, rather it was to demonstrate that there are perfectly natural reasons for apparently 'specified' outcomes. As is so often the case, the creationist eads too much into posts and tries to make much of their shallow comprehensive skills.

​

I say:
Here you demonstrate again your condescending (dumb and dumber, remember) overconfinced attitude.

---

You may recall that I was not the one claiming that articles that I had not read support my position. THAT is overconfidence. Also, I was not the one that 'explained' that perhaps I didn't understand what was in the articles... the ones that you hadn't yet read...
The analogy was clear, and it fulfilled its purpose. That you could not understand it has nothing to do with anyone's overconfidence, real or imagined.

quote:

---

Challenge me and I will falsify common descent beyond doubt. I will open a new thread, if you like.

---

Consider this a challenge. Similar to the other challenge that you suggested, discussing gene trees and such.
I think I will find your beyond-doubt falsification most informative, and will gingerly forward it to the appropriate authorities such that we can immediately informa those thousands of scientists that utilize evolutionary theory in their research that they are going about their work all wrong.

quote:

---

And concerning the Uebermensch: you were the one that introduced space-aliens to explain genes in humans not present in apes. I can think of several better 'scientific' non-testable explanations.

---

I did no such thing. Please stop misrepresenting me and trying to erect strawman arguments.

quote:

---

You say:
I am still waiting for your unequivocal evidence that these unused but maybe someday necessary genes are in the genomes of all creatures......

​

(Creatures? When did you become a creationist? )

---

When did you become such a moron?

quote:

---

....just waiting for that one lucky mutation - in the right conditions, of course - to be turned on.

​

I say:
Redundant genes are 'non per niente' in the genome. Yes, my hypothesis of "(non-)random mutation in a multipurpose genome" is ALMOST as incredible as evolutionism. Probably we have to wait for another decade and we will know. At least if the appropriate experiments are carried out. That is: the comparison of subspecies with related species. That is not: the comparison of individuals of distinct species.

---

How do you propose this comparison be done?

quote:

---

You say:
Your silly (and typically overconfident) position simply supports something I have believed for some time now - evolutionists base their thoughts on what is known, creationists base theirs on what is not.

​

I say:
The real silly thing is that even the major part of the tiny bit that we know from the genome does NOT point in the direction of evolution.

---

And there is the gem - that nugget of creationist stupidity that pops its head out once in a while.I wonder what your more knowledgible and rational colleagues would think if they knew that you were writing - and apparently believe - something so asinine?
I guess you didn't realize that all those duplicated genes actually fit quite well within an evolutionary framework? Nah - you are a creationist, and your personal opinions are the REALLY important things! facts be damned!

quote:

---

(ever heard of the second DNA associated code of transcription? And there may even be a third code involved in coactivation of transcription. Firstly, there is NO evolutionary explanation for the first code. And now we find that the first code gives rise to a second code through possible another code. So you better present a pretty good story to explain this by a random mechanism).

---

Frankly, no, I have not heard of this. Please provide some verifiable documentation that I can check to see if your depiction of this is accurate.

quote:

---

BTW, I already gave an alternative explanation for all observations in the genome. Yes, it is a HYPOTHESIS --just like evolutionism is-- and it should be tested.

---

test away. You're the expert scientist, right?
Oh - where is this hypothessis again?

quote:

---

And in regard to "overconfident": All I did was demonstrating that evolution is NOT a fact. Present it as a hypothesis and I don't have a problem, and I wouldn't even have registered to this board. Present it "overconfidently" as FACT and I will blow it up! No problem, just show the right examples.

---

Whatever you say, Petey....Whatever you say....

Dear SLPx,I will respond to your letter more extensively soon, but here are two recent reviews about two additional biological codes involved in eukaryotic gene transcriptional regulation:On the histone code:
Junewein, T, and Allis, CD. Translating the Histone Code. Science 2001, 293:1074.On a possible coactivater code:
Gamble MJ, and Freedman LP. A coactivator code for transcription. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 2002, 27:165.Reasons why I don't believe the hype anymore.Best wishes
Peter

Wow...This is just getting boring....The creationist's fusilade of slime is nearing completion.1. Claim not to be a creationist.
2. Claim to have refuted/falsified evolution
3. refuse to support said falsification with anything other than assertion
4. claim that evolutionists are wrong, deluded, ignorant, etc.
5. Make false accusations against opponants
6. try to weasel out of uncomfortable situations by ignoring them or blaming them on 'the medium' or by projecting
7. say that you will get back to something, but never do
8. start a new thread on something else
9 re-claim falsification of evolution
10. stop posting, but claim victory on last series of posts
11. go to another board, do it all over againI'm just wondering when 10 and 11 show up...

Dear SLPx:THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE. MY RESPONSE IS IN CAPITAL LETTERS< SO YOU WILL NOT GET CONFUSED.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
I had a bit of time to spare so I read a couple of articles you refered to in an attempt to disprove non-random mutations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean the ones that you had already claimed in fact support your version of non-random mutations? You hadn't even read them yet, but were claiming them as support for your position?
I'm shocked!Guess I hit that nail on the head, eh "Peter"?I say:
Why reiterate this, while I already explained to you that the article you referred to was in a mail to Fred Williams not a message addressed to me, so I missed it (look it up, if you like, it was a Science paper in a mailing to Fred. But anyway, it is nit-picking)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have no need to look it up. It is right here:http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)Message 96. I DIRECTLY address you in reply to a request from you. You replied in Message 97 that these citations support your position. As is so common with creationists, you then actually went on condescendingly how I must not understand the content of the papers (message 102, Aug.22) and such.Yet it was not until SEPTEMBER 12 that you actually even read the papers! (YOUR message 123 in the linked thread).So, "Peter B", your 'memory' is a bit clouded.MY RESPONSE:
THE ONLY ONE HERE TO MISREPRESENT THINGS IS YOU. iF YOU GO BACK IN THE THREAD THAN YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT I REFFERRED TO THE SCIENCE PAPER IN YOUR MAIL TO FRED. THIS MAIL CAN BE FOUND IN THIS THREAD #52, THE CAIRNS EXCERPT. SO NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU START TO BLAME ME READ BACK AND PREPARE PROPERLY.You have: 1)Tried to misrepresent the situation by claiming that I was writing to Williams, not you. That is demonstably false. 2) You arrogantly and overconfidently implied that it was I that had not read the papers or could not understand them when in reality it took you nearly a month to get around to looking at them DESPITE the fact that you had previously proclaimed them supportinve of your claims, and then still ignored the fact that not of them even comes close to supporting the notion of 'directed mutation' as you describe it.Nitpicking, indeed...quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the guys in field of hypermutations says in the article that you refer to says:
"Over the past decade, researchers have been dissecting the molecular underpinnings of these so-called adaptive mutations. And within the last 2 years, they have made impressive strides. They have found, for example, that although these mutations are not directed to particular genes, as Cairns originally suggested, they don't uniformly pepper the bacterial genome either. "There are hot and cold regions for hypermutation," says Rosenberg, who is now working on defining these regions. "All regions are not equal.""
If I understand his last sentence properly, he says: "All regions are not equal"MY RESPONSE:
THIS CAN BE FOUND IN MAIL #52 TO FRED, THE CAIRNS EXCERPT. NOT IN A MAIL TO ME.In my opinion not equal means that a mechanism (=non-random) is involved, isn't it?----------------------------------------------------------------------If by mechanism you mean some guiding force, I say LOL!I say:
The driving force could be the environment that induces certain proteins (e.g. polymerases) that carry out the mutations.----------------------------------------------------------------------And how does your 'conclusion' of non-random mutation falsifying NDT follow from that? In your selective readings of the papers I cited, did you not notice that the mutations were not centered - directed - specifically to the genes 'needed'?
Or did that slip by your razor-keen scientific insight?I say:
Probably prokaryotes differ from eukaryotes in this respect (although they have lots of redundant genes too). In comparison, it was long thought that prokaryotes do not have introns, but now we know that some have. So, a mechanism not optimal/fully present in prokaryotes may be fully operative in eukaryotes.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Just so stories form the creationist. You have learned well from creationist Spetner, who also had no actual supportive evidence for his fairy tales occurring in multicellular eukaryotes.MY RESPONSE:
YOU ARE WRONG. WHEN SPETNER WROTE HIS BOOK (BEFORE 1997) THESE EXPERIMENTS HAD RECENTLY BEEN PUBLISHED, SO SPETNER WAS PRETTY UP TO DATE WITH HIS BOOK. THAT THE MECHANISM IS NOT EXACTLY AS HE (AND CAIRNS) THOUGHT IT WAS, IS NOT SURPRISING SINCE NOTHING IN BIOLOGY IS AS WE EXPECT IT TO BE. FURTHERMORE, THE CAIRNS INTERPRETATION IS ONLY A MINOR POINT IN SPETNER'S BOOK SO YOU CANNOT REJECT HIS ENTIRE BOOK ON CAIRN'S PARTIAL RECANTATION. BETTER READ HIS BOOK INSTEAD OF ONLY HIS OPPONENTS. AND WHY DO YOU THINK THERE HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT SO MANY EXPERIMENTS TO FALSIFY CAIRNS INTERPRETATION? THE NDT WOULD HAVE FALLEN, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY YOU OBJECT/DENY THE NON-RANDOMNESS OF MUTATION IN THE 1G5 GENE. AND THAT'S WHY NDT BLOCKS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
If by mechanism (ahh - I love the sound of a semantics game coming!) you mean a tendency to do one thing over another, than of course., However, as has explained to you repeatedly on this board, there are simple physicochemical reasons for mutations occurring in some areas over others.I say:
"Molecular mechanism in biology usually involve proteins and/or RNA molecules. If so, all necessities are present in the genome"---------------------------------------------------------------------LOL! Yeah, I guess those "kinds" must have been jammy-packed with all sorts of genes that they didn't need and that are, dammit, no longer present in their in-kind descendants...I say:
Loss of genes is a common mechanism in evolutionism[sic] to explain observations. There is even a discipline in evolutionism that postulates utter hypothetical gene additions and gene deletions to reconcile gene trees with species tree.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please expand on this. Please provide citations, as well. Also, please explain why it is that you believe that all gene trees should be exactly the same.MY RESPONSE:
ANY RECENT BOOK ON MOLECULAR EVOLUTION HAS A CHAPTER CONCERNING ‘RECONCILIATION OF GENE TREES WITH SPECIES TREES'. ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, GENE TREES HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIES TREES. WHY? OTHERWISE ALL GENES LYING OUT PROVIDE FALSIFICATIONS OF COMMON DESCENT. YOU CAN FIND THIS HIGHLY DISPUTABLE MATHEMATHICAL TRICK FOR INSTANCE IN 'MOLECULAR EVOLUTION, A PHYLOGENTIC APPROACH by R. PAGE'. WHAT EVO’S DO IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND REASONING. THEY CLAIM THAT SINCE EVOLUTION IS TRUE, THE EVIDENCE FOR PUTATIVE DUPLICATIONS IS SIMPLY THE INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN THE GENE AND THE SPECIES TREE. I OBJECT TO SUCH SIMPLISICISM.
FOR EXAMPLES: (http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/papers/page97mpe.pdf).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
Water tends to collect in low areas rather than high ones.
Are you going to suggest that some Ubermensch plays a role in that, too?
I say:
You use similar faulty analogies as Mark24. You cannot compare gravity and protein mediated mechanism. I know you have to use such analogies, since you need naturalistic explanations for NDT. However, if all things are in the genome to respond to environmental change, a naturalistic explanations is untenable."----------------------------------------------------------------------You say:
My "analogy" was not to NDT, rather it was to demonstrate that there are perfectly natural reasons for apparently 'specified' outcomes. As is so often the case, the creationist Reads too much into posts and tries to make much of their shallow comprehensive skills.I say:
Here you demonstrate again your condescending (dumb and dumber, remember) overconfinced attitude.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You may recall that I was not the one claiming that articles that I had not read support my position. THAT is overconfidence. Also, I was not the one that 'explained' that perhaps I didn't understand what was in the articles... the ones that you hadn't yet read...
The analogy was clear, and it fulfilled its purpose. That you could not understand it has nothing to do with anyone's overconfidence, real or imagined.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenge me and I will falsify common descent beyond doubt. I will open a new thread, if you like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Consider this a challenge. Similar to the other challenge that you suggested, discussing gene trees and such.
I think I will find your beyond-doubt falsification most informative, and will gingerly forward it to the appropriate authorities such that we can immediately informa those thousands of scientists that utilize evolutionary theory in their research that they are going about their work all wrong.MY RESPONSE:
THE MOLECULAR GENAEOLGY OF INTERLEUKIN-1-beta demonstrates an aberration from the species tree. A careful sequence comparison reveals that the human interleukin-1beta gene is more closely related to the mouse than to the homologue genes in pig and sheep. Evolutionists have to admit that this is not in accord with the species tree and postulate that a fourth gene duplication event is required that caused the aberration. Yet, a thorough scrutiny for IL-1-related genes in the human genome doubts that this event ever took place. Eight members of the IL-1 related genes in man’s chromosome 2, to be precise in location 2q11-2q14 (OMIM). 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 family tree 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-1 alpha and IL-1 beta (Smith, D.E. et al. Four new members expand the interleukin-1 superfamily Journal Biological Chemistry 2000, vol275, pp1169-1175). Thanks to the human genome project, the evolutionary explanation of the aberration of mouse and human IL-1 beta from the species tree can readily be falsified. It should be realised that once a hypothesis is falsified, it remains falsified forever. It cannot be overruled by new experiments, and it doesn't become old-fashioned.
BTW, I discussed this already with Dr page himself and he couldn't address it beyong 'maybe it isn't properly rooted'. So, evolutionists root it properly, otherwise it is a falsification beyon doubt of common descent!quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And concerning the Uebermensch: you were the one that introduced space-aliens to explain genes in humans not present in apes. I can think of several better 'scientific' non-testable explanations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I did no such thing. Please stop misrepresenting me and trying to erect straw man arguments.MY RESPONSE;
YES, YOU DID. IN RESPONSE TO THE GENES PRESENT IN HUMAN NOT PRSENT IN MAN.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
I am still waiting for your unequivocal evidence that these unused but maybe someday necessary genes are in the genomes of all creatures......
(Creatures? When did you become a creationist? )--------------------------------------------------------------------------------When did you become such a moron?MY RESPONSE:
JUST KIDDING.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....just waiting for that one lucky mutation - in the right conditions, of course - to be turned on.I say:
Redundant genes are 'non per niente' in the genome. Yes, my hypothesis of "(non-)random mutation in a multipurpose genome" is ALMOST as incredible as evolutionism. Probably we have to wait for another decade and we will know. At least if the appropriate experiments are carried out. That is: the comparison of subspecies with related species. That is not: the comparison of individuals of distinct species.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------How do you propose this comparison be done?MY RESPONSE:
AS DEMONSTRATED FOR THE 1G5 GENES IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF SUBPOPULATIONS. I AM INTERESTED IN THE SEQUENCES OF ONE PARTICULARE GENE (SAY HEMOGLOBIN OR CYTOCHROME C) THROUGHOUT THE DIFFERENT HUMAN SUBPOPULATIONS. I WONDER WHETHER THESE DATA ARE PRESENT INLITERATURE?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
Your silly (and typically overconfident) position simply supports something I have believed for some time now - evolutionists base their thoughts on what is known, creationists base theirs on what is not.I say:
The real silly thing is that even the major part of the tiny bit that we know from the genome does NOT point in the direction of evolution.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And there is the gem - that nugget of creationist stupidity that pops its head out once in a while.I wonder what your more knowledgible and rational colleagues would think if they knew that you were writing - and apparently believe - something so asinine?
I guess you didn't realize that all those duplicated genes actually fit quite well within an evolutionary framework? Nah - you are a creationist, and your personal opinions are the REALLY important things! facts be damned!quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ever heard of the second DNA associated code of transcription? And there may even be a third code involved in coactivation of transcription. Firstly, there is NO evolutionary explanation for the first code. And now we find that the first code gives rise to a second code through possible another code. So you better present a pretty good story to explain this by a random mechanism).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Frankly, no, I have not heard of this. Please provide some verifiable documentation that I can check to see if your depiction of this is accurate.MY RESPONSE:
I ALREADY GAVE THE REFERENCES. I AM WAITING FOR A REPONSE.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I already gave an alternative explanation for all observations in the genome. Yes, it is a HYPOTHESIS --just like evolutionism is-- and it should be tested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------test away. You're the expert scientist, right?
Oh - where is this hypothessis again?MY RESPONSE:
SOMEWHERE IN A MAIL IN THE THREAD GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTIONquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in regard to "overconfident": All I did was demonstrating that evolution is NOT a fact. Present it as a hypothesis and I don't have a problem, and I wouldn't even have registered to this board. Present it "overconfidently" as FACT and I will blow it up! No problem, just show the right examples.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Whatever you say, Petey....Whatever you say....THAT’S IT.BEST WISHES,
PETER[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-01-2002][This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-01-2002]

Ah, I see that you have yet to post your theory with a testable hypothesis the way I requested for weeks and as I skimmed through the posts of the last week saw that your Nature paper was rejected.As to the second, try something like Current Biology or one of the journals that deals with controversy. Nature and Science only publish high impact material that will get them in the news.You say:
THE MOLECULAR GENAEOLGY OF INTERLEUKIN-1-beta demonstrates an aberration from the species tree. A careful sequence comparison reveals that the human interleukin-1beta gene is more closely related to the mouse than to the homologue genes in pig and sheep. Evolutionists have to admit that this is not in accord with the species tree and postulate that a fourth gene duplication event is required that caused the aberration. Yet, a thorough scrutiny for IL-1-related genes in the human genome doubts that this event ever took place. Eight members of the IL-1 related genes in man’s chromosome 2, to be precise in location 2q11-2q14 (OMIM). 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 family tree 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-1 alpha and IL-1 beta (Smith, D.E. et al. Four new members expand the interleukin-1 superfamily Journal Biological Chemistry 2000, vol275, pp1169-1175). Thanks to the human genome project, the evolutionary explanation of the aberration of mouse and human IL-1 beta from the species tree can readily be falsified. It should be realised that once a hypothesis is falsified, it remains falsified forever. It cannot be overruled by new experiments, and it doesn't become old-fashioned.
BTW, I discussed this already with Dr page himself and he couldn't address it beyong 'maybe it isn't properly rooted'. So, evolutionists root it properly, otherwise it is a falsification beyon doubt of common descent!Your last sentence demonstrates your desparation Peter. But at least you have given a concrete example. However, there are thousands of genes where species trees and gene trees don't match. Anything horizontally transferred like BovB elements from reptiles to bovids cannot be used as phylogenetic markers. As to your comment about the human genome project and IL-1 beta, so without the respective mouse, sheep and pig genome sequences how can you draw your conclusions? What kind of half assed science do you do in your daily life? You really are a storkist "It should be realised that once a hypothesis is falsified, it remains falsified forever. It cannot be overruled by new experiments, and it doesn't become old-fashioned." Aha, so we should ignore horizontal transfer since Darwin did not know about it and since it is inconvenient for creationists we just say..nah zealotry cannot be overruled..great. I hope nobody invents flying machines that carry people from one destination to another since that would overule gravity and that cannot be done...doh!Ever going to present your hypothesis with the supporting data, how the theory is falsafiable, yada yada yada?I think SLPx's list of creationist posting techniques is very accurate. This is boring. The only creationist who is actually enjoyable to talk to anymore is Tranquility Base at this point.Ciao,Mammuthus

So Borger, when you gonna publish your opus magnum?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
So Borger, when you gonna publish your opus magnum?

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

******************+To use your term (believe you used it in another thread) it will more likely be an ad hovindom rather than an opus magnum Is he out of jail yet or did he get extra time for sticking an anti-astrologist with a shank

Dear Joe,I am still writing/thinking about my opus magnum. Every now and than, I mail to proevolutionary boards/evolutionary biologists to test some examples/ideas. As you can see from this board the resistance is overwhelming. Of course, I consider all comments carefully since I like to know what to expect, and how to improve it. Prior to launching, better prepare carefully.
Whether or not it will be a scientific publisher depends on guys like Mammuthus and SLPx, since usually such guys comprise the proevolutionary editorial board. Did you know that before Behe published his book it was reviewed by several scientific editors. One of them was against publishing since it would question the current paradigms. Apparently, in his land of evolution there is no freedom of thoughts.best wishes,
Peter