more evidence for shared ancestry (NOT similarity)

Dear SLPx,Why always look at similarities? Why not look at chromosome 4 and 17. They are distinct in all primates. Besides, similarities may be due to 'non-random (directed) mechanisms'.best wishes
Peter

Dear SLPx,You say:
"Yeah, they may also be due to the Tooth Fairy."I say:
Actually, it is you who introduced 'spacealiens' and now the 'toothfary'. Rather unscientifically. It was me who introduced the hypothesis of non-random mutation in a multipurpose genome. Albeit that it opposes your paradigm of evolutionism, it is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. So, next time you respond please keep it scientifically. And if you think you have a scientific response you can send it directly to my email address: peterborger@hotmail.com
Then you can be sure that you get a response from me.You say:
The Tooth Fairy hypothesis, interestingly, has as much evidence in its support as does 'non-random mechanisms'.I say:
I provided at least 3 examples that cannot be ascribed to a random mechanism, but you refused to even look at it. Let alone discuss it. I call this ignorance, and now you live in denial. Perhaps respond to my examples, and have a look whether you can bring it in accord with your hypothesis of evolutionism. The more you deny, the more commited I get.You say:
As you still cannot/refuse to understand wha random and non-random mean in the context of the genome, and have displayed a tendency to misrepresent your opponants and their arguments, I see little reaosn to continue replying to your simple-minded repetitive creationist drivel.Listen SLPx, I will give you another example of non-random:
"The metastriate ticks 'Rhipicephalus' and 'Boophilus' share a gene rearrangement and an altered structure of tRNA(C), exactly the same association of changes as previously reported for a group of lizards" (in:Lavrov D, et al, Mol Biol Evol 2000, 17(5):813-824.)Now you may claim that it is random rearrangement and selection, I simply claim that it is non-random rearrangement and selection.So proof it!!!!Have a nice day,Peter

Dear SLPx,Homoplasy is yet another ad hoc evolutionary explanation. I though you were opposing ad hoc creationists explanation, but you do exactly the same.
The reconsiliation of gene and species trees is another ad hoc explanation. Now we can test it in the genome it demonstrates to be false for the IL-1beta incongruence. I already gave you the references, so look it up.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Itz,I've just mailed to SLPx about ad hoc explanations. Here you demonstrate another one: Convergent evolution. It is nothing but a word. Read what Spetner has to say about convergent evolution. It made me think.best wishes
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-02-2002]

Dear SLPx,You say:
Why should anyone care what a creationist has to write about evolution?I say:
You aren't interested in the mathematics of evolutionary principles. Why not?You say:
And NREH seems to be about the MOST ad hoc 'explanation' - rather, creationist 'interpretation' - I have ever seen.I say:
Actually NREH is Darwin revisited. What I object to is the nihilism of NDT, therefore I will bring it down.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-03-2002]

dear Itz,You write:
The reason i mentioned these bacteria was that it was suggested phenotypically similar organisms in the same environment would have similar genomes due to design and these bacteria are an example where this is not true. Regardless of how the difference arose it raises doubts about the crationist argument that genetically similar organisms are designed to be similar because they live in similar environments. Convergent evolution is hardly an ad hoc explanation as it has been known about for a long time and is well studied. Of course mentioning ad hoc explanations means you don't have to commment on the actual evidence.I say:
I can only conceive convergent evolution when the mutation are introduced non-randomly. Otherwise the odds are against it. Read Spetner, he did the maths on convergent evolution. Why? Since evolutionists never ever did any calculations on the odds of convergence.What do you make of TB's:"If phenotypically similar bacteria for example share the same environment now that does not mean they always did. Due to potentially different past historiues they will have differnt gene loss histories."is that not an ad hoc explanation or don't the same rules apply? (this is not intended to be a criticism of TB's theory which must be considered on its merits rather that if it's ad hoc or not).I say:
Maybe I could agree with it. At least, it nicely fits the '(non-)random mutation in a multipurpose genome hypothesis'.Here is one to think:
Maybe they LOST the genes that specified the proteins that induced the initial generearrangements/non-random mutations. (Hard to falsify, isn't it. Sounds familiar?)best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,Your responses:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
You say:
Why should anyone care what a creationist has to write about evolution?I say:
You aren't interested in the mathematics of evolutionary principles. Why not?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Beause as presented by wacky creationists, it is just smoke in mirrors and largely irrelevant. see Dembski and ReMine, for example.My Response:
If creationists' maths is irrelevant, please show me the relevant maths.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,Thanks for the example. Could you recommend me some literature on this topic.Thanks in advance,
Peter