Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 181 of 317 (21922)
11-08-2002 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Fred Williams
11-08-2002 6:39 PM


Fred,
http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Fred Williams, posted 11-08-2002 6:39 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 182 of 317 (21923)
11-08-2002 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by mark24
11-07-2002 4:47 AM


quote:
Do you accept that the nyl c thymine addition in flavobacterium allowing nylon "digestion", represents information that didn't exist in the previous generation (that never had the extra thymine)? If not, why?
I have explained this a million times (OK, maybe only 945,657 times). Its either no gain or a loss. Evidence suggests the mutation may be via plasmid xfer. This means no net gain of information in the gene pool. This evidence is not conclusive however, but it doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t due to plasmid xfer, then we have to consider the fact that the new enzyme is no longer specific to its original substrate, which Dr Lee Spetner in ‘Not by Chance’ shows in detail why this type of mutation invariably constitutes a loss of information.
I then offered these additional observations:
Note that state 0 = pre-framshift, and state 1 = framshift:
1) To keep things simple, let’s assume the change is binary. So there are two states, 0 and 1. The default, or normal setting is 0, which codes for carbohydrate digestion. Setting 1 codes for nylon. In order for there to be new, or increased information, the original state 0 would have to be the unfavorable state. But it is clear that 0 is the favorable state (in general), and the study confirms that this method is a whopping 98% more efficient. So based on this knowledge, we actually lose information when we go from 0 to 1.
2) Was the mutation random? If so, then from 1) above we can again reasonably conclude that a loss of information occurred. What if the mutation was non-random, that is, environmentally induced? This means there was no net gain or loss of information because the information was already present. I haven’t studied the study you provided in-depth, but from the website you posted my bet is this is a non-random mutation. The author states that it’s been observed more than once. What an un-whitting admission he is making here! Given the odds that this specific mutation would be observable more than once certainly raises eyebrows that this may not be a random event. Another reasonable possibility is that certain portions (hot-spots) of the genome have been pre-programmed for hypermutation during environmental stress to toggle bits in an effort to find a possible combination that improves survival in the degraded environment.
quote:
Remembering that you define new information (for genomic purposes, at least) as "the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. The algorithm that codes for the nylon digestion is different, & didn't exist in the previous generation, so it makes perfect sense that this gene represents information that didn't previously exist, AND it represents a "new useful feature".
See #1 above. I again ask, is it a benefit to the organism population as a whole? Clearly it is not. It is a downgrade. It’s like getting sickle-cell. Sure, its just wonderful to be hereozygous if you are exposed to malaria. Wonderful! If it was my choice I would opt not to have the sickle-cell mutation and take my chances with malaria (or get the hell out of there!).
Mark, we are beating a dead cheetah. We are repeating ourselves. Unless you have something new to offer, why continue pursuing this? It is OK now and then to agree to disagree and move on. Your nylon-consuming bacteria was a valiant try, it was interesting, but it clearly comes up short.
Maybe Scott is ready to shatter the world with the example he implies he has in his hand. Let’s see if he plays the card, or keeps us all in suspense!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by mark24, posted 11-07-2002 4:47 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by mark24, posted 11-08-2002 8:08 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 186 by derwood, posted 11-09-2002 6:25 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 187 by derwood, posted 11-09-2002 6:26 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 183 of 317 (21924)
11-08-2002 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Mammuthus
11-07-2002 5:11 AM


quote:
Fred: For example, we know the cheetah has a deteriorated immune system and it is likely it has lost some gene segments...
M: And your evidence of specific gene losses in the immune system of cheetah' much less any other species?
I ran across this:
http://bowen1.home.mindspring.com/mchs/articles/lorimer.htm
Note I said "likely", not "proven".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Mammuthus, posted 11-07-2002 5:11 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 184 of 317 (21934)
11-08-2002 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Fred Williams
11-08-2002 6:57 PM


quote:
Mark:
Do you accept that the nyl c thymine addition in flavobacterium allowing nylon "digestion", represents information that didn't exist in the previous generation (that never had the extra thymine)? If not, why?
quote:
Fred:
I have explained this a million times (OK, maybe only 945,657 times). Its either no gain or a loss. Evidence suggests the mutation may be via plasmid xfer.
Fred, this is what happens when you bail out half way through discussions. I have explained the following 945,658 times ; YOU are claiming that new info is IMPOSSIBLE, therefore, because evolution needs new info, evolution is impossible.
A thymine addition (to the carbohydrate gene in flavobact) is POSSIBLE. This nucleotide addition changes the function of the gene. Ergo, a gain in function of nylon digestion IS POSSIBLE. I really don’t care whether it happened that way, or not, BUT INFORMATION THAT WASN’T PRESENT IN ONE GENERATION [I][b]CAN[/I][/b] BE PRESENT IN THE NEXT. OK?
quote:
Fred:
This means no net gain of information in the gene pool. This evidence is not conclusive however, but it doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t due to plasmid xfer, then we have to consider the fact that the new enzyme is no longer specific to its original substrate, which Dr Lee Spetner in ‘Not by Chance’ shows in detail why this type of mutation invariably constitutes a loss of information.
Agreed, but, if the original gene is conserved (duplication), then there is no net info loss for the organism, it has two genes, with different algorithms that perform different functions. Therefore, there has been a net gain in information. Remember, you are saying it is impossible, before you go off on one regarding gene duplication, I am just presenting a scenario that is possible.
Hence, we have a possible mutation(s) that CAN result in information gain (or information-that-never-previously-existed, if we are going to dispute the newness of algorithms).
quote:
Mark:
Remembering that you define new information (for genomic purposes, at least) as "the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. The algorithm that codes for the nylon digestion is different, & didn't exist in the previous generation, so it makes perfect sense that this gene represents information that didn't previously exist, AND it represents a "new useful feature".
quote:
See #1 above. I again ask, is it a benefit to the organism population as a whole? Clearly it is not. It is a downgrade. It’s like getting sickle-cell. Sure, its just wonderful to be hereozygous if you are exposed to malaria. Wonderful! If it was my choice I would opt not to have the sickle-cell mutation and take my chances with malaria (or get the hell out of there!).
Irrelevant. If it represents a new useful function (by your definition) to the bacteria in the pool of nylon, then it is information to them, but not to bacteria who aren’t in contact with nylon. It’s a bit like writing a letter to 10 people in Mandarin Chinese, if only one of them reads Chinese, then the letter only represents information to one person, it’s not an all or nothing proposition.
So, in summary; A thymine addition combined with a gene duplication can represent net info gain, since a new useful function has been gained without loss of the original function. You are saying this is impossible, the above scenario is possible. Put in terms of your definition of new information, a new algorithm/algorithm-that-never-previously-existed that codes for a new useful feature, without loss of the original feature is possible. Hence, whatever way you slice it, information has been gained.
Mark
PS We are not beating a dead Cheetah, we have only just reached the point where we left off!
PPS I also note that you didn't answer the question at the top of this post, but seemed more concerned with whether it represented net gain, or not. Forget about net gain, just consider the "information that didn't exist in the previous generation" part.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Fred Williams, posted 11-08-2002 6:57 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 6:46 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 317 (21938)
11-08-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Fred Williams
11-08-2002 5:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
In this example I was referring to the loss of an allele (gene version) from the entire post-bottleneck cheetah population.

Yes, which could be accomplished by a single cheetah in sole possession of a useful allele dying without passing on the allele. This would be the loss of an allele from the entire post-bottleneck cheetah population. You seem to now imply that the entire population is required to possess the allele. The very fact that it is an allele says that some subset of the population, and not the entire population, possesses it. If this is not your argument, please be specific as to what you mean when you say loss of useful allele from the parent population. How is this accomplished, if not exactly how I described it?
Recall, you said:
quote:
FW: If the cheetah lost a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has LESS genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?
How, in your example, did the allele benefit the population as a whole other than to provide genetic diversity? You seem to be mixing up the definitions of gene and allele.
quote:
FW: However, note that even when a single individual acquires a *new* inheritable deleterious mutation at meiosis, technically the gene pool has lost information, albeit an extremely small loss due to the existence at that loci of all those genes in the population without the mutation. You cannot claim the reciprocal unless the new mutation is beneficial to the population as a whole.
That’s one of the silliest assertions I have ever heard. You are making no sense at all. Let’s walk through this. If a single individual is born with a *new* inheritable deleterious mutation, then your assertion is that the gene pool has lost information, despite the fact that the wild type is unaffected in the rest of the population. I guess then if that individual dies without leaving offspring, the population gained the information back? If a horribly mutated individual is born, survives a few minutes, and then dies, was there a loss and then subsequent gain of information when the individual died?
On the other hand, if an individual is born with a beneficial mutation, then it is not a gain unless it is beneficial to the population as a whole? What kind of logic is that? Please justify your argument. It appears to me that you are simply applying a blatant double standard. Your argument is similar to claiming that 2-1=1, but 2+1=2.
quote:
FW: If a superficial mutation such as sickle-cell or Mark’s nylon mutation is not an improvement over the wild type as a whole, then you can’t claim it added information to the gene pool.
To make sure I am clear on your definitions, do you consider sickle-cell to be a loss of information? On what basis? Because it’s deleterious? Does it matter what is happening in the genome, or is yours more of a qualitative argument? I am just trying to make sure your argument is consistent, because thus far it does not appear to be.
quote:
FW: If anyone here wants to again try to claim sickle-cell is an information gain, please find a single information scientist to agree with you.
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to consult a biologist on the matter? Would you accept the opinion of Tom Schneider on the matter? If not, why not?
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Fred Williams, posted 11-08-2002 5:51 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Fred Williams, posted 11-13-2002 7:06 PM Fedmahn Kassad has replied

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


Message 186 of 317 (21958)
11-09-2002 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Fred Williams
11-08-2002 6:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Maybe Scott is ready to shatter the world with the example he implies he has in his hand. Let’s see if he plays the card, or keeps us all in suspense!
I am still wondering where your amazing 'article' on the 'large cache of evidence' for "non-random mutations" and how they help solve the post-ark hyperspeciation devastation... That you said you were working on...
Over a year ago...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Fred Williams, posted 11-08-2002 6:57 PM Fred Williams has not replied

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


Message 187 of 317 (21959)
11-09-2002 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Fred Williams
11-08-2002 6:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Maybe Scott is ready to shatter the world with the example he implies he has in his hand. Let’s see if he plays the card, or keeps us all in suspense!
I am still wondering where your amazing 'article' on the 'large cache of evidence' for "non-random mutations" and how they help solve the post-ark hyperspeciation devastation... That you said you were working on...
Over a year ago...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Fred Williams, posted 11-08-2002 6:57 PM Fred Williams has not replied

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


Message 188 of 317 (21963)
11-09-2002 7:01 AM


PB: Again, you do not respond to my statements. You are starting to behave like Dr Page. He's got a degree in elusiveness.
Well, Pete, maybe you can tell what I have tried to elude?
I am still waiting for some evidence that evolutionists believe that all gene trees should match not only each other but all species trees, too, AND that apparently elusive 'scineitific discipline' that is devoted to reconciling incongruent trees...
AND the rationale for claiing that evidence against non-random mutations is really evidence for them...
That sort of thing...
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-09-2002]

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 189 of 317 (22064)
11-09-2002 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Quetzal
11-07-2002 5:17 AM


Dear Quetzal,
You write that you like to have response to these points:
You:
This is rapidly becoming pointless. You have just expended slightly over 8000 words calling me ignorant. Not much of a debate. So in the interests of brevity, I think I’ll simply synopsize.
You:
1. You have presented on this thread a claim that you have falsified evolutionary theory. You present as evidence a single organism, Wollemia nobilis, with descriptions and discussion culled from a popular science book rather than anything in any of the scientific literature, as proof that all of biology is incorrect, and that only you have the true answer — a multipurpose genome created by something you call creaton waves (or variously particles). You have, however, not actually provided any evidence that either of these exist, merely repeated assertion that they explain all biological phenomena, and that anyone who doesn’t immediately accept your explanation is willfully blind or ignorant.
My response:
I already recommended to read all my threads. I gave several examples that cannot be explained by evolutionism. Either they violate NDT or the violate molecular evolutionary mechanisms. If you don't see that, I once more to recommend to buy a recent book on molecular evolution or molecular biology. (This is not meant as a personal attack , it is an advice. For free, even).
You:
2. You have been presented with numerous references calling in to question your use of this organism. To recap, you have been provided the following:
Hogbin PM, Peakall R, Sydes MA, 2000. Achieving practical outcomes from genetic studies of rare Australian plants, Aust. J. Bot. 48, 375—382
Peakall R. 1998. Exceptionally low genetic diversity in an ancient relic, the Wollemi pine: implications for conservation theory and practice. 45th Annual meeting of the Genetics Society of Australia. Abstracts 86.
Setoguchi, H., Osawa, T.A., Pintaud, J.C., Jaffre, T. & Veillon, J.-M. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships within Araucariaceae based on rbcL gene sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 85: 1507-1516
Hanson, L. 2001. Chromosome number, karyotype and DNA C-value of the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis, Araucariaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 135: 271-274
Chambers, T.C., Drinnan, A.N., McLoughlin, S. 1998. Some morphological features of Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis, Araucariaceae) and their comparison to Cretaceous plant fossils. Internat. J. Plant Sci. 159: 160-171
My response:
What do these references tell you? Low or No genetic variability? It is interesting that only Peakalls abstract is directly on the topic. You simply avoid to give a straightforward answer. So I will do it once more for you: All sequences analysed show NO variability, while the two (or three) populations are not clones. That was my point. It clashes with molecular evolutionism. As mentioned, it is just another falsification.
You:
3. Rather than addressing the specifics of these references — nearly the entire published literature on Wollemia — you have either referred back to the popscience book with which you started the thread, or quibbled over semantics (low vs no variability in Peakall 1998, for example). You have given no indication that you’ve actually read the references. At the same time, you have consistently stated that you — and only you — are capable of correctly interpreting the molecular data whenever anyone has called into question your interpretation. I would note that thus only you are capable of seeing how it supports your theory.
My response:
The book by Woodford contains dialogues of Woodford and Peakall one wouldn't find in evolutionary peer reviewed journals (for the obvious reasons). If Peakall wouldn't have agreed with the content these passages would have been left out. Since they are in the book as quotations, I is reasonable to assume that Peakall stands behind his words. Don't you think so?
You:
4. When provided alternative explanations for the low (or no, if you prefer) variability in this organism, you have merely hand-waved them away, with statements such as Because there is NO evolutionary explanation. You are free to think that you have provided an explanation, but I know better from a molecular stance. And You (and a lot of other evolutionists) have been so brainwashed that you (they) are unable to think beyond the paradigm of evolutionism. I know your explanations. They do not make sense in the light of molecular evolutionary rules. I explained that several times. You don't listen. You have, unfortunately, failed to state at any time why the mainstream explanations are wrong — merely asserting ever-more vituperatively that they are.
My response:
The offered alternative explanations do not explain the total absence of variability within regions where Peakall expected to find them. I qouted Peakall on this subject. Ask Peakall how he feels about it, now. It is you who is doubting his words. Not me. I believe what Peakall says about the tree. That "evolutionism isn't sitting well".
In other words: the tree violates evolutionism.
You:
5. You have questioned the basic concepts of population genetics, ecology, etc, with statements such as Population genetics is the field of multipurpose genome and allele frequency variation, not the field of evolution. Nothing evolved here, just variation with respect to preexisting alleles in the gene pool. Such statements bring into question your knowledge of the subject you are attacking. When you’ve been called on it, you have stated that you don’t accept evolutionary explanations, and restate your multipurpose genome assertion — again without supporting documentation.
My response:
You still don't understand that the MPG hypothesis is almost similar to evolutionism except that it includes creation. That is your point. You don't want to include creation. My guess is that you are an atheist, since 'theistic evolutionists' cannot object to the MPG hypothesis. (Note that this is not meant as an offence, you are free to be an atheist. I don't mind, as long as you don't propagate evolutionism as fact).
You say:
6. You have introduced a number of tangential issues (Il-1, alpha actinin, ZFY/ZFX, cheetahs, etc) and in nearly every case have been provided literature citations showing you are incorrect. You have consistently refused to even discuss the literature, let alone admit that you might have been mistaken, instead relying on simply repeating your original assertion.
My response:
These examples still stand as violations of evolutionism (I didn't introduce the cheetah). None of them have been rebutted. You are free to believe that Dr Page or Mammuthus did that, but they didn't. The didn't even come close. As mentioned in a previous mailing, the best defender of evolutionisms I ever met, Dr D. Theobald (talk origins), wasn't able to rebut it either. Nor was Dr R. Page (author of the book Molecular evolution, a phylogenetic approach). The evo-claims on this topic can be readily checked in the genome, nowadays, and that turns out to be the death blow of evolutionism. So, your above claim that I present the wollemi pine as evidence agaisnt evolutionism is not entirely correct. It is ignoring of all my mailings.
You:
7. Any time you have made an assertion and been provided an explanation as to why the assertion is incorrect, you retreat to either a repetition of the assertion, ad hominem, or simply ignore the explanation. Here’s one example:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: I also agree that Wollemi Pine isn’t an exception — just an extreme example of a normal distribution. As far as variability is good, although a gross oversimplification, in essence this is true. It’s the key to your question above concerning disease susceptibility. I’m surprised I have to explain this basic concept. The more genetically homogenous a population, the less likely it will contain adaptive variants able to survive or take advantage of new selection pressures. IOW, introduce a new pathogen into a population with lots of variation, there’s much more likelihood that there will be some individuals in the population with at least partial resistance to the pathogen. In a homogenous population, the odds of having an individual or group with resistance is much less, and hence if a pathogen effects one individual, it will effect ALL the individuals in the population.
PB: I also agree that the Wollemi pine is an extreme. Namely the extreme of the multipurpose genome. It is able to fight off pathogens due to the preexisting information in the MG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple re-assertion. No discussion. No argument.
My response:
That's the usual way of discussion in evo-literature: Just-so stories. I thought you --as an evolutionist-- would be content with such just-so explanations. But, you are not. Maybe you can understand people better now who are confronted with such meaningless evo-just-so-stories all the time. (It's bit like the up-side-down world now, isn't it?)
However, the wollemi pine is indeed an extreme of the MPG hypothesis, since usually a bit of variation is expected through entropy on neutral positions. But, apparently this extreme tree has such superior DNA repair mechanism --since they never degenerated-- that its DNA doesn't change at all. In accord with MPG predictions.
You:
8. You have shown an amazing inability to research or look up standard materials in the normal fashion, rather insisting that your opponents provide the basic references for YOUR assertions (c.f. the horseshoe crab). Find your own damn references.
My response:
You have shown an amazing inability to look beyond evolutionary paradigms, even if I mail the one falsification after the other of this outdated theory. In my opinion, my inability to research and to look up refernces is not reflected in my ability to rebut all evolutionary claims. Including yours.
You say:
9. Finally, when your arguments have shown to be spurious, you retreat to little more than massive, repetitious ad hominem attacks — such as your last post.
My response:
You told me in another thread (on the mtDNA) that you were unable to interpret these data since you had no molecular evolutionary background. I recommended you to read on this highly interesting field of biological science, so you can judge for yourself where evolutionism is smashed by molbiol.
You:
In essence, Peter, you have failed. You are reduced to attacking me
personally — evidently because I’m not a molecular biologist, which is odd because many of the references quoted were from molecular biologists who quite obviously disagree with you - or arguing in circles. Unless you are able to specifically refute the mainstream explanations you’ve been provided — with references — you no longer have an argument.
My response:
In essence, dear Quetzal, it is evolutionism that fails to fulfil the promise of being explanatory in the origin of life, genes and species. Darwin was wrong, you are wrong and evolutionism is wrong. And, if you are offended by some minor things I said about your insufficient knowledge on molecular biology, than my apologies for that. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Quetzal, posted 11-07-2002 5:17 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 4:53 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 205 by Quetzal, posted 11-11-2002 11:17 AM peter borger has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 317 (22078)
11-10-2002 2:00 AM


borger, have you ever, in the past, admitted that you were wrong about anything?
that seems to me to be the root of the problem. Even if someone conclusively demonstrated your claims to be incorrect, I doubt you'd concede defeat - its that strange confidence that the insane invariably posess about their pet crackpot theory. Show me the creatons borger.

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 6:03 PM monkenstick has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 191 of 317 (22082)
11-10-2002 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by peter borger
11-09-2002 11:01 PM


quote:
I already recommended to read all my threads. I gave several examples that cannot be explained by evolutionism. Either they violate NDT or the violate molecular evolutionary mechanisms.
Peter,
Provide ONE example that hasn't been trounced, or retract this ridiculously overconfident claim. Sheesh.
Whilst you're at it, please answer the questions raised here ; http://EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2) -->EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2), & at the same time tell me why neutral theory is part of the NDT?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by peter borger, posted 11-09-2002 11:01 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 5:25 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 192 of 317 (22124)
11-10-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by mark24
11-10-2002 4:53 AM


Dear mark,
You write:
Peter,
Provide ONE example that hasn't been trounced, or retract this ridiculously overconfident claim. Sheesh.
I say:
1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene in D melanogaster
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA (is still open for discussion)
6) the ZFY region (nobody responded)
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the IL-1beta incongruence (and more)
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNA
And probably more.
You say:
Whilst you're at it, please answer the questions raised here ; http://EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2) -->EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2), & at the same time tell me why neutral theory is part of the NDT
I say:
I responded already to your comments. You didn't bring any new arguments to the topic.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 4:53 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 5:55 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 204 by derwood, posted 11-11-2002 8:54 AM peter borger has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 193 of 317 (22127)
11-10-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by peter borger
11-10-2002 5:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,
You write:
Peter,
Provide ONE example that hasn't been trounced, or retract this ridiculously overconfident claim. Sheesh.
I say:
1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene in D melanogaster
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA (is still open for discussion)
6) the ZFY region (nobody responded)
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the IL-1beta incongruence (and more)
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNA
And probably more.

And all have been dealt with.
[B][QUOTE] You say:
Whilst you're at it, please answer the questions raised here ; http://EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2) -->EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2), & at the same time tell me why neutral theory is part of the NDT
I say:
I responded already to your comments. You didn't bring any new arguments to the topic.
[/B][/QUOTE]
You patently HAVE NOT responded to the questions levelled at you in a way that actually ANSWERS THEM!!!!!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 5:25 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 6:44 PM mark24 has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 194 of 317 (22131)
11-10-2002 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by monkenstick
11-10-2002 2:00 AM


Dear Monkenstick,
You say:
borger, have you ever, in the past, admitted that you were wrong about anything?
My response:
I know when a position is untenable. I know when I am wrong, and I know when I am right.
You say:
that seems to me to be the root of the problem. Even if someone conclusively demonstrated your claims to be incorrect, (SHOW ME WHERE, AND I WILL RESPOND TO THAT, PB) I doubt you'd concede defeat - its that strange confidence that the insane invariably posess about their pet crackpot theory. Show me the creatons borger.
The root of the problem is the hypothesis of evolutionism. It is incorrect as all my examples demonstrated. It is the overconvinced evolutonist who keeps denying that. All I do is emphasise the current problem in evolutionism and provide examples demonstrating it. If evolutionism had been proven beyond doubt this discussion wasn't necessary.
Ever met an evolutionist who admitted he/she was wrong? Or that evolutionism is unable to explain a certain problem? I haven't. There is never a problem for evolutionism. Well there are a lot, as demonstrated. As long as it is propagated as fact I will demonstrate the opposite.
Show you creatons? Show me gravitons! Or regarding evolutionism, show me the transitionforms. That would make it a theory!
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by monkenstick, posted 11-10-2002 2:00 AM monkenstick has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 195 of 317 (22136)
11-10-2002 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by mark24
11-10-2002 5:55 PM


Dear mark,
You say:
"And all have been dealt with."
My response:
They haven't ALL been dealt with. Some, have been dealt with, but they haven't been rebutted. If the were I would admit it.
You may be wielding Occam's rasor, I possess Athena's Owl.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 5:55 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by John, posted 11-10-2002 7:22 PM 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