Borger: "See the 1g5 gene."
I have no idea what you mean by that. You want me to actually look at an IG5 gene?
Borger: "My letter #52 in the "molecular genetic evidence against random mutations-thread"."
Your "letter #52" was written by SLPx, not by you. I don't believe SLPx supports your position, and message #52 actually refutes a point you made! You are going to have to do better than to reference a message written by someone who opposes your point and claim the message supports you!
BTW, the message title is "molecular genetic proof against random mutation", not "molecular genetic evidence against random mutations". Your sloppiness does not induce in me a real urge to take your word for anything.
Borger: "Message 1-32 in the "mol gen ev ag rand mut thread" constitutes the complete falsification and overturn of NDT."
I am on a cable connection tonight but the response time is appallingly slow. However, I skimmed many of these messages, and most of them are not from you, but are rebuttals from other people of points you are trying to make, so, contrary to your claim above, messages 1-32 do not falsify and overturn NDT - not even close.
You still do not explain how this one tiny piece of your evidence, even if correct (and it certainly looks like it is not), overthrows the whole of NDT, which does not rest on this one tiny matter. If it did rest entirely on this, and you were precisely correct in your claims, then you may have an argument to make, but since neither of these cases holds, then neither does your argument!
Borger's support for his claim that the media equates evolution with atheism: "Turn on a television, turn up a paper, magazine, etc. Wait and see."
I am sorry, but even in the worst debate this argument would suck. You are going to have to do considerably better than this or admit you cannot support even the simplest of the points you try to make. I have already told you I disagree, and the reason is that I do follow the media, and I do not see anything like the equation between evolution and atheism that you claim exists. In other words *support your claim* or withdraw it.
Borger: "You mentioned "God did it" in your previous letter. I didn't."
In response to this I requote the exact wording of my original quote which you failed to even begin to answer: "The previous post was my very first contribution to this thread. You are the one who raised the issue of atheism ("Only atheists will object to that"), which has no place in a science thread."
Now, again, who is it who is equating atheism with evolution? Again, where is your evidence for this? Are you ever actually going to answer my challenges anywhere in any of these boards, or is this going to be a never-ending merry-go-round in which you offer nothing, argue nothing, establish nothing and achieve nothing? Once again, for the learning-impaired, *you* are the one who raised the ahtiesm issue *in this thread* before I ever came on board. I am *still* awaiting your explanation.
Once again Borger compeltely fails to cite a reference: "The concept of genetic redundancies has been discussed with refernces (sic) in my thread: "scientific end of evolutionism". It is the death blow to evolutionism."
In your fairytale world, maybe it is, but unfortunately for you, the rest of us live in the real world. Now are you going to offer a URL, or *at the very least* a message number (that is, a message number of a message *you* have written, not a message number that was written by someone refuting you), so that when the lines speed up, I can go read this?
Borger: "since you are the new one here, I recommend to read al my posts (400 or so). All relevant literature is referred to. To name a few:"
Dream on. I have better things to do with my time than run around after your blather. Now if you cannot give good references to the arguments *you* have made (not to other people's hard work that you have appropriated and misinterpreted and adopted to your own strange needs) you are not worth my time.
You list:
1) Bouche, N. and Bouchez, D. Arabidopsis gene knockout: phenotypes wanted. Current Opinions in Plant Biology 2001, Volume 4: p111-117.
2) North, K.N. et al. A common non-sense mutation results in a-actinin 3 deficiency in the general population: Evidence for genetic redundancy in humans. Nature Genet 1999, Volume 21: p353-354.
3) Zhang, P. The cell cycle and development: redundant roles of cell cycle regulators. Current Opinions Cell Biololgy 1999, Volume 11: 655-662.
4) Tautz, D. A genetic uncertainty problem. Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477.
5) Winzeler, E.A. et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 1999, Volume 285: p901-906.
6) Kolisnychenko, V, et al. Engineering a reduced Escherichia coli Genome. Genome Research 2002, 12: 640-647.
7) Or do a pubmed (NCBI homepage) search on 'genetic redundancy'. It will give you 871 hits.
Now which of the above state (as their purpose) the overthrow of NDT, and which of them, in their conclusions, actually state that the research the paper discusses (including the 871 hits) actually overthrows NDT?
Or is that just your opinion? If it is your opinion, then please support it **or refer me to your own posted material** which demonstrates that such conclusions are valid.
When you can make an argument do, please, let me know. Otherwise, don't waste my time and more importantly, don't waste the time of hard-working scientists who have better things to do with *their* time than babysit you.
BTW, I am still waiting on you answering my question as to whether you contacted the authors of the IG5 paper you are so excited about, and asked them what they think of the conclusions you have drawn from it. I would have thought if you were serious about your claims, they would have been the first people you would have contacted. Am I to understand that you have raised none of these issues with them? If not, why not? If so, what did they say?
To sum up, you have not given me straight answers to anything I have asked of you except to define NDT. You have not answered my follow-up question to your definition of NDT, concerning defining random (mutations). You have offered no references **to your material in on these boards** that explains your dramatic conclusions. In short, you have done precisely in this thread what you did in the other thread in which we clashed - nothing.
I am not at all impressed.
Budikka
™ Version 4.2
