|
Author
|
Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Peter: 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
I take it then that your answer is "no, I can't respond substantively"? However, to clarify a couple of things.
quote:
Do the --in a peer reviewed sceintific journal published (i.e. your refernces)-- genetic data on the Wollemi pine demonstrate LOW variability or do they demonstrate NO variability?
This is NOT the "quintissential" question. The quintissential question is why the explanations you've been provided from population genetics, ecology, etc, are incorrect. It matters not one whit whether Wollemia shows limited or no variation, as long as there is an explanation for why that doesn't simply multiply assumptions beyond reason - like your magical "multipurpose genome" that only you can see, undetectable "creatons", speculative 26-million-year "creaton waves", unfalsifiable "anti-creatons" etc. You have been provided multiple explanations, with examples from other organisms, why Wollemia - albeit an extreme example - does not violate the concept of evolution. You have utterly failed to address even ONE of these explanations. Ever.
quote:
And I do not personally attack you...
Let's take a look shall we? These are all quoted from your last post: "Listen Quetzal, I take time to provide you with an alternative vision, so at least you could give me the impression that you actually try to respond to that. Otherwise, be silent, and I don’t waste my time." "You also like to exaggerate. The tree violates molecular evolutionism, so evolutionism cannot be true, and thus cannot be presented as fact. That’s what you want to do, present it as scientific fact, while it isn’t. The tree brings further doubt upon evolutionism. You know that. You simply ignore it, like you do with all evidence against evolutionism. You’re a faithful believer." "I can assure you that I as a molecular biologist specialised in eukaryotic gene regulation I much better understand evolutionism and the underlying mechanism than Dr Page (he is anatomist by education) or you (a conservationist). So, it is you who doesn’t understand the molecular mechanism involved in evolutionism. So, don’t even try it." "Nope, you do NOT listen to molecular biologists who say that evolutionism is not in accord with current understanding of contemporary biology. Everyone can see this now. You do not accept any of my mails of being relevant against evolutionism. You only listen to evolutionary explanations. You cannot think beyond that outdated paradigm. Don’t play the innocent, Quetzal, since it won’t work. I can see right through your biased responses." "No you didn’t. These references demonstrate LOW variability. You are distorting the scientific content. NO doesn’t equal LOW." (This one's especially amusing, since you admit you never read the reference.) "And the denial continues. Welcome to Dr Page’s club (I guess Mammuthus is a member too, now). Listen, Quetzal, one cannot discuss with people who deny scientific observations." "Indeed. 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." "Being deliberately obtuse is another evolutionist’s fallacy, I’ve discovered on this site. I referred to an interview with Dr Peakall in Woodford’s book, as mentioned. I recommend you to buy a copy of this interesting book." "I was hoping you could bring some light in what I read. And, you being obtuse again, I didn’t bring it as scientific fact. So, please shine some light on this matter. It is always fun to kick butt on a tangent, isn’t it? Characteristics of Dr Page’s club." "Here you demonstrate that you are unable to think beyond the evolutionary paradigm." "That you don’t understand or miss to see the link doesn’t make it irrelevant." (Note the lack of explanation of the alleged link.) "You are definitively a member of Dr Page’s club. Denial and ignorance. How can I discuss with guys who ignore scientific observations? Impossible." "It needs a bit of an effort and a lot of free unbiased thinking to set up a new theory. All characteristics you seem to lack, judging from your mails." "Obtuse again? If your letter demonstrates anything here, it is the impossibility to discuss with brainwashed evolutionists. You’re almost Dr Page. I recommend you to read Nature and Science on the finches: the recent volumes not the volumes from Darwin’s age. Get updated with biological science, it would improve our discussion a lot." "Quetzal, neither you nor anyone else solved the riddle around the Wollemi pine’s DNA (yet). You know that, but you prefer to be deliberately obtuse/in denial/ignoring. I am not impressed. Neither by your rebuttal, nor by your knowledge on contemporary biology." "I will not repeat myself again. I recommend you to brush up on molecular biology and molecular evolution, so you can judge for yourself where evolutionism clashes with molecular biology." "Why are you so blind? Are you paid to be so blind?" "Now you are starting to comment on your own replies? Confused? I have to repeat my statements since they are right. Your statements are wrong." "Excellent. You demonstrate here that you are able to rewrite MY hypothesis and than bring it down. How do we call that? Distortion, red herrings and Strawman attacks? CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You managed to introduce three fallacies in one response. (Nice try, try again)" I removed a number of one-shot "Obtuse?" comments. No personal attacks? Guess I simply misunderstood your intent with all these, right? I do agree with one statement you made however. "I am wasting my time here, that's for sure." If your expectation was for me to a) be so impressed by your PhD that I would immediately grovel at your feet, and b) forebear to point out the flaws in your argument, you have seriously misjudged both your own capability and the strength of your "hypothesis". Now, if you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you address the actual points made in my posts, and quit the ad hominem personal attacks.
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Alright Peter, last chance. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have before us a question that has yet to be answered. To wit: given the marked genetic homogeniety of Wollemia nobilis, can this observation be ecompassed by current scientific explanations? If so, are the explanations incorrect or inapplicable? If so, why? Peter: I have enumerated below the explanations you have been given in this thread that purport to explain the observation in the case of Wollemia nobilis. You have rejected them outright without discussion as "just so stories", etc. This is your last chance to salvage something: explain, in detail, with references, why the following are not acceptable explanations for (or simply don't explain) the observation. 1. clonality. There are two aspects here that must be discussed: a) Within-stand growth pattern (i.e., coppicing) would lead to the expectation that all mature trees within a given stand would be genetically identical - they represent a single organism. b) Between stand homogeneity can be explained if all three stands were originally seeded by a single parent, followed by coppicing, it would again be expected that the stands would show not only an internally homogenous genotype, but between-stands as well. 2. genetic bottleneck. It has been observed in many wild populations that when a population passes through an extreme population crisis, much of the original variation is lost. Given the relictual nature of Wollemia, there is a high probability that this occurred. 3. inbreeding depression. Micropopulations, especially plants but also many animal species, that survive extreme bottlenecks or occupy highly restricted ranges, etc, are known to suffer from lack of genetic variability due to inbreeding depression. This observation has been made for both selfed and sexually reproducing species isolated from gene flow. Inbreeding depression, coupled with selection sweep on deleterious mutational load over generations, tends to greatly homogenize genotypes of the effected organisms. 4. genetic drift. A simple statistical random walk in isolated micropopulations can cause substantial loss of variation. Your job, Peter, is to examine each of these four explanations, and provide detailed reasons why any (or a combination) of them are incorrect or impossible in the case of Wollemia. I may have missed one or two (like dominance, imprinting, lack of recruitment from non- Wollemia, etc), but those are something to go on. If you are unable to refute these explanations, then your assertion is falsified.
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
PB: You are lagging behind, I responded to all Quetzal’s points. He choose not to respond to all my replies.
Given the substance-less nature of your last two replies to me, perhaps you could detail - in simpler form for those of us without your "expertise" - exactly what assertion or question I have not addressed. With 8000 plus words to wade through desperately seeking some actual argument, it is quite possible to have missed something inadvertently. In the meantime, my previous post awaits your attention. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-12-2002]
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
I don't give out anyone's email address on-line, even if they are freely available. However, as was pointed out, he's at the ANU, feel free to look it up. Here's the ANU website: ANU Oh, and btw, you appear to have misunderstood me. Although you responded to my post 171 the response can in no way be considered substantive - indeed, you merely repeated your original assertions and collected a few more ad hominems to your credit. That being the case, I tried to make it easy on you in post 205 by succinctly restating the question and the arguments I have used over the course of now 15 pages so that there could be no confusion on your part. You have not answered. Answer the specific question in post 205. Discuss the four explanations, formally and in sufficient detail to show your self-proclaimed expertise on the subject. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-12-2002]
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Q: That being the case, I tried to make it easy on you in post 205 by succinctly restating the question and the arguments I have used over the course of now 15 pages so that there could be no confusion on your part. You have not answered. Answer the specific question in post 205. Discuss the four explanations, formally and in sufficient detail to show your self-proclaimed expertise on the subject. PB: Understanding biology is not as hard as you think it is. It depends on the paradigm. If one tries to explain things subject to a false paradigm things get hard indeed. That's the is the isue here. However, I will answer your 4 points as soon as I got Dr Peakall's response.
I'm glad you consider biology so simple. I'm looking forward to hearing your discussion. Out of curiosity, if it's so easy, why do you need to wait for Dr. Peakall to answer (which may or may not happen, depending on how you ask the question)? It doesn't even have to be the case of Wollemia specifically - just discuss why any or a combination of the four explanations I provided are NOT valid for describing an observation such as "lack of or limited variation in an isolated population".
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Seeing as how you're back in operation here, Peter, I'm still awaiting your reply to post #205. The reply does not require your "response" from Dr. Peakall (assuming you actually sent him an email). Feel free to use any example of any other organism, or even show conclusively the concepts are in error through a theoretical discussion.
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
PB: See also mailings #211, #212, #214, #223, and #225. I did not yet contact Dr Peakall. It’s a bit hectic here, but I will contact him as soon as I have my questions formulated.
#225 was my response to your non-answer in #223. 214 was also my response to your non-answer in #212 where you asserted that you had answered but actually didn’t address any of my points. #211 was ALSO my post.
quote:
Q's letter 205:
Alright Peter, last chance.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have before us a question that has yet to be answered. To wit: given the marked genetic homogeniety of Wollemia nobilis, can this observation be ecompassed by current scientific explanations? If so, are the explanations incorrect or inapplicable? If so, why? PB: I already discussed the invariable DNA with you in detail, but you insist that there is an explanation. I quoted Dr. Peakall on the topic and you still insist that I have to explain the 4 points, since I didn’t address your response properly. Notably, I addressed all your points. It was you who didn’t respond to my mail.
Now I have one chance left?
Another non-answer. You have consistently failed to even address — beyond ad hominem, re-assertion, or hand-waving any substantive point that I have raised on this entire thread. You continue to play the same game. It doesn’t work, Peter.
quote:
Q: I have enumerated below the explanations you have been given in this thread that purport to explain the observation in the case of Wollemia nobilis. You have rejected them outright without discussion as "just so stories", etc. This is your last chance to salvage something: explain, in detail, with references, why the following are not acceptable explanations for (or simply don't explain) the observation. 1. clonality. There are two aspects here that must be discussed: a) Within-stand growth pattern (i.e., coppicing) would lead to the expectation that all mature trees within a given stand would be genetically identical - they represent a single organism. PB: I know you like to cling to root coppicing, since it would give an explanation for the invariable DNA of the pine. However, it has been demonstrated that --although Wollemia is easy to reproduce through cuttings-- the trees in the stands in the wild are derived from seedlings. I mentioned this before, but you simply ignore this observation (this is what I am going to have confirmed by Dr Peakall).
I don’t cling to root coppicing. It has not been demonstrated that the trees in the wild have been derived from seedlings. Please provide a reference for this assertion — none of the references I provided you so state. This is a new assertion on your part. However, you seem to be indicating that you agree that coppicing — IF SHOWN TO BE THE CASE IN WOLLEMIA — can in fact explain the observed lack of genetic variability. Is this correct?
quote:
Q: b) Between stand homogeneity can be explained if all three stands were originally seeded by a single parent, followed by coppicing, it would again be expected that the stands would show not only an internally homogenous genotype, but between-stands as well. PB: As mentioned, this scenario has been rejected by Dr Peakall (And this is what I am going to have confirmed too)
Again, this is a new assertion on your part. Please provide the reference that indicates Dr. Peakall has rejected this hypothesis. On the other hand, you have not addressed the point: IF ALL STANDS WERE ORGINALLY SEEDED FROM A SINGLE PARENT ORGANISM, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT ON THE GENETIC VARIABILITY OF THE SPECIES? My contention obviously is that once again we would expect a lack of genetic variability. Please be specific for a change.
quote:
Q: 2. genetic bottleneck. It has been observed in many wild populations that when a population passes through an extreme population crisis, much of the original variation is lost. Given the relictual nature of Wollemia, there is a high probability that this occurred. PB: Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. My point wasn’t about loss of original variation; it was about the completely invariable DNA of the organism that conflicts evolutionism, and the inferred ALL-PURPOSE genome from this observation (done by Peakall, and I will ask him what he understands by this).
Then you concede that, with or without the MPG nonsense in the mix, the standard evolutionary explanation of genetic bottleneck CAN EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIATION IN THE SPECIES? Yes or no? If not, why not?
quote:
3. inbreeding depression. Micropopulations, especially plants but also many animal species, that survive extreme bottlenecks or occupy highly restricted ranges, etc, are known to suffer from lack of genetic variability due to inbreeding depression. This observation has been made for both selfed and sexually reproducing species isolated from gene flow. Inbreeding depression, coupled with selection sweep on deleterious mutational load over generations, tends to greatly homogenize genotypes of the effected organisms. PB: According to your view, the tree must have been reduced to one tree and afterwards spread again. Although, I do not have severe objections to this view, it clearly demonstrates that the conservationists’ stance may be wrong. It strongly supports the MPG hypothesis.
No, according to my view, ANY population that is severely reduced — whether selfed or not — and is forced to breed within it’s own restricted population, will suffer from in-breeding depression. Over time, inbreeding depression and selection sweep will homogenize the population. CAN THIS BE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF VARIABILITY IN WOLLEMIA? Yes or no? If not, why not? On a related note, please explain the assertion the conservationists stance may be wrong. What stance? In another post-script, who cares about the MPG? We’re not even discussing your absurd hypothesis — rather the possible mainstream explanations for the lack of variation in this species. A species which, in accordance with your post #1 on this thread, allegedly refutes evolution. Your claim concerning MPG as the only viable choice if evolution is refuted is irrelevant to this discussion.
quote:
4. genetic drift. A simple statistical random walk in isolated micropopulations can cause substantial loss of variation. PB: Genetic drift in a cloning population? Please explain.
Furthermore, genetic drift is not disputed and can easily be part of the MPG hypothesis.
You sound surprised. Pretty amazing for someone who claims to be an expert in biology. Why would you think genetic drift doesn’t apply to clonal micropopulations? In any event, once again, you fail to answer the question: CAN GENETIC DRIFT EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIABILITY WITHIN WOLLEMIA? Yes, or no? If not, why not? And again, who cares about your MPG in the context of this discussion?
quote:
PB: No, Quetzal, my job is asthma researcher. To be precise my job is studying molecular regulation of genes involved in asthma. On the other hand, my vocation is to show the public how molecular biology obliterates evolutionism.
Good luck with your research. My suggestion would be not to quit your day job to pursue your avocation.
quote:
In conclusion, point 2-4 are irrelevant to our discussion, since they can be integrated in the MPG hypothesis without problems. My point was --and still is-- that the Wollemi pine’s DNA demonstrates NO variation, while at least some variation was expected.
In conclusion, you have utterly failed to respond substantively once again. Points 2-4 ARE the discussion, as is point 1. Try again. Wollemia nobilis[/i] as evidence 2. Since evolution is falsified, your mythical, magical, unreproduceable, undetectable MPG is the default hypothesis The conclusion, and the reason I state that these points are key, is that if mainstream explanations CAN be used to account for the lack of variability in your evidence, your evidence cannot be used to falsify evolution. Regardless of the truth or validity of MPG, you must show WHY specifically the mainstream explanations are false. Then you must show evidence that MPG actually exists followed by why MPG should be considered the default hypothesis IN THE ABSENCE OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY EXPLANATIONS. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-20-2002]
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
{Large amounts of utter irrelevancy snipped.}
quote:
Q: I don’t cling to root coppicing. It has not been demonstrated that the trees in the wild have been derived from seedlings. PB: It has been demonstrated that the Wollemia recruits from seedlings in the wild. The first pines in the nurseries were grown from seedlings colected from the wild population. It was horticultural scientist of the Mount Annan Botanic Gardens Cathy Osford job to do that. "In the first year a mere fifty seed were collected [from the wild]. In the second a more promising quantity was obtained--600." (The wollemi pine, J. Woodford, p125, ISBN 1 876485 48 5). The MPG is demonstrated by "Offord told me [Woodford, not PB] me mortality rate [..] for Wollemia seedlings is almost zero". (p132). Furthermore, and important for our discussion "Offord and colleagues estimate that the twenty-three adult Wollemi pines [..] produce about 150 female cones per year and these cones set between 3000 and 4000 viable seeds" (p134). So, there is no doubt that seedlings derie from sexual reproduction, and there is no doubt that trees are recruited from ssedlings. Of course you may doubt the words of horticulturist Offord. It is a common habit in evolutionism to doubt the data if they are not in accord with evolutionism (see my mailings to Mammuthus).
I emailed Dr. Offord for her take on it. We’ll see.
quote:
Q: Please provide a reference for this assertion — none of the references I provided you so state. This is a new assertion on your part. However, you seem to be indicating that you agree that coppicing — IF SHOWN TO BE THE CASE IN WOLLEMIA — can in fact explain the observed lack of genetic variability. Is this correct? PB: The issue here is NOT that I do not provide refernces, but that YOU don't accept the reference of being of scientific relevance. You doubt Dr Peakall's words, and you probably doubt Offord's words. You seem to be the 'doubting Thomas'. [Nothing wrong with doubting, it shows that you are.]
Really? Name ONE SINGLE REFERENCE except the popular press book written by a journalist that you have EVER cited in reference to this tree. Since you refuse to read the ones I’ve provided (undoubtedly because they refute your idiotic hypothesis), I’m not clear on what the point in continuing this discussion might be. You have — again, for the umpteenth time — failed to address the question: IF COPPICING IS SHOWN TO BE THE CASE IN WOLLEMIA, CAN THIS EXPLAIN THE GENETIC PATTERN? Yes or no? If not, why not? (Since you have no ability to research anything on any subject, but rather prefer a popular press book; here’s a popular press transcript from Quantum, 1997)
quote:
John Benson, Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney: "So Cathy here we have a cluster of trees or what looks like a cluster of trees but in fact it’s only one tree.. What we’ve got is a number of shoots that have resprouted from the roots of this tree, from little epicormic shoots at the base of the tree. And they’ve come up after a disturbance event and the main trunk of the tree has fallen down. So is that the main trunk there? Yes, here we have the main trunk of the tree, and as you can see it’s about a metre in diameter and based on what we know about Agathis, a related genus of the Wollemi Pine, this may be a thousand years of age. So, if this is 1000 years and it may not be the original trunk, what the whole tree could be many thousands of years old? Yes, it could be many thousands of years old. The root stock could be many thousands of years old. Because there may have been other trees this size that have come down in the past, they’ve rotted away. This one grew up again, it fell over and this is now rotting away.
There you go Peter. I can quote journalists just as easily as you can.
quote:
Q: Again, this is a new assertion on your part. Please provide the reference that indicates Dr. Peakall has rejected this hypothesis. On the other hand, you have not addressed the point: IF ALL STANDS WERE ORGINALLY SEEDED FROM A SINGLE PARENT ORGANISM, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT ON THE GENETIC VARIABILITY OF THE SPECIES? My contention obviously is that once again we would expect a lack of genetic variability. Please be specific for a change. PB: I am not going to say the same over and over. I mentioned it in the first letter #1 of this thread. Of course I was expecting a lot of unbelief, since the tree violates evolutionary principles. However, let me once more quote from Woodford's scientific book: {lengthy book quote snipped since it didn’t answer the question as posed above}
Two points here: one, the tree doesn’t violate evolutionary principles except in your mind. Answer the question. I couldn’t care less what Woodford wrote in his book. Second point: stop referring to a pop press book as science. If you can’t tell the difference, I’m beginning to doubt you have any idea what science is — in spite of your self-proclaimed expertise.
quote:
To get the data in accord with evolutionism a whole lot of story telling is required, but it still doesn't explain the Wollemi's invariable DNA. It becomes Peakall that he recognised the MPG, however. Apparently, more and more molecular scientists recognise the MPG, although they try to fit it in a evolutionary framework. It will never fit, since we are talking about two distinct paradigms.
Answer the question. Stop handwaving. Prove with an email response from Dr. Peakall that he recognizes the MPG as a valid scientific hypothesis. Name one genuine molecular biologist who recognize the MPG.
quote:
Q: Then you concede that, with or without the MPG nonsense in the mix, the standard evolutionary explanation of genetic bottleneck CAN EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIATION IN THE SPECIES? Yes or no? If not, why not? PB: That you do not understand the MPG doesn't make it nonsense. The MPG hypothesis (ever heard about hypotheses?) predicts a couple of things that can be readily tested (see letter #1), and it is able to explain all biological observations, including the Wollemi's invariabale DNA, and (genetic) redundancies. Thus, it is superior to evolutionism. So please be less condescending. And to be specific, evolutionary theory can NOT explain the invariable DNA data of the Wollemi pine (see above).
AGAIN you fail to even address the question. I’m not talking about the MPG. CAN A GENETIC BOTTLENECK EXPLAIN THE LACK OF GENETIC VARIABILITY IN THE SPECIES? YES OR NO?
quote:
Q: No, according to my view, ANY population that is severely reduced — whether selfed or not — and is forced to breed within it’s own restricted population, will suffer from in-breeding depression. Over time, inbreeding depression and selection sweep will homogenize the population. CAN THIS BE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE LACK OF VARIABILITY IN WOLLEMIA? Yes or no? If not, why not? PB: Although it could be an explanation to reduce variability, the complete absence of variability can NOT be explained by your proposal. (See above). Neither inbreeding nor selection sweep can help you. BTW, selection sweep is nothing. It was merely introduced to fit data into evolutionism. It is like very weak purifying slection (=almost neutral selection). Meaningless nothingness.
So you agree that inbreeding depression is an explanation for lack of or limited variability in a population? Please define what you think selection sweep means — it doesn’t appear you understand the terminology if you are comparing it to purifying selection. Handwaving it away by calling it meaningless is ridiculous — if it’s meaningless, explain why. Asserting something is meaningless simply because you don’t understand the concept is not conducive to productive debate.
quote:
Q: On a related note, please explain the assertion the conservationists stance may be wrong. What stance? PB: The MPG hypothesis holds that all defence mechanism are present in the origin organism. In an organism where the DNA doesn't degenerate it is expected that all original defence mechanism are still intact (because it didn't degenerated as a result of completely intact DNA repair mechanisms. DNA repair mechanisms are more or less redundant since loss of a couple of repair enzymes will not immediately jeopardise the organism's capacity to reproduce), and we do not have to be concerned about deseases that might wipe out the tree because it doesn't have genetic variability (this is the conservationist's evolutionary vision).
So in your view, no organisms need fear epidemics caused by increased susceptibility due to genetic homogeneity? I suggest you submit a manuscript explaining that to Conservation Ecology, Animal Conservation, Journal of Applied Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation, or other journal. Conservation biologists certainly seem overly concerned about the issue if there’s no problem. I’ll bet they’d be delighted to hear they worried for nothing.
quote:
Q: We’re not even discussing your absurd hypothesis — rather the possible mainstream explanations for the lack of variation in this species. PB: Here you demonstrate that you are not interested in science, only in keeping up the appearance of evolutionism. Your socalled mainstream explanations are no explanations, merely stories. However, I am not surprised since evolutionism is synonymous to 'telling each other stories': maybe this and maybe that and so and this and bladidiblabla... Well, not anymore since this is the 21st century. Better provide evidence instead of these stories.
Lol. This from the guy who has invented a General Theory of Biology that contains more undetectable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable and unrealistic stories about unobserved non-random mutations, an unsupported multipurpose genome that magically protects degenerate organisms, aided by utterly unreproduceable creaton particle/waves than my daughter’s Mother Goose fairy tale book. Oh, by the way, you HAVE been provided evidence about all of the possible explanations. Not my problem that you refuse to read anything that comes out of a mainstream journal.
quote:
Q: You sound surprised. Pretty amazing for someone who claims to be an expert in biology. Why would you think genetic drift doesn’t apply to clonal micropopulations? In any event, once again, you fail to answer the question: CAN GENETIC DRIFT EXPLAIN THE LACK OF VARIABILITY WITHIN WOLLEMIA? Yes, or no? If not, why not? And again, who cares about your MPG in the context of this discussion? PB: I am an expert in biology, indeed. That's why I see through evolutionism. However, explain to me how genetic drift is relevant to explain the Wollemi pine complete absence of variability. Maybe I miss your point.
Expert in biology, hunh? Then YOU figure out how genetic drift can cause loss of alleles in an isolated population. Show your vaunted, self proclaimed expertise. Lol.
quote:
Q: In conclusion, you have utterly failed to respond substantively once again. Points 2-4 ARE the discussion, as is point 1. Try again. PB: As long as I do not respond in an evolutionary fashion I will keep failing. You are like Buddika, you only want to hear evolutinary stories. No matter how illogic, unscientific they may be, as long as it sounds like evolutionism, it is okay. Sad.
Nope, it’s more as long as you don’t respond in any kind of substantive fashion — including demonstrating your ability to research and understand the concepts you claim to refute — you will keep failing.
[quote]Q: However, in THIS thread your opening post was specifically about Wollemia, correct? Therefore I have been addressing that example. Simply because you keep dragging in red herrings — all but (as far as I can tell) one of which has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere — doesn’t mean that I am required to address your blather.
quote:
2. Since evolution is falsified, your mythical, magical, unreproduceable, undetectable MPG is the default hypothesis PB: Since I am interested in the origin, I had a close look at the scientific content of evolutinsm. It can readily be falsified, and the rest is known. It is not even science, since science is interested in how things work, no matter what the truth is. According to evolutionists evolution is truth, even it can be scientifically falsified. The MPG is no less mythical than the evolutinary stories. One of the thousands of MPG's is still unchanged present in the Wollemi pine. The MPG can be tested by its predictions. As demonstrated, the MPG predicts properly, even better than evolutionism. And it can be falsified (letter #1). It is a scientific theory that holds that life popped into existance (creation) and it also holds that science is unable to address the questions concerning origin. It is supported by contemporary molecular biology, while evolutionism seems to be supported by biology, while it actually isn't.
This is just silly. All you’re doing is reasserting your already refuted premise AGAIN, without providing anything substantial to support it. Thousands of MPG’s? Name ten. Supported by contemporary molecular biology? Name five molecular biologists that support the MPG. Life popped into existence? When, specifically? How was this accomplished? etc
quote:
Q: The conclusion, and the reason I state that these points are key, is that if mainstream explanations CAN be used to account for the lack of variability in your evidence, your evidence cannot be used to falsify evolution. PB: For the last time: all examples I've shown can NOT be explained by evolutionism. Either they violate random mutation, or they violate selection, or they violate molecular genetic rules. In my previous letter I mentioned the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn. This observation can NOT be explained by evolutionism. Even Dr page admitted that. It is not even molecular biology, so you should be able to see that too. Of course you can ignore it.
Wollemia has a swim reflex? Or is this yet another red herring you’re attempting to bring into the discussion (like your horseshoe crabs)? Address MY points — not those you’re attempting to argue with others.
quote:
Q: Regardless of the truth or validity of MPG, you must show WHY specifically the mainstream explanations are false. PB: I did that over and over, with quotes from Dr Peakall, the guy who did the molecular genetic research on the tree. Problem is that you DON'T accept it, since it clashes with your worldview (I guess).
Which is a problem, since your quotes from Dr. Peakall are directly opposite to his published work IN HIS OWN WRITINGS — not those of some journalist. You are the one that consistently refuses to pay any attention to all of the references you’ve been provided, and consistently is unable to produce any of your own that support your claims.
quote:
Q: Then you must show evidence that MPG actually exists followed by why MPG should be considered the default hypothesis IN THE ABSENCE OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY EXPLANATIONS. PB: Now, I am trying to convey for over 5 months where biology clashes with evolutionism and provided an alternative explanation. For instance, there is the clearcut violation of genetic redundancies. They don't have an association with gene duplcation and do not change faster than essential genes. It is such enormous falsification of evolutionism that even evolutionary scientists do NOT believe that they are around (Surviving a knockout blow, Science 2002). In contrast, genetic redundancies are expected to be found in a MPG. That should be sufficient.
No, all you’ve been doing is reasserting the same damn thing over and over and over and over with absolutely NO additional supporting documentation (or for that matter ANY documentation). Can’t you get it through your head that nobody’s buying your hypothesis for the simple reason that you haven’t made a decent case in FAVOR of it?
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Quetzal,
{left out all irrelevant stuff} Maybe you didn't get it but I am going to change biology.
Good luck with the old paradigm  Best wishes
Peter
What a formidable reply. I guess biology is utterly crushed. Enjoy the rest of your career squirting toxins on cells to see whether they shrivel up and die or not.
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Well, well, well. The great Peter Borger deigns to acknowledge my existence again. I'm sooooo honored. In answer to your question, nope, I haven't heard back from her. However, that doesn't preclude you responding to the REST of that post. Have you heard back from Dr. Peakall, yet? Or did you just forget about your claim that you were going to contact him directly and get his backing for your multipurpose genome thingy?
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
PB: RECENTLY, I READDRESSED ALL HIS COMMENTS (See my mail #285). Problem with you and Quetzal is that you don’t take it as answers since evolutionism is 'a priori' the only possible explanation. Even when there is no explanation you prefer evolutionary stories above a scientific alternative. In fact is has not so much to do with science, but with your worldviews.
So your post 285 stands as your final response on this subject? Guess what - you lose. See my post 287 for the reasons why. You simply refused to actually answer the questions I posed - which were a synopsis of all of my main arguments on this thread. It doesn't get any simpler than that. The fact that you were utterly incapable of providing anything remotely resembling even a basic discussion in response shows you've lost. You have no argument - and have been shown conclusively to have no argument. Feel free to keep claiming your imminent revolution of biological science. You should simply publish a popular press book - you could make a fortune shilling the rubes - look at van Daniken and Velikovsky. Unfortunately for your credibility, no scientist will buy it.
|
™ Version 4.2