molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

Dear Itz,You write:
Your position that "gene duplication followed by mutation" does not happen is in direct conflict with Peter Borger's who used the strong evidence for selection on duplicated genes (a high rate of nonsynonymous mutations, clearly "gene duplication followed by mutation") as evidence for his multipurpose genome theory.My response:
Gene duplication is a observed phenomenon, so I do not dispute it. It is part of the MPG and accounts for rapid drug resistence after extreme selection constraints. The mechanism to duplicate genes is protein mediated. One often sees duplications in cancer cells in patients that become resistent to oncostatic drugs. In the case of extreme selection it can be expected that a counteracting protein is amplified in reponse to the drugs. In cancer cells usually membrane-associated pumps are amplified (mdr's/pgp's).If (random) duplications played a role in evolutionism we would expect to find them in the genome as genetic redundancies. Thus --according to this scenario-- an association between duplications and genetic redundancies is expected to be found (=evolutionary prediction). However, genetic redundancies and duplications are NOT associated, so the prediction is falsified. In conlusion, duplications do not play a role in evolutionism. Similarly, it has been demonstrated that chromosomal duplications do not play a role in construction of (the human) genome(s) (Huges et al).Unless strong selective constraints are present, duplications in bacteria are usually selected against (due to a increased DNA synthesis period; they become 'overgrown'). As stated in 'Molecular Biology of th gene' (Watson JD, et al, page 200, ISBN: 0-8053-9614-4): "The moment that such selective pressure is removed, the disadvantage of the unnecessary genetic duplication manifests itself. Then new variants [that is the wild type, nothing new here pb] are selected that eliminate the duplicated DNA through crossing over events [a protein mediated mechanism, pb]."
These actual facts and observations on microorganisms severely limit (bacterial) genome growth and thus evolutionism in general. I really wonder, do evolutionists ever read books on molecular biology?

Dear mammuthus,PB:
As mentioned before sensible DNA sequences are sequences that have a function, for instance in splicing, gene regulation, stabilisiation of DNA and/or mRNA, etc. The fact that introns demonstrate conserved regions within species points in the direction of 'sensible sequences' involved in gene regulation.
M: Funny, earlier your debate tactic was to say no site was neutral because nobody had excluded a function for every single base pair in the genome..now you are backpedalling.PB:
As a matter of fact, sometimes I have to invent a term to describe properly what is observed in the genome.M: You would not have to if you read primary literature..or even textbooks to find out what the sequences are actually called..but if it massages your ego to make up a language to explain long known phenomenon..knock yourself out..PB: How are these sequences referred to, then? I would really like to know.PB:
Since 'sense-' and 'antisense sequences' already have a well defined meaning, I rather use 'sensible sequences' for DNA sequences that serve a function.M: Which is completely non-descriptive as it does not specificy or even suggest what the function is...and it sounds like a fashion statement like sensible shoes. Or maybe you are advocating sensible shoes in the labPB: Please elaborate a bit on this.best wishes,
Peter

Dear Quetzal,Q: 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.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.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?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).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)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).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.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.Q: 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.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.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.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Mammuthus,I guess it is your vocation to answer all my posts. And as an atheist you have to keep up the appearance of a rebuttal (although you never debunked one of my examples). If I were you I would read my initial mailing #1 carefully and what my comments on the Wollemia nobilis DNA are. The rest is irrelevant. The tree's DNA is NOT in accord with evolutionism. That's all I wanted to show, just one more falsification of evolutinism.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Quetzal,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.PB: It is obvious that you do not want to discuss the molecular genetic problem with the Wollemi pine. Instead, you prefer to refer to my posts as non-answers. The only answer you will take as an answer is an answer that is a story told by evolutionism. Even if it isn't explanatory in this case, you prefer an evolutionary story above what is really going on in nature. It keeps science from making progress.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?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: 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.PB: Your statements above didn't require an answer. The answers to your questions can not come from the evolutinary paradigm, since there is no answer in the evolutionary paradigm. So, for you there will never be an answer to this question. I guess, you don't mind since you are not interested in what is really going on. To answer your question again: The invariable DNA of the Wollemia nobilis can NOT be explained by the evolutionary paradigm. The only answer you accept is: Yes, it can be explained by conventional wisdom. I have to disappoint you, since it can NOT.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).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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).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.]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)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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:"Peakall's first thought was that the Wollemia must have become a single organism. He also hypothesised that genetic drift could explain the lack of variability. 'The puzzling thing about that is that while a population of plants may become identical in theory and on computer, in the wild you can lose variability but you NEVER have none.'" (p161). "The easiest explanation of why the two sites where identical is that Wollemia nobilis is a giant clone, spread downstream from the second site and the trees are one enormous organism that has been divided in two by some catastrophe. In this theory, stems would have emerged from roots underground and become new trees. The existence of seedlings added to the confusion; Peakall was under the impression [and I guess Quetzal is too, PB] that both sites consisted only of teenage and adult trees. There was no evidence given to him that any of the seedlings were reaching a reproductive age. According to theory, if this were happening he ought NOT to have found the results that he did: when two genetically identical clone sexually reproduce with each other their offspring should have DNA different from its clonal parents. Even if two identical seedlings had reproduced then Peakall would expect to find variability in the population. (p164). But he didn't although he screened 'over 1000 points in the Wollemi's genome.. [where one].. would normally expect to find variation after searching a handful of them'" (p160-161).
The mystery of the pine deepened further after visting the gorge. "Peakall writes to the head of the Wollemi pine conservation team, Bob Conroy: 'While the distance between the site is not that great as the crow flies, it now seems to me that genetic exchange among populations via pollen flow is very unlikely given the convoluted pathway required and the density of the intervening vegetation, Peakall told Conroy". [..] "A new theory was needed to explain Peakall's results. Wollemi pines, he told Conroy, may not have become identical in the canyon. They must have been extraordinarily genetically similar before climate change forced them in there and this low variability, over thousands of years, has been further exaggerated by cloning in one big stand of pines that had somehow split in two" (p166-167). We [Woodford and Peakall, PB] talked about how, in the case of Wollemi pines [and for sure not the only case as I demonstrated, PB] evolution theory did not sit comfortably." (p169). "Maybe what is happening here, Peakall reflected, is that over a long evolutionary history and despite low diversity these plants have developed an ALL-PURPOSE genotype" (p170).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.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).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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).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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.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).Q: In another post-script, who cares about the MPG?PB: I do, since evolutionism is false.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.Q: 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.PB: No, it is relevant. I demonstrates that the MPG can explain all biologial observations, and the MPG hypothesis doesn't violate any of your explanations. As mentioned, inbreeding, bottlenecks, genetic drift, etcetera can readily be intgerated into the MPG hypothesis. Maybe you are under the impression that these terms are evolutionism, but they aren't. It is population genetics.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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.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.PB: Vocation.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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.Q: [Edited to clarify that last statement. You have in this thread stated that:
1. Evolution is falsified, using the lack of genetic variability in Wollemia nobilis as evidencePB: No, you distort my words. I have shown 10 examples that violate evolutonism, and the Wollemia pine was just another violation.2. Since evolution is falsified, your mythical, magical, unreproduceable, undetectable MPG is the default hypothesisPB: 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.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.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).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.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-21-2002]

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

Dear Fred,Thanks for more evidence of the MPG,best wishes,
Peter

Dear Quetzal,You say: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.I say:
Sounds like..............evolutionism?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-21-2002]

Dear Mammuthus:In response to:The population of Mauritius kestrels is thought to have recovered from a single wild breeding pair in 1974, when its prospects were considered to be hopeless, to over 200 pairs today. Here we evaluate the loss of genetic variation that resulted from this bottleneck by typing 12 microsatellite DNA loci in museum skins up to 170 years old and from modern kestrels. We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species. This shows that the unexpected resilience of the population could not have been due either to benefits contributed by an undetected remnant population or to reduction of the inbreeding genetic load by a history of small population size.
*******************You very scientifically say:M: Bwaahaaahaaahaaa!!!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!!1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.PB: It is clear now that you do not know the differnce between a gene and microsatelite DNA. How did I ever, I wonder, get involved in this discussion with morons? M: From the abstract of your own reference:
"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species."PB: This in respect to microsattelite DNA, not genes. How did I ever, I wonder, .... etc.
Conclusion from the paper is that "the unexpected resilience of the population could not have been due either to benefits contributed by an undetected remnant population or to reduction of the inbreeding genetic load by a history of small population size."
My conclusion: MPG (meaning 'Multi-Purpose Genome', not 'Mammuthus Powered Gobbledegook' )M: Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass FredPB: I noticed that you regard Fred an illiterate. You could brush up on your reading capacity as well.5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes.PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT).M: And again:
We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.
Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..PB: It is easy to falsify theories. The evolutionary theory can aslobe readily falsified. Falsification apparently doesn't matter for the validity of origin theories. Ultimately it is all a matter of believe.M: Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot airPB: Still defending your religion, Mammuthus? I mean the Theory of Illusion; survival of fiction through random evasion and rejection.M: Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense.PB: Seeing your believe system going down hill can be painfull. So take care. I think, you wish (deep inside) that you never had registered. Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-22-2002]

Dear Mammuthus,You said in your previous letter:"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.
Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..""What does the MPG say?The multipurpose genome (MPG) hypothesis holds that:1) DNA sequences within species —-although plastic-- are stable throughout time,
2) organisms demonstrate genetic redundancies that reside in the genome without selective constraint,
3) adaptive phenotypes are due to duplication and/or shuffling of preexisting DNA elements —either genes or other non-coding elements-- that affect gene expression, or due to loss of (redundant) genes/DNA [=degeneration theory],
4) the function of natural selection is to remove degenerate organisms, and
5) there is/has been creation (=creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field giving rise to genes and genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs).Have a look at point #3. Loss of genes/DNA is expected to take plce over time. Especially when populations are split, reduced etcetera. I have mentioned this several times before. Loss of DNA is part of the degeneration theory, that is part of the MPG that is part of the GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Mammuthus,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: It is clear now that you do not know the differnce between a gene and microsatelite DNA. How did I ever, I wonder, get involved in this discussion with morons?M: LOL! there are also microsatellites in genes...oh but you knew that already of course seems that you must be the moronPB: I already discussed the contemporary definition of a gene with Dr Page. It was obvious he didn't know much about genes. Do you propose to include microsatelites in this definition? For instance as DNA element affecting gene expression. If yes, then I don't see a problem for the MPG hypothesis. If no, than I was right in claiming that you don't know the difference between an gene and microsatelite DNA.M: tenet 1 still falsified...hear that sound...Peter the great's grand schemes falling downPB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over.M: From the abstract of your own reference:
"We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species."PB: This in respect to microsattelite DNA, not genes. How did I ever, I wonder, .... etc.M: You obviously never wondered or YOU would know something about microsatsPB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer.PB:
My conclusion: MPG (meaning 'Multi-Purpose Genome', not 'Mammuthus Powered Gobbledegook' )M: Based on too heavy consumptions of drugs inducing denial of the falsification of the Mentally Poor Garbage hypothesisPB: M: Well you just shot predicition 1 in the ass FredPB: I noticed that you regard Fred an illiterate. You could brush up on your reading capacity as well.M: Says the guy who never cracked open a book on pop gen or read a single citation provided for him....I never claimed Fred is an illiterate..I claimed he is an imbecilePB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution.5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes.PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT).M: And again:
We find that ancestral variation was remarkably high and comparable to continental kestrel species.
Showing that the kestrels that are dead (museum skins) had more variation than the bottlenecked ones today...predicition 5 falsified..PB: How is your answer related to my reponse? I was talking about the W. nobilis, not the raptor.PB: It is easy to falsify theories.M: Your hypothesis certainly was..and your old buddy Fred provided the reference falsifying two of your hypothesis predicitions..you guys make a great team...you are the Jamaican bobsled team of creationism.PB: Actually, Fred provided further evidence for the MPG hypothesis. It is incredible how evolutionists are able to bend evidence for the MPG hypothesis in favour of their views.PB:
The evolutionary theory can also be readily falsified. Falsification apparently doesn't matter for the validity of origin theories. Ultimately it is all a matter of believe.M: You mean evolution or abiogenesis..surely the great Peter Borger would not confuse them?PB: Here you introduce another evolutionary trick. (Like you did before when you refered to population genetics as evolution). The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells. Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy. Anyway, if you don't wanna discuss this topic let's talk about the RAG2 gene in mammals. Here you must give an evolutionary explanantion, since we are halfway evolution from microbe to man, and the gene just drops out of the sky. Likewise the TcR gene drops out of the sky. Gene duplication and mutations will not help you here.M: Oh well the Miles Per Gallon theory just ran out of gas....though Fred and Peter continue to be full of hot airPB: PB: Still defending your religion, Mammuthus? I mean the Theory of Illusion; survival of fiction through random evasion and rejection.M: Nope..still an atheist....2 minutes go by...check..nope still an atheist...PB: The atheistic religion is called evolutionism. As mentioned "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but the theory of evolution is not one of them (L. Spetner, and proven by contemporary molecular biology)"M: Hey Fred...keep posting references...you save me the trouble of posting the evidence that refutes your nonesense.PB: Seeing your believe system going down hill can be painfull. So take care. I think, you wish (deep inside) that you never had registered.M: LOL!!!!!!!!! I am delighted that I registered..you and Fred have provided me with more comic relief than I have had in a long time.PB: I can't see why you consider falsifications of evolutionism so funny. Anyway, now evolutionism has been falsified beyond any doubt, we can use some good molecular scientists in medicine.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-25-2002]

Dear Quetzal,Did you hear anything from Dr Offord, yet?I'd be very happy to hear about it.
I think I know her answer: the pines are grown from seeds.Best wishes,
Peter

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]PB: I already discussed the contemporary definition of a gene with Dr Page. It was obvious he didn't know much about genes. Do you propose to include microsatelites in this definition? For instance as DNA element affecting gene expression. If yes, then I don't see a problem for the MPG hypothesis. If no, than I was right in claiming that you don't know the difference between an gene and microsatelite DNA.M: One example of many...is there actually anything about molecular biology that you do have a firm understanding of???Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 Nov;87(11):4984-90 Related Articles, LinksAssociation Studies between Microsatellite Markers within the Gene Encoding Human 11beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 and Body Mass Index, Waist to Hip Ratio, and Glucocorticoid Metabolism.Draper N, Echwald SM, Lavery GG, Walker EA, Fraser R, Davies E, Sorensen TI, Astrup A, Adamski J, Hewison M, Connell JM, Pedersen O, Stewart PM.Division Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital (N.D., G.G.L., E.A.W., M.H., P.M.S.), Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom B15 2TH.PB: So they have a regulatory function?PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over.M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised?PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer.M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genes PB: That doesn't answer the question, isn't it? You already mentioned that they are sometimes present in genes and I claim them as proof for the MPG since I say they have a regulatory function. And indeed your reference confirms my prediction. THEY HAVE A REGULATORY FUNCTION, and they will contribute to phenotypic variation. Simelarly, RNA editing gives rise to variability. Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. We don't need 'genetic variability' to get phenotypic variation! It's already present in the MPG. Isn't that great! While evolutionism can be falsified on all levels, the MPG seems to do the right predictions on all levels. Isn't that curious for 'a whole lot of bogus'?PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution.M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited.PB:
1)I know what genomic imprinting is and I know the underlying mechanisms. It is part of the MPG, and it also contributes to phenotypic variations not due to genetic variations.2) I know what fitness is: adaptability or suitability.3) You say that evolutionism is equivalent to population genetics. Of course it is not. Futuyma and you use the definition of population genetics to keep up the appearance of evolution. As mentioned before, if population genetics is evolutionis I would also be an evolutionist. However, as mentioned several times before, "evolution is the hypothetical, never observed process that all life descended from one single celled organism by the utter naturalistic mechanism of random mutations and selection."4)It was you who said that thalidomide is a mutagens, while I said it inhibits angiogenesis. I am right (see abstract below).[Thalidomide: new uses for an old drug][Article in Dutch]Wu KL, Sonneveld P.Erasmus Medisch Centrum, locatie Dijkzigt, afd. Hematologie, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam.Thalidomide was withdrawn from the market in the early sixties because of its teratogenic effects. Despite forty years of research, the mechanism of thalidomide embryopathy has remained unsolved. Thalidomide has various immunomodulatory effects. Thalidomide inhibits TNF alpha production, has T-cell costimulatory properties and modulates the expression of cell surface molecules on leukocytes in vivo. Thalidomide also has anti-angiogenic activity in vivo. Angiogenesis plays an important role in the pathogenesis of both solid tumours and hematologic malignancies such as multiple myeloma and lymphoma. In clinical studies, thalidomide has been used as an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Erythema nodosum leprosum is the only registered indication for the use of thalidomide in the United States of America. Thalidomide is also effective in the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease, mucocutaneous lesions in Behcet's syndrome and HIV infections, and multiple myeloma.PB: As demonstrated by the Wollemia nibilis. And as I mentioned, it is an extreme. But still. A good scientific theory should do risky predictions. The MPG does a very risky prediction, and it turned out to be right. Case proven. Fare well old paradigm (=NDT).M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case.PB: Quetzal is like you. He prefers story telling above scientific facts. It is vanity to discuss with people who's first rule of life is 'evolutionism is true. period'. They cannot think beyond this paradigm.PB: How is your answer related to my reponse? I was talking about the W. nobilis, not the raptor.M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well.PB: I debunked all his arguments. In fact there were only 2 relevant arguments the rest fits the MPG as well.PB: Actually, Fred provided further evidence for the MPG hypothesis. It is incredible how evolutionists are able to bend evidence for the MPG hypothesis in favour of their views.M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignment PB: I know how the evolutionary disciplin works, and how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism. I wouldn't call it science, however. Real science shows all data and discusses the data unbiased. (since we don't know how nature works, you know).
Would be nice that when I write a paper that the discussion is every time the same: there would be nothing to discuss since evolution did it anyway.PB: The atheistic religion is called evolutionism. As mentioned "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but the theory of evolution is not one of them (L. Spetner, and proven by contemporary molecular biology)"M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now.PB: Atheism is not the issue here. The issue is evolutonism, and why it is false. However, if I don't know anything about it please explain what atheism is.PB: Here you introduce another evolutionary trick. (Like you did before when you refered to population genetics as evolution).M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick.PB: The subject was evolutionism and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the evolution of lifeless matter into replicators, into the first single celled replicating organism. Therefore, it IS evolution. So, not addressing it demonstrates that you and your evo friend are playing us a trick. A trick that is eagerly propagated in the media to keep people from the truth.PB:
The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells.M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further.PB: Even if you called it 'blind-the-public-with-another-meaningless-term' it still involves evolution from life less matter into organic matter into organic replicators into replicating cells into replicating organisms. THAT IS EVOLUTION!PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy.M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news.PB: Here you demonstrate the summit of evolutionism's fallacies and it gives the readers a good insight in your logics: "Since we are here there is evolutionism." Incredible, the fact that we are here is taken as evidence for evolutionism! You call that science? I call that conclusion-MEGA-jumping-humbug.PB: Anyway, if you don't wanna discuss this topic let's talk about the RAG2 gene in mammals. Here you must give an evolutionary explanantion, since we are halfway evolution from microbe to man, and the gene just drops out of the sky. Likewise the TcR gene drops out of the sky. Gene duplication and mutations will not help you here.M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them.PB: I take this as a non-answer. However, if you have a proposal for the RAG2 I am happy to find out about it.PB: I can't see why you consider falsifications of evolutionism so funny. Anyway, now evolutionism has been falsified beyond any doubt, we can use some good molecular scientists in medicine.M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as wellPB: What is the best review on prions? Like to read it.Best wishes, and good luck with your research.Peter

Dear mammuthus,PB: (about microsats) So they have a regulatory function ?M: You told me that microsats had nothing to do with genes and now you are asking me? I thought I was the stupid evolutionist and you were the expert who would clear my head?PB: I DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT. I asked you whether you regard microsats as part of these genes, or not. I think, since they affect gene transcription they serve a regulatory function. They are among the jumping DNA elements that contribute to genetic variability as predicted by the MPG hypothesis.PB: Dear mammuthus, nothing was falsified here. Do you know what a falsification is? I guess not, since evolutionism is still around as ascientific theory, while it has been falsified over and over.M: Then it is clear that your definition of falsification is anything that Peter Borger does not understand...so I guess there is no valid theory of gravity or quantum mechanics or are you going to show the proof for both of these as you promised?PB: Are microsats part of the gene or not? That's the question. Maybe you could give a straight answer.PB: SINCE I DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE, are microsast part of these genes or not?M: Still waiting on your proof of quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity Peter...you brought it up so you have to support it.M: Surprise surprise...microsats are sometimes in genesPB: That doesn't answer the question, isn't it? You already mentioned that they are sometimes present in genes and I claim them as proof for the MPG since I say they have a regulatory function. And indeed your reference confirms my prediction. THEY HAVE A REGULATORY FUNCTION, and they will contribute to phenotypic variation. Simelarly, RNA editing gives rise to variability. Also in accord with the MPG hypothesis. We don't need 'genetic variability' to get phenotypic variation! It's already present in the MPG. Isn't that great! While evolutionism can be falsified on all levels, the MPG seems to do the right predictions on all levels. Isn't that curious for 'a whole lot of bogus'?M: First off, you claimed microsats cannot be in genes, they can, you were wrong. Second, expansion repeats don't just regulate, they cause diseaes..look up fragile X. Third, I don't see how RNA editing falsifies evolution. Actually, anything that provides variablility falsifies MPG since you say the genome is dedicated to remaining stable. But since you claim that MPG answers everything I guess you will now address all those posts you ignored on such thing as evidence for creatons? morphogenetic field? non-random mutation?PB: MICROSATS CANNOT BE IN GENES? Apparently they can and have regulatory functions. However, the gene cannot be at random interrupted by microsats since then the gene would become non-functional. That how knockouts are generated. So, there must be an eleborate protein/RNA driven mechanism involved. It sound a lot like preexisting mechanism that induce variation. It is pointing towards a MPG. Maybe there is also degeneracy in this mechanism and can give rise to genetic disorders when these elemenst are integrated in the wrong spot.PB: As mentioned before I am an expert in contemporary biology. Therefore, I see right through the outdated hypothesis of evolution.M: Interesting that for an expert yuo did not know anything about genomic imprinting, fitness, population genetics, or how thalidomide affects development...maybe your definition of expert needs revising since non-experts on this board have shown a broader level of knowldege about basic molecular bio than you have exhibited.PB:
1)I know what genomic imprinting is and I know the underlying mechanisms. It is part of the MPG, and it also contributes to phenotypic variations not due to genetic variations.M: Oh, so you know what the mechanisms underlying imprinting are? Please expand on this as the rest of the scientific community does not. What is the role of H19? How exactly does Prader Willi syndrome work at the molecular level..always wanted to know.PB: HAVE ALOOK HERE: Am J Med Genet. 2002 Dec 1;113(3):307-8. Prader-Willi syndrome due to 15q11-q13 deletion in a girl with an inherited (13;14) Robertsonian translocation.Apparently it involves a deletion on chromosome 15. The non-traceable form may be due to degeneracy in the histone-code. Most likely, the genes in this region are silenced while they shouldn’t. It gives a similar effect as the deletion is my guess. Yes, Mammuthus, there is much more than plain genetics. I postulate that the major part of the diseases is due to regulatory aberrations.2) I know what fitness is: adaptability or suitability.M: Wrong, try again.PB: IF YOU KNOW SO WELL, why don’t you tell me?3) You say that evolutionism is equivalent to population genetics. Of course it is not. Futuyma and you use the definition of population genetics to keep up the appearance of evolution. As mentioned before, if population genetics is evolutionist I would also be an evolutionist. However, as mentioned several times before, "evolution is the hypothetical, never observed process that all life descended from one single celled organism by the utter naturalistic mechanism of random mutations and selection."M: Already addressed this in another thread but wrong again Peter.PB: No, YOU ARE TAKING THE definition for population genetics for evolution. Maybe you can claim population genetics as part of evolutionism. But you can’t interchange the definitions. Taking part for the whole is a ‘PARS PRO TOTO FALLACY’.4)It was you who said that thalidomide is a mutagens, while I said it inhibits angiogenesis. I am right (see abstract below).M: That is very revisionist of you Peter...I asked you how thalidomide works or if you knew what it was and you asked me to tell you Rather different than what you have stated above...PB: IN ANOTHER THREAD YOU said that is a mutagens. It isn’t. It is an inhibitor of angiogenesis. That’s what I said. You cannot always be right.M: So of 1-4 you did not know 2 and 3, made a claim without support about 1 and revised the history of 4 to make it look like you knew it all along...very interesting for the molecular biology expert. And what was that you were ranting about in the other thread...you know about arguments from authority are not validPB: If we make up the score anyway, than you didn’t know 1, 3 and 4, while you don’t provide an answer to 2. That’s 0 out of 4. I am leading. M: Quetzal ripped you a new poop shoot on this subject and falsified your claims to the point that you were unable to even answer the 4 basic question he asked regarding the subject...so hardly suggests a proven case.PB: Quetzal is like you. He prefers story telling above scientific facts. It is vanity to discuss with people who's first rule of life is 'evolutionism is true. period'. They cannot think beyond this paradigm.M: So I take it you concede you cannot address Quetzal's 4 points or Quetzal's thread on morphogenetic fields and creatons for that matter. Though you somehow seem to view me as your nememsis on this board, you are overlooking the amount of time you spend avoiding Quetzal. I guess I am an easier targetPB: Easier target? Don't underestimate yourself. However, Quetzal is wrong. (That makes me remind that I still have to write a letter to Dr peakall who will confirm my assertions.)M: Quetzal falsified your nonesense with the W. nobilis..I was talking about how the kestrel example that Fred provided shoots your hypothesis down in flames as well.PB: I debunked all his arguments. In fact there were only 2 relevant arguments the rest fits the MPG as well.M: Interesting, this must have been done in your head and you forgot to post it since I never saw a response to his four points.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.M: I know it is hard for you and Fred to understand how ACTUAL science works as opposed to your fairy tales....but you could always make another attempt to show us all non-random mutation in SLPx alignmentPB: I know how the evolutionary disciplin works, and how they keep up the appearance of evolutionism. I wouldn't call it science, however. Real science shows all data and discusses the data unbiased. (since we don't know how nature works, you know).M: We don't know how nature works? You claimed that the MPG explains ALL biological phenomenon...how can you then say you don't know how nature works?PB: TILL NOW, I MEANT. The MPG in conjunction with NRM explains all biological phenomena.PB:
Would be nice that when I write a paper that the discussion is every time the same: there would be nothing to discuss since evolution did it anyway.M: No offense but many of your papers are very similar.PB: Similar indeed. But at least all data are discussed.M: Unwarranted conclusion without supporting data...what do you know about atheism? Nothing from you above statement..LOL! But I am glad to see you are consistently ignorant...you don't know almost anything about molecular biology or atheism...should we delve into world history to now.PB: Atheism is not the issue here. The issue is evolutonism, and why it is false. However, if I don't know anything about it please explain what atheism is.M: YOU brought atheism into this not me! Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods/supernatural donuts etc. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Many scientists who study and except evolution are christians.PB: As a scientist I do not accept a theory that can not be tested, doesn’t do predictions, and is unchanged after being falsified.
What Christians? Evolutionism makes Christ completely redundant. They are mutually exclusive.M: Your attempt to link evolution and atheism with some sort of negative connotation demonstrates you are a bigot...I guess you voted for Pym Fortuyn also.PB: ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, isn’t it? Mammuthus back to basics, I guess. Remember your first mail? It contained almost nothing but fallacies.M: Sorry that your agruments have no merit unless you redefine the subjects you oppose to say things that they don't...now that is a typical creationist trick.PB: The subject was evolutionism and abiogenesis.M: No the subject was evolution...you are now for the first time claiming a debate on abiogenesis.PB:
Abiogenesis is the evolution of lifeless matter into replicators, into the first single celled replicating organism.M: Abiogenesis is the ORIGIN of all life, not its evolution.PB: THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN ONE STEP? At once? I also heard Margulis claim this. Then, it is not evolution, it is CREATION, Mammuthus. Creation followed by evolution. But since evolution is demonstratebly wrong, all that remains is creation.PB:
Therefore, it IS evolution. So, not addressing it demonstrates that you and your evo friend are playing us a trick. A trick that is eagerly propagated in the media to keep people from the truth.M: It reflects you inability to deal with the concepts of evolution...PB: And not only my inability. There is not a single person on this earth who can say what evolution is and mankind eludes the underlying mechanisms completely. If such mechanism are present they violate the known laws ruling the universe, and that also points in the direction of creation.M (cont): ...by claiming that its definition is something that suits you rather than arguing the merits of the actual theory....in that case the MPG is falsified because you cannot show the proof for quantum mechanics and the MPG is all about quantum mechanics...so there.PB:
The rise of the first living cell is also evolutionism: evolution of replicators into replicating cells.M: Nope..still called abiogenesis..actually read what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists say before embarrassing yourself further.PB: Even if you called it 'blind-the-public-with-another-meaningless-term' it still involves evolution from life less matter into organic matter into organic replicators into replicating cells into replicating organisms. THAT IS EVOLUTION!M: mis-define-rant-rave-repeate...still not true...misdefine-rant-rave-repeat...still not true..keep trying Peter..maybe you can convince your local preist.PB: Dear Mammuthus, it's a fallacy.PB: DEAR MAMMUTHUS, IT IS A FALLACY: PSEUDO ARGUMENTATION TO CIRCUMVENT A PROBLEM.M: You mean we are not here? Wow..that is news.PB: Here you demonstrate the summit of evolutionism's fallacies and it gives the readers a good insight in your logics: "Since we are here there is evolutionism." Incredible, the fact that we are here is taken as evidence for evolutionism! You call that science? I call that conclusion-MEGA-jumping-humbug.M: I was making fun of you...but I see you are incapable of understanding even that...and I thought the Germans were tight asses..guess the Dutch trump them.PB: Oh, I see. M: Ah so your hypothesis has changed to the Dropping Out of Sky Theory?....How are we "halfway" evolved from microbe to human? That is a meaningless statement to begin with. And what specifically do you want to know about RAG2 and TcR? Furthermore, why should I post literature on the origins of these genes when you have a priori stated you will not read them? If you will read them I will post them.PB: I take this as a non-answer. However, if you have a proposal for the RAG2 I am happy to find out about it.M: It is not a non-answer..in this and other threads you have claimed you will not read literature that I post because it might force you to actually think...before I hunt down the RAG2 references I want to know if you will read them so I can save myself the time if you will not.PB: If you have a scientific explanation, I am eager to hear about it.M: Because your claims to falsifying evolution when you and Fred don't even know what it is are funny and make me laugh...but I will admit..Fred is way funnier than you....and what makes you think I am not doing molecular medicine? I work on prions and retroviruses after all Just happen to work on mammoths and other extinct animals as wellPB: What is the best review on prions? Like to read it.M: That is a tough one Peter. There are so many papers coming out all the time on prions that the most up to date reviews are almost always immediately out of date. Here is one current review: Curr Protein Pept Sci 2001 Sep;2(3):191-204 Related Articles, LinksInfective proteins: the prion puzzle.Ceciliani F, Pergami P.Dipartimento di Patologia Animale, Igiene e Sanita Pubblica Veterinaria, Universita di Milano, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy. Fabrizio.Ceciliani@unimi.itAccording to the Koch postulates an infectious organism is the one that can be isolated from an host suffering from a disorder, can be propagated in laboratory, can cause the same disease when introduced in another host, and finally, can be re-isolated from the host itself. If we change the word "organism" with the word "protein" we have a quite exact description of prions. Prion related disorders are a very unique category of infectious diseases. The ethiology of the so-called prionoses is related to the conversion of a normal protein (PrP(C), the cellular isoform of the prion protein) into a pathological form (the scrapie isoform of the prion protein, PrP(Sc)) which is able to propagate. The striking difference between the two forms seems to consist in a conformational modification of a mainly alpha-helix structured PrP(C) into a mainly beta-sheet PrP(Sc). The latter forms amyloid-like fibrils which precipitate into insoluble aggregates leading to the neurodegenerative changes specific of Spongiform Encephalopathies. This review will focus on the structure of the prion proteins and on PrP(C) cellular cycle, and it will discuss some hypothesis about the protein biochemical function. Finally, the various molecular mechanisms proposed for the development of conformational modifications will be reviewed, i.e. how a protein can become infectious by simply changing its structure.PB: THANKS A LOTHave a good one,
Peter

dear Quetzal,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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: So your post 285 stands as your final response on this subject? Guess what - you lose.PB: Brilliant! Is it a game? Or is it a discussion? Problem is that we have two opposite paradigms clashing here. I told you how I see the world, and I am unable to convince you. I know your worldview, and you are unable to convince me since your world view is not in accord with contemporary biology. It used to be a nice worldview. Unfortunately it cannot hold.Q: See my post 287 for the reasons why.PB: You mean where you deleted almost all my comments and quotes? You know how I see the pine, and explained in detail where I think it clashes your paradigm. You were not able to convince me with your alternative. So I stick to my interpretation.Q: You simply refused to actually answer the questions I posed - which were a synopsis of all of my main arguments on this thread.PB: No, you wanna hear evolutionary answers. I can't give you such answers since they are not present in the evolutionary paradigm.Q: 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.PB: I gave you several arguments but you don't wanna hear them since all you wanna hear are eolutionary arguments. Here, our worldviews clash.Q: 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.PB: dear Quetzal, I did several predictions from the MPG hypothesis that are not predicted by evolutionism and they turned out to be right. That is the best way to validate a theory. So, here your arguments are false. At best they are ad hominem, and in a previous letter you objected to such arguments. I even apologised, so don't play tricks on me now.Best wishes,
Peter