Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One Question for Evo-Bashers
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 18 of 102 (27095)
12-17-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
12-17-2002 2:26 PM


Hi Evo-guys,
Apparently it is hard for evolutionists to listen to what contemporary biology has to say. As mentioned several times in different threads: DESIGN CAN BE RECOGNISED BY (GENETIC) REDUNDANCIES. I am not going into it again. If you don't want to listen I don't mind. Stick to your outdated theory but don't bore us scientists with it.
Best wishes,
Peter
"Random mutation & selection. Don't let me laugh."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:26 PM John has not replied

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


Message 19 of 102 (27102)
12-17-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
12-17-2002 7:34 PM


Dear John,
J: If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped.
PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.
Best wishes,
Peter
"Random-mutation & selection? Don't let me laugh."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:34 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:45 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 29 by David unfamous, posted 12-18-2002 6:01 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 21 of 102 (27111)
12-17-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John
12-17-2002 8:45 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: No. I didn't miss it PeterB. Your position is silly. But I am sure you won't listen to reason-- which is why I never entered that debate.
PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.
best wishes,
Peter
"Random-mutation & selection? Don't let me laugh."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:45 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-17-2002 10:57 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 23 of 102 (27118)
12-17-2002 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
12-17-2002 10:57 PM


Dear John,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: The tree has identifiable ancestry going back 150 million years. That is hardly dropped into the forest from nowhere
PB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-17-2002 10:57 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 25 of 102 (27123)
12-18-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by John
12-17-2002 11:32 PM


Dear John,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Sorry, bud. The people who study it say otherwise.
PB: Now you have to provide a reference for your statement.
The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis (Ken Hill, senior botanist in Sydney's Royal Botanic Gardens, in 'The wollemi pine' by J. Woodford, science writer for the Sydney Morning Herald). So, it is not present in the fossil record. In addition, I had a look at the pollen of Wollemi pine and the ancient delwynites, alleged to be the pollen of ancient Wollemia. They don't match.
I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example? I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough. What kind of strategy is that?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 27 of 102 (27137)
12-18-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
12-18-2002 1:00 AM


Dear John,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Yeah. No kidding, PB. The tree is in a previously unknown genus. This does not mean it had no ancestors.
PB: Apparently it has no ancestors. Untill you proof otherwise.
J: You know... mommies and daddies? Though it looks like such may have died a long long time ago.
PB: That's your interpretation. I thought it was you who wrote elsewhere that you were fascinated by particles popping in and out of existence (uncertainty & quantum mechanics, I guess). In fact you should be amazed by the Wollemia nobilis. It's obvious from such observations that biology is not as we thought it to be.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it is not present in the fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Neither is my mom, but she exists. Really, PB, you present a pretty warped version of biology.
PB: Apparently, biology is not as simple as you think it is. From a proponent of a 19th century theory one can expect it, though.
J: Its family is present in the fossil record.
PB: Different genera are indeed present in the record. Agathis and Wollemia are distinct genera. Agathis is still around, so is Wollemia.
Why not show a contemporary Agathis in comparison with Wollemia? Because its DNA is distinctly different. Better compare it with something extinct, so nobody can track the molecular evidence.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet sonnike understand why this isn't one.
PB: How does such organism look like, than?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ummm... its not what I asked for.... what you have given me is your fantasy version of science.
PB: You asked for an organism that popped into existence in some kind of forest. I gave you an example that can be interpreted like that. Now, it is not what you asked for. How do we recognise the organism you asked for, than?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of strategy is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: I'll talk seriously with sonnike. But you? I have seen what you write. I really couldn't care less what you think. Sorry.
PB: You could care less because my vision opposes your evolutionary interpretation of data and I am able to scientifically defend my vision. That scares you.
Best wishes,
Peter
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. A. Huxley"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 12-18-2002 3:51 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 12-18-2002 6:30 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-18-2002 2:18 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 35 of 102 (27254)
12-18-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John
12-18-2002 2:18 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Apparently it has no ancestors. Untill you proof otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: That is laughable, PeterB. The rational extrapolation from observations of nature is that the tree has parents. If you wish to assert otherwise, it is you who needs to prove it. ( note: the word is 'prove')
PB: Since when do we live in the upside down world? I have to proof a non-existence? Don't fool me. Ever heard about the scientific method? To proof a non-existence.....incredible, that you come up with such answers.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: That's your interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Yeah, and a pretty wild fantasy it is, as every living thing on the planet, as far has has been proven thus far, has at least one parent(used loosely).
PB: All theories start like phantasies. Thing is to provide evidence. I did that. Now there is denial, scoffing, mocking, argumenta ad hominem, etcetera. Since I am a stoic I don't mind. I rather present some new ideas than being blinded by 19th century vanity. As if random mutation and selection would be all....don't let me laugh.
Besides, the first organism ever to have 'evolved' through abiogenesis didn't have parents, so your assertion is false.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was you who wrote elsewhere that you were fascinated by particles popping in and out of existence (uncertainty & quantum mechanics, I guess).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Right. And no one has shown this effect at larger than subatomic scale. I don't think the tree qualifies.
PB: Why do you think so? It was you who invented quantum mechaniscs, I guess.
J: Are you venturing into yet another area you know nothing about?
PB: What do you mean? What is the other area I do not know anything about?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact you should be amazed by the Wollemia nobilis. It's obvious from such observations that biology is not as we thought it to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Actually, to real biologists, it is obvious that biology is exactly what we thought it to be.
PB: Now you must present me a reference. Real biologists are biologists advocating evolutionism?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Apparently, biology is not as simple as you think it is. From a proponent of a 19th century theory one can expect it, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: God, I love when you get all cocky and bombastic. It makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Of course, you may as well peg me for buying into that heliocentric claptrap too. That one is much older, and so obviously that much more incorrect.
PB: Apparently you don't get what I am trying to convey. It is dead-obvious that evolutionism is not the whole story in this universe. At least not as it has been set up in the 1930s. The theory is outdated and has been overthrown several times on all levels. I even contributed to it. So draw your conclusions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Different genera are indeed present in the record. Agathis and Wollemia are distinct genera. Agathis is still around, so is Wollemia.
Why not show a contemporary Agathis in comparison with Wollemia? Because its DNA is distinctly different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Yeah, its DNA is distinctly different. Just like the DNA between any two genera. Hmmmm..... not the same critter == not the same DNA. Geez, PB, pretty insightful. Besides, this would be the case with your MPG hypothesis as well, so why is this even an issue?
PB: It is an issue since you claim that there is a mother and a father in the fossil record. But there isn't. And remember I do not have to proof a non-existence.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better compare it with something extinct, so nobody can track the molecular evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Better compare it with something it actually resembles, rather than something it resembles less well.
J: Oh, and, my well informed friend, the genes of the two have been compared.
http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/conifers/ar/wo/ writes:
"Sequences were obtained for the rbcL gene from chloroplast DNA of the newly discovered Australian conifer Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), 5 species of Araucaria and 4 species of Agathis. Phylogenetic analysis of our new data and other available sequences indicate that 1) Araucariaceae is monophyletic; 2) Agathis and Araucaria are both monophyletic; 3) Wollemia is the sister group to Agathis; 4) the Pinaceae are the sister group to all other conifers, although the monophyly of the conifers is not unequivocally demonstrated" (Gilmore and Hill 1997).
PB: ...and they are both monophyletic. And what does the sistergroup mean scientifically? It is a 'trick' that holds that 'two immediate descendants of an ancestral species are of the same age. Hence, if A and B are two sister species (i.e. each other's closest relative) then A and B are at least as old as the oldest fossil of either A or B.' In other words: evo-blabla.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: How does such organism look like, than?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: That is part of the problem. We don't know, because we don't have one.
PB: So you are chasing something you don't know what it looks like? Vanity, all vanity.
J: The only hope is to weed out all of those critters that we know do have mommies and daddies, and spread the inference to anything similar as it it reasonable to assume that a tree that is similar to quite a few other trees also has a similar origin.
PB: Non-scientific inferrence. The usual evo-humbug that doesn't bring us a single step further.
J: In otherwords, for practical pruposes, it ought to not look like other species.
PB: What about the platypus? Not tracable in the fossil record.
J: That is the only way we'd be able to identify it. How different must it be? Maybe it uses only one of the four amino acids in DNA, something like that. Maybe it produces signifant numbers of proteins-- say 50% of the proteins it depends upon-- not found in any other animal.
PB: So you are making up your own criteria. Based on what? To keep up the appearance of evolution? Even if I presented you an organism like you describe you would back away. The usual evo-tactics. Try a black smoker, probably you will find this organism there.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You asked for an organism that popped into existence in some kind of forest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Discovered isn't 'popped into existence.' You must be confused.
PB: So, how do you discriminate between 'discovered' and 'popped into existence'?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you an example that can be interpreted like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: But not reasonably interpretted like that.
PB: Are you the judge, or what?
J: The chances of you being correct are tiny. The chance that this tree has relatives is nearly 100%.
PB: No, the organism can only be explained with the GUToB. Whether or not is has been created recently, I don't care. My goal is to scientifically overthrow evolutionism and I will.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You could care less because my vision opposes your evolutionary interpretation of data and I am able to scientifically defend my vision. That scares you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: No, PB. I don't care because I can't recall you ever once making a sensible argument.
PB: In the light of the outdated evolutionary vision I will never make a sensible argument. I don't care, since I have nothing to do with this ancient believe system.
Sometimes one has to think beyond the reigning paradigms. It will bring new science. In the 19th century everybody was looking for the ether. Einstein said there is no ether. End ether. In the 21st century everybody was looking for evolution. I say there is no evolution there is the MPG and non-random mutation. End evolution.
And no, your vision doesn't scare me. Why would it?
Have a nice day,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-18-2002 2:18 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-18-2002 7:12 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 39 of 102 (27417)
12-19-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
12-18-2002 7:12 PM


dear John,
J: Einstein had evidence. Everyone knew there were problems with the existing theories. A lot of people were working on it. Einstein was the one who put it together correctly, first.
PB: every self respecting objective scientist knows evolutionism is in trouble. I will give you 10 examples that bring it down:
1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
6) the ZFY region
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the insoluble IL-1beta incongruence
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNA
Genetic redundnacies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief (Nature - Not Found). The same accounts for adaptive mutations (Nature - Not Found).
Have a nice day,
Peter
"Random mutations & selection? Ancient humbug!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-18-2002 7:12 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:21 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 53 of 102 (27520)
12-20-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by derwood
12-20-2002 12:21 AM


Dear Dr Page,
Dr PAge: As you have contributed to the overthrow of evolutionism,
PB: Thanks for the recognistion.
Dr Page: ..I was perplexed, as you can imagine, when I did a literature search for your name and 'evolutionism' and 'overthrow' and I got zero returns..."
Perhaps you can provide a citation - or better yet, a reprint - of your seminal publications on this issue.
PB: "A reanalysis of life. Or how contemporary biology terminates the Darwinian era." By Dr P. Borger (In preparation).
Every now and than I have to present some of my ideas on a pro-evolutionary forum. To see how they will be conceived and for adaptation purposes. With great succes, I have to say. And maybe you didn't get it, "One doesn't have to be evolutionist to know something about biology".
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:21 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by John, posted 12-20-2002 5:29 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 55 of 102 (27523)
12-20-2002 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mammuthus
12-20-2002 5:46 AM


[copy deleted]
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 12-20-2002 5:46 AM Mammuthus has not replied

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


Message 56 of 102 (27525)
12-20-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mammuthus
12-20-2002 5:46 AM


Dear Mammuthus and Dr Page,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SLPx:
PB:
the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
I do hope that you are still not trying to claim that the paper in question posits a human-chimp divergence at 150,000 years ago...If so, that one example will "bring down" your entire feces..
I mean thesis...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Here Dr Page demonstrates again that he is unable to discuss scientifically on the topic of evolutionism.
M: Actually, everything on his list has been shown to be 1. a result of Borger's lack of any kind of relevant background in genetics and thus completely distorted views i.e. W.nobilis, ZFX 2. Ignoring the evidence exactly against what he is saying 3. claiming that the authors for any reference given against his point either say exactly the opposite of what they are saying or that the data says something that is does not i.e. 150 kya last common ancestor of chimp and human.
4. And most commonly, being repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong...
PB: How can one be wrong while we don't know what truth is? It were my INTERPRETATIONS and they are as good as yours.
...but then repeating the same falsehoods over and over without ever substantiating the claims.
PB: The issue is that you and Dr Page like story telling, while I prefer science.
And, it doesn't become you to be in the company of Dr Page.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 12-20-2002 5:46 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 8:43 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 57 of 102 (27539)
12-20-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
12-20-2002 5:29 PM


Dear john,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: "A reanalysis of life. Or how contemporary biology terminates the Darwinian era." By Dr P. Borger (In preparation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: So..... you mean to contribute, then? You haven't actually done so yet.
PB: You've had the privilege to already taste a bit of this reanalysis.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 12-20-2002 5:29 PM John has not replied

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


Message 58 of 102 (27540)
12-20-2002 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
12-20-2002 5:29 PM


Dear john,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: "A reanalysis of life. Or how contemporary biology terminates the Darwinian era." By Dr P. Borger (In preparation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: So..... you mean to contribute, then? You haven't actually done so yet.
PB: You've had the privilege to already taste a bit of this reanalysis on this forum.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 12-20-2002 5:29 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by John, posted 12-20-2002 9:59 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 60 of 102 (27544)
12-20-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
12-20-2002 8:43 PM


Dear mark,
PB: See my explanation to Buddika in "C. Bohar's debate challenge thread."
Hint: 'creation-creationism' compares to 'evolution-.....'
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 8:43 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 9:24 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 63 of 102 (27552)
12-20-2002 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
12-20-2002 8:43 PM


Dear Mark,
M:So how can you not be wrong, but tell SLPx he is repeating falsehoods? Surely they are his interpretations, non?
PB: What interpretations? All Dr Page does is mocking and scoffing. I would really appreciate to hear about his detailed scientific views (like Mammuthus does. At least M is able to elaborate on his views, although often they can be interpreted diffently).
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 8:43 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024