Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh Good - Bart is back
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 51 (30853)
01-31-2003 12:21 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 2 of 51 (30854)
01-31-2003 12:27 PM


In the now closed thread, Bart writes:
"Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut stated in his book 'Implications of Evolution', concerning the horse series:"
Now, is this the book that Kerkut wrote in 1960?
You may want to read this:
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evolves.htm
"1. When I wrote "The Implications of Evolution" in 1960, I firmly believed in Evolution but thought that the missing pieces were being glossed over and that students should see the points that required further research.
(see my www entry Implications of evolution under "Evolutionary chat by Gerald").
Advances have been made over the intervening 40 years and we now know a lot more. "
Emphasis mine.
The reader should wonder why the creationist feels the need to quote such out of date sources?
I know, of course, but does the reader?
Of course, there is this from Kerkut's web site:
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evol.htm
"The best evidence for Evolution comes from the way that new species are still evolving after geographical isolation. The next best evidence is the 99% similarity of the DNA genome in, for example, Man and Chimpanzees. "
Huh... Imagine that. I wonder when creationists will begin quoting that?
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-31-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-31-2003 12:36 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 8 of 51 (31053)
02-02-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
02-02-2003 10:15 AM


quote:
Schraf:
So, it would seem to me that the way to "bring down evolution (ism)" (whatever "evolutionism" is) would be to publish some work in the professional literature.
Why should we bother listening to what you have to say until you have produced some good peer-reviewed publications?
Indeed. Instead, we have denials of counter-evidence, refusals to accept refutations, etc.
All part and parcel of the creationist bag-o-tricks.
It is interesting, however, that the creationist so often sees the pointing out flawed 'debate' techniques, such as using 40 year old opinions of an individual that has altered them since, as a "personal attack."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 02-02-2003 10:15 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 8:09 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 51 (31055)
02-02-2003 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
02-01-2003 1:50 AM


quote:
Borger:
1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?
Ignoring for now the fact that creationist Borger is posting inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense as well as setting up Strawmen, I have a simple reply.
Apparently, Borger did not bother to find out what Tob and Cap are.
Tob is Trachypithecus obscurus. T. obscurus is an Old World primate. That is, it lives in africa (and asia).
Cap is Cebus apella. C. apella is a New World primate, that is, it lives in South America.
Biogeographical, fossil, and molecular data indicate that New and Old world primates diverged some 40 million years ago.
Is a split of 40 million years sufficient to explain the "sudden transition" to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by wj, posted 02-02-2003 10:40 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 51 (31118)
02-03-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by wj
02-02-2003 10:40 PM


Your precognitive skills are impressive....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by wj, posted 02-02-2003 10:40 PM wj has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 12 of 51 (32031)
02-12-2003 8:37 AM


Chirp chirp...
Must be that genetic redundancy and the creatons....

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 11:20 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 15 of 51 (32231)
02-14-2003 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
02-13-2003 8:09 PM


quote:
PB: Yeah, you would like to peer review my papers that question your methods, isn't it?
How could I 'review' what does not exist?
http://EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back -->EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back
What I can review is your naivete and ignorance based overconfidence.
I give that an A+.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 8:09 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 17 of 51 (32256)
02-14-2003 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by peter borger
02-14-2003 11:20 AM


And this has what to do with your supposed 'papers' that question my methods?
And where are the papers dealing with creations?
I will look at the paper, however, considering your performance on such things as the citations disproving NRMs and Dr.Caporale's book, I have little reason to believe that this paper in any way supports any of your many disjointed claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 11:20 AM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 18 of 51 (32257)
02-14-2003 12:59 PM


You will have to be more specific. I just searched Pubmed for Gu 2003 and got nothing in Nature.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 02-15-2003 12:42 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 20 of 51 (32447)
02-17-2003 12:46 PM


From the abstract, emphases mine:
quote:
Here we show that there is a significantly higher probability of functional compensation for a duplicate gene than for a singleton, a high correlation between the frequency of compensation and the sequence similarity of two duplicates, and a higher probability of a severe fitness effect when the duplicate copy that is more highly expressed is deleted"
Comments:
Borger implies that this demonstrates the "redundancy" implicit in his made-up gibberish.
But is it?
Not really.
First of all, if the MPG already had all the "information" it needed, why would there be singletons at all (singletons being single-copy genes)? Does it not stand to reason that redundancy is worthwhile only if all the systems were redundant? Why only some?
The abstract also mentions that in yeast, about 1/4 of deleted genes wiht no phenotypic effects are compensated for by duplicate genes.
What about the rest?
And does this apply to multicellular eukaryotes as well?
Also of note - the compensatory gene will have a high sequene similarity to the deleted gene. That is, it will express a similar (and probably identical in function) protein. No big surprise there.
All in all, it looks as though this is another wild extrapolation.
I will coin a new term - the word "borger".
1. To "borger" something means to ascribe a meaning not indicated by the data.
(Although planetary weather data indicate that the predictions of "global warming" are coming to pass, anti-global warming advocates simply borger the data and claim that it shows that global warming is not occurring.)
2. To "pull a borger" means to conclude something not implied by the data, or to come to contrary conclusions in spite of the evidence. (The consensus of the panel was that nicotine is addictive, but the scientists employed by Big Tobacco pulled a borger and claimed that it is not.)
3. To "borger it", as in "borgered the data", means that data are wildly extrapolated or twisted to fit one's preconceived notions. Similar to 1. above, but more forceful. (The data clearly indicated the suspect's guilt, but his lawyer borgered it to make it appear that the data actually indicated that the victim had committed the crime.)
This is fun and easy.
=====================================================================
"There are only two groups of people that I can't stand:
Those who hate groups of people based solely on their heritage or culture, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 02-17-2003 5:29 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 22 of 51 (32561)
02-18-2003 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by peter borger
02-17-2003 5:29 PM


I take it that Borger has an aversion to comedies.
Nigel Powers is a fictional character, father of Austin Powers.
It was meant in jest.
Pity that Borger is so humorless.
Of course, this matches his inability to produce logical conclusions premised on science.
Then, one should wonder why Borger deigned not to reply to anything I had written pertaining to his latest "MPG-friendly" article...
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 02-17-2003 5:29 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 02-18-2003 6:09 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 25 of 51 (32670)
02-19-2003 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by peter borger
02-18-2003 6:09 PM


I am still waiting for Borger to borger the paper indicating that in fact the alpha actinin genes show good evidence of arising via duplication and subsequent mutation, or any of the substantive issues I brought up above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 02-18-2003 6:09 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 29 of 51 (33243)
02-26-2003 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by wj
02-25-2003 11:59 PM


Oh, bother
quote:
You do not appear to have requested these data on this thread. And you did not seem to need such before posting message #4. Why would you even require a phylo-tree if you believe that they are based on faulty Darwinian evolutionary theory?
Borger did not ask for such information.
It is simply the creationists deceptive way of trying to wiggle out of a tight spot.
Of course, Borger previously claimed to have read my and Goodman's 'stuff". If this were so, he would know what the "phylo-tree" is and what the codes stand for.
I have to conclude that Borger lied about having read any of my stuff. That or he simply did not understand it.
In addition, I have previously provided a link to another alignment which contained the codes used.
Looks like Borger has been getting advice from Sarfati and crew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by wj, posted 02-25-2003 11:59 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 02-26-2003 8:36 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 34 of 51 (33430)
02-28-2003 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by peter borger
02-26-2003 8:36 PM


Re: Oh, bother
quote:
dear Dr.Page,
Either you provide this board with all codes and a tree, or this is another one of your defeats.
I don't mind it is up to you,
BWAAAHHAAAAAHHHAAAAA!!!!
Thats rich! Thats a keeper!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 02-26-2003 8:36 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 35 of 51 (33433)
02-28-2003 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by peter borger
02-26-2003 11:56 PM


Re: Oh, bother
This just keeps getting better - Borger says that he will explain things when he gets the data, but he ALREADY HAS IT!
THAT is where he made his laughable Tob/Cap gaffe - it was IN THE DATA!
This is just a comedy, now, and Borger is the fall guy.
Incredible....
I guess I HAVE to conclude that Borger lied when he said that he had 'read my stuff.'
He is also continuing to lie when he refers to the data I linked to - data that he claimes not to have yet takes information from it and declares it supportive of his fantasy - as my "ultimate proof" of common descent. His repetition of this knowingly false claim puts Borger in the esteemed company of Wally "Kuckoo" ReMine, Freddy "1 chance in 32 means that the 32nd one is the winner" Williams, Henry "polyploidy means gene duplication" Morris, etc.
Good creationism, Petey old boy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by peter borger, posted 02-26-2003 11:56 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024