A Primate Puzzle for Page

Dear Page,Page: I have yet to see evidence for "creatons" and "morphogenetic fields" from the main (and, it seems, only) proponant of Gutob. Please present such evidence in one of the threads designated for discussions of mythology.PB: It is inferred from the fossil record. You infer evolution from the fossil record, I infer creatons from the fossil record. I predict that the Cambrian explosion was real. That is, as soon as the molecular analyses have finished it will turn out that the palaeontologists were right about the explosion. Molecular phylogeneticist think that the divergence took place much further back in time. If not, as I expect from GUToB, I rest my case. That will be the ultimate evidence in favour of GUToB. Let's await the outcome of the analysis.
Besides, you should now that I do not use them to explain what is going on in the genome. That can all be explained according NRM plus RM in an MPG.best wishes,
Peter

Please, everyone, do not raise the topic of GUToB. Peter Borger is not permitted to discuss it except in the one thread designated for that purpose.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

That is Dr.Page, to you.

---

Scotty,Those who want respect, give respect. I've also earned an advanced academic degree (Doctor of Jurisprudence), although mine, unlike yours, actually has a real world application outside of a stuffy classroom.However, unlike you, I don't insist that others call me "Dr." since it means such a person has major self esteem issues they thought would be taken care of by earning said degree.Perhaps if you had become a Psychologist you would have worked out your feelings of worthlessness. Guess we'll never know.Actually, I suggest you go see a shrink before your tortured thoughts provoke you to kill somebody simply because they don't agree with your bizarre belief molten rocks somehow have the capacity to create life in a relatively short period of time.Get some help. Or at least take an Anger Management class.Life will get better for you Scotty. Just stay positive!

Unless a constructive discussion soon develops out of this fracas, I'm inclined to close this thread.

That is indeed a bizarre belief. Can you demonstrate he holds this belief, as I am familiar with no hypothesis of abiogenesis that postulates this? Current hypotheses feature neither molten rock nor short periods of time (I assume you refer to the geological sense).Perhaps you'd like to debate your unique hypothesis in a new thread? I for one would be interested.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Sure, here's a crash course on the subject based on the evo stories I've been told:The solar sytem was once a swirling dust ball.Part of the dust ball collapsed onto itself to form a molten rock about 4.5 billion years ago.3.4 - 3.8 bya life magically appeared on the cooling rock, which we know intimately as the Earth.You do the math and fill in the blanks.Or do you believe in a different fairy tale? Please enlighten me. I'm always interested in hearing a good story.Demonstration over.

Upon doing that math, I discover your model requires molten rock to remain hot for about a billion years.Now, are you talking about the formation of the earth, or the origin of life? Simply because one comes before the other, doesn't mean that one causes the other. ("Ad hoc, ergo propter hoc" I think you lawyers say.)Perhaps you'd like to aquaint yourself with the geological models for the formation of the Earth, as well as the chemical models for the formation of self-replicating molecules. I imagine much info can be found on the web, as well as in relevant textbooks. Biologists generally aren't familiar with these theories because they aren't biological. Or won't you allow scientists the latitude to divide a complex question into it's constituent parts? As far as I'm aware, the only people who ever suggest that the theory of evolution explains all phenomena in the entire universe from it's origin, to the origin of the solar system, to the emergence of life, to the diversity of species - the only people who say that the theory encompasses everything are creationists.Now, why would that be? Maybe they're trying to set up straw men?------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Good luck crashfrog,
As soon as you press Zephan for definitions he runs like a whipped dog. Both he and Peter Borger deny that abiogenesis and evolution are different sciences. Peter denies that population genetics has anything to do with evolution. The two are so busy conjuring up cartoon strawmen (molten rock to man idiocy they keep trumpeting) of evolution to argue against that they have no time for actually thinking about what the theory of evolution actually is...I bet neither of them have ever read any literature on evolution.

Itz: So the inversion is different in chimpanzees and gorillas which suggests that it is not the same event in these two species. Finding distinct mutations in chimpanzees and gorillas does not disprove the current interpretation of primate phylogeny.PB: Thanks for falsifying Mammuthus' vision. Furthermore, I am not aware that my mail was to disprove primate evolution. I provided additional evidence for non random mutations (and thus directed evolutionary mechanisms). The comments from the paper demonstrate that the same spot in the p arm was involved several times in distinct organisms. You may call that a random mechanism, but obviously it is not. Page, I know that you keep trying, but you cannot deny scientific observations.M: In falsifiying what I proposed (do not have this paper so only had the abstract) it destroyed your hypothesis of non random mutation completely since you claimed the exact same rearrangement occurred in Gorilla and chimp and not in humans and organutan...you can try to save face by saying no matter what it must have been non-random but you have failed yet again....in addition, the model I proposed I can support with other loci particlarly HERV-K family integrations...but of course you know all about these with your extensive reading on the subject you wish to oppose .Oh, but here is another chance for you...where exactly will the next rearrangemnt occur in the primate lineage..if it is deterministic you must be able to tell that...culture chimp cells for a month and screen for rearrangemnts..you should be able to tell a priori if it is non-random...good luck..we await you results.

quote:

---

Page: I have yet to see evidence for "creatons" and "morphogenetic fields" from the main (and, it seems, only) proponant of Gutob. Please present such evidence in one of the threads designated for discussions of mythology.

​

PB: It is inferred from the fossil record.

---

Just one last comment on this - THAT is funny stuff.... Inferring particles from the fossil record....

quote:

---

Sure, here's a crash course on the subject based on the evo stories I've been told:

---

There is part of the problem. This "lawyer" (LOL!!!) gets his 'information' from creationist web sites and other idiots. That is the only explanation foir such idiocy.

[Duplicate post deleted. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-31-2003]

Z: Sure, here's a crash course on the subject based on the evo stories I've been told:M: You mean you have spent all this time and effort (multiple bannings included) just to come and flame this board You mean such a true professional with a doctorate in jurisprudence has not read any of Darwin's writings? has not read any current evolutionary biological research, has relied on "stories I've been told" as the entire foundation of his case?Given the your level of your discourse on this board I am shocked

Dear Mammuthus,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Itz: So the inversion is different in chimpanzees and gorillas which suggests that it is not the same event in these two species. Finding distinct mutations in chimpanzees and gorillas does not disprove the current interpretation of primate phylogeny.PB: Thanks for falsifying Mammuthus' vision. Furthermore, I am not aware that my mail was to disprove primate evolution. I provided additional evidence for non random mutations (and thus directed evolutionary mechanisms). The comments from the paper demonstrate that the same spot in the p arm was involved several times in distinct organisms. You may call that a random mechanism, but obviously it is not. Page, I know that you keep trying, but you cannot deny scientific observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------M: In falsifiying what I proposed (do not have this paper so only had the abstract) it destroyed your hypothesis of non random mutation completely since you claimed the exact same rearrangement occurred in Gorilla and chimp and not in humans and organutan...you can try to save face by saying no matter what it must have been non-random but you have failed yet again....PB: I never said that all sequences have to be in the 'EXACT SAME REARRANGEMENT'. You keep distrorting my words. It should be noted that the arrangements involved the same spot in the p arm of chromosome 12 (10). That is pretty much non random. Of course you are free to propose a random mechanism plus selection. Still, it would indicate a mechanism that can induce such inversions. At least it involves the DNA repair system, and the proteins probably recognise certain well defined sites. That such sites get easily lost should be known to you since, you are in the field of HERVs. Often integration/excision sites are not recognised anymore due to RM.M (cont): In addition, the model I proposed I can support with other loci particlarly HERV-K family integrations...but of course you know all about these with your extensive reading on the subject you wish to oppose.PB: I wouldn't dare saying that I know all about HERV-K family intergration, so if you could recommend a well written review (maybe you wrote one yourself that I can read?).M: Oh, but here is another chance for you...where exactly will the next rearrangemnt occur in the primate lineage..if it is deterministic you must be able to tell that...culture chimp cells for a month and screen for rearrangemnts..you should be able to tell a priori if it is non-random...good luck..we await you results.PB: If the mechanisms are still intact to rearrange in chromosome 12, it would likley be in this region. I will look into the literature for known chromomes inversions/translocations. For transloctions it has already been demonstrated that theyaare usually in the same DNA region. Remember the hematologic aberrancies? Usually in the same spot.
I really start doubting whether you know how biological science works. First, we have to elucidate the mechanisms involved. As demonstrated by Lynn Ripley in Caporales book (page 36-40), she first performed dozens of studies to elucidate the mechanism in T4 that induces over and over the same mutations on the same spot. Next, she understood the mechanism and was able to predict them. So, first we have to know the underlying mechanism, my dear Mammuthus. As long as we deny such mechanisms of being extant, we will never find them. As long as we regard the major part of the DNA as evolutionary embellishment we will never learn about the genome. That's why your worldview is hindering scientific progress.(Just for my interest, in a previous letter you were writing on the DNA of Musk oxen, did you already publish it somewhere? I would be interested to read it).Best wishes,
Peter

PB: I never said that all sequences have to be in the 'EXACT SAME REARRANGEMENT'. You keep distrorting my words.Itz: You certainly implied it, if it wasn't the exact same arrangement then this statement is complete gibberish:PB: "Let's say that the initial orientation in the common ancestor of all 4 organisms was 3'-->5', and it did not change in orangutan. Than, we have to admit that it changed orientation to 5'-->3' in the ancestor of chimp, gorilla and human."Itz: It would only be reasonable to assume it happened in the common acestor of chimp, gorilla and human if it was the exact same arrangement. Therefore i assumed you had some grasp of basic logic and you were saying the chimp and gorilla rearrangements were identical, was i wrong?.Will you now say when you think things happened now that you know the arrangement in chimp and gorilla were independant and therefore couldn't have happened in the common ancestor of human, chimp and gorilla.