Page v. Borger

John: Any mutation has a cause if you consider that there will be some chemical or mechanical agents involved-- poisons or radiation or such. The argument over 'random' vs. 'non-random' is really about whether the mutation is directed toward an end or not. In other words, when we roll a die does a six come up by chance or is some force acting to make that six come up. Maybe this is what you meant, but I want to be clear.PB: It's time that you read Dr Caporale's book, since you are argueing from ignorance. Non-random directed mutations have already been observed. Or to say it in Dr Caporale's words: "There is evidence that variation can focus on one region of the genome. This certainly is true for antibodies, for the Lyme parasite, and is likely to prove true for cone-snail toxins" (Darwin in the Genome, page 130).
In my opinion it is a general phenomenon reflected by the observation that the major part of a genome is non allelic, whereas the part (10-30% depending on the species) that demonstrates variation has probably been introduced there through such mechanism.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-27-2003]

dear Quetzal,Q: It must be my day for curiosity - which part of Peter's ideas do you find so compelling? The part where he commits a fallacy of composition by extrapolating a tiny sequence to a whole genome?PB: I am getting a little annoyed by your stubborn denial. Obviously you didn't read my reply to Dr Page:"The sequences in ancient subspecies contain more information regarding mutations that your simplistic comparison of chimp and human mtDNA. It gives us information about the rate and the position where they are introduced: in the ancient subpopulations we are able to exactly follow mutations and mutation rates over a more accurate time scale. That the data don't fit with your evolutionary view is tale telling: evolutionism's conclusions based on comparison BETWEEN species are wrong.
Now we know that all info for variation is already preexistent in the genome we know that Darwin made an unwarranted extrapolation with respect to microbe to man evolution. If you take the contemporary observation on variation preexisting in the genomes as the mechanism that drives evolution from microbe to man (as Darwin did), than you talk about a mechanistically determined evolution, in other words creation."Q: Or perhaps you find his misunderstanding of "random" as used in biology to be the clincher? Perhaps you agree with his "examples" from nature or the molecular "evidence" he claims?PB: You don't (want to!) understand the difference between variation induced by a preexistent mechanism (as Dr Caporales discribes in her book) and random mutations induced by oxstress, UV, high energetic radiation, etcetera. Why I wonder? Because it brings down your worldview?Q: Perhaps you agree with his interpretation of Dr. Caporale's work - which oddly enough doesn't appear to be the author's interpretation?PB: If you had read Caporales book than you would have seen the passages she writes on randomness. In my opinion, she doesn't believe in your random theory either. I will quote from her book if you like me. At least, if you are interested in contemporary science. Just let me know.Q: Why am I asking questions of someone who can't even be bothered to register?PB: I don't know.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Quetzal,Instead of reading some literature, eg how the genome of Cone snails directs mutations towards a particulr region involved in toxin production, you keep denying such scientific observations. Or, the ant-fungus-bacteria relationship. And read Dr Caporale's book. It confirms all assertions I have made concerning NRM.I am getting tired.Best wishes,
Peter

dear Itz,PB: "Instead of reading some literature, eg how the genome of Cone snails directs mutations towards a particulr region involved in toxin production, you keep denying such scientific observations. Or, the ant-fungus-bacteria relationship."Itz: I am curious as to how ant agriculture disproves evolution or in any way goes againsts any evolutionary concepts. I have been reading some stuff on these amazing ants (also beetle and termite agriculture) and would be interested to hear how you think they are not what you would expect from evolution.PB: In short, there is a triple relationship between the ant the fungus and bacteria that are carried by the ants that perorm the fungus culture. In the lab scientist were not able to reproduce the fungus culture since it was readily overgrown by opportunistic fungi. Then they discovered that the ants carried some kind of organism in symbiosis that suppresses growth of unwanted micro-organism. So, there most be an evolutionary armsrace otherwise the opportunistic organism would readily become resistent (as is usually observed during permanent constraint within a couple of years). So, I am sure that the information for this armsrace is preexistent in the genome. It is my prediction. I will come true.Best wishes,
Peter

Hi Paul,You mean this one?Paul: It is good to see the author of a book appear in the discussion. I hope that if I get something wrong I will be corrected.
So far as "random mutations" go the idea important to the theory is usually summed up as "random with regard to fitness". Dawkins discusses this in _The Blind Watchmaker (chapter 11) although he doesn't use that phrase. So this isn't new.PB: Cone snails, lyme parasites, and antibodies demonstrate directed mutations to improved fitness. (Dr Max from the talk-origin site wrote an essay on this topic and was so overconvinced of "random evolution of improved fitness" that he mailed it to Spetner, who completely obliterated it). And the mutations are focused in these genes. Or to say it as Dr Caporale says it in her book (the one you suppose to have read): "There is evidence that variation can focus on one region of a gene. This certainly is true for antibodies, for the Lyme parasite, and it is likely to prove true for cone snail toxins too" (Darwin in the genome, page 130). To focus such nonrandom directed mutations in specific genes will give offspring with distinct toxins to improve fitness.Paul: The mechanisms in _Darwin in the Genome_ do mean modifying this view a bit. They do bias the mutations that happen in favour of mutations which MIGHT be useful. Although they can also produce mutations which are clearly detrimental like Huntington's disease. However, in a more important sense the mutations are STILL random with respect to fitness. By this I mean that the probability that a particular mutation will happen remains the same whether or not it would, in fact, be useful in the current environment.PB: No, Paul, you didn't read Caporale's book properly. As pointed out above. I predict a similar mechanism for evolutionary armsraces. By an utter random mechanism they cannot be conceived.Paul: In the end I think that this book both makes things easier and more difficult for evolution in the public arena. The mechanisms discovered make evolution more plausible because they improve the odds of getting useful mutations. But the origins of these mechanisms will need ot be explained - a big research project.PB: As pointed out several times before we now know that Darwin made an unwarrented extrapolation.Paul: For scientists however, this must be a very exciting set of findings.PB: Depends on what you mean by scientists. Not people who close their minds for new dicoveries, I hope.Paul: New understanding of how mutations occur as well as a big challenging research project to consider.
One possibility that might be worth investigating is the relationship, if any, between the development of these mechanisms and the Cambrian "Explosion".PB: There will soon be is a molecular genetic analysis on this topic that demonstrates that the Cambrian explosion was real. What relationship do you propose?Best wishes,
Peter

Hi Quetzal,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of reading some literature, eg how the genome of Cone snails directs mutations towards a particulr region involved in toxin production, you keep denying such scientific observations. Or, the ant-fungus-bacteria relationship. And read Dr Caporale's book. It confirms all assertions I have made concerning NRM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: What in the world are you talking about now? I posted a reference to cone snail toxin hypervariability in the ATP6 thread! I found the article interesting since it seems to lend empirical support to Dr. Caporale's hypothesis concerning the adaptive value of high variability leading to the positive selection of increased mutability! It has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with support for your NRM or MPG. In fact, it weakens your case enormously (although no further weakening is actually required) since it provides a evolutionary explanation for genetic hotspots.PB: Evolutionary explanation? LOL! The problem you guys have now is that you have to explain such mechanism evolving through a random mechanism. This whole random thing introduced by the NDT atheists in the previous century is one big idee fixe! It is like trying to detect the ether in the 19th century. Or like making gold out of lead by the medieval alchemists. It has been shown so many times that it cannot work, and even so many time denied by guys like you. It is UNTRUE!!!!!!!!!You also still don't get it Quetzal (deliberately?). The extrapolation done by Darwin is now known to be an UNWARRANTED EXTRAPOLATION. Why? Since we now know that all the elements that induce the observed variation is ALREADY present in the genome, and only has to be shuffled, duplicated, edited, whatever (read what the GUToB says about it). If you take this mechanism as the mechanism in evolution from microbe to man .... etcetera.....mechanistically determined, and that is creation.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO CONCEIVE? I don't even find it funny anymore.Q: Nowhere in anything I've read is there any indication of "directed mutations". What we observe (rather than what you wish to see), is selection acting on the structure of certain loci that favors variation.PB: Once more for you: The genes that need the mutations have signals to accept the mutations. That is not directed? Next there may be selection. However, I am not against selection (it is GUToB too), although it cannot explain genetic redundacies to be stable in the genome (But that is another ignored issue). In conlusion, the overall implication of contemporary knowledge on genomes does NOT advocate your vision). Also for you: nothing on this earth just simply happens per accident. Ever heard of laws of nature? (did you read my excellent rebuttal to Page? No, I guess, otherwise you would have known this all).Q: This is what Dr. Caporale is proposing, regardless of how Peter Borger chooses to misinterpret it.PB: Also for you (you better read my mails to Dr PAge): Misinterpretation? As if your interpretation is the right one, and all others are MIS. Get real, Quetzal.Q: What does the three-way symbiosis between ants, fungi and bacteria have in relation to your GUToB? (It's actually a quadripartite relationship if you include the parasitic fungi). Be careful how you answer this - attine ants are some of the most thoroughly studied examples of the coevolution of complex symbiosis in the entire science of ecology. You're on my turf, now, "Dr." Borger.PB: It is easy to see that a random mechanism cannot underly a cooperation that is alleged to be extant for 15 My, since it would rapidly induce resistance. In general, resistancies are already present after a couple of years of selective constraint. For instance, the observed resistances after introduction of herbicides: 2,4 D -->introduced in 1945, resistance in 1954; dalapon intro 1953, resist 1962; atrazine intro 1958, resist 1968; diclofop intro 1980, resist 1987; ALS inhibitors 1982, resist 1987, etcetera. The organism simply loose/inactivate the protein it has been generated against. Or they duplicate a protein to get rid of the toxins. (It is important to understand that selection unequals evolution, my dear Quetzal.)
O BTW, you could have left out the term 'coevolution' since nothing evolved here. We simply do an observation on an intricate interplay of organisms. Did you see it evolve? No, so better keep it scientific.So, millions of years cooperation without ever induction of resistance requires a fast acting mechanism of change in both organisms. That can only achieved by NRM in a MPG. Easy to understand from a GUToB stance. Maybe you can provide the papers with the studies on the genes involved, since it is on your 'turf', "Dr" (?) Quetzal.Best wishes,
Peter"One cannot defend a position from a false stance"

I was referring to science.Peter

dear PE,Sometimes I drop my pipet per accident,Best wishes,
Peter

Gravity?BW, P

Dear paul,Paul says: Dr. Caporale agreed with my assessment.PB says: What happened to your logic? I really don't understand evo-logic. Read this line carefully and think about it: That somebody agrees with somebody else doesn't make it more true or more scientific (or whatever). Therefore, I really don't mind whether all evolutionary biologists agree on evolution to be right, since I can demonstrate it to be wrong. Even if the pope agrees that evolution is right I will disagree with him, since it can be demonstrated scientificaclly to be false.PB: If you like I can point out in Dr Caporale's book where she questions NDT. Just let me know, I spelled out the book (2 times).Best wishes,
Peter

dear Quetzal,You made a lot of work again to respond to my remarks. Makes me remind of our little Wollemia discussion I won.
O, you won? No, I won. You won? No, you didn't win. Did? didn't! Did! Didn't! Did! Didn't.....ectetera, etcetera for the rest of our lifes Anyway my comments:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Evolutionary explanation? LOL! The problem you guys have now is that you have to explain such mechanism evolving through a random mechanism. This whole random thing introduced by the NDT atheists in the previous century is one big idee fixe! It is like trying to detect the ether in the 19th century. Or like making gold out of lead by the medieval alchemists. It has been shown so many times that it cannot work, and even so many time denied by guys like you. It is UNTRUE!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: So asserts Peter. How many times will it be necessary to tell you that simple assertion without supporting evidence is meaningless? No matter how many exclamation points you put after it.PB: As many times as I have evo's to tell that assertions without supporting evidence is meaningless, I guess?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You also still don't get it Quetzal (deliberately?). The extrapolation done by Darwin is now known to be an UNWARRANTED EXTRAPOLATION. Why? Since we now know that all the elements that induce the observed variation is ALREADY present in the genome, and only has to be shuffled, duplicated, edited, whatever (read what the GUToB says about it). If you take this mechanism as the mechanism in evolution from microbe to man .... etcetera.....mechanistically determined, and that is creation.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO CONCEIVE? I don't even find it funny anymore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: This literally makes no sense whatsoever. What extrapolation?PB: Deliberately obtuse? THe assertion that the mechanism that induces variation that is preexistent in the genome is taken as the mecahnism that is required for evolution from microbe to man. You are again compairing two unequal things. WHy am I not surprised? Because it is allowed in evolutionism. Evolutionism stand above all natural laws, and even above math.Q: As to the bit about "elements that induce observed variation are already present" - this is again your assertion. You have NEVER, not once, even come close to demonstrating the existence of multipurpose genome. All you've done is repeat the same mantra.
No one argues that novel sequences, traits, etc, can be created by duplication, recombination, etc. This doesn't mean that all conceivable variation was present "in the beginning".PB: In the beginning several distinct MPG were present. As demonstrated by the fossils and soon to be confirmed by molecular biology. (Yes, I will make the link with the Uni of Sydney as soon as the reference is online.)Q: This is the part that everyone is arguing with you about. Sequence doubling for example, coupled with subsequent shuffling, etc, can generate completely new genetic material that wasn't present "in the beginning".PB: Non scientific never observed inferrence from already existing data. Besides, duplication of DNA genes/regions and shuffling is GUToB. If you demonstrate that a completely novel gene -unrelated to other genes- that arose from scratch than that would be great. It falsifies GUToB.Q: You've been given numerous references for this observation. Your whole argument is starting to sound like a typical "no new information" argument.PB: You are beginning to understand the GUToB. Besides, I know all these refernces and if they confirm something it is GUToB, not evolution from microbe to man. That should be your concern.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once more for you: The genes that need the mutations have signals to accept the mutations. That is not directed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: "Genes that need the mutation", Peter? How do genes demonstrate "need"? How do they determine - in advance, apparently - this "need"? You have experimental or observational evidence that genes can mutate themselves based on "need"? This is the most teleological argument you've ever made. You're on really shaky epistemological grounds with this one.PB: I don't see an argument here. However, to keep a mutual coexistence of organism going the genes involved require a mechanism to change. It is very liekly that this is directed. It is no coincedence that genes involved in what is called an evolutionary armsrace change very rapidly. Your other questions are interesting though. We don't know yet how the genome performs the trick. But not from a random mechanism, that's for sure.
Maybe you didn't know, but cells (and genomes) are aware of their environment, and respond to their environment by activation of genetic programs ('cells are intelligent'). Probably also in the germline cells. To be elucidated.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also for you: nothing on this earth just simply happens per accident. Ever heard of laws of nature?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: Again with the teleology. Have any support for this assertion, or is this another Borgerism?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Also for you (you better read my mails to Dr PAge): Misinterpretation? As if your interpretation is the right one, and all others are MIS. Get real, Quetzal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: Nope - not all others. Just yours.PB: As long as the interpretation doesn't clash with your worldview I presume.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: It is easy to see that a random mechanism cannot underly a cooperation that is alleged to be extant for 15 My, since it would rapidly induce resistance. In general, resistancies are already present after a couple of years of selective constraint. For instance, the observed resistances after introduction of herbicides: 2,4 D -->introduced in 1945, resistance in 1954; dalapon intro 1953, resist 1962; atrazine intro 1958, resist 1968; diclofop intro 1980, resist 1987; ALS inhibitors 1982, resist 1987, etcetera. The organism simply loose/inactivate the protein it has been generated against. Or they duplicate a protein to get rid of the toxins. (It is important to understand that selection unequals evolution, my dear Quetzal.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: You just blew your credibility again Peter. The little thing you forgot - that shows your analogy is spurious - is that when you're dealing with the evolution of pesticide and antibiotic resistance, you're dealing with the effects of non-evolving chemicals on evolving organisms. In THAT kind of arms race, the living organisms will win hands down. That's why biological pest controls, for instance, are so much more effective. You need to read up on a real evolutionary ecology success story: the cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) and the parasitic wasp Apoanagyrus lopezi.PB: You really don't understand what I am trying to convay isn't it. I keep explaining to you but all you do is put your fingers in your ears and hum. The trick is that such organism do not have one or two genes, but either a whole set of genes (>5) or a mechanism that is able to constantly generate new -but related- genes by a mechanism comparable to immuneglobulin synthesis. However, if you wanna update me on the genetics of the mealybug please mention some relevant references.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O BTW, you could have left out the term 'coevolution' since nothing evolved here. We simply do an observation on an intricate interplay of organisms. Did you see it evolve? No, so better keep it scientific.
So, millions of years cooperation without ever induction of resistance requires a fast acting mechanism of change in both organisms. That can only achieved by NRM in a MPG. Easy to understand from a GUToB stance. Maybe you can provide the papers with the studies on the genes involved, since it is on your 'turf', "Dr" (?) Quetzal.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: LoL. I don't care what you call it - coevolution or codependent frequency, it's the same thing. And I've already provided you with a number of references in some of the side discussions on the Wollemia thread. Remember the articles on the yucca moth, beetle and plant specificity, etc? I guess you didn't actually read them. What a surprise...PB: Why so offensive? I am here also to learn something from you. Why don't you just convince me of your view, instead of this hostility?Q: Of course, it would be silly of me to actually demand that YOU provide a reference for your assertion that "a fast acting mechanism of change" is required for the quadripartite relationship between ants, etc, to insure an evolutionarily stable relationship?PB: As I said, I made a prediction. Scientific theories have to predict properly, isn't it? If not the theory is worthless. So, that is my prediction against yours. I claim that the observations on the symbiosis of ant-fungus-bactria underly similar genetic mechanism as obsrved in Cone snails, while you assume that it is all randomness and selection. Time will tell that I am right (or you).Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-30-2003]

Dear Quetzal,Q: I am not going to get sidetracked into irrelevancies again. Thus:PB: Irrelevancies? They pertained our little discussion on Wollemia. You know that tree that violates molecular evolutionary rules. Also acknowledged by Dr Peakal, the principal investigator on the genetics of this tree. For people how are interested in this discussion see my topic 'Molecular genetic proof for a multipurpose genome'.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: In the beginning several distinct MPG were present. As demonstrated by the fossils and soon to be confirmed by molecular biology. (Yes, I will make the link with the Uni of Sydney as soon as the reference is online.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: Peter, even beyond the personal attacks and slurs...PB: Please, point out. Or did you mean "Dr" Borger. Very subtle, not unnoted. You can have it as you like. Either a scientific discussion or not. I always go for the scientific discussion. So it's up to you....you engage in all the time, this is the kind of statement that makes any discussion with you so frustrating. You make a bald assertion ("as demonstrated by the fossils", for example) in lieu of evidence.PB: Frustrating isn't it? Can you imagine all those people who have a distinct explanatation -often better- for scientific observation but are completely ignored, scoffed and ridiculed.Q: What fossils? Which organisms - specifically - demonstrate MPG?PB: All organism. Where do you think all that different looking people came from that travel along with you in the bus?Q: Are you talking phylum level representatives from the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian? You have the molecular and genetic evidence for the massive, multipurpose genomes? You have "perfect" fossil organisms?PB: No, I haven't but it will soon be demonstraed that the Cambrian explosion was a real explosion. So, afterall the paleontologists were right.Q: IF SO - WHICH ONES? Be specific: say something like, "The fossil of Xyzz abdef, discovered last week in Pakistan, demonstrates MPG because... (see ref...)".PB: All organism demonstrate a tremendous amount of genetic redundancies. That should be compelling enough.Q: You know, evidence. If you can do that, then we at least have something scientific to discuss. Otherwise, you're back to handwaving so fast you'll soon achieve escape velocity.PB: You are asking for an original MPG. As I show it, you laugh and scoff and deny. I already presented you such evidence. Remember the Wollemia pine?And another thing:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: This is the part that everyone is arguing with you about. Sequence doubling for example, coupled with subsequent shuffling, etc, can generate completely new genetic material that wasn't present "in the beginning".
PB: Non scientific never observed inferrence from already existing data. Besides, duplication of DNA genes/regions and shuffling is GUToB. If you demonstrate that a completely novel gene -unrelated to other genes- that arose from scratch than that would be great. It falsifies GUToB.Q: You've been given numerous references for this observation. Your whole argument is starting to sound like a typical "no new information" argument.PB: You are beginning to understand the GUToB. Besides, I know all these refernces and if they confirm something it is GUToB, not evolution from microbe to man. That should be your concern.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: This is also incredibly frustrating.PB: Q: In one breath you demand references, and in the next you claim they aren't valid - without EVER explaining why.PB: Not valid? What a nonsense. They can be explained according the GUToB. So, it doesn't proof your evolutionary stance. If these references demonstrated something it was that the GUToB is right. The ToE cannot explain genetic redundancies, while they are part of the GUToB. I prefer the theory that is explaining all biological phenomena, not because it should be free from creation. That is what you do. Probably because of your worldview, not because of science.Q: Your philosophy (I'm not dignifying the GUToB with the term hypothesis any more) is utterly invulnerable because you simply deny the refutations.PB: There are NO refutations. At least, till now nobody was able to refute it beyond any reasonable doubt. I would have known it and understood it since I've set up the GUToB. On the other hand I demonstrated the weaknesses and falsifications of the ToE on this board, and it was only the start. The ToE could not even be defended and my examples had to be denied.Q: Guess I won't bother wondering when you'll get the Nobel Prize...PB: Usually it takes longer than 6 months after a scientific breakthrough to get the Nobel Prize. I presume you knew that yourself.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: I don't see an argument here. However, to keep a mutual coexistence of organism going the genes involved require a mechanism to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: Yep, it's called natural selection acting on random variation.PB: Go to a library, go inside and ask for -I will spell it out for you- Darwin in the Genome by Lynn H Caporale. She also had a lot of trouble with orthodox evolutinists. I guess atheists too, since they also know what it means. That's why the denial goes on.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very liekly that this is directed. It is no coincedence that genes involved in what is called an evolutionary armsrace change very rapidly. Your other questions are interesting though. We don't know yet how the genome performs the trick. But not from a random mechanism, that's for sure.
Maybe you didn't know, but cells (and genomes) are aware of their environment, and respond to their environment by activation of genetic programs ('cells are intelligent'). Probably also in the germline cells. To be elucidated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: As I said - pure bald assertions with no support.PB: As an evolutionist you must like this a lot since they usually don't go further than wild speculations/assertions/stories.Q: 1. Why is it "likely" that mutations are directed? You continue to make this claim, but have never provided evidence for ANY directed mutations.PB: Because of induction of resistance. As mentioned. If one of the organism mutates at random to become resitance it will immediately kill the colony, unless already an answer is preexistent in the other organism so it can ward of the threat immediately. It requires a variation generating mechanism similar to immunoglobulins.Q: 2. Genes change in "arms race" situations due to the action of natural selection - "winners" survive, "loosers" are lunch (or starve). Dr. Caporale among others suggests that this leads in at least some cases (like cone snails) to selection for higher mutability (to create the variation necessary). It isn't coincidental - it represents the results of the non-random action of natural selection on random variation.PB: The mechanism to generate the variation is already present in the genome, so nothing evolved here.Q: 3. Cells and genomes are aware of the environment!!??! "Cells are intelligent"!!????!!!! You have GOT to back this assertion up. This one's so far out there I don't even know where to begin. Provide an example, Peter - a concrete example. Explain how and where and in what specific organism this has been observed.PB: It is not only my assertion. Molecular biologists become aware of the intelligent genome. In Dr Caporale book: "She [Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock] also perceived that a genome could sense stress, and that when it did so, its genes could jump. As she put it, when the genome senses stress for which it is unprepared, it reorganises itself". (p148) Self-reorginisation requires intelligence.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You really don't understand what I am trying to convay isn't it. I keep explaining to you but all you do is put your fingers in your ears and hum. The trick is that such organism do not have one or two genes, but either a whole set of genes (>5) or a mechanism that is able to constantly generate new -but related- genes by a mechanism comparable to immuneglobulin synthesis. However, if you wanna update me on the genetics of the mealybug please mention some relevant references.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: This is a complete non-response to my refutation of your pesticide resistence analogy. You are deliberately attempting to sidestep the point. Forget it Peter - I ain't buying. Your analogy was falsified, and you unwillingness to admit any error is typical.PB: Falsified? By whom? Not by you.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Why so offensive? I am here also to learn something from you. Why don't you just convince me of your view, instead of this hostility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: This has got to be one of the funniest statements you've ever made. "Learn from me"? Lol. You spend your entire time belittling anyone who disagrees with you - then rechanting your original mantra. Glad to see you've got a sense of humor, at least.PB: THis doesn't exactly address my question, or is it?Probably you are not able to teach me anything. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: As I said, I made a prediction. Scientific theories have to predict properly, isn't it? If not the theory is worthless. So, that is my prediction against yours. I claim that the observations on the symbiosis of ant-fungus-bactria underly similar genetic mechanism as obsrved in Cone snails, while you assume that it is all randomness and selection. Time will tell that I am right (or you).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: No, you haven't made a "prediction". You've made numerous assertions then demanded everyone accept them on your say-so alone. What are the specific observations that would indicate a "similar" mechanism, whatever that means, is in operation between the attine symbiosis and cone snails? How do you distinguish your hypothetical mechanism from the action of natural selection? etc.PB: If you don't know the difference between a prediction and an assertion than it doesn't make sense to discuss with you. Why do I always have to address the same questions? By intensive genetic (scientific) research.Still I am interested in your mealybug references. Like to read into the genetics of this MPG. Thanks in advance.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-30-2003]

Hi Quetzal,As mentioned in the previous mail:You can have it as you like.1)Either a scientific discussion2)or not.Apparently you chose option 2.I am not surprised,Have a good one, mate & best wishes,
Peter

dear Schraf,In another thread you claimed to be an agnostic. Please don't let me laugh, Schraf. Your as atheistic as Samuel Beckett. Nothing inherently wrong with that --everbody is free to choose-- except that it cannot be defended scientifically (As demonstrated).Furthermore, I addressed all Quetzals points (as usual), but he only wants to discuss the data subject to his own evolutionary opinions. Even if they don't make sense in the light of contemporary knowledge.Anyway, it was expected that you are forming a unity against Truth. It will not stand, though.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Schraf,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another thread you claimed to be an agnostic. Please don't let me laugh, Schraf. Your as atheistic as Samuel Beckett. Nothing inherently wrong with that --everbody is free to choose-- except that it cannot be defended scientifically (As demonstrated).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S: Huh? Talk about irrelevant!PB: It tells me that you are a liar and I know where lies come from.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, I addressed all Quetzals points (as usual), but he only wants to discuss the data subject to his own evolutionary opinions. Even if they don't make sense in the light of contemporary knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S: You did not address his point about the difference between an evolutionary arms race and pesticide resistance.PB: I will. I've never left an interesting topic unadressed.Anyway, Best wishes,
Peter