Page v. Borger

This has to be one of the best exchanges in the history of this site. I've never seen an evolutionist whipped so thoroughly since the "PhiGuy"...The only downside is that Page seems unable to respond objectively and professionally. I wonder if Page is actually a woman? It would explain the emotional responses.Kudos to Borger though for maintaining professional integrity and respect.NRM is brilliant; RM is an argument from ignorance....Keep plugging away Dr. Borger, you will find your mechanism and cause shortly!

Maybe you could explain Borger's brilliance to the rest of us then? Obviously you understand it or you couldn't support it so whole heartedly.Oh, and I like that bit of matter-of-fact misogyny you threw in there.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Well since he's praising Borger's integrity I suppose Borger must have admitted that he has utterly failed to disprove neo-Darwinian theory, and that his claim to have done so was based on a misunderstanding which he has been stubbornly clinging to for the past few months.I would really like to see that post. But if Borger is still denying a rather obvious truth then I have to say that his integrity is something not in evidence.

Really John?Does random mutation mean a mutation that has no cause? Or is the mutation "random" because you are ignorant of its cause?Please advise.No fear either; the observation that women are more emotional than men is, well, science.Therefore, the inference was valid. Yours, however, was not. (again)

quote:

---

Does random mutation mean a mutation that has no cause? Or is the mutation "random" because you are ignorant of its cause?

---

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.With this is mind, a mutation would be random-- undirected toward an end-- if it follows no pattern. It is a statistical calculation. Is is really really really 'random' in the great scheme of things? Who knows? But to make the claim that it is not random one needs to show a pattern and a mechanism, neither of which PeterB has done. I was so hoping that you could explain, but I guess that isn't likely.

quote:

---

the observation that women are more emotional than men is, well, science.

---

Don't try to hide behind to claim that your prejudice -- apparent if not actual-- is science. You called Page a girl, just as the little ten year olds do when trying to upset my step-son.Men and women are conditioned to express different emotions. Men are conditioned to suppress affection and express agression. Women are the reverse. Women are not more emotional than men. And men are damn sure not more rational.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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]

quote:

---

It's time that you read Dr Caporale's book, since you are argueing from ignorance.

---

What, PeterB, am I arguing? From the looks of it you haven't a clue.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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? 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? Perhaps you agree with his interpretation of Dr. Caporale's work - which oddly enough doesn't appear to be the author's interpretation?Why am I asking questions of someone who can't even be bothered to register?

I would cling to it quite tenaciously. I have just about done all the the discovery I expect to do with Gould's prolix contribution to our discussion and having previously commented on the light or rather lack of it from any clade Fuytuma is associated with, NRM COULD if it directs the EVIDENCE that say creationism proports in reference to criticizing on-going discussions of evolution that Gould incomprehensibly notes Ernst Mayr adheres to A PRIORI without ANY evidence (this CAN NOT be the case with creation science else there would not even be paid 10$/month to stream this site etc). One can then quickly converge with the Morris's as the NEGATIVE impact of evolutionary law etc OR continue to attempt to dreg up some new evidence. My suspicion is that the saddles of balanced selection concerns are actually troughs of a hyperbola in a higer dimensional catastroophic space but I will a-wait a more appro time to discuss my latest theoretical speculation of friction physics and cell biology that could cause gradualism via NRM to return to the Ghost of GOuld pAst.We need a better learning curve in c/e beofre this upper bound can be reached without simply calling the the DOC etc. The apririness of Mayr is what Croizat objected to. The strange thing is that I had conversations with Simon Levin about Ecosystem Structures and Fractals and LEVIN did not represent my ideas as Gould seems to have taken for STASIS which Levin also did not understand. How can I expect any oneelse then? Levin went on to co-author with Kaufmann and Gould with or without Fuytuma can be read IN this orbit. Sorry Evos the game is over and up. Please put in anouther DIME.TRON;

quote:

---

No fear either; the observation that women are more emotional than men is, well, science.

---

Your claim that women are more emotional than men is, well, utter crap.Just look at men's over-the-top emotional behavior during domestic violence and abuse, athletic events, war, and rock concerts.

quote:

---

Your claim that women are more emotional than men is, well, utter crap.

​

Just look at men's over-the-top emotional behavior during domestic violence and abuse, athletic events, war, and rock concerts.

---

No one is free of emotions, however, you point out only extreme cases. I don't understand what rock concerts and athletic events have to do with emotions. Last time I checked aggression is not an emotion.

quote:

---

No one is free of emotions,

---

Exactly. That's my point. Dr. Page was "called a girl" because his responses were judged as containing any emotion at all.

quote:

---

however, you point out only extreme cases.

---

I only needed to point out any case to show that the idea that only females display emotion to be false.

quote:

---

I don't understand what rock concerts and athletic events have to do with emotions. Last time I checked aggression is not an emotion.

---

Um, men are very emotional at athletic events and rock concerts (both as participants and observers).Men shouting, jumping around, celebrating, hugging, screaming can all be observed at these events.People can feel aggressive, no?BTW, I can't help but notice that you seem to be hounding me on this board. You respond nearly exclusively to my posts. Why?

quote:

---

Exactly. That's my point. Dr. Page was "called a girl" because his responses were judged as containing any emotion at all.

---

Your views contradict themselves. I had no idea you had a "point".

quote:

---

I only needed to point out any case to show that the idea that only females display emotion to be false.

---

What a warped mind you have. No one stated men do not show emotions. Women are MORE emotional. The key word is MORE. Take the feminist goggles off.

quote:

---

Um, men are very emotional at athletic events and rock concerts (both as participants and observers).

​

Men shouting, jumping around, celebrating, hugging, screaming can all be observed at these events.

​

People can feel aggressive, no?

---

No. Aggressive is an adjective not an emotion. You can feel angry.

quote:

---

BTW, I can't help but notice that you seem to be hounding me on this board. You respond nearly exclusively to my posts. Why?

---

I reply when I see others post ignorant rhetoric and biased falsehoods. It is you 9 times out of 10 I reply to. I am not planning it that way. Don't be flattered. Otherwise I just read and learn and keep quiet.

quote:

---

I reply when I see others post ignorant rhetoric and biased falsehoods.

---

Err, jdean? There's some people on this board I'd like you to meet.....

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