|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Page v. Borger | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 77 Joined: |
Quetzel,
What relevance does registering have upon the content of discussions promulgated by a population of anonymous internet posters? You are a nobody. Shraf, Don't you feel better after you take a midol? Try it sometime before you post. You are unwittingly proving the point. John, Why do you so firmly believe there exists no mechanism of mutation? Is your belief in evolution so blinding that you would deny the scientific exploration of the matter and riducule those attempts at the same? We need people like Borger to think beyond the archaic paradigms because those committed to the outdated paradigm are unable to "see" beyond it. Indeed, saying something is "random" doesn't really expain anything. Good try though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Apparently you did not read my post or, more likely, just didn't pay any attention. Or perhaps the worst is true and fifth grade biology is over your head. Maybe we'll never know. Jester is a very apt name by the way. I just keep thinking, "You must be joking!!!" Apparently you are. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote:I read it - it isn't any more compelling this time around than it was the first time. So, you AREN'T extrapolating from a single 350 bp sequence to the full genome? If not, how does this tiny piece of a complex puzzle provide any evidence whatsoever for your assertions? In addition, simply your say so doesn't demonstrate "all information is pre-existing", nor does your say-so demonstrate the ability to extrapolate a genome-wide mutation rate from one small sequence. At best, all you'll be able to say is that this particular sequence mutates at such and such a rate. I have refuted the rest of your nonsense post previously, and have no desire to repeat myself. See my most recent post on the ATP6 thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 77 Joined: |
John,
Tell me then if I have this part of 5th Grade Evolutionary (sorry, Evolution and Biology are mutually exclusive) Theory correct with respect to your belief in "random" mutations: Random as to cause, random as to end? Again, this doesn't explain much. Your paradigm requires a committment to "random as to cause, random as to end" and therefore you aren't interested in further biological inquiry to ascertain whether we are seeing a common mechanism at work. You are rejecting science in this area because it clearly militates against your world view. I believe Borger is attempting to scientifically identify a common mechanism to prove NRM. The ignorant de facto position is always random,and the peanut gallery will always be full. The joke is on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote:No real relevance. However, if you find that Peter's arguments are so empirically compelling, why don't you simply register and join in? I'm sure he'd be delighted to acknowledge any assistance, evidence, or supporting arguments on one or another of the many threads he's involved with. If that's too hard, there are a number of creationists (and other theists) here that you could support. You could help TrueCreation out with his YEC/Noah's Ark/Flood discussions, TranquilityBase with de novo protein generation, bart with his quote mining, etc. On the other hand, a "rah rah sis boom bah" sycophantic rant of no substance probably deserves no more attention. Register or bugger off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You are still clueless. It is quite amusing to watch. You can't even paraphrase what I said, much less argue against it. Silly boy. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
geist Guest |
quote: A fine admission of an utter lack of knowledge on the topic. Perhaps you can explain where Dr.Page is getting whipped? Was it when Borger claimed that he thinks "DNA=length" because Page initially used a locus of comparable length to the one Borger used? Or maybe when Borger ignored that long list of citations all demonstrating that non-random mutations as described by Borger do not occur? Or maybe it was when Page pointed out that Borger is misrepresenting Dr.Caporale's book? Something like that? Another cheerleader without the wherewithal to know what he is cheering for. As for a supposed lack of professional response, I suppose it is hard to do when a crackpot continually misrepresents you and ignores what has been written... Woman? You should be such a woman...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Does anyone here think that they can clearly, concisely and even-handedly explain the issues and evidence for both sides here? (Similarity to the request of Judge Maxwell towards the end of What's up Doc is coincidental. Please no responses starting with 'I'm Dr. Howard Banister. I'm from Ames, Iowa.' (Maxwell: 'No excuse'))
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itzpapalotl Inactive Member |
"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."
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 77 Joined: |
quote: Because somebody might abuse your persona like this. Besides, maybe you can be a great help to Dr Borger's research. This board needs a jester! Please register and join the fight. Maybe you can take on Dr Page himself and bring down his arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It depends on the issue. If the question is "is Peter Borger a crank" then the answer is rather clear. Given his continued misunderstanding of the concept of "random" mutations in evolutionary theory - a misunderstanding that has been pointed out on a number of occasions and never adequately addressed, and given tat this misunderstanding is the basis for his major argument against evolutionary theory the answer is a clear "yes".
See my posts in the _Darwin in the Genome_ topic (Book Nook, IIRC) for more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: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. 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. This is what Dr. Caporale is proposing, regardless of how Peter Borger chooses to misinterpret it. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024