Page v. Borger

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"

quote:

---

Also for you: nothing on this earth just simply happens per accident. Ever heard of laws of nature?

---

Two questions spring to mind:1)are accidents defined as being outside of the laws of nature?2) does this mean you are 100% committed to finding naturalistic (as opp. to supernatural) explanations for phenomena?PE

I was referring to science.Peter

nothing in science happens by accident?PE

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.

---

Congratulations Doctor! For exposing the trade secret of "evolution". Evolution is an erroneously extrapolated conclusion in which no one has ever seen, is seeing, or will see. Keeping it scientific and sticking to the observations would seem the prudent course of action. Conclusions come later.I also find it interesting that evolutionists rely upon the conclusory term "evolution" when explaining a mere observation they believe is a result of evolution or the pontentia for evolution in the future. No one ever sees evolution in the present.

quote:

---

are accidents defined as being outside of the laws of nature?

---

only if by "accident" you mean "evolution"

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

ever hear of the laws of nature? PE

Gravity?BW, P

Dr. Caporale agreed with my assessment. It appears that you are the one who has failed to read the book correctly. Not that I think that you have read it at all.

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!!!!!!!!!

---

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.

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

---

This literally makes no sense whatsoever. What extrapolation? 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". 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". You've been given numerous references for this observation. Your whole argument is starting to sound like a typical "no new information" argument.

quote:

---

Once more for you: The genes that need the mutations have signals to accept the mutations. That is not directed?

---

"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.

quote:

---

Also for you: nothing on this earth just simply happens per accident. Ever heard of laws of nature?

---

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.

---

Nope - not all others. Just yours.

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.)

---

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.

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.

---

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... 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?

quote:

---

Jester (appropriate moniker):

​

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"...

---

Do tell.....

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]

Oh I am so sorry that the "evo-logic" idea that the author of a book is likely to have a better understanding of its contents is beyond your intellectual capabilities.And no you can't prove evolution false. Your "proof" shows that you do not understand the basics of evolutionary theory and that you prefer to repeat a falsehood than deal with the truth.Having read the book I am sure you can find a few quotes to mine, but you will not find anything substantial requiring a major revision of neo-Darwinian theory. Although you will probably claim to have found such regardless of the truth.

I am not going to get sidetracked into irrelevancies again. Thus:

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.)

---

Peter, even beyond the personal attacks and slurs 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. What fossils? Which organisms - specifically - demonstrate MPG? 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? IF SO - WHICH ONES? Be specific: say something like, "The fossil of Xyzz abdef, discovered last week in Pakistan, demonstrates MPG because... (see ref...)". 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.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.

---

This is also incredibly frustrating. In one breath you demand references, and in the next you claim they aren't valid - without EVER explaining why. Your philosophy (I'm not dignifying the GUToB with the term hypothesis any more) is utterly invulnerable because you simply deny the refutations. Guess I won't bother wondering when you'll get the Nobel Prize...

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.

---

Yep, it's called natural selection acting on random variation.

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.

---

As I said - pure bald assertions with no support.1. Why is it "likely" that mutations are directed? You continue to make this claim, but have never provided evidence for ANY directed mutations.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.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.

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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).

---

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.