Peter Borger's credentials revealed

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
I say:
Anybody for the cytochrome c incongruence?

---

Yes. Right after you explain why it is that all gene trees should be congruent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
I say:
Anybody for the cytochrome c incongruence?

---

​

Yes. Right after you explain why it is that all gene trees should be congruent.

​

---

Ditto.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear Schraf,You say:
Look, you are the one who didn't seem to understand how the journal system works.I say:
You copied this opinion from Joe Meert. He is wrong.You say:
You are the one who didn't understand that the position of the foramen magnum in fossil primate skulls indicated how upright the individual walked.I say:
So an intermediate foramen magnum means that the organism walk in 45 degrees angle? Or on three legs? Or on his knees? Or with a walking stick? Or what?You say:
You are the one who has repeatedly cited journal aricles as support for your position when it is clear that the articles do not support your position at all. In fact, you seem to not even read the articles carefully, or at all, before you cite them.I say:
Here you copy the opinion of SLPx. Sometimes I have a different interpretation, yes, that is correct. And, if my position is untenable I give in.You say:
You are the one who thinks that inference doesn't happen in science, when that is precicely how all science is conducted; by making inferences.I say:
Inference does happen a lot. Conclusion jumping happens a lot in the hype and next present it as fact. That's what I objected to, and I will do even harder in the future.You say:
Yes, I stand corrected. You do, in fact, have a PhD. However, this fact seems to be irrelevant with regards to your understanding of how science works and of the topics at hand.I say:
I already told you several times that a univerity degree is irrelevant to a discussion as long as the arguments are valid. Glad, you agree. Your whole exercise of looking for me in literature and presenting my 'complete' curriculum here is utterly idle. It demonstrates your desparation.You say:
You did not mention that you were actually a post doctorate fellow, and I am still mistrustful of your claim that English is not your native language.I say:
So, what. I also didn't mention that I like strawberries. Thanks for you compliment on my english.You say:
If your specialty has been in molecular biology, I can understand how this can be true, as it is possible to do productive molecular work "cookbook-style." The "harder" a science is, the more you rely on your instruments to be the experimental controls. The softer sciences, if they are to be done well, tend to require a greater understanding of science and the pitfalls of fallacies and biased thinking, since human interpretation and perceptions are used much more than machines.This is why, I think, that the "real" scienctists that get sucked in to pseudoscience tend to be from fields like Physics and engineering. They are terrible at identifying poor experimental design when they are studying humans and human behavior. Bias and thought errors are a part of being human, and the scientific method is there to get around as much of that as possible in our search for the truth about the natural world.Anyway, I think that you are a religious Creationist, and are therefore going about the problem in the usual backwards way; you have decided what you "know" is true, and now you pick and choose (and willfully misinterpret) the evidence that you feel supports your position and ignore what you can't twist. You also mislead yourself into thinking because you are knowledgeable in one aspect (respiratory illness) you know what you are talking about in other aspects enough to actually think you have overturned the whole of Evolutionary Biology.I say:
A lot of conclusions you draw. What are you? A psychiatrist?You say:
Ignorance and Arrogance are so often found together.I say:
Fighting fire with fire.You say:
Are you sure you aren't an American, because that kind of thing is really common here.I say:
I am European with a temporary position in Australia. I like to travel and to understand the world.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

You say:
You are the one who didn't understand that the position of the foramen magnum in fossil primate skulls indicated how upright the individual walked.

​

I say:
So an intermediate foramen magnum means that the organism walk in 45 degrees angle? Or on three legs? Or on his knees? Or with a walking stick? Or what?

---

This is a very cartoonish version of the issue but ... something like that, yeah. Where the spine ties into the skull gives a good indication of the orientation of the head. The orientation of the head gives a good indication of overall posture. Look at a dog's skull (if you are a cat person) or a cat's skull (if you are a dog person). The spine ties into the back of the head. Dogs walk on all four legs. Your spine does not tie in at the back or you'd be looking at the ceiling all the time. These are two extremes. Look at the posture of a gorilla. The spine isn't parallel to the ground as in dogs and cats, nor is it upright like our own. The foramen magnum reflects this.

quote:

---

Inference does happen a lot. Conclusion jumping happens a lot in the hype and next present it as fact. That's what I objected to, and I will do even harder in the future.

---

You do seem to treat any inference not your own, as conclusion jumping.

quote:

---

I already told you several times that a univerity degree is irrelevant to a discussion as long as the arguments are valid.

---

Quite correct on this one, so long as one does not claim to be an authority.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Does anyone know how the requirements for earning a PhD in Australia are different from the requirements in the US?

​

I know that, in general, the US universities, especially post-graduate work, are more difficult and it is quite a bit more difficult to earn a PhD here than in most other countries. OTOH, our public schools are much easier to graduate from compared to other countries.

​

So, I suppose that the general populace in Europe and Asia is probably better educated than the general populace of the US, but among people with higher education, those who got their degrees in the US had to work harder to get them than their counterparts on other continents.

​

I suppose that this would be why many (rich) people in India and Asia and Europe send their children to University in the US.

​

So, anyway, does anyone know how getting a PhD is different in Australia?

---

JM: I don't know about Australia, but Peter earned his Ph.D. in the Netherlands (he can of course correct me). While the US Ph.D. system is arguably the best in the world, there is nothing inherently inferior about a Ph.D. earned elsewhere in the world. Peter elsewhere claims he knows how scientific publishing works, but in my opinion he does not seem to grasp the system based on his answers and questions regarding trying to publish his ideas.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear Schraf,You say:
Look, you are the one who didn't seem to understand how the journal system works.I say:
You copied this opinion from Joe Meert. He is wrong.[/QUOTE]No, I share Joe's opinion. If you actually do understand how the jounal system works, why don't you briefly run through what you did to get your latest research published? What were the steps?

quote:

---

You say:
You are the one who didn't understand that the position of the foramen magnum in fossil primate skulls indicated how upright the individual walked.

​

I say:
So an intermediate foramen magnum means that the organism walk in 45 degrees angle? Or on three legs? Or on his knees? Or with a walking stick? Or what?

---

This was covered well by John. Please note that this (comparative anatomy) is basic, elementary evolutionary Biology that you apparently have no knowledge of.

quote:

---

You say:
You are the one who has repeatedly cited journal aricles as support for your position when it is clear that the articles do not support your position at all. In fact, you seem to not even read the articles carefully, or at all, before you cite them.

​

I say:
Here you copy the opinion of SLPx. Sometimes I have a different interpretation, yes, that is correct. And, if my position is untenable I give in.

---

We had our own discussion about the Equine DDF paper, remember? Again, I share anothers' opinion on this matter.What you don't seem to understand is that you cite the papers before you know if your position is untenable, because you don't understand what the papers say.The point is, if you don't understand the papers well enough to know if they support your position or not, then you don't have any business citing them. This is really sloppy from a scientific perspective.

quote:

---

You say:
You are the one who thinks that inference doesn't happen in science, when that is precicely how all science is conducted; by making inferences.

​

I say:
Inference does happen a lot. Conclusion jumping happens a lot in the hype and next present it as fact. That's what I objected to, and I will do even harder in the future.

---

Except that you tend to ignore the evidence which supports the inferences which you do not agree with. Think back to the DDF paper discussion. YOu saw the phrase "apparently functionless" and hung on to that, ignoring the rest of the paper.

quote:

---

You say:
Yes, I stand corrected. You do, in fact, have a PhD. However, this fact seems to be irrelevant with regards to your understanding of how science works and of the topics at hand.

​

I say:
I already told you several times that a univerity degree is irrelevant to a discussion as long as the arguments are valid. Glad, you agree. Your whole exercise of looking for me in literature and presenting my 'complete' curriculum here is utterly idle. It demonstrates your desparation.

---

When an opponent attempts to represent themselves as something they are not in order to appear more prestigious or knowledgeable, it casts a unfavorable light upon everything they claim. You desired to mislead, so now your motives are suspect. Sorry, you did this to you, Peter.

quote:

---

You say:
You did not mention that you were actually a post doctorate fellow, and I am still mistrustful of your claim that English is not your native language.

​

I say:
So, what. I also didn't mention that I like strawberries. Thanks for you compliment on my english.

---

Cute, except that you intended to lead us to think you were more accomplished than you were. Someone who has published before should understand the idea that one is to bend over backwards to disclose fully everything you can or risk being called out for faulty research methods, or worse.

quote:

---

You say:
If your specialty has been in molecular biology, I can understand how this can be true, as it is possible to do productive molecular work "cookbook-style." The "harder" a science is, the more you rely on your instruments to be the experimental controls. The softer sciences, if they are to be done well, tend to require a greater understanding of science and the pitfalls of fallacies and biased thinking, since human interpretation and perceptions are used much more than machines.

​

This is why, I think, that the "real" scienctists that get sucked in to pseudoscience tend to be from fields like Physics and engineering. They are terrible at identifying poor experimental design when they are studying humans and human behavior. Bias and thought errors are a part of being human, and the scientific method is there to get around as much of that as possible in our search for the truth about the natural world.

​

Anyway, I think that you are a religious Creationist, and are therefore going about the problem in the usual backwards way; you have decided what you "know" is true, and now you pick and choose (and willfully misinterpret) the evidence that you feel supports your position and ignore what you can't twist. You also mislead yourself into thinking because you are knowledgeable in one aspect (respiratory illness) you know what you are talking about in other aspects enough to actually think you have overturned the whole of Evolutionary Biology.

​

I say:
A lot of conclusions you draw. What are you? A psychiatrist?

---

Unresponsive. You still have not demonstrated a real understanding of the scientific method, nor the basics of Evolutionary Biology.Fixed a "[WUOTE]" - Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-04-2002]

Dear John,You say:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:You say:
You are the one who didn't understand that the position of the foramen magnum in fossil primate skulls indicated how upright the individual walked.
I say:
So an intermediate foramen magnum means that the organism walk in 45 degrees angle? Or on three legs? Or on his knees? Or with a walking stick? Or what?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is a very cartoonish version of the issue but ... something like that, yeah. Where the spine ties into the skull gives a good indication of the orientation of the head. The orientation of the head gives a good indication of overall posture. Look at a dog's skull (if you are a cat person) or a cat's skull (if you are a dog person). The spine ties into the back of the head. Dogs walk on all four legs. Your spine does not tie in at the back or you'd be looking at the ceiling all the time. These are two extremes. Look at the posture of a gorilla. The spine isn't parallel to the ground as in dogs and cats, nor is it upright like our own. The foramen magnum reflects this.I say:
So, what is the conclusion from the skulls presented in Andya's mail? That the monkey had extremely long front limbs?And how is the normal distribution within monkeys, and within man?best wishes,
Peter

Let me guess. You think that Sahelanthropus is a monkey? Its foramen magnum position is intermediate between the gorilla and human position, so, either it walked bipedally or it had ridiculously long arms. I'd go for bipedalism, but we still have to wait for more Sahelanthropus bones

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear John,I say:
So, what is the conclusion from the skulls presented in Andya's mail? That the monkey had extremely long front limbs?[/quote][/b]Are you being intentionally obtuse? The conclusion, based on the position of the foramen magnum, has already been spelled out for you.

quote:

---

And how is the normal distribution within monkeys, and within man?

---

Please clarify.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

dear John,You write:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
I say:
So, what is the conclusion from the skulls presented in Andya's mail? That the monkey had extremely long front limbs?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The conclusion, based on the position of the foramen magnum, has already been spelled out for you.I say:
Actually, the conclusion has not been spelled out. Andya's conclusion is that the organism was bipedal. However, there are many possibilities. I already mentioned a few in a previous mail. So, was the animal some sort of humpback? 45 degrees walker? Or was it reaching for leaves all day? And did it have very long arms?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how is the normal distribution within monkeys, and within man?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You:
Please clarify.I say:
Normal distribution with respect to the position of the foramen magnum. I expect that not all foramen magna are exactly on the same postion within a population. I expect a normal distribution. And does the distribution demonstrate overlap w.r.t. the distinct species?Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

I say:
Actually, the conclusion has not been spelled out. Andya's conclusion is that the organism was bipedal. However, there are many possibilities. I already mentioned a few in a previous mail.

---

You must be refering to this, from post #18:

quote:

---

I say:
So an intermediate foramen magnum means that the organism walk in 45 degrees angle? Or on three legs? Or on his knees? Or with a walking stick? Or what?

---

All of these have been addressed.I explained the 45% angle portion. The foramen magnum is too far towards the bottom.There are not a great many three legged animals on this planet so I think we can eliminate that one. Nor are there many 'knee-walkers' or 'walking-stick-walkers'. These possibilities are unreasonable and give your position a certain childish smell.There are quite a few 'whats' but the term is too general for me to properly reply.

quote:

---

So, was the animal some sort of humpback?

---

Where did you get humpback out of this?

quote:

---

Or was it reaching for leaves all day?

---

Gibbons are brachiators so presumably they would be the ones with their arms above there heads most often. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.glendale.edu/skull/gibbon/bottom.htmCompare to the other skulls on the site. The foramen magnum of the gibbon is positioned slightly further back than in the chimps. The foramen magnum of sahelanthropus is forward of that of chimps.

quote:

---

And did it have very long arms?

---

Gibbons also have the longest arms, proportionally, of the primates.

quote:

---

I say:
Normal distribution with respect to the position of the foramen magnum. I expect that not all foramen magna are exactly on the same postion within a population. I expect a normal distribution. And does the distribution demonstrate overlap w.r.t. the distinct species?

---

Well, I can't find anything on the topic. I'd guess that the variation is no more than a millimeter or two. Perhaps someone else can tell us both.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear John,
So what is it?
An intermediate(ancestor) with respect to Gorilla and Southern-Ape, that walked with bended knees?
Man or monkey, that's the question.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
So what is it?
An intermediate(ancestor) with respect to Gorilla and Southern-Ape, that walked with bended knees?
Man or monkey, that's the question.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

No, it isn't. Man or monkey represents a false and misleading dichotomy. Sahelanthropus was a Sahelanthropus. Period. Where it sat in the evolutionary lineages that led to man or monkey might be an interesting question. However, it is irrelevant when considering the evidence as to whether it was bipedal or not. That's purely a structural question.

quote:

---

Man or monkey, that's the question.

---

Humans are just a different species of primate, like monkeys and apes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
So what is it?
An intermediate(ancestor) with respect to Gorilla and Southern-Ape, that walked with bended knees?
Man or monkey, that's the question.

---

PeterB:You are being intentionally obtuse.Please come up with a substantial reply.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com