dear Mammuthus,
YOU write:
PB:
The scientific explanation why the one multipurpose genome cannot transform into another multipurpose genome is due to the ‘Borger Exclusion Principle’. Only certain, well defined (or: divine-d ) creatons are allowed to operate at the respective defined levels of the morphogenetic field, so that it induces novel genes and/or genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs. That’s how genomes grow. Of course, we still have to scientifically proof the existence of creatons and the morphogenetic field, but I see that is a good scientific challenge. You don’t believe evolutionism is complete, I hope?
M: Please define and provide an example of a "well defined creaton"
"allowed to operate.." allowed by who?
MY RESPONSE:
You have to realise that it still is a hypothesis. However, in my opinion there have been creations --and maybe still are-- that gave rise to protein families genes. For instance if we have a look at the differences between pro- and eukaryota it can be inferred that creatons exist that interact with matter to create the histons. For instance, histon H4, histon H3 --but also the other histons-- seem to drop out of the sky. They never changed afterwards. The amino acid substitutions per site/10exp9 years < 0.014 ('Molecular Evolution' by R. Page and EC Holmes p235, ISBN 0-86542-889-1). Interestingly, histons can even be redundant, as recently observed for histon h1 in saccharomyces (not sure, will look it up).
You say:
Your hypothesis is falsified by the fact of heredity.
MY RESPONSE:
Once a genome has been formed by creaton interactions it is subject to the laws of genetics and thus to heredity.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
1) provide me with a scientific explanation of the first gene, genetic programs that sustains the simplest form of self-propagating biochemical circuit (organism).
M: This is abiogenesis and not evolution. This would be better asked in the Origins of Life forum.
MY RESPONSE:
Since you are an atheist --at least that is what I think to read in your mails-- maybe you could elaborate a bit on it. I think it is the most important question to be addressed by atheists. If not addressed there can be no atheism.
IN RESPONSE TO:
2) provide me with a scientific explanation —aside from gene duplications since I cannot use them to explain genetic redundancies-- where novel redundant genes have their origin.
YOU SAY:
M: Funny, all scientists can use gene duplications to explain genetic redundancies. You can even experimentally generate duplications. So your refusal to accept data that supports this is not a valid refutation.
MY RESPONSE:
In almost every thread I opened there is at least one reference to Tautenhoofd et al, and Winzeler et al who demonstrate that i) redundant genes are not associated with gene duplication, and ii) redundant genes do not faster change than essential genes. That makes me a bit suspicious about the alleged molecular evolutionary mechanisms.
IN RESPONSE TO:
3) provide me with a scientific explanation for the redundant genetic code and
YOU SAY:
M: Please define redundant genetic code or do you mean degenerate code?
MY REPONSE:
I guess you call it the degenerate genetic code since you think it is degenerate. I call it redundant genetic code, since it is not degenerate but the most optimal design using 64 symbols to write life and to avoid mutations that introduce aminoacids on the wrong spot.
IN RESPONSE TO:
4) next provide me with a scientific explanation for the recently in eukaryota discovered second DNA associated genetic code, the Histon Code (Science 2001, 293:1074-80). And then,
YOU SAY:
...I'll read the article and get back to you...but you do realize that mtDNA also uses a different code? And also inolveds RNA editing to produce transcripts?
MY RESPONSE:
The major difference is that mtDNA has 4 stop codons. Apparently it requires more stringent control due to compactness of the genes on the mt-DNA.
IN RESPONSE TO:
5) provide me with a scientific explanation for the assumed third DNA associated code: the coactivater code of transcription (Trends Biochem Sci 2002, 27:165-7.).
YOU WRITE:
I'll read this and get back to you on it to however, I do suspect that the article itself provides a scientific explanation...
But I have a counter question..why do you assume that evolution requires a universal translation code? What is the basis for your assumption that this system has not evolved?
MY RESPONSE:
Evolutiontheory/abiogenesis doesn't have a solution for the first genetic code, let alone for a code that generates a code due to the intermediate of another code. I simply don't believe that this all evolved by random mutation and selection. I am entitled to my believes isn't it?
IN RESPONSE TO:
Without answers evolutionism is dead. Period.
YOU SAY:
M: Unwarranted conclusion and desperate wishful thinking.
I SAY:
It was a response to "Without answers creationism is dead. Period.", it was for fun.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
The issue is that although evolutionism tries to address the questions on origin, it actually doesn’t. That is: no origin of genes, no origin of new traits, no origin of new organism. However, there is not a single shred of compelling scientific evidence, only inference. Still, evolutionism is presented as scientific fact. OBJECTION!!!
M: Evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life only speciation. For months in multiple threads your claim that there is no compelling evidence for evolution has been repeatedly rebutted. However, none of your own claims have been substantiated i.e. morphogenetic fields and creatons for example.
MY RESPONSE:
I presented several examples that violate evolutionism. You don't want to see that. And, regarding the creatons and morphogenetic field: don't make it another straw man. I already mentioned in previous letters that I do not need this concept to falsify evolution theory. It is nothing but a hypothesis. What's wrong with a hypothesis?
YOU WRITE:
PB:
Besides, I am able to explain all biological observations without using evolution,
M: So can a religios fanatic. They do so with complete disregard to evidence and science.
MY RESPONSE:
Maybe all the scientific evidence can be explained by '(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome. I think it can.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
only by application of (non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome. I even presented evidence for that, but every atheistic evolutionist is in the denial mode. I don’t mind, as long as I am able to explain all phenomena you can’t.
M: Unwarranted conclusion...some evolutionists here are theistic evolutionists. Your non-random mutation misconception has been debunked counteless times. You merely disregard what has been said and then repeat and repeat your statement as if this will somehow eventually make it true.
MY RESPONSE:
Evolution theory cannot cover all observations in the genome as repeatedly demonstrated on this site. Now, you can do two things. i) Ignore/deny it. It doesn't make the theory more compelling. The contrary. ii) Adapt the theory. I recommend the second option. In the meantime I will work on my hypothesis.
YOU WRITE:
You yourself have provided no evidence for your hypothesis so how are you able to explain phenomenon that we can't?
MY RESPONSE:
There is support for my view as mailed before. I will open a new thread on a recently discovered population of organisms that is genetically identical but isn't cloned. It can be interpreted as recently created.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
All biological data have to be discussed subject to evolutionism; otherwise you will have a hard time to get it in a peer reviewed journal. I you have a careful look at the literature a lot of papers demonstrate data that are not in accord with evolution theory and, of course, not discussed. I presented already several of them, and I can simply use them to falsify the evolutionary concepts of random mutation and selection at the level of the genome.
M: And have been rebutted and the ideas debunked. As to publishing in a peer reviewed journal...you seem to be indicating a conspiracy theory.
MY RESPONSE:
If you call that rebutted I am able to rebuke all evolutionary stories. No, I am not suggesting a conspiracy. All I say that it has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, and I considered this peculiar since the data were extraordinary.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
And now we know a bit more about genomes, it suddenly turns out that your stories can easily be falsified at the genomic level.
M: unsupported statment.
MY RESPONSE:
The more I get involved the more I get the feeling that I am wasting my time on this site.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
So, indeed you and the other atheists provided the world with a lot of non-sense that culminates now in a nihilistic worldview. It will take a long time before it has been undone.
M: Most evolutionary biologists are christian....Darwin was as well. Your hatred of atheists exposes your non-scientific agenda to replace science with religion as you greatly fear those of us who live comfortably as non-believers.
MY RESPONSE:
Dear M, I do not have hatred against people (or organisms in general). On the contrary. I know that love between people is the highest command. What I try to show here is that it is not at all as certain as it is. All I object to is the way evolutionism is presented in the media and the tacit implication of atheism. By now you should know that I object to atheism and the underlaying nihilism and its impact on society.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
Actually, I think it cannot be undone anymore, since there is not another possibility for science then being atheistic. I do not mind that you and your guys want to study biology and describe the data subject to evolutionism, but don’t propagate your stories as fact.
M: If you think there is "not another possiblity for science then being atheisitic"...why did you bother studying science and getting a Ph.D.? An odd thing to do if you hate science as a discipline...I don't see any atheists becoming Roman Catholic Archbishops.
MY RESPONSE:
Science is fun and it is able to bring mankind good things (Do research on all topics and keep the good things). However, to study life should be agnostic, not atheistic, since only unbiased agnosticism can lead to true discoveries. Biased science will never reach that goal.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Try to smash my view. Besides, it is a evolutionism versus creationism debate, and has nothing to do with persons. Try not to become personal in this discussion; some other guys/dolls already did that for you. I can assure you that I am completely insensitive to personal attack. I am a stoic and I will overturn evolutionism.
M: I agree that one should avoid personal attacks. But it does happen anyway. At least I don't think you and I have been particularly belligerent towards one another personally though you may feel otherwise.
MY RESPONSE:
At least you are able to discuss. And often you have good comments.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
More personal assaults.
What’s wrong with you evo-guys? Can’t win the discussions anymore in the light of contemporary biology?
M: However, you yourself have claimed science is a nihlistic atheists cult which is unsupportable and I imagine extremely personally insulting to those who are theistic evolutionists. Also you are addressing a single person in the plural i.e. evo-guys. Would you be happy if I associated you with Wordswordsmans manner and tactics?
MY RESPONSE:
I did not mention the word cult. And yes, atheism is nihilistic and I object to that. Now and in the future. Furthermore, if there is such thing as a non-random mechanism I guess not a single theistic evolutionist would object to that. So, I have my doubts on the socalled theistic evolutionists.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Sounds familiar to me in discussions with evolutionists. I mean fighting off straw men and introduction of red herrings.
M: Ah, so you don't think creationists do this? Would you like some examples from this forum? You have often not answered questions or gone off on tangents as well rather than refuting statements.
MY RESPONSE:
A discussion is a discussion, not a yelling-kid-party. If somebody disagrees with me I am fine with that, and I will adapt my views if necessary. But they have to convince me first. If it is only a matter of interpretation I do not concur. I feel sorry for those who think that namecalling and being intolerant are arguments in a discussion.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Better start answering now. Problem is that evolutionism doesn’t answer the question where it is all about: Where do we come from?
M: Africa some 200,000 years ago
Based on what mtDNA Eve? I have my doubt on mtDNA clocks. See my reference in this thread: PNAS 2001, 98:537-542. Other results are provided by the ZFY region. It demonstrates either a very recent origin of man or a selective sweep of the Y chromosome. You choose for the selective sweep, I choose for the recent origin. Why? Because the ZFY region violates evolutionary rules.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Maybe I could think of 300 evolutionist just-so-stories. I think I can, since I recently read a couple of books by Richard Dawkins.
M: Rebutt the primary literature on genetics and also on evolution.
I SAY:
I do not have to rebut genetics. Although I have examples that are able to rebut it. Evolutionism is easy to falsify at the level of the genome (as demonstrated).
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
When do I see these honest evolutionists on television, newspapers, in the media in general? Bob Bakker and his just-so-stories on dinosaurs? I could make them up. Easy. Find a fossilized feather and they can fly. I’ve completely had it with this type of presenting scientific discoveries.
M: If you get your science by watching television then it is no wonder you are confused.
MY RESPONSE:
I do not get my science by television, I get it from first hand and from scientific journals. What I object to is that the rank and file get it from the television, and the way it is presented there is a blamage. OBJECTION!! Televion is the medium to keep the people from the truth by broadcasting nihilistic lulabies.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
The issue should be that you and your evo-proponents should get up to date with your theory. If dramatic changes have to be made: than sois. Ignorance and denial of biological phenomena will render that it will turn against itself. That is what is happening now. The introduction of meaningless term like 'very weak purifying selection'. OBJECTION!! Face then facts. If it cannot be explained by evolutinism the theory has to adapt!!! What you will get is more and more opposition. Assuredly from bio-molecular scientists. Do you really think that you can make me believe that three codes that govern life have evolved from scratch through randomness and selection?
M: Yes
MY RESPONSE:
If my believe has the size of a mustard seed, then yours assuredly has the size of a coconut.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
I posted several articles that conflict evolution theory. See my thread molecular genetic evidence against random mutation; Letter 1-30 provide the complete falsification of NDT Furthermore, if you look a bit further into the evolutionary sciences you will discover that several phenomena conflict evolutionary rules at the genomic level. For instance The ZFY region or the ZFX region. Only a reductionistic view can hold up the hypothesis of evolution. A holistic view completely obliterates evolutionism (see also my discussion with Dr Page on the human ZFY/ZFX region). Here, again on the genomic level, evolutionism comes to a grinding halt.
M: You have been rebutted by Page and others.
I SAY:
Yes, and today I rebutted Dr. Page and you. Every rebut will have its rebut. That's how it goes.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
You believe that refutations of evolutionism are going to be published in peer reviewed pro-evolutionary journals? I will open a new thread this week on genetically identical organisms (not clones). The data are so extraordinary that they could have been published in Science or Nature, but have never appeared in a peer reviewed scientific Journal. Cover up?
M: Ah, the conspiracy theory again. I guess I should be angry that not every one of my papers got published in Naturee..must be a conspiracy against me.
MY RESPONSE:
It wasn't my research, so I don't mind. I coincidentally encountered it in a book written on the topic. It opened my eyes. I will send it next week as a new thread.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Actually I really have my doubt about the valididty of mtDNA mapping and the genetic clock based upon mtDNA. I recently spelled out an article on ancient man mtDNA. I discovered two things:
1) Mutation in mtDNA is not at random (see my thread more non-random evolution),
M: You have been rebutted on this point
2) the differences between human consensus sequence (hcs) and bonobo, hcs and chimp, and hcs and neanderthaler are 29/309, 24/309 and 27/309. So, if it tells something, it is not on human descent. Actually it falsifies human decent. Bottomline, mtDNA analysis cannot be used for such studies.
(REF: PNAS 2001, 98:537-42)
M: You will have to elaborate on this since what you said makes no sense.
MY RESPONSE:
It is the PNAS articel I referred to earlier in this mail. Have a look at Table 1. It demonstrates exactly what I wrote. 1) Non-random mutations in subpopulations of ancient man, and 2)a falsification of common descent.
You will find out --like me-- that if you study subpopulations these findings always show up. It preludes the end of evolution theory.
YOU WRITE:
I say:
Creation has a theory now. It is called ‘(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome’
M: And it has been falsified.
MY RESPONSE:
In your opinion it has been falsified. In my opinion evolutionism has been falsified over and over. Sois.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Evolutionism doesn’t provide ‘explanations’. It merely tells stories that are presented as fact in the media. By the way, maybe you didn’t get it yet, but science is not explanatory, it merely describes HOW things work. What you and your atheistic evo-friends are trying to do sell is that there is no purpose to everything. Well, I object to that, and therefore the harder you scream that everything evolved without purpose the harder I will kick this simplistic vision of life. I am going to bring down evolution theory, whether you like it or not! That’s my goal in life.
M: I am not sure which is worse, your lack of understanding of science, your hatred of non-believers, or your megalomaniac assertions
MY RESPONSE:
None of the above. How can it be that all sciences are subject to changes and evolutionism hasn't changed for almost 70 years? It tells me that something is severely wrong with the theory.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
My comments.
Apparently, human and chimps are closely related with respect to DNA associated code #1, commonly referred to as the ‘genetic code’. However, I have the feeling that you are not completely updated with respect to contemporary biology, since there are additional DNA associated codes present in eukaryotic cells that regulate gene expression. These recently discovered codes —the ‘histon code’ and the ‘coactivator code’ may contribute to the differences between mamalia. So, evolutionists may claim that the first code is determining the appearance of organism and that high degrees of homology between such DNA sequences are proof for evolution, I simply do not share their opinion. It is an outdated view. It is more likely that the differences between human and chimp are determined by the histon code. And it may be so that there will be huge differences with respect to the histon code between human and chimp. In fact I predict there is. Indirect evidence for the importance of the additional codes is provided by chromosomal aberrations like trisomy 21. 'Complete' homology of DNA code #1 still gives rise to huge phenotypic differences. In my opinion it is due to epigenetic modifications of DNA and probably a false reading of code #2 and/or code #3.
M: Care to support your "opinions" with actual data?
MY RESPONSE:
The actual data will be present within the forthcoming decade. We are now rapidly discovering the language of gene regulation and you can be certain that the differences will be found there. In the meantime I will try to find further support for my assertions.
Best wishes,
Peter
) creatons are allowed to operate at the respective defined levels of the morphogenetic field, so that it induces novel genes and/or genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs. That’s how genomes grow. Of course, we still have to scientifically proof the existence of creatons and the morphogenetic field, but I see that is a good scientific challenge. You don’t believe evolutionism is complete, I hope?
™ Version 4.2