Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 12:37 AM
27 online now:
DrJones*, edge, PaulK (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,782 Year: 6,819/19,786 Month: 1,360/1,581 Week: 182/393 Day: 5/110 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 91 of 214 (15846)
08-21-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by peter borger
08-14-2002 11:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

Ok Mr. Borger...what exactly are your credentials???

Peter replies:
MSc (biochemistry, molecular biology), PhD (molecular medicine, gene expression and regulation)


I find that hard to believe. Do you have any relevant publication? Relevant to the issue of biological evolution, for example? Are you from ther Netherlands?

quote:

4) really "with data" disprove that evolution can occur.

I say (pb):
I don't have to do that anymore, since Spetner already did this in a very scientific (mathematical) way. I will provide biological support for his vision.


Spetner did this? In his book? Ok - I will ask you this. I have asked John Paul and other Spetner mongers, but none have taken up the torch. What is Spetners evidence for 'directed mutation' in multicellular eukaryotes?
And did Spetner try to submit his fact-filled disproofs of Evolution before or after he tried to prove that one fossil of Archaeopteryx was a fraud (and shown to be wrong)?

See http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 11:06 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 4:50 AM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 92 of 214 (15847)
08-21-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by peter borger
08-19-2002 2:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear AS,

You write:
What overthrow? All the facts and observations are building an intricate pattern supporting evolution. There, I just wanted to say that.

I say:
What I question is randomness of NDT. If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true.
Peter


What is the evidence for non-randomness? Citing a paper and saying Non-random! is not really evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by peter borger, posted 08-19-2002 2:05 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by mark24, posted 08-21-2002 12:10 PM derwood has not yet responded
 Message 109 by axial soliton, posted 08-23-2002 3:28 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 111 of 214 (15990)
08-23-2002 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by peter borger
08-22-2002 4:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

Thanks for suggesting that I am a liar.


I never did such a thing, I merely said that I find it hard to believe that you are a 'molecular biology researcher'. Where in that is the statment that I think you are a liar?
As an aside, I KNOW that Jon Wells has a PhD in molecular biology, yet I find it 'hard to believe' considering his piss-poor scientific output and the length of time it took him to get it.

quote:

It only demonstrates your own weaknesses.

What weakness might that be? I do not reall reading a paper containing good evidence for creation (well, there aren't any, for one thing) and claiming that, in reality, it is good evidence for my falsification of it. Have I?

quote:

It is not of any relevance whether I am from the Netherlands, Australia, or where ever, or whether I have an academical degree or not (another fallacy, often used to bluff off laymen).

It is relevant, as the only "Borger P" that I found as an autrhor on papers in PubMed is from the Netherlands. I was just trrying to corroborate your story.
It is not a fallacy to wonder whether or not a creationist has the credentials they claim to have. If you are involved in this debate at any level and approach it HONESTLY, you would know - and hopefully be quite embarrassed - that creation 'scientists' have a long, rich history of embellishing and even fabricating their credentials. To impress laymen, no doubt. Your righteous indignation is quite misplaced.

quote:

You should come up with hard arguments that overthrow my claim otherwise I claim the NDT officially demised!

Yeah... I already did, you twisted it into support for yourself. VCreationists seem to do that quite a bit.
Your so-called 'falsification' of NDT seems to stem from, it seems to me, simplistic definitions and wishful thinking.

I do not think you will be up for the Nobel Prize any time soon.

quote:

If this is all you can, I feel really sorry for you (I will pray for you),

Best wishes,
Peter


Better you should pray that you can actually come up with evidence that really does support your grandiose claims.

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 4:50 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 112 of 214 (15991)
08-23-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by peter borger
08-23-2002 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear FK,

It is very well possible to do science in an agnostic way. All I said in a previous mail is that I am a "agnostic scientist". Not an agnostic person. It means that I do science without any prejudices: I look at my data and try to conceive them independent of any paradigm. (= free science).


How is this possible when you are clearly looking - hard - for anything thast you think will prop up your claims?

quote:

For publications: check pubmed, NCBI homepage.

Peter


That is why I asked if you are from the Netherlands.

If you are the Borger P from the Netherlands, then I noticed that, like so many creationists, your research has noithing to do with evolutionary biology.

According to Phil Johnson, you then are just another layman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by peter borger, posted 08-23-2002 12:08 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 125 of 214 (16247)
08-29-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Peter
08-29-2002 7:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
If I understand it correctly PeterB is saying that the
existence of regions which have a higher probability
of undergoing mutation makes mutations non-random.

If my interpretation is correct, then I think the logic is
skewed to say the least.

Because a region is more likely to be subject to a copying error
does not make any actual instance of a copy error non-random.


Indeed.

------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Peter, posted 08-29-2002 7:58 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 3:13 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 127 of 214 (16303)
08-30-2002 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by axial soliton
08-29-2002 3:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.

Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?


I would say yes, but the real reason I use that quote is because 'John Paul' (Joe Gallien) has used other quotes from that paper to try to argue in support of ReMine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 3:13 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 128 of 214 (16304)
08-30-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by axial soliton
08-29-2002 3:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.

Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?


I would say yes, but the real reason I use that quote is because 'John Paul' (Joe Gallien) has used other quotes from that paper to try to argue in support of ReMine.

------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 3:13 PM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 4:38 PM derwood has not yet responded
 Message 154 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 11:13 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 142 of 214 (16768)
09-06-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by peter borger
09-05-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear schrafinator,

I do not have to do that anymore, since Mammuthus already took the opportunity. However, he forgot to mention another work I wrote on gene regulation, entitled: Regulation of T cell cytokine gene expression. ISBN 90-9011922-1.
I wonder however what difference does it makes in a discussion whether you have a degree or not? Discussions are about arguments not academical degrees. And, as long as zoologists are allowed to write about (selfish) genes, for sure I am.

Best wishes,
Peter


If the zoologist researched the topic, that is fine. However, your dossier does not read like a that of someone that has researched evolution or any aspect of it.

And keep in mind that the zoologist writing about selfish genes is not repeatedly claiming to have falsified the reigning biological paradigm.

I wonder- why didn't you send a letter to Nature outlining all of your amassed evidence falsifying evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by peter borger, posted 09-05-2002 8:05 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 2:22 AM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 148 of 214 (17009)
09-09-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by peter borger
09-09-2002 2:22 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]dear SLPx,

You write:
"If the zoologist researched the topic, that is fine. However, your dossier does not read like a that of someone that has researched evolution or any aspect of it."

I say:
I think it is about time that molecular biologists have a careful look at the NDT claims and check them whether they can hold in the light of new discoveries.I know that the NDT cannot hold, [/quote]

You "know" this, do you? Your posts read more like a creationist's faith than anything else. As others have pointred out and demonstrated, your knowledge about evolution and biology in general is severely limited, if not intriguingly lacking. So forgive me if I do not believe that you "know" anything about NDT.

quote:

and with me a lot of evolutionary theorists know that some strange things are going on in the genome that cannot be explained by random mutation and selection alone.

They do? Like what?

quote:

The problem is known in literature and the recent introduction of very weak selection demonstrates the problem.
I already demonstrated that if you wanna explain the alpha-actinin genes and the 1G5 genes in D melanogaster you have to introduce either neutral selection or non-random mutation. That's the end of NDT, and you know that too.

So let me get this straight:

Even if you are right about this, which I have little confidence of being true, how is it again that such an occurrance negates all of the other evidence?
If I can take an elevator to the top of the Empire State Building, does that falsify the fact that you can also get to the top by using the stairs?

quote:

I decided to blow the whistle as soon as we require to introduce neutral selection or non-random mutation. As a matter of fact, I wrote several letters to biologists in the field to ask for clarifications without response, so...

Well, maybe those biologists see your writings the same way I do and decided not to waste the time.

quote:

[By the way, do you think that I am not able to discuss evolutionary aspects of molecular biology, because I did not publish on it?]

No, I think that because you have done no pertinent research AND the clearly shallow grasp you have on related issues relegates your opinions to the "dime a dozen creationist tripe" bin.

quote:

You say:
"And keep in mind that the zoologist writing about selfish genes is not repeatedly claiming to have falsified the reigning biological paradigm."

I say:
"I had to reiterate myself several times, since Mark24 and you (and others) are in the denial mode.


I am in denial?
Remind us all again who it was that took the evidence presented showing that non-random mutations aren't and tried to claim that the papers actually supported the opposite view?

quote:

It should also be noted that I didn't falsify NDT.

That was noted some time ago.

quote:

The phenomena observed on the 1G5 gene did (also the ZFY region in the human Y chromosome falsifies NDT -> see my comments to Percy. Also the human alpha-actinin genes do).

If you say so. I can't wait to see you shaking hands with the King od Sweden for amassing all this amazing evidence and overturning the dominant biological paradigm.

I just can't wait to see what you and your cohorts are going to replace it with.

quote:

Moreover, the zoologist does not have to fight the reigning paradigms since he is an advocate. If one does not believe the reigning paradigm (and I don't believe it for several good reasons) the first thing to do is to falsify it.

Better get started.

quote:

Next, one has to come with an alternative, that explains all phenomena (I did that in my final letter to Mark24). That is how it works."

I must habve m,issed that. In this thread?[quote]
You also say:
"I wonder- why didn't you send a letter to Nature outlining all of your amassed evidence falsifying evolution?"

"Maybe I'll do that."
[QUOTE]
Sure you will....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 2:22 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 7:58 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 166 of 214 (17102)
09-10-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by peter borger
09-09-2002 7:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

You say:
"..an occurrance negates all of the other evidence?"

I say:

"What evidence? Interpreted data, that's all there is. I could reinterpret them. As soon as non-random mutations are scientificly accepted, I will"


What if it is YOUR interpretations that are in error?

If it comes down to the interpreted evidence that favors an evolutionary explanation and the evidence interpreted by a distinct minority that have a particular agenda to push, I think I know whom I will side with.

Of course, in my mind, my own data -interpreted logically - clearly supports the NDT.
If you disagree, I would say that it is simply due to your biased interpretations.

quote:

And you say:
"I just can't wait to see what you and your cohorts are going to replace it with."

There are no cohorts, I'm operating alone. And currently I am writing on an alternative of ET, and if you had read all my posts you would have had a bit of a clue already.


Thats just it. I have read dozens of your posts, and I see little more than your repeated say so and your tendency to 'interpret' evidence in a, shall we say, unique fashion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 7:58 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 9:01 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 169 of 214 (17175)
09-11-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by peter borger
09-10-2002 9:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,

You wonder:
"What if it is YOUR interpretations that are in error?"

I say:
"Than we have two interpretations that are in error."

Best wishes,
Peter


Please start making sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 9:01 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 170 of 214 (17176)
09-11-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
09-09-2002 8:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mark,

Do I really have to respond to your letter? I don't see new issues I have to respond to. (please point out if I am wrong)

However, I could start by explaining to you that neutral evolution theory is not part of NDT (as you claim), but I am not going to do that now. Maybe Mammuthus could explain it to you, or SLPx. They are the evolutionary experts of this site.

Best wishes,
Peter


Perhaps you can explain how the neutral theory differs from NDT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 8:23 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 7:58 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 171 of 214 (17177)
09-11-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by peter borger
09-09-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,
The flaw in the paper you refer to is their tacit assumption that phenotypes are determined by coding genes. I really doubt that. It will turn out that phenotypes are predominantly determined by the level of gene expression.

Peter


I do not believe that you understrand the paper.
That, or you did not see this:

"However, there are also differences in the structure of the proteins encoded by the genes, which undoubtedly account for some of the observed differences in phenotypes.Structural differences in proteins cause those proteins to function differently, especially in the way that multiple proteins interact with each other. This paper examines those structural changes, called nonsynonymous substitutions at the DNA level.."

So your 'conclusion' seems unwarranted.

You see, Peter, I know the authors of that paper. I know what type of data they looked at and have looked at in the past. They have been involved in all sorts of protein expression studies and have investigated the phylogenetic patterns in regulatory sequence (as have I). So, you see, we actually do know about those things.

Did you have anything sunstantive?

Of course, regulatory sequence determines the amount of gene expression, and regulatory sequence is often what is looked at in such analyses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 11:13 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 8:07 PM derwood has responded
 Message 184 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 8:38 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 180 of 214 (17259)
09-12-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by peter borger
09-11-2002 7:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

For instance, NDT was set up in the 1930th and 1940th. The Neutral theory (NT) was set up in the 1960th and 1970th. So, NT can not be part of NDT.


This may come as a shock, Peter, but actual scientific theories adapt to changing information. The NT may not have been part of the NDT that was originally formulated in the 30s, however, it is foolish to suggest that the NT does not play a role in the ToE of today.

quote:

As a matter of fact Darwinian evolutionists were very sceptic about NDT when it was introduced. Why? Since NT does NOT include beneficial mutations (although they are acknowledges by Kimura).

Yes, they were skeptical about it. It was 'anti-Darwinian' - and yet, it made it past the evilutionist conspiracy to get published in a series of papers by Kimura. Why? Because Kimura, unlike you, did research to test his hypotheses. The neutral theory does not preclude beneficial mutations at all. Not one bit. The NTs central tenet is that most molecular change is neutral or nearly so. You are right, Kimura acknowledged beneficial mutations. Why wouldn't he have?
Looks like you are pulling your semantics games, again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 7:58 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 8:08 PM derwood has responded
 Message 186 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 10:44 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 181 of 214 (17260)
09-12-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by peter borger
09-11-2002 8:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

You ask:

"Did you have anything substantive?"

I say:

Ever contemplated trisomy 21? The only difference between diploid 21 and triploid 21 is that the approx 150 genes of chrom 21 are present 3-fold instead of 2-fold. So the phenotypic changes observed in trisomy 21 are NOT due to mutations in proteins or mutations in regulatory sequences. They reside in the amount of gene expression. This completely deregulates phenotypic development.

best wishes
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-11-2002]


I reiterate my request. SO?

Your claim does not follow from the actual contents of the paper. You write as if you are the first person to think that amounts of expression are important; that is clearly not the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 8:07 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by peter borger, posted 09-17-2002 2:06 AM derwood has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019