I lurk here from time to time because I find it facinating that anyone can be a creationist/IDer/Elvis Presley worshipper/my god can beat up your god etc. etc. in 2002 (not that it ever made any sense). I can only attribute this to the huge variation in education standards that exists in the world which make the discrepancies in wealth pale in comparison.
The post at the bottom from Mr.Borger drew my attention.
First, that is very arrogant of Mr. Borger to claim that Diethard Tautz and Karl Schmid do not know what they are talking about in their papers. (I will be glad to tell them next time I see them though they will both laugh and wonder why I am wasting the few minutes to type this here). Please explain why two people who studied biology (evolution in particular) , generated the data, analyzed it, and yes, even published it are less qualified to draw their conclusions than Mr. Borger?
I could use Mr. Borger's logic to disprove creationsim. There is not one piece of physical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus. Therefore, the bible must be false, an intelligent designer does not exist and all ID based hypotheses are refuted. Ta da! Just disproved your side! So we can all get on with it and support the one true god...Homer Simpson..doh! This would be analagous to the I don't know what the pseudogene does so therefore it must do something and therefore it was designed and therefore evolution did not occur argument.
More seriously though, I work on "junk DNA" have a Ph.D. in human genetics and have been a working biologist for 12 years. The last six on evolution and analyzing DNA from extinct animals such as mammoths. I can agree on Mr. Borger that Junk DNA is an awful term that was adopted prematurely (the only thing we would agree on . However, there are functionless sequences that could be considered junk DNA but to many functionally uncharacterized sequences given this designation.
Mr. Borger says: (Dawkins, who else. But what does he know about genes? He is a zoologist).
Ok Mr. Borger...what exactly are your credentials??? Since you don't accept the hypothesis/views/data of those who are not specialists in exactly the field under debate, show me what your credentials are regarding 1)evolutionary biology 2) "junk DNA"....if you do not hold a Ph.D. in a field directly related to these topics I guess we can say what does Mr. Borger know about genes? He is just a (profession unknown).
It seems from Mr. Borger's posts that he is intelligent but has had no exposure to science or scientific method. If he were truly interested in the topic he would take some classes in 1) scientific philosphy 2) biology 3) genetics 4)evolutionary biology and then with a few clicks at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov click on PubMed and actually find out about pseudogenes, hotspots, etc. rather than spout out that he is more able to evaluate a field than anyone who actually makes a living at it. As a biologist I would assume that I am in no position to evaluate the current state of particle physics. That does not mean I cannot develope an informed opinion on the subject but it will not be worth much unless I really study and work on the subject. Mr. Borger and others seem to just say they have refuted a biological principle without even demonstrating that they are informed on the subject.
Sorry to single you out Mr. Borger but your post was inappropriate...in principle one could cut and paste the name of any of the anti-evolution posters on this board...except for Brad McFall who would require a Rosetta stone to understand in the first place.
Well, enough of that...at least before I bring down the wrath of Percipient...which would be ashame on my first post
Mark..if you are reading this, I really enjoyed your probability of rain post...very clever.
Well, back to lurking...better yet..working
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Dear Monkenstick,
You say: "like I said pete, you're assuming that they're neutral because they don't code for amino acids."
I say: Apparently, you don't get it. The data not only demonstrates fixed introns, they also show mutations in the coding region inducing alternative codons that specify the same aminoacid (due to the degenerate [better is: redundant] genetic code). Furthermore, since you don't agree on the paper I recommend you to sent a letter to Schmidt and Tautz (I will back you up, since I do not understand how such papers can be publishes in evolutionary literature). The authors demonstrate that the complete region changes according to neutral evolution. It's not may personal opinion. If you don't agree on neutral evolution maybe send a letter to Kimura too; to tell him that his neutral theory of evolution is wrong (what do you need a neutral theory of evolution for, anyway? Neutral evolution? What is it?).
I also recommend you to have a careful look at the figure, so you will notice that the mutations in distinct subspecies are introduced on the same spot and even the type of substitution is the same. This falsifies NDT, whether you like it or not. Why don't you read the complete thread?
And: "There are many examples of conserved nucleotide sequences which do not code for amino acids, most of which are regulatory regions. Introns themselves neccessarily must have some selection pressure on their sequence in order for them to be recognised as introns, and not as exons."
Now you tell me something new!
And: "If you are going to claim that all nucleotides which don't encode for amino acids are selectively neutral then you've got big problems when it comes time to explain homology in junk DNA and pseudogenes."
Firstly, there is NO junk DNA. This oldfashioned opinion is (going to be) demonstrated to be completely wrong, although it is still claimed by evolutionists as proof for evolution [have a look at the TALK-origin site, or read the "selfish gene" (Dawkins, who else. But what does he know about genes? He is a zoologist). It is a completely outdated view on DNA]. Secondly, I am not the one in big problems. That is the theory of evolution.
Hi gene90, I barely have time to skim through the forum. But I will try to jump in when I can
And you are correct, in retrospect I was way to harsh in my response to Peter Borger....just had an experiment in the lab tank and I was feeling a bit aggressive I still stand by my criticism of his post however.
By the way, a bit off topic, but if anyone is interested in a really fun book on retroelements (particularly human endogenous retroviruses) in the genome and evolution read Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio. There is actually a lot of technical information in the book for a thriller (though some of it is wrong). Still, gets one thinking about speciation and is not the typical type of book about science that is really restricted to specialists to understand.
For those inclined to read up in any specific area of evolution the most direct way in is
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov click on PubMed to save yourself trouble click on limits and select Title/Abstract
This is the National Institutes of Health literature database. Almost all peer reviewed journals are listed. By going into options such as limits you can save yourself from entering a word and getting 2 million hits. For example I would limit my search to say Title/Text Word, limit to reviews and limit to 1995-2002 and then for example in the search field type evolution retroelements if that is what I was interested in. You would then get a bunch of reviews with citations in them that would lead you to other literature. The advantage here is that many of the pre-2002 articles will be free online. And the actual literature is better than trusting what you read on a website in terms of accuracy....just thought I would throw that out there...for those of you who already know about Medline feel free to ignore what I just wrote
Peter says: "The word "it" in you last sentence refers to the foregoing sentence? Please be more specific in your statements."
I say: Unless you are being purposely obtuse you realize what the "it" refers to.
Peter says: "This immediately falsifies NDT. Furthermore, it is known that subtilisin and interferon alpha also demonstrate directed mutations. Even viruses and bacteria are able to shuffle their genome in response to the environment and --whether you like it or not-- this falsifies NDT."
I say: And I am the one with a logic problem? All this proves is that you do not understand the meaning of random mutation. Where is your proof in any of this that mutations are not random? Where is the data that says you can predict in any given gamete where the next mutation occurs even for a "hot spot"? How does viral activation falsify NDT? You make bold statements but never elaborate as to exactly how this falisfies anything. Please be specific.
I said: "There is not one piece of physical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus."
Peter replies: fallacy #2: How does the foregoing sentence relate to your extensive conclusion? Apparently it is you who needs to brush up logics. Not only are these 'unwarranted conclusions', but they are also 'pars pro toto' fallacies. If this is your logics than I suddenly understand evolution much better.
Notably, your conclusion based on the above statement (thatis not even backed up by evidence, on the contrary) is:
"Therefore, the bible must be false, an intelligent designer does not exist and all ID based hypotheses are refuted. Ta da! Just disproved your side! So we can all get on with it and support the one true god...Homer Simpson..doh! This would be analagous to the I don't know what the pseudogene does so therefore it must do something and therefore it was designed and therefore evolution did not occur argument."
In addition, it should be noted that religion is per definition NO science, and if evolution IS science than I will treat it like that."
I reply: 1) Show me then one piece of evidence that Jesus lived (extra-biblical of course. You merely state that I am incorrect in saying there is no evidence that he lived. 2) It it gratifying that you listed intelligent design as not being a science but a religion.."it should be noted that religion is per definition NO science"
Peter says: ....and still propagated by evolutionists on internet, the papers, television etc. I strongly object to that!!"
I say: Please try and keep your emotions under control. The term junk DNA has been propagated primarily by the genomics community rather than specifically evolutionists...you really don't hold yourself to the standards of discourse you expect of others
Peter says: (Dawkins, who else. But what does he know about genes? He is a zoologist).
I replied: Ok Mr. Borger...what exactly are your credentials???
Peter replies: MSc (biochemistry, molecular biology), PhD (molecular medicine, gene expression and regulation)
I said: "Since you don't accept the hypothesis/views/data of those who are not specialists in exactly the field under debate, show me what your credentials are regarding 1)evolutionary biology 2) "junk DNA"....if you do not hold a Ph.D. in a field directly related to these topics I guess we can say what does Mr. Borger know about genes? He is just a (profession unknown)."
Peter says: What are you up to? Is this some kind of debating trick? Besides, my profession is mentioned on this site."
I say: Um...how is this a trick? YOU said that Richard Dawkins cannot be taken seriously in discussing genetic evolution because he is a zoologist. 1) that assumes that he had no training in genetics as a zoologist which is very often an incorrect assumption (you jumping to conclusions) 2) you not having a background in evolution would exclude you from having an opinion by your own standard...no trick...your logic.
Peter says: "What makes you think I cannot analyse the data the authors present in literature? It is jumping to conclusions, again. (=fallacy #? I lost thread)"
Re read what I said....you are not analyzing the raw data but you are JUMPING to the CONCLUSION that you are always right and they are wrong. However, you never propose what the correct interpretation is I notice. You merely say that they are incorrect but do not support or even give an alternative explanation...so yes, I do not think you are able to analyze the data the authors present in the literature as well as they do.
Peter says regarding his study of evolution: "I has my special interest although I do not come to the same conclusions as evolution biologists copy from the theory."
I say: This statement makes no sense...another sweeping statement that everyone is wrong but you are right? Just a question of interest..have you ever read any of Darwin's works?
Peter says: "I agree, but you could have a much better opinion if you took some particle physics classes. You would be independent of the opinion of others. I am independent of the opinions of other biologists, since I perfectly well understand the data they present in literature."
1) You assume that I am dependent on the opinions of others 2) You are completely dependent on the presentation of the data (rarely raw) of those biologists you claim to be independent of. We all are and that is why some of choose to do experiments on the subject ourselves...i.e. so as not to be dependent on the opinions of others. 3) You are certainly dependent on your opinion to the exclusion of all other considerations which is just as unfortunate as a blind follower. Give me hard evidence that you can really 1) understand the theory of evolution 2) propose an alternative 3) show any support for that alternative 4) really "with data" disprove that evolution can occur.
Peter says regarding Mark24's post (apologize but do not know which number it was) "Of course you liked it since it was an inappropriate analogy. I recommend you to brush up on your logics."
I reply: I like Mark's analogy because it was funny and very appropriate. It is you who should brush up on your logics.
Peter says: "Finally I would like to say to Mammuthus: If you specialise in only one thing, you will never come to greater things than this one specialty. If one integrates several disciplines one will come to different insight that were beyond reach/imagination before.
I have the feeling that you work as follows:
Axioma 1: there is no creation, Axioma 2: there is evolution.
And you are entitled to this, I don't mind.
But, who are you to tell other people that they are wrong in their axioma's. A PhD-ed molecular evolutionist? It doesn't impress me at all. Better try to integrate unbiased objective thinking in your 'Weltanschauung'."
I reply: 1) I do not specialize in one thing...again you make the assumption though you accuse me of making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and uttering fallacies...rather amusing.
correction: Axioma 1) there is not a shred of evidence for creation Axioma 2) there is a ton of evidence for evolution but an enormous amount of data missing as to how it works...not unlike the Law of Gravity. That is what makes it interesting.
Since we are in assumption mode in this part of the post..Peter Borger Axioma 1) evolution cannot happen Axioma 2) My interpretations are always correct
Peter says: "But, who are you to tell other people that they are wrong in their axioma's. "
I reply: Who exactly are you to tell people that they are wrong with their axioma's? Right back at you. I guess because I do not agree with you that I am not allowed to say you are wrong though you are free to do so?
Peter says: "A PhD-ed molecular evolutionist"...get the facts straight...where did I claim to be a PhD-ed molecular evolutionist? And I really do not give a rats behind if my credentials impress you or not. I only put them out there as a bit of background information for others reading the posts.
Peter claims I need to: "Better try to integrate unbiased objective thinking in your 'Weltanschauung'."
I reply: Gleichfalls! You could use a heavy dose of this as well. Also support your ASSUMPTION that I do not use objective thinking. I will make an assumption given the tone of your responses to myself and others. Unbiased objective thinking means those who agree with you and nobody else...that is a poor way to engage in any endeavor much less a scientific one.
By all means attack the theory of evolution but 1) show that you understand the basics 2) propose the alternative 3) support it with hard data
If you could actually knock down any part of genetics or evolution by discovering something that nobody has seen that would be great. Upheavels in science are fantastic and bring about new discoveries...nay saying does not.
"If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?"
If he had any substantive data that could overthrow the basic tenets of evolution (not to mention basic genetics)he would publish it in a peer reviewed journal rather than coming onto a message board and saying nja nja I disproved evolution.
Coming to this board has been a very amusing distraction
Dear Peter Thank you for your reply. As we are going in circles I am going to direct you to Mark24s post number 73 as he did an excellent job of framing the major points of discussion in this thread. They should be addressed and not just by either of us but by all interested parties in this forum.
The two points from your reply I will address come from near the end of your post. First, if you are having trouble publishing your objections to evolution in a mainstream peer reviewed journal I have a suggestion. Write it as a book and find a publisher. If it has any merit it will get attention. Even if it does not have merit but is well written and controversial it could very well get attention. A few weeks ago Nature reviewed (I believe Brian Charlesworth was the reviewer..don't have it handy) an intelligent design book. So with effort and perhaps through other another medium than Nature or Science, you can have controversial ideas published.
Second, no I am not trying to clone a mammoth. It will not happen in our lifetimes. After 10-100,000 years of oxidative and hydrolytic damage, even permafrost preserved samples yield nothing better than DNA of fragment lengths in the range of 0-3kb. But there are enough samples available that such sequences are useful for population genetics and phylogenetic analysis. We can even study the pathogens that infected them (which may also be extinct).
Hi Mark, It is certainly getting old. I really thought he might take a stab at your post 73 but he did not. He also revealed a profound inability to reason in his last sentence "If evolution is non-random than NDT is false, and nothing can prevent creation to be true." 1) Evolution has not been falisified...the understanding of "random" and evolution by creationists has been falsfied multiple times on this board (not just by him) 2)Falsifying evolution would not make creation true! I could substitute Puff the Magic Dragon Invention for creation in his sentence.
I'll be interested to see if post 73 gets any attention in the future.
Message 85 of 85 08-19-2002 04:10 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
1/ But mutation IS random!!!!!!! AAAAAAGH. The NDT HASN'T BEEN FALSIFIED.
See part A/ of message 73, & you'll see this is exactly why your pissing people of with this repetitive-I-have-no-argument-so-I'll-reassert-mtself-ad-nauseum crap.
DEAL SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE QUESTION!!!!!
2/ The NDT is both random & non-random anyway, statistically speaking, NS=non-random. GD=random.
So at best you have another strawman.
3/ Answer part E/ of message 73. If you can't do this, then you cannot assert that non-randomness = design. Statistical non-randomness exists in nature, demonstrably so. How can you tell the difference?
This is getting boring.
------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
Nope, he claims that if evolution is wrong than the only other possibility is creation which is false. And there is a difference between being an agnostic and claiming that creation is a viable alternative..it implies he believes in a specific religion as opposed to simlpy "not knowing"....his slip is showing.
Also, this part of your sentence does not make sense.."you can't disprove creation if the NDT is not true." Evidence that does not support one theory does not automatically support another theory (or a myth i.e. creation).
And to get back to the point again which is getting lost yet again...when are the creationists going to address post 73?
quote:Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:Peter Borger has professed to be agnostic on these boards. What do you think? Personally, I think his slip is showing.
Not really. Maybe you are confusing atheistic and agnostic? Agnostics don't know. What he said just says that you can't disprove creation if NDT is not true.
Hmmm, why would gene duplication, which can be mediated by HERVs, unequal crossover, and any of several well documented and well known mechanisms pose a problem for evolutionary theory???
I also thought Peter made an interesting comment about pre-existing alleles that then sort out by naturalistic process...so what came before the "pre-existing" alleles? Why do they have to be pre-existing...only if one has to force their worldview (dogma not agnosticism) to literal biblical interpretation does this constraint occur....hope this paragraph was not to Brad McFallian but I'm in a rush
As for the gravity analogy...given the illogic of creationism...why not presuppose that gravity is caused by invisible aliens pushing on every individuals head? There are as many heavy invisible aliens as there are lifeforms on the planet (extra for increasing populations) and they push on our heads....we can only fly by balloon because the aliens worship round shapes and release their pressure...airplanes outpush them....since we don't know the mechanism by which gravity functions, my Alien Push Model is just as valid as any other phyisical model (even if there is tons of supporting data) so the theory of gravity is dead....does this logic sound familiar to anyone
Sorry to respond to some of Peter's comments through your post John but it was easier than having to cut and paste out of each message.
Thanks for clearing up sahelanthropus...I was wondering what sahel-man was.
But to further our cause we must all wear bright neon yellow hats to identify ourselves as the keepers of Alien goodwill and to prevent ourselves from getting alien thumbprints on top of our heads
We must also vow to not let any silly scientists dissuade us from our views of the Alien theory of gravity whether they supply a counter theory supported by evidence or not (pesky people like Darwin for example)!
Wow...Michael Behe will surely write a book about this theory soon!
quote:Originally posted by Rationalist: Mammuthus,
I am ready to defend your Alien theory of gravity with all of my resources. It is because our modern age has abandoned belief in the aliens that press down on our heads that all forms of sin and evil have become common in our country. It is the duty of every Alien believing person in this country to defend the theory of aliens pushing on our heads in order to protect our way of life from destruction.
To that end, I propose that we point out to scientists that they do not know how gravity works, and that they can not prove that aliens are NOT pushing down on our heads. Not only that, but the scientific establishments commitment to a purely materialistic explanation for gravity automatically and unfairly prejudices it against more plausible explanations such as alien head pushing.
If we are to defend our great nation against the growing tide of abortion, teen pregnancy, drugs, pornography, and other evils, we must defend the alien head pushing theory of gravity at all costs. To do less would be to side with Satan in a war against God himself.
Human allogeneic CD2+ lymphocytes activate airway-derived epithelial cells to produce interleukin-6 and interleukin-8. Possible role for the epithelium in chronic allograft rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2002 May;21(5):567-75. PMID: 11983547 [PubMed - in process]
2: Ikram MK, Borger PH, Assink JJ, Jonas JB, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Related Articles
Comparing ophthalmoscopy, slide viewing, and semiautomated systems in optic disc morphometry. Ophthalmology. 2002 Mar;109(3):486-93. PMID: 11874749 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Wolfs RC, Borger PH, Ramrattan RS, Klaver CC, Hulsman CA, Hofman A, Vingerling JR, Hitchings RA, de Jong PT. Related Articles
Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalences--The Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Oct;41(11):3309-21. PMID: 11006219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Kauffman HF, Tomee JF, van de Riet MA, Timmerman AJ, Borger P. Related Articles
Protease-dependent activation of epithelial cells by fungal allergens leads to morphologic changes and cytokine production. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000 Jun;105(6 Pt 1):1185-93. PMID: 10856154 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Borger P, Postma DS, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF. Related Articles
Regulation of asthma-related T-cell cytokines by the cyclic AMP-dependent signalling pathway. Clin Exp Allergy. 2000 Jul;30(7):920-6. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 10848913 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Timmerman JA, Scholma J, van den Berg JW, Koeter GH. Related Articles
Cyclosporine, FK506, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisolone differentially modulate cytokine gene expression in human airway-derived epithelial cells. Transplantation. 2000 Apr 15;69(7):1408-13. PMID: 10798763 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Borger P, Koeter GH, Timmerman JA, Vellenga E, Tomee JF, Kauffman HF. Related Articles
Proteases from Aspergillus fumigatus induce interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-8 production in airway epithelial cell lines by transcriptional mechanisms. J Infect Dis. 1999 Oct;180(4):1267-74. PMID: 10479157 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Borger P, Jonker GJ, Vellenga E, Postma DS, De Monchy JG, Kauffman HF. Related Articles
Allergen challenge primes for IL-5 mRNA production and abrogates beta-adrenergic function in peripheral blood T lymphocytes from asthmatics. Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Jul;29(7):933-40. PMID: 10383594 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Borger P, Ten Hacken NH, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF, Postma DS. Related Articles
Peripheral blood T lymphocytes from asthmatic patients are primed for enhanced expression of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-5 mRNA: associations with lung function and serum IgE. Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Jun;29(6):772-9. PMID: 10336593 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Esselink MT, Vellenga E. Related Articles
Interleukin-15 differentially enhances the expression of interferon-gamma and interleukin-4 in activated human (CD4+) T lymphocytes. Immunology. 1999 Feb;96(2):207-14. PMID: 10233697 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11: Borger P, Hoekstra Y, Esselink MT, Postma DS, Zaagsma J, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF. Related Articles
Beta-adrenoceptor-mediated inhibition of IFN-gamma, IL-3, and GM-CSF mRNA accumulation in activated human T lymphocytes is solely mediated by the beta2-adrenoceptor subtype. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 1998 Sep;19(3):400-7. PMID: 9730867 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12: Borger P, Vellenga E, Gringhuis SI, Timmerman JA, Lummen C, Postma DS, Kauffman HF. Related Articles
Prostaglandin E2 differentially modulates IL-5 gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes depending on the costimulatory signal. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Feb;101(2 Pt 1):231-40. PMID: 9500757 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13: Gringhuis SI, de Leij LF, Verschuren EW, Borger P, Vellenga E. Related Articles
Interleukin-7 upregulates the interleukin-2-gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes at the transcriptional level by enhancing the DNA binding activities of both nuclear factor of activated T cells and activator protein-1. Blood. 1997 Oct 1;90(7):2690-700. PMID: 9326236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related Articles
IL-7 differentially modulates the expression of IFN-gamma and IL-4 in activated human T lymphocytes by transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms. J Immunol. 1996 Feb 15;156(4):1333-8. PMID: 8568231 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Vijgen JL, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related Articles
Activation of the cAMP-dependent signaling pathway downregulates the expression of interleukin-3 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in activated human T lymphocytes. Exp Hematol. 1996 Feb;24(2):108-15. PMID: 8641331 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related Articles
Interleukin-4 gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes is regulated by the cyclic adenosine monophosphate-dependent signaling pathway. Blood. 1996 Jan 15;87(2):691-8. PMID: 8555492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17: Kiel JA, ten Berge AM, Borger P, Venema G. Related Articles
A general method for the consecutive integration of single copies of a heterologous gene at multiple locations in the Bacillus subtilis chromosome by replacement recombination. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Dec;61(12):4244-50. PMID: 8534091 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18: Dokter WH, Borger P, Hendriks D, van der Horst I, Halie MR, Vellenga E. Related Articles
Interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor expression on human T cells is affected by different intracellular signaling pathways and by IL-4 at transcriptional and posttranscriptional level. Blood. 1992 Dec 1;80(11):2721-8. PMID: 1450403 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19: Camakaris J, Danks DM, Ackland L, Cartwright E, Borger P, Cotton RG. Related Articles, OMIM
Altered copper metabolism in cultured cells from human Menkes' syndrome and mottled mouse mutants. Biochem Genet. 1980 Feb;18(1-2):117-31. PMID: 7387619 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
quote:Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:Originally posted by gene90: If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?
I have wondered this myself, reading this thread.
I also wonder if Mr. Borger is representing his educational background, um, completely accurately.
I mean, in one post he says he has a Biology degree, and then in the next he doesn't seem to understand that the location of the foramen magnum on various primate skulls implies how generally upright/bipedally the individuals carried themselves. Furthermore, he also rejects the idea that one can trust any information gleaned from an inference, when this is most of what is done in scientific research, suggesting (inferring?!) that he does not understand the inferrential nature of science as a whole.
So, Mr. Borger, I think that it is time for some direct questioning.
Where and when did you earn your undergraduate and graduate degrees, and in what disciplines?
Which journals have you published in, and can you please provide a few citations for us to review?
Please understand that it is not a requirement, in my mind, that someone be a PhD in order for their views be correct or respected. I do require someone to represent themselves truthfully, however. Any misrepresentation of your credentials would be viewed by most as a valid reason to seriously question your integrity.
It is not unusual at all for creationists to misrepresent their credentials. It's been done on this very board, in fact. Moreover, it's been done by "leaders" in the movement for decades.
So, put me in my place and provide the information I ask for.
Dear Peter, If you feel picked on it may be because you are one of the few anti-evolution proponents that is consistently engaged in discussion. And with perhaps a few exceptions people are attacking your ideas and not you personally. If you are a research scientist you must be used to this by now.
Good luck with Nature.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: dear Mammuthus, dear all,
This is the evolution-versus-creation discussion site, not the Peter Borger-discussion site. Please let's keep it that way. In the meantime I've sent a "Letter to Nature" on the peculiar phenomenon of non-random mutation in the 1G5 gene and I will keep you informed. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-05-2002]
to be fair Peter...in one of your posts you specifically disallowed comments on molecular evolution by Richard Dawkins because he is a zoologist yet here claim that qualifications are irrelevant.
Schrafinator also stated her reasons for wanting to know your background. I think she is surprised that as a biologists you have such a poor grasp of the concept of random mutation and selection. Also that you are so quick to declare yourself correct and having "proved" something does not readily suggest someone with scientific training.
And the list of publications included a Peter Borger but that does not mean you are the same Peter Borger. I simply queried medline with your name and that is what returned. I was not intentionally excluding your other publication that you mentioned.
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.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Besides, even if the bones demonstrate that the organism walked upright. How does it proof evolution? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't, taken alone. I don't think anyone is trying to make it prove evolution. It could suggest common descent.
I say: It could suggest common design.
Ok Peter..how...what is the testable hypothesis or experiment that would support common design whatever the hell that means.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, they do not. I've tried to explain this several times. Since there is NO correlation between redundant genes and duplication it is NOT in accord with molecular evolution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read your posts on the subject and I don't buy it. You haven't proven your case. There is already a thread for this so I am not going into it here.
Peter, you have not supported your case with anything but a misunderstanding of random mutation and selection (not to mention the neutral theory)...please go into "it" here.
I say: Save your money, you don't have to buy it. This knowledge is for free. __________________________
hmmm snide remarks...a great sign of compelling arguments
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please expand and be specific. What exactly does not support what, and why. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also a thread for this, and I believe I have posted some objections on that thread. ___________________________________
Belief is for the religious...let's see some scientific data supporting your theory. Actually, you have not posted at any point what your "theory" is. You have merely claimed to have disproven evolution...Let's hear your counter theory please (with supporting data from several independent fields would be preferable).
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With evidence you mean "data", or "interpreted data"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data. Though it is hard to seperate the two.
"Exactly my point"
Umm is there any such thing as non-interpreted data? What is the point?
Dear Peter, I am not really clear as to why you want to hide your publications because you specifically use your real name here? I don't really see why you would be upset by this. All I did was a medline search which Schrafinator could have done herself. There were two Peter Borger's that returned on the search and it is not clear which one you are. However, anyone reading the papers will see that you collect data and INFER your conclusions like in any other scientific discipline. But for some personal reason, you check this abilitiy at the door when you try to apply your mind to evolution. By your logic as applied to evolution, the changes in gene expression you observe in your studies could be due to little sub-microscopic fairies and there is not way you can disprove this.
And I don't post under my name because the last time I did so on a board similar to this I kept getting spammed.
As to your third point, you often do not credit anyones argument...or even consider it. Mostly you just say no it cannot be regardless of how it is presented.
Finally, if you have studied evolutionary theory on your own you are certainly entitled to weigh in on the subject. However, certain blatant holes in your understanding of molecular evolution suggest you have only recently read a few papers on the subject with the pre-agenda of trying to support your religious views.
What I would find more useful is the following:
1) Can you present an alternative hypothesis? 2) Supply supporting data 3) Find supporting data from other fields i.e. chemistry, paleontology 4) demonstrate how your hypothesis is falsifiable?
This would make the debate more productive rather than the peter says evolution is wrong, everyone else says no it is not circle that is evolving in this forum. How about showing us precisely how it works and the evidence that supports it if your alternative is so strong...you said you have nothing to hide.
quote:Originally posted by peter borger: Dear mammuthus,
1) I have nothing to hide, so why would I take a pseudonym?
2) I still fail to see why you had to present my references on this discussion site. It didn't contribute anything to the discussion. Why didn't you present all your publications? Maybe you didn't because it IS irrelevant to this discussion.
3) If a zoologist has a good argument I will credit that.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger: [B]dear Mammuthus,
Although I don't mind about the presentation of my papers on this site, maybe my coauthors do. I didn't inform them that I am involved in this discussion site, and it may well be that they do not wish to be displayed on this site. Maybe you could remove their names. I think it was a bit inconsiderate of you.
While I am sorry you are offended by the listing of your papers, to avoid this you could have also posted under a pseudonym...anybody could have done exactly what I did with a few key strokes in medline.
And about your: "sub-microscopic fairies" --> We call them proteins nowadays.
And you say (in addition to some condescending assumptions that I will not repond to): " 1) Can you present an alternative hypothesis? 2) Supply supporting data 3) Find supporting data from other fields i.e. chemistry, paleontology 4) demonstrate how your hypothesis is falsifiable?"
I say: 1 & 2) "wait and see, but I already gave an impression of it in my mailings and reponses" 3) chemistry, what do you mean? Abiogenesis? What evidence from paleontology? That tremendous amount of transition forms? 4) I will.
1 and 2) I rather not hae an "impression of it" but rather have you state it explicitiy 3) No I do not mean abiogenesis. I mean does your as yet unpresented hypothesis have support from other disciplines. 4) Why wait?