Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:27 PM
25 online now:
JonF, kjsimons, marc9000, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,997 Year: 5,034/19,786 Month: 1,156/873 Week: 52/460 Day: 52/91 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 167 of 214 (17127)
09-10-2002 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by derwood
09-10-2002 1:31 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by derwood, posted 09-10-2002 1:31 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2002 4:08 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 169 by derwood, posted 09-11-2002 1:35 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 168 of 214 (17147)
09-11-2002 4:08 AM
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


How can we know Peter? You ignored (or dismissed) my post and refuse to propose your theory, demonstrate how it is falsifiable, and provide supporting data from multiple disciplines....As yet you have presented nothing but an absolute inability to grasp what a random means but have proposed no alternative hypothesis. Please propose your alternative hypothesis as requested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 09-10-2002 9:01 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 7:52 PM Mammuthus has responded

derwood
Member
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
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
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

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 172 of 214 (17200)
09-11-2002 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Mammuthus
09-11-2002 4:08 AM


dear Mammuthus,

Be patient. You can trust me, I will come with something new. And maybe I will discuss it first on this site. One of the reasons for my registration is to get as much as comments as possible on my examples. Anticipation, you now.

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2002 4:08 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 9:33 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 173 of 214 (17201)
09-11-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by derwood
09-11-2002 1:36 PM


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. 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).

Peter

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by derwood, posted 09-11-2002 1:36 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 9:42 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 180 by derwood, posted 09-12-2002 10:20 AM peter borger has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 174 of 214 (17203)
09-11-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by derwood
09-11-2002 1:46 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by derwood, posted 09-11-2002 1:46 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 9:37 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 181 by derwood, posted 09-12-2002 10:24 AM peter borger has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 175 of 214 (17250)
09-12-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by peter borger
09-09-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear S,

Am I a suspect, or what? Are you accusing me of something? Is this an interogation?


Well, yes, you are a suspect, and I am accusing you of something.

I am accusing you of lying about your educational credentials in an attempt to make yourself appear authoritative and competent in this debate and on this site.

Your lack of understanding of basic aspects of Biology and of the nature of scientific inquiry seems to indicate that you are not what you have represented yourself to be.

I am seriously questioning your credibility and integrity, Peter. I suspect that those P. Borgers on MedLine aren't you at all. I somewhat suspect that you don't have a PhD, but if you do, it isn't in a natural science. I strongly suspect that you don't have a Biology degree at all.

quote:
Get real, Schraf, better face the facts.

I'd love to get real, Peter, and you can help by telling us where and when you received your undergraduate and graduate degrees and in what disciplines.

What facts did you want me to face, Peter? You haven't given me the ones I want.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 8:05 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 8:21 PM nator has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 176 of 214 (17252)
09-12-2002 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by peter borger
09-11-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Mammuthus,

Be patient. You can trust me, I will come with something new. And maybe I will discuss it first on this site. One of the reasons for my registration is to get as much as comments as possible on my examples. Anticipation, you now.

Peter


I see no reason to trust you. You will more likely just say you are right, everyone else is stupid, and then fade away from the forum like so many other creationists before you....

You are confirming the link between the stork theory of reproduction and creationism (as if it needed more!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 7:52 PM peter borger has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 214 (17253)
09-12-2002 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by peter borger
09-09-2002 10:27 PM


[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.

[/QUOTE]

What a strange thing for a scientist to say.

We cite papers here all the time. That is what is done with scientific papers. They are published without any secrecy; anyone can look up anything they want to in a scientific journal.

...in fact, that's the whole point of science; the free exchange of information among all for the purpose of expanding understanding and knowledge.

What strange collegues you must have if they don't want their names and work out there in the public-access on Medline.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 10:27 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 178 of 214 (17254)
09-12-2002 9:37 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
************************************

Ever heard of genomic imprinting? Obviusly not.

So you claim that mutations in promoter regions have no effect on gene expression? Wow, alert the papers..you have just overthrown genetics and developmental biology.

At first I did not question your having a degree in biology but now I like Schrafinator am seriously beginning to wonder.

Still waiting for you to propose your theory....*sounds of crickets chirping*

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



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 189 by peter borger, posted 09-13-2002 2:22 AM Mammuthus has responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 179 of 214 (17255)
09-12-2002 9:42 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. 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).

Peter

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


Old testament came before the new testament so obviously they cannot have anything to do with each other.......


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 185 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 9:02 PM Mammuthus has responded

derwood
Member
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
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

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019