Darwin in the Genome

quote:

---

SLPx writes:
And folks don't understand why I get so frustrated with people like him...

​

Percy:
The frustration is well understood, but giving vent to it? Well, that's understandable, too, I guess, but it can make it hard to tell which person in a debate is the rational one. If you really have the evidence on your side then you don't need the help of sarcasm and disparagement.

---

And when the evidence is repeatedly ignored or twisted?Well, sorry Percy, we cannot all be Ghandi-like stoicists like you.

Dear PaulPlease expand.Let's see where logic leads you.Best wishes,
Peter

Page says:"And when the evidence is repeatedly ignored or twisted?"Borger says:"Exactly my point, Page. At last you get it" best wishes,
Peter

I don't see any need to expand further. Your repeated erros on quite basci matters - as well as your extreme reisistance to correcting those errors speak for themselves.But then what can we expect from somebody who cannot comprehend the idea that the author of a science book might be a trustworthy authority on the meaning of that book ?

quote:

---

Page says:
"And when the evidence is repeatedly ignored or twisted?"

​

Borger says:

​

"Exactly my point, Page. At last you get it

---

We all got it a while ago.At least you are now admitting it.

[copy deleted][This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-31-2003]

Dear Paul, thanks for your revealing mail.PaulK: I don't see any need to expand further.PB: I am always so impressed by the way evolutionists are able to debate and discuss in a contemporary scientific way on a topic that supposed to be their own. Remember my little discussion with Page? He made a nice caricature of himself and -in effect- the whole evo- community. At least we now know how evolutionary 'science' keeps up the appearance.PK: Your repeated erros on quite basci matters - as well as your extreme reisistance to correcting those errors speak for themselves.PB: I've demonstrated that your socalled 'basic matters' are in error and founded on poor science.PK: But then what can we expect from somebody who cannot comprehend the idea that the author of a science book might be a trustworthy authority on the meaning of that book ?PB: Well, I was expecting an interesting discussion. My expectations were too high, I guess. Anyway, why did you think she wrote the book? Because orthodox evo's do not understand a single letter (A, T, C, G) of genomes. (As demonstrated in my exchange with Page).Best wishes,
Peter

I have sent you no mail.The commentary on your posts is not a scientific argument. That you think it is only revealy your lack of knowledge.You have NOT answered the points I have raised against your basic errors you simply repeat the errors. Your claim to the contrary is an outright and intentional falsehood.You have not given any references to ANY evolutionary work which uses YOUR understanding of "random" mutations. Nor have you produced any evidecen that Darwin or Wallace based the idea of common descent as an extrapolation of natural selection rather than proposing natural selection to explain common descent.The reason the book was written was to inform the public of new knowledge in genetics and how it adds to our understanding of evolution. Apparently our own knowledge of genetics is so weak that yoou fail to see how the mechanisms Dr Caporale describes fit into evolutionary theory and contradict your weird ideas.All you can do is bluster in the face of the facts.

dear Paul,PK: You have NOT answered the points I have raised against your basic errors you simply repeat the errors. Your claim to the contrary is an outright and intentional falsehood.PB: Please explain the errors, so that everybody is able to understand what the 'errors' are. Then I will respond.Simply claiming that someone is in error is non-scientific. Back it up, please. Thanks in advance.Best wishes,
Peter

From ypour answer it seems that you admit by implication at least that your claim to have refuted the theory of evolution is not scientiifc. That is an advance.As for your errors can we start with your claim that Neo-Darwinian Theory requires mutations to be random in some sense that is contradicted by such observed mutatiosn as the removal of hairpin loops of DNA. Are you prepared to explain in what sense NDT requires mutations to be random and to support it with actual referecnes to relevant literature ? Or will you continue to evade the issue ?

I look at it like this:Let's say there's a debate between two people where one person has the facts on his side and the other does not. Let's say you're the person whose position is unsupported by the evidence. Your strategy is thereby dictated by this fact. Since you can't argue your position based on the facts, you have to find another approach.Initially you hope that your opponent is a poor debater who doesn't have command of the facts available to him, but when you find that he's able to forcefully make his points and support them with evidence you decide you have to go to plan B. So you begin a campaign intended to encourage confusion and frustration. Since you can't win the debate on the facts, the best you can hope for is that your opponent will "lose it," leaving you to seem the sane and rational party. At worst it's a draw because the audience becomes so confused it can't tell who is winning the debate.Moral of story: just because the other side doesn't play fair doesn't mean you have to play right into their hands. There are various ways to counter an obfuscative style, and they all require staying tightly focused on the topic under discussion.--Percy

Dear Paul,Paul: From ypour answer it seems that you admit by implication at least that your claim to have refuted the theory of evolution is not scientiifc. That is an advance.PB: The evo's inability to draw proper conclusions is amazing.Paul: As for your errors can we start with your claim that Neo-Darwinian Theory requires mutations to be random in some sense that is contradicted by such observed mutatiosn as the removal of hairpin loops of DNA.PB: Why don't you read my mails first and also try to understand the content and implications of Caporale's book. All you do is present me a straw man. My claim is that due to contemporay biology we know that all DNA elements that are required for evolutionary OBSERVATION are preexisting in the genome, and cannot be extrapolated to evolution from microbe to man. That is what I like to discuss here. Not your irrelavancies. I am familiar with all the evolutionary debating tactics, since I discussed a lot with evo's.Paul: Are you prepared to explain in what sense NDT requires mutations to be random and to support it with actual referecnes to relevant literature ? Or will you continue to evade the issue ?PB: Ever read something about NDT? The NDTers were unwilling to accept environmental influence [as Darwin had suggested in 'The Origin' (although he never addressed THE origin)] as a cause of variation, and the NDTers could not think of a mechanism that triggered genetic changes (speaking of outdated theories!). Therefore, they chose randomness as the source of variation.And you didn't really understand why Dr Caporale wrote her book, did you?To demonstrate that NDT is wrong, of course.Best wishes,
Peter

I see that you cannot answer the key point which requires explaining the alleged error in NDT. Since you are unable or unwiling to do so your claim to have refuted NDT is cleearly unscientific by your own criterion.Therefore your statement "PB: The evo's inability to draw proper conclusions is amazing." is not do to an error of reasoning on my part - but your objection to the conclusion.I can only repeat that since Dr. Caporale was quite content with my summing up of her book on this point that there is no problem with my understanding there.As for your attempt to divert the discussion by calling my point a strawman - well it is not since you were the one who cliamed that non-random mutations refuted NDT. You asked me to talk about your errors, so I chose to start with that one since it is so glaring. So this "debating tactic" is forthrightly giving an answer you demanded. Whereas we see your debating tactics in your attempt to change the subject.Your own statements indicate that - according to you "randomness" weas not a key part of the theory at all but just an assumption made when there was no evidence of anything else. And one made before DNA was evne known to be the carrier of genetic information. So it is not an essential part of the theory at all ! So why don't you just admit that you were wrong ?And no, you clearly do NOT know why Dr. Caporale wrote her book which only adds to the suspicion that you have not read it at all.

If baranmins still have not been adequetly (to any sociological same institutionalizable notion of consensus etc) defined then what while one whishes this TO BE DEFINED to have been wHILe there "was no evidence of anything else" duration that going up this "hill" of thought a gradient nonetheless *could* become apparent and show in the "noise" a non-random directum...That way, Chance randomness but not random chance would not need to be essential or key and yet quite utilitarian thus "refuting' your conclusion PaulK? Did I get that right PauloK? Obviously "could" is not "ought" nor should it substitue for "would" even if I scold next if misapprehended.

Dear PK,PK: I see that you cannot answer the key point which requires explaining the alleged error in NDT. Since you are unable or unwiling to do so your claim to have refuted NDT is cleearly unscientific by your own criterion.PB: If you think so, why don't you -as an evolutionary expert- start explaining:"3) You don't really know what you are talking about. Your rejection of Dawkins' points sbout randomness on the grounds of age ignores the fact that Dawkins is expressing a view that is stll the mainstream - as explained in the book that this thread is about and which you claim to have read!"[From: http://EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genome -->EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genome]PB: Dawkins? Don’t let me laugh. His outdated non-sense that he is still able to propagate? Listen PK, it is Dr Caporale who attacks outdated visions like Dawkins’ Junk DNA (for a reference don’t hesitate to ask, but of course you won’t ask). However, to stick to your own words, you were also talking about mainstream opinion, so now you have an excellent opportunity to explain to the audience what mainstream evolutionists hold. Please explain and I will immediately demonstrate it to be false.DB: Therefore your statement "PB: The evo's inability to draw proper conclusions is amazing." is not do to an error of reasoning on my part - but your objection to the conclusion.PB: I am perfectly able to draw conclusions myself. As demonstrated for the ZFY region. It was easy to overthrow the completely, entirely stupid explanations of dear evo-fellow Dr Page. Better get used to the idea that molecular biology doesn’t support the current concept of evolutionism.PK: I can only repeat that since Dr. Caporale was quite content with my summing up of her book on this point that there is no problem with my understanding there.PB: Repeats = Mantras. I don’t buy anything for mantras. Dr Caporale does not oversee the implication for her book, I presume. [I know what you gonna say, but I can also point out a couple of shortcomings in her book, and at least one wrong assertion. Did you really read her book?]. Dr Caporale also concurred that NRM has important implications for phylogeny, a vision that I share. But I am more extreme.PK: As for your attempt to divert the discussion by calling my point a strawman - well it is not since you were the one who cliamed that non-random mutations refuted NDT. You asked me to talk about your errors, so I chose to start with that one since it is so glaring. So this "debating tactic" is forthrightly giving an answer you demanded. Whereas we see your debating tactics in your attempt to change the subject.PB: As mentioned you now have an excellent opportunity to demonstrate what mainstream evo’s hold with respect to NRM.PK: Your own statements indicate that - according to you "randomness" weas not a key part of the theory at all but just an assumption made when there was no evidence of anything else. And one made before DNA was evne known to be the carrier of genetic information. So it is not an essential part of the theory at all ! So why don't you just admit that you were wrong ?PB: When a position is not tenable I will admit that. Something I haven’t seen in evolutionists on this board. Keep up the appearance any time, also when scientific evidence demonstrates the opposite. Just invent another story: non-science.PK: And no, you clearly do NOT know why Dr. Caporale wrote her book which only adds to the suspicion that you have not read it at all.PB: Don’t challenge me on this. I have an email from Dr Caporale here in my computer that implies that she is addressing orthodox evolutionists’ visions. And your suspicion is ludicrous.Best wishes,
Peter