Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,422 Year: 6,679/9,624 Month: 19/238 Week: 19/22 Day: 1/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin in the Genome
derwood
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 61 of 185 (30758)
01-30-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
01-30-2003 12:35 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-30-2003 12:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:35 PM derwood has replied
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 02-02-2003 2:02 PM derwood has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7915 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 62 of 185 (30771)
01-30-2003 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
01-30-2003 11:31 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2003 11:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2003 2:58 AM peter borger has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7915 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 63 of 185 (30772)
01-30-2003 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by derwood
01-30-2003 5:38 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by derwood, posted 01-30-2003 5:38 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 9:36 AM peter borger has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 64 of 185 (30805)
01-31-2003 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:32 PM


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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:32 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 10:51 PM PaulK has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 65 of 185 (30820)
01-31-2003 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:35 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:35 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 10:48 PM derwood has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7915 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 66 of 185 (30915)
01-31-2003 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by derwood
01-31-2003 9:36 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 9:36 AM derwood has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7915 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 67 of 185 (30916)
01-31-2003 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
01-31-2003 2:58 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2003 2:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2003 4:35 AM peter borger has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 68 of 185 (30946)
02-01-2003 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by peter borger
01-31-2003 10:51 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 10:51 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 6:31 AM PaulK has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7915 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 69 of 185 (30947)
02-01-2003 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
02-01-2003 4:35 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2003 4:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2003 11:23 AM peter borger has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 70 of 185 (31044)
02-02-2003 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by peter borger
02-01-2003 6:31 AM


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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 6:31 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 7:03 PM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22930
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 71 of 185 (31048)
02-02-2003 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by derwood
01-30-2003 5:38 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by derwood, posted 01-30-2003 5:38 PM derwood has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7915 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 72 of 185 (31693)
02-07-2003 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
02-02-2003 11:23 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2003 11:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2003 11:50 AM peter borger has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 73 of 185 (31736)
02-08-2003 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by peter borger
02-07-2003 7:03 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 7:03 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 02-08-2003 1:23 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 75 by peter borger, posted 02-08-2003 4:36 PM PaulK has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5282 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 185 (31740)
02-08-2003 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
02-08-2003 11:50 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2003 11:50 AM PaulK has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7915 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 75 of 185 (31749)
02-08-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
02-08-2003 11:50 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2003 11:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2003 6:08 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 81 by Brad McFall, posted 02-11-2003 12:36 PM peter borger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024