|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwin in the Genome | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17888 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
PK: I see that you cannot answer the key point which requires explaining the alleged error in NDT. Since you are unableor unwiling to do so your claim to have refuted NDT is clearly 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 His outdated non-sense that he is still able to propagate? Listen PK, it is Dr Caporale who attacks outdated visions like Dawkins’ Junk DNA (for a reference don’t hesitate to ask, but of course you won’t ask).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. PK2 : S. Dr Caporale also concurred that NRM has important implications for phylogeny, a vision that I share. But I am more extreme. PK2: Obviously you feel the need to find an excuse to dismiss my point. But calling a fact a "mantra" as an excuse to disregard it ! Such an argument demonstrates only the weakness of your position. 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. PK2: But I ALSO have an opportunity to - yet again - point out that your repeated evasion of this point shows that you did not bother to even find out what mainstream evolutionary theory actually claimed before asserting that you hasd a refutation. 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. PK2: Since your position on this point clearly is untenable - and has been since the start of this thread it is obvious that you will NOT admit it even when it is obvious even to you. Why else the repeated evasion ? PK: And no, you clearly do NOT know why Dr. Caporale wrote her book which only adds to the suspicion that you havenot 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. PK2: I am not afraid to challenge your false assertions. Dr Caporale intended to add to and enrich evolutionary theory, not overthrow it as you falsely asserted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7865 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear PK,
PK2: I am not afraid to challenge your false assertions. PB: Well, do it. PK2:Dr Caporale intended to add to and enrich evolutionary theory, not overthrow it as you falsely asserted. PB:You don't read my mails, that's obvious. Dr Caporale's book demonstrates NDT to be wrong (you don't want the references from her book, I guess?), and it also demonstrates that Darwin's extrapolations are completely, entirely unwarranted. That is the point here. That you don't address these points is tale telling evolutionary strategy. You have aexcellent opportunity to defend your theory, here. You don't let your pet theory drop without any defence, do you? So my claim that NDT and Darwinism RIP, still stands. Let me reiterate my point: All genetic elements for variation are preexistent in the genome (=multipurpose genome) and can be activated nonrandomly (as demonstrated by contemporary biology). Darwin was the first to discover the MPG, but his extrapolation of microbe to man evolution is completely, entirely unwarranted because the mechanism are unequal. (Unless you assume an uncommited MPG of the original microbe we all evolved from). You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that. (More soon) Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17888 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what the NDT requires in the way of "random" mutations. It was even mentioned in this thread, but it still seems to be beyond you.
If you were REALLY any sort of scientidt at all - or even had a PhD it wouldn;t be difficult for you to discuss such a simple basic point. So either you know full well that you are wrong and are just evading the issue or you are misrepresenting your qualfications. You don;t have to be that bright to notice that I did deal with your point about Darwins alleged extrapolations by pointing out that it was false. It doesn't take much brain to say that your reference to "Darwinian tale telling" is simply a random insult with no reference to the actual discussion. And you have no references from _Darwin in the Genome_ that demonstrate NDT to be wrong. We both know that.. We both know that Dr. Caporales findings are a bigger problem for your views than for NDT. Your assertions about the MPG are not supported by the evidence. And misrepresentign Darwin's reasoning - as you so repeatedly do here is just a contemptible debate tactic. But keep on evading and backpedalling, Peter. It shows that your view doesn't have a leg to stand on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7865 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear Paul,
Paul:You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what the NDT requires in the way of "random" mutations. It was even mentioned in this thread, but it still seems to be beyond you. PB: I invited you to explain it to the board. This is another nonanswer. Paul:If you were REALLY any sort of scientidt at all - or even had a PhD it wouldn;t be difficult for you to discuss such a simple basic point. So either you know full well that you are wrong and are just evading the issue or you are misrepresenting your qualfications. PB: The mocking and scoffing starts here, I guess. Not impressive. Paul:You don;t have to be that bright to notice that I did deal with your point about Darwins alleged extrapolations by pointing out that it was false. PB: No, you didn't such thing. If so, make a link. Proof your claims. Paul: It doesn't take much brain to say that your reference to "Darwinian tale telling" is simply a random insult with no reference to the actual discussion. PB: I offered you to demonstrate the references, you didn't respond. For obviousl reasons. Paul: And you have no references from _Darwin in the Genome_ that demonstrate NDT to be wrong. We both know that.. PB: I will spell out the references later, haven't the book here. PK: We both know that Dr. Caporales findings are a bigger problem for your views than for NDT. PB: I explained why they are a bigger problem for DNT and evolutionism in general. Now YOU are going to explain. Simply claiming is all you do. EXPLAIN PLEASE. IN DETAIL, like I do all the time. Paul: Your assertions about the MPG are not supported by the evidence. PB: Get real, PK. That all the info for variation is in the genome is what Caporale demonstrated. That is the MPG I have been discussing for ages, now. Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and hummmmmmmmmmmm. Paul: And misrepresentign Darwin's reasoning - as you so repeatedly do here is just a contemptible debate tactic. PB: Okay, another excellent opportunity to explain how Dawrin got his dangerous idea. (Next, I will obliterate it.) Paul: But keep on evading and backpedalling, Peter. It shows that your view doesn't have a leg to stand on. PB: The Page attitude? Best wishes,Peter Well, if this is all evo's can put forward I consider evolutionism RIP. Long live the GUToB!! [This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-10-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17888 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
Paul: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what the NDT requires in the way of "random" mutations. It was even mentioned in this thread, but it still seems to be beyond you.
PB: I invited you to explain it to the board. This is another nonanswer. PK2: I asked YOU to explain it because YOU brought up the issue. And you haven't - instead you expect me to explain it. It is your duty to back up your assertions - and you;ve been running away from this one for months. Calling my response a "nonanswer" is pure hypocrisy since you are the one refusing to answer MY query. (And I have explained it and told you where to find another explanation - but you don't listen). Paul:If you were REALLY any sort of scientist at all - or even had a PhD it wouldn;t be difficult for you to discuss such a simple basic point. So either you know full well that you are wrong and are just evading the issue or you are misrepresenting your qualfications. PB: The mocking and scoffing starts here, I guess. Not impressive. PK2: You were the one who said that it wasn't scientific to refuse to explain criticisms. All I am asking you to do is to back up your own claimed refutation of NDT. And you keep on and on evading the issue. You may find my comments "mocking" you may not be impressed by them - but they remain true and remain a major indictment of your arguments.- or rather your unargued assertions And no, I'm not impressed by your scoffing and mockery either. Paul: You don;t have to be that bright to notice that I did deal with your point about Darwins alleged extrapolations by pointing out that it was false. PB: No, you didn't such thing. If so, make a link. Proof your claims. PK2: When I asked you to do the same thing all you offered was links to threads. But here you go http://EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genome -->EvC Forum: Darwin in the Genomei.e. message 47 in this very thread. And you claim that I don't read your posts. Paul: It doesn't take much brain to say that your reference to "Darwinian tale telling" is simply a random insult with no reference to the actual discussion. PB: I offered you to demonstrate the references, you didn't respond. For obviousl reasons. PK2 : I did respond by pointing out that you had none. After all you've been claiming that since the start and never produced any argument - so why should we believe that you've suddenly found something now ?And I note that you offer no substantive justification of your use of the phrase "Darwinian tale-telling" thus confirming my point. Paul: And you have no references from _Darwin in the Genome_ that demonstrate NDT to be wrong. We both know that.. PB: I will spell out the references later, haven't the book here. PK2: And since I do have the book I will point out the truth. So don't waste your time quote-mining. PK: We both know that Dr. Caporales findings are a bigger problem for your views than for NDT. PB: I explained why they are a bigger problem for DNT and evolutionism in general. Now YOU are going to explain. Simply claiming is all you do. EXPLAIN PLEASE. IN DETAIL, like I do all the time. PK2; EVERY time I have asked you to explain how one of them fitted into your theory you refused to go into detail I even pointed out how hypermutation went against your theory . You only need to go back a few posts to see me explictly ask about hairpin deletions - and no answer from you. An example of one of your ACTUAL answers is - I quote -"I will fit them in. The are part of the GUToB and will find their place in the MPG" Is THAT an "IN DETAIL" explanation ? Paul: Your assertions about the MPG are not supported by the evidence. PB: Get real, PK. That all the info for variation is in the genome is what Caporale demonstrated. That is the MPG I have been discussing for ages, now. Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and hummmmmmmmmmmm. PK2: Hypermutation alone refutes that claim. So does lateral transfer. So does duplication and diversification. Three examples discussed by Dr. Caporale. For someoen who claims to have read the book, you seem to have a very limited knowledge of its contents. Paul: And misrepresenting Darwin's reasoning - as you so repeatedly do here is just a contemptible debate tactic. PB: Okay, another excellent opportunity to explain how Dawrin got his dangerous idea. (Next, I will obliterate it.) PK2 : As I pointed out at the time it was mainly based on taxonomy and biogeography - likewise for Wallace. You even seemed to agree! But that didn't stop you going back to the same old distortions. Paul: But keep on evading and backpedalling, Peter. It shows that your view doesn't have a leg to stand on. PB: The Page attitude? PK2: No, just am observation. If you can't even explain a point that you claim to have refuted, if something your arguments insist is a vital part of the theory turns out to be - from your own claims - an assumption that can easily be dispensed with then you really don't know wnough for your opinion to count with any rational person. Well, if this is all evo's can put forward I consider evolutionism RIP. Long live the GUToB!! PK2: Obviously you have your personal opinion while we have proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Naturally in your mind your opinion wins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5233 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Dawkins is STILL the default *only* becasue there is some truth in my, BSM, opinion as to Gould's claim of the "hardening" of the synthesis. I had judged with correction if any from Marjorie Green that this WAS NOT as Will Provine attempted to natural language that it was only a "constriction" (on the list of approved reading materials) but in conversation with Simon Levin know the "band wagon" has not even been mildly circled...Problem that faults Dawkins is only that with all of goulds legs aside the evo-devos are only hardening this thing if c/e talk is any indication than finding *any* solution. That creationists KNOW that none exists IS true.
We need a different ability to talk crtically than that the "adapt(ive) landscape" between a meso and macro word else Johson would not be cold but not even lukewarm to have said he made a joke as to who had what quash creaton macros on computers... That is past. Next.. WE DO NOT HAVE A WAY becasue the change is OUTSIDE the math to say even in this comp sci as to if geographic variation gives us more adapations or more evolution as it was rather than the c/e known knowing as is... Gould is dead on about this and Provine Living OFF its Lamb....and will to sacrifice its solution to an arrest vs phase transition for and info transfer invovlved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7865 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your non-answers. Since you seem to hold scientific truth let's try again to start up a scientific debate on the topic. These are the points I have made and are still unsolved. 1) Non-Random Mutations type 1 (NRM1). This type of NRM introduces mutations on the same positions and the position where they are introduced depends on the flanking DNA regions. NRM1 are also known as ‘positional NRM’. NRM1 have been also observed in the ZFY region and in mtDNA. NRM1 has been observed in T4 by Lynn Ripley and was described in Caporale’s book (page 37, 38).Implications: NRM1 will line up and give the illusion of common descent in phylogenetic analysis. Since phylo-geneticists cannot exclude NRM1, this type of mutations invalidates the evolutionary conclusions that the alignment of genes and shared mutations is proof for common descent. 2) Non-Random Mutations type 2 (NRM2). This type of NRM is mediated by protein and/or RNA driven mechanism that translocate preexisting DNA elements, or vary nucleotides in genes in a similar fashion as observed for immunoglobulins. NRM2 also plays a pivotal role in parasite-host interactions, and are likely to be abundant in other interactions between organisms where ‘evolutionary armsrace’ is ongoing. They have been demonstrated beyond any doubt for the 1G5 gene in Drosophila.Implications: Alignment of mutations (‘shared mutations’) in related MPGs. Variation is preexisting. 3) NRM1 and NRM2 explain observed biological variation. It tells us that the mechanisms for biological variation are already preexistent in the genomes of organisms (=multipurpose genome) and can be activated upon the right triggers. Darwin was the first to discover the MPG, but his extrapolation of microbe-to-man evolution is completely, entirely unwarranted because the phenomena are unequal. (Unless you assume an uncommitted MPG of the original microbe we all evolved from). That Darwin’s extrapolation on variation in Galapagos finches to support ‘microbe-to-man-evolution’ is unwarranted is also demonstrated by observations that ‘his’ finches are still able to interbreed (Science, 26 April 2001). Thus, they are still the same MPG. Your comments, please. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17888 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
If you want a scientific discussion we can start with your explanation of how non-random mutations actually refute NDT - after all refusing to explain your criticisms is non-scientific as you said. But it seems that you do not want to discuss that.
I also notice that providing the link to prove my claim - as you demanded seems to be considered a "non-answer". As is my list of examples which show that _Darwin in the Genome_ refutes your claim that information is never added to the genome (proving my point that the book is a greater problem for your views than for NDT). In short your idea of a "scientific" discussion means dropping the discussion because your errors are being revealed. Anyway to deal with your assertions.1) p37-38 deal with the "hairpin" model. Since such models require that the existing sequence is similar they can only upset phylogenetic analysis at fine resolutions- which you apparently accept, unless you wish to claim each species is a seperate creation (which would then pose the question of why the sequences are similar enough to see such mutations). It poses no threat to the larger scale phylogenies which you seem to object to. 2) Translocations - since these require that the material to be translocated is already present in the genome it would seem that your "related MPGs" are related by common descent. I thought your assertion was that MPGs were NOT related in that way. It seems to me that again translocations can only interfere with phylogenies at the fine resolution of individual branch points and can only do so because large scale evolution is correct. 3) Your list is hardly exhaustive and so to suggest that these two factors alone account for all variation would be an obvious error. However unless you make that error your assertion is clearly unproven. I also note that you insist on repeating your false claim about Darwin, despite the fact that you know it to be untrue. The former is unscientific, the unscientific and dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7865 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear paul,
In response to: PB:Thanks for your non-answers. Since you seem to hold scientific truth let's try again to start up a scientific debate on the topic. These are the points I have made and are still unsolved. PK says:If you want a scientific discussion we can start with your explanation of how non-random mutations actually refute NDT - after all refusing to explain your criticisms is non-scientific as you said. But it seems that you do not want to discuss that. I also notice that providing the link to prove my claim - as you demanded seems to be considered a "non-answer". PB2: Your link is a non-answer for I already rebutted mail #47 in mail #48. And, since you keep repeating that I have to demonstrate NRM to refute NDT (what I did months ago, but apparently you don't read my mails) let's find out what Dr Caporale has to say about this in her excellent book that is a big thorn in the eye of the orthodox evolutionists. From Darwin in the Genome: "Once we learned about DNA, we saw that mistakes in copying generate mutations and so we've assumed that random mutation followed by selection underlies evolution. However, I have come to the conclusionthat using our current knowledge to expand on Darwin's insights does not require that all mutations be random with respect to their potential effects on biological function". (page 42). "So, E coli cannot randomly try every possible change and then wait for selection to capture the very best one". (page72). "Randomly trying out mutations in each copy of each of many thousands of gene families could mean eons spent wandering lost through the broad mutation landscape, in spite of the fact that information could be could be available to help guide the journey. Still, most people assume that mutaions happen randomly throughout the duplicated genes, and that natural selection picks those that lead to a useful new function". (page 129). "New levels of interaction and regulation rarely arise through letter by letter random mutations of random DNA sequences". (page 144). "The genomic landscape is huge. Random wandering through the landscape of possible mutations is no the most efficient strategy for long term survival. In our own case, random mutation would mean that any one of the more than 3 billion spots in our genome had the same probablity of each kind of change." (page 185). "Current evolutionary theory states that variation results from genetic changes that remain forever random, and that selection operates upon the results of this random genetic variation. It is time to incorporate the observations described in this book into evolutionary biology". (page 192). I completely agree and I already mentioned this in a mail in May 2002: NDT RIP. Then, it was firmly denied and now here we have Dr Caporale with exactly the same claim. You can of course deny her, too. PK (cont): As is my list of examples which show that _Darwin in the Genome_ refutes your claim that information is never added to the genome (proving my point that the book is a greater problem for your views than for NDT). PB: Apparently you didn't read the book properly. The mechanisms described are included in GUToB. PK (cont): In short your idea of a "scientific" discussion means dropping the discussion because your errors are being revealed. PB: What a humbug. I've never dropped a discussion. As a matter of fact, I have won all my discussions with evo's. (Till now, Dr Douglas Theobald from the Talk-origin was the best defender of evolutionism, but not good enough. He couldn't defend the IL-1 beta incongruence). In response to: PB: 1) Non-Random Mutations type 1 (NRM1). This type of NRM introduces mutations on the same positions and the position where they are introduced depends on the flanking DNA regions. NRM1 are also known as ‘positional NRM’. NRM1 have been also observed in the ZFY region and in mtDNA. NRM1 has been observed in T4 by Lynn Ripley and was described in Caporale’s book (page 37, 38).Implications: NRM1 will line up and give the illusion of common descent in phylogenetic analysis. Since phylo-geneticists cannot exclude NRM1, this type of mutations invalidates the evolutionary conclusions that the alignment of genes and shared mutations is proof for common descent. PK says:Anyway to deal with your assertions. 1) p37-38 deal with the "hairpin" model. Since such models require that the existing sequence is similar they can only upset phylogenetic analysis at fine resolutions- which you apparently accept, unless you wish to claim each species is a seperate creation (which would then pose the question of why the sequences are similar enough to see such mutations). It poses no threat to the larger scale phylogenies which you seem to object to. PB2:At present, the hairpin model is able to explain specific NRM in T4. There is no reason to assume that additional mechanism are not operative in the genome. As mentioned several times before, since you cannot exclude NRM, evidence of common descent based upon shared mutations is a non scientific conclusion. You have to exclude NRM in the assessed sequence. I have demonstrated NRM for the ZFY region and mtDNA on this board and that should have far reaching consequences for evolutionism (if it is science). In response to:PB: 2) Non-Random Mutations type 2 (NRM2). This type of NRM is mediated by protein and/or RNA driven mechanism that translocate preexisting DNA elements, or vary nucleotides in genes in a similar fashion as observed for immunoglobulins. NRM2 also plays a pivotal role in parasite-host interactions, and are likely to be abundant in other interactions between organisms where ‘evolutionary armsrace’ is ongoing. They have been demonstrated beyond any doubt for the 1G5 gene in Drosophila. Implications: Alignment of mutations (‘shared mutations’) in related MPGs. Variation is preexisting. PK says:2) Translocations - since these require that the material to be translocated is already present in the genome it would seem that your "related MPGs" are related by common descent. I thought your assertion was that MPGs were NOT related in that way. PB2: Correct, there is only common descent within MPGs. Related MPGs have been created. Why would the Creator reinvent the wheel? It is illogic. A gene encoding cytochrome in chimp works as good as it works in human. So, if it mutates nonrandomly in human, also in chimp. What you observe is the illusion of common descent. I have provided evidence for this view in the ZFY region in primates. PK (cont): It seems to me that again translocations can only interfere with phylogenies at the fine resolution of individual branch points and can only do so because large scale evolution is correct. PB: Tranlocation of genetic elements may affect gene expression and thus induce variation within the MPG. That was my claim, not that they affect the illusion of common descent. It probably depends on the DNA sequences (docking sites, recognition sites) where the elements translocate to. If the MPG is similar probably such nonrandom translocation of DNA elements also line up. "Expect the unexpected" In response to:3) NRM1 and NRM2 explain observed biological variation. It tells us that the mechanisms for biological variation are already preexistent in the genomes of organisms (=multipurpose genome) and can be activated upon the right triggers. Darwin was the first to discover the MPG, but his extrapolation of microbe-to-man evolution is completely, entirely unwarranted because the phenomena are unequal. (Unless you assume an uncommitted MPG of the original microbe we all evolved from). That Darwin’s extrapolation on variation in Galapagos finches to support ‘microbe-to-man-evolution’ is unwarranted is also demonstrated by observations that ‘his’ finches are still able to interbreed (Science, 26 April 2001). Thus, they are still the same MPG. PK says:3) Your list is hardly exhaustive and so to suggest that these two factors alone account for all variation would be an obvious error. However unless you make that error your assertion is clearly unproven. PB: Of course there are many more preexisting/preprogrammed mechanism to induce variation in the MPG, but where does help that help you? Why would it unprove my assertion? PK (cont): I also note that you insist on repeating your false claim about Darwin, despite the fact that you know it to be untrue. The former is unscientific, the unscientific and dishonest. PB: None of these remarks relates to my claim that Darwin made an unwarranted extrapolation. Maybe you could point it out. I mean how is your answer related to my claim? I almost have to believe that you agree with me on Darwin's unwarranted extrapolation. Since you were unable to rebut my claims, evolutionism still stands refuted. But at least you gave it a try. Finally, I owe you the Dr Caporales vision on Junk DNA: "Now that our genome is available, we will be able to connect these slippery DNA regions to their-fine tuning-knob role, if they have one. But we will be able to do this only if we look into our genome with some respect, seeking to learn. We will not find them if we dismiss boring repetitive sequences as junk DNA". (page 69). "Transposons are found among the many repetitive sequences in the genome that have been called 'junk DNA'. They are by no stretch of imagination useless junk, however." (page 149). PB: Dawkins is out. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-12-2003] [This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: I assume you know that Galapagos finches are not the only organisms Darwin studied? His works suggest that he also studied pigeons, cattle, sheep, dogs, barnacles, Scottish firs, ants, cuckoos, lungfish, platypus, marine fossils, horses, wild flowers, orchids, coral reefs, etc....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 2076 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
PB: What a humbug. I've never dropped a discussion. As a matter of fact, I have won all my discussions with evo's. (Till now, Dr Douglas Theobald from the Talk-origin was the best defender of evolutionism, but not good enough. He couldn't defend the IL-1 beta incongruence).
LOLOLOLLLLL!!!! http://EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back -->EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7865 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Hi Page,
Here we go: http://EvC Forum: Doe the climate direct mutations towards the ATP6 gene? -->EvC Forum: Doe the climate direct mutations towards the ATP6 gene? For obvious reasons you didn't repond to this one. Best wishes, Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I wonder if Peter is aware that the famous finches only get a passing mention in Origin of Species? I'd guess they played a pretty small role in the whole ToE thingy...
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
I get the suspicion that Dr Borger reads only book reviews. He argues by using Dr Caporale's book and said it demolishes NDT. Then he said he does not have that book. He said Darwin extrapolated finches to 'molecules to man', and as I remember it Darwin said very little about the finches; he was even talking about the Galapagos mockingbirds. I know what's in that book. I translated it into Bahasa Indonesia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Yep. He was much more interested in the mockingbirds - after all, that was a better example of his thesis. 9 species on 9 islands, no hybridization, etc. The finches are a great example of adaptive radiation, but less so in the sense of speciation since they mix and match between islands and it probably wasn't until the Grants that the relationships were really worked out.
I'm impressed that you translated Origin into Indonesian - that must have been a LOT of work. "Labor of love"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024