Darwin in the Genome

Isn't this interesting. I did not realize that Dr.Caporale had made an appearance.What is not surprising is that despite the fact the she clarified her position and the evidence for it, Borger still maintains that her book supoorts essentially the opposite of what it does.Of course, this sort of thing is commonplace when the true motivations for one's scientific" pursuits are an aversion to "atheistic nihilism."

quote:

---

PaulK:
Peter, YOU have just proved my point. You continually repeat falsehoods despite being corrected.

---

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

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.

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.

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

Yes, Borger - the reason is I DIDN'T SEE IT.I know your condition makes you think that you are both a target and the center of attention, but no Petey, not everyone hurries hgome to see the latest Borger bilge-spewing spectacular...You, on the other hand, are still ignoring the answer I gave to your naive question.

quote:

---

Page: Yes, Borger - the reason is I DIDN'T SEE IT.
I know your condition makes you think that you are both a target and the center of attention, but no Petey, not everyone hurries hgome to see the latest Borger bilge-spewing spectacular...

​

PB: If this is true, than you make me the target isn't it?

---

Please read what was actually written. I said that in fact I do NOT read each of your supidity parades.

quote:

---

Because I can rebut all your rebuttals, I guess?

---

Yes, that must be it.... Just like tou disproved evolution by observing the 'change' between Tob and Cap...

quote:

---

Remember our little chat about ancient mtDNA and the primate ZFY region? Both clear victories for 'creationist' Borger.

---

Now THAT is funny. I did not realize that ignoring reality and employing double standards would be coinsidered aq 'victory', but I forget that you are a creationist. I will gladly revisit those issues if you think you actually had something legitimate to discuss. But this time, I will not be so pleasant when you start misrepresenting my position to erect strawmen.

quote:

---

Page: You, on the other hand, are still ignoring the answer I gave to your naive question.

​

PB: Ignoring? I think you provided me with one of several interesting options. It doesn't have to be the right one.

---

LOL!Yes, i guess the fact that you didn't know what the species were is just 'one option.' The creationist mind is a sight to behold...

quote:

---

The issue is that you simply mail stuff and I have to guess what the abbreviations stand for.

---

I mailed nothing. I provided a link. If you didn't know what the abbreviationswere, why on earth did you make the stupid choice of pontification?

quote:

---

If you, for once showed a bit of coopration, it would improve our discussion. But it seems that you like to keep it blur. If not, provide all full names for the abbreviations and a phylogenetic tree, than we are able to discuss your ultimate evidence for common descent in detail. The good thing about your example is that we can pin it down to point mutations.

---

I thought you said that you had read my stuff?Was that a lie, too?

quote:

---

Apparently you do not want to discuss anymore.

​

You make it to easy for me.

---

Discuss what?Your naievete?You display that daily.I really have no idea what you are blsabbering about now.Then, you probably don't either.I understand that lithium can help your condition.

quote:

---

my use of "us" is entirely reasonable.

---

Yeah, Borger got on me for using the word "us" as well.He just doesn't get it...

quote:

---

PB:

​

About NRM in the ZFY region in primates:

​

http://EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB -->EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB

​

About the ancient human mtDNAs in:

​

http://EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA -->EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA

---

I am forever aghast that the creationist can declare clear defeats as "victories," evidence against thier position as evidence for it, etc.Amazing....------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

quote:

---

PB: This message once more marks your defeat.

---

Yes, I suppose it does.Afterall, poiting out that I will discuss whatever you want is a sure sign of defeat.Just like "Darwin in the Genome" is proof of GUToB.....Actually, Pete, your post proves MY point....

PaulK,Not only does Borger have a PhD, he implies that he has published papers that "debunk" the bases for things like molecular phylogenetics.And he is so important a scientist that, darn it, he refuses to tell me which of his many papers are the ones!

quote:

---

If I remember correctly he didn't actually acknowledge that he WAS the asthma researcher. He certainly didn't volunteer the information, and I very much doubt that "our" "Peter Borger" (if that is his real name) has any real scientific qualifications. After all a medical researcher would probably have to know enough statistics to understand the importance of sample size, which this Peter Borger seems not to grasp at all.

---

You may have a point. Way back, when Borger first started posting here, there was some discussion on this. I felt that he just happened to have that name, or perhaps co-opted it for discussion purposes, and ran with it. Schraf I think it was posted a list of citations from Pubmed. Borger has since written that "someone posted my CV" on EvC. He says "part of it". The problem is, not all of the citations were by the same P. Borger. So he sould well be an imposter.it would explain a lot.------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

quote:

---

Borger:
I already demonstrated the alpha actinins (you have to introduce neutral selection),

---

Still ignoring citations, I see:http://EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution? -->EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution?

quote:

---

Borger:
Genes do not duplicate and diverge randomly into novel genes. It is inferred from what we see in the genome: gene families. However, if we find only one family not in accord with this view, we know that it is false.

---

What utter nonsense.A serial arsonist gets caught and admits to setting 99 fires. But ther were 100 fires. 1 fire was set by someone other than the serial arsonist, therefore, the serial arsonist is innocent of all the fire setting.And thus endeth the borgerism.

quote:

---

Recently, gene families that cannot have arisen through duplication have been described.

---

By?

quote:

---

I already demonstrated the alpha actinins (you have to introduce neutral selection),

---

see my other reply - you just ignore contrary evidence. As is the way of the creationist.

quote:

---

and another very nice example are the src phosphatases: knock outs have been generated in the lab, while point mutations give lethal phenotypes. There is no evolutionary explanation for such phenomena.

---

More ignoring of evidence. I guess you don't evenb really read the papers YOU present as 'support' for your wacky claims, do you? The paper you cited in Nature, for example, on genetic redundancy can hardly be considered support, much less 'proof' for your anti-evolution claims.
But you just ignore that.
What is the non-evolutionary "explanation" for that?Magic?Creatons?

quote:

---

Unless one accepts NRM and MPG. But that implies direction and thus creation

---

No it doesn't, but the creationist will continue to insist it does.