Darwin in the Genome

But you've been claiming that Dr. Caporale's book overturns NDT, which is incorrect and misleading. What you must instead say, if you're at all interested in accuracy, is that adding your insights to the information in Dr. Caporale's book overturns NDT. Dr. Caporale's book by itself does not support your conclusions, and Dr. Caporale herself is on record as rejecting them.On a side-note, it may just be me, but even after reading your GUToB thread in the Welcome, Visitors! forum I can't say I understand it. We just discussed this in another thread. It was described in detail for you how even simple point mutations can add information to the genome. See Message 166 of the Where is the evidence for evolution? thread in the Evolution forum, to which you replied, "In accord with GUToB rule 3. I forgot about rule and prediction 3." If even a simple point mutation can add information, then most certainly more complex mutations such as gene duplication can. To deny this would be akin to saying you can fill a barrel with water using an eyedropper but not a bucket. Since duplication is only one of the processes by which unique genes are thought to arise, such a conclusion would be faulty. If you do a search on peter borger posts that mention "alpha actinin" or "alpha actinins" you'll see that all you did was claim you demonstrated this in some letter, after which you simply claimed that you'd demonstrated it. You've never actually made the argument here at EvC Forum. Until you present your information here, I can't even guess what phenomena you're talking about.Added by edit:Went through the search list one more time and found your actinin explanation in Message 28 of the scientific end of evolution theory (2) thread in the Evolution forum. From what I can tell it didn't receive much discussion. Unsupported assumptions necessary to your conclusions are:

• 10^-9/nucleotide/year neutral evolution rate
• Only point mutations contributed
• The gene was neutral from its inception
• Is the gene really neutral, or does it compensate for deactivated ACTN2 genes or some other gene?

And that list is probably incomplete - Scott should take a look.Anyway, it may turn out that you're able to provide the necessary support for these assumptions, but until you do so your conclusions are premature.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-18-2003]

Hi Page,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....PB: I didn't know you had a point. Please explain.best wishes,
Peter

Face the REAL facts Peter - if that IS your nameYou don't have a scientific theory. You have a collection of opinions largely invented ad hocNDT is doing just fine and science is not about to throw it out on the say-so of some crank who can't even accurately represent his sources or even from a coherent argument.I have looked at the links and I have to say my opinon is unchangedTHe deviations do not call common descent into serious question because the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favour of common descent. Common design has serious problems not least that a designer must be assumed, although we have no evidence as such (violating parsimony) and that common design does not explain the evidence as well - since it does NOT explain why the evidence is so strongly consistent with common decent. A scientist would uinderstand these points.And no you are not a stoic. Your last comment reveals that your position is based on religious hate propaganda.And why do you spend time here when all you do is make yourself look bad ? After all it is obivous that you don't even know what the theory you claim to have refuted is !

Please, everyone drop the ad hominems. Thanks!------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Everyone (at least that's how Admin calls you),PK: Face the REAL facts Peter - if that IS your name.PB: Gone through that already. Read up!PK: You don't have a scientific theory. You have a collection of opinions largely invented ad hocPB: Then we can shake hands: you don't have a scientific theory either.PK: NDT is doing just fine and science is not about to throw it out on the say-so of some crank who can't even accurately represent his sources or even from a coherent argument.PB: NDT is dead and evolutionism is severely ill.PK: I have looked at the links and I have to say my opinon is unchangedPB: I am not in it to change your opinion. Opinions are like..., well you know what they are like.PK: THe deviations do not call common descent into serious question because the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favour of common descent.PB: If this were the only problem I wouldn't have registered. All my threads together are the complete refutation of NDT and doubt evolutionism.PK: Common design has serious problems not least that a designer must be assumed,...PB: You don't have to assume anything, I guess? All mechanism involved to explain life on earth in all its variety are assumptions and inferences. (Besides, they are already preexisting in the genome).PK: ...although we have no evidence as such (violating parsimony) and that common design does not explain the evidence as well - since it does NOT explain why the evidence is so strongly consistent with common decent. A scientist would uinderstand these points.PB: As long as we don't understand genomes in detail your conlusions are premature.PK: And no you are not a stoic. Your last comment reveals that your position is based on religious hate propaganda.PB: You may read in it whatever you like. That's the good part about the human mind: freedom. By the way, I don't hate anyone (bad for the heart, yeknow) and I love every living creature.PK: And why do you spend time here when all you do is make yourself look bad ?PB: Look bad? In what sense. That it is not allowed to tackle evolutionists? Not allowed to ask some critical questions? Not allowed to introduce a new theory? And you are the one who determines? Together with Page, and the club of evo-peers, I guess.PK: After all it is obivous that you don't even know what the theory you claim to have refuted is !PB: The real problem is that evo's don't understand their own theory.Best wishes,
Peter

Hi Percy,peter borger writes:
Dr Caporale may be unders the impresion that these new findings are fully consistent with Darwinism but it is not since I already mentioned that Darwin's extrapolation from pigeons and finches (and other organism) becomes unwarranted.Percy: But you've been claiming that Dr. Caporale's book overturns NDT, which is incorrect and misleading.PB: No, it is correct. That you don't admit it is misleading.percy: What you must instead say, if you're at all interested in accuracy, is that adding your insights to the information in Dr. Caporale's book overturns NDT. Dr. Caporale's book by itself does not support your conclusions, and Dr. Caporale herself is on record as rejecting them.PB: If evo's were interested in accuracy they wouldn't call several unequal phenomena 'evolution'.Percy: On a side-note, it may just be me, but even after reading your GUToB thread in the Welcome, Visitors! forum I can't say I understand it.PB: Let's stay on track.Quote (PB):
Only if one assumes that all the info was already present in the first cell (few cells is more probable) Darwinism is a possibility.Percy: We just discussed this in another thread. It was described in detail for you how even simple point mutations can add information to the genome.PB: No, this point mutations ACTIVATED preexisting information.Percy: See Message 166 of the Where is the evidence for evolution? thread in the Evolution forum, to which you replied, "In accord with GUToB rule 3. I forgot about rule and prediction 3." If even a simple point mutation can add information, then most certainly more complex mutations such as gene duplication can. To deny this would be akin to saying you can fill a barrel with water using an eyedropper but not a bucket.PB: It didn't add information. It activated a preexisting mechanism.Quote (PB): 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.Percy: Since duplication is only one of the processes by which unique genes are thought to arise, such a conclusion would be faulty.PB: Yep, there probably is 'gene generating' machinery in the MPG.Quote (PB): Recently, gene families that cannot have arisen through duplication have been described. I already demonstrated the alpha actinins...Percy: If you do a search on peter borger posts that mention "alpha actinin" or "alpha actinins" you'll see that all you did was claim you demonstrated this in some letter, after which you simply claimed that you'd demonstrated it. You've never actually made the argument here at EvC Forum.PB: This letter pretty much says it. If one has to explain a family through introduction of neutral selection it cannot be accepted as explanation. Otherwise you have to introduce NRM. It's up to you.Quote(PB):
There is no evolutionary explanation for such phenomena.Percy: Until you present your information here, I can't even guess what phenomena you're talking about.PB: this pertained the redundant family of src-phosphates. If you like me to open a new thread, please let me know.Percy:
Added by edit:Went through the search list one more time and found your actinin explanation in Message 28 of the scientific end of evolution theory (2) thread in the Evolution forum. From what I can tell it didn't receive much discussion. Unsupported assumptions necessary to your conclusions are:10-9/nucleotide/year neutral evolution rateOnly point mutations contributedThe gene was neutral from its inceptionIs the gene really neutral, or does it compensate for deactivated ACTN2 genes or some other gene?And that list is probably incomplete - Scott should take a look.PB: Yeah, that would be great. I mailed my questions to an evo-in-the-field-of-redundancies (Dr Wagner). Never got a response.Percy: Anyway, it may turn out that you're able to provide the necessary support for these assumptions, but until you do so your conclusions are premature.PB: Sometimes it pays to do some research and calculation yourself, instead of believing what others claim. The topic of redundancies is still open for discussion.best wishes,
Peter

I an sorry, but Peter Borger is an arrogant liar who substitutes imagination for knowledge. It is really hard to answer such a person without making highly critical remarks concerning his conduct.What can you say about someone who claims to "love" everyone yet feels the need to insert gratuitous slanders into his posts ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-19-2003]

The full article is available online for subscribers at Genome Biology | Home page.An obvious oversight in Peter's argument is that both genes would be accumulating mutations, reducing the time needed to 75 million years,Another question is his use of the term "purifying selection" which usually refers to the elimination of harmful mutations.There is also the obvious question of the situation in other species which is certainly relevant but not discussed at all.

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

I understand how you feel.The moderator guidelines prohibit moderation of threads in which one participates, and since I'm participating in this discussion as Percy I am powerless here, so I only issued a general admonition.In debates, some opponents pose bigger puzzles than others. Peter Borger appears to be a puzzle that evolutionists have not yet deciphered, and he makes decipherment more difficult because some of his very effective debating techniques cause distracting frustrations and require time-consuming replowing of old arguments.If Peter Borger's views are incorrect then nailing this down is going to require more than simply calling him a liar. You're going to have to keep track of which points he's successfully made and which he hasn't. You're going to have to carefully note for him where he hasn't addressed the arguments. You're going to have to explain when his arguments do not make sense. You're going to have to point out when he has made unsupported assertions. And you're going to have to stay focused on a particular point until it is settled. In other words, it requires discipline. And I hope Peter Borger holds you, me Scott and everyone else to the same standards.Did anyone think this was supposed to be fun? I'm not claiming to have all the debate answers, but whether you find the above suggestions useful or not, I *do* think increased discipline is required.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

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.

Well the alpha-actinin-3 puzzle turned out to be quite simple.There are two possibilities that need to be considered that have not been dealt with.Firstly alpha-actinin-3 may confer some benefit even if the loss does not have serious consequences.http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/...arch/mrrc/investigators/beggs
"Although absence of ACTN3 is not associated with any obvious clinical
phenotype, it remains possible that this mutation acts as a genetic
modifier, either of other neuromuscular disease, or possibly accounting for some of the natural variability in human athletic performance. "But there is more. According to a document produced by the Institute for Neuromuscylar Research (download from Forbidden!) this is in fact the case "We have collaborated with the Australian Institute of Sport to study the a-actinin-3 gene in elite athletes . We now have evidence that the presence of a-actinin - 3 is associated with elite performance in sprinting sports". Even though there seems to be a benefit associated with the absence of alpha-actin-3 in endurance sports this is still enough to raise serious doubts about the claim that the disabling mutation is selectively neutral.The other possibility is that the redundancy is a relatively new development - perhaps restricted to humans. And the evidence supports this view, too:http://hmg.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/13/1335"Murine Actn2 and Actn3 are differentially expressed, spatially and
temporally, during embryonic development and, in contrast to humans,
-actinin-2 expression does not completely overlap -actinin-3 in postnatal skeletal muscle, suggesting independent function. Furthermore, sequence comparison of human, mouse and chicken -actinin genes demonstrates that ACTN3 has been conserved over a long period of evolutionary time, implying a constraint on evolutionary rate imposed by continued function of the gene."
(the cut-and-paste lost the 'alpha' character. I have not replaced it)The INMR report cited earlier claims that "We have also studied the a-actinin-3 gene throughout evolution and have demonstrated it appears to be essential in all other species — including mice, chickens, baboons and chimpanzees."[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-19-2003]

quote:

---

Percy:
And that list is probably incomplete - Scott should take a look

---

More late, but I noticed that borger claims that "neutral purifying selection" must have taken place.If the mutations were neutral, and they exist in the extant genes, then there was no selection 'required' at all. For a neutral mutation would not BE under selective constraint.Looks like he borgered it.

Just asserting that you're correct is scant justification. Why would I concede a point that hasn't been made? And whose opinion should we give greater weight - the author of the book or the reader of the book. In general one must give pretty sizable weight to the author's opinion, wouldn't you agree? Especially since you're given to making unsupported assertions, leaving us nothing upon which to question Dr. Caporale's opinion of her own book, not to mention our own.The worth of your ideas is measured by their power to persuade others, not by how unshakably you hold them yourself. You're going to have to explain that one. It *is* on track, because you're quickly turning GUToB into the most common word on the board. If you're going to keep saying "GUToB explains this" and "GUToB explains that" then it would be helpful if you could explain your theory in terms understandable to others, because I'm sure that most people have very little idea what you're talking about. What you said before was that it was in accord "with GUToB rule3" (whatever the heck *that* is). Changing your answer is fine, but this new one is just a bald assertion. As I've already explained, since a base substitution change can cause a unique allele to arise, and since the allele can be expressed in the phenotype, and since allele's represent information, therefore base substitution mutations give rise to new information. That and more, but this means that you accept that your statement, "if we find only one family not in accord with this view, we know that it is false," represents faulty logic, and since this is the basis for your claim that you've overturned NDT, the claim falls apart. First, I don't have the letter, so to me it says nothing. Perhaps it's time to provide a link to it again.Second, I don't understand the rest of what you said. You say it as if you believe it represents a logical progression, but I wasn't able to follow it. Perhaps you could try again. Since there is no conclusion to be reached from a letter not answered, I don't understand how this constitutes a meaningful response. The point I was making was that your supposed actinin evidence that you tout at every opportunity (you're also making "actinin" a very common word on the board) not only isn't conclusive but is very weak. It is up to you to provide the support for your assertions, not others.--Percy