Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin in the Genome
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 181 of 185 (33996)
03-09-2003 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
03-05-2003 9:42 PM


Dear Percy,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Borger writes:
And now you are going to provide the link to a statement or reference where evolution theory or figure heads of evolution theory have accepted NRM in evolutionary theory as used by me and Dr Caporale.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy: In many of my recent messages I have pointed out that Dr. Caporale does not agree with you, that she has said as much, that no one believes this claim, and that it is hurting your credibility.
PB: In many of my recent messages I have pointed out that since all variation is specified in the genome of organisms Darwin made an unwarranted extrapolation. You do know what this means, I hope. The evo's on this site understandibly ignored this point, but MAY BE YOU COULD RESPOND TO IT. Please let me know why it is NOT unwarranted. I have also proposed already that I think Dr Caporale does not understand what NRM and pre-existing mechanisms that induce variation really means for evolutionism: microbe-to-man evolution becomes an unwarranted extrapolation.
Percy: Your response each time is to simply once again repeat the claim.
PB: Your and the other evo's response is nothing but ignoring my specific comments of your outdated views. If you were actually addressing the ponts I made I wouldn't have to repeat my claims.
I have mailed at least ten examples the EoT is unable to explain, and none of them has been addressed (e.g IL-1beta incongruence, newborn swim reflex, genes present in human not in apes, etcetera, etcetera). Pretty weak for a theory that is propagated as fact.
Percy: Peter, this is what people mean when they describe your debating style as evasive.
PB: With 'people' you must mean Mark. If you had read our communication, you would have known that Mark wanted to set up an evolutionary definition of Transition Form and that usually takes a bit of time. And I warned him about that upfront. Besides, only atheists are objecting to my mails as evasive. (As if your mails are crystal clear replies to my comments. NOT!)
Percy: A forthright answer would describe how you came to such a conclusion in light of all the evidence to the contrary.
PB: I have given my view to why and how Dr Caporale's book about NRM falsifies NDT (which I initially claimed in my first thread) and why preexisting variation brings down microbe-to-man evolution and why NRM are very bad for common descent. YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM, NOT ME.
Percy: A forthright style would also address why the mentions I provided do not indicate that NRM is part of evolutionary theory.
PB: If the battle gets lost juist accuse your opponent of something. In your case: Peter Borger has no fortright style. Well dream on Percy, you evo guys missed a nice chance to respond to all my comments in a scientific way which I have reiterated above. If you wanna discuss evolutionism in detail do it in a scientific way, please.
Percy: I've provided a textbook citation and links to places on the web that support this assertion. There are researchers working in this area, like Dr. Caporale, who is part of the mainstream understanding of evolution....
PB: Dr Caporale as meanstream evolutionist??? LOL!!!
...and who is on record here as stating that NRM fits within a Darwinian framework, and Susan Rosenberg of the State University of New York, who publishes papers about non-random and adaptive mutation:
Welcome to Baylor College of Medicine | BCM
PB: In a previous letter I already provided a link to Rosenberg's comments on evolution. She holds the same opinion as Caporale and I do (NRM, NOT hotspot mutations), and there was a lot of objection against NRM (short of memory?) and suddenly it is all included in evolutionism. How peculiar.
Importantly, I have already pointed out why such NRM and preprogrammed variation make microbe-to-man evolution an unwarranted extrapolation. Do you really read what I mail?
Listen carefully Percy, you were the one who denied the NRM in the 1g5 gene. Why don't you start explaining why you suddenly changed your mind concerning NRM.
Percy: The book From Genes To Cells by Bolsover, Hyams, Jones, Shephard and White has a section in the chapter on mutations called Mutation Is Not Random that describes NRM as genetic mechanisms that are able to cause mutations at specific points in the genome.
PB: And now we know that such mutations are the end of NDT. And NRM has severe implications for common descent. As discussed for several genome regions. Of course you have to deny that since it would be the end of evolutionary theory.
Percy: Your response so far to this type of information is in essence an empty unsupported "No, you're wrong." Hoping that you'll address the issues this time...
PB: Yep, you are wrong and I also explained why and where you are wrong. Till now it has not been addressed. I suspect it is because evo's don't understand their own theory (I know this is hard but it is true as you demonstrated again in this mail).
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 03-05-2003 9:42 PM Percy has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 182 of 185 (33999)
03-09-2003 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by PaulK
03-06-2003 3:05 AM


dear Paul,
Paul: It is interesting that Peter continually ignores my point that his hate-figure Richard Dawkins wrote on the subject in _The Blind Watchmaker_ published in 1986
PB: It is also interesting that PaulK didn't read my statement --but rather continues misrepresenting it-- that I do NOT feel hate againts RD or anybody else, but that I dismiss his atheistic ideas on scientific grounds.
Paul: "The first respect in which mutations are non-random is this. Mutatiosn are cuased by definite physical events; they don't just spontaneously happen. They are induced by so-called 'mutagens' (dangerous because they often start cancers): X-Rays, cosmic rays, radioactive substances, various chemicals, and even genes called 'mutator genes'"
PB: And you point is? As long as mutatins are introduced at the same spot they are NRM and have far reaching impact for common descent. Since you cannot exclude the NRM in a particular gene, your conclusions on common descent is premature conclusion jumping. Besides, his mentioning of mutator genes should have rang the bell of preexisting mechanisms.
Paul: "Second, not all genes in any species are equally likely to mutate. Every locus on the chromosome has its own mutation rate...
PB: Peculiar isn't it? These NRM are likely to be introduced by a preexisting mechanism as demonstrated now for several genes in distinct organisms. You were the one who read Dr Caporale, so you should know.
...Some parts of the chromosome are so-called 'hot-spots' with a high turnover of genes, a locally very high mutation rate"
PB: Here he's making hot-spots out of them, while they aren't. Most probably he didn't know how genomes work in 1986.
And the pontifex maximus still didn't know the most elementary stuff on DNA in 1997: that it has negative charge.
Paul: "Third at each locus on the chromosomes, whether it is a hot spot or not, mutations in certain directions can be more likely than mutations in the reverse direction"
PB: What direction? More or less adaptive? What does the pontifex mean with 'direction'? Maybe you could ask him. Considering his remark it seems that he says that evolution is directed. However, this example seems not to go beyond hotspot mutations. And I already pointed out NRM type 1 and NRM type 2, and their impact on evolutionary theory.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2003 3:05 AM PaulK has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 183 of 185 (34001)
03-09-2003 8:04 PM


Closing This Thread
In light of the inability of the participants to move the discussion forward, I've come to agree with Adminnimooseus's earlier observation that it may be time to close this thread.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 184 of 185 (34003)
03-09-2003 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by derwood
03-06-2003 10:45 AM


Re: Borgering reality
Hi Page,
Page: Borger's (and to be fair, many if not all creationists share this ignorance based sentiment) notion that NRM is anti-evolutionary stems form the typical misdefinition applied by non-scientists (which makes it all the more odd that Borger would fall into this trap).
PB: That is because ortodox evo's deny that preexisting mechanisms may be involved. Such mechanism are indeed present in organisms that have been thoroughly scrutinised. Probably all organisms have such preexisting mechanisms. It indeed demonstrated that evolutionary theory in its current form is wrong, and as soon as you introduce it into ToE, it shows that maicrobe-to-man evolution is an unwarrented extrapolation. I am sorry for you, but either way you lose.
Page: This has been addressed ad nauseum on this board alone, and if I recall correctly, it has been explained repeatedly to Borger, you simply refuses to accept his error.
PB: His error? You mean Darwin's error to extrapolate the preexisting mechanism to induce variation within MPG's to microbe to man? Since Darwin didn't know anything about genomes and how they induce variation he can be forgiven. You should know better, since you have access to 21 century biological knowledge.
Page: In real science, 'non-random' means, as Percy recently addressed, 'non-random' as in, for example,..
PB: why 'for example'. Why not define it.
Page (cont): ..the tendency of mutations to occur at certain loci due to, for example,..
PB: So, there could be different mechanisms be involved too. That demonstrates my point of NRM in a MPG.
Page (cont): ..physicochemical properties of particular sequences - 'hot spots' as they are generally known, and have been for some time.
PB: With all consequences for common descent as described.
Page: 'Non-random' to the creationist means that there was some sort of intervention or 'direction' in these mutations.
PB: Direction will suffice.
Page: To make matters more confusing, Cairnsian mutation, the formerly called "directed" or also "non-random" or even "adaptive mutation", originally appeared to, indeed, be mutations that were directed to specific loci at certain times, certainly a non-Darwinian phenomenon.
PB: Here you demonstrate that you don't know Darwin and proofs my point that evo's don't know their own theory. If you demonstrate something here than it is non-NeoDarwinian.
Page: Additional experimentation and analyses - some done by Cairns himself - demonstrated conclusively that these mutations were not directed at all, rather were the chance results of genome wide stress induced hypermutation.
By chance - that is, randomly - some clones acquired mutations in genes that allowed them to metabolize the medium.
PB: We are not discussing Cairns' adaptive mutations. I already pointed out on another forum that you cannot undo an observation with even a million unrelated observations. Besides, adaptive muations are performed by an alternative polymerase that is induces upon environmental input (stress), and is therefore a preexisting protein-driven mechanism to deal with a changing environment (as discussed before).
Page: One of the problems with this NRM/MPG schtick is that in order for this mechanism to be 'real', it stands to reason that ALL individuals possessing the same genes should, in fact, exhibit identical substitutions at identical sites in the same circumstances, which, of course, they do not.
PB: Which in effect they do for NRM. I already pointed out the observations we do on hematological disorders: usually on the same spot in the same gene(s). You are trying to confuse the forum with interchanging RM with NRM. However, RM are not denied by me and they are part of GUToB. It would be stupid to claim that all mutations are NRM.
Page: Borger can claim "Oh look, that is NRM... and so is that... and so is that...", but it means nothing because he has no way of establishing that his criteria have merit. Indeed, the last time he addressed on the alignments I presented (could have been the same one), he not only misidentified some sites, but his criteria for what he claimed showed NRM seemed totally rbitrary and frequently contradictory.
PB: Why didn't you discuss this topic than in detail? I am eager to find out about your site by site reply. The thread is still open for discussion and actually I addressed my comments to you. So why wait?
Page: Then, of course, there was the "so non-random it appears random" 'explanation.
PB: I will await your detailed reply.
Page: That reminded me of the creationist positon on criteria for establishing what a 'kind' is - hybridization. If two species can produce a viable hybrid, they would be of the same kind... Of course, if they can't, it does not mean that they are not of the same kind...
PB: Biologist cannot even establish a definition of a species, so what's you point?
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by derwood, posted 03-06-2003 10:45 AM derwood has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 185 of 185 (34004)
03-09-2003 9:01 PM


Closing This Thread
Peter was able to post a reply after the thread was closed because he began the reply before it was closed. To repeat the earlier message, due to the inabilty of the participants to move the discussion forward, this thread is being closed.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024