Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,448 Year: 6,705/9,624 Month: 45/238 Week: 45/22 Day: 12/6 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin in the Genome
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 106 of 185 (32330)
02-15-2003 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by peter borger
02-14-2003 7:50 PM


Lets cut this short. First there is no respose to my point that the ongoing discussion was dropped. Therefore it is clear that your claim that you never drop discussions was made to deny the fact that you DID drop one in this thred.
Which of them explains how NRM contradicts evolutionary theory ?
[QUOTE] PB cont :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 conclusion that 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).
PK3 : So Dr. Caporale clearly says that the randomness of mutations was only "assumed" and that the assumed randomness was "with respect to biological function" (as I have said - obviously you read neither my posts nor the book) and that such a view is "not required" for evolution. Thanks for providing a quote which so neatly illustrates your errors.
PB3: evolution unequals NDT. I claimed to overthrow NDT and that is what I did. Caporale's quotes back me up. That you think Caporale's book is entirely consistent with evolutionism is your believe. Problem is now you have to explain Caporale's observation from NDT. That there is selection for such mechanism is not the question. But the origin of such mechanism from scratch is the question. And that unique proteins are involved NRM has been demonstraed in mammals. They have a unique protein to carry out recombinations in the germline of immunoglobulins.
[\QUOTE]
Ah! more backpedalling. As you well know - IF you have read the book - Dr Caporale believes that these mechanisms evolved. So in fact your claim that the book refutes NDT has been shown to be a lie.
So with your argument crumbling around your ears you still try to claim victory !
These are the quotes you produced to try to refute NDT - and NOT ONE OF THEM DOES - your best evidence turns out to be no evidence at all.
[QUOTE] Quotes continue:
"New levels of interaction and regulation rarely arise through letter by letter random mutations of random DNA sequences". (page 144).
PK3: Which is only a problem for people - like Lee Spetner - who for some strange reason insist that evolution is limited to point mutations.
PB3: Spetner -at least- thought thoroughly on the issue evo's try to address, that's for sure. Building a living cell from scratch, which requires at least 1000-2000 regulated and expressed genes, through an utter random mechanism is not-to-discuss nonsense. People who think it is possible are like medieval alchemists trying to make gold from lead. They didn't understand the laws of nature. It has proven to be a waste of time.
[\QUOTE]
Spetner - like you - didn’t bother to find out about the theory he was trying to refute. And my experience of his writing indicates that he doesn;t think deeply at all - shallow sophistry is more typical of his work. No wonder you have to resort to rather pathetic stramwne in an attempt to make him look good.
[QUOTE] quotes (cont):
"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).
PK3 : And goes on to say "It does not mean all mutations are precisely targetted" And of course this does not refer to evolutionary theory which never seems to have cared much about the issue.
PB3: Still, not all mutations are random.
[\QUOTE]
Hardly a problem for evolutionary theory.
[QUOTE] (cont)
"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 toincorporate the observations described in this book into evolutionary biology". (page 192).
PB: 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.
PK3: I suggest you provide a link to this, too or I will assume that you are lying. But note that I do not deny it at all and have expressed ageement with it. It is you that has disagreed by insisting that instead of following the rourt proposed by Dr Caporale, evolution should be thrown out and replaced by your idle musings.
PB: Lying about what. That Caporale's examples are the end of NDT?
[\QUOTE]
Lying that you agree with Dr Caporales statement - since you certainly do not. (The end of NDT ? What a laugh! - you can;t even work out how NRM affects NDT !).
[QUOTE] 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.
PK3: Then the GUToB claims that information can be added to the genome. It seems that the GUToB is inconsistent.
PB3: The GUToB claims that 'novel' genes are always related to preexisting DNA elements.
[\QUOTE]
So GUToB says the same as NDT on that matter. Excpet of course fotr the fact that lateral transfer completely messes up the MPGs which are supposedly part of GUToB. So GUToB is inconsistent, as I said.
[QUOTE] 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).
PK3: Since you did start this part of the discussion to stop a previous discussion, and given your habit of proclaiming victory even when you have lost (and noting your abject defeat on another thread currntly in progress) your statment is so obivously false I can only conclude that you are either a compulsive liar or deeply delusional
PB3: I dragged it back in focus. This thread is about NRM as described in Dr Caporale's book. I summarised the 2 types of NRM and what they mean for evolutionism.
[\QUOTE]
ANd in case 1 on finding that it did NOT show what you claimed you retreated to claiming that there were unkown mechanisms which DID support your claim - but with no reason beyond the fact that your argument needed them.
[QUOTE] PB(cont) 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 assumethat 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 nonscientific 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).
PK3: Since your argument requires assuming mechanisms that have not been observed and for which there is no reason to even think that they plausibly might then I can only say that you have a strange view of science.
PB3: What's the big deal? Evolutionism relies also on mechanism that have never been observed. Ever observed the evolution from microbe to man? I didn't, neither did you. It is all inference.
Also, ever observed a graviton?
[\QUOTE]
Gravitons are to the best of my klnowledge still hypothetical - and microbe ot man evolytuion is not a mechanism. Therefore my objection - which was specifically directed at unobserved MECHANISMS still holds. Also ithere IS good reason to think that gravitons exist and that mnicrobes to man evoution occurred- which is more than you have for your mechanisms My criticism stnads, oyur argument is unscientific and irrational.
[QUOTE] PK3 (cont): I add that since the mechanism you did quote did not support your claims it seems that your best evidennce is wholly inadequate. And if you havve REALLY demonstrated NRM of the sort you assume for the regiosn you claim, provide a link to the relevant posts.
PB3: links to be found in message #103.
[\QUOTE]
More when I have had time to examine them. I am already unimpressed with the drosophilia example.
[QUOTE] PB(cont):
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 1G5gene 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.
PK3: So far as is known all versions of cytochrome C work in anything which requires it. So why is yeast cytochrome-C so different from that in chimps ? Given that there are many alternative choices why did your hypothetical designer choose to produce a pattern consistent with common descent?
PB3: I am not so sure whether or not Cyt C can be interchanged between organisms without any effect. Does is imply that you can also interchange all other proteins without effect? Than, it would suggest that proteins are not relevant in specifiying the species. Probably there are not so many alternatives. And the pattern is probably not consistent with common descent (Zhang and Chinappa, Mol Biol Evol 1994, 11:365).
[\QUOTE]
It seems that you do not even knwo that cytochrom-C is highly conserved and perform the same function in a very great many organisms. ANd I very mcuh doubt that you claimed reference supports you claim - not least because you have a habit of misrepresenting your sources.
[QUOTE] 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.
PB3: Translocations usually take place at exacly the same spot. As observed for several types of leukemia that are due to translocation. Translocation that are neutral are usually not observed, but might be present in the same spot too.
[\QUOTE]
Which means that there must BE an exact same spot. Thanks for supporting my point.,
[QUOTE] PB: Translocation 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"
PK3 : Gene expression would affect the phenotype so it is not relevant to my argument which only deals with the genotype.
PB3: Since when is the phenotype irrelevant to evolution?
[\QUOTE]
Since we are only dealing with the subject of deriving phylogenies from genotypes the phenotype is irrelevant. YOu seem to be unable to even understand the point being discussed. IS that really the case or are you simply using a debate tactic of throwing up any objection you can think of regardless of relevance ?
[QUOTE] PK3 (cont): Given that both the transposed element and the area it is transposed too must already be similar, if not identical, for there to be any problem the evidence for large scale evolution remains untouched because such mutations can never explain the initial similarity required for them to even be a possible problem.
PB3: depends on the DNA region/chromosome you study.
[\QUOTE]
That seems to be obviously false. How can looking at a differnbt region change the fact that the initial similarity must still be there ?
[QUOTE] PB (cont): 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?
PK3 : It helps me to point out the additional mechanisms exist because they contradict your claims. For instance lateral transfer is one of the biggest problems in working out phylogenies in bacteria - but it contradicts the GUToB claim that information cannot be added to the genome. It would also make your presentation of your assertion more honest which I would regard as an improvement, even if it undermines the assertion itself.
PB3: Where does this help you rebutting point 3? It doesn't.
[\QUOTE]
On the contrary, it proves the point - lateral DNA transfer goes against your point since it is NOT produced by mechanisms within the genome receiving it.
[QUOTE] 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.
PK3; They directly relate to precisely that claim which I regard as an outright lie.
PB3: Even if Darwin had more such examples (e.g. mockingbirds, pigeons, cats, dogs, etc) they don't go beyond his finches. It is all MPG (=GUToB).
[\QUOTE]
So you won’t even defend your lie. And your reference to MPGs is speculation only. THe evidence still supportes evolution,
[\QUOTE]
PB (cont) Since you were unable to rebut my claims, evolutionism still stands refuted. But at least you gave it a try.
PK3: A good example of your tendancy to claim victory when in fact your have been defeated.
PB3: You didn't rebut claim 3. Or maybe I missed it. Point it out, please.
[\QUOTE]
So why are you trying to argue against something that - according to you - was never written ?
[QUOTE] PB: Dawkins is out.
PK3: And the reason for indulging your petty personal hatreds is ?
PB: Good riddance to atheistic nihilism. (nothing personal, though)
[\QUOTE]
Dawkisn isn’t a nihilist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 7:50 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by peter borger, posted 02-15-2003 7:32 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 02-15-2003 7:54 PM PaulK has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7917 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 107 of 185 (32342)
02-15-2003 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
02-15-2003 12:51 PM


Dear Paul:
Paul says: Lets cut this short. First there is no respose to my point that the ongoing discussion was dropped. Therefore it is clear that your claim that you never drop discussions was made to deny the fact that you DID drop one in this thred.
PB: I never drop a discussion. Why would I? Besides, this reply is not even relevant to the three points I made, and you still haven't rebuked. And, you keep repeating yourself that I have to demonstrate NDT is relying upon randomness. Why don't you do a google search for yourself? I did that for 'neodarwinian theory'. I didn't even have to search. The first the best hit gave me this:
The Neo-Darwinian Theory
A) All living organisms on Earth have arisen by evolution from one or more living organisms whose number, nature, and origin are unknown.
B) Mechanisms sufficient to produce this evolution have been spontaneous, random mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift. (No intelligent, deliberate design has ever been involved).
From: http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id78.htm
PB: Point B simply is false in the light of contemporary knowledge. I rest my case.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2003 12:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2003 3:53 PM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7917 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 108 of 185 (32346)
02-15-2003 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
02-15-2003 12:51 PM


Dear Paul,
PB3: evolution unequals NDT. I claimed to overthrow NDT and that is what I did. Caporale's quotes back me up. That you think Caporale's book is entirely consistent with evolutionism is your believe. Problem is now you have to explain Caporale's observation from NDT. That there is selection for such mechanism is not the question. But the origin of such mechanism from scratch is the question. And that unique proteins are involved NRM has been demonstraed in mammals. They have a unique protein to carry out recombinations in the germline of immunoglobulins.
PK4: Ah! more backpedalling.
PB4: More backpedalling? Don't let me laugh! I am steady pedalling forwards. First goal accomplishes (NDT down), next goal is to bring doubt upon evolutionism.
PK4 (cont): As you well know - IF you have read the book - Dr Caporale believes that these mechanisms evolved.
PB4: I am not interested in Caporale's and your believes. If you wanna believe go to a church. It might save you.
PK4: So in fact your claim that the book refutes NDT has been shown to be a lie.
PB4: The book not only refutes NDT, it is the complete falsification and overthrow of NDT. And it has severe implications for Darwinism in general (as reiterated several times now and still unaddressed).
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2003 12:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 02-16-2003 2:48 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2003 6:31 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 109 of 185 (32372)
02-16-2003 11:37 AM


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

Percy
Member
Posts: 22940
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 110 of 185 (32386)
02-16-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by peter borger
02-15-2003 7:54 PM


Hi Peter,
I'm still curious about how you reconcile this...
peter borger writes:
PB4: The book not only refutes NDT, it is the complete falsification and overthrow of NDT. And it has severe implications for Darwinism in general (as reiterated several times now and still unaddressed).
...with Dr. Caporale's statement in Message 3 of this thread:
Dr. Caporale writes:
It is important to emphasize again that non-random mutation is fully consistent with the Darwinian framework of variation followed by selection-- in this case variation of the mechanisms that generate variation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 02-15-2003 7:54 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by peter borger, posted 02-17-2003 5:50 PM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 111 of 185 (32387)
02-16-2003 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by peter borger
02-15-2003 7:32 PM


Well where does population genetics appear in the "definition" - and why rely on a physicist to give a definition ? Especially a physicist who appears to be on the whole hostile to evolution and who relies heavily on anti-evolutionary sources ?
But all this is irrelevant. You have failed to answer the pquestion of IN WHAT SENSE mutations are expected to be random in NDT - because oyu knwo full well that your claims would fail if you did so. That is why you tried to drop that discussion, and probably why you are trying to deny dropping that discussion - although why you think that telling an obvious lie will help you, I have no idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by peter borger, posted 02-15-2003 7:32 PM peter borger has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 112 of 185 (32390)
02-16-2003 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by peter borger
02-15-2003 7:54 PM


Let me put it simp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 02-15-2003 7:54 PM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7917 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 113 of 185 (32491)
02-17-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Percy
02-16-2003 2:48 PM


Hi Percy,
P: I'm still curious about how you reconcile this...
peter borger writes:
PB4: The book not only refutes NDT, it is the complete falsification and overthrow of NDT. And it has severe implications for Darwinism in general (as reiterated several times now and still unaddressed).
...with Dr. Caporale's statement in Message 3 of this thread:
Dr. Caporale writes:
It is important to emphasize again that non-random mutation is fully consistent with the Darwinian framework of variation followed by selection-- in this case variation of the mechanisms that generate variation.
PB: 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. Only if one assumes that all the info was already present in the first cell (few cells is more probable) Darwinism is a possibility.
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. Recently, gene families that cannot have arisen through duplication have been described. I already demonstrated the alpha actinins (you have to introduce neutral selection), 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. Unless one accepts NRM and MPG. But that implies direction and thus creation.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 02-16-2003 2:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2003 6:00 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 02-18-2003 5:40 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 131 by derwood, posted 02-19-2003 12:28 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 132 by derwood, posted 02-19-2003 12:35 PM peter borger has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 114 of 185 (32492)
02-17-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by peter borger
02-17-2003 5:50 PM


Look Peter, you have no arguments to back up you fantasies.
Your assertions have all been answered and it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I am now convinced that you do not possess a PhD in any science.
And just to point it out I find the Zhang and Chinappa paper on the web. It does NOT refute the use of cytochrome-C to establish phylogenies. Instead it just points out 2 anomalies (plants which apparently have cytochrome-C closer to fungi) and proposes possible explanations. The fact that these ARE anomalies and that the cytochrome-C data in general strongly supports common descent provide further evidence against you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by peter borger, posted 02-17-2003 5:50 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by peter borger, posted 02-17-2003 7:40 PM PaulK has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7917 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 115 of 185 (32497)
02-17-2003 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
02-17-2003 6:00 PM


Dear Paul,
PB: This is easy, since there is nothing substantial.
Paul: Look Peter, you have no arguments to back up you fantasies.
PB: Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and hummmmmmmm.
Paul: Your assertions have all been answered and it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
PB:
Paul: I am now convinced that you do not possess a PhD in any science.
PB:
Paul: And just to point it out I find the Zhang and Chinappa paper on the web. It does NOT refute the use of cytochrome-C to establish phylogenies. Instead it just points out 2 anomalies (plants which apparently have cytochrome-C closer to fungi) and proposes possible explanations. The fact that these ARE anomalies and that the cytochrome-C data in general strongly supports common descent provide further evidence against you.
PB: Anomalies are proof for evolutionism? Could have expected that. All you demonstrate is that evo's don't understand their own theory.
I wish you all the best.
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2003 6:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2003 2:55 AM peter borger has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 116 of 185 (32527)
02-18-2003 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by peter borger
02-17-2003 7:40 PM


While you seem quite happy to accuse your opponents of ignoring arguments that you have yet to actually make the fact is that you lack rational argument and much of your case depends on misrepresenting the words of others. We are STILL waiting for an ARGUMENT to back up your claim that _Darwin in the Genome_ refutes NDT instead of vague ramblings. After all the pages this thread has gone through it is rather clear that you do not have one.
The second part of your post simply demonstrates your lack of reasoning ability. I never claimed that anomolies were evidence FOR evolution - nor is it necessary for me to do so. What I did point out is that your claim that the anomolies invalidated the use of cytochrome-C in phylogeny was false - a claim that you did not even bother to argue for instead referring to the paper as if it were the conclusion of the authors - which it was not. The anomolies do not change the fact that a general pattern exists and is best explained by common descent. That is my argument but of course you find it easier to deal with a strawman of your own invention.
ANd I don;t know why you think it funny that your behaviour here makes it clear that you are incapable of the rational thought required to achieve a PhD in any science. Unless of vcourse your "PhD" were awareded by an institution similar to the one awarding a "PhD" to Kent Hovind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by peter borger, posted 02-17-2003 7:40 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by peter borger, posted 02-18-2003 7:13 AM PaulK has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7917 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 117 of 185 (32533)
02-18-2003 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
02-18-2003 2:55 AM


Dear Paul,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PK: While you seem quite happy to accuse your opponents of ignoring arguments that you have yet to actually make the fact is that you lack rational argument and much of your case depends on misrepresenting the words of others. We are STILL waiting for an ARGUMENT to back up your claim that _Darwin in the Genome_ refutes NDT instead of vague ramblings.
PB: As soon as you open your eyes, put the fingers out of your ears and stop humming and read the threads I've made links to.
PK: After all the pages this thread has gone through it is rather clear that you do not have one.
The second part of your post simply demonstrates your lack of reasoning ability. I never claimed that anomolies were evidence FOR evolution - nor is it necessary for me to do so. What I did point out is that your claim that the anomolies invalidated the use of cytochrome-C in phylogeny was false - a claim that you did not even bother to argue for instead referring to the paper as if it were the conclusion of the authors - which it was not. The anomolies do not change the fact that a general pattern exists and is best explained by common descent.
PB: Deviations demonstrate common descent to be questionable. We've only analysed a very tiny bit of DNA and now we already observe anomalies not expected from the ToE. And if it were the only one, I wouldn't have bothered signing up.
What's wrong with common design? Common design is even a better explanation than common descent. This common design versus common descent discussion goes on for ages now, and still evo's cannot conclude the discussion in their advantage. Why I wonder?
PK: That is my argument but of course you find it easier to deal with a strawman of your own invention.
PB: I am used to strawman, Page uses them all the time. Maybe you could point out what is wrong with the introduction of a new scientific theory? It makes predictions and is falsifiable. That's already more than ToE.
PK: ANd I don;t know why you think it funny that your behaviour here makes it clear that you are incapable of the rational thought required to achieve a PhD in any science.
PB: I dare challenging evolutionism with open visor on scientific grounds and there is nothing wrong with my behavior, except that you don't like it. For obvious personal evolutionary reasons. You're in the field, I guess. Better get used to the idea that NDT has fallen and evolutonism from microbe to man is false. All biological phenomena can be explained by GUToB.
PK: Unless of vcourse your "PhD" were awareded by an institution similar to the one awarding a "PhD" to Kent Hovind.
PB: You can save yourself the effort, my almost complete CV has already been published on this site months ago. By one of your fellow evo friends trying to discredit me. I always enjoy the evo strategy so much. Always scientific, never ad hominem.
Furthermore, if you had registered 6 months earlier and read my mailings you would have known that I am a STOIC. So, don't bother insulting, humiliating, humbling etc. I really don't care. The only thing I will do is bring down evolutionism, since I am completely fed up with it and its social impact.
What I am really wondering about is, why are you wasting your time here?
Anyway, best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2003 2:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2003 6:17 PM peter borger has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 118 of 185 (32567)
02-18-2003 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by peter borger
02-14-2003 6:17 PM


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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 6:17 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by peter borger, posted 02-18-2003 5:55 PM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 119 of 185 (32568)
02-18-2003 1:34 PM


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!

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2003 5:36 PM derwood has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17912
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 120 of 185 (32596)
02-18-2003 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by derwood
02-18-2003 1:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by derwood, posted 02-18-2003 1:34 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by derwood, posted 02-19-2003 8:55 AM PaulK 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