Page v. Borger

Dear Quetzal,Q: I am not going to get sidetracked into irrelevancies again. Thus:PB: Irrelevancies? They pertained our little discussion on Wollemia. You know that tree that violates molecular evolutionary rules. Also acknowledged by Dr Peakal, the principal investigator on the genetics of this tree. For people how are interested in this discussion see my topic 'Molecular genetic proof for a multipurpose genome'.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: In the beginning several distinct MPG were present. As demonstrated by the fossils and soon to be confirmed by molecular biology. (Yes, I will make the link with the Uni of Sydney as soon as the reference is online.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: Peter, even beyond the personal attacks and slurs...PB: Please, point out. Or did you mean "Dr" Borger. Very subtle, not unnoted. You can have it as you like. Either a scientific discussion or not. I always go for the scientific discussion. So it's up to you....you engage in all the time, this is the kind of statement that makes any discussion with you so frustrating. You make a bald assertion ("as demonstrated by the fossils", for example) in lieu of evidence.PB: Frustrating isn't it? Can you imagine all those people who have a distinct explanatation -often better- for scientific observation but are completely ignored, scoffed and ridiculed.Q: What fossils? Which organisms - specifically - demonstrate MPG?PB: All organism. Where do you think all that different looking people came from that travel along with you in the bus?Q: Are you talking phylum level representatives from the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian? You have the molecular and genetic evidence for the massive, multipurpose genomes? You have "perfect" fossil organisms?PB: No, I haven't but it will soon be demonstraed that the Cambrian explosion was a real explosion. So, afterall the paleontologists were right.Q: IF SO - WHICH ONES? Be specific: say something like, "The fossil of Xyzz abdef, discovered last week in Pakistan, demonstrates MPG because... (see ref...)".PB: All organism demonstrate a tremendous amount of genetic redundancies. That should be compelling enough.Q: You know, evidence. If you can do that, then we at least have something scientific to discuss. Otherwise, you're back to handwaving so fast you'll soon achieve escape velocity.PB: You are asking for an original MPG. As I show it, you laugh and scoff and deny. I already presented you such evidence. Remember the Wollemia pine?And another thing:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: This is the part that everyone is arguing with you about. Sequence doubling for example, coupled with subsequent shuffling, etc, can generate completely new genetic material that wasn't present "in the beginning".
PB: Non scientific never observed inferrence from already existing data. Besides, duplication of DNA genes/regions and shuffling is GUToB. If you demonstrate that a completely novel gene -unrelated to other genes- that arose from scratch than that would be great. It falsifies GUToB.Q: You've been given numerous references for this observation. Your whole argument is starting to sound like a typical "no new information" argument.PB: You are beginning to understand the GUToB. Besides, I know all these refernces and if they confirm something it is GUToB, not evolution from microbe to man. That should be your concern.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: This is also incredibly frustrating.PB: Q: In one breath you demand references, and in the next you claim they aren't valid - without EVER explaining why.PB: Not valid? What a nonsense. They can be explained according the GUToB. So, it doesn't proof your evolutionary stance. If these references demonstrated something it was that the GUToB is right. The ToE cannot explain genetic redundancies, while they are part of the GUToB. I prefer the theory that is explaining all biological phenomena, not because it should be free from creation. That is what you do. Probably because of your worldview, not because of science.Q: Your philosophy (I'm not dignifying the GUToB with the term hypothesis any more) is utterly invulnerable because you simply deny the refutations.PB: There are NO refutations. At least, till now nobody was able to refute it beyond any reasonable doubt. I would have known it and understood it since I've set up the GUToB. On the other hand I demonstrated the weaknesses and falsifications of the ToE on this board, and it was only the start. The ToE could not even be defended and my examples had to be denied.Q: Guess I won't bother wondering when you'll get the Nobel Prize...PB: Usually it takes longer than 6 months after a scientific breakthrough to get the Nobel Prize. I presume you knew that yourself.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: I don't see an argument here. However, to keep a mutual coexistence of organism going the genes involved require a mechanism to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: Yep, it's called natural selection acting on random variation.PB: Go to a library, go inside and ask for -I will spell it out for you- Darwin in the Genome by Lynn H Caporale. She also had a lot of trouble with orthodox evolutinists. I guess atheists too, since they also know what it means. That's why the denial goes on.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very liekly that this is directed. It is no coincedence that genes involved in what is called an evolutionary armsrace change very rapidly. Your other questions are interesting though. We don't know yet how the genome performs the trick. But not from a random mechanism, that's for sure.
Maybe you didn't know, but cells (and genomes) are aware of their environment, and respond to their environment by activation of genetic programs ('cells are intelligent'). Probably also in the germline cells. To be elucidated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: As I said - pure bald assertions with no support.PB: As an evolutionist you must like this a lot since they usually don't go further than wild speculations/assertions/stories.Q: 1. Why is it "likely" that mutations are directed? You continue to make this claim, but have never provided evidence for ANY directed mutations.PB: Because of induction of resistance. As mentioned. If one of the organism mutates at random to become resitance it will immediately kill the colony, unless already an answer is preexistent in the other organism so it can ward of the threat immediately. It requires a variation generating mechanism similar to immunoglobulins.Q: 2. Genes change in "arms race" situations due to the action of natural selection - "winners" survive, "loosers" are lunch (or starve). Dr. Caporale among others suggests that this leads in at least some cases (like cone snails) to selection for higher mutability (to create the variation necessary). It isn't coincidental - it represents the results of the non-random action of natural selection on random variation.PB: The mechanism to generate the variation is already present in the genome, so nothing evolved here.Q: 3. Cells and genomes are aware of the environment!!??! "Cells are intelligent"!!????!!!! You have GOT to back this assertion up. This one's so far out there I don't even know where to begin. Provide an example, Peter - a concrete example. Explain how and where and in what specific organism this has been observed.PB: It is not only my assertion. Molecular biologists become aware of the intelligent genome. In Dr Caporale book: "She [Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock] also perceived that a genome could sense stress, and that when it did so, its genes could jump. As she put it, when the genome senses stress for which it is unprepared, it reorganises itself". (p148) Self-reorginisation requires intelligence.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You really don't understand what I am trying to convay isn't it. I keep explaining to you but all you do is put your fingers in your ears and hum. The trick is that such organism do not have one or two genes, but either a whole set of genes (>5) or a mechanism that is able to constantly generate new -but related- genes by a mechanism comparable to immuneglobulin synthesis. However, if you wanna update me on the genetics of the mealybug please mention some relevant references.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: This is a complete non-response to my refutation of your pesticide resistence analogy. You are deliberately attempting to sidestep the point. Forget it Peter - I ain't buying. Your analogy was falsified, and you unwillingness to admit any error is typical.PB: Falsified? By whom? Not by you.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Why so offensive? I am here also to learn something from you. Why don't you just convince me of your view, instead of this hostility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: This has got to be one of the funniest statements you've ever made. "Learn from me"? Lol. You spend your entire time belittling anyone who disagrees with you - then rechanting your original mantra. Glad to see you've got a sense of humor, at least.PB: THis doesn't exactly address my question, or is it?Probably you are not able to teach me anything. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: As I said, I made a prediction. Scientific theories have to predict properly, isn't it? If not the theory is worthless. So, that is my prediction against yours. I claim that the observations on the symbiosis of ant-fungus-bactria underly similar genetic mechanism as obsrved in Cone snails, while you assume that it is all randomness and selection. Time will tell that I am right (or you).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q: No, you haven't made a "prediction". You've made numerous assertions then demanded everyone accept them on your say-so alone. What are the specific observations that would indicate a "similar" mechanism, whatever that means, is in operation between the attine symbiosis and cone snails? How do you distinguish your hypothetical mechanism from the action of natural selection? etc.PB: If you don't know the difference between a prediction and an assertion than it doesn't make sense to discuss with you. Why do I always have to address the same questions? By intensive genetic (scientific) research.Still I am interested in your mealybug references. Like to read into the genetics of this MPG. Thanks in advance.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-30-2003]

And Peter successfully achieves orbit. Congratulations - tho' you may never win the Nobel Prize for your "theory", you're almost certain to win fame and fortune for being the first human-propelled spaceship.1. "Q: What fossils? Which organisms, specifically, demonstrate MPG?""PB: All organisms."2. "Q: Are you talking phylum level representatives from the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian? You have the molecular and genetic evidence for the massive, multipurpose genomes? You have "perfect" fossil organisms?""PB: No, I haven't but it will soon be demonstraed that the Cambrian really was an explosion."3. "Q: Your philosophy (I'm not dignifying the GUToB with the term hypothesis any more) is utterly invulnerable because you simply deny the refutations.""PB: There are NO refutations. At least, till now nobody was able to refute it beyond any reasonable doubt. I would have known it and understood it since I've set up the GUToB."

quote:

---

Q: This is a complete non-response to my refutation of your pesticide resistence analogy. You are deliberately attempting to sidestep the point. Forget it Peter - I ain't buying. Your analogy was falsified, and you unwillingness to admit any error is typical.

​

PB: Falsified? By whom? Not by you.

---

Try this again Peter - non-living/evolving chemicals vs living organisms in an evolutionary arms race - who wins?And last but not least:4. "Q: No, you haven't made a "prediction". You've made numerous assertions then demanded everyone accept them on your say-so alone. What are the specific observations that would indicate a "similar" mechanism, whatever that means, is in operation between the attine symbiosis and cone snails? How do you distinguish your hypothetical mechanism from the action of natural selection? etc.""PB: If you don't know the difference between a prediction and an assertion than it doesn't make sense to discuss with you. Why do I always have to address the same questions? By intensive genetic (scientific) research."Dead end conversation. It'll be just like the Wollemia thread:Opponent: reference, reference, discussion, refutation, reference, referencePeter: No it isn't.Opponent: reference, reference, discussion, rebuttal, referencePeter: No it isn't.etc ad infinitum ad nauseum[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-30-2003]

Hi Quetzal,As mentioned in the previous mail:You can have it as you like.1)Either a scientific discussion2)or not.Apparently you chose option 2.I am not surprised,Have a good one, mate & best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Shraf,

​

Don't you feel better after you take a midol? Try it sometime before you post. You are unwittingly proving the point.

---

LOL!!!First of all, my name is sChraf, not shraf.Second of all, your dismissive Midol comment just makes me more committed to my feminist ideals, just like jdean's completely over the top, knee-jerk response to my posts makes me more committed.jdean's obvious insecurity about himself and his fear of women and women's equality, and the aggressive, angry, abusive way he expresses it is proof positive that feminism is very much needed.

quote:

---

Hi Quetzal,

​

As mentioned in the previous mail:

​

You can have it as you like.

​

1)Either a scientific discussion

​

2)or not.

​

Apparently you chose option 2.

​

I am not surprised,

​

Have a good one, mate & best wishes,
Peter

---

You are the one not answering his specific questions, Peter.You are running away without addressing the pesticide resistance/evolutionary arms race issue, nor are you addressing the issue of you claiming that you have evidence from fossils of an entire genome, or something like that.Put up or shut up.Oh, I guess you chose #2, in the form of running away.

quote:

---

You are the one not answering his specific questions, Peter.

​

You are running away without addressing the pesticide resistance/evolutionary arms race issue, nor are you addressing the issue of you claiming that you have evidence from fossils of an entire genome, or something like that.

---

Quetzal is quite adept at debate. Why don't you let Quetzal defend himself? And where is your pro and/or con address of these issues? Stop attacking the guy just to attack him. It's stale.Running away? You attack me indirectly and refuse to reply to anything I put directly at you.Perhaps PB will give up his pursuit of creationism and become a sandwich artist at a local deli. All because of your hard nosed (and convincing I must add) post. Great job lass!

dear Schraf,In another thread you claimed to be an agnostic. Please don't let me laugh, Schraf. Your as atheistic as Samuel Beckett. Nothing inherently wrong with that --everbody is free to choose-- except that it cannot be defended scientifically (As demonstrated).Furthermore, I addressed all Quetzals points (as usual), but he only wants to discuss the data subject to his own evolutionary opinions. Even if they don't make sense in the light of contemporary knowledge.Anyway, it was expected that you are forming a unity against Truth. It will not stand, though.Best wishes,
Peter

We can have a scientific discussion the moment you start talking like a scientist instead of a pseudoscientific crank. Start by trying to actually answer the questions put to you, rather than handwaving them away, producing strings of non-sequitors, or simply ignoring them while telling your opponents that they are simply ignorant for not immediately agreeing with you - the hallmarks of crackpot science.Matthew 7:15, Peter. (Never thought I'd be quoting Bible verses, but this one seems particularly apropos.)

This is a public message forum.I am free to reply to whom I wish unless told otherwise by the moderators.I request that you do not reply to me unless you can do so in a civil, respectful way that involves actual content.I will refer you to the forum giudelines.

quote:

---

In another thread you claimed to be an agnostic. Please don't let me laugh, Schraf. Your as atheistic as Samuel Beckett. Nothing inherently wrong with that --everbody is free to choose-- except that it cannot be defended scientifically (As demonstrated).

---

Huh?Talk about irrelevant!

quote:

---

Furthermore, I addressed all Quetzals points (as usual), but he only wants to discuss the data subject to his own evolutionary opinions. Even if they don't make sense in the light of contemporary knowledge.

---

You did not address his point about the difference between an evolutionary arms race and pesticide resistance.

quote:

---

Quetzal is quite adept at debate.

---

I very much agree.

quote:

---

Why don't you let Quetzal defend himself?

---

I'll stop when Quetzal asks me to, not because some arrogant, abusive newbie has decided to try to order me around.

quote:

---

And where is your pro and/or con address of these issues? Stop attacking the guy just to attack him. It's stale.

---

Where is your pro and/or con address of these issues?Did you have a point to make in this thread, or are you only here to criticize me? It's stale.

quote:

---

Running away? You attack me indirectly and refuse to reply to anything I put directly at you.

---

I do not repond to hateful posts intended only to annoy me, and that is all you have been posting here.I will refer you to the forum guidelines.

quote:

---

Perhaps PB will give up his pursuit of creationism and become a sandwich artist at a local deli. All because of your hard nosed (and convincing I must add) post. Great job lass!

---

More content and less abusive behavior would be much appreciated.

quote:

---

Quetzal is quite adept at debate. Why don't you let Quetzal defend himself?

---

Thank you for the compliment. However, I'm a firm believer in anyone jumping in anywhere in any conversation I'm involved with on a message board. I have a lot of respect for schraf, so if she wants to respond, she's free to do so. As is anyone else. This is, of course, a public board.

I saw a reference to the forum guidelines somewhere above, so in case anyone has forgotten or isn't sure, the Free For All forum is unmoderated. It is the only unmoderated forum on the site, and one of only two that do not require registration (the other is Welcome, Visitors!). Participate here at your own risk.

Shraf and Quetzel,You are both hypocrites of the highest order. And both of you do a pretty sorry job of defending that archaic and bunk theory of evolution.Do your random thoughts follow from the random mutations? How is it you believe your thoughts are organized if you also believe you are the product of purposeless undirected evolution?

And it is a pretty questionable practice, to start a topic in the "Free for All" forum, if you are desiring a real discussion.I (as minnemooseus) started the "Free for All" topic "Are creationists...flight" as a humor topic. The damned thing turned serious on me.My personal opinion is that the "Free for All" should be registered members only.The "Welcome, Visitors!" forum should remain open to the unregistered, but the topics should be closed down after a relatively short (10-20?) number of messages. I think it should be an area of introduction, not an area of major discussion.The unregistered should only be allowed so many messages (5?) before it's register or shut up time.I may be wrong.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-31-2003]