Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,650 Year: 4,907/9,624 Month: 255/427 Week: 1/64 Day: 1/8 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
derwood
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 241 of 274 (21272)
11-01-2002 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fred Williams
10-31-2002 4:33 PM


Ahh yes, thew Lord of Delusion makes an appearance....
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU SAY:
No, if there were an intergenic locus of 5kb that showed no change between species in 20 million years, I would be a bit suspicious. But nothing in 300+ bps? Chance alone can probably explain that...
I SAY:
Chance alone? Calculate a bit on it, please. Demonstrate the odds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP: Mutation rate estimates are along the lines of 1 mutation per 10^9 bps per generation. At a 20 year generation time, that amounts to 1 million mutations in 20 million years. So any given site in a 3.2 billion bp genome has about a 0.03125% chance of 'suffering' a mutation in that time frame. That works out to less than 1 in 300 bases.
Very rough estimate and calculation, but it demonstrates my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ROTFL! Very ROUGH indeed! This is bogus beyond words. First, it’s 1 million generations, not mutations.
The stupidity and eagerness of the creationist to 'prove their mettle' is beyond words.
The young earth creationist electrician apparently overlooked this:
"Very rough estimate and calculation, but it demonstrates my point. "
Very rough - I made a simple math error.
In a genome of ~3 billion bp, an error rate of 1 per billion per generation works out to 3 million mutations in 20 million years, not 1 million.
Williams the young earth creationist - who believes that 8000 Kinds on the ark hyperevolved to produce the extant diversity of today via magical evidence-free 'non-random mutations' - laughs at many things. I laugh at someone that actually thinks that the bible is literally true - indeed, I am still waiting for the evidence that leprosy can be ured by killing a couple of pigeons over running water and binding their wings with red thread...
quote:
Second, the rate you cite is way too low; your source must be either deleterious only, or rate/year, not generation. Estimates I’ve seen for *all* mutations (harmful through neutral through beneficial) runs at roughly 100 per diploid/generation, or 3 x 10^-8 bps/generation.
My source explains that the estimates are generalzed estimates that have been seen to be applicable to populations of mice as well as fruit flies (for example).
They go on to break it down to one mutation per gene in the germ line every 200,000 years.
Using that extrapolation, it works out to about 100 changes in 20 million years in the average gene.
The ZFX/ZFY genes are well over 1000 bp in length, not including introns. We can say that therefore, being generous, that about 1 in 10 bps should have 'changed' in 20 million years in this gene.
Of course, 1 in 10 is an average - it does not mean that, literally, every tenth site should have suffered a mutation.
But more importantly - and this is something that I should have picked up on before, Borger's original claim is bogus anyway.
It is the Ks value ("In contrast, the Ks value between human and hominoid primates for the ZFX gene was 0.008 for each comparison") - Ks being synonymous substitutions - that is the same, NOT the exact nucleotide sequence!
The species exhibiting identical nucleotide sequences for a partial exon in ZFX (~400 bp) did not infact diverge 20 million years ago. 18 million is a better value. In addition, looking at the last intron of both the ZFX and ZFY genes rveals a healthy amount of difference - 35/1229 between human and orang in ZFX, for example.
Tells me that the coding regions are under selective constraints.
****
And of course your sources are always right about everything. Like ReMine, for example. ReMine the creationist magician and engineer says that Haldane's model is beyond reproach and that 1667 fixed beneficial mutations is too many to account for human evolution so it MUST be true.
My source is "Molecular Cell Biology, 3rd Ed.,p. 242-3. Alberts et al. 1994.
My source goes on to say:
"...a single gene that encodes an average sized protein (containing about 10^3 coding base pairs) would suffer a mutation once in about 10^6 cell generations."
How does that bode for Borger's insistance that a particular 300+ bp exon, that is under selective constraint, within a gene must have accrued some mutation in that time span?
Funny how you don't address that.
11th Commandmant and all that, I suppose...
quote:
Finally, last and certainly not least, you assume a constant population size of 1 through that entire 20 million years! I didn’t realize we were asexual, and that there really was no Eve, ever. Just Adam, Adam Jr, Adam III, etc! ROTFL!
Yes, ROFTL!
Do you not assume a conststant population size when you hawk Haldane's dilemma?
Or is there some sort of double standard going on here?
Or is it some sort of scientific naievete being displayed by a creationist that is out to 'prove' his ancient religious text literally true?[/quote]
Granted this isn’t a straightforward computation. It’s an interesting problem. Here’s my rough estimate:
Let’s first try to calculate the number of organisms after 20 million years who should have a mutation at a specific neutral site. Assume 3x10^-8 bps/generation, and a population size of 1M. Also assume 20 year/generation. In 20 million years this is 1M generations. So, after 20 million years we will roughly have 3x10^-8 * 10^12 = 31,250 organisms with a mutation at a specific site. This is a rough estimate and will actually be lower because 1) duplicate hits are not accounted for, 2) it assumes the mutation is always inherited. Number 1 is negligible and can be ignored, number two however impacts the number by roughly 50% (due to mendelian genetics). So, that leaves 31,250/2 = 15,625. Out of a population of 1M, after 20 million years 1.6% have the mutation at a specific site.
Now we need to know what the odds are that 80 bps will avoid the mutation. This is given by:
P = 1 - [(100 — f)/100]^N, where f = frequency, N is number of attempts. In our example,
P = 1-[(100 — 1.6)/100]^80 = .725.
This means there is a 72.5% chance that at least one of the 80 neutral sites should have been mutated. Or, there is a 1 in 3.6 chance we would not see a mutation within the 80bp window.
For 300 sites, we get P = .992, or 99.2% chance, which means the odds are 1 in 125 we do not see a mutation within a 300bp window.
These odds obviously do not favor evolution, but they are also not near significant enough to declare the ZFX sequence anomaly a nail-in-the-coffin evidence against the theory. Still 1 in 125 chance IMO refutes your claim that chance alone can explain it. Maybe you got lucky, again. Evolution always gets lucky! LOL!
BTW, it does get really bad if the sequence were 5Kb. Better hope we don’t find one like that. The number becomes P = 9*10^-36![/quote]
Oh boy!
You are really on top of things, aren't you!
Off top class now - will comment on the rest later....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fred Williams, posted 10-31-2002 4:33 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Fred Williams, posted 11-01-2002 7:12 PM derwood has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6562 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 242 of 274 (21274)
11-01-2002 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by peter borger
10-31-2002 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mammuthus,
Since this discussion is culminating in a "yes-it-is-no-it-isn't" debate, I like to have you a look at the 1g5 gene (#1 mail in the mol gen proof against random mut thread) and explain to me how you see this example. In my opinion it demonstrates non-random mutations with respect to nucleotide and position. If not, please explain your opinion in detail, so that you may be able to convince me. Next we can discuss the ancient mtDNA's or was the paper retracted by the authors? If not, the data still stand as scientific data, and your colleagues have to proof that their data are correct and not contaminations.
best wishes,
Peter

++++++++++++++++++
Peter, I would be glad to but you have left my and Quetzal's posts hanging for a prolonged period of time and would like you to answer them before I turn to 1G5 (which I have looked at and do wish to debate).
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 9:28 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by peter borger, posted 11-01-2002 6:16 PM Mammuthus has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 243 of 274 (21296)
11-01-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Mammuthus
11-01-2002 2:35 PM


Dear mammuthus,
If you has paid attention to what I write you would have known that I will repsond to Quetzal after the weekend. In the meantime you ould have a look at the 1G5 gene.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 2:35 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:45 AM peter borger has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4943 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 244 of 274 (21299)
11-01-2002 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by derwood
11-01-2002 1:54 PM


quote:
Very rough - I made a simple math error.
You made several errors, and they were huge. You still don’t recognize one of them:
quote:
Fred: Finally, last and certainly not least, you assume a constant population size of 1 through that entire 20 million years! I didn’t realize we were asexual, and that there really was no Eve, ever. Just Adam, Adam Jr, Adam III, etc! ROTFL!
Yes, ROFTL!
Do you not assume a conststant population size when you hawk Haldane's dilemma?
Or is there some sort of double standard going on here?
Assuming a constant population is fine, ye ole dimbulb. What isn't fine is assuming a constant population size of ONE through the generations! Adam begot Adam Jr, begot Adam III, begot Adam IV Somewhere along the line a female mutated from the male. But wait! We can’t do that, because Scott is assuming a population size of ONE throughout the generations! ROTFL indeed! Its not Adam & Eve, or Adam & Steve, its Adam and, well NOBODY!
quote:
Williams the young earth creationist - who believes that 8000 Kinds on the ark hyperevolved to produce the extant diversity of today via magical evidence-free 'non-random mutations' - laughs at many things. I laugh at someone that actually thinks that the bible is literally true - indeed, I am still waiting for the evidence that leprosy can be ured by killing a couple of pigeons over running water and binding their wings with red thread...
First, there could easily have been 30K kinds or more. Second, I never claimed non-random mutations were the only possible solution, and in fact have stated that I recently (within last 6 months) can see other mechanisms that can exmplain the rapid diversification in 5K years (in fact we see many examples in nature, such as Darwin’s finches). You ignore this though I’ve told it to you before. It is because you are the internet king of misrepresentation. I also never said leprosy can be cured in the manner *you* prescribed.
quote:
It is the Ks value ("In contrast, the Ks value between human and hominoid primates for the ZFX gene was 0.008 for each comparison") - Ks being synonymous substitutions - that is the same, NOT the exact nucleotide sequence!
That is why I gave a number for 80 bps (and later one for 300 bps). I haven’t had time to check the papers or look up the sequence of these genes. I was just doing calculations on your’s and Peter’s claims. Even for 80 bps sequence, we would have expected to see some variation, but not to an extent that offers compelling evidence against evolution, as I stated. There still could also be something wrong with my analysis, particularly since I had to make some assumptions that may be flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by derwood, posted 11-01-2002 1:54 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by mark24, posted 11-01-2002 10:13 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 248 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 9:53 AM Fred Williams has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5282 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 245 of 274 (21308)
11-01-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Fred Williams
11-01-2002 7:12 PM


Fred,
quote:
Assuming a constant population is fine, ye ole dimbulb. What isn't fine is assuming a constant population size of ONE through the generations! Adam begot Adam Jr, begot Adam III, begot Adam IV Somewhere along the line a female mutated from the male.
Something to do with a rib, surely?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Fred Williams, posted 11-01-2002 7:12 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 274 (21443)
11-02-2002 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-11-2002 10:27 PM


Borger has proven himself unable to address topics pertaining to evolution presented in a separate thread on this board, but he did insist on bringing his genetic bagage with him into that thread despite repeated requests to stay on topic, all of which he has ignored.
Now I am here to address the topics he inappropriately raised in the other thread. Since his "scientific work" has been more than adequately called into question by those far more qualified than I, my intention is not to address those topics, but to address other issues in which fault can be found. I plan to grant Borger curtesies he certainly does not deserve and was not willing to grant me in the other thread, to whit: stay on topic and keep the subject range narrow.
Whether he will be able to do this and actually respond directly to challenges in his own thread remains to be seen. There was certainly no evidence whatsoever of this shown in the other thread.
Here are a few observations and challenges to open with.
Comments on Borger's opening message:
Borger seems to indicate that he is a big fan of Lee Spetner, who is not a biologist or a geneticist, but a physicist, but Spetner's work is flawed:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm
Borger fails to define what he means by "NDT". I assume this means "Neo-Darwinian Theory" but it is sloppy to not specify what your acronyms mean, especially in a brand new thread. This sloppiness casts a shadow on the rest of his material. Since he did not define what this acronym meant in the other thread, perhaps I will have more success in getting him to actually define it in his own thread.
Borger inexplicably writes: "Now, let us have an objective look at the data shown in the figure; one that is unbiased by the assumption that the two species of Drosophila have evolved from a common ancestor."
Thus he seems to be claiming objectivity, yet his own position is that evolution is falsified! Since his express purpose of posting material is to refute evolution, how can he even begin to claim objectivity? He talks of a view that is "unbiased by the assumption that the two species of Drosophila have evolved from a common ancestor", yet isn't he biased in precisely the opposite direction? This would seem to be hypocritical at best.
Challenges to Borger:
1. Define NDT.
2. Borger's "evidence" regarding the 1G5 gene in Drosophila has been called into question in several responses, so I need not deal with that. What I want to know is where, in any of this thread, Borger explicitly details how it is that this line of "evidence" refutes evolution. I see no evidence of his claim that "...it violates randomness and thus falsifies NDT", so I would like to see this explicitly detailed, or see a reference to where he has previously explicitly detailed this.
3. Borger claims that: "If a theory can be falsified it is not a good theory..."
On the contrary - if a theory can be falsified, it is an excellent theory, because it allows a means to check it by experimentation. If Borger is, in this sentence, claiming that evolution actually *has* been falsified, then this brings us back to challenge #1
4. Borger also writes (immediately after the above quote): "...and should be replaced by something else that more accurately describes what we see, even if it has to include design. Only atheists will object to that."
I would like an explanation from Borger as to why an atheist would object to evidence of intelligent design (ID), even if Borger's definition of ID is "God did it!" Does he equate the theory of Evolution with atheism, and if so, what is the logic behind this assumption?
5. Following from 4, Borger needs to provide detailed support for his claims regarding ID. If he believes that ID is responsible for life on Earth that he ought to outline a scenario as to how it happened, because if he cannot, all that he is doing is providing what he considers to be negative evidence against evolution (and from what I have read in this thread, it isn't even good evidence). Even if this held up, it would not make a positive case for ID. What is Borger's positive case for ID? How did ID come about?
So here we have five challenges to Borger. Let's see if he can answer any of them. I will not move on from these until and unless he adequately addresses all of them.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-11-2002 10:27 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:18 AM Budikka has replied
 Message 255 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 7:54 PM Budikka has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6562 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 247 of 274 (21495)
11-04-2002 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by peter borger
11-01-2002 6:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mammuthus,
If you has paid attention to what I write you would have known that I will repsond to Quetzal after the weekend. In the meantime you ould have a look at the 1G5 gene.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-01-2002]

*****************
I have looked at it and will debate you regarding 1G5 when this progresses from my monologue of unanswered questions to a dialogue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by peter borger, posted 11-01-2002 6:16 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 248 of 274 (21515)
11-04-2002 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Fred Williams
11-01-2002 7:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
Very rough - I made a simple math error.
You made several errors, and they were huge. [/quote]
Right - I forgot that in addition ot being an expert on the bible, genetics, and of course Information Theory, you are also an expert in statistics.
quote:
You still don’t recognize one of them:
quote:
Fred: Finally, last and certainly not least, you assume a constant population size of 1 through that entire 20 million years! I didn’t realize we were asexual, and that there really was no Eve, ever. Just Adam, Adam Jr, Adam III, etc! ROTFL!
Yes, ROFTL!
Do you not assume a conststant population size when you hawk Haldane's dilemma?
Or is there some sort of double standard going on here?
Assuming a constant population is fine, ye ole dimbulb.
Please explain WHY assuming a constant population size in fine, creationist.
I am sorry, but an assertion form you is hardly worth banking on. You - and your , um, 'intellectual' mentors have a history of not being able to suppoort assertions.
quote:
What isn't fine is assuming a constant population size of ONE through the generations!
Who did that? Are you fogetting your Kimura? Oh, wait, you never knew your Kiumura - as per your much belated 'admission', you simply cribbed quotes from documented misquoter ReMine's silly book.
quote:
Adam begot Adam Jr, begot Adam III, begot Adam IV Somewhere along the line a female mutated from the male.
Adam? Who is Adam? What is the EVIDENCE that this 'Adam' existed?
quote:
But wait! We can’t do that, because Scott is assuming a population size of ONE throughout the generations! ROTFL indeed! Its not Adam & Eve, or Adam & Steve, its Adam and, well NOBODY!
Your stupidity is surpassed only by your ignorance-based overconfidence.
As one proclaiming his scientific knowledge as unassailabale, you should recall that according to the NT, neutral mutations can fix in a population regardless of its size at a rate equal to the mutation rate.
ROFTLMAO.
Indeed.
quote:
Williams the young earth creationist - who believes that 8000 Kinds on the ark hyperevolved to produce the extant diversity of today via magical evidence-free 'non-random mutations' - laughs at many things. I laugh at someone that actually thinks that the bible is literally true - indeed, I am still waiting for the evidence that leprosy can be ured by killing a couple of pigeons over running water and binding their wings with red thread...
First, there could easily have been 30K kinds or more.
Evidence?
quote:
Second, I never claimed non-random mutations were the only possible solution, and in fact have stated that I recently (within last 6 months) can see other mechanisms that can exmplain the rapid diversification in 5K years (in fact we see many examples in nature, such as Darwin’s finches).
True, but you claim they were a big part and yet cannot produce any actual evidence that these mutations even occur! There is a good reason that you yourself claimed to be a 'proselytizer' of that myth.
quote:
You ignore this though I’ve told it to you before. It is because you are the internet king of misrepresentation.
I don't recall you 'telling' me anything. We all know the creationiost tendency to cry 'misrepresentation!' at the drop of a hat.
This is called 'projection.' You do it all the time - even to your own words. You usually try to pawn off your errors on "the shortcomings of the medium" or some such ego-saving lie, but thats your style.
quote:
I also never said leprosy can be cured in the manner *you* prescribed.
Oh, so you DON'T believe the bible is "100%" accurate and error free... You heathen unbeliever!
Hope you don't eat shrimp, either....
quote:
It is the Ks value ("In contrast, the Ks value between human and hominoid primates for the ZFX gene was 0.008 for each comparison") - Ks being synonymous substitutions - that is the same, NOT the exact nucleotide sequence!
That is why I gave a number for 80 bps (and later one for 300 bps). I haven’t had time to check the papers or look up the sequence of these genes. I was just doing calculations on your’s and Peter’s claims.
Really? Where was your , um, refutation of Borger?
quote:
Even for 80 bps sequence, we would have expected to see some variation, but not to an extent that offers compelling evidence against evolution, as I stated. There still could also be something wrong with my analysis, particularly since I had to make some assumptions that may be flawed.
Imagine that...
Of course, being an expert in math and all, I assume that you realize that 'expectations' (probabilities) are not certainties, right?
And I hope that YOU know that an exon is not a gene.
Though I suspect you still link to Luke Randall's site.
You remember Luke Randall, right? The creationist microbiologist/geneticist that claimed that the human genome has 3 billion codons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Fred Williams, posted 11-01-2002 7:12 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 6:46 PM derwood has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 274 (21555)
11-04-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by peter borger
10-31-2002 9:28 PM


Let me ask one fundamental question which I don't recall being asked before.
How does one distinguish between random and non-random mutations in Brorger's scenario of directed mutation? Is a mutational "hot spot" necessarily a non0random mutation and also a directed mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 9:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4943 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 250 of 274 (21613)
11-05-2002 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by derwood
11-04-2002 9:53 AM


quote:
You remember Luke Randall, right? The creationist microbiologist/geneticist that claimed that the human genome has 3 billion codons?
Yes, it's one of your favorite stored chestnuts you like to bring out every couple weeks or so. Hmm, I also remember a certain PhD biologist who admitted to not taking a SINGLE class in pop genetics, yet is now developing a class at his university called evolutionary biology, which according to books I have on the topic is mostly pop genetics! I hope this certain biologist now knows that SNP means single nucleotide polymorphism, and therefore cannot represent a fixed alelle (key word polymorphism). I also hope he now realizes that when a mutant allele reaches fixation in a population then it follows that the original wild-type is no longer present in the same population. I also hope this certain biologist realizes that sound math above the hasbro-level is crucial to population genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 9:53 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by derwood, posted 11-06-2002 8:31 AM Fred Williams has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 251 of 274 (21655)
11-06-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Budikka
11-02-2002 10:32 PM


Dear Buddika, this is easy.
Buddika says:
1. Define NDT.
I say:
Neo-darwinian theory. All life-foms evolved from a common ancestor through selection of random mutations in DNA sequences.
Buddika:
2. Borger's "evidence" regarding the 1G5 gene in Drosophila has been called into question in several responses, so I need not deal with that. What I want to know is where, in any of this thread, Borger explicitly details how it is that this line of "evidence" refutes evolution. I see no evidence of his claim that "...it violates randomness and thus falsifies NDT", so I would like to see this explicitly detailed, or see a reference to where he has previously explicitly detailed this.
MY RESPONSE:
You are among the deniers. Whatever the mechanism behind the mutations in the Ig5 gene in Drosophila, it defies NDT since they are non randomly introduced in a neutral evolving gene.
Buddika:
3. Borger claims that: "If a theory can be falsified it is not a good theory..."
On the contrary - if a theory can be falsified, it is an excellent theory, because it allows a means to check it by experimentation. If Borger is, in this sentence, claiming that evolution actually *has* been falsified, then this brings us back to challenge #1
MY RESPONSE:
Maybe I should have read.."If a theory can be falsified it is not a good theory, at least it is not complete, and certainly not truth..."
Buddika:
4. Borger also writes (immediately after the above quote): "...and should be replaced by something else that more accurately describes what we see, even if it has to include design. Only atheists will object to that."
I would like an explanation from Borger as to why an atheist would object to evidence of intelligent design (ID), even if Borger's definition of ID is "God did it!" Does he equate the theory of Evolution with atheism, and if so, what is the logic behind this assumption?
MY RESPONSE:
I proposed the creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field. You introduced "God did it", although you may be --and likely are-- right. Of course, evolutionism is not equal to atheism. However, in popular media it is often used synonymously: evolutionism equals atheism. As known on this site, I SEVERELY object to that.
Buddika:
5. Following from 4, Borger needs to provide detailed support for his claims regarding ID. If he believes that ID is responsible for life on Earth that he ought to outline a scenario as to how it happened, because if he cannot, all that he is doing is providing what he considers to be negative evidence against evolution (and from what I have read in this thread, it isn't even good evidence). Even if this held up, it would not make a positive case for ID. What is Borger's positive case for ID? How did ID come about?
MY RESPONSE:
As pointed out in several letters (for instance to Mark24) genetic redundancies are compelling evidence for ID. A major part of the genes in any genome are maintained without selective constraints. I provided scientific evidence for that observation. It once more overturns NDT.
Buddika:
So here we have five challenges to Borger. Let's see if he can answer any of them. I will not move on from these until and unless he adequately addresses all of them.
MY RESPONSE:
A midnight run. I already explained these concepts in detail on this site, and why they are evolutionism killers.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Budikka, posted 11-02-2002 10:32 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 5:24 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 261 by Budikka, posted 11-09-2002 6:22 AM peter borger has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6562 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 252 of 274 (21665)
11-06-2002 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by peter borger
11-06-2002 4:18 AM


PB:I say:
Neo-darwinian theory. All life-foms evolved from a common ancestor through selection of random mutations in DNA sequences.
M: Is the selection on the random mutation or on the resultant phenotype You sure you have the correct definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:18 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 7:40 PM Mammuthus has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 253 of 274 (21679)
11-06-2002 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Fred Williams
11-05-2002 6:46 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B][quote]You remember Luke Randall, right? The creationist microbiologist/geneticist that claimed that the human genome has 3 billion codons?[/b]
Yes, it's one of your favorite stored chestnuts you like to bring out every couple weeks or so.[/quote]
Every couple of weeks? that is a grotesque misrepresenations. Typical..
quote:
Hmm, I also remember a certain PhD biologist who admitted to not taking a SINGLE class in pop genetics, yet is now developing a class at his university called evolutionary biology, which according to books I have on the topic is mostly pop genetics!
What books DO you have? Lets see, I know you have "Biotic Message". B ut that is really about ReMine telling everyone how much smarter than everyone else he thinks he is... And of course "Not by Chance"... Also a creationist tome....
Did I leave any out?
Well, anyway, that is why the class is being developed. In fact, I have not even started it yet.
Of course, I will not present myself as an 'expert' in it, as I am not a pompous, pseudocertain simpleton that continues to ignore straightforward challenges and questions.
quote:
I hope this certain biologist now knows that SNP means single nucleotide polymorphism, and therefore cannot represent a fixed alelle (key word polymorphism).
I realized that a long time ago. That biologist, however, never went on month long tirades blabbering about how "informed creationists" know that I am right blah blah blah, only to months later claimn to have knowin it all along...
No - that was a certain non-biologist engineer creationist who laughably claims to be an "expert" in Information theory...
quote:
I also hope he now realizes that when a mutant allele reaches fixation in a population then it follows that the original wild-type is no longer present in the same population.
I always did. I also realized - and informed cretins also should - that a mutatnt dominant phenotype can be 'fixed' in a population before the genotype. Inbformed, intelligent cretins also realize that there is technically no such thing as an allele that is fixed in 100% of a population, as borne out by HGP data.
quote:
I also hope this certain biologist realizes that sound math above the hasbro-level is crucial to population genetics.
Shame that internet pseudogeniuses actually believe that off-the-cuff internet discussion board posts are representative of one's abilities. Well, actually, I guess they are representative of the creationsts abilities - observe how a certain creationist ignores questions relating DIRECTLY to many of his claims, abandons threads in which he is getting quashed, only to pop up in a new thread (which itself is sure to soon be abandoned)...
Yes, Fred, shame that creationits don't seem to realize that arguing fossils, genetics, anatomy, cosmology, etc. really taskes more than reading a few creationist books, an ancient religious text, and having an ego the size of Texass...
Just think of what even your fellow creationists must think of you...
Mr.Hyssop oil....
Mr.Banner of uncomfoprtable truths...
Moderator 3...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 6:46 PM Fred Williams has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 254 of 274 (21740)
11-06-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Mammuthus
11-06-2002 5:24 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
Phenotype without genotype?
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 5:24 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Mammuthus, posted 11-07-2002 3:07 AM peter borger has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7752 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 255 of 274 (21741)
11-06-2002 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Budikka
11-02-2002 10:32 PM


Dear Buddika,
You write:
Comments on Borger's opening message:
Borger seems to indicate that he is a big fan of Lee Spetner, who is not a biologist or a geneticist, but a physicist, but Spetner's work is flawed:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm
MY RESPONSE:
I know Korthof's work. He writes book reviews related to evolutionism-creationism. I recommend you to read his discussion with Spetner. It can be found here:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36a.htm
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Budikka, posted 11-02-2002 10:32 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by wj, posted 11-06-2002 10:47 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 262 by Budikka, posted 11-09-2002 7:01 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 265 by derwood, posted 11-11-2002 9:03 AM peter borger has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024