Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

Hi Peter, and others, from a long-time lurker.
You wrote:
-----------------
Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.
-----------------
Peter, could you describe in outline a controlled experiment to support/falsify this position? I can't think of one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Chavalon,

​

That is the good part about the definition.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

---

​

*****************+

​

The good part of this definition is that you cannot propose an experiment to test this hypothesis?

---

Most philosophers of science (eg Popper) would say that the definition is thus - by definition - unscientific.

quote:

---

A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up by the evolutionists. It took them about 140 years.

---

Peter, it's not just that philosophers of science profoundly disagree with this statement, asserting that a non-falsifiable theory cannot be scientific.Working scientists, a pragmatic bunch who generally ignore academic philosophy, would have not the slightest interest in such a theory, either. How could a theory have any relevance to a practically-minded person, if there is no possible experiment that shows whether it is true or not?Theories are regarded by empiricists as interesting, or not, according to the number of opportunities that there are to test them. Each test might confirm, partially confirm or disprove the theory. The best theories provide practically limitless opportunities for testing - and so for their own refutation. The best of all, of course, aren't disproved - at least for the time being.If you are confident of the truth of your assertions that 'kinds' exist, and you are a scientific creationist, then the theory must be cast in such a way that it can be tested experimentally.[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Chavalon,

​

I agree, that a hypothsesis should be testable. If the hypothesis fails it should be adjusted. The hypothesis of evolutionism can be tested for its predictions. Also, the MPG hypothesis can be tested.

​

For instance, evolutionism predicts that genes that are under selective constraints should change less than genes not under selective constraint. It can be readily tested. It turn out that redundant genes do not change fasted than essential genes. It is a clearcut falsifiaction. So, the hypothesis fails.

​

On the other hand the hypotheis of MPG hold that genes are in the genome due to DNA stabilising proteins and repair mechanism. Although selection is also part of the MPG genome --but merely to purify the genepool from degenerate genes-- it doesn't rely upon it. Genes are in the genome through stabilising mechanism, and thus it is predicted that essential genes and redundant genes change with the same rate. As a matter of fact, this is what we see. Case proven. Here the MPG hypothesis is superior to evolutionism and should be preferred. At least, according to scientific standard.

​

Best wishes,
peter

​

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-10-2002]

---

Peter -If the MPG theory involves descent with modification and natural selection, and it seems to as far as I can tell, then it is an 'evolutionist' theory - one that competes with neo Darwinism.FWIW, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there's an element of truth in some theory like this one, but if so, that will be a modification of neo Darwinism, not a disproof of evolutionary theory. Those two are not the same thing - Neo Darwinism (like MPG) is a specific mechanism, evolutionary theory as a whole is the observation that there is a reason to work such mechanisms out. In fact, if some bits of an MPG-like theory turn out to be the case, evolutionary theory will be strengthened, not overturned.[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-11-2002][This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Bud,

​

Buddika's failure #2:

​

2. Failure to scientifically explain the mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" from "varying" into another "kind".
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.

​

My reply:

​

As previously explained the histon code in conjunction with a compatible activator code prevents the one kind from becoming another kind.

​

22-2 = 20

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-10-2002]

---

Peter - Your previous posts on the subject of histon codes affirm that different species' metabolisms are not compatible on a molecular level, but we already knew that. You need to show that the different systems could not have arisen from a common ancestor. Any attempt to prove a negative that, er, didn't happen, a long time ago seems to bring us back to the unfortunate state of unfalsifiability. Try again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,

​

Buddika's failure #6:

​

---

With respect, Peter and Buddika, you are straying off topic From a purely scientific POV, this question of kinds is the crux of the differences between supporters of mainstream genetics and those who are seeking alternatives, isn't it?*Surely* someone can define 'kind' in an unambiguous and testable way. (In the context of genetics, I suggest that this is a minimum requirement for a creationism to be called 'scientific'.) In the absence of a satisfactory definition, it's just a 'house built on sand', no?There are several questions almost equivalent to 'What is a kind?' -What prevents the transmutation of kinds?Why should macroevolution be impossible?What limits the variability of an MPG?(edited for spelling)[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-19-2002][This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-19-2002]