Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 16 of 191 (20072)
10-17-2002 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mammuthus
10-16-2002 6:24 AM


dear Mammuthus,
YOU write:
PB:
The scientific explanation why the one multipurpose genome cannot transform into another multipurpose genome is due to the ‘Borger Exclusion Principle’. Only certain, well defined (or: divine-d ) creatons are allowed to operate at the respective defined levels of the morphogenetic field, so that it induces novel genes and/or genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs. That’s how genomes grow. Of course, we still have to scientifically proof the existence of creatons and the morphogenetic field, but I see that is a good scientific challenge. You don’t believe evolutionism is complete, I hope?
M: Please define and provide an example of a "well defined creaton"
"allowed to operate.." allowed by who?
MY RESPONSE:
You have to realise that it still is a hypothesis. However, in my opinion there have been creations --and maybe still are-- that gave rise to protein families genes. For instance if we have a look at the differences between pro- and eukaryota it can be inferred that creatons exist that interact with matter to create the histons. For instance, histon H4, histon H3 --but also the other histons-- seem to drop out of the sky. They never changed afterwards. The amino acid substitutions per site/10exp9 years < 0.014 ('Molecular Evolution' by R. Page and EC Holmes p235, ISBN 0-86542-889-1). Interestingly, histons can even be redundant, as recently observed for histon h1 in saccharomyces (not sure, will look it up).
You say:
Your hypothesis is falsified by the fact of heredity.
MY RESPONSE:
Once a genome has been formed by creaton interactions it is subject to the laws of genetics and thus to heredity.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
1) provide me with a scientific explanation of the first gene, genetic programs that sustains the simplest form of self-propagating biochemical circuit (organism).
M: This is abiogenesis and not evolution. This would be better asked in the Origins of Life forum.
MY RESPONSE:
Since you are an atheist --at least that is what I think to read in your mails-- maybe you could elaborate a bit on it. I think it is the most important question to be addressed by atheists. If not addressed there can be no atheism.
IN RESPONSE TO:
2) provide me with a scientific explanation —aside from gene duplications since I cannot use them to explain genetic redundancies-- where novel redundant genes have their origin.
YOU SAY:
M: Funny, all scientists can use gene duplications to explain genetic redundancies. You can even experimentally generate duplications. So your refusal to accept data that supports this is not a valid refutation.
MY RESPONSE:
In almost every thread I opened there is at least one reference to Tautenhoofd et al, and Winzeler et al who demonstrate that i) redundant genes are not associated with gene duplication, and ii) redundant genes do not faster change than essential genes. That makes me a bit suspicious about the alleged molecular evolutionary mechanisms.
IN RESPONSE TO:
3) provide me with a scientific explanation for the redundant genetic code and
YOU SAY:
M: Please define redundant genetic code or do you mean degenerate code?
MY REPONSE:
I guess you call it the degenerate genetic code since you think it is degenerate. I call it redundant genetic code, since it is not degenerate but the most optimal design using 64 symbols to write life and to avoid mutations that introduce aminoacids on the wrong spot.
IN RESPONSE TO:
4) next provide me with a scientific explanation for the recently in eukaryota discovered second DNA associated genetic code, the Histon Code (Science 2001, 293:1074-80). And then,
YOU SAY:
...I'll read the article and get back to you...but you do realize that mtDNA also uses a different code? And also inolveds RNA editing to produce transcripts?
MY RESPONSE:
The major difference is that mtDNA has 4 stop codons. Apparently it requires more stringent control due to compactness of the genes on the mt-DNA.
IN RESPONSE TO:
5) provide me with a scientific explanation for the assumed third DNA associated code: the coactivater code of transcription (Trends Biochem Sci 2002, 27:165-7.).
YOU WRITE:
I'll read this and get back to you on it to however, I do suspect that the article itself provides a scientific explanation...
But I have a counter question..why do you assume that evolution requires a universal translation code? What is the basis for your assumption that this system has not evolved?
MY RESPONSE:
Evolutiontheory/abiogenesis doesn't have a solution for the first genetic code, let alone for a code that generates a code due to the intermediate of another code. I simply don't believe that this all evolved by random mutation and selection. I am entitled to my believes isn't it?
IN RESPONSE TO:
Without answers evolutionism is dead. Period.
YOU SAY:
M: Unwarranted conclusion and desperate wishful thinking.
I SAY:
It was a response to "Without answers creationism is dead. Period.", it was for fun.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
The issue is that although evolutionism tries to address the questions on origin, it actually doesn’t. That is: no origin of genes, no origin of new traits, no origin of new organism. However, there is not a single shred of compelling scientific evidence, only inference. Still, evolutionism is presented as scientific fact. OBJECTION!!!
M: Evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life only speciation. For months in multiple threads your claim that there is no compelling evidence for evolution has been repeatedly rebutted. However, none of your own claims have been substantiated i.e. morphogenetic fields and creatons for example.
MY RESPONSE:
I presented several examples that violate evolutionism. You don't want to see that. And, regarding the creatons and morphogenetic field: don't make it another straw man. I already mentioned in previous letters that I do not need this concept to falsify evolution theory. It is nothing but a hypothesis. What's wrong with a hypothesis?
YOU WRITE:
PB:
Besides, I am able to explain all biological observations without using evolution,
M: So can a religios fanatic. They do so with complete disregard to evidence and science.
MY RESPONSE:
Maybe all the scientific evidence can be explained by '(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome. I think it can.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
only by application of (non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome. I even presented evidence for that, but every atheistic evolutionist is in the denial mode. I don’t mind, as long as I am able to explain all phenomena you can’t.
M: Unwarranted conclusion...some evolutionists here are theistic evolutionists. Your non-random mutation misconception has been debunked counteless times. You merely disregard what has been said and then repeat and repeat your statement as if this will somehow eventually make it true.
MY RESPONSE:
Evolution theory cannot cover all observations in the genome as repeatedly demonstrated on this site. Now, you can do two things. i) Ignore/deny it. It doesn't make the theory more compelling. The contrary. ii) Adapt the theory. I recommend the second option. In the meantime I will work on my hypothesis.
YOU WRITE:
You yourself have provided no evidence for your hypothesis so how are you able to explain phenomenon that we can't?
MY RESPONSE:
There is support for my view as mailed before. I will open a new thread on a recently discovered population of organisms that is genetically identical but isn't cloned. It can be interpreted as recently created.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
All biological data have to be discussed subject to evolutionism; otherwise you will have a hard time to get it in a peer reviewed journal. I you have a careful look at the literature a lot of papers demonstrate data that are not in accord with evolution theory and, of course, not discussed. I presented already several of them, and I can simply use them to falsify the evolutionary concepts of random mutation and selection at the level of the genome.
M: And have been rebutted and the ideas debunked. As to publishing in a peer reviewed journal...you seem to be indicating a conspiracy theory.
MY RESPONSE:
If you call that rebutted I am able to rebuke all evolutionary stories. No, I am not suggesting a conspiracy. All I say that it has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, and I considered this peculiar since the data were extraordinary.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
And now we know a bit more about genomes, it suddenly turns out that your stories can easily be falsified at the genomic level.
M: unsupported statment.
MY RESPONSE:
The more I get involved the more I get the feeling that I am wasting my time on this site.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
So, indeed you and the other atheists provided the world with a lot of non-sense that culminates now in a nihilistic worldview. It will take a long time before it has been undone.
M: Most evolutionary biologists are christian....Darwin was as well. Your hatred of atheists exposes your non-scientific agenda to replace science with religion as you greatly fear those of us who live comfortably as non-believers.
MY RESPONSE:
Dear M, I do not have hatred against people (or organisms in general). On the contrary. I know that love between people is the highest command. What I try to show here is that it is not at all as certain as it is. All I object to is the way evolutionism is presented in the media and the tacit implication of atheism. By now you should know that I object to atheism and the underlaying nihilism and its impact on society.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
Actually, I think it cannot be undone anymore, since there is not another possibility for science then being atheistic. I do not mind that you and your guys want to study biology and describe the data subject to evolutionism, but don’t propagate your stories as fact.
M: If you think there is "not another possiblity for science then being atheisitic"...why did you bother studying science and getting a Ph.D.? An odd thing to do if you hate science as a discipline...I don't see any atheists becoming Roman Catholic Archbishops.
MY RESPONSE:
Science is fun and it is able to bring mankind good things (Do research on all topics and keep the good things). However, to study life should be agnostic, not atheistic, since only unbiased agnosticism can lead to true discoveries. Biased science will never reach that goal.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Try to smash my view. Besides, it is a evolutionism versus creationism debate, and has nothing to do with persons. Try not to become personal in this discussion; some other guys/dolls already did that for you. I can assure you that I am completely insensitive to personal attack. I am a stoic and I will overturn evolutionism.
M: I agree that one should avoid personal attacks. But it does happen anyway. At least I don't think you and I have been particularly belligerent towards one another personally though you may feel otherwise.
MY RESPONSE:
At least you are able to discuss. And often you have good comments.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
More personal assaults.
What’s wrong with you evo-guys? Can’t win the discussions anymore in the light of contemporary biology?
M: However, you yourself have claimed science is a nihlistic atheists cult which is unsupportable and I imagine extremely personally insulting to those who are theistic evolutionists. Also you are addressing a single person in the plural i.e. evo-guys. Would you be happy if I associated you with Wordswordsmans manner and tactics?
MY RESPONSE:
I did not mention the word cult. And yes, atheism is nihilistic and I object to that. Now and in the future. Furthermore, if there is such thing as a non-random mechanism I guess not a single theistic evolutionist would object to that. So, I have my doubts on the socalled theistic evolutionists.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Sounds familiar to me in discussions with evolutionists. I mean fighting off straw men and introduction of red herrings.
M: Ah, so you don't think creationists do this? Would you like some examples from this forum? You have often not answered questions or gone off on tangents as well rather than refuting statements.
MY RESPONSE:
A discussion is a discussion, not a yelling-kid-party. If somebody disagrees with me I am fine with that, and I will adapt my views if necessary. But they have to convince me first. If it is only a matter of interpretation I do not concur. I feel sorry for those who think that namecalling and being intolerant are arguments in a discussion.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Better start answering now. Problem is that evolutionism doesn’t answer the question where it is all about: Where do we come from?
M: Africa some 200,000 years ago
Based on what mtDNA Eve? I have my doubt on mtDNA clocks. See my reference in this thread: PNAS 2001, 98:537-542. Other results are provided by the ZFY region. It demonstrates either a very recent origin of man or a selective sweep of the Y chromosome. You choose for the selective sweep, I choose for the recent origin. Why? Because the ZFY region violates evolutionary rules.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Maybe I could think of 300 evolutionist just-so-stories. I think I can, since I recently read a couple of books by Richard Dawkins.
M: Rebutt the primary literature on genetics and also on evolution.
I SAY:
I do not have to rebut genetics. Although I have examples that are able to rebut it. Evolutionism is easy to falsify at the level of the genome (as demonstrated).
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
When do I see these honest evolutionists on television, newspapers, in the media in general? Bob Bakker and his just-so-stories on dinosaurs? I could make them up. Easy. Find a fossilized feather and they can fly. I’ve completely had it with this type of presenting scientific discoveries.
M: If you get your science by watching television then it is no wonder you are confused.
MY RESPONSE:
I do not get my science by television, I get it from first hand and from scientific journals. What I object to is that the rank and file get it from the television, and the way it is presented there is a blamage. OBJECTION!! Televion is the medium to keep the people from the truth by broadcasting nihilistic lulabies.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
The issue should be that you and your evo-proponents should get up to date with your theory. If dramatic changes have to be made: than sois. Ignorance and denial of biological phenomena will render that it will turn against itself. That is what is happening now. The introduction of meaningless term like 'very weak purifying selection'. OBJECTION!! Face then facts. If it cannot be explained by evolutinism the theory has to adapt!!! What you will get is more and more opposition. Assuredly from bio-molecular scientists. Do you really think that you can make me believe that three codes that govern life have evolved from scratch through randomness and selection?
M: Yes
MY RESPONSE:
If my believe has the size of a mustard seed, then yours assuredly has the size of a coconut.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
I posted several articles that conflict evolution theory. See my thread molecular genetic evidence against random mutation; Letter 1-30 provide the complete falsification of NDT Furthermore, if you look a bit further into the evolutionary sciences you will discover that several phenomena conflict evolutionary rules at the genomic level. For instance The ZFY region or the ZFX region. Only a reductionistic view can hold up the hypothesis of evolution. A holistic view completely obliterates evolutionism (see also my discussion with Dr Page on the human ZFY/ZFX region). Here, again on the genomic level, evolutionism comes to a grinding halt.
M: You have been rebutted by Page and others.
I SAY:
Yes, and today I rebutted Dr. Page and you. Every rebut will have its rebut. That's how it goes.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
You believe that refutations of evolutionism are going to be published in peer reviewed pro-evolutionary journals? I will open a new thread this week on genetically identical organisms (not clones). The data are so extraordinary that they could have been published in Science or Nature, but have never appeared in a peer reviewed scientific Journal. Cover up?
M: Ah, the conspiracy theory again. I guess I should be angry that not every one of my papers got published in Naturee..must be a conspiracy against me.
MY RESPONSE:
It wasn't my research, so I don't mind. I coincidentally encountered it in a book written on the topic. It opened my eyes. I will send it next week as a new thread.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Actually I really have my doubt about the valididty of mtDNA mapping and the genetic clock based upon mtDNA. I recently spelled out an article on ancient man mtDNA. I discovered two things:
1) Mutation in mtDNA is not at random (see my thread more non-random evolution),
M: You have been rebutted on this point
2) the differences between human consensus sequence (hcs) and bonobo, hcs and chimp, and hcs and neanderthaler are 29/309, 24/309 and 27/309. So, if it tells something, it is not on human descent. Actually it falsifies human decent. Bottomline, mtDNA analysis cannot be used for such studies.
(REF: PNAS 2001, 98:537-42)
M: You will have to elaborate on this since what you said makes no sense.
MY RESPONSE:
It is the PNAS articel I referred to earlier in this mail. Have a look at Table 1. It demonstrates exactly what I wrote. 1) Non-random mutations in subpopulations of ancient man, and 2)a falsification of common descent.
You will find out --like me-- that if you study subpopulations these findings always show up. It preludes the end of evolution theory.
YOU WRITE:
I say:
Creation has a theory now. It is called ‘(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome’
M: And it has been falsified.
MY RESPONSE:
In your opinion it has been falsified. In my opinion evolutionism has been falsified over and over. Sois.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
I say:
Evolutionism doesn’t provide ‘explanations’. It merely tells stories that are presented as fact in the media. By the way, maybe you didn’t get it yet, but science is not explanatory, it merely describes HOW things work. What you and your atheistic evo-friends are trying to do sell is that there is no purpose to everything. Well, I object to that, and therefore the harder you scream that everything evolved without purpose the harder I will kick this simplistic vision of life. I am going to bring down evolution theory, whether you like it or not! That’s my goal in life.
M: I am not sure which is worse, your lack of understanding of science, your hatred of non-believers, or your megalomaniac assertions
MY RESPONSE:
None of the above. How can it be that all sciences are subject to changes and evolutionism hasn't changed for almost 70 years? It tells me that something is severely wrong with the theory.
YOU WRITE:
PB:
My comments.
Apparently, human and chimps are closely related with respect to DNA associated code #1, commonly referred to as the ‘genetic code’. However, I have the feeling that you are not completely updated with respect to contemporary biology, since there are additional DNA associated codes present in eukaryotic cells that regulate gene expression. These recently discovered codes —the ‘histon code’ and the ‘coactivator code’ may contribute to the differences between mamalia. So, evolutionists may claim that the first code is determining the appearance of organism and that high degrees of homology between such DNA sequences are proof for evolution, I simply do not share their opinion. It is an outdated view. It is more likely that the differences between human and chimp are determined by the histon code. And it may be so that there will be huge differences with respect to the histon code between human and chimp. In fact I predict there is. Indirect evidence for the importance of the additional codes is provided by chromosomal aberrations like trisomy 21. 'Complete' homology of DNA code #1 still gives rise to huge phenotypic differences. In my opinion it is due to epigenetic modifications of DNA and probably a false reading of code #2 and/or code #3.
M: Care to support your "opinions" with actual data?
MY RESPONSE:
The actual data will be present within the forthcoming decade. We are now rapidly discovering the language of gene regulation and you can be certain that the differences will be found there. In the meantime I will try to find further support for my assertions.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 6:24 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 10-17-2002 5:39 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 17 of 191 (20076)
10-17-2002 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Budikka
10-16-2002 11:58 PM


dear Buddika,
After counting the references to scientific peer reviewed journals in your excellent rebuttal I counted zero.
If you are under the impression that the talkorigins is a science site and that the stories told by Le Duve, Gould and Dawkins are scientific instead of being their personal worldviews, well I think I better leave you dreaming.
If you wanna join a discussion --I presume you weren't forced to register to this site-- better learn to listen first, then take a course how to debate and --last but not least-- you better get serious you naughty angry young man/woman
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Budikka, posted 10-16-2002 11:58 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Budikka, posted 10-19-2002 9:31 PM peter borger has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 18 of 191 (20088)
10-17-2002 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by peter borger
10-17-2002 2:07 AM


Hi Peter,
I actually only jumped into this thread because you had not responded to my questions about your hypothesis so I will only briefly answer parts of this post and continue in the other more molecular oriented threads where you, me, and Quetzal have been debating..ok?
M: Please define and provide an example of a "well defined creaton"
"allowed to operate.." allowed by who?
MY RESPONSE:
You have to realise that it still is a hypothesis. However, in my opinion there have been creations --and maybe still are-- that gave rise to protein families genes. For instance if we have a look at the differences between pro- and eukaryota it can be inferred that creatons exist that interact with matter to create the histons. For instance, histon H4, histon H3 --but also the other histons-- seem to drop out of the sky. They never changed afterwards. The amino acid substitutions per site/10exp9 years < 0.014 ('Molecular Evolution' by R. Page and EC Holmes p235, ISBN 0-86542-889-1). Interestingly, histons can even be redundant, as recently observed for histon h1 in saccharomyces (not sure, will look it up).
M: I never recall any problems with the evolution of histones
6: Piontkivska H, Rooney AP, Nei M. Related Articles, Links
Purifying selection and birth-and-death evolution in the histone H4 gene family.
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 May;19(5):689-97.
PMID: 11961102 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Tsunemoto K, Matsuo Y. Related Articles, Links
Molecular evolutionary analysis of a histone gene repeating unit from Drosophila simulans.
Genes Genet Syst. 2001 Dec;76(6):355-61.
PMID: 11922104 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PB:
MY RESPONSE:
Once a genome has been formed by creaton interactions it is subject to the laws of genetics and thus to heredity.
M: At what point? When you were born you had no genome so it poofed banged into existence? This actually goes against your argument as well that subpopulations of humans exhibit creation effects if subsequent to the poof bang appearance of the human genome it then was subject to the laws of genetics.
M: This is abiogenesis and not evolution. This would be better asked in the Origins of Life forum.
MY RESPONSE:
Since you are an atheist --at least that is what I think to read in your mails-- maybe you could elaborate a bit on it. I think it is the most important question to be addressed by atheists. If not addressed there can be no atheism.
M: I would be glad to but it would be better to start a thread in the Origin of Life thread. If we entangle the two debates (evolution and abiogenesis) following posts will become impossible.
MY REPONSE:
I guess you call it the degenerate genetic code since you think it is degenerate. I call it redundant genetic code, since it is not degenerate but the most optimal design using 64 symbols to write life and to avoid mutations that introduce aminoacids on the wrong spot.
M: Is it REALLY the most optimal "design"? It is highly error prone. It also requires tRNA editing in many species to work. There are also things like amber suppression mutants that ignore stop codons under certain conditions...why all the fudging around among species if the code is so optimal?
MY RESPONSE:
The major difference is that mtDNA has 4 stop codons. Apparently it requires more stringent control due to compactness of the genes on the mt-DNA.
M: However in some plants the mt genome is enormous, not compact. So it does not truly require stringent control.
MY RESPONSE:
Evolutiontheory/abiogenesis doesn't have a solution for the first genetic code, let alone for a code that generates a code due to the intermediate of another code. I simply don't believe that this all evolved by random mutation and selection. I am entitled to my believes isn't it?
M: You are entitled to your beliefs and I have never said otherwise. I claim that you are not entitled to claim the beliefs are scientific but I do not deny anyone to believe what they want.
MY RESPONSE:
I presented several examples that violate evolutionism. You don't want to see that. And, regarding the creatons and morphogenetic field: don't make it another straw man. I already mentioned in previous letters that I do not need this concept to falsify evolution theory. It is nothing but a hypothesis. What's wrong with a hypothesis?
M: Nothing is wrong with a hypothesis. I work on a way out there hypothesis of why megafauna went extinct in the Late Pleistocene...it is however, a testable hypothesis and falsifiable. But my paragraph you are reacting to had more to do with the difference between abiogeneis and evolution distinctions.
MY RESPONSE:
Maybe all the scientific evidence can be explained by '(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome. I think it can.
M: Please explain quarks and muons
PB:
MY RESPONSE:
Evolution theory cannot cover all observations in the genome as repeatedly demonstrated on this site. Now, you can do two things. i) Ignore/deny it. It doesn't make the theory more compelling. The contrary. ii) Adapt the theory. I recommend the second option. In the meantime I will work on my hypothesis.
M: I don't ignore or deny valid criticisms of the theory and the theory adapts to new information all the time i.e. the placement of insectivores within the phylogenetic tree of Afrotheria.
PB:
MY RESPONSE:
The more I get involved the more I get the feeling that I am wasting my time on this site.
M: Though I sometimes feel the same way, you will not find other scientific venues any less contentious even when you agree with other people! And in your case, if you make extrodinary claims then you have to provide 1) extraordinary compelling arguments 2) extraordinary sound supporting data. This will be true no matter whether it is on this site or anywhere else.
M: If you think there is "not another possiblity for science then being atheisitic"...why did you bother studying science and getting a Ph.D.? An odd thing to do if you hate science as a discipline...I don't see any atheists becoming Roman Catholic Archbishops.
MY RESPONSE:
Science is fun and it is able to bring mankind good things (Do research on all topics and keep the good things). However, to study life should be agnostic, not atheistic, since only unbiased agnosticism can lead to true discoveries. Biased science will never reach that goal.
M: However, in your case you start a prior with the assumption that 1) your hypothesis is correct 2) evolution is an evil atheist conspiracy so you are not fullfilling the unbiased agnosticism criteria you have set for yourself. Secondly, creationism is not science i.e. no testable hypothesis so my being an atheist has no bearing on my science.
PB:
MY RESPONSE:
At least you are able to discuss. And often you have good comments.
M: You and TB are the only creationists on board who argue about science rather than about the bible disproving or proving evolution or other fruitless discussions...so I enjoy it as well.
YOU WRITE:
M: However, you yourself have claimed science is a nihlistic atheists cult which is unsupportable and I imagine extremely personally insulting to those who are theistic evolutionists. Also you are addressing a single person in the plural i.e. evo-guys. Would you be happy if I associated you with Wordswordsmans manner and tactics?
PB:
Based on what mtDNA Eve? I have my doubt on mtDNA clocks. See my reference in this thread: PNAS 2001, 98:537-542. Other results are provided by the ZFY region. It demonstrates either a very recent origin of man or a selective sweep of the Y chromosome. You choose for the selective sweep, I choose for the recent origin. Why? Because the ZFY region violates evolutionary rules.
M: I think the Erlandsson, Wilson and Paabo paper talks about the discordance of dates for mtDNA and Y. It is a simple issue really. But we are in agreement on one thing, I don't believe in molecular clocks either...at least not for making sub million year divergence claims.
PB:
I do not have to rebut genetics. Although I have examples that are able to rebut it. Evolutionism is easy to falsify at the level of the genome (as demonstrated).
M: Please do rebut genetics and yes, you wuold have to rebut genetics to rebut evolution.
PB:
MY RESPONSE:
If my believe has the size of a mustard seed, then yours assuredly has the size of a coconut.
M: I like coconuts..prefer bananas
I SAY:
Yes, and today I rebutted Dr. Page and you. Every rebut will have its rebut. That's how it goes.
M: I missed that...which thread and which post? I am not being sarcastic but I did not find your response or do you mean the ZFX response?
PB:
MY RESPONSE:
It is the PNAS articel I referred to earlier in this mail. Have a look at Table 1. It demonstrates exactly what I wrote. 1) Non-random mutations in subpopulations of ancient man, and 2)a falsification of common descent.
You will find out --like me-- that if you study subpopulations these findings always show up. It preludes the end of evolution theory.
M: We can deal with this in the other thread.
MY RESPONSE:
None of the above. How can it be that all sciences are subject to changes and evolutionism hasn't changed for almost 70 years? It tells me that something is severely wrong with the theory.
M: Evolutionary theory has not changed in 70 years? I think you have to read more carefully. It is radically different than 70 years ago.
cheers, M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 10-17-2002 2:07 AM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 191 (20291)
10-19-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by peter borger
10-17-2002 3:03 AM


Once again Borger the Clueless tries to turn his impotency into something and accretes yet more failure. Since Borger is clearly and utterly unable to grasp even where he is at, let alone what is required of him, let me reiterate in simple words:
The issue ***IN THIS THREAD** has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that Borger has tried to introduce into this thread to mask his comprehensive impotence when it comes to dealing with the ***ISSUES IN THIS THREAD***.
Here are the creationist failures so far:
1. Failure to scientifically define "kind".
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.
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.
3. Failure to scientifically rebut 300 examples of creationist lies, MBTF, nonsense, stupidity and misinformation at:
http://www.geocities.com/.../Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.
4. Failure to support (in any fashion) the common creationist claim thatported evidence that "evolution is falling apart."
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.
5. Failure to rebut any examples of transitional forms that creationists try to claim are not transitional.
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.
6. Failure to list the solid, scientific evidence that proves that Jesus Christ existed.
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.
7. Failure to refute the evidence that we are closer, genetically, to chimps, than Indian and African elephants are to each other, than two species of vireo bird (red and white) are to each other, than two species of camel are to each other.
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.
8. Failure to list some examples of "highly suspect bones and maybe a stray skull.
Failees: Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.
9. Failure to list 10 examples of "sophistry and waisting (sic) time responding to a garbage disposal."
Failees: Truecreation, Peter Borger.
10. Failure to list ten examples of "more intelligent YECist reasoning"
Failees: Truecreation, Peter Borger.
11. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "NDT was already overturned on this board with the 1G5 gene"
Failees: Peter Borger.
12. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "the incongruence of the IL-1beta and the lack of the duplication that should have reconsiled (sic) it, and thus another clearcut falsification of common descent.
Failees: Peter Borger.
12. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "there are the redundant alpha actinin genes that overturn selection as a concept of being relevant in the preservation of (redundant) genetic information."
Failees: Peter Borger.
12. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "the recent discovery of organisms that are genetically completely identical without being a clone"
Failees: Peter Borger.
13. Failure to even reference his own thread: "I recommend you to read my thread on "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation"."
Failees: Peter Borger.
14. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "In summary, what we see in the genome is not in accord with the random principles of NDT and not even in accord with selection as a major force of evolution."
Failees: Peter Borger.
15. Failure to support anything he has claimed despite repeated requests.
Failees: Peter Borger.
16. Failure to support this promised reference: "According to Goodman chimps and human share 99% of DNA sequences, and even 99.3 % if you have a look at coding and regulatory sequences (I will look up the refernce for you)."
Failees: Peter Borger.
17. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "Mutation in mtDNA is not at random
Failees: Peter Borger.
18. Failure to support the following with reference even to his own thread: "(see my thread more non-random evolution),"
Failees: Peter Borger.
19. Failure to acknowledge that he has repeatedly quoted me, quoting Bohar, and attributed the quote to me.
Failees: Peter Borger.
Borger: "After counting the references to scientific peer reviewed journals in your excellent rebuttal I counted zero."
The onus was not on me. I was not the one making the claims, I was rebutting claims by Bohar, in a thread that has nothing at all to do with you or your insane blather, until you came blundering in here "Like a Virgin".
I repeatedly challenged you to support *your* wild assertions that you made in your very first posting *in this thread* and you have offered not a single reference to anything, as detailed above, not even to your own threads.
Borger: "If you are under the impression that the talkorigins is a science site and that the stories told by Le Duve, Gould and Dawkins are scientific instead of being their personal worldviews, well I think I better leave you dreaming."
if you could even get *De* Duve's name right I would be impressed. But once again, I was not the one ranting pseudo-scientific drivel. *You* were in your very first post in this thread.
All I asked you to do was support those specific claims, and you have, right up to your last "contribution" failed 100% to support *anything* you have said; then you have the insane gall to claim that established, published scientists such as Gould have nothing to offer but personal world views? If this isn't a classic collector's edition example of creationist inverse attribution, I don't know what would be.
Borger: "If you wanna join a discussion --I presume you weren't forced to register to this site-- better learn to listen first, then take a course how to debate and --last but not least-- you better get serious you naughty angry young man/woman"
Another classic example of Peter Borger's grotesque incompetence. He reads nothing that is argued against him, makes no attempt whatsoever to address it or even put up the wimpiest of defenses, and makes arrogant, blind pontifications about what other people ought to be doing.
*I* should listen? I was here in this thread first! Not only did Borger pay zero attention to what the topic here was, after he blabbered his pseudo-science and I read everything he wrote, and I challenged him on that, point-by-point, he compeletely ignored all of that, referenced not one of his delerious claims, and started a new blabber. And he thinks *I* don;t know how to debate?
Once again, Borger, since you have serious attention deficit problems, it was *you* who joined *my* discussion in this thread, not the other way around. You were uninvited and wa-ay off topic. You offered nothing to support any of your bizarre, neutered, adolescent, trash despite specific, repeated requests to do so. You refuted nothing that had been posted, on topic, in this thread, not even with unreferenced argument. Is it possible for even the most educationally sub-normal human being to be more off-base and inappropriate and ineffective and to fail as comprehensively as you did in this thread?
No!
Let's look at the score:
Failure Score, this thread:
Fred Williams 7
Christopher Bohar 8
Truecreation 10
Peter Borger 19
This proves, scientifically, that when it comes to debating you are a bigger failure than any other two people put together!
Now I am going to come into your thread and deal there with the issues you inappropriately raised here. Get ready.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by peter borger, posted 10-17-2002 3:03 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 1:34 AM Budikka has not replied
 Message 53 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:54 AM Budikka has replied
 Message 81 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 10:23 PM Budikka has not replied
 Message 87 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 10:40 PM Budikka has replied
 Message 92 by peter borger, posted 11-14-2002 7:31 PM Budikka has replied
 Message 95 by peter borger, posted 11-17-2002 8:18 PM Budikka has replied
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-18-2002 12:51 AM Budikka has replied
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 12:18 AM Budikka has replied

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


Message 20 of 191 (20445)
10-22-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Budikka
10-19-2002 9:31 PM


Dear Buddika,
Buddika says among other irrelevant stuff:
"Now I am going to come into your thread and deal there with the issues you inappropriately raised here. Get ready."
My response:
I am ready and I am waiting. In the meantime you have found, read and rebutted all the references in my threads, I presume. So, let's get started. Let's find out whether you are up to date with contemporary biology.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Budikka, posted 10-19-2002 9:31 PM Budikka has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 10-22-2002 4:38 AM peter borger has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 21 of 191 (20453)
10-22-2002 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by peter borger
10-22-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,
Buddika says among other irrelevant stuff:
"Now I am going to come into your thread and deal there with the issues you inappropriately raised here. Get ready."
My response:
I am ready and I am waiting. In the meantime you have found, read and rebutted all the references in my threads, I presume. So, let's get started. Let's find out whether you are up to date with contemporary biology.
Best wishes,
Peter

************************
How about addressing any of my or Quetzals comments on your theory first?
Or presenting your oft mentioned non-clone never genetically changing organsism
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 1:34 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 6:33 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 22 of 191 (20459)
10-22-2002 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mammuthus
10-22-2002 4:38 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
The organism I was talking about is the Wollemia nobilis, a giant pine of the Auracariacea family and recently (1994) discovered in a national park north of Sydney. I almost finished a summary of the book by James Woodford (The Wollemi Pine, ISBN 1 876485 48 5) on the incredible observations on this tree. I will open a new thread on this topic, asap. It will be the end of evolutionism, and strong support for the hypothesis of a multipurpose genome.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 10-22-2002 4:38 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Mammuthus, posted 10-22-2002 7:04 AM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 23 of 191 (20465)
10-22-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by peter borger
10-22-2002 6:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mammuthus,
The organism I was talking about is the Wollemia nobilis, a giant pine of the Auracariacea family and recently (1994) discovered in a national park north of Sydney. I almost finished a summary of the book by James Woodford (The Wollemi Pine, ISBN 1 876485 48 5) on the incredible observations on this tree. I will open a new thread on this topic, asap. It will be the end of evolutionism, and strong support for the hypothesis of a multipurpose genome.
Best wishes,
Peter

*********************************
Looking forward to it
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 6:33 AM peter borger has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 191 (20468)
10-22-2002 7:20 AM


Furthermore, if there is such thing as a non-random mechanism I guess not a single theistic evolutionist would object to that.
If there really is such a thing, then no scientist would object to it. I'd be surprised, however, given the lack of serious evidence, not to mention the efficacy and sufficiency of random mutation + NS.
So, I have my doubts on the socalled theistic evolutionists.
Tough. Last time I checked, I still existed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 8:23 PM Karl has not replied

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


Message 25 of 191 (20516)
10-22-2002 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Karl
10-22-2002 7:20 AM


Dear Karl,
You write:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, if there is such thing as a non-random mechanism I guess not a single theistic evolutionist would object to that.
If there really is such a thing, then no scientist would object to it. I'd be surprised, however, given the lack of serious evidence, not to mention the efficacy and sufficiency of random mutation + NS.
So, I have my doubts on the socalled theistic evolutionists.
Tough. Last time I checked, I still existed.
MY RESPONSE:
Than you do not object to a 'non-random mechanisms and a multipurpose genome', I presume.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Karl, posted 10-22-2002 7:20 AM Karl has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 191 (20544)
10-23-2002 4:32 AM


My dear boy, science is not about objecting to, or wanting things. It's about evidence. Produce the evidence for your pet theory, design hypothesis tests for it, perform them and publish in a peer reviewed journal. Then we'll be interested.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 10-23-2002 8:12 PM Karl has not replied

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


Message 27 of 191 (20622)
10-23-2002 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Karl
10-23-2002 4:32 AM


dear karl,
You say:
"My dear boy, science is not about objecting to, or wanting things.
I say:
Of course. I agree.
You say:
It's about evidence.
I say:
I do not object to evidence. I object to presenting extrapolations from minor observations --that can often have alternative explanations-- as fact.
You say:
Produce the evidence for your pet theory, design hypothesis tests for it, perform them and publish in a peer reviewed journal. Then we'll be interested.
I say:
I already provided evidence for several of my claims. However, to keep evolutionism alive it has been denied, called flukes, that I don't understand evolutionism and more irrelevant stuff. However, the more resistance the more convinced I get that I am on to something.
In addition, if something has been published in peer reviewed journals does not per se mean that it is scientific fact. There is a tremendous amount of garbage in these journals. In fact, I could provide evidence for cytochrome c incongruence backed up by papers from evolutinary peer reviewed journals. Likewise, if something hasn't been published in peer reviewed journals (for instance the peculiar findings on Wollemia nobilis) does not mean that it is not fact.
best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Karl, posted 10-23-2002 4:32 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Budikka, posted 10-25-2002 3:45 AM peter borger has replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 191 (20674)
10-24-2002 4:20 AM


Well, publish these findings then!

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 191 (20768)
10-25-2002 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by peter borger
10-23-2002 8:12 PM


Borger: "Buddika says among other irrelevant stuff"
You mean the "irrelevant stuff" about how you have addressed not a single challenge in this entire thread (19, was it, at last count)? How you have offered not a single reference in support of any scientific claim you have made despite repeated requests for such?
I am glad to see you have finally offered a long-overdue de facto admission that you are utterly impotent to deal with any of the issues that gave rise to this thread in the first place, and that you should, therefore, have never set foot in here, but all this really does is desperately beg the question as to why you are so hell-bent on having your posterior paddled in a second thread after getting such a swollen and bloody nose in this one.
Borger: "I am ready and I am waiting."
Then continue to continue. Unlike you, my life exists off the 'Net, so I will get back to playing with you as soon as I have dealt with things that are actually important. Please, take my advice and do not will your self-destruction so avidly. Take time to stop and smell the evolving roses.
Borger: "In the meantime you have found, read and rebutted all the references in my threads, I presume."
That won't take any effort at all if your references are as comprehensively absent as they have been in this thread, but if there is one thing my experience here has shown, it is that I do not need to rebut your references, just deflate your gargantuan ego, mention your glaringly non-existent logic, and highlight all the challenges you have failed to meet.
Borger: "So, let's get started. Let's find out whether you are up to date with contemporary biology. "
I do not see how this has any import whatsoever, since your grasp of that topic is so transparently tenuous as to be laughable.
What do I mean by laughable? Well, let's take this quote of yours from your recent response to Karl: "I do not object to evidence. I object to presenting extrapolations from minor observations --that can often have alternative explanations-- as fact."
Since your entire armamentarium consists of doing precisely that, this would seem to present you with somewhat of a predicament, wouldn't it?
I also have to congratulate you on winding up your comments in that same response with this classic definition of a crank pseudo-scientist: "However, to keep evolutionism alive it has been denied, called flukes, that I don't understand evolutionism and more irrelevant stuff. However, the more resistance the more convinced I get that I am on to something."
What you have here, my poor, limp, Peter, is not science, but a religion!
How else would you explain your self-reinforcing delusions and your persistent use of the meaningless word "evolutionism" when you have so oft been corrected?
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 10-23-2002 8:12 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 10-25-2002 7:59 PM Budikka has replied

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


Message 30 of 191 (20831)
10-25-2002 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Budikka
10-25-2002 3:45 AM


Dear Buddika,
Thanks for your meaningless reply. Regarding your attitude in your previous mails I wasn't expecting a lot anyway. You could have saved yourself the trouble by not replying. It would have saved you the energy.
YOU SAY:
"What you have here, my poor, limp, Peter, is not science, but a religion!"
I SAY:
Let's shake hands. We have two religions, now.
Best wishes, and have a nice day.
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Budikka, posted 10-25-2002 3:45 AM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Budikka, posted 10-27-2002 12:58 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