This is in answer to the last 3 of your posts addressed to me: 73, 81, and 87.
Borger: "If you had read all my mails to this site"
I can only stomach so much fairytale fluff in any given day. This is a thread I started. You want to debate here, you need to support your case *here*, not with vague allusions to stuff you may or may not have posted that may or may not be relevant. Support it or abort it.
Borger: "you would have known that it was me who is going to set up a creationist's theory that explains all biological phenomena and that cannot be falsified."
If it cannot be falsified it isn't science, it's nonsense. You lose.
And I don't care about what you may or may not be fantasizing about. This thread is about this thread. Deal with this thread. If you are going to set up your "theory", then set it up. Do the work, and quit wasting people's time with your fairytales and wild day-dreaming about things you haven't even begun to disprove or prove, things you haven't even done, things you'll never do.
Borger lie: "A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up (sic) by the evolutionists. It took them about 140 years."
Evolutionists have *never* tried to set up a non-falsifiable theory - that would not be scientific. A theory must be falsifiable *in principle* if it is to be scientific. You lose.
There is no such thing as "evolutionism". How many times are we going to have to tell you this before it sinks in? It's "E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N". Get it?
Borger: "To (sic) bad, that contemporary molecular biology refutes evolutionism. Read my mailings on non-random evolution, genetic redundancies, the trick of reconciliation of gene- family trees, etc, etc, etc."
You have refuted nothing and have repeatedly, tediously been refuted yourself, etc., etc., etc. I have no interest in research your blather. This thread is about this thread. Deal with this thread.
Borger: "If there is anything I might lose it is my patience to rebunk evolutionist's stories.'
Rebunk? I think you mean debunk, and you have yet to "debunk" a single item in the opening article of this thread. In this thread, deal with this thread, not with what you wish you had done. This thread is about this thread. Deal with this thread.
Borger's wet dream: "I gave you a perfect definition of a kind.'
You wish. You gave me virtually nothing, and I pointed out where you fall short: everywhere. You admited yourself that your definition was nothing more than saying that "kind" equals "kind". It was perfect all right - a perfect example of a perfect waste of time.
Everyone please note the following quote very carefully, because I am going to slam Borger's face right back into it before this article is through.
Borger: "The one making up the theory also makes up the definitions. That's how it works. Easy to understand."
Not only is this your usual self-serving garbage, it demonstrates how far you fall short of being in a position to debate. There are three essentials for such a definition:
1. It actually has to define something, and not in terms of itself.
2. It has to be intelligible and make logical sense.
3. It has to have at least one foot in the real world.
Once again, here is what you have failed to properly define in the context of this thread, in regard to "kind":
Your definition of "kind" was given in terms of other vagueries that you have so far failed to define. What, exactly, do you mean by compatible DNA? All DNA is compatible since it is made of the same basic chemicals. Your garbage on "histons/histones" (doubtlessly at some point you will get it right just by accident if nothing else) does nothing to define compatible DNA, as we will see later. Defining artificial as intelligent does not do it, unless you want to make your God artificial. And unless you want to turn humans into Gods since by your "definition" as soon as we crossbreed two different "kinds" we will be God.
Borger's idea of a reference: "And as promissed (sic) the refernce (sic ) was in a German journal: Koralle 2002, volume 7, page 71, by Prof Dr J.E.N. Veron, and it was translated from English, so you can find it somewhere)."
I can find a translation of a foreign language journal "somewhere"? That's your reference? No! You need to give a readily available English language reference or quote from the English version of the reference you do give that supports your point. I am not going to do your work for you. If you cannot quote the material then you lose.
Borger: "To set up a new theory takes quite an effort, but I do it on the side. It is some sort of hobby of me. (sic)"
Like I care. This thread is about this thread. Deal with this thread.
Borger: "First step: show where evolutionism clashes with contemporary biology. I did that."
Not in this thread you did not, and this is not relevant to this thread, Stay on topic, Focus on the issues *here* answer the challenges. This thread is about this thread. Deal with this thread.
Borger: "I don't need a atheistic worldview. Why would one be a priori be an atheist? Maybe you can answer that question."
Once again, without provocation, you equate atheism with evolution. I challenged you on this in another thread, and you tried to pretend it was the media and not you who holds this view. Now, here you are, raising it out of the blue again in this thread. Support it or abort it.
Borger: "Darwin Finches have been demonstrated to be of one kind:"
Well duhh! So "kind" equates to species?
Borger: "Dinosaurs and mammals are definitely not of the same kind."
So "kind" doesn't equate to species? Nor to genera, nor to order, but to class, one step below phylum? Again, what is your definition of "kind"? Clearly if you have it all over the scale, it is nowhere, and you have failed to define it. You lose.
Borger: "If you wanna be part of a debate, you will have to read the stuff I mailed since I am not going to repeat myself. In particular, since you only recently registered."
Listen, Mr. Clueless. This thread is about this thread. Deal with this thread. This is a thread I began aimed at the apparently fictitious Christopher Bohar. You came in here uninvited. If you are going to quote material in here, then **you need to reference it**. You need to. You need to do the work. It is not my job to do your work for you and run all over the Internet in the hope I might find something, somewhere, that might be vaguely interpreted as supporting your wildly imaginitive fringe perpspective.
I do not care what you did elsewhere, or at other times, or in other threads. This thread is about this thread. Deal with this thread. In this thread, you need to do the work, ***or at the very least provide clear references which relate directly to the point you are supposed to be making***. Get it now?
Borger: "Till now I you haven't substantiated any of your letter with references."
Tell me what it is that needs referencing and I will, but please do not waste my time asking me to reference 140 years of solidly-established and widely-known material supporting the Theory of Evolution. If you are attacking evolution, as you came into this thread doing, you need to do the work. You need to quote the references. You need to support your arguments.
Borger's idea of layman's terms: "Transcriptional activation of genes --in particular those of eukaryota-- depends on moleculaes (sic) that are attached to the histones."
So it's histones?
Borger: "At the heart of this model is the hypothesis that different patterns of histon"
Nope, it's histon!
Borger: "tail modification either facilitate or prevent the binding of effector proteins to chromatin. The specific modifications of histone"
Nope, my mistake, it's histones!
Borger: "tails at a promoter region lead to either the binding or the dissociation of effectors that favor a permissive chromatin state (coactivators), or the binding or dissociation of effectors that maintain the non-permissive state (corepressors). Furthermore, some of these modifications owe their effects to preventing other modifications from ocurring. Importantly, specific histone tail modifications can act both synergistically and antagonistically. (ref: Trends in biochemical sciences, april 2002, vol27, p165)."
So you have proved you can plagiarise (or are those your own words you are using?). None of this has anything to do with defining "kind".
Borger: "The histone code model holds that there are two waves of cofactors. The first wave of factors is to make appropriate covalent modifications to the histones of the promoter. As a consequence of the histone modifcation the second wave is recruitment of factors that change the local chromatin structure. Only than (sic) could recruitment of the transcriptional machinary (sic) and gene trancription occur. It is entirely plausible that the histone code differ (sic) in different species, and thus cannot activate each others (sic) transcriptional machinary (sic) in natural or artifical settings. No offspring can be generated en (sic) thus the organism are (sic) of distinct kind. Even if the organism have (sic) almost identical genetic makeup --like Drosophila species-- a differential order of activation of genes may prevent the production of offspring."
I see "it is entirely plausible" and I see "may prevent". I see nothing established as fact, nor do I see anything to do with defining "kind". Even if everything you (quote? paraphrase?) here were borne out, all you have done is establish a mechanism that keeps species species. It explains why some species might not readily cross breed. It does not explain why evolution could not transform one "kind" into another "kind".
Since your definition now is back to species level, and since speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild, you lose!
Here are some references:
Observed Instances of Speciationhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Oh, and one more thing - how does your attempt to redefine evolution answer any of the 22 challenges? You claim to be down to 19, but you are still at the very first two: define "kind" and define the mechanism that prevents evolution
Borger: "The mechanisms (sic) that keeps them apart is the histone code in combination with the coactivaor (sic) code of transcription. If they are not compatible: no offspring, different kinds."
Wrong, as explained above. Try again. You lose.
Borger: "In contrast, it is very questionable that life on earth is the result of evolution. In my opinion, it is NOT."
Like I care about your opinion. Without hard evidence to support it, your opinion is worthless. And no amount of "it is plausible", "may prevent" and "in my opinion" is going to help you, no matter how often you chant it.
Borger: "I am able to address all your questions and rebut all your rebuttals."
Not even close. You are still hopelessly struggling to define "kind" and that's only the first one in the list.
Do you remember making this statement: "The one making up the theory also makes up the definitions. That's how it works. Easy to understand."? Do you remember me saying I would slam it in your face later? Well, get ready, because it's time.
I said, "Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time, and that's it!"
You tried: "Let me define evolutionism for you: "Evolutionism is the transition from the one kind into the other kind by utter naturalistic mechanisms, namely random mutation and selection.""
Yet you say: "The one making up the theory also makes up the definitions. That's how it works. Easy to understand."
Apparently you do not even understand your own rambling. Typically for a creationist (and Fred Williams is another offender here), you want to be able to make your own definitions about what it is you *think* evolutionists say, or ought to say, just so's you can have an easier time of it. We all know it is far easier to knock down the piddling little straw men you creationists create (and that's about all you do "create") than it is to actually attack what it is that evolutionists actually *do* say.
"The one making up the theory also makes up the definitions. That's how it works. Easy to understand."
Let me set you straight with a reference:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlHere is a quote from that URL:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
"The one making up the theory also makes up the definitions. That's how it works. Easy to understand."
You lose.
And now to address some of your comments to Mark24
Borger: "There was a group of atheistic evolutionists who thought that they could set up a evolutionary theory that cannot be overturned."
Here, again, unbidden, right out of the blue, you equate evolutionists with atheists. Support it or abort it.
Borger: "Molecular biology demonstrates that it can be overturned on all levels (as I demonstrated over and over)."
Where are the references (over and over)?
Borger: "Too bad for this group of atheists."
Which group of atheists?
And now to address some of your comments to Chavalon:
Borger: "For instance, evolutionism predicts that genes that are under selective constraints should change less than genes not under selective constraint."
Where, precisely, does evolution predict this? Can you say, "reference"?
Borger: "It can be readily tested. It turn out (sic) that redundant genes do not change fasted (sic) than essential genes. It is a clearcut falsifiaction (sic). So, the hypothesis fails."
Again, support it or abort it.
Once again, if and when you get "kind" defined, and nail down the mechanism that prevents one kind from **evolving into** (as opposed to breeding with) another "kind", we can address all the other challenges you failed to respond to. Until then, you need to keep working at this particular area.
Budikka
™ Version 4.2