Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


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 76 of 191 (22125)
11-10-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by mark24
11-10-2002 4:44 AM


Dear mark,
You say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up by the evolutionists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You gotta be shittin' me! You, YOU, are the one, that at some time or another has claimed to have falsified almost every aspect of evolutionary theory! What blatant, utter, indescribable hypocrisy to at the same time claim it is unfalsifiable.
Astounding.
MY RESPONSE:
It was an ATTEMPT to set up such theory. It didn't succeed, however.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 4:44 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 5:59 PM peter borger has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 77 of 191 (22129)
11-10-2002 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by peter borger
11-10-2002 5:30 PM


Peter,
Either the ToE is falsifiable, or it isn't. You are claiming that the ToE is unfalsifiable, yet at the same time, you have falsified it. Which is it?
I suppose there's no point having cake if you can't eat it.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 5:30 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 8:27 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 78 of 191 (22147)
11-10-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by mark24
11-10-2002 5:59 PM


dear Mark,
It is not really hard to understand:
1) There was a group of atheistic evolutionists who thought that they could set up a evolutionary theory that cannot be overturned.
2) Molecular biology demonstrates that it can be overturned on all levels (as I demonstrated over and over).
3) Too bad for this group of atheists.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by mark24, posted 11-10-2002 5:59 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 8:59 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 79 of 191 (22148)
11-10-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Chavalon
11-10-2002 5:22 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Chavalon, posted 11-10-2002 5:22 PM Chavalon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Mammuthus, posted 11-11-2002 5:17 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 83 by Peter, posted 11-11-2002 7:27 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 84 by Chavalon, posted 11-11-2002 4:19 PM peter borger has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 191 (22157)
11-10-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by peter borger
11-10-2002 8:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Mark,
It is not really hard to understand:
1) There was a group of atheistic evolutionists who thought that they could set up a evolutionary theory that cannot be overturned.
2) Molecular biology demonstrates that it can be overturned on all levels (as I demonstrated over and over).
3) Too bad for this group of atheists.
best wishes,
Peter

You have gotten the phone call from the Nobel Prize committee, then?
When do you fly to Stockholm?
(Better not use that paper on equine limbs we talked about in your evidence. They might figure out that you didn't understand it.)
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 8:27 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 81 of 191 (22163)
11-10-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Budikka
10-19-2002 9:31 PM


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]

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 85 by Chavalon, posted 11-11-2002 4:28 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 82 of 191 (22178)
11-11-2002 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by peter borger
11-10-2002 8:38 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]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.
--------------------------------------
Except that degenerate genes (pseudogenes) arise constantly, the facts of DNA repair contradict the MPG, not all redundant genes change with the same rate, selection works 7 days a week and not just on Tuesdays and Thursdays as you propose and evolutionary explanations for redundancy are established....MPG falsified...You are the weakest link..goodbye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 8:38 PM peter borger has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 83 of 191 (22189)
11-11-2002 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by peter borger
11-10-2002 8:38 PM


Apologies if I am asking a question you have already
answered (point me to the answer if approriate please),
but how do you determine that a gene is redundant, rather
than of unknown function?
And what is the nature of the linking process/system/or whatever
between genes and expressed traits?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 8:38 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 5:11 PM Peter has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 191 (22273)
11-11-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by peter borger
11-10-2002 8:38 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 8:38 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by peter borger, posted 11-12-2002 12:34 AM Chavalon has not replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 191 (22274)
11-11-2002 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by peter borger
11-10-2002 10:23 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by peter borger, posted 11-10-2002 10:23 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 86 of 191 (22278)
11-11-2002 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Peter
11-11-2002 7:27 AM


Dear Peter,
By knocking the gene out. No effect on the organism's reproductivity and you know. Hundreds of these genes have been found already. They are in the genome without selection and thus they falsify NDT.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Peter, posted 11-11-2002 7:27 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2002 5:56 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 156 by Peter, posted 11-25-2002 7:06 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 87 of 191 (22306)
11-11-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Budikka
10-19-2002 9:31 PM


Dear Buddika,
Buddika's failure #3:
Buddika says:
"Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time, and that's it!"
Bull! This has nothing to do with evolution. It is variation of preexisting DNA elements. It is part of the MPG hypothesis not part of the hype of evolutionism. Don't try to bring population genetics as evolutionism. Not a single well informed biologists buys it! If it is evolutionism I would be an evolutionist, but I am not. I am a MPGist. Also Mammuthus tried to introduce population genetics as evolutionism. Without succes.
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."
Your first socalled lie is a fallacy.
22-3=19
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Budikka, posted 10-19-2002 9:31 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Budikka, posted 11-13-2002 12:54 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 88 of 191 (22314)
11-12-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Chavalon
11-11-2002 4:19 PM


dear Chavalon,
You must be new here. I don't need the MPG hypothesis to overturn evolutionism. Evolutionism is overturned by molecular biology. The MPG hypotheis in conjunction with non-random mutation (Mammuthus, Mark24, Dr Page: non-randomness with repect to nucleotide and position, NOT When. It can be observed in subpopulations). It is an alternative to evolutionism and it described biological observations better than evolutionism.
It doesn't include descent as evolutionism includes it. It says that multipurpose genomes have been created, and are subject to adaptation through build in genetic elements. There is plenty of evidence for the MPG, but it is always explained as being evolutionism (see all my postings).
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Chavalon, posted 11-11-2002 4:19 PM Chavalon has not replied

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


Message 89 of 191 (22335)
11-12-2002 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by peter borger
11-11-2002 5:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter,
By knocking the gene out. No effect on the organism's reproductivity and you know. Hundreds of these genes have been found already. They are in the genome without selection and thus they falsify NDT.
best wishes,
Peter

+++++++++++++++++
Hmmm..knocking out a HERV without consequence falsifies evolution? Try again
If knocking the gene out puts the organism at a competative disadvantage in its environment it will be selected against...MPG falsified
Please list all the knock outs and the phenotypes with references....it should be easy since you made the claim that it has NO effect on the organism so there should be a broad literature for you to sample demonstrating that there is no effect on reproduction and no effect on organismal fitness....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 5:11 PM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 191 (22422)
11-13-2002 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by peter borger
11-11-2002 10:40 PM


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 Speciation
http://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.html
Here 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 10:40 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by peter borger, posted 11-13-2002 6:33 PM Budikka 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