Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

Dear Budikka,You say:Finally, someone gets down to business!Borger: "Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA."So you are saying that "all" organisms are the same kind, since they all have the same DNA building blocks and through artifically adjusting this DNA, we can produce mixtures of any two organisms?In short, your definition defines nothing. You are saying a "kind" is a "kind"!My reply:
Excellent conclusion. Tautologies sound familiar, isn't it?You say:What do you mean by "compatible DNA"? All DNA is compatible since it is composed of precisely the same base pairs and amino acids in different mixtures.No, compatible DNA is compativble only when it can give offspring --either by natural or artificial means. The offspring may be vertile, since that can be explained by loss of information from the secondary DNA associated code. Who knows. At present, nobody. It is my hypothesis.Define "compatible DNA". Give some examples of organisms that, in your view, constitute the same "kind" and contrast them with other organisms that, while seemingly alike, do not constitute the same "kind", otherwise your "definition" is worthless.My response:
Lions and tiger produce viable --natural-- offspring by DNA mixing. Other members of the cats can be artificially cross bred is my prediction from the MPG hypothesis. Time wil tell, soon.
Korals probaly comprise only one/a few kind(s) exchanging DNA all the time. (I will look up the reference). Likewise, prokaryota comprise one (a few) kinds.YOU:
Since evolution between "kinds" is also relevant here, you need to address the next issue along with this issue. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind" and what is the scientific proof that there exists such a mechanism?I say:
Histon code and differential gene regulation. See my other thread. Do a search on histon code. You will find plenty of evidence.YOU:
You cannot sepearate the one from the the other. If you cannot define such a mechanism, then how can you even define "kind"?I say:
Why is it not possible to discriminate between these. As soon as we elucidate all ins and outs of the codes regulating transcriptinional and posttranscriptional control, we will.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-07-2002]

Dear Budikka,You say:
Well if this isn't familiar ground, I don't know what is. Once again we see the creationist dance away from the issues without even properly addressing them - again. Why am I not surprised?
So I said that "In short, your definition defines nothing. You are saying a "kind" is a "kind"!", and your only response is to agree? ("Excellent conclusion. Tautologies sound familiar, isn't it? (sic)")I say:
Apparently you are a new kid around the block. If you had read all my mails to this site 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. As an evolutionist that must sound familiar. A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up by the evolutionists. It took them about 140 years. To 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:
In other words, Borger, you lose.I say:
If there is anything I might lose it is my patience to rebunk evolutionist's stories.You:
I ask for a definition, you do not give one, and when I challenge you on it, you say, "Tough"? If this is what you call responding to challenges, then let's forget it right now, because I am tired of your flaccid responses to serious questions. If you are going to pursue this, then you need to get down to brass tacks, and quit making excuses for your inability to grapple the issues.I say:
I gave you a perfect definition of a kind. That you have a problem with it? Fine. I have serious problem with evolutionism's just-so-stories. So, you are free to redifine it. The one making up the theory also makes up the definitions. That's how it works. Easy to understand.Borger: "No, compatible DNA is compativble (sic) only when it can give offspring --either by natural or artificial means. The offspring may be vertile (sic), since that can be explained by loss of information from the secondary DNA associated code. Who knows. At present, nobody. It is my hypothesis."You:
This is nothing but the "kind" tautology dressed up in fancy clothes. it does not do the job. You even admit that this is nothing but another of your beliefs.I say:
Excellent conclusion.You:
And you have failed to address the issue of natural vs. artificial. I do not doubt for a minute that science will very shortly be able to produce whatever cross-breeding it wishes between different organisms using artificial means. Scientists are already freely transplanting genes from widely differing organisms into one another.I say:
'Artificial' could be translated as 'intelligent'.You:
Does this mean your definition of "kind" changes to match current scientific technology? If a scientist were, for example, able to cross breed a dog and a cat using "artificial means" would this then automatically mean that they are the same kind? What if scientists produced an animal where 50% of its functional DNA was plant DNA? Would this make the animal and the plant the same "kind"?I say:
If so, yes. However, I predict that these organisms are not one kind.Borger: "Lions and tiger produce viable --natural-- offspring by DNA mixing."You:
Once again we seem to be getting confused about what is natural vs. what is artificial. To my knowledge, lions and tigers do not interbreed in the wild - this is why they are classified as separate species. Although they do not naturally interbreed, there are circumstances where they can be *induced* to breed and produce viable offspring. Are you saying that this is natural? In what sense is it natural? If this is natural, then what do you mean by aritifical?I say:
As long as these organisms are able to produce offspring = one kind.You:
Please, do not progress beyond this point and do not post any more material in this thread until and unless you are prepared to offer some serious, solid, definitions, as opposed to more incoherent rambling.To help you, I have prepared this short list of things you have failed to properly define in the context of this thread:"kind"
compatible DNA
artificial
naturalI say:
See my respones above.Borger: "Other members of the cats can be artificially cross bred is my prediction from the MPG hypothesis. Time wil (sic) tell, soon.
Korals (sic) probaly (sic) comprise only one/a few kind(s) exchanging DNA all the time. (I will look up the reference). Likewise, prokaryota comprise one (a few) kinds."I say:
What are you counting? Lies?You:
I see "hypothesis" in there. I see "my prediction" in there. I see "time will tell" in there. I see "probably" in there. In short, I see nothing but unsupported opinion in there.I say:
No, all these assertions can be backed up scientifically. And as promissed 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).You:
What I was asking for was solid defintiions and examples. Is this supposed to be some sort of serious response, or are you simply passing the time of day by rambling on about *your* perspective, and *your* ideas, and *your* beliefs yet again?I say:
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. First step: show where evolutionism clashes with contemporary biology. I did that. Next step set up a theory that describes correctly what we observe. I don't need a atheistic worldview. Why would one be a priori be an atheist? Maybe you can answer that question.You:
If you can define "kind", as you have strongly indicated you can (but have yet to do so), then listing some solid examples of organisms that are definitely of the same kind, and contrasting them with other, similar organisms that are definitely not the same "kind" ought to be the simplest thing in the world.I say:
Darwin Finches have been demonstrated to be of one kind: they can produce offspring (I have the rference here somewhere, and I will look it up for you, it was very recent Nature --or Science--, I always confuse these two.)
Dinosaurs and mammals are definitely not of the same kind.Borger: "Histon code and differential gene regulation. See my other thread. Do a search on histon code. You will find plenty of evidence."You say:
No! I am not going to do your work for you. If you want to post here, then *you* need to do the work. Throwing out six-word sentences and pretending that they offer any kind of response, explanation, or solution is not good enough. Casually tossing off vague hints at solutions and (*yet again*) offering no references/URLs whatsoever, is not going to do it.My response:
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.You:
If you cannot or do not provide references, then your material is worthless and will not be considered. I am *not* simply going to take your word for it. Neither am I going to waste my valuable time flying around the web in the desperate hope that *I* can find some material to support *your* beliefs. Please, get a clue.I say:
Till now I you haven't substantiated any of your letter with references.You:
You need to explain, in detail, in layman's terms if possible, right here in this thread (or provide a *specific reference* to some place else where you have detailed this), exactly how "Histon code and differential gene regulation" prevent one "kind" (which you still need to define) from evolving into another "kind".My response:
Transcriptional activation of genes --in particular those of eukaryota-- depends on moleculaes that are attached to the histones. At the heart of this model is the hypothesis that different patterns of histon tail modification either facilitate or prevent the binding of effector proteins to chromatin. The specific modifications of histone 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). 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 could recruitment of the transcriptional machinary and gene trancription occur. It is entirely plausible that the histone code differ in different species, and thus cannot activate each others transcriptional machinary in natural or artifical settings. No offspring can be generated en thus the organism are of distinct kind. Even if the organism have almost identical genetic makeup --like Drosophila species-- a differential order of activation of genes may prevent the production of offspring.Borger: "Why is it not possible to discriminate between these."You:
Because if you are going to put yourself in the position of declaring that one "kind" cannot evolve into another "kind", then you need to establish what a "kind" is to begin with, and if you are going to differentiate between "kinds", then you need to establish a mechanism that keeps them separate. I am still waiting on you (or, for that matter, any creationist anywhere on planet Earth) adeqately defining these two things.My response:
The mechanisms that keeps them apart is the histone code in combination with the coactivaor code of transcription. If they are not compatible: no offspring, different kinds.Borger: "As soon as we elucidate all ins and outs of the codes regulating transcriptinional and posttranscriptional control, we will."You:
So this entire last message from you is simply a very wordy way of admitting that you can neither define "kind" nor offer a mechanism which prevents one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind"! All you are able to say is that you desperately hope that your belief will be confirmed by the hard work of real scientists at some point in the future!I say:
Hard work of real scientist is elucidating these mecahnisms in a very high pace. This hard work has nothing to do with evolutionism. In contrast, it is very questionable that life on earth is the result of evolution. In my opinion, it is NOT.You say:
Are you prepared to admit that you have nothing to offer now?I say:
Is this some kind of joke?You:
That you cannot adequately or competently define "kind" or detail the mechanism which keeps "kinds" strictly deparated? I don't want to hear any more "probably"s, or "time will tell"s, or "as soon as we elucidate"s. If you are declaring now that there are separate "kinds" you need to offer the evidence that you have *now* - not that might just possibly show up at some point in the future, if you are lucky.I say:
As demonstrated above, it took only a little time to update you with most recent biological insights and to explain my vision on "kinds".You:
Evolutionists have spent 140 years solidly establishing their position with multiple and diverse lines of evidence published in hundreds of papers, and this is still happening *now*, here in the real world.I say:
Scientists spent almost 200 years to find the ether. Einstein said: there is no ether. End ether.You:
You are on record as arrogantly declaring that you know that "NDT has fallen" yet here you are, being challenged on your evidence, and you have none! All your "evidence" apparently boils down to is a bunch of "let's wait and see"s, hypotheses, beliefs, and "probably"s. No wonder you haven't published.I say:
What record? The "evolutionist's-pain-in-the-ass-record"? I consider it as a compliment from an evolutionist that he/she considers me arrogant, since it tells me that I am on the right track.You say:
I'm sorry, but your lousy excuse for a response to a challenge has evaporated. If you wish to continue this, then let's see some solid definitions. And I do not want to see any more vague directions to go find the evidence. You need to present the evidence here, or at least offer URLs to it.I say:
I am able to address all your questions and rebut all your rebuttals. No problem. It is easy to beat a theory that hasn't a proper foundation. And I will do that as long as it is presented as fact.Best wishes,
Peter

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

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

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]

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 = 20Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-10-2002]

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

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=19Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-11-2002]

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

dear Buddika,You say:
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?Pluralis majestatis? King Buddika?I recommend you to take some courses in 1) foreign languages [so you can read all references, or do you think English is all there is?], 2) contemporary biology [so you understand what I write], 3) evolutonism, and molecular rules of evolutionism.
Maybe YOU didn't get it, but 'evolution' can only mean "the process of evolving", it can not mean the scientific movement that holds that all life forms arose through this process. Then -ism is added to the term evolution: EVOLUTIONISM. Likewise, creation and creation-ism. Rules of linguistics, easy to understand.(And buy a dictionary, so you can look up difficult words.)Andy (sic) real questions? Don't hesitate to ask.best wishes,
Peter

dear Buddika:Your failure #4:Buddika says:4. Failure to support (in any fashion) the common creationist claim thatported evidence that "evolution is falling apart."I will give you 10 examples that bring down evolutionism:1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
6) the ZFY region
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the IL-1beta incongruence
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNAAlthough one would be sufficient, I give you ten to ponder.22-4=18best wishes,
Peter

Dear Budikka,Buddika's failure #5:Buddika says:
5. Failure to rebut any examples of transitional forms that creationists try to claim are not transitional.I say:
What transitional forms? Never seen one that hasn't got an exlanation in the MPG paradigm.22-5=17best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-17-2002]

Dear Buddika,Buddika's failure #6:6. Failure to list the solid, scientific evidence that proves that Jesus Christ existed.MY RESPONSE:
There are at least 2 independent sources for historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.1) Read the jewish historian FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, who lived from approx 37-100. He mentions Jesus twice in his work 'Jewish Antiquities'. It has been translated in English, so it shouldn't give any problems.2) A Jesus is mentioned as 'brother of James', who is the son of a Joseph, on the recently discovered James' Ossuary. According to scholars this may well be Jesus of Nazareth.
According to sceptics it may well be not, I guess. 22-6=16best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-25-2002]

Dear Buddika,Buddika says:"Deal with your earliest failures first, before you add yet more failures to your total,"I am still dealing with the first failure: 'Buddika' Best wishes,
Peter

dear Chavalon,C: With respect, Peter and Buddika, you are straying off topicPB: No, I still have to address 22-6=16 failures to free myself from Buddika's allegations. C: From a purely scientific POV, this question of kinds is the crux of the differences between supporters of mainstream genetics and those who are seeking alternatives, isn't it?PB: What is a species? What is a genus? What is what....etcetera.C: *Surely* someone can define 'kind' in an unambiguous and testable way. (In the context of genetics, I suggest that this is a minimum requirement for a creationism to be called 'scientific'.) In the absence of a satisfactory definition, it's just a 'house built on sand', no?PB: Surely, somebody can define evolutionism in an unambiguous and testable way. We already discussed the population genetics definition, and that NOT evolution, that's the MPG. If evolution is change over time than I certainly evolved from my parents.I will give you the definition:
"Evolutionism is the movement that claims that all life forms arose by naturalistic means through random mutations and selection."There is NOT a skerrick of evidence for this assertion, and the observations we do on biology point in the opposite direction.C: There are several questions almost equivalent to 'What is a kind?' -What prevents the transmutation of kinds?PB: Already discussed.C: Why should macroevolution be impossible?PB: It requires novel genes and genetic programs. By novel genes I mean NOVEL genes. For instance, the RAG2 gene in mammals that are involved in DNA recombination in B cells that improve immunoglobulins. Unrelated to other genes.C: What limits the variability of an MPG?PB: The genes present in the genome of course.Best wishes,
Peter