Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

dear buddika,You say:You have admitted that you gave a circular answer in place of a definition of "kind", so your math (22-6=16) is meaningless.I say;Did you know that math is tautological too? So why bother about a tautology?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Buddika,Buddika says: "Novel genes arise through duplication and mutation."I say: O yes? How do you know? From your letters it is clear that you do not know anything about contemporary biology, but you know that genes arise by gene duplications and mutation. I will help you out of the dream: genetic redundancies (ever heard of?) are not associated with duplications, and do not change faster over time than essential genes. (Tautz D, A genetic uncertainty problem, Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477) So, your concept is falsified and don't bring it up again. It is humbug. Novel genes do not arise by duplication and mutation. Clear cut evidence: the RAG2 gene in mammals do not have related proteins. If all you can do is parroting evolutonists outdated visions, please do not respond anymore. If you have an original idea, please respond.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Buddika,Buddika's failure #7:Buddika says:
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.I say:
Before I will address this one I like to have the papers where this is demonstrated, so I can study the assertions in detail. If it is based on cytochrome c or mtDNA I can easily refute this one, so please provide the references.best wishes,
peter

Dear Buddika,Buddika says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me but this is an English thread - foreign languages are irrelevant here.
Excuse me, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with contemporary biology, but with English.I say:
1) I already noticed that you don't have a clue about contemporary biology.
2) If a reference is in German it isn't irrelevant. This one was relevant since it demonstrated that all stonecorals are one (or at most a few) kind(s).Buddika says:
Excuse me but the only place I have ever seen the word "evolutionism" used is in blather written by creationists, who are the last people on the planet to have a clue about biology past or present, even if it were relevant to this particular topic.I say:
I already explained to you how linguistics work.Buddika says:
Now do you want to quote me valid (i.e. non-creationist)references were you have seen "evolutionism" used or where it is defined?I say:
Apparently you don't know what these words mean.Buddika says:
BTW, the topic here is actually evolution (that is the change in allele frequency in a population and more specifically, the topics raised in the very first message in this thread), not "evolutionism" even if there is such a word, so please, let's get your topics straight, shall we?I say:
Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution. I know all about evolutionism and I know all about population genetics. They are not equivalent. I also know that you and Mammuthus and Dr Page present it as evolutionism and that is how you guys keep up the appearance of evolutionism. It is deception. You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me.Buddika says:
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - you don't even know what the topic is since you are comprehensively unable to address it. The topic is "kinds" - (is any of this coming back to you now?) and it will stay that way until you adress challenges 1 and 2 competently and without equivocation and without circular argument and without defining species and pretending that this addresses the mechanism which prevents one **kind** from evolving into another **kind**.I say:
In other words Buddika says: "I am unable to discuss the topic of evolutionism at a scientific and contemporary level". To bad, Buddika, I am and I addressed both items in a scientific way, so the ball is in your court.Buddika says:
Please do let me know if I can make this any more clear at all, because I enjoy nothing more than repeating the same simple but unheeded instructions for the benefit of the fundamentally incompetent.I say:
I am still waiting for your references. Probably you don't have the guts to discuss evolutionism in detail. It is always the same, and I am used to it.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-25-2002]

Dear Mammuthus,Thanks for the fallacy:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and lest you persist in claiming that this definition is only proposed by SLPx and myself:
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986It is an 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM', an argument from authority. Well, Futuyama is no authority to me. (Who on earth is Futuyma? Your God? ). In other words it is no argument. Listen, Mammuthus, I am perfectly able to think and to see through such arguments. I already gave you guys THE definition of evolutionism, so don't confuse it again with population genetics.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Mammuthus,Yet another fallacy!M: How are you in any position to evaluate Borger's "work"? Where is YOUR evidence that he has done good "work"? You both suffer from an inability to understand basic science, how to formulate a hypothesis, or gather supporting data so I can see how you, Ten-sai, would be a member of the Borger fan club...or maybe you are compensating for not having been able to cut it as a scientist and having had to settle for being a lawyer..tough break...I would be bitter to.PB: To claim that your opponents do NOT understand evolutionism, and should listen to the guys who do understand it, is another argumentum ad verecundiam. You can't win a discussion using fallacies, Mammuthus, you know that.
It is always the same story. However, there is one thing I have to agree on. There is indeed nothing to understand about evolutionism since it is false.best wishes,
Peter

Dr Page, and others,Page says:
For the interested reader, 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM' is not an argument from authority. It is the argument of pseudoauthority, such as claiming that because so-and-so is an expert molecular biologist, he is also an expert evolutionary biologst. THAT is the fallacy.I say:
For the interested reader: Dr PAge is mixing things up (as he and other evolutionists tried before). An 'argumentum ad verecundiam' is a PSEUDOargument from authority. It is the opinion of an expert, and the opinion is taken as argument. Even Dirty Harry knows that "opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one". Therefore, it is a pseudoargument, in other words a FALLACY.
Better face the facts: evolutionism has fallen! No strawman/fallacy can do anything about it.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,You say:Never mind that he has claimed - and been unable to support (because there IS NO support) - that conserved sequences in introns falsifies the neutral theory.I say:
Wanna have proof? Take a subscribtion to JBC:WBlanc V, Davidson NO. Related Articles, Books, LinkOutC to U RNA editing: Mechanisms leading to genetic diversity.
J Biol Chem. 2002 Nov 20 [epub ahead of print]
PMID: 12446660 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]The autors show that RNA editing requires intron-exon alignment and that implicates conserved regions in the intron. Case proven.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear mammuthus,If you wanna interchange definitions they have to be of equal value. The definitions of population genetics and evolution are NOT of equal value and thus NOT interchangable. Notably, it is logics!! What is wrong with evolutionists logics?It goes like this:'The sun changes its position on the firmament constantly, so the firmament is evolving'or:'The cassier has constantly changing amounts of coins in his teller, so his teller is evolving'or this:'The population has constantly changing gene frequencies so the organisms are evolving'Get real, get your definitions right, and don't fool me any longer.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Buddika,Borger: "I already noticed that you don't have a clue about contemporary biology."Bud: Another unsupported assertion flying in the face of massive evidence in other threads that it is Borger who doesn't have a clue. This is a fine accusation to make from someone who demonstrably doesn't even know what evolution is, let alone what it is called.Borger: Why don't you demonstrate that you have knowledge on the topics you wanna discuss. The only references you provided so far are non-scientific URLs.Borger: "2) If a reference is in German it isn't irrelevant."Bud: No, if you are not dealing with the issues raised in the opening message of this thread, **it isn't relevant**. Can you grasp that, Borger?Borger: I addressed all the issues. Apperently you don't dare to discuss evolutionism in detail in a scientific way.Borger: "This one was relevant since it demonstrated that all stonecorals are one (or at most a few) kind(s)."Bud: So what?Borger: You wanted me -after having defined what a kind is- to present an example of a 'kind'. I did. Now it is not relevant? What's wrong with you?Bud: First of all you have yet to define "kind". In the absence of such a definition, how can you even begin to claim anything about "kinds"?!!Borger: Here you demonstrate stubborness. I defined kind, and you are nagging that is is not a good definition. Well, if it is not a good definition, why don't you make up the definition?Bud: Secondly, I have seen assertion after assertion after assertion from you and not a single one of them have you even begun to demonstrate how your wild claims overthrow the Theory of Evolution.Borger: That's why some knowledge on contemporary biology is required.Bud: And none of this is relevant until and unless you competently answer the first two challenges. Please deal with that **first**.Borger: Still nagging over these two issues? I addressed the issues, so don't bore me.Borger: "I already explained to you how linguistics work."Bud: Yep, you sure did. What you say goes and the hell with the rest of the world. I understand how you work, don't worry.Borger: If you understand, please explain in a nutshell.Bud: I note that once again you duck the issue of proving references - in this case with regard to the use of the word "evolutionism". So here we have yet another instance of Borger asserting something is so and providing not a shred of support for it other than his own whacky opinion.Borger: Instead of reading all my falsifications of evolutionism that are backed up with scientific references, you keep nagging that I don't provide support for my assertions. I know what you want. That I admit that evolutionism is right. Well, dream on boy, evolutionism has been falsified far beyond doubt. You don't wanna see that contemporary biology obliterates evolutionism. You are -of course- free to fool yourself. [Or as Huxley stated: 'Ignoring facts doesn't make them cease to exist' (or something like that).]Borger: "Apparently you don't know what these words mean."Bud: Apparently neither do you since you ducked the question (again).Borger: Thanks for conceeding I was right. Borger: "Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution."Bud: We've already been through this. Wake me up if you ever have anything new or relevant to say.Borger: Deliberately interchanging definition that are not equal is non-science, illogic, and deception of the gullible. I know better.Borger: "You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me."Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You're hilarious! Tell me another one.Borger: brilliant reply. Borger: "In other words Buddika says: "I am unable to discuss the topic of evolutionism at a scientific and contemporary level". To bad, Buddika, I am and I addressed both items in a scientific way, so the ball is in your court."Bud: Liar! You have not defined "kind" despite tiresomely repeated requests. You yourself have admitted more than once that the definition you gave was circular.Borger: It may be a tautology, but you should be fami-liar ()
with tautologies. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology. So, this can hardly be your problem. In my opinion you are unable to address the issues in a scientific way.Bud: Once again, if it is science you wish to address, then please give a ****scientific**** definition of "kind" that does not explain itself in terms of itself. If your next response does not address this, I will take this as a public admission that you cannot answer the question.Borger: I did that.Bud: You have not defined the mechanism that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another. What you defined was a possible mechanism which tends to keep species distinct. Since speciation is a fact, this quite clearly cannto be the mechanism which prevents one "kind" evolving into another "kind", ergo the response you gave fails.Borger: I follow the rules also followed by evolutionism and thus provide a possible explanation. Science will provide the rest, since it is a testable hypothesis.Bud: I have pointed this out to you - repeatedly - and I have repeatedly asked you for a scientific defintion. I am still waiting.
If your next response does not answer this challenge, I will take this as a public admission that you cannot answer the question.Borger: Take what ever you want. But remember, it is better to give than to take. Bud: Quite clearly from the evidence of your own incompetence, it is ****you**** who is unable to deal with the issues raised **in this thread**, so either answer the challenges, give the definitions **or finally have the common decency to admit that you cannot answer these questions.Borger: I already responded to your issues, I provide a definition for kind and provided an example for a kind. That's what you asked for, and I did that. So what's your problem? Oh, I see. Not the answers you wanna hear. Well, better make up the answers yourself, then.Borger: "I am still waiting for your references."References for what? For 140 years of evidence supporting evolution?Borger: Correction. 120 years of fooling each other and 20 years of scientific evidence against evolutionism.Borger: "Probably you don't have the guts to discuss evolutionism in detail. It is always the same, and I am used to it."Bud: If and when you can bring your clueless self to actually answer a few simple questions **that are essential to any further discussion**, then we could proceed, but so far you have proven nothing but your own massive ignorance and comprehensive inability to answer two simple questions.Borger: As soon as you take off your biased glasses we can actually start discussing. I don't mind you have an opposite opinion, but you have to convince me with scientific arguments. As long as you can't, I rule.Bud: Much as this will depress you, this thread is not about you, Borger, nor is it about your whacky beliefs or your bizarre dreams of grandeur.Borger: You don't know anything about me and my beliefs.Bud: This thread is about the Bohar debate challenge and my response to him. If you cannot deal with those issues, you should not be here. This thread is going no further with you until you get your butt in the chair and do the work.Borger: No, this is the 'Buddika-is-an-evolutionist-and-that-is-the-only-option-and-he-doesn't-wanna-discuss-about-it' thread.Bud: Please do let me know if there is any way at all I can simplify this ever further until even you can grasp it.Borger: Tell me what answers you want to hear. I can make them up. Best wishes,
Peter