Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”

It is interesting that you pick that example.I am guessing that you work in electricity or in electronics or a related area, and that your forum name "Eye-Squared-R" is derived from I²R, which is a formula for power.The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong. In fact, Ohm's law is the definition of resistance, so its truth is known a priori. For reference, check the Wikipedia page.What Ohm observed, was the approximate proportionality of voltage and current. The Wikipedia page on Ohm's law describes this.Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false. Take as the definition of resistance, Ohm's law is true by definition and is very useful.Call an electrical circuit linear if the current is exactly proportional to the voltage for that circuit. Otherwise, call the circuit non-linear.As best I can tell, all circuits are non-linear. Most are approximately linear, but not exactly linear. We have a large technology (digital electronics) whose existence depends on non-linear circuits. Nevertheless, Ohm's law (taken as a definition) is heavily used within digital electronics. That it is used is a matter of the pragmatism of science. Ohm's law turns out to be very useful.Giving allowance for the fact that circuits are usually not exactly linear, resistance is typically understood as This allows us to talk of the forward resistance of a diode, and the back resistance of a diode where the diode itself is a highly non-linear circuit element.My point is that scientific theories and laws are not observed facts about the world. The role of theories and laws is far more complex than that.

Quite right.Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source.Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Very well then.I require two guarantees.(1) I should get at least 50% of any putative profit.(2a) Whatever the outcome, you should try your darndest to get the results published. Even if the creationist you pick as my opponent crumbles under the weight of the facts and becomes an evolutionist.(2b) Or I can try to do the same thing --- so whatever creationist you get to meet your challenge must agree that I can seek out a publisher for our dialog no matter how much he sucks.---Now, go and find me a creationist. Preferably a prominent one, if you want the book to sell. I do have a PhD, but I'm willing to bet that the general public has never heard of me.Bring me the head of Duane Gish! Or his ass, I gather that they both argue equally well.

I do. It would take more than the time I have left to live to present the scientific evidence that supports it.Consider, if you will, that the Origin of Species, lengthy though it is, was a mere precis of a book so vast that Darwin never actually got around to write it.Then consider that this unwritten book represented only the researches of a single man over the course of a few decades.Then remember that our knowledge of evolution has been swelled by the activities of hundreds of thousands of biologists over the past hundred and fifty years, during which time we have discovered entire classes of evidence, such as molecular phylogeny, of which Darwin was unaware.You wish me to cram all this into a single book, and do so while a lunatic shouts nonsense at me and I am obliged to answer it. Sure, I could write a much shorter book --- a pamphlet even --- on The Hundred Most Common Creationist Arguments And Why They Are All Shit. But you want me to set out the arguement for evolution while the nutter is continually interrupting me by drooling out nonsense which will (typically) be irrelevant to my discourse. Should I break off my exposition to explain to him in detail why he's wrong, or should I just say: "Have patience, we'll find out why you're wrong about that when I get up to Chapter 12"? Yeah, I could go on to try to explain the tax laws to Kent Hovind.

quote:

---

We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

​

Richard Dawkins

---

My bold, in your favourite colour. I just thought I'd put that in to make the point that Dawkins was talking about the fact of evolution, rather than any particular explanatory theory.Taken literally, it would be a very one sided debate by most definitions of biological evolution.For non-believers, the adjectives ignorant, stupid or delusional (rather than insane) seem to cover all possible ground, unless you count "dead".

Hello Coyote.If my side were not vigorous debate of the scientific evidence, I would not have initiated this topicProfessional and publishable debate can only increase knowledge and understanding — especially if it were executed well and received media attention. It seems appropriate to try to arrange for presentation of the best evidence subject to critique in a professional format.Your statement that the debate has already been done reminds me of Al Gore’s approach to science.
Al Gore proclaims an Inconvenient Truth and then flatly states The debate is over.Al Gore has journals to validate his claims as well.
According to polls, most Americans are skeptical of Gore’s truth.
Unfortunately, Gore and the authors of many technical papers in those journals have refused to debate the scientific evidence. One may say that all these articles were peer reviewed and that should guarantee integrity and credibility — and that may be true. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, many folks aren’t buying the Inconvenient Truth.There are reportedly more skeptics questioning Gore’s version of truth as time progresses. The shame is Al’s version of truth may be correct but Gore and his supporters are undoubtedly losing in the court of public opinion with their approach. If the evidence is strong for Gore’s claims, he and his scientists could be leveraging it much better by engaging debate vigorously, getting invited to media outlets with the results, and persuading Americans with the evidence.I’m not saying there are strong parallels (so there’s no real need for anyone to analyze the differences and further distract from this thread with that topic) but there is at least a similarity (according to polls) in that most Americans are also skeptical of neo-Darwinism. If that skepticism is due primarily to ignorance - and you have research or evidence that is compelling, why not commit to presenting it in a professional written publishable debate - and then defending it for all to see?If you haven’t read it, I recommend a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. It’s a little dry but an insightful analysis of how science progresses and speaks to similar historical scenarios.You neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question in this thread Coyote: Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?

​

If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If I counted correctly, you listed 57 journals that you could leverage in support of neo-Darwinism and you mentioned there were others. You should have plenty of reference material to draw from! You’d have all those journals and likely all the technical resources available at EVC Forum to leverage.You may not have seen this so I’ll repeat it. In my opinion, this offer serves to indicate:
1) Strength of Belief in evidence for your position, and
2) Importance You Attribute to influencing and educating society (outside EVC Forum) with your evidence.Apparently, you could seriously help educate Americans. Think of the possibilities for a publishable debate and the progress that could lead to Coyote!If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Greetings RAZD. And thank you for the welcome. Although some appear to get frayed from time to time - EVC Forum is a Great Resource! The term evolution is widely used to mean various things.
Few people would claim not to believe Mendel’s Laws of heredity.
Few people would claim not to believe ecological factors influence a gene pool over time.
Your definition above is short and sweet but it doesn’t speak to the source of the raw material for genetic diversity. An exhaustive discussion of the modern evolutionary synthesis is not the topic here and I have no interest in it.The topic for this thread is clearly an invitation for publishable debate regarding the neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism.
Taq perceptively recognized the heart of the challenge in his responsive (Message 5) reference to Dobzhansky.Dobzhansky authored Genetics and the Origin of Species in 1937 and established the idea that mutation, by creating genetic diversity, supplied ALL the raw material for Darwinian natural selection to produce newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time — thereby explaining how all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor.This may not be the definition you prefer and that’s fine. If you don’t believe that definition to be easily defensible, then you would not be interested in debating for it. It is detailed in this thread for those who are.The solicitation for firm commitments in this thread would also require support and defense for Ernst Mayr’s claim to explain all living organisms descended from a common ancestor in Populations, Species and Evolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 102. Per your statement below, you may choose to decline the invitation. Yes sir — but only if someone here is willing to engage in a publishable format.
Out of curiosity, do you have any alternative hypotheses? Please send me a Private Message if you'd like to keep that private.
All science is technically debatable since all real science is tentative. I’d like to see you on the team RAZD but it appears you may not be a firm believer in the theoretical working mechanism for evolution.For purposes of this thread, the definition above (in gold) suffices. And beyond that, Message 10 offers anyone the opportunity to define his/her own belief in favor of neo-Darwinism that they are willing and able to defend in a publishable debate.Your contributions are often informative on various things but I’d really like to keep this thread tightly focused if you don’t mind. TIME-OUT RAZD for some friendly humor in deference to a WHOLE BUNCH of folks (including those with Ph.D.s in technical fields) who just got stuffed into what may be scientifically considered RAZD’s Compost Pile of Opinion - with no opportunity for intellectually satisfying publishable RAZD intercourse (debate). Humor ensuesHoly Imposter Batman!
ALRIGHT FREEZE! Move very slowly and place your hands palms down on the monitor. You are NOT the real RAZD but an IMPOSTER! DO NOT make any quick movesI step closer to raise the red bowl cut hair place my fingers at the top of the pliable rubber RAZD mask and begin to pull it down to reveal the real identity of this imposter
My eyebrows suddenly raise in astonishment as I begin to realize
GAAASP!
It’s AL Gore!I rip the mask off and demand to know what he’s done with RAZDBig Al furls his eyebrows and stares intently around the room at all of us and then loudly proclaims The debate is OVER!All the lurkers and I stare for a while with astonishment how this could possibly be happening — still wandering what has happed to RAZD. Big Al slowly rises, begins to back away, cocks his head to the side and begins to look down his nose with a stern but disturbed expression, eyebrows still furled, and says Don’t listen to the neo-Darwin Den-Eye-Yers! They are LYING to you! I’m the only one you can believe! I’m telling you the TRUTH!We rush the mega-dollar millionaire multimedia caricature and wrestle him back down in the chair.

Wrestling the Imposter - Click to Enlarge

I look Big Al squarely in the eye and tell him the Rigorous Science Investigators are on the way to take his written deposition and that he will have the opportunity to defend his claims in the court of public opinion.Gore then looks around at all the lurkers briefly as he slumps with his shoulders drooped and begins to mumble something about terminally deluded and insane people with whom there is no chance of a rational debate, and those too stupid to understand such conceptsLurkers turn to me and ask: "How did you know he was an imposter?"
I thought for a moment and began to explain how the glaring dichotomy in behavior was as obvious as the nose on RAZD’s mask.

• The REAL RAZD had written more than 11,800 posts here at EVC Forum, averaging over five posts a day for more than 6 years — likely thousands of posts debating the exact same issues over which this imposter refuses to engage in a professional written publishable debate, as noted above.
  ​
• The REAL RAZD would NEVER decline an opportunity to debate the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE on ANY issue in ANY forum in ANY format at ANY time, being quick to point out logical fallacies with tediously detailed explanations and illustrations as appropriate.
  ​
• The REAL RAZD has spent thousands of hours researching and patiently promoting knowledge and understanding with ALL COMERS - including those this imposter considers to be insane, stupid, terminally deluded people who come here spouting nonsense.
  ​
• The REAL RAZD seems to genuinely care about helping others (who may have had an underprivileged education) to comprehend difficult concepts and help guide them to a better understanding. The imposter was rather petulant and intolerant of some folks who have somehow professed different beliefs from his, evidently not caring a whit about engaging and assisting them with their mental malady.
  ​
• The REAL RAZD would jump with enthusiasm, wasting no time given the opportunity to post lengthy explanations and correct false information spread by anyone. The imposter sat in his chair with a noncommittal disposition and never mentioned random mutation as the source of genetic diversity to supply all the raw material for Darwinian natural selection to produce newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (as proposed by neo-Darwinian evolution).
  ​
• The REAL RAZD says science is TENTATIVE, and he would NEVER infer that all the possibly salient evidence is known and well understood. The imposter seems to believe it’s IMPOSSIBLE (like Taq’s Dobzhansky reference in Message 5) for the evidence to have any interpretive explanation beyond what this imposter considers to be allowable.

Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough for this imposter but the qualifications (at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers) apply to both sides.Beyond that this imposter and Dr Adequate apparently have different preferences for opposition in a professional written publishable debate. This imposter may wish to take that up with Dr Adequate as the good doctor is the only person to express any interest to date.If this initiative moves forward with FIRM commitments from EVC Folks (and others if needed), then I shall seek the best qualified opponent(s) who can present their case and who can then debate and defend their position effectively.Curiously, this imposter seems to say he will refuse this offer for a publishable debate on issues that he believes the evidence overwhelmingly supports his position. That’s not the rational RAZD we know. This imposter sounds almost like he would only engage in a publishable debate if his opponent agreed with him on almost everything. That doesn’t seem to reflect a strong confidence level and I suspect it would not provide much incentive or value for a potential publisher.If an opponent did not fully meet the suggested criteria of this imposter — What a wonderful opportunity this imposter would have to not only educate the ignorant, but also borrow Dr Adequate’s Big Bat of Facts and leverage the overwhelming evidence in a professional manner to inoculate a younger generation against "terminal" delusion, insanity, stupidity, and irrationality.If I understand this imposter correctly, it’s unclear to me why he would refuse to engage in a publishable debate that could possibly reach orders of magnitudes more people beyond EVC Forum and evidently contribute to a more rational generation of people.Now all you lurkers fan out and search for the REAL RAZD! He may be bound and gagged in a closet somewhere. In case the imposter stuffed a sock in RAZD’s mouth, listen carefully for muffled grunts that sound faintly like HELP. Conclusion of humor.When we locate our beloved friend RAZD, then we can continue with the straightforward topic of this thread.
We’ll ask him: Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?

​

If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining if you don’t mind.
The REAL RAZD surely will not respond with his eyebrows seemingly furled like that petulant imposter.If you choose to respond, please tip me off early whether it’s the REAL EVC Forum RAZD, internally consistent, generally considerate, and rational (even at the Silly Design Institute) or that unexpected imposter who will not engage certain undesirable elements of society and would shy away from an opportunity to advance knowledge and understanding for a wide audience. Curiously!
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R P.S. RAZD, you’re one of the best here I trust you don’t mind a little humor.Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Revised SubtitleEdited by Eye-Squared-R, : Spelling error.

"Power" is correct. More specifically, it’s an electrical formula for Real power versus Imaginary (or Reactive) Power. Imaginary Power takes the form of I²X for non-linear components.I²R can also be viewed as Heat. But before you lurch at your keyboard to find a quick Wiki reference in a vain attempt to discredit that statement, I suggest you take the time to dig deep in a comprehensive physics book or a text book on electrical theory. You seem to be struggling with concepts and terminology. In science, a definition is most useful for a single physical entity. An example would be defining the electromagnetic wavelength spectrum for a particular color like red. Note the definition of a color spectrum has no dependence on other physical entities.In a broad sense, it can be said that Ohm’s law is a definition for resistance (R=V/I).It could also be said that Ohm’s law is a definition for voltage across a resistive medium (V=IR).It could also be said that Ohm’s law is a definition for current through a resistive medium (I=V/R).It would be more comprehensive to say Ohm's law predicts the relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in any medium.I appreciate your second effort to provide constructive criticism but you apparently don’t understand everything you know. Not to worry, it’s a common experience among sober-minded folks in science, politics, and religion. Before posting a third attempt at critique, it may be worthwhile to inventory other concepts that you know for quiet and reflective reevaluation. Unfortunately, you left out a key term of Ohm’s Law in that statement. Ohm’s Law says current and voltage are proportional across a Resistive medium. That’s what the R represents in Ohm’s Law (V=IR).When dealing with non-linear (inductance and capacitance) characteristics of components we must use a different equation: (V=IX).And in the broad application of electrical theory where everything has both resistive and reactive characteristics, the equation becomes V=IZ. All values in this equation are complex entities — polar or rectangular. For example, the Z term takes the form R+jX. In many applications, one of those Z terms is negligible and can be ignored for practical purposes. In ALL CASES, both linear and non-linear (including diodes), Ohm’s law has been found to be true and is correctly applied every day all day to determine, design, and predict the Real Power for all physical devices and mediums.No offense nwr, but I recommend you use considerable caution when endeavoring to discredit someone with a quick Wiki reference on a topic that you may not fully understand.Sometimes Wiki references are not worded very well and sometimes they are unequivocally incorrect (Surprise!).
For example, you’ll find this statement in Wiki’s reference for Scientific Law: Ohm's law only applies to constant currents.
Not sure who wrote that but it’s not the first and certainly not the only reference error at Wikipedia.
Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance.You’ll be wasting your time and you will further discredit your level of knowledge and understanding if you persist with the claim Ohm’s law is false and well known to be false.Until it is ever nullified (a condition for a theory), the equation V=IR is an observed and predictable relationship between three phenomena so consistent as to be considered Law.Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe (MSNBC) had a guest author on Monday, 14 June, that is relevant here. The author was Nicholas Carr and his book is The Shallows. The topic was Your brain and the internet. Carr’s advice is to Slow down and go deep. I suggest that’s good advice for all of us. There appears to be lots of disagreement among EVC Folks about what can be considered as factual.
Perhaps this will help clear some of it up.A good scientist who understands how science works would never claim to have proven his interpretations or inferences as the only possible conclusions or that it is impossible for alternative interpretations/explanations to be true.
However, organizations or programs teaching about science make those types of claims daily for specific inferences. We humans are naturally biased to believe our individual views are true and we tend to express them that way. It takes good measures of humility, honesty, and discipline to challenge our own beliefs or to expose our inferences to vigorous examination.If you argue your point is true for pedagogy (a primary function of EVC Forum), you may wish to take this up with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. See Pedagogical definition in the Wikipedia reference for Theory. Lurkers may judge whether Wiki and others have promulgated another technical error.
There is no need for someone to respond here with an off-topic defense of the word "evolution" (or change) as "fact". The most generally accepted use of the term in biology necessarily includes neo-Darwinism as defined in this thread.And in the Wikipedia reference for evolution No one questions Mendel’s Laws. Few would question the concept that individual organisms which are most successful (for whatever reason) to reproduce tend to have their DNA increased within a population over time.However, the neo-Darwinian inference (beneficial mutations) not specifically mentioned above but believed by many

• as the mechanism to provide all the raw genetic material to produce newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation)
• resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time
• to conclude all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor

could be vigorously debated in a professional written and publishable format.It seems the hesitance for anyone on this forum to commit to such a debate (except perhaps Dr Adequate) may testify to the potential difficulty in defending the evidence for that inference.That’s a shame because if the inference could be successfully defended with the opportunity presented in this thread, it could better educate the majority of Americans (according to polls) who are skeptical.You neglected to update your status nwr (as I request all people do when posting) in your response regarding the fundamental question in this thread:
Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?

​

If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If your status remains as out - please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.All the best,
Eye-Squared-R (a.k.a. Power and Heat)

Hello Coyote, Not much to comment on here without repeating myself.When Georg Ohm published his treatise in 1827, the title was not Ohm’s Law. His work was included in books on electrical theory for a long, long time. Only after millions of measurements were made using all possible materials in all possible temperatures and pressures - without the physical relationship ever being nullified (which is a condition for a theory) - was the term Ohm’s Law justified.Lurkers may judge whether you and nwr understand everything you know concerning science.Lurkers may also note the level of effort taken to discredit or distract while not responding to the fundamental question posed to you.If Dr Adequate commits and gets his wish, the debate opponent concerning neo-Darwinism could be a creationist. If it turns out that we secure a worthy opponent in that venue, you could bring your difinitive and conclusive research to be Dr Adequate’s "Lead-Off" batter and set him up for a Grand Slam to help educate America.I’m not trying to be overly provocative here Coyote but I’m looking for firm commitments.
I’d like to cease discussing theories and laws and I’d like to see you commit to being on the team.
As Lee Corso might say on College Game Day (less than three months from now and I can’t wait):
If ya got it — Bring it!So in keeping with the topic of this thread: Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?

​

If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

I COMMEND you highly for standing on your beliefs and demonstrating the willingness to engage as a professional in a publishable debate - and your desire to help educate the majority of Americans. Perhaps I’m overly optimistic but I do believe it’s possible that the interest level (and potential profit) could be surprisingly high.(1) It’s very early in the process but 50% of the net available to the eventual debaters — that’s an equal share with your potential debate opponent(s) sounds reasonable and fair assuming you are the only person representing neo-Darwinism. Assuming an equally qualified willing and able opponent will commit — It would appear your request should be easily arranged. Again, whatever the outcome, I will take nothing.(2a or 2b) That is very reasonable and fair. The best evidence should be supported by most rational observers, including me. Your preference for a prominent creationist is noted. RAZD claimed there were none worthy but he did not commit to demonstrating that claim with a written publishable examination of the evidence.Perhaps you could send me a private message or email me at Eye-Square-R@hotmail.com with your name, credentials, etc.I assure you I will keep everything confidential (unless and until) a FIRM commitment is obtained from a worthy opponent. A search would eventually commence for a mutually agreed upon moderator. If you wish to remain anonymous longer than that, I may not have total control over anonymity but I think that should be possible as well. Of course, your identity and qualifications would be on the completed works for publication. If the general public has never heard of you, perhaps that will change if we can pull this thing off well. I cannot guarantee commitments but assuming your commitment is FIRM, I will begin a search.Based on this response — The Doctor is IN!All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R P.S. However, your next post about three hours later seems to be not so firm. It’s not my desire to badger you or to entice anyone into a firm commitment they may regret. While I sincerely believe the potential for notoriety (and who knows what else) may be considerable, perhaps we should count this affirmative post as tentative and you can reaffirm a commitment or decline at your convenience. If you’d like, take some time to mull it over.I have no antipathy toward anyone in this matter, but I’d like to see the acrimony cleared as much as possible on both sides — pro and con neo-Darwinian evolution.I believe this proposition to get the best evidence examined in a competent and professional manner that may help advance a wide audience toward better knowledge and understanding could bear fruit.My motivation would be to advance that process any way I can.

Responding to Dr Adequate in Message 19:Doctor ,I sincerely respect your position and I respect/understand your expressed concerns.
In fact, I regard your responses more highly than anyone else in this thread (or Zenmonkey’s thread) to date.I want you to be as successful as possible and I believe a potential opponent would have the same exact concerns.From my perspective, there is no need to rush the process.
If you’d like to take some time to consider practical constraints and how you would like to proceed before making the commitment FIRM, I would completely understand that.
IF the process continues through step 2 with a commitment from an opponent, then there may be a period of negotiation including procedural agreements, a moderator, etc.If the process proceeds, I’d like to see good science and education.
My objective is to facilitate the process and support the best possible outcome for everyone on behalf of science.
If you would like to take any discussions off-line, we can do that as well.
Strict confidentiality for any expressly private communication is assured on my part.
Please let me know when you decide to reaffirm or to decline.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Thank you for that clarification bluegenes. It’s important to be concise. Please review the response to RAZD in Message 22 above. It has become evident in this thread that most definitions of biological evolution are very general and do not specifically mention the source of genetic variation. No one seems to want to explicitly include the words Random Beneficial Mutations anymore, and I believe that is the concept that causes most Americans to be skeptical. Logically, the simplistic and generalized definitions for evolution implicitly require a working mechanism similar to that described below: Mutation, by creating genetic diversity, supplies ALL the raw material for Darwinian natural selection to produce newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time — thereby explaining how all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor in the evolutionary tree. I would have extreme difficulty securing a FIRM commitment from a potential debate opponent if that candidate were dead.Assuming a worthy living opponent could be found with a firm commitment - it would then be your task to engage in a professional publishable format to elucidate for a broad audience the scientific evidence for you to conclude why a non-believer must be ignorant, stupid, or insane.If you choose to respond - Please clarify whether you are interested, in, or out.Thanks,
Eye-Squared-RPS - I’ve been trying to strike a balance between emphasis for easier reading and — too much yellow!
Perhaps I’m on the hairy edge Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Added Subtitle.

Yes it can. And what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit.The difference, of course, is that the first of those "can be viewed" statements is obviously false, while you are providing plenty of evidence that the second is true. No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing. No, I did not attempt to discredit you with a quick Wiki reference. I just pointed out your obvious mistake, then added a Wiki reference to aid the casual reader of this thread (if there are any casual readers remaining).If you had half a clue on what you are talking about, you would not have said anything so foolish as: I²R can also be viewed as Heat.Incidentally, I was underwhelmed by your attempted snow job on reactance. Whoever wrote that wiki information evidently knows far more about the physics of electricity than you are capable of knowing. If you had understood the significance of what you just wrote about reactance, you would not have made such a silly mistake.

Very well nwr.The equations are presented clearly for anyone knowledgeable to verify whether your persistent criticisms are correct.Since you declined to clarify as requested, I will update your status as "Out" for the purpose of this thread.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

They are. I was contemplating writing my own reply, but I think nwr has captured my own response sufficiently. You would do well to remember that EvC is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts".