Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 71 of 196 (592783)
11-22-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 8:48 PM


Dr. Adequate’s Commitment
Hello Dr. Adequate,
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
Frankly, I was expecting more firm commitments among all the folks at EVC Forum...
You were expecting more people to write a book for you? Without a hint of a flicker of interest from a publisher?
Your knowledge of human nature is ... unimpressive.
As Ronald Reagan famously said to Walter Mondale in a presidential debate There you go again
I haven’t asked you to write a book for me doctor and that line is neither accurate nor professional. I addressed this canard in Message 13 and your response in Message 18 was Very well then
My objective remains to:
  1. Secure firm commitments from you and your peers in Zenmonkey’s thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) referenced in the OP along with other EVC experts.
  2. Ascertain the reasons those who will not engage in a professional written publishable debate are quick to judge and slow to help educate the majority of American unbelievers in evolution who are proclaimed to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.
  3. Obviate all possible reasons for reneging commitment prior to commencement of (or during) a professional written publishable debate.
To reiterate, rather than asking you to write a book for me, the OP clarification from Message 10 is given here in part:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 10 writes:
With the expressed knowledge and competence at EVC, I’m interested in seeing big rocks turned over and sifting what lies underneath with a spotlight and a microscope - in a professional format. The nature of science is that it generally advances through disagreement, new information, testing, and nullification. Science has no regard for people’s personal philosophy or pride. Controversy and imputed evil toward "unbelievers" (such as the thread referenced in the OP, Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)) can linger indefinitely without focus, confrontation, and illumination. This is true of both sides in any big issue — see politics.
It’s not my intention for this thread to be unnecessarily provocative to either side of the issue but it seems a vigorous professional and publishable examination of the best and most recent evidence is appropriate to increase knowledge and understanding.
IF the Dawkins quote is truly justified with overwhelming evidence — then there is a tremendous educational opportunity for most Americans who reportedly do not believe in evolution.
IF the Dawkins quote is little more than his opinion and is not as strongly supported by the evidence, or is discounted by some evidence, then that offers educational value as well.
For further clarity, here’s what I’ve offered to you (and others) - excerpted from Message 13:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 13 writes:
I’m merely offering you and others an opportunity to present and defend your convictions in a professional and publishable format that could help educate a segment of society
If the opposing arguments (by neo-Darwin unbelievers) were weak (ignorant, deluded, dishonest), you could slam them out of the park and figuratively stroll around the bases with your arms raised in triumph!
I’m only inviting you to the ballpark with your big bat (of facts) in hand. I honestly don’t know how far it would go. But who knows, maybe we could turn on the lights and have a World Series and you could be a Star!
From my view, 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.
Do as you wish but it may be helpful to evaluate yourself considering the two categories above on a 0-10 scale before making a decision.
The eventual results (assuming it happens) should be a reasonable measure of success or failure to validate your belief along with Dawkin’s assertion in the OP. Of course the audience will apply the same measures of performance to your opponent(s).
Aside from helping to educate the majority of Americans who are not believers in evolution Dr. Adequate who knows you could be on the Cover of the Rolling Stone (like Dr. Hook and his Medicine Show)!
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
In the meantime, would you please review the proposal described in Message 1 and confirm that you are firmly committed?
It would be best if we cut out the section of the proposition in brackets: "Neo-Darwinism is (unequivocally true and scientifically verified fact -) essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes"
Many people would object on philosophical grounds to saying that about any empirical proposition whatsoever, and while I to some extent disagree with them on equally philosophical ground, I hope you would agree that the less philosophy the better.
I believe you’re correct. Those who agree may conclude that Zenmonkey’s thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) is presumptuous passing judgments upon evolution non-believers on philosophical grounds. Regardless, I can edit it to suit the less dogmatic. I’m flexible if the process leads to an outcome that potentially helps educate a broad audience
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
Also, would you please try to recruit others with firm commitments to assist you, just in case the need arises?
I'm sure they'll chip in, should the need arise.
I’ve done enough investigation to know the need will arise. The subject matter will likely include several disciplines of science as evidenced by the topical categories listed at EVC Forum. Since I want you to have every opportunity and every possible resource available for a successful outcome, I’ll assist you in securing FIRM commitments in the various likely disciplines to be debated.
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
In case you disagree that you’ll need FIRM commitments from your most competent EVC Forum peers, I have two exercises for you later in this message.
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
About the format. Some things should be agreed in advance
Your thoughts may be helpful. However, assuming this process culminates in a formal agreement between you and a qualified creationist opponent, there should be ample time for negotiations in advance. As stated earlier in this thread, I will not be the opponent. Therefore, I cannot negotiate for or represent your opponent(s) in a contractual agreement. As I stated in Message 26:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 26 writes:
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.
Now back to your requests
Dr Adequate in Message 66 writes:
First, no Gish Gallops. This is just to make the thing readable. On an Internet forum, we cut people's posts up and quote them, so that it goes like this (in schema) (convoluted dialogue given).
The creationist should therefore be restricted to one mistake at a time, for the sake of the reader, so that the dialogue goes more like this:
Him: Error of fact #1.
Me: Fact #1.
Him: Error of fact #2.
Me: Fact #2.
... I would therefore propose that the creationist should be limited to his top 5 favorite mistakes on any given subject (perhaps more or fewer depending on the importance of the point).
That’s excellent doctor - your confidence is notable. An old football teammate of mine, a fellow linebacker, was fond of saying It ain’t braggin’ if you can back it up
The written format with a mutually agreed upon moderator will likely keep everyone focused and the time for each response will be much longer than the typical EVC Forum exchange. This should allow (actually require) thorough treatment of each topic.
Let’s get your big bat of facts out so you might have some scientific batting practice. These assignments may be a breeze for you — but that remains to be seen as you’ve avoided them in this thread.
We’ll deploy the fortuitous sidebar distractions presented in this thread by your EVC Forum peers who apparently deem their scientific knowledge and understanding at such a high level as to be unattainable by plain ole’ common folks like me.
I was confident these distractions would serve a good purpose in this discussion — and here it is
Although, these concepts are fairly basic, they provide some insight into the potential challenges for a professional publishable setting.
Following your proposed dialogue, I’ll repeat a Statement of Fact in this thread proclaimed to be Error of Fact #1 by your faithful peers. I’ll also repeat your peers’ assertions that the statement of fact is in error along with their explanations and examples.
Let’s assume that these beneficial distractions have somehow arisen in the hypothetical debate with your future creationist opponent regarding science - and you must submit a written position regarding these concepts in the proposed publishable debate. I understand these specific arguments may not be presented in a debate with a creationist, but we cannot rule them out regarding physics applied to earth science.
Your EVC peers may be sensitive to my quoting them by their EVC Forum moniker — so I’ll use substitute monikers for the purpose of these exercises. Since your peers have expressed exceptionally high confidence in their skills and abilities regarding physics, they shall be referred to as: Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 and #2.
Exercise #1 following your suggested format:
Statement by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 4:
I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.
_____
Presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 10:
While theories are never proven with a 100% confidence level, some have been demonstrated to consistently be true and scientifically validated at such a high confidence level — they’re essentially codified into law. An example is Ohm’s Law (V=IR) continuously applied without a known failure in trillions of applications.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 16:
The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false
_____
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
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.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 58:
In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Bold emphasis mine)
_____
Now, Dr Adequate, the topic is the reliability of Ohm’s Law in the context of scientific theory. What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used?
Or will you determine that Ohm’s Law is evidenced to be unconditionally true in the real world of physics? I suggest you recruit and collaborate with at least one FIRM commitment by someone you consider a reliable authority in fundamental physics - and then post your response for us with an explanation and example (if appropriate) as you would in a professional publishable debate.
Exercise #2
Presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 28:
what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit
No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing...
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.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 30:
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".
And from Message 40:
Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat.
To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.
_____
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 48:
(After presenting equations)if you don’t mind (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2), please answer (the) question below to help us gain insight into your level of knowledge and understanding:
  • What would be one example where Real Power (in kilo-Watts) is not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time?
_____
OK Dr. Adequate, here are the examples proposed by your peers where Real Power (I2R in kilo-Watts) is supposedly not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time:
  1. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 64:
    If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I2R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude.
  2. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 56:
    What do you think radio and microwave transmitters transmit? Heat?
_____
Now Dr. Adequate, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat.
These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.
And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc.
Now that should have a familiar ring Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
But they’re so condescendingly confident!
What’s your position?
Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your EvC Forum peers claim above.
Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.
Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.
In this particular case, I’ve devised a new acronym to describe the behavior and language of Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 while flaming out in Message 56 — I shall refer to this type response by either an evolutionist or a creationist as a GNAW: (Gets Nasty At Will) Surely you’d agree gnawing doesn’t lend credibility in a professional setting.
If we bantered these assertions concerning Ohm’s Law and the nature of Real Power back and forth many times, they could eventually qualify as PRATTs (evolutionist term for Points Refuted A Thousand Times). I perceive you expect a walk in the park with some commonly inferred PRATTs. That may be the case, or it may not. Potential difficulties for one or both sides of this issue may be the reason a publishable debate hasn’t been done before (that I could find) in a professional written format that could be used in educational settings. Time will tell if we can pull this off.
In any case, I’ve penned a new acronym to describe these types of banter when a highly confident Adherent to Sophisticated Science apparently doesn’t understand everything he/she knows - PR-NUT: (Points Refuted — Not Understood Totally)! And for the Flame-Out types, we could add the acronym JOB: (Just Obnoxious Behavior).
Now doctor, your submission should delineate whether these exercises in physical science constitute potential PRATTs, PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs.
Again, these assignments are for your benefit. They should assist you in identifying and listing FIRM commitments from your best possible resources at EVC Forum to chip in regarding your professional response in various scientific disciplines. They should also assist you in determining a rigorous methodology to respond to any unexpected challenges in a publishable debate. To attract an interested publisher and potential commercial interest for the proposed professional debate, you should be as prepared and as successful as possible in every branch of science. If you choose to decline these assignments for whatever reason, then your commitment for a publishable debate will reasonably be considered as questionable and tentative.
We’re still in Step 1. Please note carefully, I’ll give it a few more weeks for this process to play out and see how you respond.
I’m not prone to engage frequent banter consisting of misdirected ridicule.
Those folks generally discredit themselves. But when appropriate, I’ll address them.
Silence doesn’t have to be deafening — for me, it is opportunity for deeper thought and analytical reflection.
In the meantime, I’ll continue preparing for Step 2 by investigating the best qualified creationist for your debating pleasure.
I’m glad you’re here and appreciate the resources at EVC Forum.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened long lines of "_", which were causing the page to be overwide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 11-22-2010 12:37 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 9:53 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 72 of 196 (592784)
11-22-2010 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
10-20-2010 10:26 PM


Chip In Commitments for Dr. Adequate?
Greetings Dr. Adequate,
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
And I'll ask again
The silence is becoming deafening.
Perhaps you didn’t read Message 63 posted by me on 21 August very carefully:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 writes:
I’m going to give it at least twelve weeks in hopes that you and others here will stand and deliver firm commitments to engage in this professional manner — including a public defense of your neo-Darwinian convictions. The publishable finished product could surely be leveraged to educate the majority of American evolution unbelievers.
Well, doctor, I’ve given you thirteen weeks. Unfortunately, you’ve done nothing but assume others will chip in if needed. Thus, the need to assist you has become evident as detailed in my previous post and repeated here:
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
You repeatedly implied that if no-one would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.
I’ve implied nothing doctor.
I’ve stated facts and proposed measures for self-evaluation that are appropriate when considering a commitment for a written publishable debate.
It’s not I who has pronounced flaws or moral judgments upon those with different beliefs.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Where it starts to go horribly wrong, of course, is when they start trying to communicate their ignorance, misconceptions and confusion to others, or offer aid and support to those who do. I think that this is somewhat immoral. If someone's going to teach their opinions to others, they have an ethical duty to try to speak the truth; if they are going to support someone else teaching some opinion, they have a duty to try to find out if he's speaking the truth.
Those are your words doctor. I take you at your word and I believe you’re sincere.
If true, do you sense no ethical duty to try to speak the truth to a potentially broad audience?
In your defense, there were over 25 evolutionists in that thread (Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)) and you are the ONLY one expressing any willingness — whatsoever to engage in a publishable written debate.
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
When I said that I'd write the darn book, you repeatedly implied that if only one person would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.
Could it be that you’re overly sensitive doctor? To the point that you’re inferring things I haven’t written?
I’ve not written those words fairly weak. Apparently, that implication is only in your head.
Interested observers will eventually draw their own conclusions based on the outcome of this discussion.
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
Now I should like to hear from the creationist side. How have you tried to induce them to write your book, and how are you getting on?
I’m doing quite well, thank you. No inducement whatsoever is necessary and I’ve asked no one to write a book for me. I’m still investigating but you can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate.
Dr. Adequate in Message 68 writes:
Now, let me make it plain. I'm not even asking whether any creationist has the cojones to debate me. Clearly so far the answer to that is no.
What I'm asking now is whether you had the cojones to ask any creationist to debate me. Did you even try, or are you certain that they all know that they'll lose?
As Lee Corso counters various assessments from his peers on ESPN’s Saturday morning College Game Day show: Not so fast my friend!
Maybe even a Double not so fast my friend!
There’s no need for you to examine my gonads doctor (turning head and coughing). They’re intact and quite healthy.
The last time a seemingly tough guy said something like that to me, his Momma had to ice pack his head that night ‘cause it was swelled up like a pumpkin. However, I was only 14 years old at the time and I’ve matured a lot since then.
Of course, neither gonads nor testosterone are a pre-requisite for good science. Male ego and swagger will lend little credibility in this endeavor.
I trust you’re not taking this effort lightly doctor. If you remain committed and hang tough, I believe it could culminate in an epic event. But it will take considerable time and commitment.
_____
Concerning your often repeated write a book for you phrase I may be wrong but it’s beginning to look like a smoke screen to me.
In spite of your brash manner, I perceive this canard to be a potential reason you eventually cite to back out from a commitment IF the proposed publishable debate with a creationist turns out to be more challenging than you’d expected.
You and your peers were the ones inferring various flaws upon those who believe differently.
Now you and your peers can stand and deliver firm commitments to help educate those you consider to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or evil with your evidence and reason.
Or you can continue to stand alone and whine up this false notion that you’re somehow doing me a favor by writing a darn book for me.
Since I’ve never asked you to write a book for me, the next reference from you to that effect will earn you the new moniker in this thread:
Dr. CANARD (Continually Asserts Nullified Allegations Regarding Debate).
IF this process progresses and you should ultimately find it more difficult than expected — let’s avoid an excuse to withdraw with an exit like: I’ve decided I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you’ — go find someone else!
Can you agree to that Dr. Adequate?
I respectfully request that you take plenty of time and consideration before responding. There’s no need for any of us to be in a blind staggering rush. I appreciate your position and suggest quality should be our primary objective.
Respectfully - All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorted long line of "_", which caused the page to be overwide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2010 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 2:19 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 77 of 196 (600703)
01-16-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Coyote
11-22-2010 12:37 AM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Commitment
Hello Coyote,
I find your posts to be generally respectable and your opinions firm.
Coyote in Message 73 writes:
Hint: knock off the fancy colors.
Your post looks like a French whorehouse.
The colored fonts in Messages 71 distinguish participants in the format recommended by Dr. Adequate. The background colors demarcate the examples for an easier read. This forum is aimed at increasing knowledge and understanding. Criticism of style is welcome but it would be most helpful if you address the content in response.
Coyote in Message 31 writes:
You can put me down as "out" also
And to answer your question: Yes, I have read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It was required for a theory class in graduate school.
By the way, half of my study in graduate school was fossil man, evolution, and related subjects.
In Message 14, you listed 57 journals that you could leverage in support of neo-Darwinism and you mentioned there were others.
Coyote in Message 37 writes:
In a debate concerning the theory of evolution it is impossible for a creationist to avoid, for very long, one or more of the following:
--Denying scientific data
--Ignoring scientific data
--Misrepresenting scientific data, or
--Misinterpreting scientific data.
And in Message 28 of Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?):
Coyote writes:
What we are telling you is that the empirical evidence, from many fields of study, strongly suggests that microbes did become elephants and all the other extant critters.
That’s precisely what’s needed for a publishable debate with a creationist Coyote; that empirical evidence for the gradual development of 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 critters within a population over time.
Considering your education, journal resources, and conviction, would you mind sharing with us your reason for declining to commit to a professional publishable debate concerning the scientific evidence for/against evolution as described in the OP and Message 10? If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to chip in for Dr. Adequate in one of the various disciplines if the doctor were to firmly commit to debate a creationist?
Not trying to goad or provoke — just curious. You obviously have a lot to offer and the results could possibly help educate the masses outside EVC Forum.
Your consideration is appreciated.
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 11-22-2010 12:37 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 01-16-2011 5:09 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 78 of 196 (600704)
01-16-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2010 2:19 AM


Re: Chip In Commitments for Dr. Adequate?
Hello doctor,
A brief rehash to bring interested parties up to date
Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 on 21 August writes:
In the meantime, would you please review the proposal described in Message 1 and confirm that you are firmly committed? Also, would you please try to recruit others with firm commitments to assist you, just in case the need arises? This is a rare opportunity to leverage the professed knowledge and confidence at EVC Forum to educate the majority of Americans who are evidently evolution unbelievers. There are lots of folks here at EVC Forum who believe the scientific evidence is clear and evident for neo-Darwinian evolution — but only you have expressed an interest or willingness to defend that belief in a professional publishable format!
I’m going to give it at least twelve weeks in hopes that you and others here will stand and deliver firm commitments to engage in this professional manner — including a public defense of your neo-Darwinian convictions. The publishable finished product could surely be leveraged to educate the majority of American evolution unbelievers.
Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.
Eye-Squared-R in Message 72 on 22 November writes:
Well, doctor, I’ve given you thirteen weeks. Unfortunately, you’ve done nothing but assume others will chip in if needed. Thus, the need to assist you has become evident as detailed in my previous post and repeated here:
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
And your incredible shrinking response:
Dr Adequate in Message 74 writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 72 writes:
Well, doctor, I’ve given you thirteen weeks.
To do what?
I’ll repeat for you:
  1. To confirm that you are firmly committed and that you will not withdraw for extraneous reasons such as I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you’.
  2. Also, to recruit others for publicly stated firm commitments to assist you in the disciplines that I’ve detailed above.
It’s been surprisingly difficult for evolutionists to make firm commitments based in their beliefs and convictions - but the effort is hopefully worthwhile. I’ll take as much time as necessary.
Dr Adequate in Message 74 writes:
I can't debate a creationist until you produce one.
Not so fast my friend. I’m maintaining the objectives described in Message 71 and we’re still in step 1.
I have a confident prediction based on your performance and this thread to date. You will, in fact, eventually express a reason that you cannot debate a creationist in a professional publishable format. If past behavior is an indicator, your reason for quitting will likely include some form of direct denigration.
Dr Adequate in Message 74 writes:
In the meantime, instead of posting a lot of silly blather, will you please answer my question? What steps have you taken to produce one?
I answered your question in Message 72, repeated here:
you can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate.
The steps I’ve taken are as you might expect
  1. Survey creationists with Ph.D. credentials in science.
  2. Contact qualified creationists and communicate the opportunity for a professional science only publishable debate.
  3. Investigate preferred candidates.
The effort to secure a FIRM commitment from the creationist side has been MUCH easier than I’ve found in this thread. In fact, as it stands now, Messages 71 and 72 reveal there is no demonstrated commitment on your part — only complaints that appear to be potential excuses to quit.
This despite your statement in Message 47 of thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?).
Dr. Adequate writes:
Where it starts to go horribly wrong, of course, is when they start trying to communicate their ignorance, misconceptions and confusion to others, or offer aid and support to those who do. I think that this is somewhat immoral. If someone's going to teach their opinions to others, they have an ethical duty to try to speak the truth; if they are going to support someone else teaching some opinion, they have a duty to try to find out if he's speaking the truth.
Aside from your demonstrated lack of commitment in response to Message 71, there is no expressed commitment whatsoever among any other evolutionists at EVC Forum regarding the specific disciplines that you will definitely need (based on your apparent inability to address the science exercises in Message 71).
Curiously but respectfully,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 2:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 79 of 196 (600705)
01-16-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Omnivorous
11-22-2010 2:51 AM


Re: Omni’s Boil and Request for Black
Hello Omnivorous — and welcome!
Omnivorous in Message 75 writes:
Moose, all whorehouses look better than that.
Couldn't you just put those red and green sections (exercises in Message 71) out of their colorful misery on aesthetic principles alone?
I know I don't have to look at it again, but knowing it is there is like knowing there's a boil on my ass.
The exercises from Message 71 are repeated here for your benefit without the red and green background demarcation colors. Your subtitle in Message 75 expressed a preference for black. Hopefully, black background demarcation for the exercises will not distract you from responding to the invitation concerning science questions in the post.
Exercise #1 following Dr. Adequate’s suggested format:
Statement by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 4:
I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.
__________
Presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 10:
While theories are never proven with a 100% confidence level, some have been demonstrated to consistently be true and scientifically validated at such a high confidence level — they’re essentially codified into law. An example is Ohm’s Law (V=IR) continuously applied without a known failure in trillions of applications.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 16:
The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false
__________
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
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.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 58:
In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Bold emphasis mine)
__________
Now, Dr Adequate, Omnivorous, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic is the reliability of Ohm’s Law in the context of scientific theory. What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used?
Or will you determine that Ohm’s Law is evidenced to be unconditionally true in the real world of physics? I suggest you recruit and collaborate with at least one FIRM commitment by someone you consider a reliable authority in fundamental physics - and then post your response for us with an explanation and example (if appropriate) as you would in a professional publishable debate.
More science
Exercise #2
Presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 28:
what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit
No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing...
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.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 30:
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".
And from Message 40:
Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat.
To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.
__________
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 48:
(After presenting equations)if you don’t mind (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2), please answer (the) question below to help us gain insight into your level of knowledge and understanding:
  • What would be one example where Real Power (in kilo-Watts) is not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time?
__________
OK Dr. Adequate, here are the examples proposed by your peers where Real Power (I2R in kilo-Watts) is supposedly not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time:
  1. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 64:
    If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I2R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude.
  2. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 56:
    What do you think radio and microwave transmitters transmit? Heat?
__________
Now Dr. Adequate, Omnivorous, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat.
These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.
And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc.
Now that should have a familiar ring Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
But they’re so condescendingly confident!
What’s your position?
Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your EvC Forum peers claim above.
Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.
Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.
If you decline to address the science content in the exercises again but still feel a pain like knowing there’s a boil on your ass, then the red and green background colors were not the actual source of your inferred pain.
Short of engaging the science Omnivorous, a couple of links suggested here for relief from persistent pain:
Omni-Reptilian Pain Relief
Simian Pain Relief
Not quite Cover of the Rolling Stone quality - but brings some comic relief.
If you can’t grin at that, you may be taking yourself too seriously.
Be careful, you may get an earworm — especially on the simian version.
Lastly Omnivorous, in keeping with the narrow focus of this thread concerning a professional publishable debate, you neglected to respond to the fundamental question — as I request all do when posting.
Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief regarding neo-Darwinism that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format... expanded to all the scientific disciplines that a creationist may engage
I must ask - are you in or out?
And if out - please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.
We need evolutionists with scientific knowledge and bold confidence to help distinguish PRATTs from PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs (as defined at the bottom of Message 71 and pertaining to the examples) and help educate a potentially wide swath of evolution unbelievers! If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to chip in for Dr. Adequate in one of the various disciplines specified in Message 72 if the doctor were to demonstrate a firm commitment to debate a creationist?
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2010 2:51 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 80 of 196 (600706)
01-16-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2010 9:53 AM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Uncommitment
Hello again doctor.
Dr. Adequate in Message 76 writes:
Oh, we'd better add one further stipulation. You yourself must not write a word of the thing, not a preface, not an introduction, not chapter headings.
Publishers' readers must get enough angry screeds on evolution from people whose literary style verges on the batshit crazy, and throwing them away must by now be automatic.
Yet another canard (baseless allegation) wrapped in sarcastic humor.
Interested observers may note the only angry screeds in this thread have been provided by your peers. Your refusal to address the science content in Message 71 presented in your recommended format (from Message 66) does not build confidence.
According to most polls of American beliefs, evolution is losing in the marketplace of ideas as demonstrated by the magnitude of unbelievers. I respectfully suggest your criticism of literary style will not enhance your persuasion in a publishable debate with a creationist. It’s as though you’re laying down your big bat of facts and refusing to swing because you don’t like the pitcher’s uniform or style.
I’ve clearly stated - and you know - that I will not be involved in the debate. Your expressed preoccupation with literary style may be yet another reason you eventually cite to take your big bat and go home, withdrawing from a professional publishable debate with a creationist. If you were engaged in a publishable debate and found yourself struggling, doctor, as you apparently are with the exercises in Message 71, would you walk away complaining about style?
Messages 71 and 72 were posted to check your oil concerning commitment, scientific rigor, and accountability. Unfortunately, none of the responses in Messages 73-76 by you or anyone else registered any scientific acumen on the dip stick.
You and others have inferred faults in the thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) upon those who believe differently than you. Now you appear to be hiding behind the couch of literary style! ESPN’s Chris Berman would likely react to that play with an incredulous C’mon Man!
You are apparently either unable or unwilling to address some basic science, rendering you as out for a sincere commitment to a professional publishable debate with a creationist. I had high hopes that you would follow through. You still can if you will.
Adminnemooseus was impressively diligent editing out colors in a subtitle (Messages 73, 74, & 76) while color is apparently fine in the title of another topic (the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)Great Debate[/bgcolor] the bluegenes Challenge ). That level of admin attention and sensitivity is noteworthy but we’d much prefer that you, Moose, or someone actually address the questions and requests in Messages 71 and 72. They are repeated here in brevity for your convenience:
  1. Do you sense no ethical duty to try to speak the truth in a publishable debate to help educate a potentially broad audience of evolution unbelievers — those whom you’ve inferred flaws upon?
  2. IF this process progresses and you should ultimately find it more difficult than expected — let’s avoid an excuse for you to withdraw with an exit like:
    1. I’ve decided I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you’ — go find someone else!
    2. I don’t like that creationist’s literary style therefore I cannot engage the science or
    3. I can’t debate this creationist because (insert any number of Adequately sarcastic insults here)!
    Can you agree to avoid these types of excuses Dr. Adequate? No answer from you will indicate you cannot — uncommitted. Kinda’ like refusing a breathalyzer test.
  3. (From Exercise #1) What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used?
  4. (From Exercise #2) Now Dr. Adequate, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat.
    These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science. And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc. Now that should have a familiar ring Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
    But they’re so condescendingly confident!
    What’s your position doctor?
To claim these topics are not salient to a potential publishable debate with a creationist would be premature and ill-advised. I’m looking out for you doctor because I want you to have every opportunity for success. The worst thing you could do would be to firmly commit and then quit.
You mention morality and ethical duty to speak the truth so please answer the questions.
If you decline once again, please explain your detached reticence for us. Also, please explain if you can, why you’ve apparently gained no public commitments from your peers at EVC Forum to Chip In for you with the exercises in Message 71 and also with the disciplines listed here for a professional publishable debate:
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate with a creationist concerning the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): No One
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One
The need for these commitments should be obvious from the broad forum topics and discussions listed at EVC Forum.
Once again, I’ll give you a few more weeks to meet the requests doctor. We’ll wait patiently to see how you respond.
All the Best to you,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 9:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 4:51 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 82 by Panda, posted 01-16-2011 5:07 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:48 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2011 10:11 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 86 of 196 (609463)
03-20-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2011 4:51 PM


Dr. Adequate Continues to Ignore
Hi doc.
Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:
I shall as usual ignore
Well, that’s disappointing doctor. You’ve steadfastly refused to place these two words together: FIRM Commitment toward a publishable debate.
You’ve faded into predictable non-participation, the manner of which would not impress anyone in a publishable debate, much less Rachel Maddow for a possible Geek Week appearance on MSNBC.
Your repeated unwillingness and/or inability to respond to Message 71 and 72 reveals your lack of commitment in this thread. Your demonstrated commitment to a publishable debate, doctor, is unambiguously nil.
Continuously ignoring the science and refusing to make a FIRM commitment free of extraneous excuses to withdraw from a publishable debate this and more constitute the evidence and the reason you are counted as uncommitted for the purpose of this thread.
Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:
your silly irrelevant and dishonest blather
Well, the science softballs in Message 71 have been hanging over home plate for over three months now. You could have swung your Big Bat of Facts any time. The stadium is figuratively emptying and you’re still doing nothing.
Your peers dropped their bats and vanished from the exercises also. But I assure you those exercises are worth your time to review and take a position in preparation for a publishable debate doctor. If you can’t take a position on the physics presented to you, and you can’t conceive any potential relevance, then your decision to ignore and heckle is the safest course of action available to you.
Dr. Adequate in Message 18 writes:
Bring me the head of Duane Gish! Or his ass, I gather that they both argue equally well.
The two exercises in Message 71 may very well be topics a creationist brings you regarding Earth science. To dismiss them as silly irrelevant and dishonest blather belies your condescending confidence. Some descriptive acronyms were defined at the bottom of Message 71, including PR-NUT. That term may be salient here regarding your condescendingly confident peers quoted in those exercises and regarding your present determination to ignore.
I’ve been trying to help you doc but you seem to have slipped into a snippy reclusive shell.
It was you boasting of a Big Bat of Facts and now your big bat is silent!
It was you judging outspoken folks who believe differently than you to be somewhat immoral, and now you will not make a FIRM commitment (free of excuses to withdraw) for a publishable debate.
You talk about cojones in Message 68 and now you appear to hide behind the couch of literary style in response to Messages 71 and 72.
Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:
and ask you, once again, what steps you have taken to procure a creationist interested in participating in this project.
When you begin ignoring, you don’t mess around!
I’ll answer for the third time doctor
You can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate as noted in Message 72 and Message 78 (if you ever do meet the requirements yourself). The steps I’ve taken were also given in Message 78, but you’re apparently not committed enough to read posts addressed to you. We remain in Step 1.
Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:
I'm ready when you are.
I’m sorry doctor. A FIRM commitment requires someone who can do more than ignore.
Those who are unable to negotiate fundamental physics (Exercises 1 & 2 in Message 71) are most definitely not ready for Publishable Prime-Time.
It’s really easy to make a FIRM commitment, doctor, if you have confidence in your beliefs and abilities.
I’ll repeat the requirements for you:
  1. To confirm in writing that you are firmly committed and that you will not withdraw for weak excuses you’ve hinted at in this thread such as
    1. I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you. (which was never requested)
    2. I can’t debate because I don’t like his/her literary style.
    3. Ignoring posts to you and withdrawing while mumbling batshit crazy or silly irrelevant dishonest blather. If you were to actually encounter such, you must be willing and able to confront it and expose it — to fulfill your self-expressed ethical duty to try to speak the truth and help educate the millions of neo-Darwinian unbelievers. You would further lose credibility if you were to half-heartedly commit and then ultimately withdrew while expressing nothing more convincing than insults.
  2. Demonstrate your scientific Big Bat of Facts ability (along with someone who knows physics) by addressing Exercises 1 and 2 in Message 71. Those Exercises were even presented in your requested format in Message 66.
  3. Recruit others for publicly stated FIRM commitments to assist you in the disciplines that I’m repeating below. In light of your recent inability to respond to the exercises, you must be able to secure firmly committed resources in disciplines that you may not be well versed.
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in with Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology and Earth Science - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
You’ve also stated the requirements (simply to present the evidence) may be impossible for you as an individual in Message 44.
Dr. Adequate in Message 44 writes:
I just wanted to make the point that it is impossible for a single human being in a single lifetime to present "the evidence for evolution". All I can do is sketch out the major classes of such evidence, give a few examples, and explain why it is evidence. Hence, any readers who wanted to check that I wasn't simply cherry-picking the evidence would have to get up off their tuchi and do a little research of their own.
A debate obviously requires a significant effort beyond the mere presentation of your position.
Commitment to a written debate requires that you also defend your interpretation of your evidence and explain why alternative evidence and interpretations are not valid.
You’ve requested a creationist to debate and you know the scientific topics will be as broad as are listed at EVC Forum.
Yet you’re apparently unable or unwilling to secure public commitments from others here to assist.
So you say you’re ready But you say above the task, beyond sketching major classes with a few examples, is more than you can do alone doctor.
----------------------------------------------------------
Why would you make a commitment that you say is impossible or that you cannot or will not meet?
----------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally doctor, there are creationists who do not view the requirements for the proposed publishable debate as impossible.
----------------------------------------------------------
The opportunity is potentially huge doctor! However, your behavior in this thread to date indicates you’ll vanish from the scene of a publishable debate as fast as (or faster than) your condescendingly confident peers (the Aspirants to Sophisticated Science in Exercises 1 and 2) fled this thread last summer.
----------------------------------------------------------
Concerning qualifications, the OP of this thread states at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers).
Dr. Adequate in Message 18 of this thread writes:
I do have a PhD, but I'm willing to bet that the general public has never heard of me.
While I empathize with your unemployment in Vegas, that bet is left on the table.
I regretted to see your status as an unemployed mathematician in Message 1 in your thread (I need a job. Please help me.).
Dr. Adequate in Message 1 of his request for employment help writes:
I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, and I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. Can anyone please help me to find work?
You neglected to answer Straggler’s question in Message 2 of your unemployment thread: What did you do for work until your current bout of unemployment? If you don’t mind my asking doctor, have you ever been employed? If so, doing what?
In Message 11 of your request for help in employment:
Dr. Adequate in Message 11 of his request for employment help writes:
I've worked out some things which I think might be useful, but the field in which I am known is in my judgment about as useful as a soap herring.
Agreed, especially for the purpose of this thread, which is a rigorous and credible examination of the evidence in a written debate format for publication and education. Although math is technical, it is a deductive discipline. The natural and applied sciences leverage inductive logic, rooted in the scientific method. A Ph.D. employed in the natural or applied sciences would be much preferred by publishers seeking bona-fide credentials over a (traditionally liberal arts) mathematics Ph.D. in a field which, by your own assessment, has little practical application. Neither your educational credentials nor your current status offers bona-fide credibility for potential publishers or for a Rachel Maddow’s Geek Week feature appearance concerning neo-Darwinism.
Beyond credentials, your demonstrated commitment to as usual ignore remains problematic. It’s important that the strongest possible presentation and defense be made for naturalistic neo-Darwinism and this endeavor requires both firm commitment and marketable qualifications to lead the effort.
For potential success in getting a debate published and in the mainstream, we need a marketable lead Ph.D. in the sciences and other experts in various scientific disciplines as noted and illustrated in this thread. If a firmly committed lead Ph.D. in the sciences emerges to lead, various EVC Forum experts firmly commit to chip in and the proposed debate occurs, you could still be a contributor if you desire to make the effort. Any potential share of recompense should be agreed upon within your team. I’d still like to see you make a firm commitment, build a team, and help get this show on the road doctor!
Dr. Adequate writes:
I am interested because I feel that my rigorously hypothetico-deductive style of exposition does deserve a book.
Perhaps you should invest your free time writing a book for yourself as you mused in Message 7 of this thread. If you’re searching for work and your rigorously hypothetico-deductive style of exposition is an asset, a career in political commentary may be an option. However, a successful outcome for the proposed debate could hopefully get you on Geek Week, and that could possibly spring you a gig at MSNBC as a political or science analyst. Of course there are no guarantees for success but you never know until you try. Your first order of business would be to effectively confront and nullify the arguments against neo-Darwinism in a professional format.
I’ll take as much time as necessary but we’re in Step 1 until you demonstrate you’re able to do more than ignore and we can secure a firm commitment from a qualified and marketable lead Ph.D. Based on your expressed limitations to only present the evidence, your qualifications, your status, and your demonstrated lack of commitment in this thread to date, you are not currently considered viable as the Lead debater for a contractual agreement to debate evidence for/against neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable format.
If you’re sincerely interested in assisting a marketable Ph.D. neo-Darwinian evolutionist with bona-fide credibility to help educate unbelievers concerning the scientific evidence — then you know what to do doctor! Otherwise, you may as well continue to ignore from a safe distance because you’ll have no positive purpose to remain active in this thread topic.
Please take some time and consider your response. To be successful in this effort and get published, quality is essential and there’s no need to rush. I’m requesting that you build as strong a team as possible to represent neo-Darwinism.
Best wishes for finding employment doing something you enjoy,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 4:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2011 7:31 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 87 of 196 (609465)
03-20-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Panda
01-16-2011 5:07 PM


Perturbed Panda
Hello Panda and welcome,
Panda in Message 82 writes:
Your emotional, paranoid and biased ramblings completely undermine your standing as a neutral debate moderator/representative.
Holy consternation Batman! Hold your fire furry fella! It’s generally recommended to read the OP (Message 1) before honoring us with your judgments. There you would learn (among other things) that I will not be involved in the proposed debate, moderation, etc.
You may also review Message 10 and Message 22 (humor aside) for further clarification.
The purpose for this thread is to promote science education in a potentially broad and significant publishable format. I’m interested in seeing the scientific rigor and performance of each side of the debate but I will not be involved in the debate.
The only emotion or pain expressed in this thread is from your peers Panda. Interested observers may judge the source of any paranoid and biased ramblings.
My bias is toward presentation and defense of good science separate from philosophy or religion - for educational purposes.
Otherwise, I most certainly would not have initiated this topic
It’s a sincere proposal and there is really no need to take this thread personal Panda.
We need knowledgeable and confident EVC Forum experts who will make a FIRM commitment to a professional publishable debate. We need folks who will not figuratively proclaim their ability to hit home runs and then lay down their bat and complain with potential excuses to withdraw from a publishable debate like I don’t like my opponent’s literary style or I shall as usual ignore
Panda in Message 82 writes:
I would not expect you to ever be honest in any debate.
It would be helpful if you offered more specific critique or advice rather than general vague judgments. I’ll do my best to correct any shortcomings.
Otherwise, advice offered by Straggler in Message 139 (of the Philosohy 101 thread) to a particular participant in this thread may be useful Panda:
Straggler writes:
Debaters talk about their positions. Game-players talk about the debate.
It would be most helpful, Panda, if you would divulge your position on the topic of the thread: FIRM commitments to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable debate.
Panda in Message 82 writes:
Even your posts in this very thread are full of crap like:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 80 writes:
Adminnemooseus was impressively diligent editing out colors in a subtitle (Messages 73, 74, & 76) while color is apparently fine in the title of another topic ( Great Debate the bluegenes Challenge ). That level of admin attention and sensitivity is noteworthy but we’d much prefer that you, Moose, or someone actually address the questions and requests in Messages 71 and 72.
Well, it was worth a chuckle to me. Adminnemooseus’ diligence in moderation was impressive and noteworthy.
Attacking literary style or font color is a common response when one is unable or unwilling to address the content.
Ignoring is another common diversion. Impugning character (like honesty) is often another.
Still waiting for you, Dr. Adequate, Moose, or anyone to actually address the exercises and requests in Messages 71 and 72 and ultimately to make firm commitments for a publishable debate.
Panda in Message 82 writes:
I think you should go mass debate yourself.
Self-Gratification? Clever, but not satisfying.
Like some others in this thread, you appear to be perturbed Panda.
Do you, like Omnivorous in Message 75, feel a pain as though you have a boil on your butt?
Since this topic is in the Coffee House forum, please indulge a little humor from SNL Panda:
Coffee Talk with Linda Richman (Click to view the video)
Talk amongst yourselves or cuss and discuss.
The topic:
  1. As stated in Message 1, EVC Forum is a great resource. But is EVC Forum like Butta?
  2. Why, after nine months, are there no firm commitments (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to debate the scientific evidence for/against neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable format?
In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread concerning a professional publishable debate Panda, you neglected to respond to the fundamental question — as I request all do when posting.
Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief regarding neo-Darwinism that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format... expanded to all the scientific disciplines that may be engaged
I must ask - are you in or out?
If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to chip in with Dr. Adequate in a publishable debate in at least one of the various disciplines repeated in Message 86 to debate the evidence for/against neo-Darwinism? This assumes, of course, the doc is able to articulate and demonstrate a bold, confident, firm commitment and we’re able to secure a qualified, committed, marketable lead Ph.D. as explained in Message 86.
You mentioned honesty Panda so if you are unable to FIRMLY commit to a publishable debate for neo-Darwinism, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Panda, posted 01-16-2011 5:07 PM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2011 1:22 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 88 of 196 (609466)
03-20-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taq
01-18-2011 5:48 PM


Please Bring Evidence That neo-Darwinism Works to a Publishable Debate
Hello Taq. Welcome back and thanks.
It’s been a while since you joined in Message 5 last June. Your posts are thoughtful and appreciated. Refreshing, actually.
Taq in Message 84 writes:
Evolution is not a religion looking for converts.
Perhaps, that’s true in general. Unless one defines converts as believers and one judges unbelievers as flawed or possibly wicked.
Reference the Dawkins quote in Message 1
Richard Dawkins writes:
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).
Obviously, Dawkins passes certain judgment upon those unconverted souls who do not believe in random (unguided) mutations as the exclusive source of DNA for progeny to progress from a single cell to humans.
Disagreements are common in the history of science, but to define unbelievers as potentially insane or wicked is strange language for practitioners of science Taq.
Taq in Message 84 writes:
It (evolution) is a scientific theory that is applied by biologists in their research, and the theory has been extremely successful in this venue.
Research with extreme success is precisely what’s needed for a publishable debate with a neo-Darwinist unbeliever Taq. Would you please commit to presenting and defending this research (in a publishable debate) as clear evidence for random mutations and natural selection developing 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 critters within a population over time?
Taq in Message 84 writes:
The same can not be said for creationism or ID. No scientist is using creationism or ID as the basis for their scientific research while millions of biologists are using the theory of evolution.
Not sure whether you are expressing your opinion or you have a reliable poll of all research scientists for that conclusion.
Historically, it’s not completely accurate.
The foundation of the modern science of genetics (according to Wikipedia) was researched and defined by an Augustine monk named Gregor Mendel.
Wikipedia says this in the link provided for Mendel:
  • Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at university and his colleagues at the monastery to study variation in plants, and he conducted his study in the monastery's two hectare experimental garden, which was originally planted by the abbot Napp in 1830. Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 29,000 pea plants (i.e., Pisum sativum). This study showed that one in four pea plants had purebred recessive alleles, two out of four were hybrid and one out of four were purebred dominant. His (Mendel’s) experiments led him to make two generalizations, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, which later became known as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.
  • After he was elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended as Mendel became consumed with his increased administrative responsibilities, especially a dispute with the civil government over their attempt to impose special taxes on religious institutions. At first Mendel's work was rejected, and it was not widely accepted until after he died. At that time most biologists held the idea of blending inheritance, and Charles Darwin's efforts to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis were unsuccessful. (bold emphasis mine)
Regarding your statement quoted above, it may be worth noting that today we refer to Mendel’s (creationist) Laws of Inheritance and Darwin’s (philosophical naturalist) theory for origin of species.
In any case, it’s all that scientific research you mention by millions of biologists as potential evidence for neo-Darwinism that I’m searching for someone to leverage toward possibly educating many more millions in a successful publishable debate.
Taq in Message 84 writes:
This is why evolution is taught in science classes. It works.
Mendel’s Laws are taught in science classes and were discovered independent from any of Darwin’s work. Ecological and other factors can influence gene pools over time. But Mendel’s Laws and selection processes do not provide genetic code for newly functioning organs.
Neo-Darwinism necessarily begins with a self-sustaining, self-replicating cell deploying at least some (if not most) of the functions described in the Harvard cell animation below. According to neo-Darwinism, random (unguided) mutations are the exclusive source for all genetic variation to generate the complete functional controls for the cell, and ultimately all biological functions in all life forms. This inferred random iteration (as the sole source for selection to eventually generate human DNA) is likely the bone of contention for most neo-Darwinian unbelievers.
Harvard Cell Animation (Click to view)
My favorite is the Motor Proteins at 3:39 of the video.
Clearly, what is needed to educate unbelievers concerning the validity of neo-Darwinism is unambiguous convincing evidence to demonstrate how random mutations and natural selection work to develop new organs, features, and capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation, etc.). Even direct observation of partially developed newly forming organs may be helpful evidence for some.
Your comment in Message 17 of the thread (Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?) alludes to much evidence.
Taq in the thread mentioned above writes:
So would finding a few specific and special cases of guided mutation throw out all of the mountains of data demonstrating random mutation? I would say no. The special cases are footnotes. Even comparisons of genomes demonstrates different rates of synonymous to non-synonymous changes, hallmarks of random mutation and selection. Do we throw out a theory that describes 99.99999% of the evolutionary history of genomes because that 0.00001% is guided by environment? Again, I would say no.
Taq, would you be willing to firmly commit to bring the evidence from research by the millions of biologists you mention and the 99.99999% of the evolutionary history of genomes you referenced to a publishable debate that could be leveraged to potentially educate millions of people?
Otherwise, historically in science, the observation that it works can be a deceptive criterion for conferring validity of an inferred mechanism in a theory.
Ptolemaic astronomy worked also and made excellent predictions for centuries. But the inferred mechanisms responsible for Ptolemaic astronomy were flawed and ultimately had to be abandoned. The concept of phlogiston was universally accepted among scientists and seemed to work for a long time also before its failures were finally recognized and the mechanism abandoned.
Thomas S. Kuhn in his book (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition, Page 70) writes:
Scheele actually first produced oxygen by an elaborate chain of experiments designed to dephlogisticate heat. Yet the net result of their experiments was a variety of gas samples and gas properties so elaborate that the phlogiston theory proved increasingly little able to cope with laboratory experience. Though none of these chemists suggested that the theory should be replaced, they were unable to apply it consistently. (bold emphasis mine)
Both Ptolemaic and phlogiston theories, like neo-Darwinian theory, could be adjusted and adapted to explain observations for a long time. Thorough examination of the evidence is always good science. It’s what motivates this thread.
Please note there is no need for anyone here to respond with perceived evidence for how neo-Darwinism generates new organs, etc. That is not the topic for this thread. But it could be a topic for another thread that committed EVC Forum folks could use in preparation for a publishable debate so that many millions may benefit from the knowledge of the evidence.
For a fascinating historical and insightful understanding of how science works, I recommend Kuhn’s book referenced above. In Message 32, Coyote mentioned it was required for a theory class in his grad school.
Taq in Message 84 writes:
You must understand the theory (evolution, including neo-Darwinism) if you hope to do research in the biological sciences.
In at least some professional settings, one must not openly question the theory. An acquaintance was told years ago (long before the movie Expelled) that he could not express his personal views of unbelief concerning neo-Darwinism while he worked as a doctoral candidate in microbiology at the university. He understood neo-Darwinian theory very well and his research was successful independent of it. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology today, but remains a neo-Darwinism unbeliever.
Taq in Message 84 writes:
While a lot of Americans may reject the theory because of their religious beliefs this hasn't changed the theory's acceptance amongst professions where the theory actually matters.
Not all of the millions who reject neo-Darwinism do so for religious reasons Taq. For many, exposure to clear unambiguous evidence would be helpful.
If nothing else Taq, could you at least make a public commitment to chip in with Dr. Adequate in a publishable debate in at least one of the various disciplines as reiterated in Message 86 to debate the evidence for/against neo-Darwinism? Note this assumes the doc is able to specify and demonstrate a bold, confident, firm commitment and we’re able to secure a firm commitment from a qualified and marketable lead Ph.D.
And if you are unable to make a FIRM commitment to a professional publishable debate in any of the disciplines listed in prior posts, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:48 PM Taq has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 89 of 196 (609467)
03-20-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by bluegenes
01-18-2011 10:11 PM


Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Hello Bluegenes and welcome. Thank you for your considered response.
Bluegenes in Message 85 writes:
If most Americans believed that the earth was flat, that wouldn't change its shape.
Correct. But virtually all Americans do not believe the Earth is flat - because they’ve been exposed to the abundant evidence.
That is precisely the opportunity presented in this thread: to both present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism in a publishable venue that could help educate the masses.
Bluegenes in Message 85 writes:
Actually, evolution is gaining. Most Americans now believe that humans evolved from other animals, and those who take a purely naturalistic view are the only sector with a significant increase.
From the Gallup Poll link you provided:
Gallup Poll writes:
PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement. (Gold emphasis mine)
Neo-Darwinism is the concept of natural selection acting on random mutations (without guidance) to develop humans, elephants, and all the other extant critters from microbes. According to your Gallup reference, only 16% believe human DNA developed without God's involvement. This poll indicates a larger opportunity for neo-Darwinian evolutionists to educate Americans than I had imagined. If there are 308 million people in the US, the 84% unbelievers or skeptics in neo-Darwinism (unguided Random Mutations and Natural Selection) that you could help educate would amount to over 258 million people!
The point is the vast majority of Americans are evidently either not aware of the evidence or not persuaded by the evidence for neo-Darwinism (purely naturalistic view) as they are the evidence for a spherical Earth.
Would you please help educate these folks by committing to present and defend the evidence in a broad publishable format Bluegenes?
Polls vary in methodology, sample size, margin of error, confidence level, etc., and are generally useful in politics and marketing. Polls are not historically reliable in determining truth in science.
Thus I never even bothered to look at any polls for this thread until you provided the link for the Gallop poll. It was evident to me without referring to polls that most Americans don’t buy into philosophically naturalistic neo-Darwinism to explain the existence of all life forms.
Now don’t take this too seriously (it’s intended as humor) but almost the same percentage (about 14%) of Americans reported in a poll a few years ago, believe they or someone they know have had a Close Encounter with Extra-Terrestrial Aliens! If that link is broken or down, the Roper Poll summary, along with methodology, can be found here. See Alien Encounters under Highlights. Apparently, the evidence for Close Encounters with Aliens is either not convincing or not widely known by most Americans.
In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread concerning a professional publishable debate, you neglected to respond to the fundamental question — as I request all do when posting.
Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief regarding neo-Darwinism that you’re willing to present and defend in a professional, publishable format... expanded to all the scientific disciplines that an unbeliever may engage
I must ask - are you in or out?
If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to chip in with Dr. Adequate in a publishable debate in at least one of the various disciplines as reiterated in Message 86 to debate the evidence for/against neo-Darwinism? Note this assumes the doc is able to specify and demonstrate a bold, confident, firm commitment and we’re able to secure a committed, qualified, and marketable lead Ph.D. for new-Darwinism.
And if you are unable to make a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate in any of the disciplines listed in prior posts, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2011 10:11 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by bluegenes, posted 03-20-2011 6:09 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 123 of 196 (639471)
11-01-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by bluegenes
03-20-2011 6:09 PM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Hello Bluegenes. Your response is thoughtful and appreciated.
My delay in response is intentional. I noted in Message 1 this process may take months or more.
Time serves to:
  1. allow all the folks at EvC Forum plenty of time to carefully consider the opportunity in this thread and make firm commitments to a professional publishable debate;
  2. take action on suggestions by folks like Coyote to solicit Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education for a publishable debate;
  3. allow emotions to settle for some folks posting on this thread;
  4. examine the performance throughout EvC Forum by folks concerning:
    1. qualifications to lead a professional debate;
    2. style, character, and ability to engage a debate constructively and professionally.
Quality is the key for a professional publishable debate. Therefore, there is no rush from my perspective as I have stated in this thread.
The objective remains securing firm commitments for the most qualified team possible to present and defend the evidence for the viability of random mutations and natural selection as a mechanism to develop human progeny from a single-celled bacteria type creature.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Where did you get the post title (Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works) from? I don't remember the phrase "neo-Darwinism" in the poll.
Neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection) is a necessary component of evolution theory. Random mutations are the only commonly inferred mechanism to develop novel genetic code for new biological functions; e.g. control systems for intercontinental navigation.
To quote one of your peers at EvC Forum in Message 181 of another thread:
PaulK in Message 181 of the Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating thread writes:
But let us get to the point. Would you not agree that regardless of the definition used, evolutionists are overwhelmingly united behind neo-Darwinism?
And here’s a reference from your peer Roxrkool from a post in another thread, (#4) listing The Fossil Museum website:
The Fossil Museum website writes:
The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
  • All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
  • The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
You continue:
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
The 16% believe in naturalistic evolution, but no specific theory was mentioned.
There is no other specific theory of evolution (void of random mutations and natural selection) unless you’re suggesting some believe in the theory of evolution called Lysenkoism — click link (heritability of acquired characteristics).
The proponents of Lysenko evolution in the Soviet Union also inferred flaws upon those who didn’t ‘believe’ (as Dawkins is quoted in Message 1). Unbelievers of that science suffered up to and including death by execution.
Wikipedia on Lysenkoism writes:
From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.[8]
Genetics was stigmatized as a 'bourgeois science' or 'fascist science' (because fascists particularly the Nazis in Germany embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race, which culminated in Action T4 (click link).
History reveals how misguided philosophical judgments have misrepresented and leveraged ‘science’ to justify intolerant judgment and elimination of others.
Those Lysenko evolution scientists were evidently not fond of direct debate concerning evidence for some decades. It was apparently preferrable to attack the dissenters of Lysenkoism rather than boldly engage skeptics of the science and evidence skeptics who were judged skeptics who were dead right.
Any naturalistic (unguided) theoretical mechanism must explain newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time.
If you’d rather not represent or defend neo-Darwinism in a publishable debate Bluegenes, then please explain why you decline, if you don’t mind.
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes:
Correct. But virtually all Americans do not believe the Earth is flat - because they’ve been exposed to the abundant evidence. That is precisely the opportunity presented in this thread: to both present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism in a publishable venue that could help educate the masses.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Is it?
Yes Bluegenes, it is
Science gains credibility through confrontation and nullification of false hypotheses.
According to your Gallup Poll reference, naturalistic (unguided) evolution lacks credibility with 84% of the people in the United States.
Evoluton is a hot topic. Consequently, a quality result from a thorough written publishable debate of the evidence will likely be widely publicized.
It could be an educational reference for mainy years a classic. The large majority of Americans who are neo-Darwin skeptics could be influenced by exposure to a widely publicized published view of the evidence — one way or the other.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
How would it help when masses of published work by biologists is already available to them?
It would help by leveraging your knowledge and understanding in presenting and defending the evidence and by nullifying alternative evidence or alternative interpretations of evidence. Regardless of belief or creed, most folks are rational to some degree and there would be much more interest in a professional publishable debate of neo-Darwinism than masses of published work by biologists.
A quality result would be a much more interesting publication and could possibly be highly acclaimed with surprising influence. New York Times Best Seller? Maybe.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
And have you not yet understood that comments about people being ignorant, stupid or delusional relate to the denial of the fact of evolution, not to any particular explanatory theory? They apply largely to the 40% in the Gallup poll who believe that humans were created as we are.
‘Not to any particular explanatory theory’ Bluegenes?
I may be misreading this but you seem to be backing away from neo-Darwinism.
Is that correct?
Neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection) is the ONLY explanatory theoretical mechanism for newly developed fully functioning organs. Purely materialistic evolution believers have no other proposed mechanism to believe in, Bluegenes. Changes in frequencies of alleles are inadequate to generate human DNA without random mutations.
Do you believe in random mutations and natural selection as the explanatory mechanisms for inferred universal common descent from a single bacteria type ancestor — or not?
If you believe neo-Darwinism is the explanatory mechanism, can you present and defend the evidence in a written publishable format — or not Bluegenes?
And I have understood the comments (judgments) about people with differing beliefs. It doesn’t help to muddle this proposal as detailed in Message 1 and subsequent posts.
Concerning the term: ‘fact of evolution’ that is favored by folks here we’d like some clarification if you don’t mind.
Does the term ‘fact of evolution’ mean that you ‘know’ it is a fact that a bacteria type creature’s progeny randomly mutated enough successful iterations over time to become human beings? If you know that to be a fact, then you can surely meet the requirements of this invitation to a publishable debate. As Lee Corso might say on ESPN’s College Game Day program — Bring It Bluegenes!
It would be helpful if you reviewed this thread before responding to avoid further redundancy.
Concerning evolution and your inference to multiple explanatory theories - from Message 22 in response to RAZD:
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 predominant traits in a population over time
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.
And you may have missed this in Message 88 to Taq concerning the details of evolution (with some edits):
Mendel’s Laws are taught in science classes and were discovered independent from any of Darwin’s work. Ecological and other factors can influence gene pools over time. But Mendel’s Laws and selection processes do not provide genetic code for newly functioning organs.
Neo-Darwinism necessarily begins with a self-sustaining, self-replicating cell deploying at least some (if not most) of the functions described in the Harvard cell animation below. According to neo-Darwinism, random (unguided) mutations are the exclusive source for all genetic variation to generate the complete functional controls for the cell, and ultimately all biological functions in all life forms. This inferred random iteration (as the sole source for selection to eventually generate human DNA) is likely the issue of contention for most neo-Darwinian unbelievers.
Harvard Cell Animation (Click link to view web page) or watch here (added by edit):

My favorite is the Motor Proteins at 3:39 of the video.
Clearly, what is needed to educate unbelievers concerning the validity of neo-Darwinism is unambiguous convincing evidence to demonstrate how random mutations and natural selection work to develop new organs, features, and capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation, etc.). Even direct observation of partially developed newly forming organs may be helpful evidence for some.
If you and others are unwilling or unable to debate the inferred mechanism for evolution (random mutation and natural selection) to generate all biological functions, then perhaps you could at least present and defend the evidence for the inferred results in a publishable format
You question what I have not yet understood Bluegenes.
What I don’t understand is professed judgment by many here at EvC Forum upon those with differing beliefs — combined with an apparent reluctance to engage contrary beliefs (including evidence for those differing beliefs) in a professional publishable debate. It’s much better to engage vigorous publishable debate than debase ourselves imputing flaws upon those who believe differently. Much better than an EvC Forum members’s suggestion of eugenics (Message 116 of another thread) as a means of eliminating people with differing beliefs (hopefully in jest).
We need science Ph.D. credentials marketable to publishers to lead the evolution team. Dr. Adequate has a Ph.D. in math (not science) has demonstrated inability to carry a debate forward in a professional manner (banned from debating Human Origins and Evolution at EvC Forum) and is not a candidate as the lead for a professional publishable debate (I will detail further in a later post). We need as many committed Ph.D.s in natural or applied science as possible to debate for neo-Darwinism for credibility to publishers. Would you please join the effort and help build the best team possible to present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism?
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes:
According to your Gallup reference, only 16% believe human DNA developed without God's involvement. This poll indicates a larger opportunity for neo-Darwinian evolutionists to educate Americans than I had imagined. If there are 308 million people in the US, the 84% unbelievers or skeptics in neo-Darwinism (unguided Random Mutations and Natural Selection) that you could help educate would amount to over 258 million people!
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
How?
What information can I make available to religious Americans that is not already easily available to them if they were interested in it?
They are interested in it Bluegenes — that same interest explains why you’re here on this forum along with many who have differing conclusions from yours. A professional publishable written debate is apparently not available today. You could help make it happen we have an opportunity to help a huge section of the population with knowledge and understanding.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
And what makes you think that evidence ever had anything to do with their religious beliefs?
And what makes you think the 84% neo-Darwin skeptics in the Gallup Poll you provided are all constrained by religious beliefs Bluegenes? Only 40% reportedly believe humans were created as we are. In my experience, the 84% neo-Darwin ‘unbelievers’ are both non-religious and religious.
The purpose of this thread is to advance knowledge and understanding; to invite you and others to engage debate in a publishable format so that you could demonstrate whether overwhelming skepticism of purely naturalistic neo-Darwin theory (reported by your Gallup reference) has anything to do with direct empirical evidence.
If there is actually no direct empirical evidence for an alternative conclusion as many on this forum often claim a written debate involving real science should be a walk in the park for you and your evolution team.
If you could, Bluegenes, please firmly engage a publishable commitment to validate your claim that neo-Darwin skeptics (both non-religious and religious) have no evidence for believing differently than you.
The potential risk (to both sides) is a highly popular and broadly published debate with an embarrassing performance similar to your condescendingly confident peers in this thread concerning basic science. They’re referred to as the Aspirants to Sophisticated Science #1 and #2, as noted in the green and red sectioned exercises in Message 71.
And toward the bottom of that message:
In this particular case, I’ve devised a new acronym to describe the behavior and language of Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 while flaming out in Message 56 — I shall refer to this type response by either an evolutionist or a creationist as a GNAW: (Gets Nasty At Will) Surely you’d agree gnawing doesn’t lend credibility in a professional setting.
If we bantered these assertions (described in the Message 71 exercises) concerning Ohm’s Law and the nature of Real Power back and forth many times, they could eventually qualify as PRATTs (evolutionist term for Points Refuted A Thousand Times)
In any case, I’ve penned a new acronym to describe these types of banter when a highly confident Adherent to Sophisticated Science apparently doesn’t understand everything he knows - PR-NUT: (Points Refuted — Not Understood Totally)! And for the Flame-Out (Message 56) types, we could add the acronym JOB: (Just Obnoxious Behavior).
Not a single scientist at EvC Forum is willing and/or able to determine whether these exercises in basic physical science (in Message 71) constitute PRATTs, PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs. Perhaps it’s not pleasant to observe or acknowledge condescendingly confident evolutionist peers failing basic science.
It’s OK to be wrong (I know from plenty of personal experience). But arrogant persistence in error can have significant consequences.
The potential risk may be high, but I believe the potential benefit is much greater. A quality performance could possibly garner mass media attention in the United Kingdom and you, Bluegenes, could be helping at least some of your fellow Brits, friends and neighbors who may be neo-Darwin ‘unbelievers’ but could be persuaded! You (and your evolution team) could possibly be widely acclaimed. Who knows, Rachel Maddow may feature you on her Geek Week special on MSNBC!
The potential influence of your knowledge and intelligence could be significant, but only if you’re willing to firmly commit. Here’s what really matters: your confidence and willingness to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism in a publishable debate. 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.
Regardless of how you judge religious folks, you could at least extend a platform of knowledge and understanding to the non-religious neo-Darwin skeptics by debating evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.
I trust you’ll do your own risk/benefit analysis Bluegenes.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
The 84% are believing what 90% believed a few decades ago, what more than 90% would have probably believed 100 years ago, and what nearly 100% would have believed 200 years ago.
The philosophy that nothing exists beyond the physical realm has been around for millennia. Gallup polling was not available centuries ago, but your opinion may have some merit and is acknowledged.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
The origin of the belief is cultural, it is passed down generations, and isn't built on evidence.
For clarity Bluegenes, please indicate which best describes your position that folks who have beliefs different from your beliefs (specifically neo-Darwin unbelievers) are not based on evidence:
  1. This is merely Bluegene’s personal opinion and Bluegenes will not firmly commit to substantiate his personal opinion in a publishable debate; or
  2. This is factual and Bluegenes is prepared to firmly commit to demonstrate the factual basis by engaging in written publishable debate — thereby exposing lack of evidence for beliefs that differ from his own; or
  3. This is factual but Bluegenes will not commit to substantiate it in a publishable debate concerning the evidence because (describe your reason for declining here).
And here is an example of folks here at EvC Forum whose skepticism of neo-Darwinism is apparently not ‘cultural’ or ‘passed down generations.’
See Message 5 of another thread:
EvC Forum evolutionist writes:
I don't like neo-Darwinism, and I have made no secret of that. See the earlier thread Criticizing neo-Darwinism. Berlinski is correct that many mathematicians and physicists have doubts about it. I think a report from that Wistar symposium is online, or was at one time. I seem to recall reading it.
I personally do not have any doubts about evolution itself. However, I see the neo-Darwinian account as too easily leading to the kind of straw-man version of evolution that creationists keep refuting. So I would prefer an account that is not so easily misunderstood.
Many mathematicians and physicists have doubts about evolution while creationists keep refuting some supposed straw-man version. And this evolutionist does not have any doubts about evolution but he presents no proposed mechanism to explain evolution for which he ‘likes’ or expresses any confidence strange how that works.
Whatever the reasons for all the neo-Darwin skeptics Bluegenes, just firmly commit to a publishable debate and help build the strongest committed and credentialed evolution team possible to represent your views. When the strongest team possible is committed, we’ll then advance to step two and eventual contractual arrangements.
Your debate opponent(s) will present evidence against neo-Darwinism and evidence for an alternative interpretation of the data. Your task will then be to scientifically defend your belief — and scientifically nullify evidence against neo-Darwinism (evidence that you state does not exist).
A firm commitment would exclude extraneous or weak excuses to withdraw from the debate by either side.
If you judge flaws (ignorance, stupidity, delusion) upon others while insisting there is no evidence for their lack of belief in neo-Darwinism and you refuse to engage debate of the evidence in a written publishable format — then interested observers may consider your conviction to be less than persuasive (or worse).
If you would make a firm commitment (including at least one Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences, competent and marketable for publisher credentials) Bluegenes, you could ‘Bring It’ to a written publishable debate. You could possibly demonstrate lack of evidence for skepticism of neo-Darwinism (the belief that humans descended from an asexual worm type creature via random mutation and natural selection).
This is clearly a tremendous opportunity for you and others. Let’s get it out there for the sake of truth in science Bluegenes!
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes:
The point is the vast majority of Americans are evidently either not aware of the evidence or not persuaded by the evidence for neo-Darwinism (purely naturalistic view) as they are the evidence for a spherical Earth.
Would you please help educate these folks by committing to present and defend the evidence in a broad publishable format Bluegenes?
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Again, if you think that a lack of published information on biology is the reason 84% of Americans believe a god was involved in their creation, you are wrong.
The topic is neo-Darwinism, not ‘published information on biology’. The biology of meiosis, mitosis, immunology, Mendel’s Laws, etcetera, are adequately evidenced with few or no skeptics. If you can leverage those subjects or any others in biology to demonstrate evidence for a working mechanism to develop humans from an asexual worm type creature, then please make a firm commitment to a publishable debate.
Incidentally, I don’t believe a ‘lack of published information on biology’ is the reason 84% of Americans are neo-Darwin skeptics.
Only one other broadly publicized theory has nearly as many skeptics as neo-Darwinism — and that’s Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW).
As I discussed in Message 156 of the (Inconvenient Truth or lie (click link)) thread, religion likely has minimal influence on people’s beliefs concerning AGW. The more direct correlation is likely conservative versus liberal political views
Regardless, Mr. Gore and his team are evidently doing well financially with the gig.
So the AGW ‘Den-eye-yers’ (as Al Gore would condescendingly say with furled eyebrows), including many scientists and engineers, evidently have their reasons for skepticism that are based upon knowledge and understanding related to evidence. An interesting exercise would be to compare and contrast - why both fields have many ‘non-religious’ skeptics. One consideration may be that Mr. Gore will not engage in a debate concerning the evidence (click link).
Rather than boldly engaging debate, laying all the evidence out there and defending it It’s conveniently preferable for Mr. Gore and his well-funded scientists to judge those who are AGW skeptics as ignorant and claim the ‘debate is over’ before it has occurred. A professional written debate of the evidence could possibly ‘light up’ both AGW and neo-Darwin theories
Please help those you believe are afflicted with ignorance, stupidity, or delusion. Many are open minded and will hear you out — but you’ll need to ‘Bring It’ with confidence Bo vigorous direct publishable engagement of the science.
The science. The whole science. And nothing but the science, Bluegenes, if you please.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
They are inclined to believe what they heard repeatedly as little children.
Little children are inclined to believe what they are told; e.g. Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies. Many children are not taught or significantly exposed to any particular religion in a secular society. But virtually all children are taught evolution theory (random mutation and natural selection generating all life forms from a common single-cell ancestor) exclusively in the USA’s public schools — (except maybe in Texas (click link)).
The reality is people often change their beliefs with acquired knowledge and experience. Many abandon their parent’s beliefs, including the traditional religious and the secular atheist philosophies. According to your Gallup Poll reference, 84% are either skeptical or flatly reject neo-Darwinism — (which they learned as school children) to be the explanation of the origin of the species. Apparently, the majority of those who do not believe humans were specially created (in present form) also do not believe neo-Darwinism is an adequately evidenced mechanism. Unlike history, math, chemistry, or physics, neo-Darwinism has evidently not been convincing, even to many secularists.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Kids brought up in traditional non-theistic religions don't believe in creator gods, and kids brought up to believe that the Koran is the word of god are much more likely to believe that than you or I.
Perhaps there’s merit to what you say but you’re making some broad generalizations - with lots of exceptions. Children taught to believe the Koran in some Middle East cultures don’t enjoy freedom of conscience or freedom of expression. Their parents also don’t enjoy freedom of association. They are naturally hesitant to express any other view after seeing folks publicly judged for their unbelief.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
The purely naturalistic view is more prevalent in Europe because of a significantly greater decline in religious belief, and lower general intensity of the indoctrination of children with religious belief, not because of a difference in the scientific information available.
Yet, the majority of your British folks, and evidently a higher percentage than in the USA, reportedly believe some form of ‘design’ should be taught in your schools
Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons (click link)
The Guardian News in Britain writes:
More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons — a proportion higher than in the US.
An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons.
About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."
In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.
Across the 10 countries, 43% agreed with this statement.
It was found that Britons were almost three times more likely than Egyptians to want creationism and intelligent design to be included in the teaching of evolution
Speaking in a personal capacity, Andy McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at Leeds University, said: "There is room for any scientific position which isn't necessarily from an evolutionary base. We need to follow where the evidence leads and we shouldn't presuppose that the evidence will necessary lead to a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. We must be open to the possibility that information can come from a higher intelligence, but we mustn't assume that."
Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the British Council's Darwin Now programme, which celebrates the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday this year, said the poll raised a debate about how effectively evolutionary science was communicated both inside and outside the classroom.
She said: "Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process."
You stated that a lower percentage in Britain (relative to the USA) are affected by ‘religious indoctrination’ Bluegenes, but The Guardian News reports a higher percentage support teaching an alternative to evolution. If ‘religious indoctrination’ doesn’t correlate with the higher percentage, then the majority may not be very knowledgeable - or — must not be much persuaded by the veracity of the evidence for evolution (or lack thereof). Rather than judging your British folks as stupid or delusional, perhaps you could help them with your knowledge and understanding.
Doing nothing more than disparaging alternatives to neo-Darwinism is less than optimal. A quality written publishable debate restricted to the scientific evidence could provide Ms. Elsdon-Baker in the article above with a more ‘sophisticated approach’ for education on the origins issue.
Concerning your contrast of European culture regarding less indoctrination of children with religious belief, the predominant history in Europe has not been a beacon of freedom, tolerance, or civility either from religious bone-heads centuries ago or from some more secular oppressive regimes more recently.
During the last century in Europe, it’s been too many misguided socialist or communist (Eastern Europe) totalitarians, sometimes leveraging misguided ‘science’ to judge and punish people who looked differently or believed differently than prescribed. Hundreds of thousands of American men sacrificed their lives during the last century to save Europeans from their own intolerance and oppression where too many people in European sub-cultures naively placed their unconditional allegiance to the teaching and policies of their government (click link) — as the highest authority above all other sources of discernment between right and wrong.
Wikipedia concerning Fhrerprinzip writes:
The Fhrerprinzip was not invented by the National Socialists. Hermann Graf Keyserling, a German philosopher, was the first to use the term "Fhrerprinzip". One of Keyserling's central claims was that certain 'gifted individuals' were "born to rule" on the basis of Social Darwinism.
The ideology of the Fhrerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Fhrer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors. This required obedience and loyalty even over concerns of right and wrong. (Bold emphasis mine)
Apparently, there has been ‘indoctrination’ of a different sort in recent decades, at least in some European sub-cultures.
  • Government sponsored scientific judgments (click link) upon those folks with different physical features or different personal beliefs, publicly judged to be inferior, possibly similar to ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (click link).
  • Superior race, as it were, with self-serving scientific inferences drawn from an obsession with measurement of people’s skulls (click link); with an irrational and inexplicable persecution of people who look or believe differently, e.g. black folks, Jewish folks, and Christian folks who would not blindly subjugate themselves to the wrong-headed laws, science, or religion of the state.
  • Judgement of people with brains that happened to be encased behind a sharply inclined forehead with heavy eye ridges, and a smaller cranium (click to view link). If this anthropologist’s assessment of this controversial paradox of paleo-anthropology is correct (see the link), the modern gentleman below would have been considered an inferior being (such as inferred Homo-Erectus) by the predominant scientists of that European sub-culture. The gentleman would likely have been euthanized or executed as an undesirable ‘sub-human’ about seven decades ago.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens With Unfortunate Skull Shape — (Click to Enlarge)
Homo Sapiens Sapiens With Uncanny Resemblance to Inferred Extinct Species ‘Homo Erectus’ — (Click to Enlarge)
Although Bone Clones, Inc. (click link), made an osteological reproduction cast with copies available for sale, evolution proponents would rather not acknowledge this contemporary human’s skull shape for obvious reasons.
Regardless, similar features are found in living relatives just as a wide range of skull sizes and shapes exist within other species such as the dog (genus canis) family.
The failures and suffering of Europeans during recent centuries are failures of culture, including both religious and atheist philosophies — public judgment of others who didn’t ‘believe’ as prescribed.
Here, at EvC Forum, we have folks in this other thread repeating the pattern of pronouncing judgments (including wickedness) upon those with differing conclusions and beliefs related to human origins, the significance of the shape of a skull, etc.
However ignorant or deluded by ‘indoctrination’ you may believe Americans to be Bluegenes, much misery and death in Europe may have been prevented during the past century if enough Europeans had embraced the uniquely American Declaration (click link) that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Three specific rights that must not be subjugated to any government. This declaration and the American culture sprang largely from European oppression.
The predominant American culture is historically more independent, questioning, and challenging toward authority. There is the ‘Show Me State’ (Missouri), the ‘Lone Star State’ (Don’t mess with Texas), and other states with certain persistent sub-cultures. Of course the United States’ culture isn’t perfect either and dealt with its own institutionalized racist hypocrisy about 150 years ago, but bloodily settled it internally and eventually got it right. If you believe most Americans are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked regarding neo-Darwin skepticism, please commit to a professional publishable debate and help them get this right also, Bluegenes!
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Projects like the one you claim to be proposing make no difference.
Projects like the one I am proposing are a formal structured written exchange and critique of evidence that would be published and potentially have a much broader audience and influence than EVC Forum.
If you believe that comprehensive written debate makes no difference Bluegenes, then it’s unclear why you have expended hundreds or thousands of hours posting over 2,000 messages at this Evolution versus Creation Forum, averaging more than one post per day for over four years.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
The 16% of naturalists will grow over time, but not rapidly, and there are many complex factors involved in cultural change.
One potential factor involved in cultural change could be a widely popular published debate directly addressing evidence (and alternative interpretations of evidence) that may explain why there are relatively few believers in neo-Darwinism after all these years of exclusive neo-Darwinism instruction in public schools.
Poll results do not determine truth in science. But since you presented actual poll results in this thread, the fact remains that almost the same percent of the population (as the 16% naturalist neo-Darwin believers) reportedly believe they (or someone they know) have had a close encounter with extra-terrestrial aliens (as noted in Message 89). Apparently, the evidence for Close Encounters with Aliens, as with neo-Darwinism, has either not been convincing to most Americans — or it has not been presented and defended adequately. This is your invitation to rectify that for neo-Darwinism. We prefer to leave the extra-terrestrial aliens issue with Art Bell or George Noory on Coast-to-Coast late night AM radio.
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes:
And if you are unable to make a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate in any of the disciplines listed in prior posts, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Reason? Apart from having no evidence that an anonymous poster on the Internet is actually arranging such a thing?
You think I’m bluffing? (Tilting head downward and peering out from dark shades - with raised right eyebrow)
Go ahead Bluegenes Make a FIRM commitment to engage a written publishable debate - free of extraneous excuses to withdraw.
We need a Firm commitment from at least one Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences (preferably employed in their area of expertise, presenting credentials for a publisher’s interest) to lead the evolution team. However, it’s my goal to secure firm commitments from at least several confident judgmental folks from EvC Forum - because it’s my desire to see the best possible performance in presenting and defending the evidence for neo-Darwinism. I’d also like to see EvC Forum folks recruit and secure firm commitments from the best available world-wide resources outside EvC Forum.
I have a big vision that could have a significant impact.
Will you help?
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Here's a reason. If I'm debating with people who are proposing non-living intelligent beings as a mechanism in biology, I consider the debate to be won if they cannot establish the existence of non-living intelligent beings as a genre. That has never been done.
That has never been done would include demonstrated mechanisms for the origin of life itself. It’s a two-edged sword. A reasonable scientific methodology for the random assembly of chemicals into the first living cell has never been done, Bluegenes.
The simplest living cell is analogous to a factory (click link). Without belaboring details unnecessarily, factories have moving parts with meshed mechanical components, switches, analog sensors, motors, actuators, energy regulation, waste disposal, and other functions with control algorithms to process inputs to outputs, all contained in a functionally protective shell.
Intelligent and rational observers, unconstrained by personal bias or philosophy, may conclude it is not necessary to establish that an engineer exists as a genre — as you put it - before debating evidence whether a factory occurred via random processes or was designed and built with purpose.
Now, if you determine not to acknowledge the possibility that intelligent engineers exist as a genre, then you must be able to demonstrate how a fully functioning factory is assembled by random processes. Never mind a self-sustaining, self-reproducing factory.
For anyone who is skeptical whether random processes are adequate to produce a fully functioning factory and claims evidence of design you could:
  • present them with a rock and ask is my rock designed? (click link);
  • assure them that with enough time, anything could happen including random formation of life and human progeny descended from a bacteria type cell;
  • ignore difficult requests and claim they’re batshit crazy (click link);
  • ridicule a person who believes a factory is evidenced to be designed as presenting a Man of the Gaps explanation for the existence of an actual fully functioning factory as stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked.
A review of how science works is appropriate.
Science advances by falsification Bluegenes and cannot prove any theory to be unconditionally true.
Here’s an illustration by Dr. Robert Peterson from Montana State University as reported by the University of Nebraska (Click Link to Source).
Dr. Robert K. D. Peterson concerning how science works writes:
Many people who object to biotech crops argue that the crops should not be allowed to grow in the environment until science proves that they are safe. Others who support biotech crops argue that science has proven that they are indeed safe. However, the concept of proof has no place in science. Many people who do not actively practice science do not understand that science is structured so that scientists can never prove anything.
Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative.
What is important to recognize here is that none of the results from the studies alone or in combination prove anything. In particular, they do not prove that human health risks from biotech crops are acceptable or that they are safe. Each study tests a hypothesis. For example, the acute oral toxicity in mice study is centered around the initial hypothesis that the dose or doses of protein administered to the mice will not result in mortality or any signs of toxicity. The results from all of the studies are evaluated by the FDA regulator, who makes a decision about the food safety of the biotech crop. The regulator, therefore, utilizes a weight-of-evidence approach when making his decision. The results either provide a weight-of-evidence that the protein is safe to consume or that it is not safe to consume.
Alternative interpretations of evidence can reasonably be falsified if they are flawed, and that is the opportunity presented for you and others in this thread.
Also, it’s unclear how a proposed active intelligent being can be non-living as you say; i.e. dead.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy comes to mind.
Reminds me of graffiti I saw years ago:
God is Dead Nietzsche
Nietzsche is Dead God
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
I can demonstrate the existence of my mechanisms, like chemical reactions, mutation, natural selection, drift etc., and I expect the same standards of the opposition.
That’s excellent Bluegenes — your ability to demonstrate the existence of those things would be very helpful in a written publishable debate.
After contractual agreements are signed, you will encounter chemistry, physics, and other direct empirical evidence regarding the assumptions and reliability of essential requirements for neo-Darwinism. Your assumptions and mechanisms will be examined for evidence and viability to generate the DNA for all biological functions via random mutations and natural selection.
Your potential debate opponent(s) will analyze evidence and mechanisms spanning several scientific disciplines related to neo-Darwinism and alternative conclusions.
It would be your task to defend your mechanisms while dismantling and falsifying evidence presented by your opponent(s). The results will likely be either PRATTs or PR-NUTs (as defined earlier). PR-NUTGNAWS and PR-NUTJOBS will be excluded in a professional publishable setting.
Direct confrontation. That’s how real science works when science practitioners are willing and able to engage skeptics.
If you’re willing to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism as well as nullify evidence for alternative views, we’ll be patient. We’ll wait as long as necessary to secure firm commitments from the best possible neo-Darwin defense team.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
So, if you find a creationist who can actually demonstrate the existence of the genre (non-living intelligent beings) then I will happily participate in a debate as to whether or not one or more such beings is doing or has done some designing in the biosphere and is responsible for life.
That’s a convenient requirement for you to make Bluegenes. It allows you to continue judging others as ignorant, stupid, or delusional - without presenting or defending your evidence for your judgments.
Some may conclude you would not apply the same standards to yourself. You would likely scoff at someone who required demonstration of a self-sustaining, self-replicating living cell spontaneously forming from random non-living chemical elements before they would happily participate in a debate of the evidence for neo-Darwinism. Yes, we know abiogenesis (click link) is not neo-Darwinism.
However, the spontaneous (unguided) generation of a self-sustaining, self-replicating cell that has neither been observed nor replicated is a necessary conjecture as truth in a strictly materialistic philosophy. A philosophy that requires common elements found in mud, clay, and earth to randomly form the first living cell and mutate enough successful iterations to become the most amazing creature in the known universe (a woman) over time.
If, as you seem to express above, you wish to debate theology or philosophy (concerning the existence of a non-living intelligent being) rather than debate science and empirical evidence, then you’ll be counted out for being unwilling and/or unable to commit to a publishable debate restricted exclusively to the scientific evidence.
If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a professional publishable manner Bluegenes please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the lives of millions that you describe as ignorant, stupid, or delusional.
Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated here.
These are specific disciplines for which not one evolutionist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage
:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
We look forward to your thoughtful response.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Fixed Harvard Cell Animation Links. Due to Harvard Copyright claim - YouTube links had been disabled.
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by bluegenes, posted 03-20-2011 6:09 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 124 of 196 (639472)
11-01-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
03-20-2011 6:23 PM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Hello Jar — and welcome!
Jar in Message 91 writes:
Why would anyone care about some marketplace of ideas?
Since Bluegenes introduced Gallup polling in this thread, below is evidence of a huge audience for a professional publishable debate that should answer your question:
Most Americans Engaged in Debate About Evolution, Creation (click link)
Majorities have thought about it and care which explanation is correct. (October 13, 2005)
The debate about how human beings came to exist on Earth has simmered in American public discourse for a long time. Most Americans are engaged in the debate to some degree, according to a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll -- three-quarters say they have thought at least a moderate amount about the origin of human beings, and two-thirds say it matters to them which theory about how human beings came to exist is correct. Americans are more likely to endorse a purely creationist view of the origin of humans than a purely evolutionary view or a view involving elements of both. Majorities of the public say evolution and creationism should be taught in public school science classes, while fewer believe intelligent design should be taught.
The topic of evolution has been discussed among presidential candidates in the US. The folks at the cable opinion channel, MSNBC, apparently disagree with you about the importance of the topic — they discuss it quite often.
History reveals how prevalent ideas often determine outcomes — lots of examples. The marketplace of ideas can determine what type of future a culture will experience. Polls can be useful in determining the opportunity to change public perception concerning science and how science is used. Public perception can have a bearing on which legislators and executives are elected to office. Legislators and executives have a bearing on legislation. Legislation has a bearing on well, you get the idea.
As Nuggin states in Message 93 of another thread:
Nuggin writes:
Evolution vs Creationism - theory.
Evolution vs Creationism in any given state or school - politics.
Or maybe you prefer a ‘concrete’ assessment by Taz in Message 21 of another thread. Taz cares about the marketplace of ideas and the potential actions to be taken by government. He apparently understands minds of ‘morons’ and recognizes the need to educate folks and prevent ‘dumbass’ (click link) people from believing concrete engineers are quietly poisoning people with flyash for profit:
Taz stressing in Message 64 of another thread writes:
Again, there's a reason why concrete engineers have been somewhat quietly using flyash in concrete mixes
People are stupid morons. I honestly believe this. That's why the majority still don't believe in evolution. And that's why most of them still don't believe in climate change even though the issue has been settled years ago in the scientific community.
In fact, people get elected by saying they don't believe in evolution or they don't believe in climate change. (bold emphasis mine)
Who knew? Concrete engineers quietly using flyash and now ‘the cat is out of the bag’
First, Man-Made Global Warming (largely from big corporations) is supposedly approaching the ‘tipping point’ toward inevitable runaway destruction of Earth’s ecosystem and now we learn big corporations and concrete engineers have made lots of money for ninety years while ‘somewhat quietly’ mixing ‘hazardous’ flyash in concrete - right under our feet.
The irony is the same folks who rarely question the evidence behind inferences of AGW runaway eco-system destruction probably wouldn’t question sensationalized flyash conspiracies either. The Occupy Wall Street crowd might riot about an inferred hazardous corporate flyash proliferation against the 99% but those occupiers probably have enough on their plate for now. There’s likely little evidence for nefarious control of flyash by rich Jewish folks anyway.
Regardless, similar to the concern Taz has for public perception of flyash in concrete, a published debate could help all the millions of Taz’ inferred ‘stupid morons’ with knowledge and understanding of neo-Darwinism! How could you resist Jar
Most folks recognize the intrinsic value of distinguishing truth from fiction which is wholly worth the effort.
Beyond the topic of neo-Darwinism, bloody revolutions have been instigated or avoided by competition in the marketplace of ideas. The meaning of the word Bolshevik was majority.
Jar in Message 91 writes:
Such polls have nothing to do with anything other than showing that in particular, people in the US are ignorant.
If you’re pronouncing your judgment, Jar, of ignorance upon roughly 258 million Americans who believe differently than you do, then Dr. Adequate’s comment seems to fit here: Where it starts to go horribly wrong, of course, is when they start trying to communicate their ignorance, misconceptions and confusion to others, or offer aid and support to those who do. I think that this is somewhat immoral. If someone's going to teach their opinions to others, they have an ethical duty to try to speak the truth.
If neo-Darwin skepticism is due primarily to ignorance - and you have research or evidence that is compelling, why not firmly commit to presenting it in a professional written publishable debate and then defending it for all to see Jar?
In Message 61 of the Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) (click link) topic, you expressed a strong opinion that we’d like to see you justify and defend in a professional publishable debate, if you’re willing and able to firmly commit (obviating extraneous excuses to withdraw):
Jar in Message 61 of the ‘Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked’ thread writes:
That Evolution happened is more than a theory, it is as close to fact as science can ever come.
The Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that has been presented that explain what is seen. There is no model of "Creation" that has been presented that explains anything. There simply is no "Creation Science". It is an oxymoron.
As close to fact as science can ever come Jar?
That would put evolution (including neo-Darwinism) at the same confidence level as Ohm’s Law and the Law of gravity.
If you’re proposing Darwin’s ‘Law,’ you must surely have abundant, unequivocal, and repeatable demonstrations of random (unguided) mutations and natural selection developing newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time.
If that’s true and you’re confident in your knowledge and understanding, a written publishable debate should be a Slam Dunk for you Jar! Or a Grand Slam out of the park!
If, on the other hand, you’re unwilling and/or unable to publicly and firmly commit to engage in a professional written publishable debate concerning your strong opinion above and the judgments you pronounce upon others
If you’re unwilling and/or unable to publicly and firmly commit to engage in a professional publishable debate on the various scientific topics that you’ve discussed at EvC Forum among over 20,000 posts spanning seven years
Then that’s fine it is only requested that you state your unwillingness and/or inability to present the evidence and justify your claim concerning evolution above and explain your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.
If you choose to ignore or decline the invitation, then the veracity of your judgments and opinions will remain hidden by you from a potential audience of millions of people outside EvC Forum.
If you decline the invitation concerning evolution in a publishable debate Jar, at least you could help advance understanding of science in this thread, if you don’t mind
A couple of your highly confident peers have, like you, judged someone who differs with their scientific understanding to be ignorant or foolishconcerning basic science.
Now, we need your expert judgment of ignorance, Jar, to determine who is actually ignorant concerning science that is, as you say, as close to fact as science can ever come.
The following is from Message 79 and essentially adapted here for your convenience.
____________________
Exercise #1 following Dr. Adequate’s suggested debate format:
Statement by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 4:
I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.
__________
Presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 10:
While theories are never proven with a 100% confidence level, some have been demonstrated to consistently be true and scientifically validated at such a high confidence level — they’re essentially codified into law. An example is Ohm’s Law (V=IR) continuously applied without a known failure in trillions of applications.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 16:
The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false
__________
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
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.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 58:
In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Bold emphasis mine)
Now, Jar, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic is the reliability of Ohm’s Law in the context of scientific theory. What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used?
Or will you determine that Ohm’s Law is evidenced to be unconditionally true in the real world of physics? I suggest you recruit and collaborate with at least one FIRM commitment by someone you consider a reliable authority in fundamental physics - and then post your response for us with an explanation and example (if appropriate) as you would in a professional publishable debate.
More science
Exercise #2
Presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 28:
what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit
No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing...
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.
__________
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 30:
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".
And from Message 40:
Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat.
To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.
__________
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 48:
(After presenting equations)if you don’t mind (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2), please answer the question below to help us gain insight into your level of knowledge and understanding:
  • What would be one example where Real Power (in kilo-Watts) is not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time?
__________
Here are the examples proposed by your peers where Real Power (I2R in kilo-Watts) is supposedly not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time:
  1. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 64:
    If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I2R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude.
  2. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 56:
    What do you think radio and microwave transmitters transmit? Heat?
Now Jar, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat.
These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.
And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc.
Now that should have a familiar ring (click link)
But they’re so condescendingly confident! Could they be wrong?
What’s your position Jar? It’s straightforward science. Who is actually ignorant?
Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your condescendingly confident EvC Forum peers claim above.
And please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.
You may need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.
If you will not respond Jar, could you at least recommend someone, anyone at EvC Forum, who can assist with this basic science?
Dr. Adequate has not demonstrated any ability to discern truth in these exercises of science for over ten months now
Shania Twain offers free assessment and advice in the first stanza of her popular old tune (click link).
Incidentally Jar, you should know the science in these two exercises may be leveraged by your eventual debate opponent(s) within the context of the scientific disciplines below in a publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism. If you don’t understand how, just make a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate — and we’ll see.
Assuming we can gain firm commitments from qualified, capable, and marketable evolutionists, a professional publishable debate will require much more rigor than these brief little exercises
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to debate in a professional written publishable format concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:
Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Now Jar, please select a discipline and list your name. Make a firm commitment (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to debate the evidence and actually demonstrate the ignorance of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Otherwise, please explain your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.
____________________
We appreciate your brief thoughts Jar and look forward to your thoughtful and considered response.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 03-20-2011 6:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2011 2:07 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied
 Message 138 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 9:49 AM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 125 of 196 (639473)
11-01-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by bluegenes
03-20-2011 7:30 PM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Hello again Bluegenes,
Bluegenes in Message 92 writes:
It's inevitable. History doesn't go backwards.
I believe the correct statement is ‘time doesn’t go backwards’.
History repeats itself for those who don’t learn from it.
The history of mankind’s success and failures in science includes episodes of long persistent periods of error.
As noted by Coyote in Message 31 this history of science was required for a theory class in her graduate school curriculum.
Thomas S. Kuhn in his book (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition, Page 75) writes:
The novel theory seems a direct response to crisis. Note also, though this may not be quite so typical, that the problems with respect to which breakdown occurred were all of a type that had long been recognized. Previous practice of normal science had given every reason to consider them solved or all but solved, which helps to explain why the sense of failure, when it came, could be so acute.
It is often said that if Greek science had been less deductive and less ridden by dogma, heliocentric astronomy might have begun its development eighteen centuries earlier than it did When Aristarchus’ suggestion was made, the vastly more reasonable geocentric system had no needs that a heliocentric system might even conceivably have fulfilled. The whole development of Ptolemaic astronomy, both its triumphs and its breakdown, falls in the centuries after Aristarchus’ proposal.
There are many examples of long term error in science but both Ptolemaic and phlogiston theories could be adjusted and adapted to explain observations for an extended period of time. They did not have valid working mechanisms.
Evidently, the millions of skeptics concerning neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection developed all life from a common single-celled ancestor) consider it in a similar category — perhaps they’re wrong and you can help them.
Thorough examination of the evidence (and validity of inferred mechanisms) is always good science.
It’s what motivated this thread - along with gauging the confidence and ability of those passing judgments on others with differing beliefs as noted in Message 1.
In a publishable debate, you’ll be presented evidence that neo-Darwinism is not a valid mechanism as well as evidence for an alternative explanation of what we observe.
If you are unwilling or unable to make a firm commitment, please state your reason for declining a written publishable debate (limited strictly to the scientific evidence), if you don’t mind.
We look forward to your thoughtful response Bluegenes.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by bluegenes, posted 03-20-2011 7:30 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 126 of 196 (639474)
11-01-2011 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
03-21-2011 1:22 AM


Re: Debate
Hello ICANT and welcome.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
I have found this thread quite amusing.
There are some genuine Golden Nuggets to be found in this thread — for anyone interested.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
I would love to see such a debate as you have proposed.
But I am afraid that it will not take place in my lifetime I've got my 3 score and ten + in already and don't know if I will live long enough to see this debate take place.
My goal is to secure firm commitments toward promoting knowledge and understanding concerning science in a format that could have a much more broad audience than EvC Forum. I do hope you live long enough to see the results if we’re able to secure firm commitments from a qualified and marketable team to represent neo-Darwinism for publishers.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
It has been my experience here that when confronted with questions or evidence contrary to beliefs held by most here at EvC, that they have no answer for, the personal attacks begin.
That’s fine. Those types of responses are often a reflection of the author’s lack of knowledge, lack of ability, or philosophical constraints on debatable evidence as with Lysenko adherents of the past noted in Message 123.
The Golden Nuggets is this thread are when folks like the Aspirants to Sophisticated Science quoted in Message 71 (green and red sectioned exercises) openly ridicule someone with a correct understanding of fundamental science as stupid and foolish with dumfounding condescension.
Ignorance in basic science has a remedy.
There’s no remedy for ignorant intolerance bolstered by imprudent pride.
But arrogant and persistent judgmental ignorance should cause one to wince with introspection.
Unfortunately, persistent judgmental ignorance such as has been institutionalized in both theocracies and totalitarian secular regimes through history often runs rampant.
These are potential learning points for those willing to humble themselves with civility toward knowledge and understanding, owning error when revealed.
For all the inferred flaws judged upon neo-Darwin skeptics in this forum that motivated Message 1, there is surprisingly little interest for firm commitments to a professional publishable debate.
Regardless, I believe there are some genuine sincere folks here at EvC Forum who could help advance knowledge and understanding in a written publishable debate.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
But I really don't believe I have encountered anyone here that could take part in a real debate. They have a good sermon they can preach. They can argue. They can insult. They can ignore anything you present.
That’s OK. I’m patient and allowing plenty of time between posts for folks to consider the invitation and make a firm commitment to a publishable debate.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
I love the idea of a real debate in a formal format but I am afraid you will not get these guys to commit to such a firm commitment because they don't have big enough of whatever that was that Dr. was talking about.
(Grinning) That was cojones pronounced kuh-hoh-neys mentioned by Dr. Adequate in Message 59 and Message 68. It ’s a reference to testicles and intended to mean courage.
However, Dr. Adequate has been suspended repeatedly by EvC Forum moderators and ultimately banned from posting in the Human Origins and Evolution science forum (click link) for his persistent inability to move the debate forward while debating with a lady!
Therefore, we may safely conclude that constructive debate in science requires much more than doc’s inferred cojones.
Regardless, we can’t tell if doc has an athletic bone in his body but I’m an old linebacker for a large school that played in a state championship. That head-banging was good preparation for this thread. For all doc’s obsession with ‘cojones,’ I’d like to see him suit up, buckle his chinstrap, and help me garner firm commitments toward the best qualified debate team possible for neo-Darwinism.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
BTW I just don't think any of them have the guts to accept the challenge to back up what they preach by walking the walk instead of talking the talk. I think they are all talk. What if somebody showed them how little they know and blew up their pipe dream?
The outcome of the proposed publishable debate concerning the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism is yet unknown.
Dr. Adquate is clearly not qualified to lead the debate team as I will further detail in a response to him. Despite repeated requests, doc has made no apparent effort to gain commitments for a qualified team that publishers would be interested in.
However, in the case of our Aspirants to Sophisticated Science concerning their demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of fundamental science detailed in this message (click link), their response has been silence with no retraction of arrogant error.
It’s unclear whether they learned anything regarding either science or humility.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
The only hope I see would be for someone to convince somebody to take your challenge.
It could be very significant I remain optimistic. I view this thread more as an invitation to advance knowledge and understanding in science rather than a challenge.
I have malice toward no one. However, when science becomes a pretense for judging the character of other people, it’s appropriate to turn over some big rocks and turn on the floodlights to examine what lies underneath. When it begins to get nasty and personal, what lies underneath is often not sound science.
When those at EvC Forum are confident enough to infer personal flaws upon millions of people who believe differently (as referenced in Message 1), it’s appropriate to extend the invitation for a professional written publishable debate.
I request help from everyone reading this thread to build the absolute best qualified and committed team possible to present and defend neo-Darwinism.
Wishing you long life and prosperity ICANT!
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2011 1:22 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by DrJones*, posted 11-01-2011 1:57 AM Eye-Squared-R has not replied
 Message 139 by ICANT, posted 11-01-2011 10:24 AM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 128 of 196 (639478)
11-01-2011 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taq
03-21-2011 5:13 PM


Re: Debate
Hello Taq and welcome back,
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
I love the idea of a real debate in a formal format but I am afraid you will not get these guys to commit to such a firm commitment
Taq responding to ICANT in Message 96 writes:
I will have a debate with you if you want. All that I ask is that any claim you make has to be backed by experiments and data from those experiments as they are found in the scientific peer reviewed journals. Are you in?
First, neither I nor ICANT are inviting you to a publishable debate with ourselves.
Please review the thread before responding further.
Second, perhaps you’re not aware that professional peers confronted with novel insights from empirical evidence are not a historically reliable harbinger of truth in science. There are plenty of examples but a good study is Alfred Wegener (click link), an outsider who was vilified for about fifty years (long after his death) by the professional peers in geology. Google for more extensive criticisms of Wegener as a novice in geology. Criticism by the ‘professional’ community in geology, those who stubbornly resisted evidence nullifying their Earth Expansion/Contraction research careers.
USGS commenting on geological pioneer Alfred Wegener writes:
Despite overwhelming criticism from most leading geologists, who regarded him as a mere meteorologist and outsider meddling in their field, Wegener did not back down but worked even harder to strengthen his theory.
And here at EvC Forum, we have this type of intolerant judgmental Golden Nugget of science from Message 42 of another thread:
Pressie (a geologist who is fortunately not a ‘Science Czar’ or any form of Government Potentate) writes:
Sorry about over-reacting to Robert. I tend to overreact to novices who think they know everything and also think that all those hundreds and thousands of real geologists all are wrong. To me this is a sign of complete delusion and it would be safer for humanity if such a person is treated at some mental institution. Still too many sky-scrapers and planes around to feel safe with so many deluded people walking the streets. (bold emphasis mine)
So Alfred Wegener’s contributions as a ‘novice’ in geology may have ended in a mental institution by Pressie’s expressed wisdom.
Now, concerning your own preferred restriction to debating only peer reviewed journals, Taq
If there are certain scientific neo-Darwin critiques or alternative interpretations with evidence that you feel unable to refute, please note the specific topics and we could hopefully find you a teammate to handle those. I’ll work to accommodate your concerns in any way possible if you’re willing to make a firm commitment to a professional written publishable debate of the scientific evidence.
In Message 5 you relayed an absolute confidence level in some statements:
Taq in Message 5 writes:
To quote Dobzhansky, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. It is impossible to tie together disparate facts without the theory of evolution. It is impossible to explain why everything with fur also has three middle ear bones. It is impossible to explain why there were no endemic placental mammals in Australia. It is impossible to explain why hox genes are so important in fetal development amongst all metazoans.
I explained in Message 10 how the word impossible is not proper considering the tentative nature of real science.
There are possible alternative explanations to tie together disparate facts — and folks who disagree with you and Dobzhansky claim to have evidence, Taq.
However, as with Wegener’s peers concerning his continental movement proposal, you may choose to observe from a safe distance behind peer reviewed journals.
Sound science is bold and confident — or at least sound science should be bold and confident when its aspirants jovially judge those who believe differently.
The best confidence in truth and fulfillment are attained with confrontation only after thoroughly examining and nullifying proposed alternatives.
Can you help locate anyone anywhere who is willing to make a firm commitment to any one of the scientific disciplines listed in a previous post for a publishable written debate of neo-Darwinism?
Please clarify your status and any potential alternative explanations of the evidence that you are not confidently able to refute.
If you are unwilling to make a firm commitment toward a professional publishable written debate, please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.
If your sole reason for declining is that you restrict your debates to only peer reviewed material, then it’s unclear why you’ve averaged about three posts a day here, every day, for over two years Taq.
We look forward to your thoughtful response Taq.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 03-21-2011 5:13 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024