No Witnesses

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

I am saying that macroevolution, when used by a creationist in the context of 'it hasn't been observed' does not mean 'speciation' in most cases.

---

Why are we beholden to people who don't understand what the term means? After all, creationists used to mean speciation. They've moved the goalposts. Why should we let them?

quote:

---

What I am saying is that when addressing the meaning of someone's utterance, it is vital to establish what they mean when they say the words they use rather than trying to argue against what someone else more competent would mean with the same words.

---

And since we know that they don't know what they're talking about, why should we kowtow to them? To them, "macroevolution" functionally means "evolutionary processes that I don't think have ever been seen." That's not a definition. That's a defensive stance. It's an argument out of ignorance. After all, look at how the conversation goes. The original claim is that we've never seen a new species arise. We then show them that no, we have seen speciation such as in fruit flies. Their response is, "Yeah, but it's still a fly!"They just moved the goalposts. They were absolutely certain that speciation had never happened and upon proof that no, it has happened, we've watched it, and we've even made it happen, they start redefining everything, hoping to high heaven that we don't notice until they get to a point where what they're asking for is for an ostrich to be born out of an alligator's egg...which would demolish evolutionary theory.They don't know what they're talking about. They don't get to be the arbiters of what "macroevolution" is. If they use it wrong, we will happily point it out, but we do not allow them to continue in their erroneous vein.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

More like: they've had the goalpost in the wrong place.

---

Incorrect. "Kind" used to mean "species." Then we saw speciation and they decided that "kind" was something else. You can see this in the reactions creationists give to seeing it happen. We show them the data for speciation in such things as fruit flies and they respond, "Yeah, but it's still a fly!" hoping that we don't notice that they just moved the goalposts.

quote:

---

But you can't shoot the ball over there and claim a point because that's where you think the goalpost should have been. That's not going to work.

---

Precisely. That's why we don't let creationists define the terms.

quote:

---

The word "macroevolution" is also used to describe things that aren't speciation events.

---

Logical error. You've got the implication backwards. Not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary processes at or above the species level. Thus, there are plenty of macroevolutionary events that aren't necessarily speciation since they occur higher up the taxonomic tree, but that doesn't change the fact that speciation, by definition, is macroevolution.Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.

quote:

---

You're supposed to be offering points in your own words.

---

Oh, so I'm supposed to show you original research that I've done in my own bio lab. Unless I personally wrote up the abstract, then you've got a problem? I give you precisely what it is you were asking for and you're complaint is that I wasn't the one who wrote the article in the first place?Yeah, you just want to be angry.

angletracks writes:

quote:

---

If you cannot drive from NY to LA on the road, you cannot get to LA by that means.

---

But that's not the argument made by creationists. They are claiming not merely that we haven't figured out all the details yet. They are insisting that it is physically impossible to ever create a road from NYC to LA. "Manhattan's on an island! There's no way to cross the water!" And when we discover that there are bridges, they insist that the mountains are impassable. But then we discover tunnels and alternate routes.That's what this "irreducible complexity" nonsense is: Nothing more than a way from a creationist to claim, "I'm not clever enough to figure out how to do it, so it must be impossible."Every single example that has ever been given of this "irreducible complexity" has been shown to be not only reducible but actually evolved where we found the pathway.Don't confuse "don't know" with "can't know."

quote:

---

Isn't tweaking the natural process precisely how we are able to interact purposefully with our world?

---

Do you have evidence of such? Remember, "I don't know how it happened" is not evidence.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm not suggesting we should be 'beholden' to anyone. I'm just saying we should address what a person means by what they say.

---

And when they're wrong? And when they change definitions in the middle of their argument?

quote:

---

I'm just saying that when a creationist says 'macroevolution has not been observed' you are definitely not addressing their concerns by pointing out observed instances of speciation.

---

Except we are. Take a look in this very thread! You do read the threads you post to, don't you? Message 154: He's talking about speciation here. "Evolution within species." Does that mean something else?But then, just like we expect from creationists, he changes his definition: Suddenly we're talking about changes much higher up the taxonomic tree than species. And on top of that, we've got a huge display of ignorance on exactly what he taxonomic organization is: Cat to fox is closer than chimp to human?This is exactly what I have been describing. The functional definition of "macroevolution" for a creationist is, "Evolutionary processes I don't think have ever been seen." They realize that they can't just come out and say that no evolutionary changes of any kind ever happen, but they still cling to the idea that there is some limit that prevents it from progressing any further.

quote:

---

There are good ways to address what they are saying without using the ploy of saying that 'technically speciation is macroevolution, so there'.

---

Who said anything about "technically"? It's their own definition. Did you not read Chuck's post? He specifically points out that the "limit" of evolution is speciation.So how is using his own words to show him exactly what it is that he claims has never happened "technically"?

quote:

---

Personally, I find debating my opponents position is more rewarding than arguing about the semantics.

---

Then why would you ever debate with a creationist? That's all they have.

quote:

---

But then you should go about trying to understand what they are trying to argue, and then address that.

---

What makes you think that hasn't happened?

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm not responding to the thread, I'm responding to a particular position of yours.

---

Can we please stop playing dumb. You're trying to play the argument from ignorance. I point out a common tactic among the creationists, one which happens right in front of your face, and you stick your fingers in your ear and pretend it didn't happen.

quote:

---

We might have seen macroevolution technically

---

No, not "technically." We saw precisely what it is that creationists claim has never happened: New species showing up.A poster on your own board just made that very claim.And here you are pretending it didn't happen. You're exactly the same sort of fool as Chuck77: Claim something never happens and then when shown exactly what it was you insisted has never happened, pretend you were actually arguing something else.When creationists say "macroevolution," they start off meaning "speciation." It's only when we show them speciation that they start wandering afield.

quote:

---

If a creationist wants to claim that speciation does not occur, then of course we should correct them.

---

You mean like Chuck77 did just now?

quote:

---

I'm not saying that such creationists don't exist.

---

Yes, you are. You're playing dumb so that you can pretend that you were actually arguing a different point. You're moving the goalposts, Modulous.Can we please stop playing dumb?

quote:

---

I'm just saying, that generally, when creationists say 'macroevolution' they are talking about a degree of change that occurs over periods of time that prohibit observation.

---

No, they're not. Didn't you read this thread? If you aren't going to be bothered to actually pay attention to the things that happen right in front of you, what on earth makes you think that you are in any position to have anything of value to say?This is standard behaviour from you, Modulous: Ignore everything and play dumb.

quote:

---

And I swing the question back at you, if the argument is all word games, why bother participating?

---

Because it isn't. Words have meanings and "macroevolution" is already defined and understood by all sides: Evolutionary processes at or above the species level. After all, it was creationists who came up with the concept of "macroevolution" in the first place. They have always meant "speciation" because they thought we could never see it. They think that there is some block to biology that prevents a new species from arising. They insist all mutations are deleterious and it is impossible to have enough of them collect to the point that you have a new species.We saw that happen right here in this thread, Modulous. The fact that you are blinding yourself to what is happening right in front of you is not my problem. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to the posts.

quote:

---

I am just responding to your position that we should just point at speciation

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?"Just" point at speciation? "JUST"?You've done it again, Modulous: Do you actually bother to read the posts in the threads you deign to respond to? Why do you think you have anything useful to say when you are so clearly unprepared?Go back and read my posts. Where do you find anything where I have even hinted that we "just" point at speciation?

quote:

---

and that ends the discussion regarding whether what creationists are talking about has ever been observed. Sometimes it has, but not always.

---

See, here you show you haven't actually read any of my posts. I want you to show me chapter and verse where I have implied let alone stated that this "ends the discussion."Stop playing dumb.

Chuck77 responds to me:

quote:

---

Can you give an example of macro-evolution being witnessed today as happening like the ToE says it does

---

I already did, many posts ago. You do read the thread before you respond, yes? 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Creationist Claim CB910: No new species have been observed.There are plenty of examples of speciation happening both in the lab and in the wild. Speciation, by definition, is macroevolution.

quote:

---

Don't say the moths either, or even a poodle from a wolf, that's just variation within a kind.

---

The moths? No, that wouldn't be speciation. But the evolution of dogs from wolves? That is speciation.Or are you going to move the goalposts again? Speciation is, by definition, "macro-evolution." Dogs are a different species from wolves. Before you respond, you have some homework to do: Look up "ring species" and make sure your response isn't immediately countered by what you find.

quote:

---

Macro-evolution is a cow, slowly over long periods of time, becoming a whale.

---

You say that as if that were the only thing. Indeed, a terrestrial ungulate becoming an aquatic cetacean would be an example of macro-evolution.But any speciation event is an example of "macro-evolution" because that's the definition of the term: Evolutionary processes that happen at or above the species level. Any time you ever see speciation happen, you've witnessed macro-evolution.Well, we've seen it. You've been given the evidence you claim doesn't exist.How far are you going to move the goalposts?

quote:

---

Have you ever witnessed anything like that happening?

---

Me personally? My bio classes didn't go in that direction. Biology is a big field and not everything is population genetics. But surely you aren't saying that I'm your standard of evidence, are you?When was the last time you were in a library let alone a science library? When was the last time you read a journal? Which one? Which article? If you haven't bothered to pay attention to the state of the science as to what has and has not been published, then what makes you think you are in a position to say what has and has not been observed?

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

You strongly imply that we have observed macroevolution.

---

No, I don't "imply." I state directly.You did read the references, yes? All of them? There are at least five links I posted and each of them contains many independent references. Is there a reason why you're playing dumb?

quote:

---

That we have indeed witnessed it. If that were true, that would 'end the discussion'.

---

And since you have read the references and know that we have indeed witnessed it, why are you still talking?Can we please stop playing dumb?And by the way:

quote:

---

Why are you lying to me about what I said? Did you think I might not notice?

---

Last time I checked, calling someone a "liar" on this board is sufficient to get banned. Are you going to take the appropriate action or are you going to do as you always do and abuse your position as a moderator?

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

You're better off finding a rectangle that looks like what they want rather than just continuing to insist that a square is technically a rectangle.

---

Incorrect. This will only continue the false statement by the creationist that squares are not rectangles. Instead, it is much better to point out the error of their claim and insist upon accurate terminology, defined strongly, and used consistently.A square is a rectangle. Not "technically." But precisely and specifically. All squares are rectangles without exception. If what was meant was an equiangular, non-equilateral quadrilateral, then that's what should have been asked for in the first place.

quote:

---

When a creationist asks to see macroevolution, you're not helping by simply insisting that a speciation event, say a bacteria in a lab, is technically what they're asking for by definition.

---

Then it's a good thing I'm not. It isn't "technically" anything. It is exactly what they claimed has never happened: Speciation. What usually follows after this is a moving of the goalposts where "macroevolution" suddenly refers to something other than macroevolution. To a creationist, the functional definition is actually, "evolutionary processes beyond what I think has ever been documented directly."Why would we coddle such a person?

quote:

---

I'm not disputing that speciation is technically macroevolution

---

No, not "technically." It is precisely macroevolution. Creationists really think speciation has never been seen. When they are shown that it has happened within our lifetimes, both in the lab and in the field, and you can pretty much make it happen at will, they suddenly change their minds: "Yeah, but it's still a fly!" The only reason that's being said is because they honestly and truly thought there was no way that there could be a new species no matter what. So faced with the reality that they were wrong, extremely few of them accept that fact while the rest immediately retreat to moving the goalposts.Why would should we let them get away with that? It means they think they're still right. It lets them stay in ignorance as to the actual state of the science. It trains them to behave to new information by evading and avoiding.

quote:

---

Here's rule 6 again

---

(*chuckle*)First you complain that there isn't enough information. Then you complain that a couple paragraphs is too much.And you wonder why I ask you to please stop playing dumb.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

First you complain that there isn't enough information. Then you complain that a couple paragraphs is too much.

---

​

You're a liar.

---

(*chuckle*)You do realize that your posts are still around to be seen, yes?You asked me for specifics, Message 120: So I gave you a reference, Message 121: Now, you'll notice that this is but a tiny fraction of the entire post that I made. The reference is 135 words long and the rest of my post, not including my standard intro, signature, or any quotations of you or your own sources is 520 words long.But your response to this? Message 122So this leads to my response, Message 134: Oh, but you tried to claim that it was an issue of it being "in my own words," as if my previous 12 posts stating that yes, we have seen macroevolution with not only new species but also new genera were not "in my own words." You asked for a specific example and I gave it to you.Ergo, if the problem is that it isn't "in my own words," then it must be because I didn't actually do the labwork myself. After all, how else is one to demonstrate that we have seen macroevolution? Most of us aren't doing labwork. We only have publications to go off of. Exactly what sort of information are you looking for? Is there any sort of way to provide information to you that would be acceptable? Only original research will do? No references to the literature?I certainly agree that things aren't so simply because I say so. It is completely appropriate to ask for references. But apparently you won't accept them for some inscrutible reason. Tell us, exactly how do I respond to your request for references to new genera? Because it certainly isn't going to be simply me rewriting the abstract in my own words. No, you'll demand to see the original source...which I gave you...and you complained about.Talk about being...what was the phrase you used?...oh, that's right, "an asshole who's only interested in gainsaying."If you're going to call someone a liar, it would help if your own house were in order.Now, if you want to complain that this isn't an example of witnessing a new genus, that's fine. Let's have at it. But don't pretend that some sort of "forum violation" has taken place.After all, calling someone a liar is a violation of Rule 10. I'd quote it, but apparently you want me to say it in my own words.