Hi again Eye-Squared-R, and thanks for the reply.
Even if it is a little long winded ...
And a lot of it is unnecessary ...
TIME-OUT RAZD for some friendly humor in deference to a WHOLE BUNCH of folks ...
P.S. RAZD, you’re one of the best here I trust you don’t mind a little humor.
I have no problem with humor, but I find this a little forced.
Curiously, this imposter seems to say he will refuse this offer for a publishable debate on issues that he believes the evidence overwhelmingly supports his position. That’s not the rational RAZD we know. This imposter sounds almost like he would only engage in a publishable debate if his opponent agreed with him on almost everything. That doesn’t seem to reflect a strong confidence level and I suspect it would not provide much incentive or value for a potential publisher.
Amazingly, I see no point in entering into a contract to debate with someone (person or persons unknown) that is clearly delusional (if not insane) and who ignores evidence that they are delusional.
The reason is simple: there is no real debate with people that live in fantasy land, and you end up talking past each other (also see Dr A's comments).
You will note, please, that there is no requirement that they must agree with me on any point involving biology in general and evolution in particular, only that they demonstrate a minimal degree of rational behavior in response to evidence.
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough for this imposter but the qualifications (at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers) apply to both sides.
And, of course, it should be a requirement that the PhD be verified as coming from an accredited institution, and not a made up or mail-order degree, yes?
But no, that was not clear, as you seemed to be only interested is issuing requirements for evolutionists.
Message 1: A single individual or an entire team of EVC folks could participate and collaborate in written responses on behalf of evolution - but at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers).
Interestingly, I see no similar statement for creationists. I must have missed that part. All I saw was:
(ibid) ... After a qualified individual or team is committed to represent evolution, we can hopefully locate and secure a commitment from a worthy debate opponent (individual or team) ...
That doesn't seem to list any qualifications for this "worthy debate opponent (individual or team)" - especially as "worthy" is undefined in any way for this issue.
I would also note that:
... and begin the process of defining the format and identifying a moderator. Assuming the quality is high, potential publishers would then be sought.
Leaves completely open the issue of how you would find an impartial moderator, what their qualifications would be, and what kind of rules they would enforce.
I would also expect the moderator to set some requirements, such as:
- all arguments be based on evidence,
- that issues be dealt with one at a time (no gish gallops)
and ...
- that logical fallacies would be banned.
This is similar to the requirements for posting here, and where the enforcement of these simple requirements are a major reason for the success of this forum. (see
forum guidelines\rules for more examples).
Yes sir — but only if someone here is willing to engage in a publishable format.
The topic for this thread is clearly an invitation for publishable debate regarding the neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism.
Gotta Love EVC Forum — What a Resource!
Curiously, this
FORUM is a published format, so that is not really the issue. Rather the issue is whether or not people will agree to participate in your pet project without knowing what they are getting into (and there is a lot of evidence of creationist chicanery involving debate formats where dishonestly edited results are published).
Of course, you could just negotiate with Percy for the rights to publish (edited?) debates from this forum, rather than try to recreate it.
The question is how you would expect your debate to differ from what we see on this forum that would justify your format.
If you choose to respond, please tip me off early whether it’s the REAL EVC Forum RAZD, internally consistent, generally considerate, and rational (even at the Silly Design Institute)
And interestingly, I choose who I respond to, and why I post responses to certain people.
Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?
Part of the problem, as Dr.A. alluded, is the issue of what you are really talking about, why (for instance) you talk about "neo-Darwinism" instead of the whole field of evolutionary biology.
For example, when a pupil asked the Master what is the essential teaching of Buddism, the Master said: "If you swallow in one draught the whole of the river Thames I can tell you."
D.T. Suzuki, The Field of Zen, p84
You are talking about a whole field of science that takes many years to learn (for the bachelor's, master's and Ph.D. degrees).
The term evolution is widely used to mean various things.
True, and it would be absolutely pointless to use the definition for
stellar evolution in any debate about biology. Thus it become obvious that if you are debating or discussing biology in any form, that you should be using the
biological (scientific) definition of evolution, and not something else: using something else for the definition means that (a) you are confused and (2) that you are not discussing biological evolution. See
Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. and
Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. for clarification on this issue.
Your definition above is short and sweet but it doesn’t speak to the source of the raw material for genetic diversity. An exhaustive discussion of the modern evolutionary synthesis is not the topic here and I have no interest in it.
Fascinatingly, my definition is similar to the ones found at university websites where evolutionary biology is being taught.
University of Michigan definitions of evolution:
quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
- Definition 1:
Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
- Definition 2:
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
and
Berkeley University definition of evolution:
quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Neither of these definitions used to actually teach biological evolution in universities make specific reference to mutations or natural selection. Rather, they make reference to what can be determined to see if evolution has in fact occurred, as does my definition:
Evolution is the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities.
Mutation causes change in the character of hereditary traits, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large).
Natural selection causes change in the frequency of hereditary traits, but it is not the only mechanism that does so.
The ecology changes when the environment changes, other organisms within the ecology evolve, or migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
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.
Amusingly, that is not a definition of evolution, but an explanation of some of the mechanisms behind evolution, and it is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.
Few people would claim not to believe Mendel’s Laws of heredity.
And yet Mendel was not exactly correct either. He had a small percentage of his data that did not fit his "Laws of heredity" ... because (1) he did not know about mutations and (b) mutations were the cause of the data misfits.
An exhaustive discussion of the modern evolutionary synthesis is not the topic here and I have no interest in it.
Evidently.
Message 1: I will not be involved in the debate for EVC ...
Possibly a good thing ... but then, what
is your role?
I’d like to see you on the team RAZD but it appears you may ...
... want to know a lot more about the whole scheme, including (but not limited to) who is the opposition. As noted on my profile I personally do not have the requisite PhD to be a team leader. I could support Dr.A, but there would be conditions, legal conditions, not least of which would be the approval of context and content for all quoted material.
But mostly I don't see any purpose served by your project that is not already served by this forum.
If there is a substantial purpose that is not already covered by this forum, then perhaps we could discuss with Percy the possibility of having a special section of the forum that would serve your purpose -- something similar to the GREAT DEBATE forum, but limited to teams with your qualifications and some other requirements, and with the team size limited, so that the debate is focused.
Perhaps as a trial for your project, where some of the bugs can be worked out.
This leaves you with the unenviable task of finding a worthy opposition.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : more clarity even
™ Version 4.2
