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

Proposed New Topic 100529
Subject: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution Any Takers?
A recent topic in the Free For All forum was introduced by Zenmonkey. The thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) argued for various clinical or moral judgments of the inferred personal flaws inherent in those who do not believe that evolution is factual. Although Zenmonkey didn’t specify how the term evolution is used in his thread, it is assumed within the context to mean neo-Darwinism or the belief that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor; or perhaps more technically, change in allele frequency that results in 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.In the opening post of Zenmonkey's thread, he quotes Dawkins: Then: I would like to see this particular line of thought developed more fully and substantiated in a professional manner against neo-Darwinian deniers in a formal written debate. The written format allows for carefully crafted arguments and rebuttals along with appropriate illustrations.The proposal for this thread is to establish who among the intelligent and educated EVC proponents of universal common descent (neo-Darwinism) would represent evolution in a formal written debate exclusively regarding the scientific evidence. The debate would occur outside the confines of EVC Forum and would be publishable.Knowledgeable individuals who have expressed #1 and/or #2 below are the ideal folks to engage the debate.
#1) Neo-Darwinism is essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes
and/or
#2) People who do not believe neo-Darwinism (to be a valid mechanism for universal common descent) are ignorant, stupid, deluded, irrational, insane, or wickedA 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 the natural or applied sciences (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers).Demonstrated ability to function in a professional constructive manner is also necessary — since this will be a requirement for publishers.The debate would be moderated by a mutually agreed upon moderator and would include only presentation, analysis, and critique of physical concepts and evidence — no philosophy or religion. Strictly excluding philosophy and religion should qualify this debate for use in any educational setting.I believe there would be much interest in this. It could certainly create a lot of exposure for EVC Forum and, if successfully published, could help educate the majority of Americans who (according to polls) do not believe in neo-Darwinian evolution. Perhaps even Rachel Maddow would feature the publication on her MSNBC show (Geek Week)! I know this is getting way ahead of the game but perhaps any potential share of proceeds could go to EVC Forum or the charity of Percy's choice.This thread will generate the list of individuals among the folks at EVC Forum who have sincerely expressed #1 OR #2 above, and who would be willing to commit to a debate of this nature - apart from EVC Forum. For those not willing to commit, I'm also interested in each person’s reason for declining. Therefore, I request a reply from each of the individuals who participated in Zenmonkey’s thread referenced above. In addition, any others with either of these sincerely stated beliefs are encouraged to respond and commit.So this thread topic is narrowly defined. The question is:
Are you willing to engage in a professionally moderated publishable debate on behalf of evolution? 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) and begin the process of defining the format and identifying a moderator. Assuming the quality is high, potential publishers would then be sought.If this topic is promoted by an EVC moderator, I respectfully request that respondents to this thread maintain the narrow focus (basically "in" or "out" and if "out" then why). New threads could be started for analysis and commentary on this proposal. For example, concerns about finding intelligent opponents or threats to rip new ass holes in idiots may be more appropriate in the "Free For All" forum (according to the EVC Guidelines).I will not be involved in the debate for EVC as I don’t ascribe to #1 or #2 above. However, I'd be highly interested in the results. I'm a busy guy and occasonal lurker but will be checking in as often as possible to see where the commitments stand. Suggestions for a worthy opponent (if any) are welcome.This could take weeks, months, or more - but (assuming this topic is promoted) we'll take it one step at a time.I’ll end this similar to one of Zenmonkey’s posts:
Any Takers?Gotta Love EVC Forum — What a Resource!
Thanks — and Question Everything!
Respectfully,
Eye-Squared-REdited by Eye-Squared-R, : Per Dr. Adequate's request in Message 66, revised: #1) Neo-Darwinism is unequivocally true and scientifically verified fact - essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes to read #1) Neo-Darwinism is essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposesEdited by Eye-Squared-R, : Changed qualifications (as explained in Message 129) to read: at least one team member should have a Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences (rather than "a technical field"). Math does not apply the scientific method and is not science - credibility for publishers is the overriding objective. Also added the necessity for demonstrated ability to function in a professional constructive manner — since this will be a requirement for publishers.

I think I understand your point and agree that theories are tentative but just to clarify a little bit: A theory is a proposed inductive explanation of repeatedly affirmed (cause/effect) observations or experiments. Theories that demonstrate successful predictions without contrary evidence tend to generate more confidence. Scientific theories are not methodologies, but instead are the result of utilizing the scientific method - which can never absolutely prove a theory with 100% confidence but can always nullify and invalidate a theory. Hence my wording in #1 for a "strongly held" belief: essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes. You may be correct but if some folks did not strongly believe neo-Darwinism was factual, then the quotes in the OP arguing for inferred flaws in somebody who claims not to believe would be irrational. The quotes certainly infer a strong belief (similar to #1) but maybe it could be worded better.Seems like I’ve seen a comment here at EVC Forum that alluded to modern evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism) to be as strongly evidenced as gravity - but I don't recall where or who and it doesn't really matter.
Anyway, that's why I specified #1 "and/or" #2 for qualification. Judging from only three responses with no firm commitments in about a week, you may be correct again; but I hope not. I’d like to see the topic advance for educational purposes. If the misunderstanding is attributed to the persons quoted or to my interpretation of the quotes, then perhaps that can be clarified and corrected. I recognize that overall confidence levels vary widely in different theories and people’s personal assessments vary widely but there's little tolerance for "unbelievers" in the OP quotes. My proposal for an updated professional and publishable scientific debate will help determine whether intolerance is justified by the evidence.I welcome any suggestion for how the criteria could be better worded. Thanks for your thoughts and feedback nwr.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Not sure about Richard Dawkin’s weight but he has a PhD. If Dawkins didn’t believe as strongly as #1 above - then what would be his motivation to infer personal flaws upon somebody who claims not to believe? 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.When German physicist Georg Ohm submitted his treatise in 1827 describing the relationship observed in his measurements, he probably didn’t realize his work would transition from a hypothesis to a theory to a law. Ohm’s Law is used by thousands in applied science every day and is considered fact for all practical purposes. If Georg Ohm’s discovery of the cause/effect relationship between voltage, current, and resistance were not consistent and reliable, then we would see power plants and distribution transformers blowing up all over the world due to a failure of the relationship Ohm discovered. We don’t. In that sense, Ohm’s treatise is relied on as fact by thousands of engineers - every day, all day.However, due the necessarily tentative nature of real science, there may yet be some situation where Ohm’s law fails to accurately predict results — we just haven’t found one.Regardless, if a physicist PhD or engineer met somebody who claims not to believe in Ohms Law, then an assessment similar to Dawkin’s claim above (assuming ignorance) could be accurately and confidently used to describe the Ohm’s Law unbeliever.Nevertheless, I acknowledge your point and appreciate the feedback.
We could amend #1 to read:
Neo-Darwinism is verified at a high confidence level by the scientific evidence without exception to explain all life forms as descended from a common ancestor. Better yet - if that statement of belief is still too strong and no one is willing to defend it, I’ll throw the gate WIDE OPEN:Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that ANYONE at EVC Forum is willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?

​

If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. Do Dobzhansky’s claims align with your definition of science or would they be better described as Dobzhansky’s philosophy or opinion?
I agree with you totally when you say theories are tentative but your Dobzhansky quote is absolute. His repeated use of the word impossible indicates Dobzhansky believed there were no possible alternative explanations for those observations other than neo-Darwinism.From the lack of commitment (so far) for this debate offer, it seems safe to say that neo-Darwinian theory has not achieved the status or confidence level of other treatises like Georg Ohm’s. So your Dobzhansky quote confuses me in the context of the tentative nature of science - unless you offer it as an example of how science or the scientific method can be misrepresented.Unfortunately, Dobzhansky expired in 1975 and we can't know whether his view would be the same today. He’s not available to engage in a professional debate. Perhaps there are no other possible explanations. Or perhaps there are other explanations that Darwin and others were not aware of or hadn’t reasonably considered. History is littered with big paradigm shifts. Therefore, this is an ideal setup for a professional debate.I perceive that you are intelligent but not sure about your level of formal education. It doesn’t matter because one of the most intelligent persons I’ve known had no college education. Just to reiterate, you’re not required to have a PhD (assuming someone else does) to commit to a team EVC effort and engage the debate.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) 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.In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread:
Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format...
I must ask - are you in or out?And if out - please share with us your reason for declining if you don’t mind.I appreciate your thoughts Taq.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Thanks for your response Doctor. Not much traffic here from Zenmonkey’s thread but I can see you’re a stand up guy. Big Grin... Assuming a debate occurred and was executed well, it could be a profitable venture — but that’s a function of quality and credibility from both sides. It remains to be seen if that is possible. I don’t need the money but I do see it as an educational opportunity. Since your name would be on the published work (assuming we can get commitments and it progresses well), you would be doing your own homework (not mine).I’ve suggested any share of potential proceeds could go to EVC Forum or Percy’s favorite charity. Or Percy could distribute it as he pleases. Percy may not want to be involved at all, I don’t know. But we obviously would not be here without Percy’s vision and perseverance.Aside from that, there may be an opportunity for fame I was hoping you could bring your big bat of facts referenced in the other thread and maybe be the Babe Ruth on the evolution team.Unfortunately, we can’t move this process forward without FIRM commitments from folks like yourself. Therefore, we must count you as out until you’re willing and able to make a firm commitment. I’d like to see you on the team. There’s no rush but please respond in this thread if your status changes to FIRM commitment.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-REdited by Eye-Squared-R, : Added Subtitle

View it as you wish. 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 (who knows — it could be a significant audience). You appear to be a competent writer with good intelligence. I don’t know how much effort it would take to state your belief and present the scientific evidence to support it.
I’m thinking most, if not all of your material is already written for you here at EVC Forum. You would merely need to organize it and present it well.
Then you would need to defend your claims by adequately countering any arguments and evidence presented against your position.If the opposing arguments 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!In addition, there appear to be many technically competent folks from various fields of science at EVC Forum who could team up with you and share the responsibility, workload, glory, and proceeds (if any). Augean labor? This could be a spring board to bigger and better things! You could be a modern day Herakles!
Assuming there were any profits, I couldn’t care less how they were distributed. Money doesn’t motivate me here (it does elsewhere) and I will not take any of the potential proceeds from the publication. If you were by yourself, any potential share of profits would be all yours. If you were part of a team, then I presume you would negotiate that with your partners. It’s obviously your choice if you prefer to focus on other endeavors that may be more profitable for you. Perhaps you could do both!I may be wrong but I believe it’s entirely possible (assuming a runaway victory) that Rachel Maddow would feature your Grand Slams on MSNBC. That would likely offer you more fame, fortune, and influence on society than if you merely wrote a book on evolution (there are plenty of them already on the shelf). Suit yourself. I’m only inviting you to the ballpark with your big bat 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 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.
Also, if you do not hold a PhD in a technical field, you would need to team up with (at least) one person who does to add credentials for publication.
If there are no PhDs willing and able to engage, that may be a show-stopper. I prefer to aim high for now.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).It may be a moot point. I don’t know whether I could find a qualified opponent willing and able to commit to a professional and publishable debate with you (or your team). The first step is to get FIRM commitments from EVC Folks (or others). Then the search will begin for a worthy and willing opponent. An opponent could be a creationist but I suppose it could also be a technically credentialed person (or team) who disagrees with #1 & #2 in the OP (for whatever reason) and feels compelled to engage.I believe it would be a novel opportunity if we could get commitments, plan the process, and then execute the plan. I’m not aware of any recent (years?) work in this venue and new information is rolling in every day.
It’s a journey and the road map is just a dot on the paper until we have FIRM commitment(s).I wouldn't hold it against you, Doctor, if you choose to decline (for whatever reason).
However, if you elect to decline, I do request that you divulge what your reason is here on this thread.For now, I must maintain your status as out until you are willing and able to make a FIRM commitment in this thread.If you are seriously considering the invitation, I suggest you evaluate your strengths and weaknesses (if any) and carefully survey the field of possibilities.
By all means, take your timeAll the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

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

​

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

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

Wrestling the Imposter - Click to Enlarge

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

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

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

​

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

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

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

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

​

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

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

​

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Cavediver,Congratulations! You and nwr are destined for fame and fortune when you actually falsify Ohm’s Law as nwr claims in this thread. An announcement for a Nobel Prize in physics will likely be the first time we all learn your true identities.
However, you may wish to examine the third term (Resistance) in Ohm’s Law before claiming Ohm's Law to be false.You and nwr may also wish to carefully investigate whether Power can actually be viewed as Heat and the nature of "reactance" before falsifying other fundamental features of physics - because that may qualify you both for a second Nobel Prize.A good place to start that investigation for power and heat is the units of measurement (1 kilowatt is approximately equal to 0.949 BTU/second or 239 calories/second).For the difference between "Real Power (and Heat)" and "Reactive Power" where energy is stored and not dissipated in heat, you may wish to Google the term "Power Factor" and study those concepts. I apologize but I've never learned that important difference between experts and "experts". Perhaps you could expound on that for the benefit of us all. Does that mean we should toss our physics books in the trash and accept whatever ya'll say as truth without question?You neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question in this thread cavediver: Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?

​

If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Very good lyx2no.
Heat equals power multiplied by time.We’ve all agreed that I²R is equal to "Real Power" which can be measured in kilowatts (kW).
Let’s assume the time is measured in hours.Now let’s assume your personal electric power consumption bill for last month was 10,000 kiloWatt-Hours and you write a check for 10,000 kiloWatt-Hours.Now look at the equation again. How much heat was dissipated in your house last month that you just paid for?
You paid for 10,000 kiloWatt-hours worth power and that is equal exactly to the amount of heat that was dissipated in your house.Therefore, when you pay your power bill, you’re technically paying for heat — no more, no less.Note I did not say power was "equal to" heat.
I said power can be "thought of" as heat which your equation and this example illustrates well.You neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question in this thread lyx2no: Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate?

​

If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R