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

Out of Sequence. Will post later.Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : No reason given.

Out of Sequence. Will post later.Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : No reason given.

If you had said Reactive Power (I²X in kilo-VARs) is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat, then you would have been correct.
Unfortunately, you were talking about Real Power (I²R in kilo-Watts).
Perhaps you haven’t considered the equations as they apply in the real world cavediver.Heat equals Real power multiplied by time: Heat =(I²R) (t).Assume heat is measured in calories. These calories in the Heat term on the left of the equation above we’ll call C_H.
Given Power of 1 kiloWatt (KW) = 239.0585 calories/second. These calories in the power term on the right of the equation above we’ll call C_P.
Assume time is 1 second.So:
Equation 1: 239.0585 C_H= (1 kW) (1 second)Now substituting (239.0585 C_P/second) for the (1 kW) term above: Equation 2: 239.0585 C_H = (239.0585 C_P/1s) (1 s)Note the two time terms in the right side of the equation above cancel and the equation simplifies to: Equation 3: 239.0585 C_H = 239.0585 C_PDividing both sides of Equation 3:by 239.0585 yields: Equation 4: The Heat calories C_H = the Power calories C_PAlternatively, dividing both sides of Equation 2: by 239.0585 C_P and cancelling the time units yields: Equation 5: C_H / C_P = 1 (Unity)So according to Equations 4 or 5 above: the calories in the Power term are totally and exclusively manifest as the calories in the Heat term for ANY time and ALL time.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting and it’s what some apparently haven’t thought through
Time is a continuum and cannot be reversed or stopped (as far as we know). Time is always a positive real number. Therefore, the equations above hold true for any possible increment of time.
Even if we consider the time of a milli-micro-second (as the limit of decreasing time increments approaches zero) the Heat calories C_H will always be the equivalent of the Power calories C_P!In truth cavediver, Real Power is always directly manifest into Heat anywhere in the known physical universe as long as time is a continuous uncontrollable dimension. Interested lurkers may wish to review Message 23 for the power equations. Reactive power is measured in kVAR (Kilo-Volt-Amps-Reactive) and stores energy rather than dissipating it instantaneously into Heat. It’s the definition of Reactive Power that has likely caused your confusion concerning the heat equivalent of Real Power at any given time. The missing variable is time, which neither you nor I can stop. Consequently, your room will necessarily get warmer due to the continuous conversion of Real power into Heat.You are correct that power is a rate of conversion to heat. But due to the inevitability of the time continuum, Real power can be viewed as heat and is viewed as heat every day; e.g. when your local HVAC technician comes to install an air conditioner for your hot room. After he/she determines the size and insulation of your room, the only question he will have to specify your air conditioner rating is how much power you will be running (dissipating) in your room (because he knows time is an inevitable continuum). People also build things like diodes and power distribution transformers that work (with adequate heat dissipation) based upon the rated Real power (the heat generated) in the device or equipment.Assume for a moment your next door neighbor is a Girl Scout and has come to sell you cookies. You notice her right hand is heavily bandaged and you inquire What happened to your hand?
Looking a bit embarrassed, she says I was doing my high school physics project using my Dad’s 30 Watt soldering iron. Unfortunately, I was holding the iron at the wrong end when I plugged it into the power socket and the power generated heat so fast that the iron burned my hand severely before I was able to drop it! After a pause, she says, Cavediver, I just didn’t stop to think that the power in our receptacle would immediately be heat in my hand!Oh, by the way, your neighbor says, I heard you cry out to God in pain the other day and I thought you may have burned your hand also! You were saying something like: Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat. To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.Now this aspiring high school student turns to you and declares she does not want to fail high school physics. Then she asks you a question: What would be one example when (Real) Power is not utterly and completely converted into Heat at any time?You likely scratch your head for a moment considering the equations aboveIf you were able to provide a valid answer, it would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in physics. We could leverage it in a machine to reduce Global Warming and enjoy the fruits of fortune, fame, and glory. More than Al Gore even!So, if you don’t mind cavediver, please answer two questions 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?
  ​
  Bonus question to aid your young neighbor high school physics student:
  ​
• You may have missed nwr’s revelation in Message 16: Ohm's law is false and well known to be false. Do you agree that Ohm’s Law is false and if so, could you explain it with an example for us please?

Some folks have book learning and others are just plain ole’ average country folks who must apply the physics in the real world.In keeping with the topic of this thread, you’re status remains Out for a written publishable debate but I appreciate your contributions toward a deeper understanding of science.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

nwr in Message 33 writes: ​ Eye-Squared-R writes: You and nwr may also wish to carefully investigate whether Power can actually be viewed as Heat and ... I am amazed that you persist in your public display of ignorance. It is not as if you were not given enough hints. Heat is one (of several) forms of energy. ​ Power is a rate (energy per unit time). ​ Saying that those are the same is one of the most obvious and foolish of errors that somebody could make in physics.

Unless you happen to be holding a soldering iron by the wrong end in your hand while you plug it into a power socket. In that case, the blister on your hand will tell you in a hurry that Power can be viewed as Heat. Please review the message to cavediver in Message 48 above and note any errors for us. Ouch!
Eye-Squared-REdited by Eye-Squared-R, : No reason given.

OK. But IF Dr Adequate is a firm commitment and I was able to meet his request and secure a firm commitment from a qualified creationist — then cosmological issues could possibly be a salient topic in an attempt to discredit evolution based on available time in the cosmos. That may not be an argument presented but IF it were, would you be willing to make a FIRM commitment to engage in a written publishable debate regarding cosmological evidence? I believe you could bring a lot to the debate and I’d like to see you engaged.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

You may be right Coyote. I’d like to see firm commitments here and then we can hopefully move in that direction (if Dr Adequate gets his wish) and see what a creationist actually does with the scientific data in a written publishable format where it must be defended. Who wouldn’t like to see that? I may be wrong but I believe it would be quite popular and likely make national headlines. IF that were the case, what an OPPORTUNITY that would be, huh?All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Thank you Anglagard. Browsing through all the topics available on opposing viewpoints at Greenhaven Press for educational purposes - I did not see anything related to biological evolution or the more specific topic described in Msg 22.Surprisingly, (unless I overlooked it) it hasn’t been done before. Greenhaven could possibly be a viable publisher.IF we were able to secure firm commitments here and then secure a FIRM commitment from a qualified opponent and pull this off in a professional manner, Greenhaven Press may have to bid HIGH for it!All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

lyx2no in Message 41 writes: ​ Eye-Squared-R writes: ​ Note I did not say power was "equal to" heat. I said power can be "thought of"[Actually it was: "can also be viewed as"] as heat which your equation and this example illustrates well. You also said: ​ The equations are presented clearly for anyone knowledgeable to verify whether your persistent criticisms are correct. ​ But I can't find any math symbol for "can be viewed as", so what equations are you referring to? ​

I was referring to the equations in Message 23 in response to nwr’s stunning revelation in Message 16.

nwr in Message 16 writes: ​ Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false. ​

Apparently, nwr did not understand the proper application of Ohm’s Law which is the fundamental building block for electrical theory in physics. Otherwise, if nwr could actually falsify Ohm’s Law under any conditions whatsoever , then nwr will surely win a Nobel Prize in physics and we will all have to toss our physics textbooks in the trash.You and cavediver acknowledge that power over any increment of time is equivalent to heat. Unfortunately, neither you nor cavediver have offered any defense for Ohm’s Law so it remains to be seen whether you agree with nwr.In addition, the equations in Message 23 address resistance, reactance, impedance, real power, and reactive power. It appears the concept of reactance has somehow confused nwr relative to his understanding of Ohm’s Law.

nwr in Message 28 writes: ​ No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing ​ Incidentally, I was underwhelmed by your attempted snow job on reactance. ​ Eye-Squared-R writes: 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 - Wikipedia">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. Whoever wrote that wiki information evidently knows far more about the physics of electricity than you are capable of knowing. If you had understood the significance of what you just wrote about reactance, you would not have made such a silly mistake

It’s unclear how nwr defines a snow job concerning reactance or a a silly mistake. He evidently agrees with the Wiki reference that Ohm’s Law only applies to constant current. Actually, neither reactance nor variable current affect the validity of Ohm’s Law at all.And that was the intent of my statement in Message 29: The equations are presented clearly for anyone knowledgeable to verify whether your persistent criticisms are correct.
For your benefit, the equations in Message 23 are repeated here:

Eye-Squared-R in Message 23 responding to nwr’s claim in Msg 16 that Ohm’s Law is false writes: ​ Unfortunately, you (nwr) 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=I R ). ​ When dealing with non-linear (inductance and capacitance) characteristics of components we must use a different equation: (V=I X ). ​ And in the broad application of electrical theory where everything has both resistive and reactive characteristics, the equation becomes V=I Z . 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. ​

Real Power is determined by P=IV.
Substituting Ohm’s Law (V=IR) for V in the Power equation above yields Real Power P=I²R, which manifests completely into Heat.
If Ohm’s Law is false as nwr claims, then Heat could possibly be associated with some electrical phenomena other than exclusively Real Power. It’s not.You can see in this reference (Real Power, Reactive Power, and Power Factor) that reactance (X) only affects Reactive Power and has no effect on Real Power.
Now before someone misinterprets the statement in the reference above: the flow of VARs through the power system will result in energy losses on both the utility and the industrial facility be sure you understand what those energy losses are due to (it’s I²R for the extra current required). I don’t desire to beat this horse to death just because someone doesn’t understand the physics. By the way lyx2no, do you agree with nwr that Ohm’s Law is false?

lyx2no in Message 41 writes: ​ I'm out. ​ Firstly, have you any experience in promoting professional debates? All I see is you making one erroneous statement after the next, and fallacies of consequence? ​

It will not take any experience if we cannot secure any FIRM commitments from anyone here to engage in a written publishable debate as requested in Messages 1 and 10. That’s the starting point. Dr Adequate is the ONLY candidate expressing any real interest (with a preference for a creationist) so far. Beyond that, it’s just a matter of securing FIRM commitment from a qualified opponent and the negotiations between them could commence.

lyx2no in Message 41 writes: ​ Eye-Squared-R writes: ​ 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. ​ Passive aggressive appeal to emotion much? ​

Although this thread does seem to elicit emotion, I feel none. I merely offer #1 and #2 above as a self-assessment for those who have judged evolution non-believers to be ignorant, stupid, insane, irrational, or wicked. Logically, if someone ranks low on #1 or high on #1 but low on #2, then folks can draw their own conclusions. If someone ranks high on both counts, then they should at least be somewhat motivated to educating the majority of Americans outside EVC Forum who (according to polls) are evolution skeptics.

lyx2no in Message 41 writes: ​ With your use of this kind of tactic I can't trust that this is not anything more than a ploy. On what forum will you be announcing that you challenged anyone on EvC to debate "neo-darwinism" away from their home turf and none would take you up on it? ​

No ploy or hidden agenda here. I’ve been straightforward on the proposal and my motivation. Whether it’s evolutionists or creationists, adversarial racists, Democrats or Republicans, or whatever, I do believe folks ought to be willing to stand up in a public arena and justify/defend their pronounced judgments of inferred flaws on others. Whether pronounced judgments are right or wrong, exposure and defense of the evidence should advance knowledge and understanding.I am not and have not been a member of any other forum — do you have any suggestions?

lyx2no in Message 41 writes: ​ Secondly, I am in no way qualified for the job. I can distinguish reason from idiocy, but that's about it. That's what makes me qualified to argue P目H. ​ Thirdly, I've a boat to catch. ​ But I wish you luck. ​

Thank you and safe travels.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-REdited by Eye-Squared-R, : Clarity

Greetings RAZD and thank you for your reply. The parallels of public skepticism for both Anthropogenic Global Warming and evolution seemed to fit quite well in a humorous setting. My apologies if it seemed too heavy. As you wish. However, if Dr Adequate’s expressed desire to debate a creationist is met, then you would understand why the debate could include discussion of evidence beyond biology that could be relevant. If the evidence is easily refuted, then Dr Adequate would be that much more successful — who knows, the doctor could possibly appear on the Rachel Maddow Show for extra pub! Yes. That’s fair. But the reason given for a PhD to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers would naturally extend to both sides of the debate. A publisher would hardly be interested in an unqualified opponent debating scientific evidence on either side. I don’t see these as insurmountable obstacles. I think it would be difficult to gallop in a written format. Committed parties would be engaged in the negotiations and I could facilitate as much as possible. This doesn’t have to be rushed. Assuming Step 1 (FIRM commitments from EVC folks) and Step 2 (FIRM commitments from qualified evolution non-believers), all parties can take whatever time is necessary to work through the process and ensure a quality outcome for publication. Written negotiations and mutual agreements should be a good methodology for both parties to be properly represented.
It may take time but should be feasible. Using EVC Forum as a venue may be a possibility. It’s impossible to know until commitments are made and a debate format is mutually agreed upon. However, a qualified opponent may have some of the same concerns you expressed above.I appreciate the finer points of evolutionary theory. You and your team could provide all the definitions you please in a written debate format. I believe the heart of the matter that most Americans are skeptical about is adequately described in Message 22 specific to Dobzhansky, Mayr, etc. I've stated several times: education of a much wider audience than EVC Forum is a primary objective. If you care about that and ya got it then bring it! If not, then I see no reason to further respond in this thread. No - Step 1 is to gain FIRM commitments from worthy folks here who are willing and able to state their belief and publicly defend (in a publishable format) their strength of conviction that leads them to infer flaws upon those who are evolution unbelievers. Against any opponent(s).If you are unwilling to make that commitment, that’s fine. I’m merely inviting you to the Ballpark. You are free to stay home and continue to express your opinions and judgments from a relatively safe distance.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

OK. I suggest you take some time for further reflection on how you would present the evidence and defend it as being sufficient to support your case.As referenced in Message 23, I think it’s wise to consider Nicholas Carr’s advice in his new book The Shallows (Slow down and go deep).There is no need to rush from my perspective. I’m giving it a break for a while.Thanks for your participation Doctor.
Eye-Squared-R

Hello again Cavediver. I never stated that power and heat were equal to each other in units.
However, Real Power is ALWAYS manifest totally and exclusively as Heat as equations 4 & 5 state in Message 48. Perhaps in haste you neglected to completely read Message 48 in which I stated You are correct that power is a rate of conversion to heat. You’ve evidently missed other statements I’ve made in this thread. It’s understandable why you would love wailing on a straw-man misrepresentation when your hypothetical high school neighbor with the bandage on her hand (Message 48) refutes your erroneous claim that Real Power cannot be thought of as Heat.I’m reminded of a runaway Rottweiler violently shaking its head and gnashing its teeth as it shreds the garments and pulverizes the stuffing of the straw-man scarecrow in the garden out back. Your vocabulary appears limited under stress. I was hoping for a different type of intercourse (professional discourse and commitments to a written publishable debate). Unfortunately, your response is littered with shredded scarecrow garmets and crushed straw. Marshall Stockburn and his deputies could do no worse pummeling that straw-man severely about the head and shoulders.Regardless, I’m flattered. However, there’s no rational reason for you to be scared of folks describing the application of equations in physics. Rather than acknowledging equations 4 or 5 in Message 48, you’ve unfortunately chosen to embark on an emotional rant after you mistakenly claimed in Message 40 that (Real) power cannot be thought of as heat. Here is equation 4 again as derived in Message 48 and applies any time all the time: Equation 4: Heat calories = Power caloriesI suggest your approach to rebuttal would be more effective if you chose to address the equations rather than attacking a straw-man. Perhaps you’ve had little opportunity to understand that all Real Power (I²R in kilo-Watts) is continuously manifest as Heat. However, you’re actually the first physicist I’ve met to claim otherwise. Unfortunately, the equations in physics do not conform to your opinion. Even when Real power (kilo-Watts) is in the form of electromagnetic energy, heat is the direct and continuous manifestation due to Maxwell’s equations. The kilo-Watts in mechanical motion are also continuously and exclusively dissipated in friction heat.Not sure whether you’ve ever had experience with radio transmission equipment... but the power and modulation components in the equipment powering the transmitter get quite warm precisely proportional to Real Power (I²R). And then, the Transmitter Power Output (TPO in kilo-Watts) is totally and instantaneously (roughly 386,000 miles/second) manifest in heat as described by Maxwell’s equations. This is the same result in heat as kilo-Watts dissipating through a resistive medium via (I²R). Infrared heat lamps operate at a different electromagnetic wavelength range than your radio receives but the Power to Heat manifestation obeys the same equations as Real power transmitted to your FM radio.Also, the Real power in your microwave oven transmitter vibrates the molecules in your juicy steak and continuously creates... Heat! And if you forget to place your juicy steak in the microwave and turn on the power — then you’ll see microwaves manifest as sparks in your oven releasing... Heat!The real power density of current microelectronics would, on a macro scale, be enough to heat a teapot to boiling in seconds. So it's becoming increasingly important to remove heat from sensitive instruments and release it in a hurry. Any place you have Real Power — you necessarily have Heat. And that’s true any time all the time in the real world cavediver. As a self-proclaimed theoretical physicist, it’s unclear to me why you would refute equations in physics and believe the equations are bollocks. That’s Excellent. Then you know from experience the power in your wall socket is manifest as heat.Unfortunately, you neglected to answer the two questions posed to you in Message 48 cavediver.
Here’s the first question you neglected:

• What would be one example where Real Power (I Squared R in kilo-Watts) is not totally and instantaneously manifest in heat at any time?

(Instantaneously clarified to be the speed of light) Most excellent, but how you end up looking among knowledgeable folks is a function of how you respond to questions. It’s human to be wrong (and stupid) but it’s not pleasant. I’ve found it’s even worse when mistakes are not acknowledged as learning opportunities. The worst case is persistence in error, refusing to put the shovel down, and digging a deeper hole straight through the crust of credibility.Although you apparently like to cover all bases, the second question you declined to answer in Message 48 (repeated below) is an opportunity to demonstrate basic knowledge in down-to-earth practical physics.

• You may have missed nwr’s revelation in Message 16 that under certain conditions: Ohm's law is false and well known to be false. Do you agree that Ohm’s Law is false under any condition cavediver? And if so, would you please illustrate it with an example for us?

You may wish to review nwr’s explanation in Message 58 and let us know whether you agree with nwr that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. This could be answered with a simple confirmation or refutation that Ohm’s Law is even affected at all by reactance. If you believe that Ohm’s Law is valid under all conditions, then please explain nwr’s misunderstanding of these physics principles and describe how Ohm’s Law is applied unconditionally in the real world.
If you do understand the error nwr is making, it’s unclear to me why you would not have at least sent nwr a private message to explain why he should not persist with his misunderstanding as I advised in Message 23.Another colorful straw-man rant rapt in intercourse about stupid folks will not enhance your professional credibility among knowledgeable lurkers. If you will not respond to these repeated requests, then we can only conclude that you cannot - and I’ll eventually explain the error myself as well as how Ohm’s Law is actually applied - and is never false under any conditions.The proposal in this thread for professional publishable debate in Message 1 was initiated after Zenmonkey’s thread where the topic was discernment of the inferred flaw upon evolution unbelievers as stupid, insane, wicked, etc.
Now this thread has a subtopic in which EVC Forum folks like yourself and nwr are denying that all Real power is manifest as Heat and claiming Ohm’s Law is false under certain conditions!And the irony is the same inferred flaw of stupid is repeated with a healthy dose of emotional intercourse on a misconstrued straw-man. I didn’t expect that but hopefully the main topic will eventually progress with a higher degree of knowledge, understanding, and professionalism.In keeping with the topic of this thread for a professional written publishable debate on the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, your status remains out unless you change your mind. If Dr. Adequate is a firm commitment and gets his wish for a creationist debate opponent, any expertise you have may be helpful to the good doctor. I’d like to see you IN cavediver!All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Hello again nwr. I hope you’re staying cool in Illinois. Perhaps you missed Equation 4 in Message 48:
Equation 4: Heat calories = Power calories
Please provide an example where (I²R in kilo-Watts) is not exclusively manifest as heat in real time. Unfortunately, you cannot (unless you qualify for a nomination to a Nobel Prize in physics). I welcome criticism when it’s valid. However, I’ll correct misinterpretations or misapplications of science (physics) at every turn in an effort to increase knowledge and understanding. Your second entry in this thread (Message 16) mused how interesting it was that Ohm’s law was conditionally false and well known to be false. That was the first time I had ever heard anyone make such a claim (under any conditions) and it was obvious you were attempting to critique when you didn’t understand everything you knew.You and cavediver apparently are on the same straw-man trip. Of course, I never equated or said power was equal to heat in units. It’s a nice straw man though when there’s not much else to argue. Interested lurkers can review Messages 23, 42, and 48 to assess the facts.
My statement in Message 23 was Real power can be viewed as heat. According to equation 4 above, that’s true because the energy in Real power is totally and exclusively manifest in Heat any time all the time (including when you hold your soldering iron at the wrong end).This stuff isn’t subjective and it’s not personal. It’s empirical. It’s just how physics works in the real world.In keeping with the topic of this thread for a professional written publishable debate on the evidence for/against neo-Darwinian evolution, your status remains out unless you change your mind and commit. If Dr. Adequate is a firm commitment and gets his wish for a creationist debate opponent, your expertise may be needed. I’d like to see you committed in any capacity.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Yes. Lyx2no inquired about the equations and the reference to you was appropriate because the equations addressed your earlier error. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, those equations didn’t help you understand how Ohm’s Law is actually applied. No worries, I read it just fine. Your problem is there is no conditional clause or conditional assumption relative to Ohm’s Law. All applications of Ohm’s Law are normal and proper. There is only one Ohm’s Law (V=IR) and it is applied for a specific purpose every day (even when reactance and variable current are present) despite your misconception. No. I understand why you may think that about reactance but it’s incorrect.
There is no deviation from Ohm’s Law under any conditions. Ohm’s Law is always valid and reactance has no effect on Ohm’s Law. You have plenty of time to study and learn how Ohm’s Law is unconditionally true and how it is applied every day even in applications with reactance and alternating current. If you teach physics, I hope you take the time. I suggest you study the different types of electrical power, how they are determined, and how they relate to each other. One type of power utilizes Ohm’s Law exclusively in all conditions. It is always accurate and true — and it is exclusively and completely converted to heat. You apparently have a lot of confidence in your level of knowledge and understanding about the physics of electricity!
Not sure how you’ve confidently assessed what I am even capable of learning.
Sometimes the person with the most boasts is the one who doesn’t understand everything they know. It’s unfortunate but fairly common.Aside from wailing away on a straw man, your claim that Ohm’s Law is conditionally false will eventually bring you either a strong dose of humility among knowledgeable lurkers - or a Nobel Prize.Your own advice in Message 2 of the thread Dunning-Kruger Effect may be salient here. If you choose not to acknowledge and correct your error concerning Ohm’s Law, I will eventually present a complete detailed explanation. But I’m in no hurry. You have plenty of opportunity and time to examine your misunderstanding and correct it yourself. The manner of correction is your choice but it will eventually be corrected.All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Hello Dr. Frankly, I was expecting more firm commitments among all the folks at EVC Forum who express such a high confidence level in their current interpretation of the evidence, including those in Zenmonkey’s thread referenced in Message 1.I’m methodical and will not rush because this effort should be a quality endeavor in all respects even if it takes many months to realize. Humor’s good but I’m not interested in the Holy Grail or Fountain of Youth. However, there is interest in your professional presentation and defense of evidence that the DNA from a single celled specimen mutated randomly over time and ultimately (via natural selection) resulted in a fascinating intelligent specimen as lovely as my wife. Although unrelated, I’ll be sure to let you know if I should happen across the Fountain of Life — where a self-sustaining and self-replicating cell arbitrarily forms from a chemical soup of sorts.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.If done right, I believe it could be BIG in the mass media Dr. Adequate — much bigger than Dr. Hook and his crew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of368QdosR0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zHfBs8DaQw&feature=relatedAll the Best to you,
Eye-Squared-R

Hello Larni — and welcome! In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread, you neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question.
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 Larni.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R