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.

Hi Eye-Squared-RI have some difficulty with this part: I think the people here will have questions before calling 'in' or 'out'.I'll leave promotion of this topic to Percy, since I don't know what place it should take.

---

- EvC Administrator -Understanding through Knowledge and Discussion

Thread copied here from the Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution Any Takers? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I am not volunteering, and I don't meet the requirements.I do have some comments.Neo-Darwinism is a scientific theory. Typically, a scientific theory consists of research guidelines, methods, terminology. Theories are tentative, and are not themselves observed facts. Rather, they are methodologies one follows in order to observe facts.People sometimes talk of the fact of evolution. I don't recall seeing talk of the fact of neo-Darwinism.I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.

You aren't going to find a single PhD worth their weight who agrees with the above. Theories never turn into facts. Theories explain the facts and tie them together. Theories are never unequivocably true. They are tentative.This also highlights the problem with this debate. Many do not even understand how science works, or how the scientific method is used. They think "theory" is a step below fact when in actuality theories are much more important than facts. Knowing WHY something happens is much more important than knowing WHAT happened. When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution it explained a lot of facts that had no explanation, such as the nested hierarchy observed in taxonomy since Linnaeus, biogeography (e.g. regional species, island endemism), and why species were adapted to their niche. With the birth of Neo-Darwinism from Darwin's theory we can now explain DNA homologies, fetal development, and a host of other important facts.To quote Dobzhansky, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. It is impossible to tie together disparate facts without the theory of evolution. It is impossible to explain why everything with fur also has three middle ear bones. It is impossible to explain why there were no endemic placental mammals in Australia. It is impossible to explain why hox genes are so important in fetal development amongst all metazoans.So the next time you start to ask someone if they think the theory of evolution is a fact take a second to reflect on that question.

I am somewhat interested. However, if this is a potentially profitable venture, I should think that if I undertook to do it I should get my slice of the profits, if any. Otherwise, this is the ultimate "will you do my homework?" thread.

I've been thinking about it.Basically, you're asking me to write a short book about evolution. Only you want this book to be repeatedly interrupted by someone so ignorant, deluded, dishonest and fanatical that he'll respond to everything I say by trying his damnedest to misunderstand and lie about what I'm saying. And you want me to keep on breaking off from addressing the intelligent people in my potential audience to talk to the nutjob instead. And you want the profits of this Augean labor to go to someone other than me.But suppose instead I was inclined to write a short book about evolution without incorporating the ravings of halfwits, and suppose I submitted it to a publisher so that I should benefit from writing it... then how would this course of action be inferior to your idea?If I did it my way, I'd have written a better book, earned more money, and educated more people. I don't see what you have to offer me.The only real inducement you could offer me is a debate against some genuinely prominent creationist liar like Duane Gish or Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. It would be a pleasure to publicly clean his clock.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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

We're either looking for someone with a penchant for understatement or someone who's seen a graviton.

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

I am still waiting to hear how I would profit from the publication of my work. Like all scientific statements, it's true so far. Similarly, one might say that it is impossible for pigs to fly, although one would recant on observing a flying pig. Well, that's an interesting fantasy. Might I invite you to consider the real world for a moment? Consider, for example, what would happen if you were to go and ask an expert on electromagnetism to write, for no recompense, and with no interest shown by any publisher, an introductory book on the subject, while a nutter with a grudge against reality continuously interrupts the textbook with misinformation and nonsense ... and all this for the potential profit of someone other than the expert (who has to do all the real work involved in the project) --- someone who is (apparently) more in sympathy with the nutter than the expert --- and see what sort of answer you get.Then try to explain to him that the reason he refuses, which he will, is because of the low "status or confidence level" of his subject. And if I was to educate "most Americans", I should want a particularly large sum of money as my reward. Oh, and maybe a statue.---Now, if you'll excuse me, I've heard that there's a forum on the Internet where people believe in the existence of paint. So I'm going over there to challenge one of them to put his money where his mouth is by painting my house, for free, and supplying his own materials, while a bunch of halfwitted monkeys throw their feces at him and the surfaces he's trying to paint.Do you think anyone will be dumb enough to fall for it?

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

The debate has already been done. Your side lost.The results are in these, and similar, journals:

American Journal of Human Biology

​

American Journal of Human Genetics

​

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

​

The Anatomical Record Part A

​

Annals of Human Biology

​

Annals of Human Genetics

​

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

​

Anthropological Science

​

Anthropologie

​

L' Anthropologie

​

Archaeometry

​

Behavior Genetics

​

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

​

Biological Psychology

​

Biology and Philosophy

​

BMC Evolutionary Biology

​

Current Anthropology

​

Current Biology

​

Economics and Human Biology

​

Ethnic and Racial Studies

​

European Journal of Human Genetics

​

Evolution and Human Behavior

​

Evolutionary Anthropology

​

Forensic Science International

​

Gene

​

Genetical Research

​

Genetics

​

Genome Research

​

Heredity

​

Homo

​

Human Biology

​

Human Heredity

​

Human Genetics

​

Human Genomics

​

Human Molecular Genetics

​

Human Mutation

​

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

​

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

​

Journal of Archaeological Science

​

Journal of Biosocial Science

​

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

​

Journal of Human Evolution

​

Journal of Human Genetics

​

Journal of Molecular Evolution

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute

​

Molecular Biology and Evolution

​

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

​

Nature

​

Nature Genetics

​

Nature Reviews Genetics

​

PLoS Biology

​

PLoS Genetics

​

Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences

​

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

​

Russian Journal of Genetics

​

Science

​

Trends in Genetics

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Eye-Squared-R, and welcome to the fray.I agree with nwr that your concept is flawed by a basic misunderstanding, or incomplete understanding, of biology and the role of evolution. That's closer to a real position, however still not completely there.Dawkin's statement (see Ignorance Is No Crime) was:

quote:

---

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

---

Evolution is the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities.This has been observed. This is fact. Thus anyone who says they do not believe it (or any other fact) is ignorant, stupid, dishonest or deluded.Speciation - the divergence of one or more daughter populations from parent populations - has also been observed, in the lab and in the field. Speciation is the process whereby the different evolution (see above) in reproductively isolated sub-populations results in the divergence or one or more sub-populations from their common ancestor population. Thus speciation is also a fact. This fact establishes the process by which nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestors can form. The theory of evolution is that evolution (the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities) and speciation (the divergence -via evolution- of one or more daughter populations from parent populations) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, pre-history, archeology, paleontology, geology, genetics, etc.Whether this theory is able to "explain all life forms as descended from a common ancestor" is debatable ... partly because it is falsifiable, and partly because a single common ancestor is not part of the theory of evolution, but rather a prediction of the theory of common ancestry, based on the formation of nested hierarchies by the process of speciation.If it turns out that all life evolved from a set number of original life forms (which is a real possibility btw) the theory of evolution would still be valid.The theory of evolution (like all good scientific theories) is testable and falsifiable, as every new piece of information from fossils, genetics and the like, tests the possibility of not being explained by evolutionary processes.All scientific theories are debatable in the sense that they are tentative explanations of our current knowledge.So far all the evidence of all we know about life is capable of being explained by the process of evolution, and that gives scientists a high degree of confidence in the validity of the theory.Any theory that has a high degree of confidence in its validity can be used to make predictions based on the theory for practical purposes.We can predict the orbit of mars sufficiently to land little robots there.We can predict the uplift of mountains at the boundaries of tectonic plates.We can predict that evolution - the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities - will continue to be observed in the world around us. Then we should expect professional competence from both sides of your debate. In Message 1 you said:

quote:

---

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).

---

Curiously, I don't see any such qualifications for the other table, so let me add what I think should be required for a professional opposition:

• Cannot be a "young earth" proponent, but must accept the overwhelming evidence that the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old in a universe at least 13.7 billion years old.
  ​
• Cannot be a "variable radiation rate" proponent, but must accept the overwhelming evidence that the physical constants have not changed significantly since the expansion of the universe.
  ​
• Cannot be a "world wide flood" proponent, but must accept the overwhelming evidence that plate tectonics explains the geology of this planet.

The reason for these conditions is to eliminate the terminally deluded and insane people (with whom there is no chance of a rational debate), as well as those too stupid to understand such concepts, thus leaving us with those who are ignorant but capable of learning ....You will note that not one of these conditions involves any relationship to evolution in specific and biology in general, and thus should have no effect on the debate, other than making sure that both sides can address the issues in a rational manner.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : et too brute
clrtyEdited by RAZD, : one two many

---