Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8105 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-31-2014 5:38 PM
159 online now:
Dr Adequate, edge, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PsychMJC, RAZD, Tangle, xongsmith (10 members, 149 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,641 Year: 19,482/28,606 Month: 2,753/2,305 Week: 395/563 Day: 50/109 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12606
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 76 of 196 (592811)
11-22-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Eye-Squared-R
11-22-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Commitment
Oh, we'd better add one further stipulation. You yourself must not write a word of the thing, not a preface, not an introduction, not chapter headings.

Publishers' readers must get enough angry screeds on evolution from people whose literary style verges on the batshit crazy, and throwing them away must by now be automatic.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of yellow color in subtitle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-22-2010 12:20 AM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:35 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 77 of 196 (600703)
01-16-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Coyote
11-22-2010 12:37 AM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Commitment
Hello Coyote,

I find your posts to be generally respectable and your opinions firm.

Coyote in Message 73 writes:

Hint: knock off the fancy colors.
Your post looks like a French whorehouse.

The colored fonts in Messages 71 distinguish participants in the format recommended by Dr. Adequate. The background colors demarcate the examples for an easier read. This forum is aimed at increasing knowledge and understanding. Criticism of style is welcome but it would be most helpful if you address the content in response.

Coyote in Message 31 writes:

You can put me down as "out" also…
And to answer your question: Yes, I have read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It was required for a theory class in graduate school.
By the way, half of my study in graduate school was fossil man, evolution, and related subjects.

In Message 14, you listed 57 journals that you could leverage in support of neo-Darwinism and you mentioned there were others.

Coyote in Message 37 writes:

In a debate concerning the theory of evolution it is impossible for a creationist to avoid, for very long, one or more of the following:

--Denying scientific data
--Ignoring scientific data
--Misrepresenting scientific data, or
--Misinterpreting scientific data.

And in Message 28 of Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?):

Coyote writes:

What we are telling you is that the empirical evidence, from many fields of study, strongly suggests that microbes did become elephants and all the other extant critters.

That’s precisely what’s needed for a publishable debate with a creationist Coyote; that empirical evidence for the gradual development of 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 critters within a population over time.

Considering your education, journal resources, and conviction, would you mind sharing with us your reason for declining to commit to a professional publishable debate concerning the scientific evidence for/against evolution as described in the OP and Message 10? If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to “chip in” for Dr. Adequate in one of the various disciplines if the doctor were to firmly commit to debate a creationist?

Not trying to goad or provoke – just curious. You obviously have a lot to offer and the results could possibly help educate the masses outside EVC Forum.

Your consideration is appreciated.
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 11-22-2010 12:37 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 01-16-2011 5:09 PM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 78 of 196 (600704)
01-16-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2010 2:19 AM


Re: “Chip In” Commitments for Dr. Adequate?
Hello doctor,
A brief rehash to bring interested parties up to date…

Eye-Squared-R in Message 63 on 21 August writes:

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”.

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick……….

Eye-Squared-R in Message 72 on 22 November writes:

Well, doctor, I’ve given you thirteen weeks. Unfortunately, you’ve done… nothing… but assume others will “chip in” if needed. Thus, the need to assist you has become evident as detailed in my previous post and repeated here:

List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to “chip in” for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:

Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:

And your incredible shrinking response:

Dr Adequate in Message 74 writes:

Eye-Squared-R in Message 72 writes:

Well, doctor, I’ve given you thirteen weeks.


To do what?

I’ll repeat for you:

  1. To confirm that you are firmly committed and that you will not withdraw for extraneous reasons such as “I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you’.”
  2. Also, to recruit others for publicly stated firm commitments to assist you in the disciplines that I’ve detailed above.
It’s been surprisingly difficult for evolutionists to make firm commitments based in their beliefs and convictions - but the effort is hopefully worthwhile. I’ll take as much time as necessary.

Dr Adequate in Message 74 writes:

I can't debate a creationist until you produce one.

Not so fast my friend. I’m maintaining the objectives described in Message 71 and we’re still in step 1.
I have a confident prediction based on your performance and this thread to date. You will, in fact, eventually express a reason that you cannot debate a creationist in a professional publishable format. If past behavior is an indicator, your reason for quitting will likely include some form of direct denigration.

Dr Adequate in Message 74 writes:

In the meantime, instead of posting a lot of silly blather, will you please answer my question? What steps have you taken to produce one?

I answered your question in Message 72, repeated here:
“…you can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate.”

The steps I’ve taken are as you might expect…

  1. Survey creationists with Ph.D. credentials in science.
  2. Contact qualified creationists and communicate the opportunity for a professional “science only” publishable debate.
  3. Investigate preferred candidates.
The effort to secure a FIRM commitment from the creationist side has been MUCH easier than I’ve found in this thread. In fact, as it stands now, Messages 71 and 72 reveal there is no demonstrated commitment on your part – only complaints that appear to be potential excuses to quit.
This despite your statement in Message 47 of thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?).

Dr. Adequate writes:

Where it starts to go horribly wrong, of course, is when they start trying to communicate their ignorance, misconceptions and confusion to others, or offer aid and support to those who do. I think that this is somewhat immoral. If someone's going to teach their opinions to others, they have an ethical duty to try to speak the truth; if they are going to support someone else teaching some opinion, they have a duty to try to find out if he's speaking the truth.

Aside from your demonstrated lack of commitment in response to Message 71, there is no expressed commitment whatsoever among any other evolutionists at EVC Forum regarding the specific disciplines that you will definitely need (based on your apparent inability to address the science exercises in Message 71).

Curiously but respectfully,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 2:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 79 of 196 (600705)
01-16-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Omnivorous
11-22-2010 2:51 AM


Re: Omni’s Boil and Request for Black
Hello Omnivorous – and welcome!

Omnivorous in Message 75 writes:

Moose, all whorehouses look better than that.
Couldn't you just put those red and green sections (exercises in Message 71) out of their colorful misery on aesthetic principles alone?
I know I don't have to look at it again, but knowing it is there is like knowing there's a boil on my ass.

The exercises from Message 71 are repeated here for your benefit without the red and green background demarcation colors. Your subtitle in Message 75 expressed a preference for black. Hopefully, black background demarcation for the exercises will not distract you from responding to the invitation concerning science questions in the post.

Exercise #1 following Dr. Adequate’s suggested format:

Statement by EVC Forum “Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 4:

”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.”

__________

Presumed “Error of Fact #1” by Eye-Squared-R in Message 10:

”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.”

__________

Presumed “Statement of Fact” by EVC Forum “Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 16:

”The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong…
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false…”

__________

Defense of presumed “Error of Fact #1” by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:

”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”.”

__________

Presumed “Statement of Fact” by EVC Forum “Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 58:

”In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Bold emphasis mine)

__________

Now, Dr Adequate, Omnivorous, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic is the reliability of Ohm’s Law in the context of “scientific theory”. What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that “Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used”?

Or will you determine that Ohm’s Law is evidenced to be unconditionally true in the real world of physics? I suggest you recruit and collaborate with at least one FIRM commitment by someone you consider a reliable authority in fundamental physics - and then post your response for us with an explanation and example (if appropriate) as you would in a professional publishable debate.


More science…
Exercise #2

Presumed “Error of Fact #2” by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:

”I2R can also be viewed as “Heat”.”

__________

Presumed “Statement of Fact” by EVC Forum “Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 28:

”…what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit…
No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing...
If you had half a clue on what you are talking about, you would not have said anything so foolish as: I2R can also be viewed as “Heat”.”

__________

Presumed “Statement of Fact” by EVC Forum “Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 30:

”You would do well to remember that EvC is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts".”

And from Message 40:

“Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat.
To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.”


__________

Defense of presumed “Error of Fact #2” by Eye-Squared-R in Message 48:

(After presenting equations)…”if you don’t mind (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2), please answer (the) question 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?”

__________

OK Dr. Adequate, here are the examples proposed by your peers where “Real” Power (I2R in kilo-Watts) is supposedly not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time:

  1. ”Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 64:
    ”If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I2R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude.”

  2. ”Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 56:
    ”What do you think radio and microwave transmitters transmit? Heat?”

__________

Now Dr. Adequate, Omnivorous, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic for your submission is whether “Real” power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”.

These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.
And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc.
Now that should have a familiar ring… Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
But they’re so condescendingly confident!
What’s your position?

Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as “Heat” or whether it is partially manifest as “potential energy” or “electromagnetic energy” as your EvC Forum peers claim above.

Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.

Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.

If you decline to address the science content in the exercises again but still feel a pain like knowing there’s a boil on your ass, then the red and green background colors were not the actual source of your inferred pain.

Short of engaging the science Omnivorous, a couple of links suggested here for relief from persistent pain:
Omni-Reptilian Pain Relief
Simian Pain Relief
Not quite “Cover of the Rolling Stone” quality - but brings some comic relief.
If you can’t grin at that, you may be taking yourself too seriously.
Be careful, you may get an earworm – especially on the simian version.

Lastly Omnivorous, in keeping with the narrow focus of this thread concerning a professional publishable debate, you neglected to respond to the fundamental question – as I request all do when posting.

Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief regarding neo-Darwinism that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format... expanded to all the scientific disciplines that a creationist may engage…
I must ask - are you “in” or “out”?

And if “out” - please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.

We need evolutionists with scientific knowledge and bold confidence to help distinguish PRATTs from PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs (as defined at the bottom of Message 71 and pertaining to the examples) and help educate a potentially wide swath of evolution “unbelievers”! If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to “chip in” for Dr. Adequate in one of the various disciplines specified in Message 72 if the doctor were to demonstrate a firm commitment to debate a creationist?

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2010 2:51 AM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 80 of 196 (600706)
01-16-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2010 9:53 AM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Uncommitment
Hello again doctor.

Dr. Adequate in Message 76 writes:

Oh, we'd better add one further stipulation. You yourself must not write a word of the thing, not a preface, not an introduction, not chapter headings.
Publishers' readers must get enough angry screeds on evolution from people whose literary style verges on the batshit crazy, and throwing them away must by now be automatic.

Yet another canard (baseless allegation) wrapped in sarcastic humor.
Interested observers may note the only “angry screeds” in this thread have been provided by your peers. Your refusal to address the science content in Message 71 presented in your recommended format (from Message 66) does not build confidence.

According to most polls of American beliefs, evolution is losing in the marketplace of ideas as demonstrated by the magnitude of “unbelievers”. I respectfully suggest your criticism of “literary style” will not enhance your persuasion in a publishable debate with a creationist. It’s as though you’re laying down your big bat of facts and refusing to swing because you don’t like the pitcher’s uniform or style.

I’ve clearly stated - and you know - that I will not be involved in the debate. Your expressed preoccupation with “literary style” may be yet another reason you eventually cite to take your big bat and go home, withdrawing from a professional publishable debate with a creationist. If you were engaged in a publishable debate and found yourself struggling, doctor, as you apparently are with the exercises in Message 71, would you walk away complaining about style?

Messages 71 and 72 were posted to “check your oil” concerning commitment, scientific rigor, and accountability. Unfortunately, none of the responses in Messages 73-76 by you or anyone else registered any scientific acumen on the “dip stick”.

You and others have inferred faults in the thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) upon those who believe differently than you. Now you appear to be hiding behind the couch of “literary style”! ESPN’s Chris Berman would likely react to that play with an incredulous “C’mon Man!

You are apparently either unable or unwilling to address some basic science, rendering you as “out” for a sincere commitment to a professional publishable debate with a creationist. I had high hopes that you would follow through. You still can if you will.

Adminnemooseus was impressively diligent editing out colors in a subtitle (Messages 73, 74, & 76) while color is apparently fine in the title of another topic ( Great Debate  the bluegenes Challenge ). That level of admin attention and sensitivity is noteworthy but we’d much prefer that you, Moose, or someone actually address the questions and requests in Messages 71 and 72. They are repeated here in brevity for your convenience:

  1. Do you sense no “ethical duty to try to speak the truth” in a publishable debate to help educate a potentially broad audience of evolution “unbelievers” – those whom you’ve inferred flaws upon?
  2. IF this process progresses and you should ultimately find it more difficult than expected – let’s avoid an excuse for you to withdraw with an exit like:
    1. “I’ve decided I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you’ – go find someone else!”
    2. ”I don’t like that creationist’s literary style… therefore I cannot engage the science” or…
    3. “I can’t debate this creationist because… (insert any number of Adequately sarcastic insults here)!”
    Can you agree to avoid these types of excuses Dr. Adequate? No answer from you will indicate you cannot – uncommitted. Kinda’ like refusing a breathalyzer test.
  3. (From Exercise #1) What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that “Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used”?
  4. (From Exercise #2) Now Dr. Adequate, the topic for your submission is whether “Real” power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as “Heat”.
    These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science. And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc. Now that should have a familiar ring… Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
    But they’re so condescendingly confident!
    What’s your position doctor?
To claim these topics are not salient to a potential publishable debate with a creationist would be premature and ill-advised. I’m looking out for you doctor because I want you to have every opportunity for success. The worst thing you could do would be to firmly commit and then quit.

You mention morality and ethical duty to “speak the truth” so please answer the questions.
If you decline once again, please explain your detached reticence for us. Also, please explain if you can, why you’ve apparently gained no public commitments from your peers at EVC Forum to “Chip In” for you with the exercises in Message 71 and also with the disciplines listed here for a professional publishable debate:
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to “chip in” for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate with a creationist concerning the scientific disciplines of:

Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): No One
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One

The need for these commitments should be obvious from the broad forum topics and discussions listed at EVC Forum.
Once again, I’ll give you a few more weeks to meet the requests doctor. We’ll wait patiently to see how you respond.

All the Best to you,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 9:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 4:51 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded
 Message 82 by Panda, posted 01-16-2011 5:07 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:48 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2011 10:11 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12606
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 81 of 196 (600713)
01-16-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R
01-16-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Uncommitment
I shall as usual ignore your silly irrelevant and dishonest blather and ask you, once again, what steps you have taken to procure a creationist interested in participating in this project.

I'm ready when you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:35 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 03-20-2011 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 82 of 196 (600716)
01-16-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R
01-16-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Uncommitment
Your emotional, paranoid and biased ramblings completely undermine your standing as a neutral debate moderator/representative.
I would not expect you to ever be honest in any debate.

Even your posts in this very thread are full of crap like:

Eye-Squared-R writes:

Adminnemooseus was impressively diligent editing out colors in a subtitle (Messages 73, 74, & 76) while color is apparently fine in the title of another topic ( Great Debate the bluegenes Challenge ). That level of admin attention and sensitivity is noteworthy but we’d much prefer that you, Moose, or someone actually address the questions and requests in Messages 71 and 72.

I think you should go mass debate yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:35 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 03-20-2011 3:02 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4654
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 83 of 196 (600717)
01-16-2011 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Eye-Squared-R
01-16-2011 4:30 PM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Commitment
Considering your education, journal resources, and conviction, would you mind sharing with us your reason for declining to commit to a professional publishable debate concerning the scientific evidence for/against evolution as described in the OP and Message 10? If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to “chip in” for Dr. Adequate in one of the various disciplines if the doctor were to firmly commit to debate a creationist?

My training is a bit out of date. I was on top of things when I took my Ph.D. exams, with fossil man and human osteology as two of my four fields, but I haven't kept up with the fossil man studies to the level I would need for a proper debate. It has been nearly 30 years!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:30 PM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5147
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 84 of 196 (601097)
01-18-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R
01-16-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Dr. Adequate’s Uncommitment
According to most polls of American beliefs, evolution is losing in the marketplace of ideas as demonstrated by the magnitude of “unbelievers”.

Projection. Evolution is not a religion looking for converts. It is a scientific theory that is applied by biologists in their research, and the theory has been extremely successful in this venue. The same can not be said for creationism or ID. No scientist is using creationism or ID as the basis for their scientific research while millions of biologists are using the theory of evolution.

This is why evolution is taught in science classes. It works. You must understand the theory if you hope to do research in the biological sciences. While a lot of Americans may reject the theory because of their religious beliefs this hasn't changed the theory's acceptance amongst professions where the theory actually matters.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:35 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 03-20-2011 3:03 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 85 of 196 (601137)
01-18-2011 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R
01-16-2011 4:35 PM


Creationism declining.
Eye-Squared-R writes:

According to most polls of American beliefs, evolution is losing in the marketplace of ideas as demonstrated by the magnitude of “unbelievers”.

If most Americans believed that the earth was flat, that wouldn't change its shape.

Gallup Poll.

Actually, evolution is gaining. Most Americans now believe that humans evolved from other animals, and those who take a purely naturalistic view are the only sector with a significant increase.

The U.K. is about the European average in beliefs related to evolution. Here, the pure naturalists are the largest faction, although still a minority. Evolution as a whole wins out easily in every region. Hold your cursor over the map regions.

Belief map U.K.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-16-2011 4:35 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 03-20-2011 3:03 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 86 of 196 (609463)
03-20-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2011 4:51 PM


Dr. Adequate Continues to Ignore
Hi doc.

Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:

I shall as usual ignore…


Well, that’s disappointing doctor. You’ve steadfastly refused to place these two words together: “FIRM Commitment” toward a publishable debate.
You’ve faded into predictable non-participation, the manner of which would not impress anyone in a publishable debate, much less Rachel Maddow for a possible “Geek Week” appearance on MSNBC.

Your repeated unwillingness and/or inability to respond to Message 71 and 72 reveals your lack of commitment in this thread. Your demonstrated commitment to a publishable debate, doctor, is unambiguously nil.

Continuously ignoring the science and refusing to make a FIRM commitment free of extraneous excuses to withdraw from a publishable debate… this and more constitute the evidence and the reason you are counted as uncommitted for the purpose of this thread.

Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:

…your silly irrelevant and dishonest blather…


Well, the science softballs in Message 71 have been hanging over home plate for over three months now. You could have swung your “Big Bat of Facts” any time. The stadium is figuratively emptying and you’re still… doing nothing.
Your peers dropped their bats and vanished from the exercises also. But I assure you those exercises are worth your time to review and take a position in preparation for a publishable debate doctor. If you can’t take a position on the physics presented to you, and you can’t conceive any potential relevance, then your decision to ignore and heckle is the safest course of action available to you.

Dr. Adequate in Message 18 writes:

Bring me the head of Duane Gish! Or his ass, I gather that they both argue equally well.


The two exercises in Message 71 may very well be topics a creationist brings you regarding Earth science. To dismiss them as “silly irrelevant and dishonest blather” belies your condescending confidence. Some descriptive acronyms were defined at the bottom of Message 71, including “PR-NUT”. That term may be salient here regarding your condescendingly confident peers quoted in those exercises and regarding your present determination to ignore.

I’ve been trying to help you doc but you seem to have slipped into a snippy reclusive shell.

It was you boasting of a ”Big Bat of Facts” and now your big bat is silent!

It was you judging outspoken folks who believe differently than you to be “somewhat immoral,” and now you will not make a FIRM commitment (free of excuses to withdraw) for a publishable debate.

You talk about “cojones” in Message 68 and now you appear to hide behind the couch of ”literary style” in response to Messages 71 and 72.

Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:

…and ask you, once again, what steps you have taken to procure a creationist interested in participating in this project.


When you begin ignoring, you don’t mess around!
I’ll answer for the third time doctor…
You can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate as noted in Message 72 and Message 78 (if you ever do meet the requirements yourself). The steps I’ve taken were also given in Message 78, but you’re apparently not committed enough to read posts addressed to you. We remain in Step 1.

Dr. Adequate in Message 81 writes:

I'm ready when you are.

I’m sorry doctor. A FIRM commitment requires someone who can do more than ignore.
Those who are unable to negotiate fundamental physics (Exercises 1 & 2 in Message 71) are most definitely not ready for Publishable Prime-Time.

It’s really easy to make a FIRM commitment, doctor, if you have confidence in your beliefs and abilities.
I’ll repeat the requirements for you:

  1. To confirm in writing that you are firmly committed and that you will not withdraw for weak excuses you’ve hinted at in this thread such as
    1. “I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you.” (which was never requested)
    2. I can’t debate because I don’t like his/her “literary style”.
    3. Ignoring posts to you and withdrawing while mumbling “batshit crazy” or “silly irrelevant dishonest blather”. If you were to actually encounter such, you must be willing and able to confront it and expose it – to fulfill your self-expressed “ethical duty to try to speak the truth” and help educate the millions of neo-Darwinian “unbelievers”. You would further lose credibility if you were to half-heartedly commit and then ultimately withdrew while expressing nothing more convincing than insults.
  2. Demonstrate your scientific “Big Bat of Facts” ability (along with someone who knows physics) by addressing Exercises 1 and 2 in Message 71. Those Exercises were even presented in your requested format in Message 66.
  3. Recruit others for publicly stated FIRM commitments to assist you in the disciplines that I’m repeating below. In light of your recent inability to respond to the exercises, you must be able to secure firmly committed resources in disciplines that you may not be well versed.

List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to “chip in” with Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:

Biology – Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology and Earth Science - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:

You’ve also stated the requirements (simply to present the evidence) may be impossible for you as an individual in Message 44.

Dr. Adequate in Message 44 writes:

I just wanted to make the point that it is impossible for a single human being in a single lifetime to present "the evidence for evolution". All I can do is sketch out the major classes of such evidence, give a few examples, and explain why it is evidence. Hence, any readers who wanted to check that I wasn't simply cherry-picking the evidence would have to get up off their tuchi and do a little research of their own.

A debate obviously requires a significant effort beyond the mere presentation of your position.
Commitment to a written debate requires that you also defend your interpretation of your evidence and explain why alternative evidence and interpretations are not valid.

You’ve requested a creationist to debate and you know the scientific topics will be as broad as are listed at EVC Forum.
Yet you’re apparently unable or unwilling to secure public commitments from others here to assist.

So you say you’re ready… But you say above the task, beyond sketching major classes with a few examples, is more than you can do alone doctor.
----------------------------------------------------------

Why would you make a commitment that you say is “impossible” or that you cannot or will not meet?
----------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally doctor, there are creationists who do not view the requirements for the proposed publishable debate as “impossible.”
----------------------------------------------------------

The opportunity is potentially huge doctor! However, your behavior in this thread to date indicates you’ll vanish from the scene of a publishable debate as fast as (or faster than) your condescendingly confident peers (the ”Aspirants to Sophisticated Science” in Exercises 1 and 2) fled this thread last summer.
----------------------------------------------------------

Concerning qualifications, the OP of this thread states “at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers).”

Dr. Adequate in Message 18 of this thread writes:

I do have a PhD, but I'm willing to bet that the general public has never heard of me.


While I empathize with your unemployment in Vegas, that bet is left on the table.
I regretted to see your status as an unemployed mathematician in Message 1 in your thread (I need a job. Please help me.).
Dr. Adequate in Message 1 of his request for employment help writes:

I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, and I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. Can anyone please help me to find work?


You neglected to answer Straggler’s question in Message 2 of your unemployment thread: “What did you do for work until your current bout of unemployment?” If you don’t mind my asking doctor, have you ever been employed? If so, doing what?

In Message 11 of your request for help in employment:

Dr. Adequate in Message 11 of his request for employment help writes:

I've worked out some things which I think might be useful, but the field in which I am known is in my judgment about as useful as a soap herring.


Agreed, especially for the purpose of this thread, which is a rigorous and credible examination of the evidence in a written debate format for publication and education. Although math is technical, it is a deductive discipline. The natural and applied sciences leverage inductive logic, rooted in the scientific method. A Ph.D. employed in the natural or applied sciences would be much preferred by publishers seeking bona-fide credentials over a (traditionally liberal arts) mathematics Ph.D. in a field which, by your own assessment, has little practical application. Neither your educational credentials nor your current status offers “bona-fide credibility for potential publishers” or for a Rachel Maddow’s Geek Week feature appearance concerning neo-Darwinism.

Beyond credentials, your demonstrated commitment to “as usual ignore” remains problematic. It’s important that the strongest possible presentation and defense be made for naturalistic neo-Darwinism and this endeavor requires both firm commitment and marketable qualifications to lead the effort.

For potential success in getting a debate published and in the mainstream, we need a marketable lead Ph.D. in the sciences and other experts in various scientific disciplines as noted and illustrated in this thread. If a firmly committed lead Ph.D. in the sciences emerges to lead, various EVC Forum experts firmly commit to “chip in” and the proposed debate occurs, you could still be a contributor if you desire to make the effort. Any potential share of recompense should be agreed upon within your team. I’d still like to see you make a firm commitment, build a team, and help get this show on the road doctor!

Dr. Adequate writes:

I am interested because I feel that my rigorously hypothetico-deductive style of exposition does deserve a book.

Perhaps you should invest your free time writing a book for yourself as you mused in Message 7 of this thread. If you’re searching for work and your “rigorously hypothetico-deductive style of exposition” is an asset, a career in political commentary may be an option. However, a successful outcome for the proposed debate could hopefully get you on Geek Week, and that could possibly spring you a gig at MSNBC as a political or science analyst. Of course there are no guarantees for success but you never know until you try. Your first order of business would be to effectively confront and nullify the arguments against neo-Darwinism in a professional format.

I’ll take as much time as necessary but we’re in Step 1 until you demonstrate you’re able to do more than ignore and we can secure a firm commitment from a qualified and marketable lead Ph.D. Based on your expressed limitations to only present the evidence, your qualifications, your status, and your demonstrated lack of commitment in this thread to date, you are not currently considered viable as the Lead debater for a contractual agreement to debate evidence for/against neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable format.

If you’re sincerely interested in assisting a marketable Ph.D. neo-Darwinian evolutionist with bona-fide credibility to help educate unbelievers concerning the scientific evidence – then you know what to do doctor! Otherwise, you may as well continue to ignore from a safe distance because you’ll have no positive purpose to remain active in this thread topic.

Please take some time and consider your response. To be successful in this effort and get published, quality is essential and there’s no need to rush. I’m requesting that you build as strong a team as possible to represent neo-Darwinism.

Best wishes for finding employment doing something you enjoy,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2011 4:51 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2011 7:31 PM Eye-Squared-R has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 87 of 196 (609465)
03-20-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Panda
01-16-2011 5:07 PM


Perturbed Panda
Hello Panda and welcome,

Panda in Message 82 writes:

Your emotional, paranoid and biased ramblings completely undermine your standing as a neutral debate moderator/representative.

Holy consternation Batman! Hold your fire furry fella! It’s generally recommended to read the OP (Message 1) before honoring us with your judgments. There you would learn (among other things) that I will not be involved in the proposed debate, moderation, etc.
You may also review Message 10 and Message 22 (humor aside) for further clarification.

The purpose for this thread is to promote science education in a potentially broad and significant publishable format. I’m interested in seeing the scientific rigor and performance of each side of the debate but I will not be involved in the debate.

The only emotion or pain expressed in this thread is from your peers Panda. Interested observers may judge the source of any “paranoid and biased ramblings.

My bias is toward presentation and defense of good science separate from philosophy or religion - for educational purposes.
Otherwise, I most certainly would not have initiated this topic…
It’s a sincere proposal and there is really no need to take this thread personal Panda.

We need knowledgeable and confident EVC Forum experts who will make a FIRM commitment to a professional publishable debate. We need folks who will not figuratively proclaim their ability to hit home runs and then lay down their bat and complain with potential excuses to withdraw from a publishable debate like “I don’t like my opponent’s literary style” or “I shall as usual ignore…

Panda in Message 82 writes:

I would not expect you to ever be honest in any debate.


It would be helpful if you offered more specific critique or advice rather than general vague judgments. I’ll do my best to correct any shortcomings.
Otherwise, advice offered by Straggler in Message 139 (of the Philosohy 101 thread) to a particular participant in this thread may be useful Panda:
Straggler writes:

Debaters talk about their positions. Game-players talk about the debate.

It would be most helpful, Panda, if you would divulge your position on the topic of the thread: FIRM commitments to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable debate.

Panda in Message 82 writes:

Even your posts in this very thread are full of crap like:

Eye-Squared-R in Message 80 writes:

Adminnemooseus was impressively diligent editing out colors in a subtitle (Messages 73, 74, & 76) while color is apparently fine in the title of another topic ( Great Debate the bluegenes Challenge ). That level of admin attention and sensitivity is noteworthy but we’d much prefer that you, Moose, or someone actually address the questions and requests in Messages 71 and 72.


Well, it was worth a chuckle to me. Adminnemooseus’ diligence in moderation was impressive and noteworthy.
Attacking “literary style” or font color is a common response when one is unable or unwilling to address the content.
Ignoring is another common diversion. Impugning character (like honesty) is often another.
Still waiting for you, Dr. Adequate, Moose, or anyone to actually address the exercises and requests in Messages 71 and 72… and ultimately to make firm commitments for a publishable debate.

Panda in Message 82 writes:

I think you should go mass debate yourself.


Self-Gratification? Clever, but not satisfying.
Like some others in this thread, you appear to be perturbed Panda.
Do you, like Omnivorous in Message 75, feel a pain as though you have a boil on your butt?

Since this topic is in the Coffee House forum, please indulge a little humor from SNL Panda:
Coffee Talk with Linda Richman (Click to view the video)
Talk amongst yourselves… or cuss and discuss.
The topic:

  1. As stated in Message 1, EVC Forum is a great resource. But… is EVC Forum like “Butta”?
  2. Why, after nine months, are there no firm commitments (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to debate the scientific evidence for/against neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable format?

In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread concerning a professional publishable debate Panda, you neglected to respond to the fundamental question – as I request all do when posting.

Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief regarding neo-Darwinism that you’re willing to defend in a professional and publishable format... expanded to all the scientific disciplines that may be engaged…
I must ask - are you “in” or “out”?

If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to “chip in” with Dr. Adequate in a publishable debate in at least one of the various disciplines repeated in Message 86 to debate the evidence for/against neo-Darwinism? This assumes, of course, the doc is able to articulate and demonstrate a bold, confident, firm commitment and we’re able to secure a qualified, committed, marketable lead Ph.D. as explained in Message 86.

You mentioned honesty Panda… so if you are unable to FIRMLY commit to a publishable debate for neo-Darwinism, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Panda, posted 01-16-2011 5:07 PM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2011 1:22 AM Eye-Squared-R has responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 88 of 196 (609466)
03-20-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taq
01-18-2011 5:48 PM


Please Bring Evidence That neo-Darwinism Works to a Publishable Debate
Hello Taq. Welcome back and thanks.
It’s been a while since you joined in Message 5 last June. Your posts are thoughtful and appreciated. Refreshing, actually.

Taq in Message 84 writes:

Evolution is not a religion looking for converts.

Perhaps, that’s true in general. Unless one defines converts as “believers” and one judges “unbelievers” as flawed or possibly wicked.
Reference the Dawkins quote in Message 1

Richard Dawkins writes:

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).


Obviously, Dawkins passes certain judgment upon those unconverted souls who do not “believe” in random (unguided) mutations as the exclusive source of DNA for progeny to progress from a single cell to humans.
Disagreements are common in the history of science, but to define “unbelievers” as potentially insane or wicked is strange language for practitioners of science Taq.

Taq in Message 84 writes:

It (evolution) is a scientific theory that is applied by biologists in their research, and the theory has been extremely successful in this venue.


Research with extreme success is precisely what’s needed for a publishable debate with a neo-Darwinist “unbeliever” Taq. Would you please commit to presenting and defending this research (in a publishable debate) as clear evidence for random mutations and natural selection developing 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 critters within a population over time?

Taq in Message 84 writes:

The same can not be said for creationism or ID. No scientist is using creationism or ID as the basis for their scientific research while millions of biologists are using the theory of evolution.


Not sure whether you are expressing your opinion or you have a reliable poll of all research scientists for that conclusion.
Historically, it’s not completely accurate.
The foundation of the modern science of genetics (according to Wikipedia) was researched and defined by an Augustine monk named Gregor Mendel.
Wikipedia says this in the link provided for Mendel:
  • Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at university and his colleagues at the monastery to study variation in plants, and he conducted his study in the monastery's two hectare experimental garden, which was originally planted by the abbot Napp in 1830. Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 29,000 pea plants (i.e., Pisum sativum). This study showed that one in four pea plants had purebred recessive alleles, two out of four were hybrid and one out of four were purebred dominant. His (Mendel’s) experiments led him to make two generalizations, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, which later became known as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.
  • After he was elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended as Mendel became consumed with his increased administrative responsibilities, especially a dispute with the civil government over their attempt to impose special taxes on religious institutions. At first Mendel's work was rejected, and it was not widely accepted until after he died. At that time most biologists held the idea of blending inheritance, and Charles Darwin's efforts to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis were unsuccessful. (bold emphasis mine)

Regarding your statement quoted above, it may be worth noting that today we refer to Mendel’s (creationist) Laws of Inheritance and Darwin’s (philosophical naturalist) theory for origin of species.

In any case, it’s all that scientific research you mention by millions of biologists as potential evidence for neo-Darwinism that I’m searching for someone to leverage toward possibly educating many more millions in a successful publishable debate.

Taq in Message 84 writes:

This is why evolution is taught in science classes. It works.

Mendel’s Laws are taught in science classes and were discovered independent from any of Darwin’s work. Ecological and other factors can influence gene pools over time. But Mendel’s Laws and selection processes do not provide genetic code for newly functioning organs.
Neo-Darwinism necessarily begins with a self-sustaining, self-replicating cell deploying at least some (if not most) of the functions described in the Harvard cell animation below. According to neo-Darwinism, random (unguided) mutations are the exclusive source for all genetic variation to generate the complete functional controls for the cell, and ultimately all biological functions in all life forms. This inferred random iteration (as the sole source for selection to eventually generate human DNA) is likely the “bone of contention” for most neo-Darwinian unbelievers.
Harvard Cell Animation (Click to view)
My favorite is the Motor Proteins at 3:39 of the video.

Clearly, what is needed to educate unbelievers concerning the validity of neo-Darwinism is unambiguous convincing evidence to demonstrate how random mutations and natural selection work to develop new organs, features, and capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation, etc.). Even direct observation of partially developed newly forming organs may be helpful evidence for some.

Your comment in Message 17 of the thread (Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?) alludes to much evidence.

Taq in the thread mentioned above writes:

So would finding a few specific and special cases of guided mutation throw out all of the mountains of data demonstrating random mutation? I would say no. The special cases are footnotes. Even comparisons of genomes demonstrates different rates of synonymous to non-synonymous changes, hallmarks of random mutation and selection. Do we throw out a theory that describes 99.99999% of the evolutionary history of genomes because that 0.00001% is guided by environment? Again, I would say no.


Taq, would you be willing to firmly commit to bring the evidence from research by the millions of biologists you mention and the 99.99999% of the evolutionary history of genomes you referenced to a publishable debate that could be leveraged to potentially educate millions of people?

Otherwise, historically in science, the observation that “it works” can be a deceptive criterion for conferring validity of an inferred mechanism in a theory.

Ptolemaic astronomy worked also and made excellent predictions for centuries. But the inferred mechanisms responsible for Ptolemaic astronomy were flawed and ultimately had to be abandoned. The concept of phlogiston was universally accepted among scientists and seemed to “work” for a long time also before its failures were finally recognized and the mechanism abandoned.

Thomas S. Kuhn in his book (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition, Page 70) writes:

Scheele actually first produced oxygen by an elaborate chain of experiments designed to dephlogisticate heat. Yet the net result of their experiments was a variety of gas samples and gas properties so elaborate that the phlogiston theory proved increasingly little able to cope with laboratory experience. Though none of these chemists suggested that the theory should be replaced, they were unable to apply it consistently. (bold emphasis mine)


Both Ptolemaic and phlogiston theories, like neo-Darwinian theory, could be adjusted and adapted to explain observations for a long time. Thorough examination of the evidence is always good science. It’s what motivates this thread.

Please note there is no need for anyone here to respond with perceived evidence for how neo-Darwinism generates new organs, etc. That is not the topic for this thread. But it could be a topic for another thread that committed EVC Forum folks could use in preparation for a publishable debate so that many millions may benefit from the knowledge of the evidence.

For a fascinating historical and insightful understanding of how science works, I recommend Kuhn’s book referenced above. In Message 32, Coyote mentioned it was required for a theory class in his grad school.

Taq in Message 84 writes:

You must understand the theory (evolution, including neo-Darwinism) if you hope to do research in the biological sciences.


In at least some professional settings, one must not openly question the theory. An acquaintance was told years ago (long before the movie Expelled) that he could not express his personal views of unbelief concerning neo-Darwinism while he worked as a doctoral candidate in microbiology at the university. He understood neo-Darwinian theory very well and his research was successful independent of it. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology today, but remains a neo-Darwinism “unbeliever”.

Taq in Message 84 writes:

While a lot of Americans may reject the theory because of their religious beliefs this hasn't changed the theory's acceptance amongst professions where the theory actually matters.


Not all of the millions who reject neo-Darwinism do so for religious reasons Taq. For many, exposure to clear unambiguous evidence would be helpful.

If nothing else Taq, could you at least make a public commitment to “chip in” with Dr. Adequate in a publishable debate in at least one of the various disciplines as reiterated in Message 86 to debate the evidence for/against neo-Darwinism? Note this assumes the doc is able to specify and demonstrate a bold, confident, firm commitment and we’re able to secure a firm commitment from a qualified and marketable lead Ph.D.

And if you are unable to make a FIRM commitment to a professional publishable debate in any of the disciplines listed in prior posts, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:48 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 89 of 196 (609467)
03-20-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by bluegenes
01-18-2011 10:11 PM


Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Hello Bluegenes and welcome. Thank you for your considered response.

Bluegenes in Message 85 writes:

If most Americans believed that the earth was flat, that wouldn't change its shape.

Correct. But virtually all Americans do not believe the Earth is flat - because they’ve been exposed to the abundant evidence.
That is precisely the opportunity presented in this thread: to both present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism in a publishable venue that could help educate the masses.

Bluegenes in Message 85 writes:

Actually, evolution is gaining. Most Americans now believe that humans evolved from other animals, and those who take a purely naturalistic view are the only sector with a significant increase.

From the Gallup Poll link you provided:

Gallup Poll writes:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement. (Gold emphasis mine)

Neo-Darwinism is the concept of natural selection acting on random mutations (without guidance) to develop humans, elephants, and all the other extant critters from microbes. According to your Gallup reference, only 16% believe human DNA developed without God's involvement. This poll indicates a larger opportunity for neo-Darwinian evolutionists to educate Americans than I had imagined. If there are 308 million people in the US, the 84% “unbelievers” or skeptics in neo-Darwinism (unguided Random Mutations and Natural Selection) that you could help educate would amount to over 258 million people!

The point is the vast majority of Americans are evidently either not aware of the evidence or not persuaded by the evidence for neo-Darwinism (purely naturalistic view) as they are the evidence for a spherical Earth.
Would you please help educate these folks by committing to present and defend the evidence in a broad publishable format Bluegenes?

Polls vary in methodology, sample size, margin of error, confidence level, etc., and are generally useful in politics and marketing. Polls are not historically reliable in determining truth in science.
Thus I never even bothered to look at any polls for this thread until you provided the link for the Gallop poll. It was evident to me without referring to polls that most Americans don’t buy into philosophically naturalistic neo-Darwinism to explain the existence of all life forms.
Now don’t take this too seriously (it’s intended as humor) but almost the same percentage (about 14%) of Americans reported in a poll a few years ago, believe they or someone they know have had a Close Encounter with Extra-Terrestrial Aliens! If that link is broken or down, the Roper Poll summary, along with methodology, can be found here. See “Alien Encounters” under Highlights. Apparently, the evidence for “Close Encounters with Aliens” is either not convincing or not widely known by most Americans.

In keeping with the narrow focus of this thread concerning a professional publishable debate, you neglected to respond to the fundamental question – as I request all do when posting.

Given the flexibility to propose any statement of belief regarding neo-Darwinism that you’re willing to present and defend in a professional, publishable format... expanded to all the scientific disciplines that an unbeliever may engage…
I must ask - are you “in” or “out”?

If nothing else, could you at least make a public commitment to “chip in” with Dr. Adequate in a publishable debate in at least one of the various disciplines as reiterated in Message 86 to debate the evidence for/against neo-Darwinism? Note this assumes the doc is able to specify and demonstrate a bold, confident, firm commitment and we’re able to secure a committed, qualified, and marketable lead Ph.D. for new-Darwinism.

And if you are unable to make a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate in any of the disciplines listed in prior posts, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2011 10:11 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by bluegenes, posted 03-20-2011 6:09 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 90 of 196 (609481)
03-20-2011 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Eye-Squared-R
03-20-2011 3:03 PM


Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works
Where did you get the post title from? I don't remember the phrase "neo-Darwinism" in the poll. The 16% believe in naturalistic evolution, but no specific theory was mentioned.

Eye-Squared-R writes:

Correct. But virtually all Americans do not believe the Earth is flat - because they’ve been exposed to the abundant evidence.

That is precisely the opportunity presented in this thread: to both present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism in a publishable venue that could help educate the masses.

Is it?

How would it help when masses of published work by biologists is already available to them? And have you not yet understood that comments about people being ignorant, stupid or delusional relate to the denial of the fact of evolution, not to any particular explanatory theory? They apply largely to the 40% in the Gallup poll who believe that humans were created as we are.

E-S-R writes:

According to your Gallup reference, only 16% believe human DNA developed without God's involvement. This poll indicates a larger opportunity for neo-Darwinian evolutionists to educate Americans than I had imagined. If there are 308 million people in the US, the 84% “unbelievers” or skeptics in neo-Darwinism (unguided Random Mutations and Natural Selection) that you could help educate would amount to over 258 million people!

How? What information can I make available to religious Americans that is not already easily available to them if they were interested in it? And what makes you think that evidence ever had anything to do with their religious beliefs? The 84% are believing what 90% believed a few decades ago, what more than 90% would have probably believed 100 years ago, and what nearly 100% would have believed 200 years ago. The origin of the belief is cultural, it is passed down generations, and isn't built on evidence.

E-S-R writes:

The point is the vast majority of Americans are evidently either not aware of the evidence or not persuaded by the evidence for neo-Darwinism (purely naturalistic view) as they are the evidence for a spherical Earth.

Would you please help educate these folks by committing to present and defend the evidence in a broad publishable format Bluegenes?

Again, if you think that a lack of published information on biology is the reason 84% of Americans believe a god was involved in their creation, you are wrong. They are inclined to believe what they heard repeatedly as little children. Kids brought up in traditional non-theistic religions don't believe in creator gods, and kids brought up to believe that the Koran is the word of god are much more likely to believe that than you or I.

The purely naturalistic view is more prevalent in Europe because of a significantly greater decline in religious belief, and lower general intensity of the indoctrination of children with religious belief, not because of a difference in the scientific information available.

Projects like the one you claim to be proposing make no difference. The 16% of naturalists will grow over time, but not rapidly, and there are many complex factors involved in cultural change.

I mentioned the Gallup poll because you said this:

E-S-R writes:

According to most polls of American beliefs, evolution is losing in the marketplace of ideas as demonstrated by the magnitude of “unbelievers”.

It is, in fact, gaining from the point of virtual zero it would have had 150 years ago, and the magnitude of unbelievers (measured by percentage) is on an inevitable decline. It's a pity they don't break down the figures by age group. Then you could see which direction things are going.

E-R-S writes:

And if you are unable to make a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate in any of the disciplines listed in prior posts, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.

Reason? Apart from having no evidence that an anonymous poster on the Internet is actually arranging such a thing? Here's a reason.

If I'm debating with people who are proposing non-living intelligent beings as a mechanism in biology, I consider the debate to be won if they cannot establish the existence of non-living intelligent beings as a genre. That has never been done. I can demonstrate the existence of my mechanisms, like chemical reactions, mutation, natural selection, drift etc., and I expect the same standards of the opposition.

So, if you find a creationist who can actually demonstrate the existence of the genre (non-living intelligent beings) then I will happily participate in a debate as to whether or not one or more such beings is doing or has done some designing in the biosphere and is responsible for life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 03-20-2011 3:03 PM Eye-Squared-R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 03-20-2011 6:23 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 123 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-01-2011 1:37 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014