|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?” | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2643 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
cavediver writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 29 writes: The equations are presented clearly for anyone knowledgeable to verify whether your persistent criticisms are correct. They are. I was contemplating writing my own reply, but I think nwr has captured my own response sufficiently.
Hello Cavediver, Congratulations! You and nwr are destined for fame and fortune when you actually falsify Ohm’s Law as nwr claims in this thread.
nwr in Message 16 writes:
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false.
An announcement for a Nobel Prize in physics will likely be the first time we all learn your true identities.However, you may wish to examine the third term (Resistance) in Ohm’s Law before claiming Ohm's Law to be false. You and nwr may also wish to carefully investigate whether Power can actually be viewed as Heat and the nature of "reactance" before falsifying other fundamental features of physics - because that may qualify you both for a second Nobel Prize. A good place to start that investigation for power and heat is the units of measurement (1 kilowatt is approximately equal to 0.949 BTU/second or 239 calories/second). For the difference between "Real Power (and Heat)" and "Reactive Power" where energy is stored and not dissipated in heat, you may wish to Google the term "Power Factor" and study those concepts.
cavediver in Message 30 writes:
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".
I apologize but I've never learned that important difference between experts and "experts". Perhaps you could expound on that for the benefit of us all. Does that mean we should toss our physics books in the trash and accept whatever ya'll say as truth without question? You neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question in this thread cavediver:
Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate? If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind. All the Best,Eye-Squared-R
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Eye-Squared-R writes:
I am amazed that you persist in your public display of ignorance. It is not as if you were not given enough hints.You and nwr may also wish to carefully investigate whether Power can actually be viewed as Heat and ... Heat is one (of several) forms of energy. Power is a rate (energy per unit time). Saying that those are the same is one of the most obvious and foolish of errors that somebody could make in physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Does that mean we should toss our physics books in the trash and accept whatever ya'll say as truth without question? It was advice that always served my students well, certainly for some well-below-par textbooks. Probably the same ones that confuse power and heat...
If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind. Out - I am a theoretical physicist and there are many better qualified and experienced than I to explain evolutionary theory. But if you should want to arrange a similar debate on cosmological issues, let me know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4743 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The equations are presented clearly for anyone knowledgeable to verify whether your persistent criticisms are correct. H=I2Rt. The equations say yes. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2643 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
Eye-Squared-R in Message 29 writes:
The equations are presented clearly for anyone knowledgeable to verify whether your persistent criticisms are correct. H=I2Rt. The equations say yes. Very good lyx2no.Heat equals power multiplied by time. We’ve all agreed that I2R is equal to "Real Power" which can be measured in kilowatts (kW).Let’s assume the time is measured in hours. Now let’s assume your personal electric power consumption bill for last month was 10,000 kiloWatt-Hours and you write a check for 10,000 kiloWatt-Hours. Now look at the equation again. How much heat was dissipated in your house last month that you just paid for?You paid for 10,000 kiloWatt-hours worth power and that is equal exactly to the amount of heat that was dissipated in your house. Therefore, when you pay your power bill, you’re technically paying for heat — no more, no less. Note I did not say power was "equal to" heat.I said power can be "thought of" as heat which your equation and this example illustrates well. You neglected to respond (as I request all do when posting) to the fundamental question in this thread lyx2no:
Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate? If so, please present your statement of belief along with your FIRM commitment to engage a publishable debate. If your status is out - please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind. All the Best,Eye-Squared-R
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You want a statement of belief? I'll give you one:
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. This is a belief based on considerable experience and I don't recall any exceptions. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Dr. A writes: We're either looking for someone with a penchant for understatement or someone who's seen a graviton. No, I have never seen a graviton. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Are you unfamiliar with the Opposing Viewpoints series from Greenhaven Press?
Been done before. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
You paid for 10,000 kiloWatt-hours worth power Oh dear god, this is painful. Power is the rate of heat transfer, not the quantity of heat. 10,000 KWhr is a quantity of heat, IT IS NOT POWER. 10,000 KWhr could be supplied at a power of 10 Watts, in which case it would take 1,000,000 hours to supply, or it could be supplied at a power of 1 Tera Watt, in which case it would take 40 milliseconds to transfer. I have a 3KW electric heater in my room. How hot does it make my room? Can you spot the missing variable required in order to answer the question? Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat. To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4743 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
Note I did not say power was "equal to" heat. I said power can be "thought of"[Actually it was: "can also be viewed as"] as heat which your equation and this example illustrates well. You also said:
The equations are presented clearly for anyone knowledgeable to verify whether your persistent criticisms are correct. But I can't find any math symbol for "can be viewed as", so what equations are you referring to? May I suggest the Japanese for eye,目? Now we can write H=Pt; read, Heat is equal to Power multiplied by time. Or our new math, P目H; read, Power can also be viewed as Heat. Then we can extend this new math. Since Vt=d, then, V目d; read Velocity can also be viewed as distance. Would it be presumptuous of me to suggest that as Ad-1∝D-1, read, An apple a day is inversely proportional to doctors, then, D-1目A; read, A doctor standing on her head can also be viewed as an apple? I'm out. Firstly, have you any experience in promoting professional debates? All I see is you making one erroneous statement after the next, and fallacies of consequence?
Passive aggressive appeal to emotion much? With your use of this kind of tactic I can't trust that this is not anything more than a ploy. On what forum will you be announcing that you challenged anyone on EvC to debate "neo-darwinism" away from their home turf and none would take you up on it? Secondly, I am in no way qualified for the job. I can distinguish reason from idiocy, but that's about it. That's what makes me qualified to argue P目H. Thirdly, I've a boat to catch. But I wish you luck. Edited by lyx2no, : Dropped a predicate adjective. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Eye-Squared-R, and thanks for the reply.
Even if it is a little long winded ... And a lot of it is unnecessary ...
TIME-OUT RAZD for some friendly humor in deference to a WHOLE BUNCH of folks ... P.S. RAZD, you’re one of the best here I trust you don’t mind a little humor. I have no problem with humor, but I find this a little forced.
Curiously, this imposter seems to say he will refuse this offer for a publishable debate on issues that he believes the evidence overwhelmingly supports his position. That’s not the rational RAZD we know. This imposter sounds almost like he would only engage in a publishable debate if his opponent agreed with him on almost everything. That doesn’t seem to reflect a strong confidence level and I suspect it would not provide much incentive or value for a potential publisher. Amazingly, I see no point in entering into a contract to debate with someone (person or persons unknown) that is clearly delusional (if not insane) and who ignores evidence that they are delusional. The reason is simple: there is no real debate with people that live in fantasy land, and you end up talking past each other (also see Dr A's comments). You will note, please, that there is no requirement that they must agree with me on any point involving biology in general and evolution in particular, only that they demonstrate a minimal degree of rational behavior in response to evidence.
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough for this imposter but the qualifications (at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers) apply to both sides. And, of course, it should be a requirement that the PhD be verified as coming from an accredited institution, and not a made up or mail-order degree, yes? But no, that was not clear, as you seemed to be only interested is issuing requirements for evolutionists.
Message 1: A single individual or an entire team of EVC folks could participate and collaborate in written responses on behalf of evolution - but at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers). Interestingly, I see no similar statement for creationists. I must have missed that part. All I saw was:
(ibid) ... After a qualified individual or team is committed to represent evolution, we can hopefully locate and secure a commitment from a worthy debate opponent (individual or team) ... That doesn't seem to list any qualifications for this "worthy debate opponent (individual or team)" - especially as "worthy" is undefined in any way for this issue. I would also note that:
... and begin the process of defining the format and identifying a moderator. Assuming the quality is high, potential publishers would then be sought. Leaves completely open the issue of how you would find an impartial moderator, what their qualifications would be, and what kind of rules they would enforce. I would also expect the moderator to set some requirements, such as:
This is similar to the requirements for posting here, and where the enforcement of these simple requirements are a major reason for the success of this forum. (see forum guidelines\rules for more examples).
Yes sir — but only if someone here is willing to engage in a publishable format. The topic for this thread is clearly an invitation for publishable debate regarding the neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism. Gotta Love EVC Forum — What a Resource! Curiously, this FORUM is a published format, so that is not really the issue. Rather the issue is whether or not people will agree to participate in your pet project without knowing what they are getting into (and there is a lot of evidence of creationist chicanery involving debate formats where dishonestly edited results are published). Of course, you could just negotiate with Percy for the rights to publish (edited?) debates from this forum, rather than try to recreate it. The question is how you would expect your debate to differ from what we see on this forum that would justify your format.
If you choose to respond, please tip me off early whether it’s the REAL EVC Forum RAZD, internally consistent, generally considerate, and rational (even at the Silly Design Institute) And interestingly, I choose who I respond to, and why I post responses to certain people.
Is there ANY statement of belief in neo-Darwinism that you are willing and able to defend in a professional written and publishable debate? Part of the problem, as Dr.A. alluded, is the issue of what you are really talking about, why (for instance) you talk about "neo-Darwinism" instead of the whole field of evolutionary biology.
For example, when a pupil asked the Master what is the essential teaching of Buddism, the Master said: "If you swallow in one draught the whole of the river Thames I can tell you." D.T. Suzuki, The Field of Zen, p84 You are talking about a whole field of science that takes many years to learn (for the bachelor's, master's and Ph.D. degrees).
The term evolution is widely used to mean various things. True, and it would be absolutely pointless to use the definition for stellar evolution in any debate about biology. Thus it become obvious that if you are debating or discussing biology in any form, that you should be using the biological (scientific) definition of evolution, and not something else: using something else for the definition means that (a) you are confused and (2) that you are not discussing biological evolution. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. and Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. for clarification on this issue.
Your definition above is short and sweet but it doesn’t speak to the source of the raw material for genetic diversity. An exhaustive discussion of the modern evolutionary synthesis is not the topic here and I have no interest in it. Fascinatingly, my definition is similar to the ones found at university websites where evolutionary biology is being taught.
University of Michigan definitions of evolution:
quote: and
Berkeley University definition of evolution:
quote: Neither of these definitions used to actually teach biological evolution in universities make specific reference to mutations or natural selection. Rather, they make reference to what can be determined to see if evolution has in fact occurred, as does my definition:
Evolution is the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities. Mutation causes change in the character of hereditary traits, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large). Natural selection causes change in the frequency of hereditary traits, but it is not the only mechanism that does so. The ecology changes when the environment changes, other organisms within the ecology evolve, or migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
This may not be the definition you prefer and that’s fine. If you don’t believe that definition to be easily defensible, then you would not be interested in debating for it. It is detailed in this thread for those who are. Amusingly, that is not a definition of evolution, but an explanation of some of the mechanisms behind evolution, and it is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.
Few people would claim not to believe Mendel’s Laws of heredity. And yet Mendel was not exactly correct either. He had a small percentage of his data that did not fit his "Laws of heredity" ... because (1) he did not know about mutations and (b) mutations were the cause of the data misfits.
An exhaustive discussion of the modern evolutionary synthesis is not the topic here and I have no interest in it. Evidently.
Message 1: I will not be involved in the debate for EVC ... Possibly a good thing ... but then, what is your role?
I’d like to see you on the team RAZD but it appears you may ... ... want to know a lot more about the whole scheme, including (but not limited to) who is the opposition. As noted on my profile I personally do not have the requisite PhD to be a team leader. I could support Dr.A, but there would be conditions, legal conditions, not least of which would be the approval of context and content for all quoted material. But mostly I don't see any purpose served by your project that is not already served by this forum. If there is a substantial purpose that is not already covered by this forum, then perhaps we could discuss with Percy the possibility of having a special section of the forum that would serve your purpose -- something similar to the GREAT DEBATE forum, but limited to teams with your qualifications and some other requirements, and with the team size limited, so that the debate is focused. Perhaps as a trial for your project, where some of the bugs can be worked out. This leaves you with the unenviable task of finding a worthy opposition. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : more clarity even we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I would have extreme difficulty securing a FIRM commitment from a potential debate opponent if that candidate were dead. Yeah, but just think how cool it would be if you could. You could sell it as "Dr Adequate Meets The Zombie Creationist From Hell." Think of the film rights, the spin-offs, the merchandising. And then the sequel where it rises from the dead, the stake still skewering its unbeating heart, and insists that this time it's not a creationist but an intelligent design proponent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
However, your next post about three hours later seems to be not so firm. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Logically, the simplistic and generalized definitions for evolution implicitly require a working mechanism similar to that described below ... That's a funny use of the word "logically". The definition of a thing is (usually) separate from the process that produced it. If, for example, I wanted to define "gold" I would not include in the definition its formation in an exploding star, because gold would be gold even if it was magicked into existence by a leprechaun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024