|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?” | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Eye-Squared-R, and welcome to the fray.
I agree with nwr that your concept is flawed by a basic misunderstanding, or incomplete understanding, of biology and the role of evolution.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge your point and appreciate the feedback. We could amend #1 to read: Neo-Darwinism is verified at a high confidence level by the scientific evidence without exception to explain all life forms as descended from a common ancestor. That's closer to a real position, however still not completely there. Dawkin's statement (see Ignorance Is No Crime) was:
quote: Evolution is the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities. This has been observed. This is fact. Thus anyone who says they do not believe it (or any other fact) is ignorant, stupid, dishonest or deluded. Speciation - the divergence of one or more daughter populations from parent populations - has also been observed, in the lab and in the field. Speciation is the process whereby the different evolution (see above) in reproductively isolated sub-populations results in the divergence or one or more sub-populations from their common ancestor population. Thus speciation is also a fact. This fact establishes the process by which nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestors can form.
The theory of evolution is that evolution (the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities) and speciation (the divergence -via evolution- of one or more daughter populations from parent populations) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, pre-history, archeology, paleontology, geology, genetics, etc. Whether this theory is able to "explain all life forms as descended from a common ancestor" is debatable ... partly because it is falsifiable, and partly because a single common ancestor is not part of the theory of evolution, but rather a prediction of the theory of common ancestry, based on the formation of nested hierarchies by the process of speciation. If it turns out that all life evolved from a set number of original life forms (which is a real possibility btw) the theory of evolution would still be valid. The theory of evolution (like all good scientific theories) is testable and falsifiable, as every new piece of information from fossils, genetics and the like, tests the possibility of not being explained by evolutionary processes. All scientific theories are debatable in the sense that they are tentative explanations of our current knowledge. So far all the evidence of all we know about life is capable of being explained by the process of evolution, and that gives scientists a high degree of confidence in the validity of the theory. Any theory that has a high degree of confidence in its validity can be used to make predictions based on the theory for practical purposes. We can predict the orbit of mars sufficiently to land little robots there. We can predict the uplift of mountains at the boundaries of tectonic plates. We can predict that evolution - the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities - will continue to be observed in the world around us.
With the expressed knowledge and competence at EVC, I’m interested in seeing big rocks turned over and sifting what lies underneath with a spotlight and a microscope - in a professional format. The nature of science is that it generally advances through disagreement, new information, testing, and nullification. Then we should expect professional competence from both sides of your debate. In Message 1 you said:
quote: Curiously, I don't see any such qualifications for the other table, so let me add what I think should be required for a professional opposition:
The reason for these conditions is to eliminate the terminally deluded and insane people (with whom there is no chance of a rational debate), as well as those too stupid to understand such concepts, thus leaving us with those who are ignorant but capable of learning .... You will note that not one of these conditions involves any relationship to evolution in specific and biology in general, and thus should have no effect on the debate, other than making sure that both sides can address the issues in a rational manner. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : et too bruteclrty Edited by RAZD, : one two many 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jzyehoshua, and welcome to the fray.
I will debate with you. I make a lot of new and original points. ... (1) nothing you listed is new or original. What you have is a list of pratts (points refuted a thousand times). (2) the topic of this thread is whether or not people would be interested in participating in a "professional debate" -- see Message 1 for clarification.
6. If the world is as old as is commonly claimed, ... (3) If you think otherwise then please read and respond to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ... you could be the first creationist to get past the first couple of posts.
Also, I have limited time, so much of the debate will likely occur on weekends, at least from my end. For someone with limited time you sure spammed a lot of threads and will have a lot of posts to respond to in return. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Jzyehoshua
And where is this refutation? I know of no one else online who makes the points on recent transitional form controversies or sterility in interspeciary breeding. I think you are making a hasty generalization to avoid addressing what is a serious list of weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory. One of the things that makes this such a good debate site is that it (tries to anyway) stick to a single topic in a thread, hence my reference to Message 1 previously. If you want to debate the items you listed, you should start a new topic for each one. Do that and I will be happy to participate in the refutations.
(3) If you think otherwise then please read and respond to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ... you could be the first creationist to get past the first couple of posts. I'll take a look, thanks. And please respond on that thread rather than here.
... And I'm not new. I was here back in 2010 which is why I have 60+ posts. I've been on so many hundreds of forums before that I have trouble remembering the formatting distinctions between them, that's all. Then welcome back. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously there was no reply to Dr Adequate ...
Wonder why. It seems that the points I made 2-1/2 years ago in Message 15 and Message 42 still stand. Surprise ... not. Since that time more evidence for evolution has occurred ... no surprise ... while evidence for creationism remains elusive ... again no surprise. Since that time I have tweaked some of my arguments, especially as relate to an old earth (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, and Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?) -- which is part of my requirements for creationist opponents in this proposed debate to accept as valid -- and as relates to evolution itself (see Introduction to Evolution). Curiously, since I last posted here, mutation have continued to be observed, natural selection continues to be observed, speciation has been observed, and all these observed instances are facts that support evolution. It does not take a PhD to recognize this as evidence for the validity of evolution. In fact all breeding populations of species on the planet today exhibit evolution from generation to generation. For anyone that disagrees, this is a falsifiable statement: just show one species that is not evolving in the world today. No sudden creation of a single species de novo has been observed, either now or in the past. No limitation to the ability of evolution to explain the fossil record has been found. This debate is really over before it ever starts (if it ever starts), because the objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the scientific theory of evolution. btw -- I see no reason for the requirements for evolution proponents to be more strict than the requirements for creationists. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : addedby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
a poser is a poser no matter what pose he poses.
Curiously, you are not reading well. Review Message 172 (click link) for which Dr. Adequate had no reply due to his hurting eyes in Message 174. Also review Message 189 (click link) again ... So no specific reply to Dr Adequate in Message 189 as I stated.
... slowly where you will find this: Curiously an ad hominem paragraph rant is not a reply to a person but a logical fallacy. So, no, my reading is fine, you failed to address the points that Dr Adequate has raised regarding your lost cause.
Even more curiously, you declined to address the topic as requested. But I have: the debate is over before it has begun:
In fact all breeding populations of species on the planet today exhibit evolution from generation to generation. For anyone that disagrees, this is a falsifiable statement: just show one species that is not evolving in the world today. Your inability to recognize this simple statement demonstrates the validity of evolution, and thus ends the debate before it begins, may be due to weak understanding of biology in general and evolution in specific. Also, you have completely failed to provide an adequate creationist position\defender. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I couldn't be bothered to read all through your latest slab of multicolored crazy, ... Copy and paste into text editor and all the crazy formating goes away. Still leaves the repetitious ranting and denial. Enjoyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024