Challenge to Wordswordman

[B][QUOTE]That is an acceptable, proven change over time. That organisims are transformed over time is not a proven fact, but remains only an explanation for varieties of species.[/B][/QUOTE]So here is the genesis of your problem - what is "acceptable" to you, and what constitutes "proven."
[B][QUOTE]Varieties within species are acceptable forms of diversity, explained in simple genetic terms. The latest modern definitions of species had to be made comformable to TofE requirements concerning reproduction elements of so-called speciation, rather than frame honest morphological considerations, creating problems for systematists that shouldn't be tolerated.[/B][/QUOTE]Why should a species be defined by morphology? WHat is "honest" about morphological considerations? Do you consider Corallus Caninus and Morelia Viridis to be the same species? Would it be honest to so describe them? kingsnake.com - reptile and amphibian classifieds, breeders, forums, photos, videos and more [B][QUOTE]Upon satisfactory answer[/B][/QUOTE]Can you define what would constitute "satisfactory"?
[B][QUOTE]backed by scientific evidence[/B][/QUOTE]Meaning what exactly? "Scientific" and "evidence" could do with a little definition too.
[B][QUOTE]and a valid demonstration[/B][/QUOTE]dittoPerhaps you should first show that you are able and prepared to clearly define these terms and to establish objective criteria. FOr example, you could perhaps describe some scientific theories in which you do believe and explain how they are "satisfactory", "scientific", backed by "evidence" and capable of "valid demonstration."This would give us an idea of the standard of proof which evolutionary theory has to meet. I would have thought it was quite a simple exercise for you, as I presume you have given this much thought. Then, of course, we will present the evidence that meets those objective standards.So go ahead and draw your line in the sand - just draw it clearly and demonstrate that you draw it equally for all scientific processes, theories and inferences concerning the natural world.You see, it appears to me that the issue you raise is not "is there an answer to the question?" but "is there a satisfactory answer to the question?" You just have to be clear about what that entails. [B][QUOTE]Are you one who would find a Seiko watch on the beach and conclude it is a natural phenomenon, something occurring by chance combination of metals and plastic? For the record, I would initially suspect it was something designed all in one relatively small slice of time due to the complexity, equal condition of wear and deterioration of its parts, and certainly the fact those objects are not commonly unearthed by paleontologists in any stage of existence.[/B][/QUOTE]A ludicrous example and one which reveals the pretentiousness of your supposedly objective stance. Were you to find a watch on the beach, its complexity, wear and occurence in the archaeological record would have nothing whatsoever to do with your inference that it was designed. You would draw the correct conclusion from the simple prior knowledge that these objects are designed, that you can walk into a shop and buy one, and that with a little effort you could design one yourself, or find one who could. We have no such knowledge of a designer of organisms. Further, we observe them being composed from the environment every day without any apparent intervention.

I have rarely read a more vacuous post on this bulletin board. I am offering you the chance to have your questions answered in your terms but you are refusing it.Note that you do not ask just for an answer to the question, but for a "satisfactory" answer, a "valid" answer, "scientific evidence" etc. These are your words, yet you seem incapable or unwilling of clarifying their meaning. Whether this is through stupidity, deviousness or simply not understanding the implications of what you ask, I leave others to judge.I suspect the answer is that you are incapable of deploying the necessary logical or scientific tools required to deal with these issues. For example, you raise an issue of definition - that of a species - yet cannot respond to a closely defined example of where conventional speciation and your preferred "honest" morphological definition differ. The lack of content of your reply is revealing of a number of issues. Firstly a lack of real interest - the morphological similarities of the species I named are fascinating and anyone genuinely interested in a morphological definition of speciation would surely be prompted to a more fulsome discussion. Secondly a lack of logical discrimination - there is no redirection involved in attempting to answer a point in your own post which you felt it necessary to raise. If it was worth your while mentioning it, there could hardly be redirection in my answering it, could there? Unless, of course, there was no point in you mentioning it in the first place, but that would make you merely incompetent, and I prefer to think you are devious. Nevertheless, I guarantee that if you can define these terms and show that they are objective and applied by you with disinterest to science in general, then conventional evolutionary theory, and in pariticular the "first theory" under discussion can be shown to meet them. All you need do is define these terms that you so promiscuously use and make clear the standards by which you will objectively judge the answers. It seems perfectly fair to me.Note that I have no interest in your beliefs nor expect you to have any in mine. You are, however, professing an objective standard and I am prepared to meet that. [B][QUOTE]Pick any standard of proof. I won't limit you.[/B][/QUOTE]You are prepared to accept that evolution is true or false based on my standard of proof? Really? Let's say my standard of proof were simply that it seemed like a good thing to me if it were true - is that "satisfactory" for you? I doubt it. You see, if you are the one demanding answers, it is your standard of proof that needs to be examined. My standard of proof is irrelevant.For example, let us take your supposed killer question: [B][QUOTE]What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes?[/B][/QUOTE]So am I to take your word for it that this actually occurs. Could you, for example, provide "satisfactory", "valid" and "scientific" evidence that homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes? Just to make it clear to you, as I realise you may be a little slow in these matters, what I am looking for is the standards of evidence by which you judge "homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes" to be true.Given those standards of evidence, we could then apply them to "Characteristics of populations change across generations through time."We would then be in an admirable situation. We would have your objective standards by which you accept one statement to be true, and then we could apply them to another statement. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Are you up for it?BTW, I thought your last little aside amusing ... [B][QUOTE]de Beer himself used that analogy. He's a lot smarter than you. I think he understood its application, and I understand it, but you don't. What you don't understand you call "ludicrous". [/B][/QUOTE]I think you will that find the analogy goes a lot further back than de Beer. Whether he is smarter than me, I do not know. Possibly - I am not sure if one acquires more knowledge or wisdom in the afterlife or not. He may be suffering in hell at this moment, in which case I imagine he does not feel terribly smart at all. Was he smarter than me in his lifetime? Again possibly - I am not sure one can objectively judge intelligence to the required extent.I think I do understand the analogy of the watch - I certainly have never found a barrier to debate in any ignorance I may have of its subtleties. But sadly, you're example truly was ludicrous. After all, in your contorted version, the watch had its designers name upon it - how else would you have known it was a Seiko?! If only your designing God had signed every organism with the tetragrammaton how much easier this whole issue would be!

YOu're right, Percy, as far the first post is concerned, but of course WS immediately responded with his own challenge inn the following terms ...

quote:

---

It still hasn't been answered, whether that is an actual original question from de Beer or not. I adopt that question for myself, demanding an answer to it before spending valuable time debating evolution. (my emphasis)

---

Thus the need to address WS's challenge, as, by his own admission, he will not even debate evolution without it being met.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 10-15-2002]