Evolution Debates: A summary

[Pauwl]

This is not a post to try to argue for or deny the validity of evolutionary theory. It is to explain the futility of such debates and explain why I believe these debates to be pointless.

I will start with the theist/creationist/intelligent design side of the debate. Fundamentalist creationists will never concede that evolution is true. They believe that the Bible is the word of God and that to deny anything from the Bible would be to deny their faith. Accepting evolution is to them the equivalent of denying the existence of their God. A non literal interpretation of the Bible could of course allow for an acceptance of evolution, but most theists will not deny Genesis or Adam and Eve or any other Biblical record of history. Unless of course they saw the Bible as a symbolic message, but that simply won't do.

Nevertheless, people decide to argue with theists about evolution and the result is usually the exact same thing:

Theist: I don't believe in evolution
Evolutionist: Everyone believes in it, why don't you?
Theist: Show me evidence
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me evidence of speciation
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. The fossil record is incomplete
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me proof of mutations occuring naturally that benefit the species
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me this ...
Evolutionist: Ok, look here...
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me this...
Evolutionist: Ok, look here..
etc,etc,...
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me video footage of an ape giving birth to a human
Evolutionist: Sorry, I can't do that
Theist: Evolution is a terrible lie, there is not enough evidence
Evolutionist: It's just a scientific theory, how could you ask for such perfect evidence.
Theist: I must have it or I will not believe in evolution
Evolutionist: You're an idiot/intellectually dishonest/Bible thumping jerk
Theist: You're as jerk. You're going to hell. Screw You
End of Debate

What does this really accomplish. The theist won't ever concede that evolution is true. So the evolutionist just spent days arguing with the theist and doing extensive research for him and accomplished nothing. He even spent hours being the theist's researcher doing searches and finding evidence for the theist about evolution and for what? The first time that this takes place, the evolutionist will actually learn a lot about evolution that he may not have known before and actually strengthened his acceptance of evolutionary theory. The second time he is just being the theist's librarian/researcher bitch.

If people want to refute evolution, then they should go out and read as much as they can about it and read all of the evidence that they can find and then challenge evolutionists to explain things that they couldn't find convincing enough or can not fully understanding. When most theists come to debate evolution, they know very little about the specifics of evolution. They ask for evidence of this or that and usually just get the same Google results that they could have gotten themselves. Or if you want to do the really easy method, look up the old threads from SMP and you will see the same theistic arguements that you are about to make and see the same result that you will get if you start a new thread on evolution.

So in summary, evolution debates have occurred in SMP countless times, most of which end the exact same way. They are for the most part a pointless arguement between people who will never concede their point. They are also between two people who have no evolutionary background and haven't done the research required to even begin a decent debate. It's boring, repetitive, uneducated name calling matches that accomplish nothing.

Aside: I just reread this post and it kinda sucks but you should get what I was going for here.

[MidGe]

Another summary/analogy (for sharkey especially /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Scientist: here is the formula for acceleration as a result of gravity.
Scepic: But it is just a theory.

Scientist: Yes, but ist is falsifiable.
Sceptic: But have you proven all cases.

Scientist: No, but every case we have tested it on has confirmed it.
Sceptic: Yes but did you try it for 100 million miles?

Scientist: No, that is not possible within a lifetime /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Sceptics: Well that is it then, you are just going on faith!

Scientist: No, it works for all other distances that we tried it with.
Sceptic: Ah! yes, easy to say, did you try it exactly with a distance of 1.877803436567788 meters?

Scientist: no, but I am sure we have tested it and proven it with distances that are close to that one and on both side of it.
Sceptics: You see you are making assumptions here... You are just using faith to support your scientific beliefs!


etc... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Phil153]

Cliff notes:

Creationists are idiots
Don't argue with idiots, it's pointless

[chezlaw]

I can't decide if its more like scratching an itch or picking fleas off each other.

chez

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't decide if its more like scratching an itch or picking fleas off each other.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

god will collapse that wave function for you. Let us pray.

[Sharkey]

Hilarious.

It looks like you undisciplined lot are getting a little desperate. Every fallacy of reasoning in the book, with a good measure of mental masturbation thrown in as well. Anything but a logical defense of your dogma!

[FredBoots]

I totally agree. I've had the "evolution" debate with several religious friends. They've read the "flaws" of evolution on some Christian site, but really don't have an understanding of the theory. For example, they constantly mix up "evolution" with "natural selection". My absolute favorite is the old, "it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics", as if creating matter from nothing doesn't violate it more.

Creationism is a "parasite" theory (i.e., it requires evolution to survive); it is the equivalent of a political attack ad (“this guy sucks, vote for me”).

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
My absolute favorite is the old, "it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics", as if creating matter from nothing doesn't violate it more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, neither argument is based on science.

Evolution is nothing but yet another creation myth.

Bad arguments from opponents don’t make your side true. Study some logic.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, neither argument is based on science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name one part of accepted evolutionary theory that isn't based on science?

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is nothing but yet another creation myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't evolutionary theory an attempt to reconcile the observed natural world with the principles of physics, chemistry, and naturalism? I fail to see how that puts it in the class of a creation myth.

An example for you: When astronomers disover something new like a quasar, the first thing they do is try to make sense of it using existing, commonly understand principles of physics and naturalism. If these suffice, nothing else needs to be invoked. Why should scientists who find thousands of fossils or indications of common descent through genetics or anatomy not apply these same principles?

[MrMon]

Considering that creationists are interpreting a Bible that is in fact based on Jewish texts that are still considered the basis of that religion, and that almost no Jew, no matter how ultra-ultra,ultra-Orthodox they are believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis, one can only conclude that these latecomers to the whole monotheism thing are way, way off the mark.

Fundamentalists should stick to their half of the Bible and leave the first half to the people who wrote it. There are enough disagreements within that group without you false prophet worshippers chiming in with bogus interpretations. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, neither argument is based on science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name one part of accepted evolutionary theory that isn't based on science?

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution is bankrupt in the most essential aspect of any science: replicable sufficient cause.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is nothing but yet another creation myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't evolutionary theory an attempt to reconcile the observed natural world with the principles of physics, chemistry, and naturalism? I fail to see how that puts it in the class of a creation myth.

An example for you: When astronomers disover something new like a quasar, the first thing they do is try to make sense of it using existing, commonly understand principles of physics and naturalism. If these suffice, nothing else needs to be invoked. Why should scientists who find thousands of fossils or indications of common descent through genetics or anatomy not apply these same principles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same answer.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory of evolution is bankrupt in the most essential aspect of any science: replicable sufficient cause.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm stupid; please explain this in plain english.

[CallMeIshmael]

Why do we have these threads?

In the beginning (no pun intended /images/graemlins/smile.gif) this forum rocked.


I mean, its the same thing over and over again: almost everyone believes in evolution, Sharkey doesnt, they fight, and it goes on forever. You arent going to get anywhere.


My 2 cents: Anyone who says macroevolution is fact is wrong since it really cant be proven (that is, there are other, very unlikely, explanations for it), but anyone who says it isnt highly likely (loads of evidence, occam's razor, blah, blah) are delusional.

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, neither argument is based on science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name one part of accepted evolutionary theory that isn't based on science?

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution is bankrupt in the most essential aspect of any science: replicable sufficient cause.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is nothing but yet another creation myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't evolutionary theory an attempt to reconcile the observed natural world with the principles of physics, chemistry, and naturalism? I fail to see how that puts it in the class of a creation myth.

An example for you: When astronomers disover something new like a quasar, the first thing they do is try to make sense of it using existing, commonly understand principles of physics and naturalism. If these suffice, nothing else needs to be invoked. Why should scientists who find thousands of fossils or indications of common descent through genetics or anatomy not apply these same principles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go...

Why don't we just paste this in for the rest of the thread and agree you're braindead?



[ QUOTE ]
Theist: I don't believe in evolution
Evolutionist: Everyone believes in it, why don't you?
Theist: Show me evidence
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me evidence of speciation
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. The fossil record is incomplete
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me proof of mutations occuring naturally that benefit the species
Evolutionist: Ok, look here
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me this ...
Evolutionist: Ok, look here...
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me this...
Evolutionist: Ok, look here..
etc,etc,...
Theist: No, not good enough. Show me video footage of an ape giving birth to a human
Evolutionist: Sorry, I can't do that
Theist: Evolution is a terrible lie, there is not enough evidence
Evolutionist: It's just a scientific theory, how could you ask for such perfect evidence.
Theist: I must have it or I will not believe in evolution
Evolutionist: You're an idiot/intellectually dishonest/Bible thumping jerk
Theist: You're as jerk. You're going to hell. Screw You
End of Debate

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sharkey]

That’s weak science.

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s weak science.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response was not science, but would it matter if my response was good science?

To me the fact that mutation exists along with the fact that only the fittest survive, on average, along with the fossil record, observation of mutation rates in many organisms, experiments with viruses, etc. means that there is no way around evolution.

Evolution itself doesn't provide a theory of the beginning of life, but observations do, since macromolecules have been shown to self assemble under the right conditions. And the conditions probably match primitive condition on earth, and the macromolecules appear to be the ones that were probably around during these primitive conditions.

I find these explanations more likely than magic, but obviously I will never be 100% sure.

All I'm saying is that by observing the world around us we can make a hypothesis that is very likely as to how organisms evolve, and highly probable as to how life began.

So, why do you have to rely on magic?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s weak science.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response was not science, but would it matter if my response was good science?

To me the fact that mutation exists along with the fact that only the fittest survive, on average, along with the fossil record, observation of mutation rates in many organisms, experiments with viruses, etc. means that there is no way around evolution.

Evolution itself doesn't provide a theory of the beginning of life, but observations do, since macromolecules have been shown to self assemble under the right conditions. And the conditions probably match primitive condition on earth, and the macromolecules appear to be the ones that were probably around during these primitive conditions.

I find these explanations more likely than magic, but obviously I will never be 100% sure.

All I'm saying is that by observing the world around us we can make a hypothesis that is very likely as to how organisms evolve, and highly probable as to how life began.

So, why do you have to rely on magic?

[/ QUOTE ]

because he cant rely on anything of substance

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
My response was not science, but would it matter if my response was good science?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

[ QUOTE ]
To me the fact that mutation exists along with the fact that only the fittest survive, on average, along with the fossil record, observation of mutation rates in many organisms, experiments with viruses, etc. means that there is no way around evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not about “to me”.

1. Give me an example of one mutually fertile group developing into another in a manner sufficient for the creation of the present diversity of species.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution itself doesn't provide a theory of the beginning of life, but observations do, since macromolecules have been shown to self assemble under the right conditions. And the conditions probably match primitive condition on earth, and the macromolecules appear to be the ones that were probably around during these primitive conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

2. Cite an observation of life being produced from lifeless matter.

[ QUOTE ]
I find these explanations more likely than magic, but obviously I will never be 100% sure.

All I'm saying is that by observing the world around us we can make a hypothesis that is very likely as to how organisms evolve, and highly probable as to how life began.

So, why do you have to rely on magic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you?

3. Give me a causally sufficient explanation of evolution in terms of observed natural phenomena.

[Alex-db]

Seriously now, surely Sharkey replying to this thread in the way he did was due to an excellent dry sense of humour, and we are all underestimating him?

My vote for favourite anti-evolution argument: Its not falsifiable, you can't set up an experiment in which the fittest do not survive. (so your problem with evolution is that it states-the-bleedin'-obvious, and its wrong why?)

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
you can't set up an experiment in which the fittest do not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me an example of one mutually fertile group developing into another in a manner sufficient for the creation of the present diversity of species.

[bunny]

I actually find the posts I've participated in useful - I have learnt stacks about evolution from reading and criticising my position (including some of the current problems with it and where evolutionary biologists are looking for the answers). I dont quite get the "we've done this before - follow this link" comments that come up from time to time. I figure if you're not interested, just dont read the thread - there is something qualitatively different from constructing an argument yourself, posting it and reading a reply a couple of hours later than from reading a huge post from strangers (even if they make the same arguments as you do).

I of course am a theist evolutionist so cant fall back on the "one side is a bunch of morons" argument... *sigh*

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually find the posts I've participated in useful - I have learnt stacks about evolution from reading and criticising my position (including some of the current problems with it and where evolutionary biologists are looking for the answers). I dont quite get the "we've done this before - follow this link" comments that come up from time to time. I figure if you're not interested, just dont read the thread - there is something qualitatively different from constructing an argument yourself, posting it and reading a reply a couple of hours later than from reading a huge post from strangers (even if they make the same arguments as you do).

I of course am a theist evolutionist so cant fall back on the "one side is a bunch of morons" argument... *sigh*

[/ QUOTE ]

As a result of your reading have you come to a belief about how old you believe the earth is? And I apologize for not remembering specifics, but were you/are you a bible literalist, or believe it is a mixture of history and allegory?

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
you can't set up an experiment in which the fittest do not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply wrong.

Let's say the most fit organisms are in one location and the less fit in another (due to competition for resources or whatever) then a meteor falls on top of the fit ones....

Variance is not only present in poker.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I of course am a theist evolutionist so cant fall back on the "one side is a bunch of morons" argument... *sigh*

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a shame. It sums up the alogical position arrived at in many exchanges, not just creationism/evolution ones. Well, unless you take it literally :-)

luckyme

[Smock8]

Wouldn't the current problem in hospitals with antiboitic resitant infections be an example of the fittest surviving? If not please explain how the bacteria has become resitant to antibiotics.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you can't set up an experiment in which the fittest do not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply wrong.

Let's say the most fit organisms are in one location and the less fit in another (due to competition for resources or whatever) then a meteor falls on top of the fit ones....

Variance is not only present in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other selection factors, such as sexual selection, may push a subset away from fitness if looked at from a pure 'adapted to the environment' view of fitness. The peacocks tail situations.

luckyme

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't the current problem in hospitals with antiboitic resitant infections be an example of the fittest surviving? If not please explain how the bacteria has become resitant to antibiotics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Antibiotic resistance would certainly be a product of survival of the fittest (and perhaps other factors as well). What has not been shown, through fossils or living specimens, is any mechanism of selection producing a novel mutually fertile population in a way that can be extrapolated to the creation of significantly distinct species. Bacteria are asexual reproducers.

[DougShrapnel]

The bible is very clear

v24 God said ‘I will make different animals arise on the earth. I will make new livestock and wild animals from thier own kind. There will be other small animals to move along the ground. I will make many different animals to live on the earth.’ And what God said happened. v25 So God made the different wild animals and the different *livestock. He made all the different animals that move along the ground. God looked at what he had made. And he saw that it was good.


v26 God said ‘We will make man. Men and women will be like us. They will rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky. They will rule over the *livestock. And they will rule over the earth. They will rule over the animals that move along the ground.’

Seems pretty consistant with evolution.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
As a result of your reading have you come to a belief about how old you believe the earth is? And I apologize for not remembering specifics, but were you/are you a bible literalist, or believe it is a mixture of history and allegory?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know about the age of the earth (something like 3-5 billion years I think?) but I believe the universe is around 15-20 billion years old (I also seem to remember some controversy here in modern cosmology so I wouldnt be surprised if this view changed later).

With regard to the bible I am not a literalist. Also, I think it is more allegory and myth-with-a-message than history.

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a result of your reading have you come to a belief about how old you believe the earth is? And I apologize for not remembering specifics, but were you/are you a bible literalist, or believe it is a mixture of history and allegory?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know about the age of the earth (something like 3-5 billion years I think?) but I believe the universe is around 15-20 billion years old (I also seem to remember some controversy here in modern cosmology so I wouldnt be surprised if this view changed later).

With regard to the bible I am not a literalist. Also, I think it is more allegory and myth-with-a-message than history.

[/ QUOTE ]

The earth is thought to be about 5.5 billion years old currently.

[keikiwai]

For your questions you'll have to give me a little time to answer.

While I'm trying to find answers, what is your view of the matter. If you are not undecided, can you give evidence for your viewpoint?

[ QUOTE ]

Science is not about “to me”.


[/ QUOTE ]

Science is def. about "to me." In other words, if you read such and such has been "proven" or such and such is "thought to be true," it is your responsibility to check that the proof or argument makes sense to you. If it does not, and you have a point of view that makes more sense to you, you should present your viewpoint to the public.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Give me an example of one mutually fertile group developing into another in a manner sufficient for the creation of the present diversity of species.


[/ QUOTE ]

I get where you are going w/ this and it's a good question. You'll have to give me some time in coming up w/ an example or response.

Same for your other questions.

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't the current problem in hospitals with antiboitic resitant infections be an example of the fittest surviving? If not please explain how the bacteria has become resitant to antibiotics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zero evolution is necessary for this due to the way bacteria pass the antibitic resistance from one to the other.

One form of antibiotic resistance is present when a bacterium has a specific circular piece of DNA in it, a plasmid. This circular piece of DNA is separate from the rest of its DNA.

Plasmids can be passed from one bacterium to another. They can be passed from one strain to another.

In other words a bacterium may first bud off another w/o this plasmid, and it can acquire the plasmid later in its life.

So, assuming atleast one such plasmid was present before antibiotics, natural selection alone can be used to explain why there are so many copies of this plasmid now.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
While I'm trying to find answers, what is your view of the matter. If you are not undecided, can you give evidence for your viewpoint?

[/ QUOTE ]

My own belief is that the universe as I perceive it was created by a perceiving Being. There are certainly features in the fossil record that require explanation, but what is there isn’t even close to sustaining a theory of evolution. The issue of man’s origin is far too large for his mind to comprehend with syllogisms alone, so I accept an inevitable ignorance, refrain from forcing the issue and carry on.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
... so I accept an inevitable ignorance, refrain from forcing the issue and carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
There are certainly features in the fossil record that require explanation, but what is there isn’t even close to sustaining a theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. However, fossils only make up a small part of the evidence for evolution.

[oneeye13]

if you are a creationist how do you explain pictures of darwin partying with elvis holding a copy of yesterday's newspaper?

[siegfriedandroy]

agree with you bunny. i find the debates can be useful. i understand those of us on either side (or on both sides /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) often get frustrated. that is to be expected. i think OP should find more knowledgeable creatonists if this is the typical dialogue he encounters. i, likewise, experience Darwinists (i.e. my good friend i mentioned earlier) who know very little about evolution. OP's view is distorted and portrays the common misconception that the MAJORITY of evolutionists are vastly more knowledgeable and scientifically enlightened then their donk Creationist counterparts. In my own experience, the vast amount of ardent evolutionary theory proponents indeed know very little about their own scientific claims. They will throw in a quick reference to Talk Origins, and supposedly that should settle the matter. Not quite that simple. I could easily do the same and throw out Creationist websites (i.e. Reasonstobelieve.org), but you dont see me doing that. Oh sh*t! Guess I just did /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

You can interpret the Bible 'literally' (meaning the way it was intended to be read) and still believe in a 13 billion year old universe.

[siegfriedandroy]

couldnt disagree more.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are certainly features in the fossil record that require explanation, but what is there isn’t even close to sustaining a theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. However, fossils only make up a small part of the evidence for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fossils imply an element of time.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
For your questions you'll have to give me a little time to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... so I accept an inevitable ignorance, refrain from forcing the issue and carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he can accept ignorance in himself, but can't tolerate one iota of it in others.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are certainly features in the fossil record that require explanation, but what is there isn’t even close to sustaining a theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. However, fossils only make up a small part of the evidence for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fossils imply an element of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does your ISP charge you by the word? People go to great lengths to explain their positions to you, and all you ever respond with are trite one-liners. I don't know why people bother debating with you.

[posnera]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't the current problem in hospitals with antiboitic resitant infections be an example of the fittest surviving? If not please explain how the bacteria has become resitant to antibiotics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Antibiotic resistance would certainly be a product of survival of the fittest (and perhaps other factors as well). What has not been shown, through fossils or living specimens, is any mechanism of selection producing a novel mutually fertile population in a way that can be extrapolated to the creation of significantly distinct species. Bacteria are asexual reproducers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bacteria reproduce both sexually and asexually. Genetic material is passed from one to the other and recombined.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Bacteria reproduce both sexually and asexually. Genetic material is passed from one to the other and recombined.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a technical use of the term, if conjugation without gametes is considered sex.

[posnera]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bacteria reproduce both sexually and asexually. Genetic material is passed from one to the other and recombined.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a technical use of the term, if conjugation without gametes is considered sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exchange of genetic information from one organism to another with the result of offspring genetically different from either of the two "parents" is a sufficient definition of sexual reproduction. Do you just want to nitpick terms?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bacteria reproduce both sexually and asexually. Genetic material is passed from one to the other and recombined.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a technical use of the term, if conjugation without gametes is considered sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exchange of genetic information from one organism to another with the result of offspring genetically different from either of the two "parents" is a sufficient definition of sexual reproduction. Do you just want to nitpick terms?

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not a matter of terminology but applicability. The way bacteria produce offspring genetically different from both parents cannot be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species.

[posnera]

So basically, there is no way that any science can convince you of anything. So what do you want as proof? I know what I want as proof of your theory.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically, there is no way that any science can convince you of anything. So what do you want as proof? I know what I want as proof of your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Convincing me is not the purpose here. A debate is about point and counterpoint. What I am asking be shown is the bare minimum for a theory of evolution to be considered scientific.

1. An observation of life produced from lifeless matter.

2. An example of one mutually fertile group developing into another in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species.

3. A causally sufficient explanation of evolution in terms of observed natural phenomena.

[posnera]

#1 - fine, that hasn't been demonstrated
#2 and #3 - those have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of pretty much the entire scientific community.

Your definitions of the bare minimums are not the generally accepted scientific definitions of a theory. A theory needs to explain and predict observed phenomena. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life. It also can be said to have predicted the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria or the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in Africa. What you want is well beyond the definition of a theory, you want proof. Well, proof isn't always going to be possible.

Basically, the original poster is right. There really is no debate. I'll freely admit it. I will give no creedence to intelligent design. It has none of the qualities that make it acceptable as a scientific theory. You want the sort of iron-clad proof of evolution that can only come from blind faith. So you want science to rise to the level of faith while I want faith to stand up to the demands of science. The whole debate is pointless.

I'll stop wasting my time, and yours.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
#1 - fine, that hasn't been demonstrated
#2 and #3 - those have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of pretty much the entire scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q1. Cite an observation of life produced from lifeless matter. [Conceded]

Q2. What is the best example of two internally fertile and mutually infertile groups where the first developed into the second in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

Q3. What is a causally sufficient explanation of evolution in terms of observed natural phenomena?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Q2. What is the best example .... "in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species"?

Q3. What is "a causally sufficient explanation of evolution in terms of observed natural phenomena"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Recently I have stopped answering your questions because I couldnt understand what rules you were applying - it seemed whenever I provided an answer a new objection arose. I would be interested in attempting to answer these questions again if you could first answer a couple of mine (just so I know what the rules you are applying are):

With regard to Q2 - Can you outline in advance how you are going to determine if the given process "can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species"?

Similarly with Q3 - how you are going to determine if a given explanation of evolution in terms of natural phenomena is "causally sufficient"?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Recently I have stopped answering your questions because I couldnt understand what rules you were applying - it seemed whenever I provided an answer a new objection arose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to modify the wording, because I got what seemed to be intentionally “fudge-factor” replies.

[ QUOTE ]
With regard to Q2 - Can you outline in advance how you are going to determine if the given process "can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think you have an answer, provide a link to where your specifically observed instance of speciation is shown to be enough to account for the present diversity of species.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly with Q3 - how you are going to determine if a given explanation of evolution in terms of natural phenomena is "causally sufficient"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you think you have an answer, provide a link. If a reputable source has shown that such and such collection of OBSERVED physical phenomena are sufficient in themselves to produce the present species, that will do.

[pilliwinks]

It seems the benchmark for acceptable level of proof is now 'a link'.

Who counts as a reputable source? Or should I say, who decides who counts as a reputable source, now that Nature has been debunked as a sham for rigging its comparison of Wikipedia with Encylcopedia Britannica Linky (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/)

[cambraceres]

Proof is not black and white. Now if you yourself gather and construe empirical data, then it may in your own mind be, but in general it is an individual value judgement.

When an academic paper is published, it takes years in many cases for the ideas to be explored by other experts, and then by congress of sorts, truth or falsity is determined. Each expert states, or by silence chooses not to, the veracity of what claims were made.

Or you could just believe the link, I mean it's in color, what do you really want from us?

Cambraceres

p.s. This is too mundane a question to warrant a gimmick account.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With regard to Q2 - Can you outline in advance how you are going to determine if the given process "can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think you have an answer, provide a link to where your specifically observed instance of speciation is shown to be enough to account for the present diversity of species.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will do this, of course (or cite a journal) - my question is not what should I do if I find an answer. Rather, what criteria are you going to use to decide if the extrapolation is justified? Are you just going to say "I dont think that process can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species."?

My reason for asking is I dont understand how this question is different from Q3.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly with Q3 - how you are going to determine if a given explanation of evolution in terms of natural phenomena is "causally sufficient"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you think you have an answer, provide a link. If a reputable source has shown that such and such collection of OBSERVED physical phenomena are sufficient in themselves to produce the present species, that will do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Am I correct that here you are asking for scientific research justifying evolution's materialist claims? You're making the claim that this is taken on faith with no scientific justification. (Ie - people like me claim natural selection + random mutation can produce a new species but you would like to see research supporting that view?)

Edit: I dont have any problem with the fact you have reworded your original question. Statement's of position change in response to opposing views - that's the nature of debate. My only hesitation is that I dont really understand what sort of answer you are looking for.

[pilliwinks]

Maybe I can get in before Sharkey here

You may be able to show me two closely related but reproductively distinct species separated by a recent geographical barrier, but although this may be consistent with recent speciation, I will point out that you can't extrapolate this to produce the difference between birds and jellyfish.

You may also be able to show me several hundred molecular lineages that are consistent with widely diverged species being related by descent from a common ancestor, but I will point out that this does not provide a mechanism for speciation, without which you are accepting evolution on faith.

See the logic? When you look up close at speciation events, I claim that you can't extrapolate such a tiny divergence to the whole of nature. When you look at the whole of nature I claim that you have no speciation mechanism (causally sufficient explanation).

This is an excellent example of the divide and conquer style of criticism, widely used in academia. As long as you choose the cut carefully, it can seem hard to refute.

In this case, of course, there is no shortage of evidence at every level for relatedness by descent, or for mechanisms of speciation. As Sharkey is doubtless well aware, the key element of time is all that separates them. And with the rough guess of species separation occurring once in several million generations between isolated populations (at least for insects), it is tough to do this in the lab.

[MidGe]

pilliwinks,

I am glad you noticed that sharkey's argument is with science itself. I have already replied to the points he is making. Sharkey has a misunderstanding with, or at least applies it wilfully, to evolution. I won't dignify his responses by calling them a debate.

Luddites are a fact of life, and are cute and interesting in their own ways, but I glad that your contribution is going to be more enlightened than sharkey's.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems the benchmark for acceptable level of proof is now 'a link'.

Who counts as a reputable source? Or should I say, who decides who counts as a reputable source, now that Nature has been debunked as a sham for rigging its comparison of Wikipedia with Encylcopedia Britannica Linky (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/)

[/ QUOTE ]

A link is nowhere near ideal, but that’s probably as good as it gets under the circumstances.

What is a reputable source could be an issue, but it’s a lot more difficult to make hay on that one.

[tolbiny]

"Q1. Cite an observation of life produced from lifeless matter. [Conceded]"

This isn't part of evolution. Evolution describes what happens to poplulations of organisms in existance.

Q2. Do you deny any of the postulates of evolution via natural selection?
that
1. there is variety within populations.
2. there are more offspring being created than will have offspring themselves
3. certain variations within populations will increase the reproductive sucess of certian individuals above the average rate.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I will do this, of course (or cite a journal) - my question is not what should I do if I find an answer. Rather, what criteria are you going to use to decide if the extrapolation is justified? Are you just going to say "I dont think that process can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species."?

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your concern about moving goal posts. That is not my intention. My criterion is, given the context of this debate, the only useful one: the consensus of scientists. Now, I know I’m not going to have to get into a spinoff argument about the consensus of scientists being in favour of evolution, because that is the very question at issue. Just because “scientists” are unscientific in some regards doesn’t mean they aren’t quite competent in most others. Every endeavor has its limitations. The bona fides of the consensus of scientists will be enough where they have adopted into established practice (not merely cited an anecdotal incident ca. 1928) a cause-and-effect they consider to answer my questions in terms of observed natural phenomena.

[ QUOTE ]
Am I correct that here you are asking for scientific research justifying evolution's materialist claims? You're making the claim that this is taken on faith with no scientific justification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Q2 is about the observation of a phenomenon. Q3 looks for an empirical explanation (as opposed to storytelling).

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
When you look up close at speciation events, I claim that you can't extrapolate such a tiny divergence to the whole of nature. When you look at the whole of nature I claim that you have no speciation mechanism (causally sufficient explanation).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you have mischaracterized my position. If a specific mechanism of speciation could be observed in sufficient detail to in itself account for the diversity of species, and there is no known counter-mechanism stopping it, that would be enough of an explanation.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
"Q1. Cite an observation of life produced from lifeless matter. [Conceded]"

This isn't part of evolution. Evolution describes what happens to poplulations of organisms in existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution in the broader sense as against ID.

[ QUOTE ]
Q2. Do you deny any of the postulates of evolution via natural selection?
that
1. there is variety within populations.
2. there are more offspring being created than will have offspring themselves
3. certain variations within populations will increase the reproductive sucess of certian individuals above the average rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with any of those, but you left something out:

4. variations large enough to give rise to significantly distinct populations produce viable offspring.

That’s where the theory goes wrong.

[bunny]

Ok, I think I understand what you are looking for - I'm having lunch on the weekend with a geneticist friend of mine who promised to give me some "ammunition" /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'll probably start a new thread or something early next week if I can find anything that I think might convince you.

[bunny]

My first answer when Sharkey asked for an example was that I didnt have one and that I didnt think it was necessary to provide one. It seemed to me that evolution is claimed to occur over such long periods that clear evidence of any specific event is going to be hard to discover. The best we can do is circumstantial evidence (which certainly convinces me).

Having said that, I cant see anything wrong with someone placing stricter requirements on evidence than I do. In looking around for examples for him, it is striking that many evolutionary biologists claim there are thousands of examples of speciation, but very few provide any specifics. This seems odd to me so I've taken to looking into it - the fringe of science is usually the interesting bit in my experience.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q2. Do you deny any of the postulates of evolution via natural selection?
that
1. there is variety within populations.
2. there are more offspring being created than will have offspring themselves
3. certain variations within populations will increase the reproductive sucess of certian individuals above the average rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with any of those, but you left something out:

4. variations large enough to give rise to significantly distinct populations produce viable offspring.

That’s where the theory goes wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect theory you're after is Dobzhanski's. The basic priniple is that if you separate populations (by habitat, migration, breeding season, whatever), they inevitably aquire different mutations. With their new genetic makeups, the two populations are able to tolerate different subsequent mutations. Any subsequent alterations can make the two populations now unable to interbreed, though they are perfectly fertile in their own population. Current observations suggest that many subsequent alterations, each having a mild detrimental effect on interbreeding, tend to accumulate before the two populations become totally unable to breed (ie speciate).

Note that this theory does not require any differential selective pressures on the two populations. Just separation and time. The mutations that separate the species can be as simple as altering flowering times in plants, or tree preferences in insects. Nothing dramatic.

Of course if the two populations are being differentially selected you get more drastic divergence as well as speciation.

As I understand it, this is uncontroversial (amongst population geneticists anyway!). It is more controversial as to how well this mechanism works if there is still gene flow between the populations.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Any subsequent alterations can make the two populations now unable to interbreed, though they are perfectly fertile in their own population. Current observations suggest that many subsequent alterations, each having a mild detrimental effect on interbreeding, tend to accumulate before the two populations become totally unable to breed (ie speciate).

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you account for the random divergence in traits that affects fertility between the populations not causing infertility within the populations?

[pilliwinks]

Fair question. The essence is that the two populations are different, but I'll try to answer with an example.

Say we are dealing with plants. Population A is separated into two groups B and C, which are initially pretty much identical. Group B picks up a flower mutation that attracts a new pollinator, say bees. Group C does not. Subsequently, Group B gets mutations that make it defective in pollen dispersal. These don't matter, and indeed are likely to arise, because the bees are doing all the work. Such mutations are of course selected out from C.

Attempts to breed B with C now fail, because B uses bees and C can't attract them.

There are lots of simple examples like these that use mating preferences, breeding grounds, breeding seasons etc as well as the more obvious incompatibilities like divergent genitalia.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Group B picks up a flower mutation that attracts a new pollinator, say bees.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members of B have this mutation in the first generation of its appearance?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I think I understand what you are looking for - I'm having lunch on the weekend with a geneticist friend of mine who promised to give me some "ammunition" /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'll probably start a new thread or something early next week if I can find anything that I think might convince you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll be looking for your new thread. Remember to chastise your friend for any use of the ad hominem fallacy.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you account for the random divergence in traits that affects fertility between the populations not causing infertility within the populations?

[/ QUOTE ]


There are two classic methods:

1. Some sort of physical barrier arises that splits a population into 2. (the dismantling of the super continent is a good example). The two groups undergo different mutations and eventually diverge to the point of infertility.

2. Mutation causes a group to not mate with one another. For example, a mutation that changes location/season of mating, and now we have two populations that CAN mate, but do not because of this mutation. Eventually they are no longer fertile.

Similar to this, is evolution that favours extremes (divergence). For example, a beak can work very well when it is very large (more strength, for example) or small (lets say it helps accuracy) but the middle size is not fit. Now, lets say the big beaks do well opening nut type A, and small nut type B. If A and B are not found together these two populations will spend a great deal of time with their fellow beak type, and mating between small and large beaked animals would decrease greatly (possibly leading to no gene flow, which aids in creating mutal infertility)

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
How many members of B have this mutation in the first generation of its appearance?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least 2, a male and a female. This is nowhere near to being outside the realm of possibility.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two classic methods:

1. Some sort of physical barrier arises that splits a population into 2. (the dismantling of the super continent is a good example). The two groups undergo different mutations and eventually diverge to the point of infertility.

2. Mutation causes a group to not mate with one another. For example, a mutation that changes location/season of mating, and now we have two populations that CAN mate, but do not because of this mutation. Eventually they are no longer fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither method explains how the mutations that cause infertility between the groups don’t simultaneously cause infertility within the groups.

[vhawk01]

You should read The Ancestor's Tale. Read it entirely skeptically, don't take the author's word for any of it, but at least use it as a template for asking more concrete questions and raising more specific concerns.


Oh, and every ten pages or so remind yourself not to take it personally when the author belittles you.

Dawkins does a GREAT job of making very complex issues in population genetics and evolution very understandable. Like, even a stupid med student can understand it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You should read The Ancestor's Tale. Read it entirely skeptically, don't take the author's word for any of it, but at least use it as a template for asking more concrete questions and raising more specific concerns.


Oh, and every ten pages or so remind yourself not to take it personally when the author belittles you.

Dawkins does a GREAT job of making very complex issues in population genetics and evolution very understandable. Like, even a stupid med student can understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
You should read The Ancestor's Tale. Read it entirely skeptically, don't take the author's word for any of it, but at least use it as a template for asking more concrete questions and raising more specific concerns.


Oh, and every ten pages or so remind yourself not to take it personally when the author belittles you.

Dawkins does a GREAT job of making very complex issues in population genetics and evolution very understandable. Like, even a stupid med student can understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s funny how this issue brings you frivolous trolls out of the woodwork.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Group B picks up a flower mutation that attracts a new pollinator, say bees.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members of B have this mutation in the first generation of its appearance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually one. It will breed normally with nearby plants, and produce offspring, which will be reproductively advantaged in breeding amongst themselves, providing an impetus to spreading the mutation through the population.

I am using an example of positive selection for divergence which I suspect is the most likely mechanism to be found in nature.

I understand that modelling predicts that even entirely neutral mutations do spread, just less often and less quickly. Of course, if you have several million generations from many millions of individuals, even rare events are likely. And if you throw sexual preferences into the deal you can show rapid spread of badly deleterious mutations, but this is beside the point.

Only one hit in one plant is required to start things moving.

[Sharkey]

Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont worry pilliwinks, its one of the standard obsfurcation stratagies.

Step 1: ask for claification of some concepts

step 2: go down the path of constructing an abstraction to explain the concepts

step 3: switch and ask for evidence of the abstract example.

We've seen this and other obsfurcation techniques many times. My favorite was the 'Fossils imply an element of time' response.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont worry pilliwinks, its one of the standard obsfurcation stratagies.

Step 1: ask for claification of some concepts

step 2: go down the path of constructing an abstraction to explain the concepts

step 3: switch and ask for evidence of the abstract example.

We've seen this and other obsfurcation techniques many times. My favorite was the 'Fossils imply an element of time' response.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears my simple question has offended your bigoted fundamentalism, and you are attempting to stifle genuine inquiry with pompous harassment.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont worry pilliwinks, its one of the standard obsfurcation stratagies.

Step 1: ask for claification of some concepts

step 2: go down the path of constructing an abstraction to explain the concepts

step 3: switch and ask for evidence of the abstract example.

We've seen this and other obsfurcation techniques many times. My favorite was the 'Fossils imply an element of time' response.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears my simple question has offended your bigoted fundamentalism, and you are attempting to stifle genuine inquiry with pompous harassment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its true that I'm fundementally opposed to obsfurcation on a board intended to promote understanding.

At least I tried to be clear about my fundemental concern.

chez

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont worry pilliwinks, its one of the standard obsfurcation stratagies.

Step 1: ask for claification of some concepts

step 2: go down the path of constructing an abstraction to explain the concepts

step 3: switch and ask for evidence of the abstract example.

We've seen this and other obsfurcation techniques many times. My favorite was the 'Fossils imply an element of time' response.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears my simple question has offended your bigoted fundamentalism, and you are attempting to stifle genuine inquiry with pompous harassment.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a baseless ad-hominem attack.

[Hopey]

Slight thread-hijack, but Sunday's episode of the Sopranos made me think of Sharkey and his ilk:

Bob Brewster: "Dinosaurs and human beings lived on the earth at the same time."

Tony: "What? Like 'The Flintstones'?"

Chris: "No way. T Rex in the Garden of Eden? Adam and Eve would be runnin' all the time, scared shitless. But the Bible says it was paradise. "

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are two classic methods:

1. Some sort of physical barrier arises that splits a population into 2. (the dismantling of the super continent is a good example). The two groups undergo different mutations and eventually diverge to the point of infertility.

2. Mutation causes a group to not mate with one another. For example, a mutation that changes location/season of mating, and now we have two populations that CAN mate, but do not because of this mutation. Eventually they are no longer fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither method explains how the mutations that cause infertility between the groups don’t simultaneously cause infertility within the groups.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, you actually think that if you seperate 2 populations of animals, they wont evolve independently to the point of mutual infertility?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you actually think that if you seperate 2 populations of animals, they wont evolve independently to the point of mutual infertility?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he just wants you to prove it will happen beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can't do this, it means that the theory of evolution is hogwash.

Oh, and even if you do answer his question, he'll find some flaw in your reasoning and then ask 4 or 5 follow-up questions that he'll expect you to answer. If you fail at any of these tasks, it means that evolution is "junk science".

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
No, he just wants you to prove it will happen beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can't do this, it means that the theory of evolution is hogwash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ohhh... well, that is impossible.


I dont believe in evolution beyond a shawdow of a doubt, but I do believe it is highly likely given the information we have. I also feel this is really the only logical viewpoint to have /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are two classic methods:

1. Some sort of physical barrier arises that splits a population into 2. (the dismantling of the super continent is a good example). The two groups undergo different mutations and eventually diverge to the point of infertility.

2. Mutation causes a group to not mate with one another. For example, a mutation that changes location/season of mating, and now we have two populations that CAN mate, but do not because of this mutation. Eventually they are no longer fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither method explains how the mutations that cause infertility between the groups don’t simultaneously cause infertility within the groups.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, you actually think that if you seperate 2 populations of animals, they wont evolve independently to the point of mutual infertility?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you see, the word “evolve” here is really a detail worth considering carefully, as would a scientist.

There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

However, extending that process to the creation of significantly distinct species is no more scientific than trying to put a satellite in orbit by bouncing it off a backyard trampoline.

[Smock8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are two classic methods:

1. Some sort of physical barrier arises that splits a population into 2. (the dismantling of the super continent is a good example). The two groups undergo different mutations and eventually diverge to the point of infertility.

2. Mutation causes a group to not mate with one another. For example, a mutation that changes location/season of mating, and now we have two populations that CAN mate, but do not because of this mutation. Eventually they are no longer fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither method explains how the mutations that cause infertility between the groups don’t simultaneously cause infertility within the groups.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, you actually think that if you seperate 2 populations of animals, they wont evolve independently to the point of mutual infertility?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you see, the word “evolve” here is really a detail worth considering carefully, as would a scientist.

There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

However, extending that process to the creation of significantly distinct species is no more scientific than trying to put a satellite in orbit by bouncing it off a backyard trampoline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain your analogy please.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are two classic methods:

1. Some sort of physical barrier arises that splits a population into 2. (the dismantling of the super continent is a good example). The two groups undergo different mutations and eventually diverge to the point of infertility.

2. Mutation causes a group to not mate with one another. For example, a mutation that changes location/season of mating, and now we have two populations that CAN mate, but do not because of this mutation. Eventually they are no longer fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither method explains how the mutations that cause infertility between the groups don’t simultaneously cause infertility within the groups.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, you actually think that if you seperate 2 populations of animals, they wont evolve independently to the point of mutual infertility?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you see, the word “evolve” here is really a detail worth considering carefully, as would a scientist.

There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

However, extending that process to the creation of significantly distinct species is no more scientific than trying to put a satellite in orbit by bouncing it off a backyard trampoline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain your analogy please.

[/ QUOTE ]

The variations that cause infertility between populations have not been show to be of the character necessary to, by means of accumulation, bridge a significant gap of speciation.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK... then where does it stop? Clearly we agree that these two seperated populations will have different geno/phenotypic traits, and can even become mutally infertile.

This essentially means that one species buds off from another.

Does it stop at genus? What about family? Dare I say it: order!

Please explain why it stops at whichever taxonomic level you say it does.

[MidGe]

Of course it doesn't stop at any arbitrary level.

My pet weero (bird) is a descendent of dinausaurs. When I look at her I can see the vestiges of them.

[MidGe]

And here (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14271210.htm) is another confirmation hot out of the press about fishes to land animals.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
And here (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14271210.htm) is another confirmation hot out of the press about fishes to land animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here will be the response from our resident creationists:

http://aljira.org/images/exhibits/109554317574Lg.jpg

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK... then where does it stop? Clearly we agree that these two seperated populations will have different geno/phenotypic traits, and can even become mutally infertile.

This essentially means that one species buds off from another.

Does it stop at genus? What about family? Dare I say it: order!

Please explain why it stops at whichever taxonomic level you say it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t stop, because it never starts. The variations that cause infertility represent a negligible addition, if any, to the information content of the expression of the genome. Random defects can cause infertility, but no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another. These are two distinct processes. One is not simply an extension of the other. To say otherwise is mere science fiction. Never demonstrated, never observed. Nothing.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesnt at all jive with:

[ QUOTE ]
There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since the second explicitly describes the development of one species into another.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesnt at all jive with:

[ QUOTE ]
There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since the second explicitly describes the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because it doesn't happen overnight. The fact that it might take millions of years for these changes to occur is lost on Sharkey.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesnt at all jive with:

[ QUOTE ]
There’s no doubt that identical populations put in different niches will drift apart in their genetic traits, even to the point of becoming mutually infertile. That much has been observed and more or less understood.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since the second explicitly describes the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the second one describes a necessary, not sufficient, condition of speciation.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the second one describes a necessary, not sufficient, condition of speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so we have two groups that came from one group. The two groups have the following properties:

- Different genetic traits
- Are mutally infertile


Why are these not different species? Please back up your definition of species

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, the second one describes a necessary, not sufficient, condition of speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so we have two groups that came from one group. The two groups have the following properties:

- Different genetic traits
- Are mutally infertile


Why are these not different species? Please back up your definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a strict definition, they could qualify as two species, however, the use of “speciation” in this context has been stated over and over again to include a process extrapolatable to the present diversity of species.

See my explanation five posts up in this thread for clarification as to why this is important.

[DougShrapnel]

Sharkey, Could you please point to what exactly in genesis dispells evolution. I personally think that evolution and creation in genesis are perfectly compatable. The adam and eve portion of the story is not. You seem to argue alot about speciazation, and genesis says nothing against it. What makes you so sure that speciazation isn't possible. I know you aren't getting from reading genesis.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey, Could you please point to what exactly in genesis dispells evolution. I personally think that evolution and creation in genesis are perfectly compatable. The adam and eve portion of the story is not. You seem to argue alot about speciazation, and genesis says nothing against it. What makes you so sure that speciazation isn't possible. I know you aren't getting from reading genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my argument with evolution is that it’s bad science, not because of any contradiction with Genesis. I don’t quite say speciation is impossible, just that it hasn’t been demonstrated or observed, and it’s bad science to assume that something has happened because it “seems reasonable” to do so.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, my argument with evolution is that it’s bad science, not because of any contradiction with Genesis. I don’t quite say speciation is impossible, just that it hasn’t been demonstrated or observed, and it’s bad science to assume that something has happened because it “seems reasonable” to do so.

[/ QUOTE ] What do think is a better explaination of how the vast array of species got here?

Why do you think the vast majority of scientists, a very skeptical bunch, disagree with you on what is good science and bad science, as well as disagree with you on the possibility and likelyness of evolution?

[Sharkey]

I believe God created the universe.

The “vast majority” of anybody knows what they can do with their “truth”. If they don’t have the facts in back of them, they should stop their pretending.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The variations that cause infertility represent a negligible addition, if any, to the information content of the expression of the genome. Random defects can cause infertility, but no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot believe I'm responding to a Sharkey post but the above quoted section demonstrates a profound ignorance of how genetics and evolution works.

You do know that you could actually <u>remove</u> "information content" from a genome and get a new species don't you?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe God created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ] Sharky, I thought we were talking about what accounts for the vast array of species. Nothing about the universe. I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I'll assume you mean God created all the species on this planet. Ok fine, what method did he use? Please show demonstration or observation of God's method.

[ QUOTE ]
The “vast majority” of anybody knows what they can do with their “truth”. If they don’t have the facts in back of them, they should stop their pretending.

[/ QUOTE ] I have no idea what this means, I'm not gonna bother reading thru the venom to figure it out. Don't take it the wrong way, I asked my question because I'd like to hear why you think the sceintific community disagrees with you about what is good sceince.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
According to a strict definition, they could qualify as two species, however, the use of “speciation” in this context has been stated over and over again to include a process extrapolatable to the present diversity of species.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aaaaand this is why I haven't been responding to you. Because someone demonstrates a point and you start pulling vague, unanswerable crap out of your ass.

It's you that doesn't want to open your mind and discuss this scientifically.

P.S. I'm an evolutionist and a catholic.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The variations that cause infertility represent a negligible addition, if any, to the information content of the expression of the genome. Random defects can cause infertility, but no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot believe I'm responding to a Sharkey post but the above quoted section demonstrates a profound ignorance of how genetics and evolution works.

You do know that you could actually <u>remove</u> "information content" from a genome and get a new species don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn’t have responded even now, because, to reiterate yet again, we are looking for a process according to which one mutually fertile group develops into another in a manner SUFFICIENT FOR THE CREATION OF THE PRESENT DIVERSITY OF SPECIES.

That is NOT accomplished by removal of information content from the genome.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair question, in my opinion. The best characterised plant species separated by pollinators that I am aware of are Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii. But you could also try Aquilegia and I could dig up a bunch of others if you wish.

Note that nature is not as clean as the abstract example I gave. If it were, we would all believe in intelligent design. Nonetheless, the theory I outlined provides the best explanation of the data that I am aware of. It seems sufficient to me.

If you accept that separarated groups can diverge to speciation without internal infertility, I'll move on.

The next question as far as I can see, would be how do you get from slightly diverged sister species to the difference between nematodes and blue whales. There is no theoretical problem here, as far as I know.

There are mountains of papers producing molecular lineages consistent with relatedness by descent, so it looks as if people are in fact related to insects. We have some ideas about mutation rates and the speed at which morphological change arises, and as far as I know there are no big contradictions.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, the second one describes a necessary, not sufficient, condition of speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so we have two groups that came from one group. The two groups have the following properties:

- Different genetic traits
- Are mutally infertile


Why are these not different species? Please back up your definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

According to a strict definition, they could qualify as two species, however, the use of “speciation” in this context has been stated over and over again to include a process extrapolatable to the present diversity of species.

See my explanation five posts up in this thread for clarification as to why this is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, we agree that evolution can cause one species that is split into two groups to become two speices, and be mutually infertile, right?

So, I want to know, what is evolution capable of changing?

- Can one group become significantly bigger than the other, if so, by how much?

- Can one develop much more hair than the other, if so, how much more hair?

- Can the bone structure of one change from the other, if so, how much?

- Can beaks of birds become different in size and shape, if so, by how much?


Basically, since you have already admitted that one species can split into two, with different genetic/phenotpyic traits, how far can it go before its absurd to attribute it to evolution?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe God created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ] Sharky, I thought we were talking about what accounts for the vast array of species. Nothing about the universe. I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I'll assume you mean God created all the species on this planet. Ok fine, what method did he use? Please show demonstration or observation of God's method.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t claim my theory is based on science.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The “vast majority” of anybody knows what they can do with their “truth”. If they don’t have the facts in back of them, they should stop their pretending.

[/ QUOTE ] I have no idea what this means, I'm not gonna bother reading thru the venom to figure it out. Don't take it the wrong way, I asked my question because I'd like to hear why you think the sceintific community disagrees with you about what is good sceince.

[/ QUOTE ]

What venom? I’m doing fine. You must be projecting.

If you’re curious as to why every age has its mythologies, that’s not my department.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe God created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ] Sharky, I thought we were talking about what accounts for the vast array of species. Nothing about the universe. I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I'll assume you mean God created all the species on this planet. Ok fine, what method did he use? Please show demonstration or observation of God's method.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t claim my theory is based on science.



[/ QUOTE ]
You did say that evolution is bad science. Good science uses the best available theory that supports the data. When you say evolution is bad science I assumed you had a competing theory that fit the data better. Your theory doesn't have to be scientific, just have to fit the data better for evolution to be bad science. So could you run your unscientific thoery by me?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The variations that cause infertility represent a negligible addition, if any, to the information content of the expression of the genome. Random defects can cause infertility, but no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot believe I'm responding to a Sharkey post but the above quoted section demonstrates a profound ignorance of how genetics and evolution works.

You do know that you could actually <u>remove</u> "information content" from a genome and get a new species don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn’t have responded even when now, because, to reiterate yet again, we are looking for a process according to which one mutually fertile group develops into another in a manner SUFFICIENT FOR THE CREATION OF THE PRESENT DIVERSITY OF SPECIES.

That is NOT accomplished by removal of information content from the genome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh, I just don't know where to go from here. You have serious deficiencies in your knowledge of genetics and evolution.

You keep a white knuckle grip on the same scientific sounding questions and when someone says they're not viable questions because they're based on incorrect premises (such as your "increasing the information content" spiel) you don't listen - and then you repeat the same exact wrong things over and over.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair question, in my opinion. The best characterised plant species separated by pollinators that I am aware of are Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii. But you could also try Aquilegia and I could dig up a bunch of others if you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I proceed with my fair answer to your fair question, let’s make sure of a certain detail, if you don’t mind. Are you claiming Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii are mutually infertile?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should read The Ancestor's Tale. Read it entirely skeptically, don't take the author's word for any of it, but at least use it as a template for asking more concrete questions and raising more specific concerns.


Oh, and every ten pages or so remind yourself not to take it personally when the author belittles you.

Dawkins does a GREAT job of making very complex issues in population genetics and evolution very understandable. Like, even a stupid med student can understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s funny how this issue brings you frivolous trolls out of the woodwork.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. I almost never post on SMP, true enough, but I don't see how my post elicited this response. The stupid med student I was referring to was myself. And it was an honest recommendation of a good book that addresses many of the concerns you seem to have. Sorry if you took it personally, for no good reason.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, we agree that evolution can cause one species that is split into two groups to become two speices, and be mutually infertile, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Approximately.

[ QUOTE ]
So, I want to know, what is evolution capable of changing?

- Can one group become significantly bigger than the other, if so, by how much?

- Can one develop much more hair than the other, if so, how much more hair?

- Can the bone structure of one change from the other, if so, how much?

- Can beaks of birds become different in size and shape, if so, by how much?

[/ QUOTE ]

The diversity of dogs would be a good example, though “evolution” is the wrong word.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, since you have already admitted that one species can split into two, with different genetic/phenotpyic traits, how far can it go before its absurd to attribute it to evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything is possible as long as it does not require an increase in complexity without a preexisting complex mechanism to accomplish it.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe God created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ] Sharky, I thought we were talking about what accounts for the vast array of species. Nothing about the universe. I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I'll assume you mean God created all the species on this planet. Ok fine, what method did he use? Please show demonstration or observation of God's method.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t claim my theory is based on science.



[/ QUOTE ]
You did say that evolution is bad science. Good science uses the best available theory that supports the data. When you say evolution is bad science I assumed you had a competing theory that fit the data better. Your theory doesn't have to be scientific, just have to fit the data better for evolution to be bad science. So could you run your unscientific thoery by me?

[/ QUOTE ]

The details of my theory would be off-topic in this thread.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The variations that cause infertility represent a negligible addition, if any, to the information content of the expression of the genome. Random defects can cause infertility, but no mechanism has been observed to cause the increase in information content of genetic expression required for the development of one species into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot believe I'm responding to a Sharkey post but the above quoted section demonstrates a profound ignorance of how genetics and evolution works.

You do know that you could actually <u>remove</u> "information content" from a genome and get a new species don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn’t have responded even when now, because, to reiterate yet again, we are looking for a process according to which one mutually fertile group develops into another in a manner SUFFICIENT FOR THE CREATION OF THE PRESENT DIVERSITY OF SPECIES.

That is NOT accomplished by removal of information content from the genome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh, I just don't know where to go from here. You have serious deficiencies in your knowledge of genetics and evolution.

You keep a white knuckle grip on the same scientific sounding questions and when someone says they're not viable questions because they're based on incorrect premises (such as your "increasing the information content" spiel) you don't listen - and then you repeat the same exact wrong things over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don’t mean any offense, and maybe you’ve got something somewhere, but honestly all I see when looking at your posts are the useless ravings of a self-deluded knave.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The details of my theory would be off-topic in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ] This thread is about the futility of argueing for evolution. If there is no competing theory that fits that data, there is no arguement. And no thread. You are the one that said it was bad science. In order for it to be bad science there must be a competing thoery that better fits the data. It is that simple. I would like to know what your theory is so I can have a debate, about which thoery better fits the data. It appears that your competing theory is very much on topic of the thread, in that without a compiting theory it is futile to argue for evolution. It appears the OP is right.

[vhawk01]

There does NOT need to be a competing theory in order for evolution to be bad science. A theory is not good simply because its the best available. The theory stands on its own merits. It is for this reason that simply discrediting evolution does nothing to prop up ID, or vice versa.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
A theory is not good simply because its the best available. The theory stands on its own merits.

[/ QUOTE ] Could you elobarate on best available not being a merit?

[vhawk01]

Why would 'best available' be a merit? If I can do something to discredit the theory of gravitation tomorrow, in any small way, does that make my own, alternative, "things fall to give the Earth a big hug" theory any more accurate, robust or explanatory?

[bunny]

Best available is a merit for pragmatic reasons. If we have a dodgy, poor, fundamentally flawed theory that allows some progress in furthering our understanding then it is better than nothing. Obviously in this case a big part of research would be providing a competing theory. Nonetheless, if the poor theory was the best on offer - that is good reason to utilise it.

I dont think this has any bearing on propping up your hug theory - discrediting gravitation a bit, still leaves it better than yours so your theory has not gained any more merit. I think if you went so far in your discrediting that gravitational theory no longer fit the facts but your hug theory did - then yes, that would help your theory.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would 'best available' be a merit? If I can do something to discredit the theory of gravitation tomorrow, in any small way, does that make my own, alternative, "things fall to give the Earth a big hug" theory any more accurate, robust or explanatory?

[/ QUOTE ] Honestly bud, I would rather argue with sharkey. I'm trying to talk directly to the creationist meme, instead of having this futile evoltuion arguemnt with a meme that wants to survive.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible as long as it does not require an increase in complexity without a preexisting complex mechanism to accomplish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give a good description of what exactly describes an "increaes in complexity" (this can certainly take on multiple meanings, and I want to remove the ambiguity)

[KeysrSoze]

This speciation argument makes no sense to me. We do have different species that can interbreed, just not very well. Lions and tigers (you agree these are two different species?) can breed (with difficulty) to create ligers and tigrons, who are usually mules. Usually. Sometimes one is fertile. Take two different species of cats and breed them, its harder for them to reproduce and still harder to create a viable fertile offspring. Some cats can't interbreed at all. Extrapolation is bad science I guess, though. No, we can't look at the fossil record or do differential genetic comparisons and by a preponderance of evidence make an educated guess that hey, these two cats that can't possibly breed once shared a common ancestor. We need a time machine to even hazard a theory that this might be probable? Do you apply this standard to everything else, for instance you didn't personally observe what happened before you were born so you have no business thinking history is anything other than just a myth, or just evolution? Oh well, feeding the troll again. Almost 2 months now, remarkable lifespan of the gimmick.

Edit: Well I'm 2 pages behind. How did I miss page 4 and 5?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should read The Ancestor's Tale. Read it entirely skeptically, don't take the author's word for any of it, but at least use it as a template for asking more concrete questions and raising more specific concerns.


Oh, and every ten pages or so remind yourself not to take it personally when the author belittles you.

Dawkins does a GREAT job of making very complex issues in population genetics and evolution very understandable. Like, even a stupid med student can understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s funny how this issue brings you frivolous trolls out of the woodwork.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. I almost never post on SMP, true enough, but I don't see how my post elicited this response. The stupid med student I was referring to was myself. And it was an honest recommendation of a good book that addresses many of the concerns you seem to have. Sorry if you took it personally, for no good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, if I misconstrued, I apologize.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no competing theory that fits that data, there is no arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s not the case at all. The criterion of a good theory is that it fit the data. Just because another theory fits the data better or worse doesn’t affect that performance.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible as long as it does not require an increase in complexity without a preexisting complex mechanism to accomplish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give a good description of what exactly describes an "increaes in complexity" (this can certainly take on multiple meanings, and I want to remove the ambiguity)

[/ QUOTE ]

A technically correct answer will take a little searching through texts etc, though in the meantime I can meet my minimum burden of showing evolution’s necessity for increasing complexity simply by comparing the initial and resultant states the theory attempts to comprise: i.e. the original protoplasm and the output ape.

A somewhat better answer would refer to functionality present in the descendant yet absent in the progenitor. That would indicate a novel complexity requiring an input of information.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair question, in my opinion. The best characterised plant species separated by pollinators that I am aware of are Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii. But you could also try Aquilegia and I could dig up a bunch of others if you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I proceed with my fair answer to your fair question, let’s make sure of a certain detail, if you don’t mind. Are you claiming Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii are mutually infertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistic I have seen is that 2 out of 2000 seeds collected in the wild produced F1 hybrids, so yes, I am claiming that they are effectively reproductively isolated. The strength of isolation due to pollinators alone is estimated at 98%. Data from Ramsey et al (2003). This is far more isolated than lions and tigers, which most people would regard as distinct species.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible as long as it does not require an increase in complexity without a preexisting complex mechanism to accomplish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give a good description of what exactly describes an "increaes in complexity" (this can certainly take on multiple meanings, and I want to remove the ambiguity)

[/ QUOTE ]

A technically correct answer will take a little searching through texts etc, though in the meantime I can meet my minimum burden of showing evolution’s necessity for increasing complexity simply by comparing the initial and resultant states the theory attempts to comprise: i.e. the original protoplasm and the output ape.

A somewhat better answer would refer to functionality present in the descendant yet absent in the progenitor. That would indicate a novel complexity requiring an input of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dodging the issue again. Both here and in your last response to me. "Oh, it's out there but I haven't time to look it up for you, I'm late for a luncheon."
Seriously, give us details on your "increasing information content of the genome" idea that is a prerequisite for speciation. And no more superficial logic like the bacteria to man thing. You are talking about the genome and its information content.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible as long as it does not require an increase in complexity without a preexisting complex mechanism to accomplish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give a good description of what exactly describes an "increaes in complexity" (this can certainly take on multiple meanings, and I want to remove the ambiguity)

[/ QUOTE ]

A technically correct answer will take a little searching through texts etc, though in the meantime I can meet my minimum burden of showing evolution’s necessity for increasing complexity simply by comparing the initial and resultant states the theory attempts to comprise: i.e. the original protoplasm and the output ape.

A somewhat better answer would refer to functionality present in the descendant yet absent in the progenitor. That would indicate a novel complexity requiring an input of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dodging the issue again. Both here and in your last response to me. "Oh, it's out there but I haven't time to look it up for you, I'm late for a luncheon."
Seriously, give us details on your "increasing information content of the genome" idea that is a prerequisite for speciation. And no more superficial logic like the bacteria to man thing. You are talking about the genome and its information content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now you’re trying on me what I have been accused of so often in this forum: demanding every final detail be settled before any progress can happen.

Admittedly my definition isn’t complete yet. For the interim, I’ll go with novel function as a proxy for input information. In other words, where I have characterized speciation in terms of the input of information, read novelty of morphological functionality.

The focus is on genetic expression, which is where fertility is realized, rather than the genome per se.

[posnera]

Score one for the heathens:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/scienc...artner=homepage (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?hp&amp;ex=1144382400&amp;en=f4bbf761f85f4c1b &amp;ei=5094&amp;partner=homepage)

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Score one for the heathens:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/scienc...artner=homepage (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?hp&amp;ex=1144382400&amp;en=f4bbf761f85f4c1b &amp;ei=5094&amp;partner=homepage)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this was posted yesterday as well. If Sharkey gets around to replying to it, it'll be something of this nature:

http://www.tushita.com/catalog/images/_cards/qcards/Q0113.jpg

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible as long as it does not require an increase in complexity without a preexisting complex mechanism to accomplish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give a good description of what exactly describes an "increaes in complexity" (this can certainly take on multiple meanings, and I want to remove the ambiguity)

[/ QUOTE ]

A technically correct answer will take a little searching through texts etc, though in the meantime I can meet my minimum burden of showing evolution’s necessity for increasing complexity simply by comparing the initial and resultant states the theory attempts to comprise: i.e. the original protoplasm and the output ape.

A somewhat better answer would refer to functionality present in the descendant yet absent in the progenitor. That would indicate a novel complexity requiring an input of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dodging the issue again. Both here and in your last response to me. "Oh, it's out there but I haven't time to look it up for you, I'm late for a luncheon."
Seriously, give us details on your "increasing information content of the genome" idea that is a prerequisite for speciation. And no more superficial logic like the bacteria to man thing. You are talking about the genome and its information content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now you’re trying on me what I have been accused of so often in this forum: demanding every final detail be settled before any progress can happen.

Admittedly my definition isn’t complete yet. For the interim, I’ll go with novel function as a proxy for input information. In other words, where I have characterized speciation in terms of the input of information, read novelty of morphological functionality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asking for fine, trivial details. You used this argument to shoot down some other posters' excellent points and much of your theory rests on it. There are a lot of bad assumptions in that fancy sounding statement you made.

You're kind of doing the evolution as a ladder thing. Evolution absolutely does not always follow adding new information to the genome or new functions over time.
Maybe that's where your major misunderstanding comes from.

[ QUOTE ]
The focus is on genetic expression, which is where fertility is realized, rather than the genome per se.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, a little different from your earlier statements. Before you were using the "selection mechanism must be more complex than the thing being selected" route (pronounce that however you would like - I'm flexible with rowt or root) but now we're kind of looking at it on a different level now.

I have a few questions for you:

Q1. Do you agree that mutual fertility is based on the similarity of the genomes betwen two organisms. If not - why?

Q2. Do you agree that two separate populations that have no gene flow between them will accrue differences in their respective gene pools due to genetic drift (random mutations)? Why not if no?

Q3. Do you agree that two separate populations will have different ecological challenges that they face? For example differences in water salinity, temperature, food, predators, vegetation to camouflage their presence, etc?

Q4. Would you agree that these pressures would result in a further difference in the gene pool between the two populations?

Q5. Based on the above questions, would you say that it's likely that the two populations could accrue enough differences in their genomes to become mutually infertile with each other anf therefore become different species? If no why not? What mechanism prevents this from occurring?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair question, in my opinion. The best characterised plant species separated by pollinators that I am aware of are Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii. But you could also try Aquilegia and I could dig up a bunch of others if you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I proceed with my fair answer to your fair question, let’s make sure of a certain detail, if you don’t mind. Are you claiming Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii are mutually infertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistic I have seen is that 2 out of 2000 seeds collected in the wild produced F1 hybrids, so yes, I am claiming that they are effectively reproductively isolated. The strength of isolation due to pollinators alone is estimated at 98%. Data from Ramsey et al (2003). This is far more isolated than lions and tigers, which most people would regard as distinct species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effectively reproductively isolated is not equal to mutually infertile.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Score one for the heathens:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/scienc...artner=homepage (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?hp&amp;ex=1144382400&amp;en=f4bbf761f85f4c1b &amp;ei=5094&amp;partner=homepage)

[/ QUOTE ]


I never denied a fairy plausible narrative could be constructed. That’s enough for heathens, I suppose. The science that built the technological world around you was very careful about details and assumptions.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Score one for the heathens:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/scienc...artner=homepage (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?hp&amp;ex=1144382400&amp;en=f4bbf761f85f4c1b &amp;ei=5094&amp;partner=homepage)

[/ QUOTE ]


I never denied a fairy plausible narrative could be constructed. That’s enough for heathens, I suppose. The science that built the technological world around you was very careful about details and assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of bad assumptions in that fancy sounding statement you made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than name-calling, describe what you think they are.

[ QUOTE ]
You're kind of doing the evolution as a ladder thing. Evolution absolutely does not always follow adding new information to the genome or new functions over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There’s a logical fallacy there. Just because evolution does NOT ALWAYS have to add new information does not mean it NEVER has to add new information. In fact, it is very easy to pick two points on a given supposed evolutionary line of descent and see where novelty of morphological function is required.

[ QUOTE ]
route (pronounce that however you would like - I'm flexible with rowt or root)

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s nice.

[ QUOTE ]
Q1. Do you agree that mutual fertility is based on the similarity of the genomes betwen two organisms. If not - why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetic similarity is a necessary condition for mutual fertility.

[ QUOTE ]
Q2. Do you agree that two separate populations that have no gene flow between them will accrue differences in their respective gene pools due to genetic drift (random mutations)? Why not if no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Q3. Do you agree that two separate populations will have different ecological challenges that they face? For example differences in water salinity, temperature, food, predators, vegetation to camouflage their presence, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Q4. Would you agree that these pressures would result in a further difference in the gene pool between the two populations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where your logic starts to drift, if you’re suggesting that “pressure” can somehow contribute an enormously complex (as all are) novelty of morphological function. However, I’ll go with this in its most simple meaning, as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Q5. Based on the above questions, would you say that it's likely that the two populations could accrue enough differences in their genomes to become mutually infertile with each other anf therefore become different species? If no why not? What mechanism prevents this from occurring?

[/ QUOTE ]

They could become mutually infertile. However, this process does not constitute sufficient cause for the creation of the present diversity of morphological functions. If you were somehow to observe a process of accrual of morphological function, then I would say it hasn’t been described, but at least it has been observed. However, you have neither a sufficient theory nor the observation of effects. All the evolutionists have is a storyline.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of bad assumptions in that fancy sounding statement you made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than name-calling, describe what you think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> I already said that one was that the information content has to go up for a new species!!! </font>

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're kind of doing the evolution as a ladder thing. Evolution absolutely does not always follow adding new information to the genome or new functions over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There’s a logical fallacy there. Just because evolution does NOT ALWAYS have to add new information does not mean it NEVER has to add new information. In fact, it is very easy to pick two points on a given supposed evolutionary line of descent and see where novelty of morphological function is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">Holy crap! You are the one making the statements about the increase of information content being neccessary.

These first two statements of yours are amazing in their attempt at twisting stuff around. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
route (pronounce that however you would like - I'm flexible with rowt or root)

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

A joke on a recent OOT thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q1. Do you agree that mutual fertility is based on the similarity of the genomes betwen two organisms. If not - why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetic similarity is a necessary condition for mutual fertility.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">Great, there may be hope for you yet. </font>

quote][ QUOTE ]
Q2. Do you agree that two separate populations that have no gene flow between them will accrue differences in their respective gene pools due to genetic drift (random mutations)? Why not if no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.[/quote}

<font color="blue"> Grand. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q3. Do you agree that two separate populations will have different ecological challenges that they face? For example differences in water salinity, temperature, food, predators, vegetation to camouflage their presence, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> Yippee!</font>

[quote}[ QUOTE ]
Q4. Would you agree that these pressures would result in a further difference in the gene pool between the two populations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where your logic starts to drift, if you’re suggesting that “pressure” can somehow contribute an enormously complex (as all are) novelty of morphological function. However, I’ll go with this in its most simple meaning, as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> You may be misreading me. The ecological pressure doesn't create the original variation in the genome - it's responsible for the prevalence and continuation of certain traits. For example white fur may be useful camouflage in the arctic and brown fur may be useful in the desert. Since fur color is controlled by genetic mechanisms you can imagine that these animals differ genetically at least at that location or locations in the genome. Furthermore, besides the geographical disparity, many animals choose mates based on traits like fur color, widening the reproductive isolation. Since you already accepted that populations with no gene flow between them will diverge genetically, and differences in genetics are responsible for mutual infertility how could these populations remain mutually fertile? What prevents them form becoming infertile? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q5. Based on the above questions, would you say that it's likely that the two populations could accrue enough differences in their genomes to become mutually infertile with each other anf therefore become different species? If no why not? What mechanism prevents this from occurring?

[/ QUOTE ]

They could become mutually infertile. However, this process does not constitute sufficient cause for the creation of the present diversity of morphological functions. If you were somehow to observe a process of accrual of morphological function, then I would say it hasn’t been described, but at least it has been observed. However, you have neither a sufficient theory nor the observation of effects. All the evolutionists have is a storyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> And another huge dodge on your part. Why isn't it a sufficient theory? How is this proposed mechanism not sufficient cause for explaining the diversity? You keep saying almost that exact sentence without ever backing it up.
Do you have a better theory?
"I never saw an atom with my own eyes so therefore they don't exist. What? No, dummy those experiments are a storyline by physicists doing bad science."</font>

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop throwing bananas, and go back to chimp school.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop throwing bananas, and go back to chimp school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey, you're a joke. No matter how much you try to intellectualize your questions and statements, you still come off as a close-minded fool. You have absolutely no interest in "debating" evolution. You've already made up your mind, and nobody will ever be able to prove you wrong. You obviously get some kind of perverse pleasure out of infuriating posters on here by being purposefully obtuse. Your act is growing old, but I'm guessing you'll continue to milk it until every last poster on this board is ignoring you. For awhile I wondered to myself if you were a troll, delusional, or just hopelessly brainwashed, but now I find myself no longer caring.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The ecological pressure doesn't create the original variation in the genome - it's responsible for the prevalence and continuation of certain traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, since you have an input of random variation and an output of an extremely organized system, where does the information content come from? Where is the extremely organized mechanism responsible for the formal interpretation and representation in terms of the genome of the relevant information about the environment?

[ QUOTE ]
Since you already accepted that populations with no gene flow between them will diverge genetically, and differences in genetics are responsible for mutual infertility how could these populations remain mutually fertile? What prevents them form becoming infertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, but mere infertility is trivial and only a necessary condition of speciation. It by itself doesn’t take the process anywhere significant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They could become mutually infertile. However, this process does not constitute sufficient cause for the creation of the present diversity of morphological functions. If you were somehow to observe a process of accrual of morphological function, then I would say it hasn’t been described, but at least it has been observed. However, you have neither a sufficient theory nor the observation of effects. All the evolutionists have is a storyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't it a sufficient theory? How is this proposed mechanism not sufficient cause for explaining the diversity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science 101. The theory is not sufficient because it has not been demonstrated to be so. It lacks replicatability, among other things.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ecological pressure doesn't create the original variation in the genome - it's responsible for the prevalence and continuation of certain traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, since you have an input of random variation and an output of an extremely organized system, where does the information content come from? Where is the extremely organized mechanism responsible for the formal interpretation and representation in terms of the genome of the relevant information about the environment?

[ QUOTE ]
Since you already accepted that populations with no gene flow between them will diverge genetically, and differences in genetics are responsible for mutual infertility how could these populations remain mutually fertile? What prevents them form becoming infertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, but mere infertility is trivial and only a necessary condition of speciation. It by itself doesn’t take the process anywhere significant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They could become mutually infertile. However, this process does not constitute sufficient cause for the creation of the present diversity of morphological functions. If you were somehow to observe a process of accrual of morphological function, then I would say it hasn’t been described, but at least it has been observed. However, you have neither a sufficient theory nor the observation of effects. All the evolutionists have is a storyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't it a sufficient theory? How is this proposed mechanism not sufficient cause for explaining the diversity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science 101. The theory is not sufficient because it has not been demonstrated to be so. It lacks replicatability, among other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to backpedal, squirm out of, obfuscate, change your stance on, and generally not answer anything!
Your pseudoscientific posts make me miss the old school denyers.
Your information theory of refuting evolution is a joke that many other posts have demonstrated.

P.S. Order out of randomness is well documented in the scientific world. take, oh say, diffusion for example. Where's the interpretation that determinges the exact movement of molecules? Who decides what concentrations are final?

[Sharkey]

You were doing so well for a while there, I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Now you’re fading back into name-calling noise mode.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
You were doing so well for a while there, I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Now you’re fading back into name-calling noise mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing how you can bring that out of people. It must be your sparkling personality.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
You were doing so well for a while there, I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Now you’re fading back into name-calling noise mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, we were getting nowhere. C'mon.

I salute you for not using the term ad hominem however. I'm so sick of that term.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You were doing so well for a while there, I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Now you’re fading back into name-calling noise mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, we were getting nowhere. C'mon.

I salute you for not using the term ad hominem however. I'm so sick of that term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, he hasn't used any latin for awhile. For that, I am thankful.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You were doing so well for a while there, I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Now you’re fading back into name-calling noise mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, we were getting nowhere. C'mon.

I salute you for not using the term ad hominem however. I'm so sick of that term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially when he uses it in inappropriate circumstances...eg when he is simply being ridiculed, instead of the ridicule being used to refute his arguments.

Wonder how he will try and discredit/ignore Tiktaalik roseae, since he is so fond of claiming no missing links.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no competing theory that fits that data, there is no arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s not the case at all. The criterion of a good theory is that it fit the data. Just because another theory fits the data better or worse doesn’t affect that performance.

[/ QUOTE ]From what I can tell you believe, you believe that micro evolution happens. Evolution can be observed up to the point of species divergence. Science uses deductive reasoning to extrapolate that creation of new species is the result of mirco evolution. You say it hasn't be obseved to happen, and I think you may be correct. Science uses the fossil record as evidence, you dismiss it. You havne't come up with any evidence or reasons why macro evolution is impossible, this would go a long way in helping scientists to see the error of thier ways.

I personally feel that you refuse to accept evolution because you have bought into an incorrect notion that evolution disproves God. You have said that the bible doesn't say anything that dispells evolution.

But yet, we are having this agruement about evolution because at times it is used as propoghanda by atheists to promote an atheist view. I have an opinion why scientists use evolution to promote atheism. A belief in creationism gets in the way of accepting the evidence for evolution, as well as understanding the most recent discoveries in DNA, Astronomy, and philosophy. You are a case where I believe this is happening. Evolution and the belief in God can co-exist. Unfortunetly, and I got this form my discussion with NotReady, the term random evolution, or evolution by chance does mean uncasued, if you a religious person it means "without God".

If we, when presenting the evidence for evolution are using the implied term "evolution without god", we will continue to have people like you continually fight against it. With good reason I might add. This fight will take place under the guise of actual scientific debate. It usually isn't a fair debate tho. As the stakes are too high, both sides are unreceptive. is it possible you cannot accept evolution because you "know" that god created the universe. Is it possible you cannot come up with a better theory than evolution because there isn't one. Does that mean that everything about evolution is known and 100% fact? Certainly not. Currently the emergence of life is still a big issue. That part of evolution has disbanded from evolutionary theory, only to have mention of the competing theories for life emergence. I personally like the thoery that dna used silicon wafer from the dirt to start the process of evolution.

I leave you with one question, Do you seriously believe the evolutionary theory is seriously flawed becuase the emergance of life portion of the process is incomplete as well as the creation of new species is logically deduced instead of empirically observed, or is your real problem that you have a competing theory; "God created the universe", and you feel that evolution and God are mutualy exclusive? If it is the 1st, great, nothing really left to discuss. If it is the 2nd. perhaps some people who believe in religion and evolution can show you how they are compatible.

Doug

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Wonder how he will try and discredit/ignore Tiktaalik roseae, since he is so fond of claiming no missing links.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look back a little in this thread, this was his reply:

I never denied a fairy plausible narrative could be constructed. That’s enough for heathens, I suppose. The science that built the technological world around you was very careful about details and assumptions.


When I asked him what the hell he was talking about, he told me to go back to chimp school.

[KeysrSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop throwing bananas, and go back to chimp school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh! Oh! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!

Ah, hopey, arguing with Sharkey is like walking headfirst into a wall. You don't get anywhere and all you end up with for your efforts is a headache.

[chrisnice]

This is the most ironic thread ever.

[Sharkey]

Doug:

Certain biological changes are observed to happen, but they do not necessarily extend to the creation of new species. The burden is on the scientists to make the connection, if there is one.

The fossil record is there. I don’t deny that. Replicable sufficient cause has not been established in terms of observed natural phenomena to associate that evidence with its purported explanation. “It seems reasonable” is not science. Many fantasies that seemed inevitable and unacceptable to deny for millennia have been overturned.

It’s curious that you would bring up a religious element. In answer to your question, I maintain that the theory of evolution is flawed in terms of its logical and scientific makeup. It could be also be in conflict with religion, but that is not the argument I’m presenting here.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug:

Certain biological changes are observed to happen, but they do not necessarily extend to the creation of new species. The burden is on the scientists to make the connection, if there is one.

The fossil record is there. I don’t deny that. Replicable sufficient cause has not been established in terms of observed natural phenomena to associate that evidence with its purported explanation. “It seems reasonable” is not science. Many fantasies that seemed inevitable and unacceptable to deny for millennia have been overturned.

It’s curious that you would bring up a religious element. In answer to your question, I maintain that the theory of evolution is flawed in terms of its logical and scientific makeup. It could be also be in conflict with religion, but that is not the argument I’m presenting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we've already seen your scientific foundations are pretty shaky, what with all the information content ideas, lack of understanding how evolution is proposed to work, etc.
Plus you don't bring any actual content to the debate. A lot of posters have went to the trouble to make their points. Your entire involvement is basically "nuh-uh."

[Copernicus]

Sounds like he is a bit shaken, after whining about the fossil record not showing any missing links (not true to start with) and then having a fish with advanced arm bones appear!

I forget whether he is a literalist or not, but the Judas Gospel could be Excedrin headache number 2006.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
But we've already seen your scientific foundations are pretty shaky, what with all the information content ideas, lack of understanding how evolution is proposed to work, etc.
Plus you don't bring any actual content to the debate. A lot of posters have went to the trouble to make their points. Your entire involvement is basically "nuh-uh."

[/ QUOTE ]

Another false personal attack based on opinion only. Proves nothing.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
... after whining about the fossil record not showing any missing links ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that. You’re imagining things.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Certain biological changes are observed to happen, but they do not necessarily extend to the creation of new species. The burden is on the scientists to make the connection, if there is one.

[/ QUOTE ] What has science done to make good on their burden of proof?

[ QUOTE ]
Many fantasies that seemed inevitable and unacceptable to deny for millennia have been overturned.


[/ QUOTE ] This is true but what method can we use to determine which "reasonable" theories that seem inevitable and unacceptable to deny will be over turned in future millenia? Your arguement is one of an epistemological nature and not per se an arguement against the evidence for evolution provided. I think it's important to distinguish the two when having a scientific debate about something in particular. If every bit of knowledge was held up to this stringant epistemological questioning we could know nothing at all, and debate becomes meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
It’s curious that you would bring up a religious element.

[/ QUOTE ] Becuase it's a major factor why evolution evidence isn't given it's full wieght. And I do believe at times the dismisal is justified given the greater stakes if God and evolution are mutualy exclusive, or at least reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
It could be also be in conflict with religion, but that is not the argument I’m presenting here.

[/ QUOTE ] It isn't the arguement you are presenting, but is it the reason why you are presenting your arguemnt?

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I would like to read more. What is the name of the species you are describing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair question, in my opinion. The best characterised plant species separated by pollinators that I am aware of are Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii. But you could also try Aquilegia and I could dig up a bunch of others if you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I proceed with my fair answer to your fair question, let’s make sure of a certain detail, if you don’t mind. Are you claiming Mimlulus cardinalis and Mimulus lewisii are mutually infertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistic I have seen is that 2 out of 2000 seeds collected in the wild produced F1 hybrids, so yes, I am claiming that they are effectively reproductively isolated. The strength of isolation due to pollinators alone is estimated at 98%. Data from Ramsey et al (2003). This is far more isolated than lions and tigers, which most people would regard as distinct species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effectively reproductively isolated is not equal to mutually infertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I quite agree. I don't see your point, though. There are a wide variety of definitions of species (at least 5). As far as I can tell, the Mimulus lewisii and M. cardinalis fit all of them. If these are two distinct species that have diverged to this point by a mechanism that did not involve reduced fitness or infertility for either population, then I would say that constitutes one piece of evidence supporting the generalisable theory of speciation I mentioned.

I would not say that it proves Genesis is bunk. I would say that I am not aware of any theoretical reason why evolutionary theory cannot account for the current state of affairs.

Off the topic, in all sincerity I would recommend use of the 'information content' argument only as a last resort. I respect your viewpoint and would rather see the weaknesses of evolutionary theory criticised.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What has science done to make good on their burden of proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have presented a lot of cursory circumstantial evidence with some expensive special effects. Unfortunately, that is usually enough to convince most people.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many fantasies that seemed inevitable and unacceptable to deny for millennia have been overturned.


[/ QUOTE ] This is true but what method can we use to determine which "reasonable" theories that seem inevitable and unacceptable to deny will be over turned in future millenia?

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It could be also be in conflict with religion, but that is not the argument I’m presenting here.

[/ QUOTE ] It isn't the arguement you are presenting, but is it the reason why you are presenting your arguemnt?

[/ QUOTE ]

I registered at 2+2 with the intention of posting about poker. Then I happened upon this forum and got started in this whole debate ad nauseum, ad hominem and ad absurdum.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Off the topic, in all sincerity I would recommend use of the 'information content' argument only as a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. (I’ll get back to your main points a little later.)

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
They have presented a lot of cursory circumstantial evidence with some expensive special effects. Unfortunately, that is usually enough to convince most people.


[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what you mean by expensive special effect. Instead of explaining it to me, Lets talk burden of proof, Do you agree that the burder of proof for someone that believes evolution and god are mutual exclusive ideas, would be extremely higher than someone who doesn't hold that belief.

[ QUOTE ]
Many fantasies that seemed inevitable and unacceptable to deny for millennia have been overturned.


[/ QUOTE ] This has nothing to do with the scientific method. Also did you ignore the ignore that part about this being a epistomological arguement and and a sceintific one?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It could be also be in conflict with religion, but that is not the argument I’m presenting here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't the arguement you are presenting, but is it the reason why you are presenting your arguemnt?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I registered at 2+2 with the intention of posting about poker. Then I happened upon this forum and got started in this whole debate ad nauseum, ad hominem and ad absurdum.

[/ QUOTE ] What is the reason you make your arguements ad nauseum, ad hominem and ad absurdum? Is it because you hold that God and evolution are mutual exclusive ideas?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a wide variety of definitions of species (at least 5). As far as I can tell, the Mimulus lewisii and M. cardinalis fit all of them. If these are two distinct species that have diverged to this point by a mechanism that did not involve reduced fitness or infertility for either population, then I would say that constitutes one piece of evidence supporting the generalisable theory of speciation I mentioned.

I would not say that it proves Genesis is bunk. I would say that I am not aware of any theoretical reason why evolutionary theory cannot account for the current state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can best reply by recycling the following question, and maybe you can see where the logic leads.

Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is infertile with A?

[KeysrSoze]

There probably won't be such a clear cut divide between species interfertility as you seem to imply. Isolate two groups of the same species for a while, reintroduce a member, and breeding will often be hit and miss, not some arbitrary completely-fertile/unbreedable situation. Horses and donkeys for instance. The offspring of a union will almost always be a sterile mule, but sometimes a fertile get will occur. That first member of what you would call species A probably could breed with species B, with limited success. It depends on how broad or thin you're defining species.

[Sharkey]

The burden of proof will fall on those who are making claims. If religion has counterclaims, the burden of proof remains. A claim does not gain or loose its logical content based merely on who is arguing against it.

I have indicated the shortcomings of the theory of evolution in both areas: epistemology and sufficiency of evidence.

Why the issue of incompatibility between God and evolution? I have not brought this up here. As to why I am making these arguments, it just worked out that way. I play a good amount of poker and wanted to do messages about the game. This debate was an afterthought.

[Sharkey]

Let’s forget about “species” for a moment.

Starting state: mutually fertile group A.

Ending state: mutually fertile group B.

Members of A and B are not mutually fertile.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the issue of incompatibility between God and evolution?

[/ QUOTE ] Since we are talking about burden of proof I bring it up for the purposes of determining just how much burden needs be carried. The more outrageoues the claim the more stringent proof required. If one holds the view regarding mutual exclusivity, we can see that the burden of proof that is required has been weighted. Becuase now not only does the theory need pragmatic value, but carries the heavy load of disproving God's existance as well. This was the topic of the OP, not lets have an evolution debate. Not that that matters much since most threads stray from their orignal intent. There is little point in argueing with the scientists, and evolutionists on this board, because I'm sure they can't prove to you that God doesn't exist. Which is really the proof that you need in order to accept evolution. I'm afraid that proof doesn't exist. I'm discussing evolution with you in this fashion because I think that it is a shame that the debate at times isn't really about evolution at all, but about whether god exists or not. Even if you don't mention the mutual exclusivity of evolution and god's existstance in your posts. If evolutions has the high burden of proof becuase you hold a particular view about God, I think that should be disclosed. People need to know what they are argueing against, if they are to able to provide you with convincing and cogent evidence.

If this is the case I certainly don't think it is intentional, as usually a claim does not gain or loose its logical content based merely on who is arguing against it. But certain cases can arise where the claim may imply different things depending merely on who is arguing for or against it. And the required evidence barometer might be rising or droping depending merely on who is evaluating it. I hope I'm making myself clear, I have a feeling that I'm not.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why the issue of incompatibility between God and evolution?

[/ QUOTE ] Since we are talking about burden of proof I bring it up for the purposes of determining just how much burden needs be carried. The more outrageoues the claim the more stringent proof required. If one holds the view regarding mutual exclusivity, we can see that the burden of proof that is required has been weighted. Becuase now not only does the theory need pragmatic value, but carries the heavy load of disproving God's existance as well. This was the topic of the OP, not lets have an evolution debate. Not that that matters much since most threads stray from their orignal intent. There is little point in argueing with the scientists, and evolutionists on this board, because I'm sure they can't prove to you that God doesn't exist. Which is really the proof that you need in order to accept evolution. I'm afraid that proof doesn't exist. I'm discussing evolution with you in this fashion because I think that it is a shame that the debate at times isn't really about evolution at all, but about whether god exists or not. Even if you don't mention the mutual exclusivity of evolution and god's existstance in your posts. If evolutions has the high burden of proof becuase you hold a particular view about God, I think that should be disclosed. People need to know what they are argueing against, if they are to able to provide you with convincing and cogent evidence.

If this is the case I certainly don't think it is intentional, as usually a claim does not gain or loose its logical content based merely on who is arguing against it. But certain cases can arise where the claim may imply different things depending merely on who is arguing for or against it. And the required evidence barometer might be rising or droping depending merely on who is evaluating it. I hope I'm making myself clear, I have a feeling that I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm sure they can't prove to you that God doesn't exist. Which is really the proof that you need in order to accept evolution.

Yeah, I dont think youre making yourself understood, because you can easily accept evolution without proving God doesnt exist. Any atheist, including those that believe in evolution, will agree that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Off the topic, in all sincerity I would recommend use of the 'information content' argument only as a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. (I’ll get back to your main points a little later.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Two reasons: firstly it's a fairly technical field, which makes informed discussion tricky. More importantly, proponents such as Dembski appear not to understand what they are saying on this topic (not so much others). I cannot put it more politely than that.

If you wish I can post the information theory links from the anti-ID groups, but they are easy to find, and a little polemical for my taste.

In my humble opinion, irreducible complexity is an interesting argument, though I find it unpersuasive. Use of the information content argument appears me to open one to criticisms of ignorance or irrationality.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Off the topic, in all sincerity I would recommend use of the 'information content' argument only as a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. (I’ll get back to your main points a little later.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Two reasons: firstly it's a fairly technical field, which makes informed discussion tricky. More importantly, proponents such as Dembski appear not to understand what they are saying on this topic (not so much others). I cannot put it more politely than that.

If you wish I can post the information theory links from the anti-ID groups, but they are easy to find, and a little polemical for my taste.

In my humble opinion, irreducible complexity is an interesting argument, though I find it unpersuasive. Use of the information content argument appears me to open one to criticisms of ignorance or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but it really isn’t relevant what mistakes anyone else is making, be they pro or con.

My own experience with information theory is through computer science, and basic applications to this discussion are not difficult.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s forget about “species” for a moment.

Starting state: mutually fertile group A.

Ending state: mutually fertile group B.

Members of A and B are not mutually fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this post saying???


It certainly cant be saying that the above is not possible, since you already admitted it in this thread.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s forget about “species” for a moment.

Starting state: mutually fertile group A.

Ending state: mutually fertile group B.

Members of A and B are not mutually fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this post saying???


It certainly cant be saying that the above is not possible, since you already admitted it in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not saying anything more than the obvious.

Since we’re on the subject, do you have examples of an A and B that do not terminate at B but continue on in further evolution?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It’s not saying anything more than the obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not even saying the obvious. You say nothing at all, yet make a lot of noises.

[Sharkey]

But we mustn’t forget that the beggar who is in the marketplace is completely deaf insomuch as far as listening to the song that is coming from the mockingbird is concerned.

[MidGe]

You see Sharkey, in the same way that all your responses are to any debate, this response is also completely irrelevant. Unlike the beggar whi can't hear, I can see your posts and I consider them a waste of bandwidth amd more like the shrieking of a parrot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Off the topic, in all sincerity I would recommend use of the 'information content' argument only as a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. (I’ll get back to your main points a little later.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Two reasons: firstly it's a fairly technical field, which makes informed discussion tricky. More importantly, proponents such as Dembski appear not to understand what they are saying on this topic (not so much others). I cannot put it more politely than that.

If you wish I can post the information theory links from the anti-ID groups, but they are easy to find, and a little polemical for my taste.

In my humble opinion, irreducible complexity is an interesting argument, though I find it unpersuasive. Use of the information content argument appears me to open one to criticisms of ignorance or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but it really isn’t relevant what mistakes anyone else is making, be they pro or con.

My own experience with information theory is through computer science, and basic applications to this discussion are not difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you seem to be ignoring the differences in those applications as relates to each field (as stated before, speciation can result form a LOSS of information).
A little knowledge can be a bad thing here.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I dont think youre making yourself understood, because you can easily accept evolution without proving God doesnt exist. Any atheist, including those that believe in evolution, will agree that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ] You can easily accept evolution without proving God doesnt exist, only if you hold the two ideas not to be mutually exclusive. And that is the point I'm trying to get at.

From the OP
[ QUOTE ]
They believe that the Bible is the word of God and that to deny anything from the Bible would be to deny their faith. Accepting evolution is to them the equivalent of denying the existence of their God.

[/ QUOTE ] So to sharkey it may be the case that what he is saying in all his posts is, There isn't enough evidence for evolution to prove god doesn't exist. That is, if he holds evolution and god to be mutualy exculsive. Regarding people who don't hold the mutual exclusive principle, evolution does not attemp to disprove God. I'm trying to point out the two very different burden of proofs required to be met by different persons in the debate.


If creationists, I'm not sure about sharky since he doesn't want to spill the beans, were instead to say "I will only accept evolution if you disprove god". Evolutionist wouldn't waste there time on providing evidence for evolution to mutual exclusivists, but instead providing logic training about the non mututal exclusivity of evolution and God. Only when we are in non mutual exclusive land can meaninfull debate happen.

Is that clear yet?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If creationists, I'm not sure about sharky since he doesn't want to spill the beans, were instead to say "I will only accept evolution if you disprove god". Evolutionist wouldn't waste there time on providing evidence for evolution to mutual exclusivists, but instead providing logic training about the non mututal exclusivity of evolution and God. Only when we are in non mutual exclusive land can meaninfull debate happen .

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Doug

I don't really agree with that. If both sides are and logical and aiming at clarity they can debate very meaningfully. Their differences can be pinpointed and understood although no agreement can be reached.

Sadly this is not the agenda here.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
If both sides are and logical and aiming at clarity they can debate very meaningfully. Their differences can be pinpointed and understood although no agreement can be reached.


[/ QUOTE ] I think you really agree and just better clarified my position. However I did not want to specifically state this "Sadly this is not the agenda here." or imply it. As i think both sides are guitly and it does nothing but stiffle the actual issues at hand.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If both sides are and logical and aiming at clarity they can debate very meaningfully. Their differences can be pinpointed and understood although no agreement can be reached.


[/ QUOTE ] I think you really agree and just better clarified my position. However I did not want to specifically state this "Sadly this is not the agenda here." or imply it. As i think both sides are guitly and it does nothing but stiffle the actual issues at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, I think if you look at the original threads in this saga you'll see an attempt to understand the arguments marshalled against evolutionary theory and deal with them honestly.

This has been met with obsfurcation at every turn and its hard not to conclude that it is deliberate.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

Chez, I'm trying to find out the reasons for what you are calling deliberate obsfurcation. I am also trying to proceed very cautiously as not to insight any ad hom. I'm not sure if it will bear any fruit, but it seems like something fun to try.

On 1 side the reason is that to alot of evolutionist, evolution implies or is evidence of no god. Sometimes the coupling of evolution and atheism is deliberate. Sometimes evolutionists can go out of there way to be very specific that evolution in no way affects the existance of god.

On the other side there my be a backlash from the coupling of evolution and atheism. Also possibly there is a different level of burden of proof required when evaluting evidence when ME is brought into play.

[Hopey]

I think you're misunderstanding the stance that most evolutionists are taking, as compared to the stance of the creationists (like Sharkey). Most evolutionists are willing to concede that there is a possibility that there is a higher being who either started the process, or somehow influences it in some other way. Most have a "gut feeling" that the existence of a higher being is unlikely, but at least we are willing to concede that, until proven otherwise, it is *possible* that such a being exists. We have an open mind, and evolutionary theory seems the most plausible explanation for the world we see around us.

However, Sharkey and his ilk do *not* have open minds. They have tunnel vision, and feel threatened by anything that even *suggests* that evolutionary theory has any merit. To concede even the most minor of points to evolutionists is to deny their faith.

So please don't compare those of us who are trying to have an honest debate with Sharkey. We have nothing in common with him.

[DougShrapnel]

Hopey, In my response to Chez I wasn't tyring to call out evolutionists. At this time I don't wish to call out Sharkey either. Not because I haven't seen any justifiable reasons to do so. But because that would ruin the fun for me. The last thing that I want to do is to attack anyone in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
To concede even the most minor of points to evolutionists is to deny their faith.

[/ QUOTE ] This is the what I'm trying to get at, well not the most minor points, but you get the idea. Mainly, because I don't have the knowledge to be a successful advocate of evolution. I apologize if my posts are not construing my intentions correctly. I can't grant both sides of the debate the issues under discussion to get at the reasons for those issues without walking a increadible thin tight rope. I'd rather not, and just give sharkey the edge with me on evolution details. So i can get to what i think is causing the disagreement. Mutual Exclusivity.

[Lestat]

I disagree Doug. Evolution should have nothing to do with God. It is simply a theory that was developed over time through observation and tests (science). It is something that makes sense, and for now is the most likely scenario of how things came about. In fact...

Charles Darwin was considering becoming a priest before he formulated his theory! So it's true that realizing the truth of evolution does cause some to question God's existence or disbelieve altogther. However, it is those who cannot accept the non-existence of God, who are the ones that insist on bringing God into it. This is because their core beliefs are threatened by evolution. So they put blinders on and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility however strong it may be.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Off the topic, in all sincerity I would recommend use of the 'information content' argument only as a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. (I’ll get back to your main points a little later.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Two reasons: firstly it's a fairly technical field, which makes informed discussion tricky. More importantly, proponents such as Dembski appear not to understand what they are saying on this topic (not so much others). I cannot put it more politely than that.

If you wish I can post the information theory links from the anti-ID groups, but they are easy to find, and a little polemical for my taste.

In my humble opinion, irreducible complexity is an interesting argument, though I find it unpersuasive. Use of the information content argument appears me to open one to criticisms of ignorance or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but it really isn’t relevant what mistakes anyone else is making, be they pro or con.

My own experience with information theory is through computer science, and basic applications to this discussion are not difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you seem to be ignoring the differences in those applications as relates to each field (as stated before, speciation can result form a LOSS of information).
A little knowledge can be a bad thing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, you’re failing the bare minimum of logic and trying to make it up with personal attacks.

Speciation CAN result from a loss of information, but speciation MUST result from a gain of information to do what is required of it by the theory of evolution.

Similarly, an automobile CAN go in reverse but MUST go forward to do what is required of it by the motorist.

[DougShrapnel]

Ok, I choose not to keep up the facade any longer.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution should have nothing to do with God.

[/ QUOTE ] Clearly it does have something to do with God. Mainly it takes away a reasonable reason for the belief in god. It also provides a better explantion of the facts than creation in genesis does. You seem to argee "So it's true that realizing the truth of evolution does cause some to question God's existence or disbelieve altogther."

[ QUOTE ]
This is because their core beliefs are threatened by evolution. So they put blinders on and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility however strong it may be.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm trying to discuss with sharkey if he thinks this may be the case.

My post are trying to convey the message that Sharkey may not be able to evaluate the evidence correctly given the heftier wieght the conclusion imply.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is because their core beliefs are threatened by evolution. So they put blinders on and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility however strong it may be.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm trying to discuss with sharkey if he thinks this may be the case.

My post are trying to convey the message that Sharkey may not be able to evaluate the evidence correctly given the heftier wieght the conclusion imply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not certain whether such a conflict does or doesn’t exist.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m not certain whether such a conflict does or doesn’t exist.

[/ QUOTE ] I guess that is my exist cue. I enjoyed the conversation. I have little left to add. Eccept that I think that it is a little unfair to engage in a debate where there is a possiblity of a clear conflict in being able to evalute the evidence with same level of burden of proof.

[colgin]

. . . that makes two this week:

NY Times: Study, in a First, Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes the coupling of evolution and atheism is deliberate. Sometimes evolutionists can go out of there way to be very specific that evolution in no way affects the existance of god.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that sometimes the two are confused, its rare on this board where most go out of their way to say that theism and evolution are independant of each other.

The problem is with some religous beliefs. Some religons have made the understandable tactical mistake of nailing their masts to specific claims that they thought were uncheckable. Its the assult from science on these claims that is causing the problem and the unwillingness of some to see this part of their belief exposed to scrutiny results in them trying to prevent clarity.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that sometimes the two are confused, its rare on this board where most go out of their way to say that theism and evolution are independant of each other.

The problem is with some religous beliefs. Some religons have made the understandable tactical mistake of nailing their masts to specific claims that they thought were uncheckable. Its the assult from science on these claims that is causing the problem and the unwillingness of some to see this part of their belief exposed to scrutiny results in them trying to prevent clarity.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, my sentiments. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that sometimes the two are confused, its rare on this board where most go out of their way to say that theism and evolution are independant of each other.

The problem is with some religous beliefs. Some religons have made the understandable tactical mistake of nailing their masts to specific claims that they thought were uncheckable. Its the assult from science on these claims that is causing the problem and the unwillingness of some to see this part of their belief exposed to scrutiny results in them trying to prevent clarity.


[/ QUOTE ] I agree up to the "results in them trying to prevent clarity". I think it more of a situation where clarity is prevented due to copmlex assumptions and previous knowledge brought to the table, as well implied meanings and understandings of and in words. But we are discussing the origins of life. An amazing feet in and of itself.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that sometimes the two are confused, its rare on this board where most go out of their way to say that theism and evolution are independant of each other.

The problem is with some religous beliefs. Some religons have made the understandable tactical mistake of nailing their masts to specific claims that they thought were uncheckable. Its the assult from science on these claims that is causing the problem and the unwillingness of some to see this part of their belief exposed to scrutiny results in them trying to prevent clarity.


[/ QUOTE ] I agree up to the "results in them trying to prevent clarity". I think it more of a situation where clarity is prevented due to copmlex assumptions and previous knowledge brought to the table, as well implied meanings and understandings of and in words. But we are discussing the origins of life. An amazing feet in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the bolded part you are right in cases where the debaters are being intellecutally honest. There are certain posters here who cannot be described in that way.

[DougShrapnel]

The OP is truely gifted

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionist: You're an idiot/intellectually dishonest/Bible thumping jerk
Theist: You're as jerk. You're going to hell. Screw You
End of Debate


[/ QUOTE ] You are going to hell buddy, lol.

[posnera]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . that makes two this week:

NY Times: Study, in a First, Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, please, did you read the cogent rebuttle by Dr. Behe, the intelligent design proponent?

"Dr. Behe described the results as 'piddling'."

Then, in a nice twist, he declared that while the concepts in the article could be correct, they violated his definition of "irreducible complexity" because it involved only two pieces, not three. He sounds like a lawyer with a guilty client. If you can't argue the facts, argue the law.


EDIT: Oh, and I am going to hell, just not for this.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. . . that makes two this week:

NY Times: Study, in a First, Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, please, did you read the cogent rebuttle by Dr. Behe, the intelligent design proponent?

"Dr. Behe described the results as 'piddling'."

Then, in a nice twist, he declared that while the concepts in the article could be correct, they violated his definition of "irreducible complexity" because it involved only two pieces, not three. He sounds like a lawyer with a guilty client. If you can't argue the facts, argue the law.


EDIT: Oh, and I am going to hell, just not for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you cant argue the law, change the law or take your ball and go home (to mix metaphors egregiously).

Has anyone seen Dr. Behe and Sharkey in the same place at the same time?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that sometimes the two are confused, its rare on this board where most go out of their way to say that theism and evolution are independant of each other.

The problem is with some religous beliefs. Some religons have made the understandable tactical mistake of nailing their masts to specific claims that they thought were uncheckable. Its the assult from science on these claims that is causing the problem and the unwillingness of some to see this part of their belief exposed to scrutiny results in them trying to prevent clarity.


[/ QUOTE ] I agree up to the "results in them trying to prevent clarity". I think it more of a situation where clarity is prevented due to copmlex assumptions and previous knowledge brought to the table, as well implied meanings and understandings of and in words. But we are discussing the origins of life. An amazing feet in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe but when the responses so well fit with obsfurcation its hard to believe its not by design.

chez

[Sharkey]

The following turned up in a review of one of Dr. Behe’s books on Amazon. I had to laugh, though sadly.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most striking things I have discovered about the vehement critiques of this book both at the Amazon website as well as other Behe websites is the alarming degree of hatred and resentment that has been displayed by Behe's fellow scientists. Now, whether Behe is right or wrong is beside the point when one just considers how his attackers have chosen to respond to his book; using mere ad hominum tactics does not instill in me a sense of confidence in Behe's adversaries' actually knowing what they are talking about. After all, when one feels compelled to do nothing more than hurl insults at the author of a book instead of actually taking the time to engage the argument of the book, that tells me that the critic has an insecurity complex. And that is precisely what the majority of Behe's peers have done; they have basically said “How DARE he challenge Darwinian natural selection?” As the late Carl Sagan said so vociferously so many times, science is SUPPOSED to be an open forum for discussion. No matter how smart a person is or what his or her credentials are, no one view is supposed to be categorically accepted or categorically rejected without due process. Categorically rejecting Behe's theory of IC and trying to attack him personally tells me just how little so many of these “professional” scientists actually know about science.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The following turned up in a review of one of Dr. Behe’s books on Amazon. I had to laugh, though sadly.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most striking things I have discovered about the vehement critiques of this book both at the Amazon website as well as other Behe websites is the alarming degree of hatred and resentment that has been displayed by Behe's fellow scientists. Now, whether Behe is right or wrong is beside the point when one just considers how his attackers have chosen to respond to his book; using mere ad hominum tactics does not instill in me a sense of confidence in Behe's adversaries' actually knowing what they are talking about. After all, when one feels compelled to do nothing more than hurl insults at the author of a book instead of actually taking the time to engage the argument of the book, that tells me that the critic has an insecurity complex. And that is precisely what the majority of Behe's peers have done; they have basically said “How DARE he challenge Darwinian natural selection?” As the late Carl Sagan said so vociferously so many times, science is SUPPOSED to be an open forum for discussion. No matter how smart a person is or what his or her credentials are, no one view is supposed to be categorically accepted or categorically rejected without due process. Categorically rejecting Behe's theory of IC and trying to attack him personally tells me just how little so many of these “professional” scientists actually know about science.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

In the next paragraph the reviewer discusses Wistar, and continues the Behe fiction that Wistar was an unbiased discussion amongst atheists, who presumably would have been pre-disposed to accepting evolutionary theory.

To the contrary, Wistar was stacked with anti-evolutionists to start with, and those attendees who dissented (ie understood the mathematical feasibility of evolution) were ignored.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The following turned up in a review of one of Dr. Behe’s books on Amazon. I had to laugh, though sadly.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most striking things I have discovered about the vehement critiques of this book both at the Amazon website as well as other Behe websites is the alarming degree of hatred and resentment that has been displayed by Behe's fellow scientists. Now, whether Behe is right or wrong is beside the point when one just considers how his attackers have chosen to respond to his book; using mere ad hominum tactics does not instill in me a sense of confidence in Behe's adversaries' actually knowing what they are talking about. After all, when one feels compelled to do nothing more than hurl insults at the author of a book instead of actually taking the time to engage the argument of the book, that tells me that the critic has an insecurity complex. And that is precisely what the majority of Behe's peers have done; they have basically said “How DARE he challenge Darwinian natural selection?” As the late Carl Sagan said so vociferously so many times, science is SUPPOSED to be an open forum for discussion. No matter how smart a person is or what his or her credentials are, no one view is supposed to be categorically accepted or categorically rejected without due process. Categorically rejecting Behe's theory of IC and trying to attack him personally tells me just how little so many of these “professional” scientists actually know about science.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And the following review, by someone more knowledgable then most on this board:

I am a PhD student in microbiology that has recently become interested in the ID/evolution debate. In his book, Michael Behe presents some common examples of biological structures/cascades as they are presented in any upperlevel undergraduate molecular biology text. The remainder of the book is spent dismissing evolutionary theory because scientists have not answered questions such as "How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? How did cholesterol biosynthesis begin? How did retinal become involved in vision? etc. (pg 176)." As a graduate student involved in biomedical research I can tell you that these questions are rigged. If Mike Behe knows of a way they could be tested I sure haven't seen him present this. Behe is claiming that evolutionary theory is inadequate and must be replaced by ID because we haven't shown the evolution of a photocenter in the lab (nor will we)!!!! That's like reasoning that the laws of physics must be discarded because no one has ever reproduced the big bang singularity in a beaker. The fact is that Dr. Behe's attack on evolutionary theory is based largely on either ignorance or deceit. As a biochemist who must have a good handle on evolutionary theory to present his case against it, Dr. Behe must surely be aware that science does not contend that the only mechanism of evolution is by natural selection acting on single point mutations. This is why I say deceit or ignorance. Either he isn't aware of it which is unlikely, or he has a clear agenda he wishes to push in order to neglect to mention horizontal and lateral gene transfer, chromosomal rearrangements, regulatory genes, gene duplication, transposable elements, and transduction in bacteria as evolutionary mechanisms (See Microbial Evolution: Gene Establishment, Survival, and Exchange edited by Robert V. Miller and Martin J. Day for a technical account). This is not the main thing that concerns me about his book. He uses poor analogies to illustrate what he believes are flaws in evolutionary theory. The bike evolving into a motorcycle is a perfect example (pg 43-44). "To be a precursor in Darwin's sense we must show that a motorcycle can be built from "numerous, successive, slight modifications" to a bicycle." "If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle." Not true Dr. Behe. Bacteria evolve rapidly both through modification, duplication or rearrangement of existing structures in their genome as well as by acquiring DNA from other bacterial cells, viruses or the environment. Think I'm kidding. I'll use the most familiar example...antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It turns out that bacteria can have a form of sexual reproduction with one another through a tubular rod known as a pillus. Some bacteria contain small self replicating circular pieces of DNA which are called plasmids. Plasmids contain genes that are not necessarily required for growth normally, though can have selective advantage in some environments, such as a patient taking antibiotics. Bacteria can become resistant to an antibiotic through acquiring a plasmid containing an antibiotic resistance gene from another bacterium! THIS IS EVOLUTION!!!! So his bike analogy falls apart because biology does not exist in a vacuum as Mike Behe would have you believe. Instead, genes encoding functional proteins are exchanged routinely in the case of microorganisms. Dr. Behe's "evidence" for an intelligent designer is in what he calls irreducible complexity, i.e. if you take away one component the system fails to work...so how could complex biochemical pathways/structures have evolved by natural selection. Dr. Behe's first example of an irreducibly complex structure is the bacterial flagellum. Dr. Behe states, "Yet here again, the evolutionary literature (on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum) is totally missing. Even though we are told that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution, no scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine." Actually, it's in the second edition of a textbook called Cellular Microbiology by Cosart P. et al. by ASM Press on pg 369 so it is in fact in the literature. What I am referring to is the bacterial Type III secretion system (TTSS) which functions to inject toxins into eukaryotic cells. Both the bacterial flagellum and the TTSS are put together in the cell by the same mechanism, and proteins in each system are homologous (meaning derived from common components). This system is not irreducibly complex, when you take away the flagellar whip and replace it with the needle like structure encoded by the PrgJ and InvG genes you have a functional syringe. It turns out that numerous genes involved in this process can be transferred from one bacterium to another in toto and not through "stepwise modifications of existing structures" as ID "theorists" would have you believe. Sure, many complex pathways seem to be irreducibly complex if the reader has no background in biochemistry or molecular biology and the author restricts natures means to produce such structures to slight, gradual processes. Finally, if you would really like to get inside Dr. Behe's head, feast on this statement: "Neither Darwin nor Dawkins, neither science nor philosophy, has explained how an irreducibly complex system such as a watch might be produced without a designer". Thank you, Dr. Behe.
This negative critique on Dr. Behe's book in no way reflects my view on religion. I am not an atheist as is the image portrayed on the science community by the ID movement. What irritates me is that a professor of biochemistry can misuse his status and knowingly misrepresent the extensive body of scientific evidence for evolution for his own religious agenda. Science and religion deal with fundamentally different issues. Science in its purest form is humanities ability to understand natural phenomenon by means of observation. We cannot observe an "Intelligent Designer" and it doesn't take a scientist to arrive at this conclusion. Religion is based on faith, so why is it that some people and organizations (Discovery Institute) are now trying to observe God or God's work empirically? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of faith? In fact, evolutionary theory should not threaten people's faith. Pope John Paul II even stated this. Organisms change with time through various biological processes....so that means there cannot be a higher power? Evolution is really not up for debate and those who believe it is clearly do not have an understanding of evolution, the scientific literature, or the definition of a theory. ID, however, is up for debate because where Dr. Behe claims science has failed to answer fundamental questions, ID has not answered any questions with any empirical evidence, nor will they because the hypothesis (not theory) precludes testing.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
science is SUPPOSED to be an open forum for discussion. No matter how smart a person is or what his or her credentials are, no one view is supposed to be categorically accepted or categorically rejected without due process.

[/ QUOTE ]


The due process is precisely where Behe falls down. He is not arguing from a scientific viepoint or with a scientific approach and rigour at all. In the usual fashion of creationists or ID'ers, he accuses the whole scinetific community and work of the very weaknesses of his pseudo argument. Talk about blindness. LOL

The mention of hate is quite starnge also. It seems that belivers are the one hating, promising eternal damnation, atheists are doing nothing of the sort.

In psychological terms these behaviours are called "projections" and that very much is what they are.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
And the following review, by someone more knowledgable then most on this board:

[/ QUOTE ]

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with how knowledgeable the arguer might be. Bringing out the old canard of the “more knowledgeable” is usually a sign of something missing.

The quotation from the review contains the usual insufficiencies and scientisms, with a touch of bitter language toward Dr. Behe (whose arguments I do not vouch for).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the following review, by someone more knowledgable then most on this board:

[/ QUOTE ]

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with how knowledgeable the arguer might be. Bringing out the old canard of the “more knowledgeable” is usually a sign of something missing.

The quotation from the review contains the usual insufficiencies and scientisms, with a touch of bitter language toward Dr. Behe (whose arguments I do not vouch for).

[/ QUOTE ]

Horse chit. When the arguer is a PhD in the field being discussed and he cites inaccuracies in Behe's statements regarding that field, his expertise certainly carries more weight than SMP posters, unless they have similar credentials.

And contrary to your second statement he

1) is very specific about where Behe is either wrong or obfuscating

2) has a right to use bitter language when Behe is hurting the credibility of his profession

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the following review, by someone more knowledgable then most on this board:

[/ QUOTE ]

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with how knowledgeable the arguer might be. Bringing out the old canard of the “more knowledgeable” is usually a sign of something missing.

The quotation from the review contains the usual insufficiencies and scientisms, with a touch of bitter language toward Dr. Behe (whose arguments I do not vouch for).

[/ QUOTE ]

How can anyone take Sharkey seriously (if anyone still did, that is) after a statement like this? His arrogance is astounding.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
When the arguer is a PhD in the field being discussed ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Statements are accurate or otherwise independent of who is for or against them.

[ QUOTE ]
... his expertise certainly carries more weight than SMP posters, unless they have similar credentials.

[/ QUOTE ]

“Carrying weight” is a subjective judgment and has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of an argument.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Statements are accurate or otherwise independent of who is for or against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the accuracy of such statements?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statements are accurate or otherwise independent of who is for or against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the accuracy of such statements?

[/ QUOTE ]

In which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the credentials of the “experts” you have faith in?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statements are accurate or otherwise independent of who is for or against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the accuracy of such statements?

[/ QUOTE ]

In which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the credentials of the “experts” you have faith in?

[/ QUOTE ]

You always resort to "faith in experts". One can judge the credentials of an expert without being an expert. It isnt a matter of faith, it is a matter of judging the reasonableness of his positions, his thought process, his education, none of which require the same level of expertise that he has.

And to the post 4 back, no I dont take him seriously.
He's just fun to rip holes in.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statements are accurate or otherwise independent of who is for or against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the accuracy of such statements?

[/ QUOTE ]

In which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the credentials of the “experts” you have faith in?

[/ QUOTE ]

You always resort to "faith in experts". One can judge the credentials of an expert without being an expert. It isnt a matter of faith, it is a matter of judging the reasonableness of his positions, his thought process, his education, none of which require the same level of expertise that he has.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if your “expert” has made an error at a level of “expertise” above what you have the capacity to judge the “reasonableness” of, including within the institutions that programmed him and you to respect this “expertise”? Such is your funny little system of faith.

[ QUOTE ]
And to the post 4 back, no I dont take him seriously.
He's just fun to rip holes in.

[/ QUOTE ]

More pretending, where your logic has failed.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statements are accurate or otherwise independent of who is for or against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the accuracy of such statements?

[/ QUOTE ]

In which fantasy world are you qualified to judge the credentials of the “experts” you have faith in?

[/ QUOTE ]

You always resort to "faith in experts". One can judge the credentials of an expert without being an expert. It isnt a matter of faith, it is a matter of judging the reasonableness of his positions, his thought process, his education, none of which require the same level of expertise that he has.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if your “expert” has made an error at a level of “expertise” above what you have the capacity to judge the “reasonableness” of, including within the institutions that programmed him and you to respect this “expertise”? Such is your funny little system of faith.

[ QUOTE ]
And to the post 4 back, no I dont take him seriously.
He's just fun to rip holes in.

[/ QUOTE ]

More pretending, where your logic has failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The depth of your self-delusion is splendid to behold. It almost does invoke the need for a creator.

[CallMeIshmael]

Sharkey,

Out of curiosity:

1. How old do you believe the earth is?
2. Do you believe in the big bang?

[Hopey]

I agree with Copernicus. You're delusional. Please, for the love of (your) god, get help.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

Out of curiosity:

1. How old do you believe the earth is?
2. Do you believe in the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

My “beliefs” on those matters are off-topic.

How are you doing with the on-topic question I asked you, namely what is your example of a mutually fertile group A developing into a mutually fertile group B that is infertile with A where such development did not end at B but continued on in further evolution?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

Out of curiosity:

1. How old do you believe the earth is?
2. Do you believe in the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

My “beliefs” on those matters are off-topic.

How are you doing with the on-topic question I asked you, namely what is your example of a mutually fertile group A developing into a mutually fertile group B that is infertile with A where such development did not end at B but continued on in further evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to post here regularly but now I simply lurk a few times per weak. You have taken up the role NotReady used to fill quite admirably. You are the troll par excellence. I enjoy watching the posters here bang their heads against the brickwall that is Sharkey.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to post here regularly but now I simply lurk a few times per weak. You have taken up the role NotReady used to fill quite admirably. You are the troll par excellence. I enjoy watching the posters here bang their heads against the brickwall that is Sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a contentless troll post par excellence.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you doing with the on-topic question I asked you, namely what is your example of a mutually fertile group A developing into a mutually fertile group B that is infertile with A where such development did not end at B but continued on in further evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have many many examples of this. Also, I have proof of evolution.

I will put it in blog, and eventually post it here.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are you doing with the on-topic question I asked you, namely what is your example of a mutually fertile group A developing into a mutually fertile group B that is infertile with A where such development did not end at B but continued on in further evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have many many examples of this. Also, I have proof of evolution.

I will put it in blog, and eventually post it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, share your wonders of science!

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used to post here regularly but now I simply lurk a few times per weak. You have taken up the role NotReady used to fill quite admirably. You are the troll par excellence. I enjoy watching the posters here bang their heads against the brickwall that is Sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a contentless troll post par excellence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just trying to live up to the standard you have set.

I'm shocked you get as many responses as you do. I would have guessed you would have been ignored by the masses long ago. Perhaps in the near future they will wise up and stop responding to your inanity.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are you doing with the on-topic question I asked you, namely what is your example of a mutually fertile group A developing into a mutually fertile group B that is infertile with A where such development did not end at B but continued on in further evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have many many examples of this. Also, I have proof of evolution.

I will put it in blog, and eventually post it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, share your wonders of science!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah... I'd like to stick to the issues

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used to post here regularly but now I simply lurk a few times per weak. You have taken up the role NotReady used to fill quite admirably. You are the troll par excellence. I enjoy watching the posters here bang their heads against the brickwall that is Sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a contentless troll post par excellence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just trying to live up to the standard you have set.

I'm shocked you get as many responses as you do. I would have guessed you would have been ignored by the masses long ago. Perhaps in the near future they will wise up and stop responding to your inanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

They’re halfway there already. They refuse to respond to nearly all of my questions challenging their dogma. (I can repost them, if you’re up to it.)

There are exceptions who genuinely debate without the usual vices of amateurs, however. They show up now and then.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

Out of curiosity:

1. How old do you believe the earth is?
2. Do you believe in the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

My “beliefs” on those matters are off-topic.

How are you doing with the on-topic question I asked you, namely what is your example of a mutually fertile group A developing into a mutually fertile group B that is infertile with A where such development did not end at B but continued on in further evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that on-topic... It neither proove nor disprove evolution... If that is not so explain how it does.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

Out of curiosity:

1. How old do you believe the earth is?
2. Do you believe in the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

My “beliefs” on those matters are off-topic.

How are you doing with the on-topic question I asked you, namely what is your example of a mutually fertile group A developing into a mutually fertile group B that is infertile with A where such development did not end at B but continued on in further evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that on-topic... It neither proove nor disprove evolution... If that is not so explain how it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does not prove anything by itself but is part of an argument based on facts, not beliefs. Like in a courtroom.

[CallMeIshmael]

Sharkey, you probably didnt see this in another thread, so I will repost:

OK, do you believe that radio-carbon dating (the type used to estimate the age of the earth) is "good science"?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used to post here regularly but now I simply lurk a few times per weak. You have taken up the role NotReady used to fill quite admirably. You are the troll par excellence. I enjoy watching the posters here bang their heads against the brickwall that is Sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a contentless troll post par excellence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just trying to live up to the standard you have set.

I'm shocked you get as many responses as you do. I would have guessed you would have been ignored by the masses long ago. Perhaps in the near future they will wise up and stop responding to your inanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

They’re halfway there already. They refuse to respond to nearly all of my questions challenging their dogma. (I can repost them, if you’re up to it.)

There are exceptions who genuinely debate without the usual vices of amateurs, however. They show up now and then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I didn't sound too negative in my original post. Even if a person disagrees with you completely you provide a useful service. Keep up the good work!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It does not prove anything by itself but is part of an argument based on facts, not beliefs. Like in a courtroom.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, give me the whole argument then. I am sure a judge would have stopped an atorney keeping on getting mnowhere with his questionning. I also note, that you refuse answer questions that you call off-topic, but don't apply the same standard to your own posts. Typical troll behaviour, has nothing to say, but like to make a lot of noise and up his posts count. lol

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
It does not prove anything by itself but is part of an argument based on facts, not beliefs. Like in a courtroom.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this was a courtroom, you'd have been found not guilty by reason of mental deficiency long ago.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

Out of curiosity:

1. How old do you believe the earth is?
2. Do you believe in the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

My “beliefs” on those matters are off-topic.


[/ QUOTE ]These items are very much on topic. The topic is the futility of evolution debates between evolutionists and creationists. You are making a claim; evolution is bad science. We may want to see evidence of your abilities to fairly evalute scientific principles. It is a very fair question, and more on topic than any actual evolution question you could ask. Any specific evolution question you ask is off-topic, unless it is directly related to why evolution debates are futile between evolutionists and creationists...

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked you get as many responses as you do. I would have guessed you would have been ignored by the masses long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ignore him for the most part. I used to try to "debate" with him, but I learned pretty quickly that his burden of proof is impossible to meet (and keeps changing), so I stopped bothering. Sharkey is either a troll, or somebody with deep rooted psychological issues. No sane person would debate in his manner. The mere fact that he believes there is a global conspiracy in the scientific community to spread evolution is proof enough that he's insane.

I'm very curious to know if he's like this in real life. Debating with someone like this is tedious on-line, but I can just imagine how people react to him face to face. How can you work with someone who never admits he's wrong, refuses to listen to anyone else's point of view, and refuses to acknowledge that some people are more qualified and more knowledgeable in their chosen fields of study?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked you get as many responses as you do. I would have guessed you would have been ignored by the masses long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ignore him for the most part. I used to try to "debate" with him, but I learned pretty quickly that his burden of proof is impossible to meet (and keeps changing), so I stopped bothering. Sharkey is either a troll, or somebody with deep rooted psychological issues. No sane person would debate in his manner. The mere fact that he believes there is a global conspiracy in the scientific community to spread evolution is proof enough that he's insane.

I'm very curious to know if he's like this in real life. Debating with someone like this is tedious on-line, but I can just imagine how people react to him face to face. How can you work with someone who never admits he's wrong, refuses to listen to anyone else's point of view, and refuses to acknowledge that some people are more qualified and more knowledgeable in their chosen fields of study?

[/ QUOTE ]

Smite them!

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey, you probably didnt see this in another thread, so I will repost:

OK, do you believe that radio-carbon dating (the type used to estimate the age of the earth) is "good science"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe an evolutionist would try using radiocarbon to date planet Earth, but I sure wouldn’t.

There, that’s your off-topic freebie about my “beliefs”. Now, I would appreciate it if you would attend to your backlog of questions I have put out about facts (on topic), not beliefs (off topic).

[CallMeIshmael]

Sharkey,

do you think radiometric dating is the work of Satan?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I ignore him for the most part. I used to try to "debate" with him, but I learned pretty quickly that his burden of proof is impossible to meet (and keeps changing), so I stopped bothering. Sharkey is either a troll, or somebody with deep rooted psychological issues. No sane person would debate in his manner. The mere fact that he believes there is a global conspiracy in the scientific community to spread evolution is proof enough that he's insane.

I'm very curious to know if he's like this in real life. Debating with someone like this is tedious on-line, but I can just imagine how people react to him face to face. How can you work with someone who never admits he's wrong, refuses to listen to anyone else's point of view, and refuses to acknowledge that some people are more qualified and more knowledgeable in their chosen fields of study?

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s obvious that in person you’re a playa hayta who’s lovingly accommodative toward whatever “authority figure” cracks the whip in your presence.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

do you think radiometric dating is the work of Satan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I respond to your absurd attempt at bating, you’re going to have to give me something in the way of answers to my already pending line of questions.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I respond to your absurd attempt at bating, you’re going to have to give me something in the way of answers to my already pending line of questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you, I have all of your questions answered in my blog. You can read it when I post the url, I just dont want to do that right now.

Anyways, back to the issue at hand

Is radiometric dating is the work of Satan? And, if not, why not?

[Lestat]

Exactly. Before discussing the merits of which is the better aerodynamical design for a particular aircraft, you want to make sure the guy you're debating with believes and understands that it's possible for a heavier-than-air vehicle to maintain flight.

[Sharkey]

Bad analogy. Aerodynamic lift is a solid reality described in terms of observed physical phenomena. A better comparison would be to a debate about Gandalf and Frodo in Middle Earth, or a similarly unfalsifiable narrative.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Aerodynamic lift is a solid reality described in terms of observed physical phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is evolution. Maybe it requires a bit more knowledge than aerodynamic lift. That seems to be your lack.

[Sharkey]

Oh, really? Then I’m sure you won’t mind stepping up to the plate and answering a few questions in that regard. When shall we start?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, really? Then I’m sure you won’t mind stepping up to the plate and answering a few questions in that regard. When shall we start?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we shall.

Do you think that 9/11 and the Iraq war are clear indicators of a forthcoming apocalypse? And, if not, why not?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, really? Then I’m sure you won’t mind stepping up to the plate and answering a few questions in that regard. When shall we start?

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeatedly have, as have many others, at least those questions of yours that were on-topic. The same could not be said of yourself.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, really? Then I’m sure you won’t mind stepping up to the plate and answering a few questions in that regard. When shall we start?

[/ QUOTE ]
The place to start is conceptually. If you could stick with that in a rigourous manner then we could clarify how evolution works in principle.

Then we could tease out the fundemental parts of the theory that would need to be the case to make evolution a possibility in fact.

Then we could see if there is evidence for each of these fundemental parts.

That would get us pretty much up to the point where reading books like Dawkin's Ancestors tale could take over.

Most, if not all of this has been gone though many times already.

As Doug and Lestat have pointed out, if you can't grasp or agree the concepts then there's no possibility of making progress and no means of looking for evidence.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, really? Then I’m sure you won’t mind stepping up to the plate and answering a few questions in that regard. When shall we start?

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeatedly have, as have many others, at least those questions of yours that were on-topic. The same could not be said of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

From earlier in this thread:

Q1. Cite an observation of life produced from lifeless matter.

Q2. What is the best example of two internally fertile and mutually infertile groups where the first developed into the second in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

Q3. What is a causally sufficient explanation of evolution in terms of observed natural phenomena?

Give me your answers or links to answers in this forum.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]


Q1. Cite an observation of life produced from lifeless matter.

Q2. What is the best example of two internally fertile and mutually infertile groups where the first developed into the second in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

Q3. What is a causally sufficient explanation of evolution in terms of observed natural phenomena?

Give me your answers or links to answers in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q1 has nothing to do with evolution but fwiw Miller/Urey experiments (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

Q2 Nobody claims that is how evolution works so it should be no surprise that no one can say how two mutually compatible infertile species populations can causally effect the sufficient explanation of the merry ole land of oz.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Q1. Cite an observation of life produced from lifeless matter.

Q2. What is the best example of two internally fertile and mutually infertile groups where the first developed into the second in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of the present diversity of species?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

Q3. What is a causally sufficient explanation of evolution in terms of observed natural phenomena?

Give me your answers or links to answers in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q1 has nothing to do with evolution but fwiw Miller/Urey experiments (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

Q2 Nobody claims that is how evolution works so it should be no surprise that no one can say how two mutually compatible infertile species populations can causally effect the sufficient explanation of the merry ole land of oz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q1 has everything to do with any theory of the origin of life without creation.

Are you claiming the Miller/Urey experiments produced life? If so, what is it called? Until you specifically identify a living organism, the question remains unanswered.

As for Q2, are you claiming the theory of evolution does not propose the origin of the species can be explained exclusively in terms of observable natural phenomena?

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]


Q1 has everything to do with any theory of the origin of life without creation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. But evolution is not such a theory.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Q1 has everything to do with any theory of the origin of life without creation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. But evolution is not such a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: “The second use of chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed or evolved from non-life (see abiogenesis).”

[CallMeIshmael]

Sharkey,

stop avoiding my questions!!!

Is radiometric dating the work of Satan?? Id be happy with a yes/no response.

[MidGe]

Sharkey before discussing topics like evolution you probably better learn about it first. The wikipedia may be the level of learning you are used to, but in this instance it is inadequate. As has been suggested, read some of Dawkins books. Those are still abordable even for someone with limnited erudition.

Evolution cannot come into play until the second replcator (that is the first replica), by definition. I hope you can understand such a simple concept.

And as you demanded from other before, better stay on topic. Failing to do that simply further confuse you. The topic is evolution not an hypothesis about abiogenesis.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Q1 has everything to do with any theory of the origin of life without creation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. But evolution is not such a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: “The second use of chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed or evolved from non-life (see abiogenesis).”

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. The word evolved is in that quote but it does not refer to evolutionary theory. Much like when I say I hope my golf swing evolves into something decent this summer.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey before discussing topics like evolution you probably better learn about it first. The wikipedia may be the level of learning you are used to, but in this instance it is inadequate. As has been suggested, read some of Dawkins books. Those are still abordable even for someone with limnited erudition.

Evolution cannot come into play until the second replcator (that is the first replica), by definition. I hope you can understand such a simple concept.

And as you demanded from other before, better stay on topic. Failing to do that simply further confuse you. The topic is evolution not an hypothesis about abiogenesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

You posted, “I repeatedly have, as have many others, at least those questions of yours that were on-topic.” Then I reposted from earlier in the same thread my three main questions. I am still waiting for your answers or links to answers in this forum.