The debating skills of evolutionists

[spidergoat]

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

 

[mynameisDan]

Specifically, what evidence refutes it?

generally, most of the "evidence" which purports to support it. Specifically, I have already offered the most damaging evidence against it here and on another thread, there is no empirical genetic evidence in support of it. Evolutionists are at a loss to provide observational evidence of any series of information gaining mutations in the germ cells of any organism such as would be necessary to bring about goo to you evolution. Try as they might, they always offer examples which cause either no new information or a loss of information. Evolutionists cloud the issue by offering "change" as their evidence and feel that is all they need to offer. But change is not in dispute, we know organisms change, this has been observed. What has not been observed is objective evidence of information gaining mutations in the germ cells of any organism.


If evolution, molecules to man had any support other than just a popular vote, there would be millions of examples which could be offered by now. Certainly information gaining mutations are possible, no one disputes this. The problem is that they are never observed in the germ cells of organisms anywhere. The debate usually is centered around single celled creatures because this is where the evolutionists feels he has his best opportunity, yet real debates with the experts (as opposed to internet just so story telling), evolutionist are at a complete loss.

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

 

[mynameisDan]

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

Actually, the list I offered did not come from the discovery institute. These are bible believing scientists who accept a literal genesis account. The point of the post was to show that I could list 7 biologists who reject evolution, and I did that. Claiming that they are biased, unlike those who embrace evolution, is of course is special pleading.

I could have offered other non believing sciences such as Michael Denton, who is not religious at all nor a creationist, but still finds serious flaws with NeoDarwinism, but all I was required to do was cite 7 biologists and I have done that many times over.

 

[spidergoat]

Synthesizer asked for 7. I only want to know the percent.

Biological scientists held about 87,000 jobs in 2006. In addition, many biological scientists held biology faculty positions in colleges and universities but are not included in these numbers. ( http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm )

Assuming 500, that's .57%

 

[synthesizer-patel]

You are making my job much too easy (you may sort out the biologists):

Fair enough - to prove thast it wasn't simnply a Cut a paste jiob from a creationsit website - now provide a list of the peer reviewed science these guys have published that refutes or even sheds doubt upon evolution

 

[synthesizer-patel]

generally, most of the "evidence" which purports to support it. Specifically, I have already offered the most damaging evidence against it here and on another thread, there is no empirical genetic evidence in support of it. Evolutionists are at a loss to provide observational evidence of any series of information gaining mutations in the germ cells of any organism such as would be necessary to bring about goo to you evolution. Try as they might, they always offer examples which cause either no new information or a loss of information. Evolutionists cloud the issue by offering "change" as their evidence and feel that is all they need to offer. But change is not in dispute, we know organisms change, this has been observed. What has not been observed is objective evidence of information gaining mutations in the germ cells of any organism.


If evolution, molecules to man had any support other than just a popular vote, there would be millions of examples which could be offered by now. Certainly information gaining mutations are possible, no one disputes this. The problem is that they are never observed in the germ cells of organisms anywhere. The debate usually is centered around single celled creatures because this is where the evolutionists feels he has his best opportunity, yet real debates with the experts (as opposed to internet just so story telling), evolutionist are at a complete loss.

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Intersting point - I've watched debates about this "No new information" malarkey before, and seen plenty of examples of new information within a genome given - the creationsists rejected every example - but failed to say why or define what "information" was - how about you do that for me so I can make a judgement as to whether new information can or cannot evolve

 

[mynameisDan]

the percentage is irrelevent. Whether or not they are "respected" is irrelevent. I have already conceded that the vast majority favor darwinism. The point is that there are plenty of intelligent scientists from every field of science who reject it on scientific grounds. In your view this is because the overwhelming data support the hypothesis, but this isn't the case. Evolution has held on in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence. Evolutionists control the positions of power in academia and the propaganda machines are well greased by tax dollars. Any attempt to offer substantial criticism the hypothesis is met with derision and character assassination.

 

[mynameisDan]

Fair enough - to prove thast it wasn't simnply a Cut a paste jiob from a creationsit website - now provide a list of the peer reviewed science these guys have published that refutes or even sheds doubt upon evolution

why is it necessary to "prove it wasn't simnply a Cut a past jiob from a creationist website"? Furthermore, what makes you feel I need to go to work for you with no fee?

You provide me with an example of a series of information gaining mutations in the germ cell of any organism which can serve as evidence of goo to you evolution.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know man, a half a percent is pretty much an insignificant number. The conspiracy theory you are suggesting can't be THAT effective. Scientists have rivalries too, they aren't all friends.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

why is it necessary to "prove it wasn't simnply a Cut a past jiob from a creationist website"? Furthermore, what makes you feel I need to go to work for you with no fee?

You provide me with an example of a series of information gaining mutations in the germ cell of any organism which can serve as evidence of goo to you evolution.

define "information" first - I don't know what the creationist definition oif this word actually means - or why it specifically has to be in a gamete

 

[mynameisDan]

"Intersting point - I've watched debates about this "No new information" malarkey before, and seen plenty of examples of new information within a genome given - the creationsists rejected every example - but failed to say why or define what "information" was - how about you do that for me so I can make a judgement as to whether new information can or cannot evolve"

Curious that you call it an "interesting point and then call it "malarky" in the same sentence. And remember we are talking information gaining mutations in the germ cell, not just the genome generally. Secondly, I notice that you reference debates, but no examples which were offered. Thirdly, creationists did not invent the argument, one of the foremost proponents is a non creationist, Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "not by chance"

 

[mynameisDan]

define "information" first - I don't know what the creationist definition oif this word actually means - or why it specifically has to be in a gamete

Spetner defines as "specified complexity". Ever since Mendel scientists have known that characterists found in somatic cells are not transferred, only changes in reproductive cells. So to find examples in somatic cells is interesting, but largely irrelevent in terms of evidence for molecules to man evolution...

 

[synthesizer-patel]

"Intersting point - I've watched debates about this "No new information" malarkey before, and seen plenty of examples of new information within a genome given - the creationsists rejected every example - but failed to say why or define what "information" was - how about you do that for me so I can make a judgement as to whether new information can or cannot evolve"

Curious that you call it an "interesting point and then call it "malarky" in the same sentence. And remember we are talking information gaining mutations in the germ cell, not just the genome generally. Secondly, I notice that you reference debates, but no examples which were offered. Thirdly, creationists did not invent the argument, one of the foremost proponents is a non creationist, Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "not by chance"

Fine - then define it for me so we can move ahead with a genuine discussion instead of quibbling over irrelevant points

 

[synthesizer-patel]

In fact - if you could provide a formal definition of "information" in the creationist sense - then it would make the beginnings of an interesting formal debate if you would be interested in taking part

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Spetner defines as "specified complexity". Ever since Mendel scientists have known that characterists found in somatic cells are not transferred, only changes in reproductive cells. So to find examples in somatic cells is interesting, but largely irrelevent in terms of evidence for molecules to man evolution...

specified complexity isn't a definition - its just another bit of creationist terminology - tell you what - just give me a list of criteria that would need to apply in order for something to be classed as "new information" and we can go from there

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Ever since Mendel scientists have known that characterists found in somatic cells are not transferred, only changes in reproductive cells. So to find examples in somatic cells is interesting, but largely irrelevent in terms of evidence for molecules to man evolution...

Your right in a sense - but wrong in another - the only point where having a mutation conserved in a gamete is important is in the generation where the mutation first takes places - after that it is conserved (meiosis willing) in all cells of future generations - gametes and somatic cells - so provided we see more than one generation with a particular variation or mutation we know it is being passed on.

ps - don't let this divert us from what is really important - a precise definition of Information - or even better a list of criteria that need to be met if "new information" can be accepted or rejected - so please provide that first before takign up any issues you may have with this post

 

[(Q)]

You are making my job much too easy (you may sort out the biologists

I checked randomly a few of those names and found they were religiously indoctrinated as children before they became scientists. What surprised me when I read their bios is that no matter what they were taught, they ignored it in favor of their indoctrination, and their god. These so-called scientists actually refused to accept evolution and instead are insistent a designer must have created everything.

Clearly, calling yourself a biologist, even after getting educated in biology means very little in the face of childhood religious indoctrination.

 

[mynameisDan]

my efforts to discuss anything with you on other threads intelligently have utterly failed, so I do not assume we will get anywhere here either. But it is special pleading to make the argument that only creationists are biased by their upbringing. I am sure that some atheist scientists were predisposed to accept neodarwinism because of their biases as well. Scientists are people and all have biases. The issue before us is the scientific evidence in support of molecules to man evolution, and the list was provide ONLY because it was requested that I find 7 biologists who reject evolution and nothing more. There are evolutionists scientists who have become Creationists and creationists who have become evolutionists, it is irrelevent to this discussion. What you need to do is provide the observational support for goo to you evolution.

 

[spidergoat]

Darwin did that exactly. Once you see how natural selection on variations leads to change, it explains speciation from the simplist living thing to the most complex. Fossil evidence confirms that's what has been going on for a couple billion years.

 

[(Q)]

There are evolutionists scientists who have become Creationists and creationists who have become evolutionists, it is irrelevent to this discussion. What you need to do is provide the observational support for goo to you evolution.

They were creationists before they became biologists. The evidence is available to anyone who wishes to understand it. Perhaps that's your problem? Understanding it.