The debating skills of evolutionists

Ophiolite said:
One attribute of many scientists which I find especially appealling is a genuine desire to see truth communicated clearly and for ignorance to countered, misunderstanding corrected, and lies refuted.

You are correct that some evolutionists have conflated evolution and abiogenesis. (I have never seen the word 'convolved' in print. Perhaps I should stay in more.) There is no doubt that there are important similarities and connections between the two. However, there are also important differences and this is why they are generally treated separately.

One of the principal differences is the very precise data we have on evolution. I understand that your emotionally biased religious deviance prohibits you from recognising this evidence, while your apparent intellectual limits prevent you from understanding it. However, your incredulity, ignorance and intellectual limitations in no way invalidate the mountain of evidence that those willing to use the brain God allowed to evolve do understand and appreciate.
Click to expand...

I agree with Spider Ohphiolite, excellent attack post. Beyond that, you have added nothing noteworthy to the discussion
 
synthesizer-patel said:
pointing out that you are the type of ruminant that refuses to even look at evidence that easily refutes your fragile claims (let alone consider it) is not an attack - it is merely a stain on your character which you have only yourself to blame for and something which renders everything you say highly suspect.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I have looked at every post which has had anything to offer. Your posts have offered no evidence of anything, which is to your shame.
 
synthesizer-patel said:
You have yet to refute the first example I have provided for you.

Go on, it even has pictures
Click to expand...

I don't think you even realize what you posted. It has nothing to do with anything related to your point as far as I can tell. But I did find this interesting:

"He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating."

Carbon dating does nothing to establish evolutionary history. It's value is in the 10's of thousands of years, not measuring millions of years. While no one I know deny's the existance of a geologic column, creation scientists do deny that the full column as presented in textbooks exists anywhere on earth. The also deny the interpretation that it reflects billions of years of earth history.

I have a question for you now regarding carbon dating. What is the major assumption of Carbon dating, which if not true, calls the dating method into question???
 
mynameisDan said:
On the contrary, I have looked at every post which has had anything to offer. Your posts have offered no evidence of anything, which is to your shame.
Click to expand...

Excellent! - then you have a refutation of the scientific paper I linked to ready for us to read - let's see it then
 
mynameisDan said:
I don't think you even realize what you posted. It has nothing to do with anything related to your point as far as I can tell. But I did find this interesting:

"He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating."

Carbon dating does nothing to establish evolutionary history. It's value is in the 10's of thousands of years, not measuring millions of years. While no one I know deny's the existance of a geologic column, creation scientists do deny that the full column as presented in textbooks exists anywhere on earth. The also deny the interpretation that it reflects billions of years of earth history.

I have a question for you now regarding carbon dating. What is the major assumption of Carbon dating, which if not true, calls the dating method into question???
Click to expand...

The link relates to your case of invoking Morton's demon - i.e. refusing to look at evidence that refutes your position and making excuses for your failure to do so that are childish, transparent, and flimsy to the whole world except yourself - it is merely an observation of a common behavioural trait that fundaligionist simpletons exhibit and fits your behaviour in this discussion perfectly - it has nothing to do with the actual content of the debate in hand, so I suggest you don't let it sidetrack you too much from actually examining the evidence that has been presented to you (unless of course that is your intent)

You have been posed a challenge to read and refute the evidence - i suggest that instead of pontificating and prevaricating - you simply rise to the challenge you have been set - or else contine to make yourself look like a petty minded simpleton.
 
dan said:
On the contrary, I have looked at every post which has had anything to offer.
Click to expand...
Looked at is nice. Responded to would be better.

Regarding mine: You claimed that even the mutations observed in labs in domestic fruit flies were not new information, and that you had some criterion for deciding which of the resultant phenotypic expressions was "beneficial". I pointed out taht every new and unique mutation added information to the gene pool, and there was no such thing as advance knowledge of "benefit" in these matters. Are you abandoning your claim that addition of new information has never been observed to occur ? And what about your a priori judgments of "beneficial"? How do you know?
 
distantcube said:
Perhaps Dan should provide a clear definition for 'information gaining mutation'. Is gene/chromosome duplication a 'gain in information'? What about a gene duplication followed by a point mutation, that results in the production of a new enzyme?
Click to expand...

As I have stated before, a gene duplication would not be "new" information any more than repeating this post would be new information. A gene duplication followed by a point mutation that results in the production of new information/gene would be an example. So far, no one has offered such an example that could possible be evidence for the mythical fish to philosopher type of change being posited.
 
synthesizer-patel said:
Excellent! - then you have a refutation of the scientific paper I linked to ready for us to read - let's see it then
Click to expand...

I am sorry but your post was not in any way a scientific paper. Nor do I feel the least bit inclined to do your work for you. If you have a point, and I suspect you do not, then make it yourself in your post and reference the all important post if you like. Short of that, we can all just dismiss your "challenges" for the bluff and bluster that they are.
 
mynameisDan said:
I am sorry but your post was not in any way a scientific paper. Nor do I feel the least bit inclined to do your work for you. If you have a point, and I suspect you do not, then make it yourself in your post and reference the all important post if you like. Short of that, we can all just dismiss your "challenges" for the bluff and bluster that they are.
Click to expand...

Clearly you would not know a scientific paper if it slapped you in the face.

The paper that I linked to was published by Lev Fishelson of Tel Aviv University in 2006, in the journal called "The Environmental Biology of Fishes" and is titled "Evolution in action: peacock-feather like supraocular tentacles of the lionfish, Pterois volitans – the distribution of a new signal"

You'd know that had you bothered to look - further proof that you are terrified of even looking at evidence that destroys you flimsly assertions.
 
"Of the many mutations observed in laboratory fruit flies, every unique one has been a gain in the total information of the gene pool of that species of fruit flies. And some provide properties such as longevity, greater reproductive capability in certain situations, greater flying speed or endurance, more sensitivity to certain oders, tolerance to heat or cold, etc etc. And many of the others provide the fly with properties or features not found in other flies. Who are you to claim these are not "beneficial" ?"

If you can demonstrate any observed mutations in fruit flies which have increased longevity, reproductive capacity and flying speed etc. I would have to concede that there are some which are beneficial. Feel free to do so if you possess the evidence.
 
iceaura said:
Looked at is nice. Responded to would be better.

Regarding mine: You claimed that even the mutations observed in labs in domestic fruit flies were not new information, and that you had some criterion for deciding which of the resultant phenotypic expressions was "beneficial". I pointed out taht every new and unique mutation added information to the gene pool, and there was no such thing as advance knowledge of "benefit" in these matters. Are you abandoning your claim that addition of new information has never been observed to occur ? And what about your a priori judgments of "beneficial"? How do you know?
Click to expand...

Not in the least. Your claim that all mutations add information which can account for molecules to man evolution is ludicrous and you know it (or should). I have agreed many times that a few are at times beneficial but stated that there is a distinction between benificial and information gaining. I gave the examples of beetles loosing their wings on a wind swept island and a cave dwelling fish losing eyesight as examples of clear beneficials muations which have no evolutionary (molecules to man) value. Yet these are the examples of evolution in many biology texts. Normally this argument focuses upon bacteria, but rarely do we move beyond bacterial to higher organisms because here the deliniation becomes so much more clear. "Evolution" is a neutral or downhill event as far as all observations are concerned.
 
synthesizer-patel said:
Clearly you would not know a scientific paper if it slapped you in the face.

The paper that I linked to was published by Lev Fishelson of Tel Aviv University in 2006, in the journal called "The Environmental Biology of Fishes" and is titled "Evolution in action: peacock-feather like supraocular tentacles of the lionfish, Pterois volitans – the distribution of a new signal"

You'd know that had you bothered to look - further proof that you are terrified of even looking at evidence that destroys you flimsly assertions.
Click to expand...


LOL, why would I be terrified? I am a simple businessman with a bs degree in biology speaking to a marine biologist with an advanced degree who is willing to debate me day after day and post after post. If you came to me to debate risk managment or credit card processing I would not give you the time of day. I did not see the link you are referring to.
 
EntropyAlwaysWins said:
Press the '+ qoute' button on each post you wish to quote, then press 'post reply'.
This is a forum, not a blog.


Ok, thanks!


You don't violate Godwin's Law, it is merely an observation of how frequently this occurs.

My posts did not have anything to do with the "law"

It is generally assumed that if you are sufficiently computer literate to post on a forum then you should also be able to follow a link and read the information there.
Click to expand...


I have no trouble following a link, but I still do not understand how to split posts and comment on them separately....
 
mynameisDan said:
LOL, why would I be terrified? .
Click to expand...

Why indeed? you are on a discussion forum, so presumably you have come for a discusssion, and yet you refuse to address the points of that discussion though fear, so instead you quibble and attempt to misdirect the discussion towards the irrelevant - you are better placed to answer the question as to why you are so terrified than I am.

mynameisDan said:
I did not see the link you are referring to.
Click to expand...

This is a lie. You acknowledged that you had seen it, then refused to read it and made an open admission that you had prejudged the content:

mynameisDan said:
sorry, I am far too lazy to go to other threads and read your blather. If you want to put forth an example, do it here and we can discuss.
Click to expand...


ps - a bs degree in biology? what does the bs stand for? I'm going to be kind and guess "Bible School"
 
Last edited:
mynameisDan said:
I gave the examples of beetles loosing their wings on a wind swept island and a cave dwelling fish losing eyesight as examples of clear beneficials muations which have no evolutionary (molecules to man) value.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the beetles ever had wings? What is your evidence for evolution in this special case?
Why do you think the fish were ever able to see?
 
dan said:
If you can demonstrate any observed mutations in fruit flies which have increased longevity, reproductive capacity and flying speed etc. I would have to concede that there are some which are beneficial.
Click to expand...
Why? How do you know that, say, increased longevity is "beneficial"? Beneficial to what?

This inability to handle the logical structure of evolutionary theory is crippling you. The first step is admitting that you do not know what the theory is. You haven't even heard of the common stuff, the various theories and approaches, the great piles of evidence (here's a link to a brief synopsis of one of the fruit fly mutations: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082220.htm ).
dan said:
Your claim that all mutations add information which can account for molecules to man evolution is ludicrous and you know it (or should).
Click to expand...
Don't change the subject. You claimed that none of the mutations in lab fruit flies added information to the species. I pointed out that each different one did just that. After each mutation, the gene pool has more total information available in it - more different recombinations are possible, more variety in phenotype, more possibilities for selection and differential reproduction.
 
Ophiolite said:
What makes you think the beetles ever had wings? What is your evidence for evolution in this special case?
Why do you think the fish were ever able to see?
Click to expand...

the fish show eye rudiments and the same species of beetles were found on the mainland with wings.
Jeffery WR (2005). "Adaptive evolution of eye degeneration in the Mexican blind cavefish". J. Hered. 96 (3): 185–96.
 
Last edited:
Ophiolite said:
What makes you think the beetles ever had wings? What is your evidence for evolution in this special case?
Why do you think the fish were ever able to see?
Click to expand...

are you really this slow or do you have a point to make here. Why not just answer the question for me since I have answered it sufficiently many times and you seem competent to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top