The debating skills of evolutionists

[mynameisDan]

Well, I am calling it a day. Perhaps tomorrow I will awaken to an answer to my sincere questions from synthesizer-patel rather than more of the obsfucation I have been receiving. I am now beginning to understand why he refused to offer the salient points of his presumed link on information gaining mutations. A fairy tale theory comes complete with fairy tale evidence. Oh well.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now that I know that you are not a scientist or an expert on anything related to science .......

Sheesh!! Will you at least learn to read. Nowhere have I said I am not an expert on anything related to science. For the record. I have an honours degree in science. I work as an engineer, not a scientist. I employ, very effectively, the principles of science in my work. Within my specific field I am an expert.
My knowledge of evolution is limited to four years of undergraduate palaeontology and thirty five years of personal study of biology, biochemistry, geochemistry, stratigraphy, microbiology, anthropology, primate behaviour, ethology, ecology, exobiology, etc.


I just noticed this:

and for this I have been insulted by antichristian bigots. You left that part out..............Ophiolite was being an insulting bigot only.

I am pro-Christian. I am not an atheist. Once again you allow your prejudices to blind your judgement.

I find on consulting an online dictionary that a bigot is one who is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own."
I tolerate many contrary opinions. I recognise that differing backgrounds, circumstances and personalities can lead to differing outlooks and opinions.
I do not tolerate false interpretations of reality. Intolerance of nonsense is not bigotry, it is good sense.

 

[mynameisDan]

Either you are lying - not the first time in this thread - or you simply do not comprehend the english language - its very clear in the link

You (mis)quoted this:

"‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

The real quote is this:

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument.
We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet
to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection
we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess
to study."

The explanation of the dishonesty is here

So what was Darwin's argument referred to in the slightly restored
context? Merely that natural selection had to progress by extremely
small differences spread over long periods of time. While Gould avers
that this is not seen in the fossil record, it is probably more
accurate to say that the recording of Darwinian gradual change is rare
in the fossil record (Cuffey 1973). Gould, of course, is promoting
the theory of evolutionary change which Niles Eldredge and he forwarded
in the early 1970's, that of punctuated equilibria. Later in the essay
he makes clear that punctuated equilibria is supported by the pattern
of change that is recorded, by and large, in the fossil record. Thus,
the characterization that our SciCre quoter wished to foster was based
upon a critical act of editing, and is definitely not supported by
reading Gould for content.

I am glad that I checked back once again. I read the alleged misquote, as well as your new source for "proving" my misquote and compared the quotes offered as any of the readers here can do as well. There has been no misquote! Every word I wrote is in fact contained in the referenced article and in the proper sequence. Even the citation is correct. The only issue is that the quote combined two separate passages by a ...... This is hardly an attempt to be misleading. These quotes can be found on creationists web sites in brief or at length. If there was an error in the citations they were corrected as you can click over from the tallk origins site to the AIG web page and see for yourself.

Furthermore you - or rather the webpage you copied and pasted it from - have tacked another unrelated passage on the front in an attempt to mislead the reader to think that one is a conclusion of the other - which if you have read Gould as you pretend to have you will know it is not.

as stated above, there is no deception here at all as the .... indicates that two were connected together only for the sake of conciseness and relevency to the issue being discussed. And reader of the entire work of Gould would not fail to see what he was stating. Nor did the talk origins author. Take a look:

So what was Darwin's argument referred to in the slightly restored
context?

Note: it had only to be slightly restored because it was not out of context to begin with.

Merely that natural selection had to progress by extremely
small differences spread over long periods of time. While Gould avers
that this is not seen in the fossil record, it is probably more
accurate to say that the recording of Darwinian gradual change is rare
in the fossil record (Cuffey 1973).

Note: the author here STATES that Gould could have "been more accurate" in what he said, but does not deny that he said it!

"Gould, of course, is promoting
the theory of evolutionary change which Niles Eldredge and he forwarded
in the early 1970's, that of punctuated equilibria. Later in the essay
he makes clear that punctuated equilibria is supported by the pattern
of change that is recorded, by and large, in the fossil record."

Note: by pattern Gould here is not referring to transitional forms, but rather the evolutionary paleontological assumption that the geologic record of simpler forms (lower strata) to more complex forms (higher strata) are evidence that evolution has indeed occurred.

"Thus,
the characterization that our SciCre quoter wished to foster was based
upon a critical act of editing, and is definitely not supported by
reading Gould for content."

Note: Not in the least. Gould was promoting punctuated equilibria BECAUSE of transitional form scarcity. There is no way to get around this. This IS the trade secret of paleontology!!! Any attempt deny this is pure deceipt.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quo...s Ophiolite. He is also an unworthy opponent.

 

[mynameisDan]

I am pro-Christian. I am not an atheist. Once again you allow your prejudices to blind your judgement.

where did I accuse you of being an atheist? I don't think you can find it. I read where you stated "god allowed us to evolve". You stated above (paraphrase) that anyone who believes in the bible is ignorant. Perhaps you don't realize that this is not a Christian position. Jesus was the founder of Christianity and he did take the bible as true, including Genesis. So you are Christian in name only, but do not hold to the tenents of Christianity.

I find on consulting an online dictionary that a bigot is one who is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own."

that pretty must sums it up. You're a bigot!

"

I tolerate many contrary opinions. I recognise that differing backgrounds, circumstances and personalities can lead to differing outlooks and opinions.

You are backpeddling. But no matter, I am a false Christian bigot so I don't have much tolerance for ilk like you either.

"

I do not tolerate false interpretations of reality. Intolerance of nonsense is not bigotry, it is good sense.

Your trouble is that what you define as nonsense (i.e. bible believing Christianity) you can defend as being such. You can only hurl witicisms. And what you define as reality (i.e. evolution), you cannot defend as such. You can only attempt to discredit with insults. You are a loser man. Please depart.

 

[Ophiolite]

So synthesizer-patel has proven himself to be just as deceitful in his debate practices as has Ophiolite. He is also an unworthy opponent.

I'd just like to say Synthesiser that it is an honour to be placed in the same category as your good self by a dumbass like Dan.

To Madman Ye Sin

Provisional advice to Spetner as per your request.

Max says "The evolutionary interpretation is that the last common ancestor of humans and the primitive modern species had a smaller genome than modern humans and that as the human lineage evolved, there were multiple gene duplications which generated extra copies that mutated independently and evolved to take on slightly different functions. Spetner, of course, does not accept this scenario."

Spetner responds: [LMS: SCENARIOS ARE NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THEY ARE NOT USED IN ANY BRANCH OF SCIENCE, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF EVOLUTION.]

Dear Dr Spetner. In this context a scenario is a hypothesis. Formulation of a hypothesis lies at the heart of the scientific method and has done so since introduced by Gilbert, Bacon and the like. Without a hypothesis (scenario) science cannot proceed.
Your statement suggests that either you do not understand the scientific method, or you do not understand the identity of scenario and hypothesis, or you are being deliberately obtuse. None of these interpretations are favourable to you or for your argument and therefore your best course of action is to remove this statement from your discussion.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I am glad that I checked back once again. I read the alleged misquote, as well as your new source for "proving" my misquote and compared the quotes offered as any of the readers here can do as well. There has been no misquote! Every word I wrote is in fact contained in the referenced article and in the proper sequence. Even the citation is correct. The only issue is that the quote combined two separate passages by a ...... This is hardly an attempt to be misleading. These quotes can be found on creationists web sites in brief or at length. If there was an error in the citations they were corrected as you can click over from the tallk origins site to the AIG web page and see for yourself.

The quote was made - with careful editing and omissions - in an attempt to indicate that Gould beleives that transitional forms are lacking, and this absence coupled with seemingly rapid changes in the fossil record poses a grave problem for evolution.

However Gould does not think that transitional forms are lacking, and says so very clearly - he only points out they are lacking in small details at and around the level of genus.
in terms of transitions between major groups - i.e at higher taxonomical levels - or in fundaligionsist speak transitions between "kinds", transitional fossils are; in Gould's own word(s): "Abundant" (now aint that ironic!)

Neither does he think that rapid (rapid in a geological sense) intermittent bursts of speciation causes a problem for evolution - indeed he feels - as I am inclined to - that evolutionary theory predicts it.

The only problem that Gould highlights is Darwin's stubborn personal conviction - not shared even by some of his contemporaries - that evolution had to consist of very slow gradual changes - Gould points out that even Darwin himself failed to appreciate some of the predictions of his own theory.

What Gould is doing is posing a question for the reader of a perceived problem , and then providing an answer.

If you ever get around to reading a bunch of books you'll realise that this is a very common writing style.

The dishonesty lies in attempting to mislead the reader as to the author's real points of discussion by only quoting the question (and an edited version of that question at that) and not the answer - of course it is not you that is being dishonest - at least not deliberately - you have simply failed to objectively review and comprehend the material and simply blindly trusted some shady and deceitful internet source as being appropriate for a copy and paste job.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I'd just like to say Synthesiser that it is an honour to be placed in the same category as your good self by a dumbass like Dan.

Likewise me old china plate, likewise

Tell me - why is it that it always seems to be me and you that have the first crack at the loonies on this site?
I seem to recall a similar situation when OIM first came here pedalling his particular brand of cracked pottery

 

[Repo Man]

still working on it...

Apparently, despite all previous evidence to the contrary, you are capable of learning.

"most closely" than what? You state later on that there is no alternative so evolution wins by default right? I mean if weaknesses and objections arise to the hypothesis, if no alternative exists, we simply tweak the only hypothesis available to fit the new facts right? Isn't this why Gould invented "punctuated equilibria", because the facts of science (fossil record) weren't comporting with gradualism? Since post modern science can no longer allow "a divine foot in the door", we will always be stuck with "the only alternative", regardless of how discredited it has become.

Patel, who apparently has a better education than I do, has dealt with most of this. But yes, that's how science works. Resorting to "magick" is not allowed. Deux ex machina is allowed in bad plays and movies, not in peer reviewed scientific journals.

really, is biochemist Michael Denton "blinded by religious dogma". Is this why he wrote "Evolution: A theory in Crises?" Or do we just assume that he must be a "religious nut" because by definition, they are the only ones who would question or challenge the theory?

Apparently he was deprogrammed at some point, and has regained some shred of scientific credibility. First hit on Google (Wikipedia):

Denton's views have changed over the years. His second book Nature's Destiny argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life and therefore assumes evolution as a given.[5] He no longer openly associates with Discovery, and the Institute no longer lists him as a fellow.[6]

is your degree in psychology or are you just guessing? I have been challenging the established dogma of evolution on scientific grounds, and for this I have been insulted by antichristian bigots. You left that part out.

Challenging the established dogma of evolutionary theory is fine. That is not what you have been doing. You've been mining creationist sites to throw brickbats at evolutionary theory. Theories change as new information presents itself; dogma is unchanging, and can only deal with contrary facts by denying or suppressing them. Showing flaws in evolutionary theory does not in anyway make the case for a creator.

Ophiolite was being an insulting bigot only. If I am making myself look foolish and petty for criticising evolution then I am playing into your hands and you should be grateful. But I don't think that is the case. And in any case, I intend to continue on....

Great, rant and rave all you want. It's allowed on this site. I learn things by reading posts by others refuting your nonsense.

You aren't going to change anyone's mind on this site. To pretend that life forms do not evolve by natural selection involves a staggering amount of willful ignorance. I get the impression from posts on the internet that religious dogmatists who deny evolution are almost unknown in the UK and Europe (though there are plenty of religious people, they just find a way to reconcile their religion with observed reality). They seem to be found predominantly in the US and the middle east. How sad that we rival the middle east in who has the most intolerant dogmatic fanatics.

 

[iceaura]

Lets sum up. No one here was able to offer an observed irrefutable series of information gaining mutations in the germ cells of any organism.

You did. 3000 mutations in laboratory fruit flies.

Some of them sequential. All of them increasing the amount of information available in the gene pool of laboratory fruit flies.

One problem here is that you don't know what you mean by "information". Another is that you don't know what "observed" would mean in this context.

But the main one is taht you don't seem to have noticed taht you are moving the argument around: if we are now talking about a "series of information gaining mutations in the germ cells", does that mean you have conceded the information gaining single mutation, the sequential series of information gaining mutations in beings such as bacteria that do not have germ cells, the acquisition of new genetic information through means other than mutation, and so forth ?

 

[Diode-Man]

I knew from the title that this would be a long conversation.

When one is debating debate itself....

 

[Ophiolite]

Now Dan, I'm going to try to be nice for a while. It's not a natural condition for me, but I'll do my best. It's morning here, new day, all that sort of thing. You see you really do appear to have difficulty comprehending the full meaning of sentences. Let me give you some examples.

where did I accuse you of being an atheist? .

Why, nowhere at all. I did not suggest you had. You had implied (definitely not stated) in a post that I was an anti-Christian bigot. Also implicit (and perhaps stated) in posts throughout the thread was the notion that those who supported evolution were atheists. I wished to set the record straight. I am not an atheist.
.

I read where you stated "god allowed us to evolve". You stated above (paraphrase) that anyone who believes in the bible is ignorant. Perhaps you don't realize that this is not a Christian position. Jesus was the founder of Christianity and he did take the bible as true, including Genesis. So you are Christian in name only, but do not hold to the tenents of Christianity.

I am not a Christian at all. I never said I was. I said I was pro-Christian. I think Christianity, in some times and some places, has contributed a great deal to the world, to its people, to it culture, to the building of civilisation. (In this regard I differ from many, but not all, of my evolutionist colleagues.) I am also pro-motherhood, although I am not a mother. I am pro-space exploration, though I have never been higher than 50,000'. And so on.
You seem to be anxious to extract from words, not what they say, but what you wish them to say.
.

that pretty must sums it up. You're a bigot!

Go back and read the original post. A bigot is intolerant of opinions. I am intolerant of poorly formulated, unsubstantiated, emotionally biased, dogmatic nonsense. Opinions represent a potentially valid interpretation of reality, or a preference for one perspective out of several. I have no trouble with peoples differing opinions.
.

Your trouble is that what you define as nonsense (i.e. bible believing Christianity) you can defend as being such. You can only hurl witicisms. And what you define as reality (i.e. evolution), you cannot defend as such. You can only attempt to discredit with insults. You are a loser man. Please depart.

I have no trouble with the many Christians who view the Bible as masterfully expressed suite of metaphors that addressess the human condition and our relationship with each other and the universe. I utterly reject those who interpret the Bible literally. That is nonsense.
The only aspect of evolution you have attacked, that I am aware of, is the possibility of information being gained through mutations, or other means. This has been properly dealt with by others. Is that all you have? Cite a single fatal flaw in evolutionary theory and I shall be happy to address it. Until you do I am left with little option but to post what you mistakenly believe to be insults.

 

[Ophiolite]

Tell me - why is it that it always seems to be me and you that have the first crack at the loonies on this site?
I seem to recall a similar situation when OIM first came here pedalling his particular brand of cracked pottery

Just chance, I think. Many of the other debunkers have done it so often, that going over the same ground again and again has lost its appeal. Since I am partly senile I can't remember the last time I attacked nonsense, so each post is all new to me.
I just wish Desparate Dan would offer something of substance to challenge.:shrug:

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Now here's a fun little paradox that rides on the horns of a dilemma for Dan.

Let us (just for the lulz) suspend our critical reasoning abilities and our basic comprehension of the english language for just one moment and suppose that PE spells the death knell for evolutionary theory that Dan would desperately like to beleive it does.

Lets us suppose that Dan's misundertanding of Gould's observations is actually correct.
Gould's observations of the paucity (but not entire absence) of fossils displaying evidence of phyletic gradualism within the lower taxons - and the abundance of fossils displaying transitions between higher taxa are indeed reason enough to discard natural selection and the new synthesis.

what does this leave us with then?

It leaves us with evidence of transition (through a mechanism hitherto undescribed and unknown) between higher taxonomical levels, and little evidence of radiative change (and again no evidence for a mechanism of this change) within the lower taxanomical levels -except for (and I love this bit) really good evidence of classical Darwinian gradualism in the emergence of H. sapiens from "lower" apes.

PUNCHLINE: what we end up with is.....(wait for it)...........an EXACT contradiction of YEC stories of the composition of contemporary species - i.e. no evolution whatsoever between "kinds" , and large scale blisteringly rapid adaptive radiation after the noachian flood within "kinds" (for those not acquainted with fundaligiolooniespeak a "kind" is a vague, shifting, and undefined higher taxonimical level - sometimes analogous to Class - sometimes not, depending on what is convenient at the particular time)

So therefore by relying upon out of context quoting of Gould as a basis of making (erroneous) conclusions of the main thrust Gould's work, Dan has painted himself into a corner.
A corner that does not in fact support his own fairytale version of the origin of species - either Dan is right about Gould and is therefore obliged to abandon his YEC beleifs as a result - or he is obliged to abandon his reliance upon Gould quotes as an appropriate method of supporting creationism - or the final option: he is simply yet another blind and easily led follower of The Great Deceiver that is creationism.

Basically Dan has nowhere meaningful to go from this standpoint.

So I have two words for you my good and faithful friends:

CHECK

and

MATE


My work here is done, but if someone other than me wants to have some great lulz with Dan, why not begin to discuss with him one of the better bits of evidence in the fossil record that DOES support phyletic gradualism - the evolution of H.sapiens

ps- howz that for fuckin debating skillz ma niggaz!