Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 106 of 177 (470652)
06-11-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ichneumon
06-11-2008 5:14 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
then there will actually be a chance that for once you'll sit down and really think about what this means for the likelihood that the *rest* of the stuff cranked out by the creationist propaganda mills might also be full of manure as well.
You are new here, aren't you, Ichneumon?
Welcome aboard! I like you already!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 5:14 PM Ichneumon has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 177 (470661)
06-11-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ichneumon
06-11-2008 5:14 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
I suggest you shorten your posts and cut to the point if you want me to read it. Several paragraphs of fluff, and that's putting it better than I really think, is not worth wading through to get to your points.
Moreover, the way this forum works, you don't get to range willy-nilly over a wide range of topics in-depth but you have to start a new thread for each one. I suggest you do that so further discussion can go forward.
Additionally, the part I did read.....let me just say there are numerous, valid arguments against NeoDarwinism. Another besides those 3 is the general characterization and history by evos of exaggerated and even false claims concerning data and logic.
Lastly, linking to TalkOrigins does not exactly show you've considered these issues and from my perspective hurts your credibility. Moreover, merely providing a TalkOrigins link and saying you are wrong is not a rational argument. Merely saying "you are wrong" does not cut it and shows you have no factual retort and possibly no understanding of your critic's position.
Try a little harder next time....
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 5:14 PM Ichneumon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 7:36 PM randman has replied
 Message 113 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 9:05 PM randman has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 108 of 177 (470663)
06-11-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
06-11-2008 7:09 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
I suggest you shorten your posts and cut to the point if you want me to read it. Several paragraphs of fluff, and that's putting it better than I really think, is not worth wading through to get to your points.
Moreover, the way this forum works, you don't get to range willy-nilly over a wide range of topics in-depth but you have to start a new thread for each one. I suggest you do that so further discussion can go forward.
Additionally, the part I did read.....let me just say there are numerous, valid arguments against NeoDarwinism. Another besides those 3 is the general characterization and history by evos of exaggerated and even false claims concerning data and logic.
Lastly, linking to TalkOrigins does not exactly show you've considered these issues and from my perspective hurts your credibility. Moreover, merely providing a TalkOrigins link and saying you are wrong is not a rational argument. Merely saying "you are wrong" does not cut it and shows you have no factual retort and possibly no understanding of your critic's position.
Try a little harder next time....
In other words, you are unable to refute a single thing he has posted.
Your bluff was called, and you failed.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 7:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 7:47 PM Coyote has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 109 of 177 (470664)
06-11-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Coyote
06-11-2008 7:36 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
Hmmm.....are you under the impression he has actually posted a factual retort to anything I have posted?
How sad for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 7:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 8:33 PM randman has replied
 Message 114 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 9:07 PM randman has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 177 (470666)
06-11-2008 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by randman
06-11-2008 7:47 PM


Hmmm.....are you under the impression he has actually posted a factual retort to anything I have posted?
Yes. And I am equally under the impression that you have dodged and weaved, and avoided posting a factual reply in return.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 7:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 8:48 PM Coyote has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 111 of 177 (470669)
06-11-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
06-11-2008 8:33 PM


Yea, I am a real dodger and weaver.....you can tell that from the voluminous thread count and posts made here and elsewhere....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 8:33 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 9:00 PM randman has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 112 of 177 (470674)
06-11-2008 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by randman
06-11-2008 8:48 PM


Yea, I am a real dodger and weaver.....you can tell that from the voluminous thread count and posts made here and elsewhere....
It would be more impressive to me if you actually addressed the details of Ichneumon's detailed post to you, rather than resting on the laurels of past thread counts and posts.
Perhaps you could pick one issue at a time to debate? That shouldn't be too much of a strain on you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 8:48 PM randman has not replied

Ichneumon
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-09-2008


Message 113 of 177 (470675)
06-11-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
06-11-2008 7:09 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
I suggest you shorten your posts and cut to the point if you want me to read it.
I suggest you read what I've written in direct response to what you posted. If I take the time to write it for you, you can take the time to read it. And if you find those few posts "too long" to read, you might want to stop attempting to discuss a complex field like evolutionary biology, and stick to something more light and uncomplicated.
Several paragraphs of fluff,
There was no fluff in my posts to you. Every bit was in direct response to what you wrote, and to the point.
and that's putting it better than I really think, is not worth wading through to get to your points.
Don't worry, other people don't have that limitation, and will be able to read the material I've written that refutes your claims, even if you don't.
Moreover, the way this forum works, you don't get to range willy-nilly over a wide range of topics in-depth
I didn't. Perhaps you could point out where you imagine I did.
but you have to start a new thread for each one. I suggest you do that so further discussion can go forward.
You've just indicated that you can't even be bothered to read a couple of posts from me, I'm sure as heck not going to waste my time starting multiple new threads on several topics covered in more detail for you to not read.
Additionally, the part I did read.....let me just say there are numerous, valid arguments against NeoDarwinism.
Gosh, from the way you started that sentence, I was expecting you to actually deal with something I wrote, instead of ending by just reiterating your original claim without supporting it. "Is so!", he says...
Another besides those 3 is the general characterization and history by evos of exaggerated and even false claims concerning data and logic.
You keep forgetting the "such as?" part, even after I specifically suggested that you keep that question in mind, and address it, as you attempt to assemble your beliefs into coherent arguments with actual specifics and support, instead of just posting them over and over again as if sheer force of will is going to make them convincing to anyone.
Lastly, linking to TalkOrigins does not exactly show you've considered these issues
You forgot the "because why" part.
Have you forgotten that I gave you these links in specific response to your claim that you had claims which had not been refuted? Please explain how, exactly, it "does not exactly show I've considered these issues" when I provide you with links that show you that indeed, "evos" HAVE REBUTTED THESE CLAIMS, contrary to your claim that they haven't?
Whether you hate Talk.Origins with a burning white passion or not, the fact remains that you claim that "evos" have not refuted your claims, and by pointing to existing online refutations of those same claims, I HAVE SHOWN THIS ASSERTION TO BE FALSE.
Are we clear now?
and from my perspective hurts your credibility.
Of course it does. From your perspective. I would have been surprised if you hadn't. Morton's Demon would allow you no other reaction.
Moreover, merely providing a TalkOrigins link and saying you are wrong is not a rational argument.
Then that's probably why I did a lot more than that. It was apparently in the part of my post that was too long for you to bother reading.
Merely saying "you are wrong" does not cut it and shows you have no factual retort and possibly no understanding of your critic's position.
Is anyone else here getting a hint of PeeWee Herman's "I know you are but what am I?!?" taunt?
Look, I already explained to YOU, again apparently in the part of my post you didn't bother reading, that YOU hadn't sufficiently supported (or hell, even stated) your claim yet, nor given sufficient information to figure out what, exactly, you claim to have that supports your specific assertion, whatever the hell it might be.
What part of the following, which I already spelled out for you, are you having trouble understanding: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Does a twelve word sentence rise to the level of your "that's too long for me to read!" complaint?
I pointed out the many ways you failed to support, failed to explain, failed to argue, failed to even specifically state, your claims.
So what, exactly, is there for me to rebut?
Here, let's try your own taunt on for size and see how the shoe fits: Merely saying "I am right" does not cut it and shows you have no factual support and possibly no understanding of your own position.
Now, do you want to actually make a CASE for your claims, or do you just want to repeat them while stamping your feet on the ground?
Now, here are the points from my post that you have completely dodged. I'll number them so that we can keep better score on how many you'll keep ignoring, and how many you'll get around to actually addressing:
1. Do you understand the reasons I gave for why I asked you for your BEST three exmaples of anti-evolution material?
2. Do you understand the reasons I gave about why NOT giving me your three BEST looks bad?
3. Are you willing to provide what you consider your three BEST hits against evolutionary biology?
4. Your first claim was, "The NeoDarwinian hypothesis of genetic evolution roughly coorrelating morphological evolution by natural selection selecting for the beneficial traits arsing from random mutation conflicts with the evidence in an overwhelming manner." I asked you to support this claim. Will you?
5. I pointed out how vague and nonspecific your first claim is. I asked you *which* evidence you're alluding to.
6. I asked you to explain *how* the evidence allegedly conflicts.
7. I ask you to explain what *part* of evolutionary biology you believe it conflicts with.
8. You asserted that your claims had never been refuted by "evos". I provided you with a link which refutes your (vague) claim, which makes the case that the evidence in fact overwhelmingly supports evolution. Are you going to admit that you were wrong when you asserted that evos had never refuted your claim?
9. Your second claim was, "Microevolution or NeoDarwinian processes of natural selection work against originating higher taxa by limiting genetic diversity within populations, not expanding it, in general and so is actually evidence against ToE, not evidence for it, as what we have are dead-ends, not examples of "evolution" in action." I told you this was wrong. It is. I gave you a link which explains to you why it's wrong. Hint: Your assertion is about what natural selection can or can't do. Hint#2: Natural selection is not the only process at work producing evolutionary change. Hint#3: Those other processes *increase* diversity, even if natural selection doesn't. Hint#4: Your fallacy is based on your false presumption that if natural selection doesn't produce diversity, then evolution as a whole can't increase diversity. Are you going to deal with the material at that link, which just so happens to deal very specifically with the ways in which your claim IS WRONG?
10. You claimed that "evos" never refuted the points you had against evolution. I pointed out that you were wrong, by linking to the aforementioned refutation by an evo. Are you going to admit that you were wrong when you say that this claim was never refuted?
11. The second non sequitur part of your second claim was, "This error is compounded by the fallacious and deceptive circular logic of evos of defining evolution as heritable change and as ToE and so claim since heritable change has been observed, ToE has been observed when the exact opposite is the case." I pointed out that you had failed to explain what you found fallacious. Care to do that now?
12. I pointed out that you had failed to explain what you found deceptive. Care to do that now?
13. I pointed out that you had failed to explain what you found to be circular logic. Care to do that now?
14. I pointed out that you had failed to explain what was "the exact opposite". Care to do that now?
15. I pointed out that you had failed to support your overall claim, whatever it was. Care to do that now?
16. I pointed out that you were unfairly faulting people for discussing one or another part of a multi-part body of theory. Care to address that point?
17. I pointed out that you had failed to establish that the different parts of ToE which you are complaining are being incorrectly conflated aren't properly linked. Care to do that now?
18. I pointed out that you had failed to even specify which different parts of ToE you were talking about. Care to do that now?
19. Your third claim was, "The fossil record conclusively demonstrates gradualistic evo theories including PE are wrong." I pointed out that you had totally failed to support this bald assertion, *and* that it was contrary to my own knowledge of the fossil record. Care to do that now?
20. You had asserted that your claims had not been refuted by evos. I gave you two links to refutations of this particular assertion. Are you going to admit that you were wrong when you asserted that such a claim had never been refuted?
21. I wrote, "Next time, attempt to actually make a case, if you think you have one. For starters, fill in the blanks where someone might reasonably ask, 'such as?'" Do you intend to try again and make more sense?
22. Are you going to take to heart my suggestion that you could improve your presentations by making sure you provide answers to potential "such as?" questions?
23. I wrote, "Next time, give me something you're actually willing to stand behind, to actually hold forth as test cases of how good your position is." Are you willing to do this? Or are you going to disclaim anything you post like you did with the last batch?
24. I wrote, "If you just give me another vague scattershot without specifics, and start/end them with more disclaimers, I'll have to write you off as being the same as the other creationists I've had discussions with over thirty years -- all sound, no substance." -- any response?
You finished with an attempt to head off accusations of ignorance and/or cowardice.
25. I wrote, "Do you get such suggestions often enough that you feel the need for a pre-emptive volley?" Care to respond?
26. I wrote, "Why do you suppose that might be?" Why *do* you suppose that might be?
Try a little harder next time....
Trust me, you really don't want me to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 7:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 1:08 AM Ichneumon has not replied

Ichneumon
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-09-2008


Message 114 of 177 (470676)
06-11-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by randman
06-11-2008 7:47 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
Hmmm.....are you under the impression he has actually posted a factual retort to anything I have posted?
...says the guy who just admitted he didn't even read all of the responses I made to him...
Coyote is under the impression that I have rebutted your material because he bothered to read them, and found the rebuttals.
How sad for you.
Why is it sad that Coyote actually reads what people write before he comments on what is or isn't in their posts?
Anyway, thanks, I now have the answer concerning the question I had about you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 7:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 1:06 AM Ichneumon has not replied
 Message 121 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 1:11 AM Ichneumon has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 115 of 177 (470691)
06-11-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by randman
06-11-2008 2:39 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
randman writes:
Bottom line is I've been told rules-breaking will result in permanent banning.
I personally hope you don't get suspended again: I'd miss you too much.
Commenting on randman's three "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory, which are (paraphrased):
1. evolution by natural selection is overwhelming contradicted by evidence
2. natural selection actually [i]decreases[i] genetic diversity, and thus, it can't explain why we have great diversity of life today
3. the fossils do not conform to evolution.
I'd like to make a few distinctions before I continue with my post. The word "weakness" can refer to several things in relation to a scientific theory. It could refer to a shortcoming in the evidence, or it could refer to some phenomenon that the theory cannot, even in in principle, explain. (I cannot download the NY Times article from the OP, so I am not entirely certain what definition the "strengths and weaknesses" people are arguing.)
A lack of evidence would be correctly termed a "lack of evidence." A phenomenon that a theory cannot explain could be called a "theoretical weakness." If the "S&W" people are using "weakness" in the former sense (lack of evidence), they are arguing the same stuff as before, with a different name. But, that stuff is still just ID, and it is illegal to teach, since Kitzmiller vs Dover. This leads me to believe that the S&Wists (I think I'll call them "sawists," from now until they get smashed by another court case in the near future) are referring to the second type, the "theoretical weakness."
Your #2 is a good example of a theoretical weakness (I'll pretend that it's correct for the sake of this argument). If natural selection actually decreases genetic diversity, there is a glitch in the theory, not in the evidence: natural selection (the theory/hypothesis) cannot explain a phenomenon (the genetic diversity of organisms on the planet) that it should be able to explain.
The other two points, however, are just lack-of-evidence issues, which, if you remember, are illegal. Plus, we've been over them a million times since I started here in February alone.
Do you have any other theoretical weaknesses of the ToE that you can think of? Do you know of any phenomenon pertaining to the diversity of life that ToE could not, even in principle, explain? If you could find something like that, it would be good evidence that ToE is not sufficient to singlehandedly explain the diversity of life on Earth.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 2:39 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 11:19 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 118 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 1:05 AM Blue Jay has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 116 of 177 (470692)
06-11-2008 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Blue Jay
06-11-2008 11:04 PM


A lack of evidence would be correctly termed a "lack of evidence." A phenomenon that a theory cannot explain could be called a "theoretical weakness." If the "S&W" people are using "weakness" in the former sense (lack of evidence), they are arguing the same stuff as before, with a different name. But, that stuff is still just ID, and it is illegal to teach, since Kitzmiller vs Dover. This leads me to believe that the S&Wists (I think I'll call them "sawists," from now until they get smashed by another court case in the near future) are referring to the second type, the "theoretical weakness."
I think the "strengths and weaknesses" line is just the next attempt, in a long line of such attempts, to teach creationism in schools. It has nothing to do with science; it's the same tired old arguments with new lipstick.
We went from creationism, to creation "science," to intelligent design, with "teach the controversy" and "it's just a theory" in there somewhere. Now we get "strengths and weaknesses."
Who do these folks think they are fooling? The only school boards that adopt this are the ones already packed with creationists and looking to waste a couple of million dollars on a court case (after which they'll have to cook up another disguise for creationism).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 06-11-2008 11:04 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Taz, posted 06-12-2008 12:04 AM Coyote has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 117 of 177 (470697)
06-12-2008 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Coyote
06-11-2008 11:19 PM


Coyote writes:
Who do these folks think they are fooling? The only school boards that adopt this are the ones already packed with creationists and looking to waste a couple of million dollars on a court case (after which they'll have to cook up another disguise for creationism).
Remember that these people are not interested in a scientific debate. They're more interested in a legal debate. Creationists are like the borg. Sooner or later, they will adapt well enough to go right through the legal system.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 11:19 PM Coyote has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 118 of 177 (470706)
06-12-2008 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Blue Jay
06-11-2008 11:04 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
Imo, a lack of evidence or contradictory evidence is a weakness of the theory in the context here. In terms of what is illegal, it must strike you as well as it does me to hear that a mere scientific idea is "illegal."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 06-11-2008 11:04 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 06-12-2008 1:24 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 119 of 177 (470707)
06-12-2008 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ichneumon
06-11-2008 9:07 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
I read them after my post and saw absolutely no rebuttal. Can you please, in your own words, try to explain where you think you have refuted something?
Keep in mind links to Talkorigins are not rebuttals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 9:07 PM Ichneumon has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 120 of 177 (470708)
06-12-2008 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Ichneumon
06-11-2008 9:05 PM


Re: I'd like to see what percy says first....
More words from you with no actual substance. It's amazing you typed so much and said so little related to the subject.
Can you explain in your own words exactly how you think you have refuted my points? It may be helpful to show that you actually understand my points first so you don't waste time arguing with a straw man fantasy of your own creation.
Once again, keep in mind links to Talkorigins are not rebuttals. If you think something is relevant in a link, please state in your own words what you think that is, and then linking is acceptable. Bare links don't really deserve the time of day if you are not going to do that.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 9:05 PM Ichneumon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Fosdick, posted 06-12-2008 11:24 AM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024