Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Challenge to Wordswordman
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 33 (19906)
10-15-2002 5:47 AM


Wordswordman, if you really believe what you believe and you want to proselytize your beliefs to this board, then I challenge you. The first of Darwin's five theories (sensu Mayr) is that evolution (change) happens. 'Show us your proof, if you are right.' (Q 2:111). Show us that the first Darwin theory is false. Can you?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 10:12 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 3 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-15-2002 11:04 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 18 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 8:08 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 21 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 11:40 AM Andya Primanda has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 33 (19919)
10-15-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
10-15-2002 5:47 AM


This challenge may be posed in the wrong direction. Shouldn't we be providing evidence that change occurs and then challenge Wordswordsman to refute that evidence?
One simple expression I found of the first theory was, "Characteristics of populations change across generations through time." What is our evidence for this?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-15-2002 5:47 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 33 (19922)
10-15-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
10-15-2002 5:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Wordswordman, if you really believe what you believe and you want to proselytize your beliefs to this board, then I challenge you. The first of Darwin's five theories (sensu Mayr) is that evolution (change) happens. 'Show us your proof, if you are right.' (Q 2:111). Show us that the first Darwin theory is false. Can you?
Mayr's first module:
quote:
1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
[b]That is a statement of TofE that Arkansas students are required to learn. They are not required to believe it. An interpretation that I consider valid would be generally summarized that entire species, families, and probably genus groups have been steadily rendered extinct. That is an acceptable, proven change over time. That organisims are transformed over time is not a proven fact, but remains only an explanation for varieties of species. Varieties within species are acceptable forms of diversity, explained in simple genetic terms. The latest modern definitions of species had to be made comformable to TofE requirements concerning reproduction elements of so-called speciation, rather than frame honest morphological considerations, creating problems for systematists that shouldn't be tolerated.
Answer this fellow:
"In 1971, Gavin de Beer wrote: What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered."
[b]It still hasn't been answered, whether that is an actual original question from de Beer or not. I adopt that question for myself, demanding an answer to it before spending valuable time debating evolution. Evolution theory hangs on a scientific explanation of that problem and others like it. Will you be the history maker?
For more background before attempting the task of answering, consider this article: "Homology in Biology
A Problem for Naturalistic Science
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
Upon satisfactory answer backed by scientific evidence and a
valid demonstration the process is natural, I would consider
further discussion on evolution theory v. creation theory. It isn't acceptable to me that you might attempt to dodge the issue presented here, jumping over to something else. This is my counter challenge in answer to yours. This is a definitive line in the sand that to me supports the validity of including intelligent design in education curriculum. A "We don't know." answer will serve as an acceptable admission there are no valid evidences there are natural processes, or ever where, necessary to drive evolution, ending any reason to continue a discussion.
Are you one who would find a Seiko watch on the beach and conclude it is a natural phenomenon, something occurring by chance combination of metals and plastic? For the record, I would initially suspect it was something designed all in one relatively small slice of time due to the complexity, equal condition of wear and deterioration of its parts, and certainly the fact those objects are not commonly unearthed by paleontologists in any stage of existence. To my knowledge, not even one lone wheel necessary to form such an object has been located in the fossil record. Besides, had it been a natural phenomena, what mechanism wound it up or changed the battery? Left alone, they all "die", failing to reproduce.
I consider the darwinian purpose toward natural phenomena to be as rediculous as the above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-15-2002 5:47 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-15-2002 11:48 AM Wordswordsman has replied
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2002 12:19 PM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 10-16-2002 3:27 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 4 of 33 (19925)
10-15-2002 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wordswordsman
10-15-2002 11:04 AM


[B][QUOTE]That is an acceptable, proven change over time. That organisims are transformed over time is not a proven fact, but remains only an explanation for varieties of species.[/B][/QUOTE]
So here is the genesis of your problem - what is "acceptable" to you, and what constitutes "proven."
[B][QUOTE]Varieties within species are acceptable forms of diversity, explained in simple genetic terms. The latest modern definitions of species had to be made comformable to TofE requirements concerning reproduction elements of so-called speciation, rather than frame honest morphological considerations, creating problems for systematists that shouldn't be tolerated.[/B][/QUOTE]
Why should a species be defined by morphology? WHat is "honest" about morphological considerations? Do you consider Corallus Caninus and Morelia Viridis to be the same species? Would it be honest to so describe them? kingsnake.com - reptile and amphibian classifieds, breeders, forums, photos, videos and more
[B][QUOTE]Upon satisfactory answer[/B][/QUOTE]
Can you define what would constitute "satisfactory"?
[B][QUOTE]backed by scientific evidence[/B][/QUOTE]
Meaning what exactly? "Scientific" and "evidence" could do with a little definition too.
[B][QUOTE]and a valid demonstration[/B][/QUOTE]
ditto
Perhaps you should first show that you are able and prepared to clearly define these terms and to establish objective criteria. FOr example, you could perhaps describe some scientific theories in which you do believe and explain how they are "satisfactory", "scientific", backed by "evidence" and capable of "valid demonstration."
This would give us an idea of the standard of proof which evolutionary theory has to meet. I would have thought it was quite a simple exercise for you, as I presume you have given this much thought. Then, of course, we will present the evidence that meets those objective standards.
So go ahead and draw your line in the sand - just draw it clearly and demonstrate that you draw it equally for all scientific processes, theories and inferences concerning the natural world.
You see, it appears to me that the issue you raise is not "is there an answer to the question?" but "is there a satisfactory answer to the question?" You just have to be clear about what that entails.
[B][QUOTE]Are you one who would find a Seiko watch on the beach and conclude it is a natural phenomenon, something occurring by chance combination of metals and plastic? For the record, I would initially suspect it was something designed all in one relatively small slice of time due to the complexity, equal condition of wear and deterioration of its parts, and certainly the fact those objects are not commonly unearthed by paleontologists in any stage of existence.[/B][/QUOTE]
A ludicrous example and one which reveals the pretentiousness of your supposedly objective stance. Were you to find a watch on the beach, its complexity, wear and occurence in the archaeological record would have nothing whatsoever to do with your inference that it was designed. You would draw the correct conclusion from the simple prior knowledge that these objects are designed, that you can walk into a shop and buy one, and that with a little effort you could design one yourself, or find one who could. We have no such knowledge of a designer of organisms. Further, we observe them being composed from the environment every day without any apparent intervention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-15-2002 11:04 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-15-2002 12:47 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 33 (19926)
10-15-2002 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wordswordsman
10-15-2002 11:04 AM


Mayr's first module:
quote:
1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
WS:
That is a statement of TofE that Arkansas students are required to learn. They are not required to believe it. An interpretation that I consider valid would be generally summarized that entire species, families, and probably genus groups have been steadily rendered extinct. That is an acceptable, proven change over time.
M: Why? Why do you believe organisms have gone extinct? Which ones? Is extinction consistent with creationism?
WS:
That organisims are transformed over time is not a proven fact, but remains only an explanation for varieties of species. Varieties within species are acceptable forms of diversity, explained in simple genetic terms.
M: It is not a proven fact as no such fact exists. It is a fact supported by tremendous amounts of evidence. Please define "acceptable forms of diversity"....acceptable to who or what?
WS:
The latest modern definitions of species had to be made comformable to TofE requirements concerning reproduction elements of so-called speciation, rather than frame honest morphological considerations, creating problems for systematists that shouldn't be tolerated.
M: Actually there is no agreed upon defintion of species at this point. You have to jump to genera i.e. Elephas, Loxodonta, Mammuthus before a consensus begins to emerge. So there can be no fitting of a defintion to suit anything.
Answer this fellow:
"In 1971, Gavin de Beer wrote: What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered."
[b]It still hasn't been answered, whether that is an actual original question from de Beer or not. I adopt that question for myself, demanding an answer to it before spending valuable time debating evolution. Evolution theory hangs on a scientific explanation of that problem and others like it. Will you be the history maker?
For more background before attempting the task of answering, consider this article: "Homology in Biology
A Problem for Naturalistic Science
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
**********************************
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/default.htm
A point by point rebuttal of Wells on the subject of homology and other subjects. In addition, many of the references are old and do not take into account "small things" like the entire fields of developmental biology, genomics, or evolutionary development.
WS: Upon satisfactory answer backed by scientific evidence and a
valid demonstration the process is natural, I would consider
further discussion on evolution theory v. creation theory.
M: Given our past debates I find it highly unlikely that you will even consider scientific evidence since you have stated that the majority of scientists are evil atheists...so I suggest you consider further discussion regardless of what you consider satisfactory or not.
WS:
It isn't acceptable to me that you might attempt to dodge the issue presented here, jumping over to something else. This is my counter challenge in answer to yours. This is a definitive line in the sand that to me supports the validity of including intelligent design in education curriculum. A "We don't know." answer will serve as an acceptable admission there are no valid evidences there are natural processes, or ever where, necessary to drive evolution, ending any reason to continue a discussion.
M: Done, Wells has been debunked...so lets continue shall we?
WS:
Are you one who would find a Seiko watch on the beach and conclude it is a natural phenomenon, something occurring by chance combination of metals and plastic? For the record, I would initially suspect it was something designed all in one relatively small slice of time due to the complexity, equal condition of wear and deterioration of its parts, and certainly the fact those objects are not commonly unearthed by paleontologists in any stage of existence. To my knowledge, not even one lone wheel necessary to form such an object has been located in the fossil record. Besides, had it been a natural phenomena, what mechanism wound it up or changed the battery? Left alone, they all "die", failing to reproduce.
M: This is a strawman argument. A Seiko watch is incapable of reproduction and is thus not subject to heritable mutation and is thus not a valid comparison with evolution.
WS:
I consider the darwinian purpose toward natural phenomena to be as rediculous as the above.
M: ...and believing that a mythical being poof bangs everything into existence but makes it appear like evolution is not ridiculous? LOL!
This last sentence of yours indicates that this thread will not lead to much open or open minded discussion.
However, WS...if you are game for a debate on evolution, I would suggest to you, Percipient and Andya that this thread be moved to the Evolution Forum rather than The Bible:Accuracy and Inerrancy forum where it is off topic.
Let's rock and roll
cheers,
Mammuthus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-15-2002 11:04 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 33 (19928)
10-15-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mister Pamboli
10-15-2002 11:48 AM


Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
quote:
WS:That is an acceptable, proven change over time. That organisims are transformed over time is not a proven fact, but remains only an explanation for varieties of species.
quote:
So here is the genesis of your problem - what is "acceptable" to you, and what constitutes "proven."
Babble. Dodging the issue. Just get to the answer. I have offered an argument that answers the challenge of this thread.
quote:
WS: Varieties within species are acceptable forms of diversity, explained in simple genetic terms. The latest modern definitions of species had to be made comformable to TofE requirements concerning reproduction elements of so-called speciation, rather than frame honest morphological considerations, creating problems for systematists that shouldn't be tolerated.
quote:
Why should a species be defined by morphology? WHat is "honest" about morphological considerations? Do you consider Corallus Caninus and Morelia Viridis to be the same species? Would it be honest to so describe them? kingsnake.com - reptile and amphibian classifieds, breeders, forums, photos, videos and more
Trying to stall this? I won't fall for a re-direction. Answer the question.
quote:
WS: Upon satisfactory answer
quote:
Can you define what would constitute "satisfactory"?
backed by scientific evidence
Pitiful excuses for the obvious inability to answer the question.
quote:
Perhaps you should first show that you are able and prepared to clearly define these terms and to establish objective criteria. FOr example, you could perhaps describe some scientific theories in which you do believe and explain how they are "satisfactory", "scientific", backed by "evidence" and capable of "valid demonstration."
That has nothing to do with this thread. I have been challenged, not to support any of my beliefs, but to deal with the first Darwin theory. My answer is to obtain the explanation of a key problem with that theory. Lack of explanation serves to demonstrate the theory is severely flawed, lacking a mechanical process necessary to evidence the theory.
quote:
This would give us an idea of the standard of proof which evolutionary theory has to meet. I would have thought it was quite a simple exercise for you, as I presume you have given this much thought. Then, of course, we will present the evidence that meets those objective standards.
Pick any standard of proof. I won't limit you. I'll refer you to the opening post, though, as the only challenge here. If you can't answer my answer, then the first Darwin theory is false until proven otherwise. Debate over.
quote:
So go ahead and draw your line in the sand - just draw it clearly and demonstrate that you draw it equally for all scientific processes, theories and inferences concerning the natural world.
[b]The line was drawn in my post. You somehow missed that. Yep, there it is, still there. Just answer the question:
[b][i]What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes?[/b][/i]
quote:
You see, it appears to me that the issue you raise is not "is there an answer to the question?" but "is there a satisfactory answer to the question?" You just have to be clear about what that entails.
[b]What I see about that is that you have NO answer, regardless the standard applied. A satisfactory answer is already defined in that same post:
Upon satisfactory answer backed by scientific evidence and a
valid demonstration the process is natural
quote:
A ludicrous example and one which reveals the pretentiousness of your supposedly objective stance. Were you to find a watch on the beach, its complexity, wear and occurence in the archaeological record would have nothing whatsoever to do with your inference that it was designed. You would draw the correct conclusion from the simple prior knowledge that these objects are designed, that you can walk into a shop and buy one, and that with a little effort you could design one yourself, or find one who could. We have no such knowledge of a designer of organisms. Further, we observe them being composed from the environment every day without any apparent intervention.
de Beer himself used that analogy. He's a lot smarter than you. I think he understood its application, and I understand it, but you don't. What you don't understand you call "ludicrous".
THAT is ludicrous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-15-2002 11:48 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2002 12:56 PM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-15-2002 2:03 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 33 (19929)
10-15-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Wordswordsman
10-15-2002 12:47 PM


I already debunked your entire argument in post 5..and met your challange...so yes debate over..evolution is the truth and creationism is the dilusion of those unable to understand science and feel like they have to compensate by being offensive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-15-2002 12:47 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 1:21 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 10 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-15-2002 1:31 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 33 (19932)
10-15-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
10-15-2002 12:56 PM


Maybe I'm just missing where this thread is coming from, but I don't think evolutionists have clearly characterized the evidence from which they conclude that the characteristics of populations change over time. No evidence was presented in message 1, and so Wordswordsman responded with an essay that presented his own material, and from there the discussion has quickly declined into meaningless sniping and rhetorical declarations of victory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2002 12:56 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2002 1:29 PM Percy has replied
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 11:50 PM Percy has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 33 (19934)
10-15-2002 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
10-15-2002 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Maybe I'm just missing where this thread is coming from, but I don't think evolutionists have clearly characterized the evidence from which they conclude that the characteristics of populations change over time. No evidence was presented in message 1, and so Wordswordsman responded with an essay that presented his own material, and from there the discussion has quickly declined into meaningless sniping and rhetorical declarations of victory.
--Percy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rather than addressing Andya's challenge, WS issued a counter challenge that he claimed had to be met prior to his debating the subject. I responded to the John Wells critique he presented with its rebuttal from the Talk Origins archive. I was have not recieved a response to my post. M Pamboli replied with questions about WS's challenge and was insulted for it. I made a sarcastic post emulating what WS was saying but as argued from the opposite side (sorry could not resist). That is how we got to this point.
I doubt WS will "accept" my rebuttal in post 5 but hopefully we can proceed anyway with Andya's original intent and get to the information that you are looking for...and debate it.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 1:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 11:43 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 10 of 33 (19935)
10-15-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
10-15-2002 12:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I already debunked your entire argument in post 5..and met your challange...so yes debate over..evolution is the truth and creationism is the dilusion of those unable to understand science and feel like they have to compensate by being offensive.
I must admit to some confusion. Wordswordsman posted a question by de Beer as his argument against the theory of evolution and cited an article by Wells as helpfull background material. In post five, you answered with an opposing article that supposedly "debunked" Wells. There was no mention in that article of de Beer. How then can you say that you have debunked the whole argument when you have only made reference to the paranthetical?
I am very interested in hearing an answer to de Beer's question. Can you provide one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2002 12:56 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 5:15 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 11 of 33 (19940)
10-15-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Wordswordsman
10-15-2002 12:47 PM


I have rarely read a more vacuous post on this bulletin board. I am offering you the chance to have your questions answered in your terms but you are refusing it.
Note that you do not ask just for an answer to the question, but for a "satisfactory" answer, a "valid" answer, "scientific evidence" etc. These are your words, yet you seem incapable or unwilling of clarifying their meaning. Whether this is through stupidity, deviousness or simply not understanding the implications of what you ask, I leave others to judge.
I suspect the answer is that you are incapable of deploying the necessary logical or scientific tools required to deal with these issues. For example, you raise an issue of definition - that of a species - yet cannot respond to a closely defined example of where conventional speciation and your preferred "honest" morphological definition differ. The lack of content of your reply is revealing of a number of issues. Firstly a lack of real interest - the morphological similarities of the species I named are fascinating and anyone genuinely interested in a morphological definition of speciation would surely be prompted to a more fulsome discussion. Secondly a lack of logical discrimination - there is no redirection involved in attempting to answer a point in your own post which you felt it necessary to raise. If it was worth your while mentioning it, there could hardly be redirection in my answering it, could there? Unless, of course, there was no point in you mentioning it in the first place, but that would make you merely incompetent, and I prefer to think you are devious.
Nevertheless, I guarantee that if you can define these terms and show that they are objective and applied by you with disinterest to science in general, then conventional evolutionary theory, and in pariticular the "first theory" under discussion can be shown to meet them. All you need do is define these terms that you so promiscuously use and make clear the standards by which you will objectively judge the answers. It seems perfectly fair to me.
Note that I have no interest in your beliefs nor expect you to have any in mine. You are, however, professing an objective standard and I am prepared to meet that.
[B][QUOTE]Pick any standard of proof. I won't limit you.[/B][/QUOTE]
You are prepared to accept that evolution is true or false based on my standard of proof? Really? Let's say my standard of proof were simply that it seemed like a good thing to me if it were true - is that "satisfactory" for you? I doubt it. You see, if you are the one demanding answers, it is your standard of proof that needs to be examined. My standard of proof is irrelevant.
For example, let us take your supposed killer question:
[B][QUOTE]What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes?[/B][/QUOTE]
So am I to take your word for it that this actually occurs. Could you, for example, provide "satisfactory", "valid" and "scientific" evidence that homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes? Just to make it clear to you, as I realise you may be a little slow in these matters, what I am looking for is the standards of evidence by which you judge "homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes" to be true.
Given those standards of evidence, we could then apply them to "Characteristics of populations change across generations through time."
We would then be in an admirable situation. We would have your objective standards by which you accept one statement to be true, and then we could apply them to another statement. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Are you up for it?
BTW, I thought your last little aside amusing ...
[B][QUOTE]de Beer himself used that analogy. He's a lot smarter than you. I think he understood its application, and I understand it, but you don't. What you don't understand you call "ludicrous". [/B][/QUOTE]
I think you will that find the analogy goes a lot further back than de Beer. Whether he is smarter than me, I do not know. Possibly - I am not sure if one acquires more knowledge or wisdom in the afterlife or not. He may be suffering in hell at this moment, in which case I imagine he does not feel terribly smart at all. Was he smarter than me in his lifetime? Again possibly - I am not sure one can objectively judge intelligence to the required extent.
I think I do understand the analogy of the watch - I certainly have never found a barrier to debate in any ignorance I may have of its subtleties. But sadly, you're example truly was ludicrous. After all, in your contorted version, the watch had its designers name upon it - how else would you have known it was a Seiko?! If only your designing God had signed every organism with the tetragrammaton how much easier this whole issue would be!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-15-2002 12:47 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 12 of 33 (19982)
10-15-2002 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
10-15-2002 1:29 PM


Mammuthus writes:
Rather than addressing Andya's challenge...
How was WS to address the challenge? Andya offered a premise, but no evidence supporting the premise. This left WS free to take whatever avenue he chose. WS may be wrong, but he's winning this discussion. Sometimes it seems that evolutionists think, "Hey, we're right, we've got the theory, we've got the evidence, everything's on our side, so we can argue in any old sloppy way we feel like."
Just my two cents...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 10-15-2002 1:29 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-15-2002 11:57 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 16 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 4:15 AM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 33 (19983)
10-15-2002 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
10-15-2002 1:21 PM


The best evidence of the first postulate (or whatever you call it) would probably be from viral eovltuion. We have clear examples in moelcualr biology where both natural and artificially stressed populations change and we can even track down the genotype!
I am going to be lazy and not find the refs for you since it's your point. I personally find this undeniable evidence of both natural and artifical selection as generating inheritable changes in populations. 100 time better than the moths. There are probably some good non-mol-biol examples as well but the viral/bacterial stuff beats any other evidence I've ever seen including Galapagos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 1:21 PM Percy has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 14 of 33 (19985)
10-15-2002 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
10-15-2002 11:43 PM


YOu're right, Percy, as far the first post is concerned, but of course WS immediately responded with his own challenge inn the following terms ...
quote:
It still hasn't been answered, whether that is an actual original question from de Beer or not. I adopt that question for myself, demanding an answer to it before spending valuable time debating evolution. (my emphasis)
Thus the need to address WS's challenge, as, by his own admission, he will not even debate evolution without it being met.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 10-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 11:43 PM Percy has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 33 (19997)
10-16-2002 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wordswordsman
10-15-2002 11:04 AM


Before this degenerates any further...
wordwordsman: I confess to being confused as to the actual question you're asking. I agree with Percy that whatever question it was doesn't appear to have been answered, but honestly I don't really know what the question entails. (I sorta think that's what Mr. P was trying to get at, but I'm not concerned with your standards of evidence, since nothing will convince you anyway. However, it could be an interesting and valuable exercise.)
Reposting the de Beer's quote that seems to be the heart of the matter:
quote:
: What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes?
In your estimation, what is de Beer's looking for?
1. Is it "what is the mechanism by which two unrelated organisms develop similar phenotypes?" (i.e., what would be called "convergent evolution" under the ToE)
2. Is it "what is the mechanism by which specific anatomical features have developed in dissimilar organisms?" (a much narrower question, and one that might perhaps need to be further specified as to "which feature" because there could be a variety of answers)
3. Some other question.
I am not avoiding your "challenge", in spite of the venimous arrogance of your posting style. I would appreciate it, however, if you could state more clearly what you are asking (or what you feel de Beers is asking).
To be frank, I intensely dislike your style. However, that shouldn't preclude me providing an answer once you have refined your question. After all I couldn't care less whether you personally LIKE the answer, but I'm certainly willing to try and give the question the best answer available. After all, in spite of your arrogance, you're nobody important - the ToE doesn't stand or fall on your say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-15-2002 11:04 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024