# Intelligent Design banned...right or wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508 "2005-12-20T20:18:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/61 "2005-12-22T04:49:16Z")
Speciation is a process, **DtC**. Here’s the Talkorigins site on observed instances of [speciation.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) Some of these seem rather shaky, but I guess I jumped the gun earlier in saying that the speciation process had never been observed directly. Some of the fly studies and plant studies look pertty rigorous. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/62 "2005-12-22T04:53:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Semantics aside, we do have to agree that speciation has not been observed, except perhaps for single celled organism that do not reproduce sexually. Depends on how you define speciation. There are examples of fruit flies that can no longer breed with the general population, and numerous polyploid plants that are genetically isolated. Have a look at the talk.origins site for numerous other examples. > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t make speciation unscientific any more than the existence of the electron is unscientific. No one has directly observed an electron-- we infer its existence from observations of its interaction with matter and energy. Precisely. It is a theory based upon good observational evidence. But that still doesn’t make it a fact. DtC seems to have some bizarre idea that at some point there was a hypothesis that new species derived form old ones, then at some point that became a fact. Although so far he seems unable to explain exactly when or why it went form theory to fact. > [@](#): > > I think that scientists use the terms “fact” and “data” interchangeably, in the sense of “data” that has been recognized and accepted as reproducible. Some scientists might, good scientists don’t. The reason being that the data that the sun revolves around people on Earth was widely accepted and easily reproducible. Nonetheless the inference drawn, ie the theory, was completely wrong. A fact of course can never become wrong. > [@](#): > > In that sense, there is nothing wrong with saying that evolution or speciation is a fact. It is something that we know has happened. Otherwise, you end up having to say that we don’t know anything. What is so bad with admitting that we don’t know anything and are constantly working with assumptions? 500 years ago would you have been happy with the idea that people knew that sun orbited the Earth? > [@](#): > > And while that might be an interesting philosophical point, it makes no sense to talk about science if we don’t actually know anything. Why not? What is nonsensical about saying “I know nothing, but I make the following assumptions and accept the following axioms, and based on those assumptions and axioms I can deduce the following…”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/63 "2005-12-22T04:58:18Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Why not? What is nonsensical about saying “I know nothing, but I make the following assumptions and accept the following axioms, and based on those assumptions and axioms I can deduce the following…”? It’s nonsensical to have to qualify everything you say with that type of disclaimer. Once you say that a single time, it’s just easier to “this is a fact” with the understanding that you assume that, for instance, what we observe today is not a dream and we’ll wake up tomorrow and find out that all our assumptions were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/64 "2005-12-22T05:05:47Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, you have not proved the fact of gravity. People were well aware that stones fell when dropped for thousands of millennia before gravity was accepted or even thought of. If you believe the mere dropping of stones proves gravity why did it take so long for the concept to even be considered, much less accepted? Clearly the act of dropping a stone did not prove gravity to the vast majority off observers. The word “gravity” has two different meanings. There is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. The _law_ of gravity represents nothing more than the observed FACT that mass is attracted to mass. The _theory_ (as formulated in General Relativity) explains WHY. The _law_ does not have to be proven. It is undeniable. You are not floating from your chair right now. If you aren’t willing to say it’s a _fact_ that you are physically pulled to the earth, then all you’re doing is retreating into such useless and childish semantic equivocating that will make any real discussion impossible. To make it simple for you, theories only explain _why_ things happen. No observed phenomenon is a theory unto itself and observed phenomena do not need to be “proven,” save only in the most pointless and unhelpful epistemological sense of the word. Speciation is one such phenomenon. Speciation is the emergence of a new species from an antecedant. This emergence _in itself_ is an event, not a mechanism and not a theory. A theory would explain WHY it happens. A mechanism is HOW it happens MECHANISTICALLY. It refers to the actual physical process. Speciation is a _result_ of that process, it is not the process itself. > [@](#): > > All that dropping a stone proves is that the stone dropped, in fact all it proves is that you remember perceiving that it dropped. Mere accumulation of observational evidence does not constitute proof or fact. People had accumulated observational evidence that the sun revolved around the Earth for thousands of years. That did not make it a proven fact. If the stone drops, then it is a fact that the stone dropped. When speciation is observed, it is a fact that speciation has occurred. > [@](#): > > We are discussing the status of “speciation”, whether it is a “proven fact” as DtC claimed, or whether it is a well-supported scientific theory. We can not construct any pertinent argument by describing it as either a fact or a theory at the outset. That would be a clear case of begging the question. We need to refer to it as something that is neither fact nor theory, but potentially capable of being either. Would you agree with that? It is a directly observed phenomenon. That makes it a “fact.” No other discussion is necessary in that regard. The only question is WHY. > [@](#): > > And if you do agree that we need a neutral term for our argument than what do you see as being problematic with “mechanism”? A mechanism can potentially be a fact or a theory can’t it? Speciation is neither a mechanism nor a theory… > [@](#): > > And speciation is a mechanism isn’t it? No. > [@](#): > > If you have any legitimate concerns with the use of the word mechanism then I will cheerfully substitute any other neutral term you choose such as entity. It will make no difference at all to my argument. How about “observed phenomenon?” > [@](#): > > No they aren’t. They are falsified by observational evidence. There are no facts in science. > > Cite! Seriously, please show me one reputable source that even claims that there are any proven facts in science, much less that the only evidence acceptable in science is proven fact. > > I can’t think of one theory that has been successfully challenged by anything other than observational evidence. > > Well first off you are begging the question again. You can’t imply as you did that “fact” is a precisely-defined scientific word and use that in an argument to establish the existence of facts in science. This all just worthless sophistry. If you don’t like the word “facts,” substitute “Observed phenomena.” If you’re unwilling to say that anything is “true” or can be “known,” then you’re just wasting everbody’s time because it’s impossible to have a conversation about _any_ scientific theory without utilizing language which separates ideas into some kind of ordered, ontological meanings. > [@](#): > > Just to assist you, a mechanism is “An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being”. Yes, and speciation would be a RESULT of a mechanism, not a mechanism itself. The mechanism for speciation is mutation, adaptation and selection. > [@](#): > > Evolution itself is theory is it not? > And it is certainly a physical process by which things come into being, so it’s mechanism, right? It involves more than one specific mechanism but I suppose you could call it a complex mechanism if you wanted to. > [@](#): > > But you now seem to be saying that since evolution is a theory and a mechanism it can not be a fact. IOW you seem to be arguing my case for me, but at a much more fundamental level than I did myself, since if we don’t accept evolution as fact we certainly can’t accept evolutionary speciation as fact. It is not true that theories cannot be confirmed as facts. It is a theory that matter is composed of atoms. It is a theory that germs cause disease. “Theory” does not mean “unproven.” In scientific terms, a theory is an _explanation_ for observed phenomena. No amount of proof cannot make a theory not be a theory, but that doesn’t mean a theory can’t be confirmed as "known fact’ (or as close to a known fact as we can get without being sophist babies about it), > [@](#): > > As I just pointed out I never switched terms anywhere. > [@](#): > > I just gave my definition of mechanism and it certainly meets that doesn’t it? It’s a physical process by which new species come into being? > > In fact the reason why I used the term mechanism is because Henderson’s defines speciation as “the evolution of species; development of a specific quality; the process of species formation.” And evolution itself is commonly defined as a process that produces novel traits etc. Speciation is a _result_ of the mechanism. It is not the mechanism itself. > [@](#): > > Well since you have chosen to make this a semantic argument can we please see your reference that defines speciation as an event rather than a process or development? I’m not requesting evidence of observed speciation events but rather support for your belief that speciation is an event, which is quite different. [Event: consequence: a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon](http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=event) Speciation is a phenomenon which is caused by preveious phenomena. > [@](#): > > No, it is an observation, not a fact. You are using the two terms as though they are synonymous. In this case, they are. > [@](#): > > They are not. Not every observation is a fact. I observed David Copperfield flying, that does not make it a fact that he did fly does it? You did not observe David Copperfield flying. In science “observation” means more than just sensory perception. > [@](#): > > No that is an opinion of yours, and an incorrect one. There are an infinite number of conditions under which water does not and will not boil. It is clearly not a fact that water boils. Water has never boiled once? > [@](#): > > At which point you then need to narrow it down to specific conditions of temperature and pressure, which starts to get towards the truth, which is merely that no one has ever observed water not boil under some conditions. That is not in any way the same as you declaration that it is a fact that water boils. Yet that is how science works. If it can be repeatedly observed that under certain condition that water will boil, then it is a fact that water boils. Saying that there are conditions under which water will not boil does not erase that fact that water boils under other conditions. You are parsing the language in this discussion to such an inane degree that you are effectively making it impossible to have a rational dialogue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/65 "2005-12-22T05:12:43Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Some scientists might, good scientists don’t. The reason being that the data that the sun revolves around people on Earth was widely accepted and easily reproducible. Nonetheless the inference drawn, ie the theory, was completely wrong. A fact of course can never become wrong. Actually, there is nothing wrong with saying the sun revoloves around the earth, since there is no absolute reference frame. In the reference frame of the earth, the sun \*\*does \*\*revolve around it. The error people were making in the past was that they assumed the earth was not moving. If we take that as an assumption, then it is correct to say that the sun revolves around the earth. I’ve worked as a scientist and with scientists all my adult life. I’ve never heard one scientist quibble about the use of the word “fact” unless he was arguing about whether sepcific data was reproducible or not. Getting back to the water boiling example, we can say “it is a fact that water boils at 100 deg C at atmospheric pressure.” ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/66 "2005-12-22T05:21:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s nonsensical to have to qualify everything you say with that type of disclaimer. Why would you ever have to do that if everyone accepts it to be the case? You are saying it’s ridiculous to discuss sicence if we all accept that we know nothing, because if we all accept that we know nothing we’ll have to qualify everything we say with “I know nothing”. But if we all accept it as axiomatic that we know nothing then why do we need to restate the axiom every time we say something? I still don’t see anything ridiculous here except your apparent belief that we need to restate every axiom every time we speak. Why not just accept the axioms? > [@](#): > > Once you say that a single time, it’s just easier to “this is a fact” with the understanding that you assume that, for instance, what we observe today is not a dream and we’ll wake up tomorrow and find out that all our assumptions were wrong. Why choose to aply this at this level? Why not apply it at the fundemental level? IOW why “assume that… what we observe today is not a dream and we’ll wake up tomorrow and find out that all our assumptions were wrong” only when using the word ‘fact’? Why not assume that from the outset and just say what you mean? Or alternatively if you believe that you have to qualify everythingyou say with a disclaimer then why don’t you also need to qualify "“this is a fact” with a disclaimer? It is easier to say what you mean, and it also avoids the propagation of ignorance of the type DtC just spouted forth. I’ve never believed that laziness was an excuse for aiding ignorance. If you mean that somehting is immutably true and can never be proved wrong then say it is a fact. If you mean that you personally believe that something is a fact then say “IMO it is a fact”. If you believe somehting is scientifically established then say that it is scientifically established. Is that really so much harder than simply calling things facts when you know they are not? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/67 "2005-12-22T05:34:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Actually, there is nothing wrong with saying the sun revoloves around the earth, since there is no absolute reference frame. In the reference frame of the earth, the sun \*\*does \*\*revolve around it. The error people were making in the past was that they assumed the earth was not moving. If we take that as an assumption, then it is correct to say that the sun revolves around the earth. Yes I realise all that. It’s a rather pedantic point given the nature of the illustration since, as you point out, with all the implicit assumptions the ‘fact’ was wrong. > [@](#): > > I’ve worked as a scientist and with scientists all my adult life. I’ve never heard one scientist quibble about the use of the word “fact” unless he was arguing about whether sepcific data was reproducible or not. Getting back to the water boiling example, we can say “it is a fact that water boils at 100 deg C at atmospheric pressure.” We can say that, but we wouldn’t publish that would we? IMO you are confusing two separate issues here. Scientists use the same vernacular as anyone else. Of course I’ll refer to the fact that water boils. I also refer to the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. But that’s vernacular use. Nobody would ever quibble with my use of the word fact in those contexts. But that doesn’t mean that those things are facts. I also refer to alligators as lizards and nobody quibbles with that either, because it’s known that it’s vernacular. As far as scientists quibbling about the word “fact”: [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="no+facts+in+science"+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search&meta=](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22no+facts+in+science%22+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search&meta=) I’ll ask you the same question I asked Diogenes. At some point someone hypothesised that speciation occurred. Evidence was collected. Apparently you believe at some point that became a fact… When did it Become a fact and why? And since speciation is scientific it must be possible to falsify it, yes? So what happens if it is falsified? Is it still a fact, or does it cease to be a fact? And if so how can facts be mutable? What does “Fact” actually mean if it is so mutable? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/68 "2005-12-22T06:10:30Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Meaning that it isn’t a fact at all. There are no facts in science. Enough of this nonsense already. I’m no longer going to respond to it. I find it immature and evasive. > [@](#): > > I notice that you are now including quotation marks around the word fact, something you initially neglected to do, so I assume you are beginning to see your major error here. It’s called “sarcasm.” > [@](#): > > Speciation is not a fact, neither is the freezing point of water. Those are two well supported theories, but both remain theories and always will do. Neither of those things are theories. Please look up the definiton of the word theory if you do nothing else. > [@](#): > > A few more simple questions for you to try to duck DtC, like you ducked my last ones. What questions did I duck? > [@](#): > > Do you believe that all scientific concepts start out as hypotheses? No. Only theories start out as hypotheses. Laws start as observations. > [@](#): > > If so at what point does a hypothesis such as “the freezing point of water” becomes a fact? As soon as it’s observed. > [@](#): > > Ooh, I’m gonna enjoy this, coz you see, I made suremy ducks were in a row before I posted. I have references to support what I said. Let’s see if DtC can say the same. I think you better go kick your ducks in the ass then, because they don’t seem to be helping you at all. > [@](#): > > Cite. I have provided a reference that says that speciation is a process (and hence a mechanism if you believe it produces something). Process and mechanism are two different things. Process is _what_. mechanism is h_how_. Speciation is a “what,” not a “how.” To call speciation a “mechanism” in itself is to say that speciation occurs by speciation. A meaningless statement. > [@](#): > > Cite. > > You really should think before posting such massive blanket statements. I really look forward to this evidence that shows a 100% certainty that speciation can be inferred from genetic evidence. After al that is what you just claimed when you used the word unequivocal. So come on mate, trot out the journal that published results with 100% statistical confidence. Do you know what retrogenes are? If you did you wouldn’t be so cocky. They are the smoking gun for macroevolution. Whatever. Ask and you shall receive. [Irreftable confirmation of speciation from genetic evidence](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html). Scroll down especially to the section on endogenous retroviruse. If you can explain how that can happen without macroevolution there’s a Nobel Prize in it for you. I eagerly await your rebuttal. > [@](#): > > According to Gould, popper and others yes. Can we please see the literature that you are using as the basis for your position that at some point a hypothesis like the heliocentric model becomes a fact? Whose scientific method is that? I told you, I am no longer going to respond to this sophistry. > [@](#): > > No one ever said otherwise. You did. You said that speciation was a “theory.” I was attempting to explain the difference between scientific theories and observed phenomena. > [@Blake](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > You’re telling me to read Popper and you think speciation is a “scientific theory.” . Physician, heal thyself. > > Cite. Cite for what? That you think speciation is a scientific theory? You said it in your first post in this thread. [Take a look](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6924723&postcount=52). > [@Blake](#): > > Speciation is not a fact, it is a scientific theory Is that what you were looking for? If not, then what do you want a cite for? > [@](#): > > You have a lot of invective and certainty in your posts DtC, Look who’s talking. > [@](#): > > but can wee see any actual evidence to support your claims? In this case some evidence that speciation is a scientific fact and not a theory? Speciation is an observed phenomenon. It appears that **John Mace** has already posted the talkorigins link. I myself have provided a cite for the genetic evidence. If you are going to insist on waving your hands at the word “fact,” then we can’t really continue a dialogue. > [@](#): > > If you bothered to do some basic research you would see that there are numerous respected evolutionary biologists published in reputable peer-reviewed journals who believe that there are mechanistic differences between “micro” and “macro” evolutionary events. (No quotations are required BTW, these are standard and well defined term sin evolutionary biology). Did you actually bother to research the state of the science of this topic before posting with such certainty? Cite? Show me a cite which shows a mechanistic difference. What mechanistically distinguishes a speciating adaptation from any other adaptation? More to the point. what mechanistic _barrier_ exists to prevent “micro” from becoming “macro?” > [@](#): > > Once again, this is weaseling. You did not say that A must lead to B. You said that there is no mechanistic difference between A & B. I just provided one refercne which says quite explicitely that thisi not the case and can provide many more if requested. At what point are you willing to accept that, at the very least, there is considerable scientific debate about whether macro and micro evolution are mechanistically different? I’m sorry. but your cite said no such thing. You cherry-picked a vague quotation with little context and no link which said nothing about a _mechanistic_ difference between micro and macro events. There is an unexplained reference to “discontinuities” at the bottom of your quote, but it doesn’t say what those discontinuities are or how they relate to the mechanisms of mutation and adaptation. It sure as hell did not say anything about a mechanistic _barrier_ between the two events. You’re going to have to do better than that, dude. > [@](#): > > 1. Straw man. Orf course I never said anything would stop it. Then what are you arguing about? Did you enter this thread simply to bicker about terminology? > [@](#): > > 1. I explain the observed instances of speciation on a case by case basis. If it happens once, doesn’t that disprove your assertion that speciation is not a fact (“fact” as in observed phenomenon, and I’m quite finished quibbling about that word. I’m not about to cripple myself lingustically simply to satisfy such an unimportant and specious semantic objection). > [@](#): > > 1. I don’t bother to explain retrogenes because I failed to see what relevance they have to anything I have posted. They provide irrefutable evidence of macroevolution…something you seem to be claiming has not been proven. If you accept the scientific evidence and are only picking some kind of abstract semantic or epistemological point then it isn’t really possible to have a scientific discussion. > [@](#): > > Dude, can we please see some evidence to support your claim that there is no mechanistic difference between macro and micro evolution? I’ve already shown you evidence to the contrary. No you haven’t, and once you conced that microevolution occurs, the burden shifts to you to show that something would mechanistically prevent macroevolution from occurring. Macro is proved by micro. The ball is in your court. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/69 "2005-12-22T06:15:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > we can say “it is a fact that water boils at 100 deg C at atmospheric pressure.” We can say it is a fact that water boils at 100 C at a pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi). Standard atmospheric pressure, not just whatever the atmospheric pressure happens to be. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/70 "2005-12-22T06:18:17Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Well since you have chosen to make this a semantic argument… ?? Every single post you have made to this thread has been “a semantic argument,” so trying to claim that I have introduced that problem is a bit silly. At any rate, while I am willing to have semantic discussions regarding various words, I have not the time to engage in a discussion where every single term must be defined and challenged just for the sake of some abstruse point. Since you do not believe that water ever boils, I think I will go steep some tea in the liquid that issued from my tap which has been raised to a temperature sufficient to make some sort of gas pass through the top of the vessel simultaneous with a sound resembling that of a whistle emanating from the direction in which I can see the vessel on the stove. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/71 "2005-12-22T06:17:31Z")
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html) Looks like the FISA court is a little problematic given the President’s new claims. If he can just bypass them, why do they exist? Seems like a giant waste of everyone’s time, not to mention tainting all the previous warrants. Totaly harmless, folks! ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/72 "2005-12-22T06:21:31Z")
Diogenes the Cynic, I see that you waffled much in that post, but you still haven’t provided any actual evidence to support nay of your claims. It’s all argument form assertion with no support at all. You can’t use your assertions to support your earlier assertions. Give me something of substance to support your claims. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The _law_ of gravity represents nothing more than the observed FACT that mass is attracted to mass. Cite! > [@](#): > > A theory would explain WHY it happens. A mechanism is HOW it happens MECHANISTICALLY. It refers to the actual physical process. Cite. > [@](#): > > Speciation is a _result_ of that process, it is not the process itself. [Cite!](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22speciation+is+a+process%22&btnG=Search&meta=) “ **Speciation as a Gradual Process** ” [http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html](http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html) “The **process of speciation is a 2 stage process** in which reproductive isolating mechanisms (RIM’s) arise between groups of populations.” www.agron.iastate.edu/~weeds/AG517/Content/ChangeCommun/speciation.html “Allopatric speciation ( **a process** that potentially generates new species through physical separation of populations) is the best documented and is perhaps the easiest isolation process to illustrate.”PapkeR.T & Ward, D.M. 2004 “The importance of physical isolation to microbial diversification” FEMS Microbrial ecology. 48:3 “The radiation of the East African cichlid fishes has engaged biologists for over a century. Because so much taxonomic diversity has evolved recently, they are an ideal natural system in which to study **the process of speciation.** ” Markert, J.A., Danley, P.D., Arnegard, M. E. 2001 “New markers for new species: microsatellite loci and the East African cichlids” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16:2 For the love of Pete, do you have any idea about the actual science involved in this subject? Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim that speciation isn’t a process? > [@](#): > > It is a directly observed phenomenon. That makes it a “fact.” No other discussion is necessary in that regard. Bollocks. Now you have made an assertion, and I have made an assertion. The difference is that I have supported my assertions with references. Care to do the same? > [@](#): > > Speciation is neither a mechanism nor a theory. Bollocks. I’ve already provided references showing that it is a mechanism. Now how about you providing evidence to support your claim that it is not? > [@](#): > > No. [speciation isn’t a mechanism] Cite! > [@](#): > > How about “observed phenomenon?” Suits me. Changes things not one bit. > [@](#): > > This all just worthless sophistry. I see. I prove that DtC is spouting ignorant tripe and has no facts to support what he declares so boldly to be ‘fact’, and then it becomes worthless sophiostry. Buddy, proving that someone dishonest and propagating ignorance is not worthless sophistry. It is alarge part of why we are here, remember? Fighting ignorance, not disseminating it. > [@](#): > > If you don’t like the word “facts,” substitute “Observed phenomena.” I will et the person you originally challenged deal with that in detail, but it does rather change the complexion of the debate. DTC has gone from challenging **spingears** claim that there no proof positive that macro evolution with a retort that macroevolution is a fact to his current rather lame position that Speciation is an observed phenomenon. Yawn. I doubt that **springears** will even bother to challenge that claim since it doesn’t even contradict what he said. Observation of a phenomenon is not positive proof of the phenomenon and what he says stands. > [@](#): > > Yes, and speciation would be a RESULT of a mechanism, not a mechanism itself. The mechanism for speciation is mutation, adaptation and selection. Yawn. Cite! You repeat this assertion ad nauseum, that doesn’t make it true. Show us your evidence. I’ve provided references showing that you are wrong. Can you now pleas present your evidence, or are you just spouting off about shit you don’t understand? > [@](#): > > It is not true that theories cannot be confirmed as facts. > [@](#): > > Speciation is a _result_ of the mechanism. It is not the mechanism itself. Same assertion repeated yet again. Still no reference to support it. Speciation is a phenomenon which is caused by preveious phenomena. Which still doesn’t answer the question, which was for a reference that defines speciation as an event _rather than_ a process or development. All you’ve done is provide a reference that shows that speciation can be an event as well as a process. Now if you can show that the terms are mutually exclusive you won’t be wasting our time. > [@](#): > > In this case, they are synonymous. No, they aren’t. Gee, I can argue form assertion too. > [@](#): > > You did not observe David Copperfield flying. In science “observation” means more than just sensory perception. Does it really? Do tell? > [@](#): > > Water has never boiled once? No, that’s incorrect. > [@](#): > > If it can be repeatedly observed that under certain condition that water will boil, then it is a fact that water boils. Cite! Once more, all you do is keep repeating the same assertion with no actual evidence. Saying that there are conditions under which water will not boil does not erase that fact that water boils under other conditions. > [@](#): > > You are parsing the language in this discussion to such an inane degree that you are effectively making it impossible to have a rational dialogue. When you contribute something more than your own baseless assertions to this discussion you can start commenting on what is meaningful. So far you have provided nothing. You won’t even comment on the fact I have shown your claims regarding macro-evolution being mechanistically ident8icla to micro to be so much bull plop. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/73 "2005-12-22T06:24:15Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html) > > Looks like the FISA court is a little problematic given the President’s new claims. If he can just bypass them, why do they exist? Seems like a giant waste of everyone’s time, not to mention tainting all the previous warrants. Totaly harmless, folks! I know that GWB supports ID (and probably Creationism), but I doubt that he will try to quash supporters of science using FISA. Different thread, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/74 "2005-12-22T06:34:59Z")
Er, oops. Wrong meeting! Anyway: facts are facts. In science, like all knowledge, facts are open to challenge if better evidence comes along showing they were misread, misreported, misconstrued, etc. But facts are facts in science, not theories. Facts are the evidence you use to prove theories. Sometimes, theories are needed to help find ways to establish facts. But common descent is a fact (a historical one). Natural selection is a theory. And thus both will always remain: natural selection will never become a “fact” (other than it being a fact that it occurs). One thing often forgotten in the goofy contortions needed to scold scientists for using terms like “proved” or “fact” is that it is scientists who are using the everyday sense of the word, and their critics who are trying to equivocate in concepts foriegn to the everyday usage. Scientists get facts in exactly the same way that we regularly observe and call things facts in everyday lief: we observe them, or have very strong inferential evidence, and so on. Could we be wrong? Of course, always! But that isn’t a bar from stating that something is a fact or that some theory is proven. Not in everyday life. And not in science. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/75 "2005-12-22T06:43:32Z")
Evolution certainly does happen. Why, I remember when this thread was a debate, as far as the eye could see. [hwaak, spit] Ayep. Back in those days we useta debate about whether ‘twas right or not t’ ban Intelligent Design, y’know. 'Course, I 'member back when I useta speak with good grammblar, too, only I ain’t on accounta that evolution stuff agin. [puff pipe] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/76 "2005-12-22T07:02:54Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Diogenes the Cynic, > > I see that you waffled much in that post, but you still haven’t provided any actual evidence to support nay of your claims. It’s all argument form assertion with no support at all. You can’t use your assertions to support your earlier assertions. Give me something of substance to support your claims. I’ve supported every claim I’ve made. You continued demands for “cites” are becoming ridiculous. > [@](#): > > [Cite!](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22speciation+is+a+process%22&btnG=Search&meta=) > > “ **Speciation as a Gradual Process** ” > [The Process of Speciation](http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html) > > “The **process of speciation is a 2 stage process** in which reproductive isolating mechanisms (RIM’s) arise between groups of populations.” > www.agron.iastate.edu/~weeds/AG517/Content/ChangeCommun/speciation.html > > “Allopatric speciation ( **a process** that potentially generates new species through physical separation of populations) is the best documented and is perhaps the easiest isolation process to illustrate.”PapkeR.T & Ward, D.M. 2004 “The importance of physical isolation to microbial diversification” FEMS Microbrial ecology. 48:3 > > “The radiation of the East African cichlid fishes has engaged biologists for over a century. Because so much taxonomic diversity has evolved recently, they are an ideal natural system in which to study **the process of speciation.** ” Markert, J.A., Danley, P.D., Arnegard, M. E. 2001 “New markers for new species: microsatellite loci and the East African cichlids” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16:2 > For the love of Pete, do you have any idea about the actual science involved in this subject? Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim that speciation isn’t a process? I don’t know why I keep responding to this stuff. Speciation is not a mechanism. Calling it a “process” does not make it a mechanism. A mechanism is HOW something occurs. Speciation is not a HOW, it’s a WHAT. > [@](#): > > Bollocks. I’ve already provided references showing that it is a mechanism. Now how about you providing evidence to support your claim that it is not? No, you’ve provided quotations which refer to it as a “process.” That’s a completely different thing. Water becoming ice is a “process.” It is not a mechanism. > [@](#): > > Cite! I don’t have to provide a cite that an “observed phenomenon” is a “fact.” Your objection to using those terms synonomously is unworthy of any further discussion and does not prove you right about anything. > [@](#): > > Suits me. Changes things not one bit. In that case, I’ll keep saying “fact.” For the purpose of this discussion I have defined "fact: as “observed phenomenon.” [qupte]I see. I prove that DtC is spouting ignorant tripe and has no facts to support what he declares so boldly to be ‘fact’, and then it becomes worthless sophiostry. [/quote] You havn’t proven any such thing, dude. All you’ve done is argue incessantly about terminology and expose a complete lack of knowledge as to the actual FACTS. > [@](#): > > Buddy, proving that someone dishonest and propagating ignorance is not worthless sophistry. It is alarge part of why we are here, remember? Fighting ignorance, not disseminating it. Please. You’re embarrassing yourself. You’re getting stomped, in case you havn’t noticed. > [@](#): > > DTC has gone from challenging **spingears** claim that there no proof positive that macro evolution with a retort that macroevolution is a fact to his current rather lame position that Speciation is an observed phenomenon. This is really silly. I suggested a change in terminology simply as an attempt to get the discussion back on course and away from your sophist equivocating. There is no substantive difference between saying something is a “fact,” and saying it’s an “observed phenomenon.” Speciation is a fact. Deal with that honestly instead of…whatever it is you’re doing. I don’t even know. > [@](#): > > Yawn. I doubt that **springears** will even bother to challenge that claim since it doesn’t even contradict what he said. Observation of a phenomenon is not positive proof of the phenomenon Um…actually, that’s EXACTLY what it is. > [@](#): > > and what he says stands. No it doesn’t. Sorry. Yawn. Cite! You repeat this assertion ad nauseum, that doesn’t make it true. Show us your evidence. I’ve provided references showing that you are wrong. Can you now pleas present your evidence, or are you just spouting off about shit you don’t understand? [/quote] I’m done trying to explain the difference to you. If you can’t understand that speciation does not occur “by speciation,” then I can’t help you. You simply aren’t tracking the conversation and you’re wasting my time. > [@](#): > > Which still doesn’t answer the question, which was for a reference that defines speciation as an event _rather than_ a process or development. There is no contradiction between the two. There is no reason that an event cannot be a process. > [@](#): > > All you’ve done is provide a reference that shows that speciation can be an event as well as a process. Now if you can show that the terms are mutually exclusive you won’t be wasting our time. They’re NOT mutually exclusive. What is mutally exclusive is an event and a _mechanism_. Speciation is a WHAT, a mechanism is a HOW. Speciation is not a HOW. To say it is would be to say that speciation is an explanation of ITSELF. A statement that would make no sense at all. > [@](#): > > Does it really? Do tell? Yes, really. Scientific “observation” means that something is confirmed through a variety of tools under controlled conditions. > [@](#): > > No, that’s incorrect. Then why did you say it? > [@](#): > > When you contribute something more than your own baseless assertions to this discussion you can start commenting on what is meaningful. So far you have provided nothing. You won’t even comment on the fact I have shown your claims regarding macro-evolution being mechanistically ident8icla to micro to be so much bull plop. You’ve shown nohing of the sort. All you’ve done is raise nonsensical semantic objections, ignore cited facts and expose your own near complete ignorance of scientific terminology. How are you doing on explaining those retrogenes? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/77 "2005-12-22T07:13:12Z")
Is this a new creationist strategy or something? To simply deny there are any such thing as facts? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/78 "2005-12-22T07:21:29Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Enough of this nonsense already. I’m no longer going to respond to it. I find it immature and evasive. Translation: I’ve been called on the issue and can’t find anything to support my outrageous claims. > [@](#): > > Neither of those things are theories. Please look up the definiton of the word theory if you do nothing else. How about you start providing something for a change? You’ve brought nothing but incorrect information and baseless opinion to this thread so far. > [@](#): > > What questions did I duck? :rolleyes: Oh dear, not this disingenuous trick. The questions that I prefaced with “A couple of simple questions Diogenes.” Do a phrase search and you will find them. They aren’t hidden. You ducked them and never bothered to answer them, instead starting with the now thoroughly discredited lie that speciation isn’t a process or mechanism. Now that we’ve thoroughly established that speciation is a process and mechanism perhaps you can answer them? > [@](#): > > Only theories start out as hypotheses. Laws start as observations. Cite! Let me guess, this is more baseless assertion on your part that you won’t be able to support, right? But let’s play the game. How does a scientist making an observation know if they heading towards a law or a theory? It seems they would need to know w a priori to avoid passing through hypothesis at any stage. > [@](#): > > [a hypothesis such as “the freezing point of water” becomes a fact] As soon as it’s observed. That’s handy. So what if I hypothesis that David Copperfield can fly. Is that now a fact because I observed it? > [@](#): > > I think you better go kick your ducks in the ass then, because they don’t seem to be helping you at all. Well let’s see, I thoroughly discredited your claim that there is no mnechanistic difference between macro and micro evolution with refernces. I thoroughly discredited your repeated assertion that speciation is not a process, with references. At this point I’d say I’ve won every point because of those ducks. I’m still waiting to see you provide anything at al but your baseless opinion. > [@](#): > > Process and mechanism are two different things. Process is _what_. mechanism is _how_. Cite!. I’ve provided references that contradict this. A mechanism is any process that produces a result accor9idng to the definition provided. Can you tell us what bizarre world dictionary you are pulling these defintion from Diogenes? > [@](#): > > To call speciation a “mechanism” in itself is to say that speciation occurs by speciation. Cite! To call speciation a “mechanism” in itself is simply to say that speciation is a process that produces something, most obviously new species. > [@](#): > > Do you know what retrogenes are? If you did you wouldn’t be so cocky. They are the smoking gun for macroevolution. Yes I do know what retrogenes are. Now I;m waiting for the relevance to be introduced to this apparent red herring. > [@](#): > > Ask and you shall receive. [Irreftable confirmation of speciation from genetic evidence](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html). No, you said the evidence was unequivocal. Once more I suspect you wanted to use a word that seemed to brook no argument but didn’t actually know what it means. Unequivocal means that it allows no doubt whatsoever. That evidence still allows for doubt. I have doubts about it, albeit small doubts. Now can you provide unequivocal evidence as you claimed, or were you once more talking rubbish when you said you had such evidence? Pal I suggest that you not use absolutes like “unequivocal” and “fact” unless you know what they actually mean. Try using words like “compelling” instead. You won’t look so much like you’re making bluffing with no hand, which you clearly are. > [@](#): > > Scroll down especially to the section on endogenous retroviruse. If you can explain how that can happen without macroevolution there’s a Nobel Prize in it for you. I eagerly await your rebuttal. Yes of course, I said that I could explai that. Oh hang on, no I didn’t. So this is one massive freakin’ strawman isn’t it. > [@](#): > > I told you, I am no longer going to respond to this sophistry. I see. You make a claim, I ask for a reference and you say it’s sophistry so you don’t need to produce. Don’t think that fools anyone. You clearly have nothing. > [@](#): > > You did. You said that speciation was a “theory.” I was attempting to explain the difference between scientific theories and observed phenomena. And I knew what that distinction is so no, I didn’t say it and the whole thing is a strawman. Now can you produce some actual evidence for your claims? > [@](#): > > Cite for what? A reference for your claim that speciation is not a theory. A reference for your claim that speciation is not a process. A reference for your claim that speciation is not a mechanism. That will do for a start. You’ve repeated those claims ad nauseum, they form the basis of your argument, yet they have been refuted by reputable references and you can produce nothing to support the claims. Is that what you were looking for? If not, then what do you want a cite for? > [@](#): > > If you are going to insist on waving your hands at the word “fact,” then we can’t really continue a dialogue. I just want one simple reference that any authority in the whole world agree with your contention that speciation is a fact. I’ve already provided numeporus references from reputable sources which say that there are no facts in science This isn’t handwaving, it’s trying to determine if you have any basis at all for what you say. Given your track record I’d have to conclude that you made it up form whole cloth. > [@](#): > > Cite? Show me a cite which shows a mechanistic difference. How about Erwin again? “The empirical distribution of evolutionary novelties through time suggests that the origin of evolutionary innovation may be distinct form much of traditional microevolution”. How much plainer do you want it? The origin of the innovation is distinct between macro and microevolution. > [@](#): > > What mechanistically distinguishes a speciating adaptation from any other adaptation? There are any number of possibilities including the level of selection, the heritability of non-genetic traits such as geography, the loss of even beneficial phenotypes through inter-clade sorting, the mechanisms of morphological variation and the selection of traits that aren’t emergent at the level of selection. > [@](#): > > More to the point. what mechanistic _barrier_ exists to prevent “micro” from becoming “macro?” None AFAIK, but once again you are weaseling. You never said that no barrier exists, you said they were mechanistically the same. This is not the case. > [@](#): > > There is an unexplained reference to “discontinuities” at the bottom of your quote, but it doesn’t say what those discontinuities are or how they relate to the mechanisms of mutation and adaptation. I am neither able nor wiling to quote the whole article for you. Now you can go out there and read it yourself. I can provide you with numerous others that also state quite clearly that macroevolution and microevolution are not mechanistically identical. The point you should be noting is that the article exists. You made a statement in profound ignorance of the current state of the actual science. > [@](#): > > It sure as hell did not say anything about a mechanistic _barrier_ between the two events. This is such a blatant strawman I can hardly be bothered addressing it. Nobody said that a barrier existed. You however claimed that the two were mechanistically the same, this has now been well established not to be the case and you have been unable to provide any evidence to support your claim. > [@](#): > > You’re going to have to do better than that, dude. Yes, when you say that macroevolution and microevolution are mechanistically identical, and I provide an article actually entiltled “macroevolution is not repeated rounds of microevolution” that says “the origin of evolutionary innovation may be distinct from much of traditional microevolution” , I can see how I would need to do better. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > If it happens once, doesn’t that disprove your assertion that speciation is not a fact Begging the question. If it is a fact that it happens of course it is afact that it happens. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that it is a fact that it happens, which of course you can not do. > [@](#): > > They provide irrefutable evidence of macroevolution No buddy. Nothing in science can be irrefutable. As soon as it isn’t open to refutation it ceases to be science. They provide compelling evidence. You really need to stop using these blanket words to bluff with. …something you seem to be claiming has not been proven. If you accept the scientific evidence and are only picking some kind of abstract semantic or epistemological point then it isn’t really possible to have a scientific discussion. > [@](#): > > No you haven’t Yes, I have. If the origin of novel evolutionary traits at a species level is distinct from microevolution then by definition the process that originated them (the mechanism) is distinct. > [@](#): > > …. once you conced that microevolution occurs, the burden shifts to you to show that something would mechanistically prevent macroevolution from occurring. Macro is proved by micro. The ball is in your court. Absolute nonsense and a total strawman. Nobody ever claimed that anything mechanistaically prevents macroevolution for occurring. You OTOH did claim that the process that produces to microevolution is identical to the process that produces to macroevolution. Now I’ve provided a reference that shows that is not the case. Please provide your reference for your claim that they are mechanistically identical. Of course I; have long since realised that you are unable to do so. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/79 "2005-12-22T07:40:48Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Is this a new creationist strategy or something? To simply deny there are any such thing as facts? Postmodern critical theory comes homes to roost. It seems to be the fashion among conservatives of all stripes these days. Curse those French intellectuals! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/80 "2005-12-22T07:45:10Z")
> [@](#): > > How does a scientist making an observation know if they heading towards a law or a theory? It seems they would need to know w a priori to avoid passing through hypothesis at any stage. Laws don’t generally explain anything. They are just observations of either constants or simple relationships that are, to the best of everyone’s knowledge, universal. Setting out to prove that something is a law is a pretty different task than advancing a theory for how something works, even at the most speculative stage of hypothesis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508.md?page=5)