# 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:** 5
**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, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/81 "2005-12-22T07:55:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’ve supported every claim I’ve made. Humour me then. Repost the reference for your claim that speciation is not a process. Repost the reference for your claim that speciation is not a mechanism. Repost the reference for your claim that macroevolution is mechnaistaically identical to microevolution. Of course you never provided any such references and your claim to have supported every claim you made is simply dishonest, as I’m sure everyone following is well aware. You have not supported nay of those claims, nor are you able to. > [@](#): > > I don’t know why I keep responding to this stuff. I don;t know why you can’t provide the references I keep asking for. Oh hang on, yes I do. > [@](#): > > Speciation is not a mechanism. Cite! Of course you also repeatedly said it wasn’t a process, and I’ve conclusively proved that claim \*that you repeated at least 7 times) was ignorant tripe. Not that you are honest enough to acknowledge that. > [@](#): > > Calling it a “process” does not make it a mechanism. Cite!. I’ve provided references that show that a mechanism is a process that produces something. Speciation produces something, ergo it is a mechanism. Do you have a reference that supports your claims now? > [@](#): > > Speciation is not a HOW, it’s a WHAT. Cite. > [@](#): > > No, you’ve provided quotations which refer to it as a “process.” So why did you sat\y no les than 7 times that speciation wasn’t a process? Are you admitting that you made it up every time you repeated that assertion? > [@](#): > > That’s a completely different thing. Water becoming ice is a “process.” It is not a mechanism. You seem to have some bizarre idea that the two terms are mutually exclusive. It can be both. Water becoming ice is a process if it produces something, eg ice broken rocks. Water becoming ice is the mechanism by which rocks are shattered on cold nights. > [@](#): > > I don’t have to provide a cite that an “observed phenomenon” is a “fact.” Yeah, you do. Otherwise you’re just making stuff up. Of course we already know you made up all that stuff about speciation not being a process. > [@](#): > > Your objection to using those terms synonomously is unworthy of any further discussion and does not prove you right about anything. Translation: I’ve been proven to be making stuff up, every reference so far produced shows I am immensely ignorant of this subject. I’m outta here. > [@](#): > > For the purpose of this discussion I have defined "fact: as “observed phenomenon.” Now you have yes. That’s moving the goalposts. A classic weasel tactics. > [@](#): > > Please. You’re embarrassing yourself. You’re getting stomped, in case you havn’t noticed. Yeah, I can sse that. I’ve provided every reference you requested, answered every question you asked clearly and succinctly, have provided numerous references proving that you are ,makng stuff up (you still claiming that speciation isn’t a process?) You have provided nothing at all to support your outrageous claims. Your best effort was a talk.origins link that apparently doesn’t permit any doubt at all, of any kind. Not real likely is it? Yep, I’m being stomped 😃 > [@](#): > > There is no substantive difference between saying something is a “fact,” and saying it’s an “observed phenomenon.” :rolleyes: Of course there isn’t. > [@](#): > > Speciation is a fact. What, like you said speciation isn’t a process? Like you said that macroevolution is mechanistically identical to micro? Diogenes you haven’t exactly done anything to give the impression that you have any knowledge in this area. You are quite clearly prepared to make stuff up to bolster your position, even when it is as easily disproved as your claim that speciation isn’t a process. Why should anyone believe your claim that speciation is a fact when you can’t provide any references and I have provided numerous references stating explicitely that there are no facts in science? > [@](#): > > 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? > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. And there we have it folks. I think I can declare myself the victor here by GD rules. I asked DtC for a reference for his claim. I provided multiple references that contradicted the claim, And his only resposnse is “I can’t help you” I believe that delivers this point to moi. > [@](#): > > There is no contradiction between the two. There is no reason that an event cannot be a process. In that case why did you attempt to respond to my request for evidence for tomndebs claim that speciation as an event rather than a process? Time wasting and obfuscation I suspect. > [@](#): > > What is mutally exclusive is an event and a _mechanism_. There simply aren’t enough :rolleyes: to do this justice Can anyone not see how stupid this is? The invasion of Iraq was an event. According to DtCs bizarro world definitions it therefore can not be also be the mechanism by which Hussein was deposed. Going through a doorway is an event. According to DtCs bizarro world definitions it therefore can not be also be the mechanism by which someone enters a building. > [@](#): > > 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. You repeat this assertion a lot, much like your repeated assertion that speciation isn’t a process. Was that repeated baseless assertion right? No, that;right I proved it wriong with multiple references. So why should we believe this unsubstantiated claim? This is just argument from assertion. I’ve asked for references and you can’t provide them. > [@](#): > > Yes, really. Scientific “observation” means that something is confirmed through a variety of tools under controlled conditions. What, like speciation doesn’t mean event? Oh hang on, you repated that a lot with no references either, and it was wrong. Cite for this claim please. > [@](#): > > Then why did you say it? I didn’t. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes. Like your claims that pushing a light switch is an event, so it can’t also be the mechanism that illuminates a room. Bwah hah hah hah > [@](#): > > How are you doing on explaining those retrogenes? Already explained everything that was pertinent, remember? If you have any more specific relevant questions then I will be happy to answer them ---
**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, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/82 "2005-12-22T07:56:58Z")
**Blake** , have scientists observed instances of speciation? ---
**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, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/83 "2005-12-22T08:06:38Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > 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. Do you have anything to support this, or is this just your opinion? I posted several links to reputable websites saying there are [no facts in science](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22no+facts+in+science%22+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search&meta=). How do you respond to them? > [@](#): > > 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. Once again, anything to support this claim? > [@Apos](#): > > 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. But this doesn’t actually answer the question. In this case Charlie observes multiple species. He “conjectures” that species come about by separating from other species. So to follow DtCs idea he isn’t allowed to ever allow that to become the hypothesis of speciation otherwise it can never become the fact of speciation. So how does Charlie making an observation know if he is heading towards a law of speciation of or a theory of speciation? It seems he would need to know a priori to avoid passing through hypothesis at any stage. Now, if laws don’t explain anything, and [speciation explains diversification](http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0045-8511&volume=004&issue=04&page=0926) then doesn’t that suggest that speciation is in fact a theory or hypothesis and not a law at all? ---
**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, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/84 "2005-12-22T08:08:40Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > **Blake** , have scientists observed instances of speciation? This question has already been answered at least twice. Better to do a search. ---
**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, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/85 "2005-12-22T08:13:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > This question has already been answered at least twice. Better to do a search. I’m asking you. Have scientists observed instances in which descendents of a common ancestor are no longer able to interbreed, i.e. speciation? A simple yes or no will suffice. ---
**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, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/86 "2005-12-22T08:14:55Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > And there we have it folks. I think I can declare myself the victor here by GD rules. Good. You win. I don’t know **what** you win, because frankly, it didn’t bear any resemblance to the debate started by the OP. Happen to remember what that was, or do I have to cite it for you? ---
**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, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/87 "2005-12-22T08:18:08Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > I’m asking you. Have scientists observed instances in which descendents of a common ancestor are no longer able to interbreed, i.e. speciation? > > A simple yes or no will suffice. And I have already answered this question. Forgive my apparent rudeness but I would like to see some evidence that you have actually read my posts, since by asking this question it seems clear you have not. I don’t wish to cover exactly the same ground again. If you have any questions I haven’t explicitely answered already I will gladly address them. A simple cursory reading of the material will suffice. ---
**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, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/88 "2005-12-22T08:22:06Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > And I have already answered this question. > > Forgive my apparent rudeness but I would like to see some evidence that you have actually read my posts, since by asking this question it seems clear you have not. I don’t wish to cover exactly the same ground again. If you have any questions I haven’t explicitely answered already I will gladly address them. > > A simple cursory reading of the material will suffice. Goodness, so many words! Really, you don’t have to type so much! Next time, just type “yes” or “no”. It’s much, much quicker! Have scientists observed instances in which descendents of a common ancestor are no longer able to interbreed, i.e. speciation? ---
**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, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/89 "2005-12-22T08:24:39Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Good. You win. I don’t know **what** you win, because frankly, it didn’t bear any resemblance to the debate started by the OP. Happen to remember what that was, or do I have to cite it for you? You’re right. It was instead a continuation of a hijack that was already 24 hours old before I even entered. Call me old fashioned but when I see DtC posting ignorant nonsense on this forum I will step in to correct that with references as I have done here. Somehting about fighting ignorance. What I win of course is a tiny victory in that battle. DtC has stopped repeatedly claiming that speciation isn’t a process, that’s a victory since the claim was ignorant nonsense. He has hopefully stopped claiming that there is no mechanistic difference between macro and micro evolution, if so that will be a victory. I cerytainly hope he won’t repeat his claim that somehting that is an event (like eating a chocloate bar) can’t also be a mechanism for something like weight gain. That will therfore be a victory. My apologies for perpetrating the hijack, it was bad manners, but in mitigation I will plead that it was already well developed before I entered. ---
**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, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/90 "2005-12-22T08:28:15Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Goodness, so many words! Really, you don’t have to type so much! Next time, just type “yes” or “no”. It’s much, much quicker! It’s not the typing I object to, it’s the fact that I know I will then have to cover still more ground already covered, since you clearly haven’t read my posts if you didn’t see my reposnse to that quetsion first time around. If you don’t have the politeness or enthusiasm to read what I’ve already contributed then you will have to wait for someone else to answer your question. Sorry. You may get a response faster if you post it in GQ. ---
**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, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/91 "2005-12-22T08:31:46Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > 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. Yeah, I forgot to “sea level”. The point is that we have a theory of what physical parameters control the boiling point of water. We can say "it is a fact that water boils under x, y, z physical parameters. We recognize that we can continue to refine the parameters, but that is as much a matter of our ability to measure these parameters as our ability to specify them. It’s a silly semantic game to say that there are no facts. ---
**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, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/92 "2005-12-22T08:32:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It’s not the typing I object to, it’s the fact that I know I will then have to cover still more ground already covered, since you clearly haven’t read my posts if you didn’t see my reposnse to that quetsion first time around. > > If you don’t have the politeness or enthusiasm to read what I’ve already contributed then you will have to wait for someone else to answer your question. Sorry. > > You may get a response faster if you post it in GQ. Why the fencing? I’ve read your posts, but I can’t find where you’ve answered this question. Have scientists observed instances in which descendents of a common ancestor are no longer able to interbreed, i.e. speciation? ---
**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, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/93 "2005-12-22T08:42:02Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Translation: I’ve been called on the issue and can’t find anything to support my outrageous claims. No. I haven’t been "called’ on anything. I’m just sick of playing along with a childish game. > [@](#): > > How about you start providing something for a change? You’ve brought nothing but incorrect information and baseless opinion to this thread so far. I’ve supported everything I’ve said. Screaming “Cite!” everytime I say that a fact is a fact is just a waste of bandwidth. > [@](#): > > :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? Are these the questions you were referring to? > [@](#): > > If, as you claim, speciation is proven fact doesn’t that mean that there is no possibility of it being discovered to be false? > > If the potential exists that it may one day be shown to be untrue doesn’t that mean that it is not a proven fact? I didn’t duck them, I just answered them in a block by explaining to you that speciation is not a theory and so does not require falsification. In order to refute your completely misplaced sense of having backed me down somehow, I will answer both of those questions now. 1. Yes. It is impossible for speciation not to be an observed fact. 2, The potential does not exist. Happy. > [@](#): > > Cite! > > Let me guess, this is more baseless assertion on your part that you won’t be able to support, right? You want a cite for the definition of a scientific law? Fine. [Knock yourself out.](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=define%25) > [@](#): > > ``` > * 1. A natural phenomenon that has been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met. 2. A formal statement describing such a phenomenon and the conditions under which it occurs. Also called law. > college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/s.html > > * A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met. Examples of scientific laws: Faraday’s Law of electromagnetic induction, Coulomb’s Law of electrostatic attraction, Dalton’s Law of partial pressures, Boyle’s Gas Law. > www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html > > * a statement describing an observed regularity. Laws describe rather than explain. A law may be either quantitative (including measurement) or qualitative (general characteristics). It must describe evidence that has been gathered using acceptable scientific standards of reproducibility. > www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/chemistry/mission2mars/contents/glossary/s.htm > > * A rule that describes, but doesn't explain, a pattern in nature and predicts what will happen under specific conditions. > jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm > > * A summary of experimental data; often expressed in the form of a mathematical equation or a statement. > www.hillsdale.edu/AcademicAssociations/Chemistry/science101/gloss4.html > > * A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations. Laws of nature are conclusions drawn from, or hypotheses confirmed by scientific experiments. The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is the fundamental aim of science. Laws of nature are distinct from legal code and religious Law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law > > ``` Notice how every definition says that scientific laws start with OBSERVATIONS. They do not start with hypotheses. Do you even know what a hypothesis IS? > [@](#): > > 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. It’s quite simple. A law describes WHAT is being observed. A theory explains WHY. What is so difficult about understanding that? You don’t have to hypothesize a damn thing to get a law. All you have to do is observe it. Laws do not necessitate explanations in order to be called laws. Before you scream “Cite!.” you should know that this is Junior High school level science. Try googling the definition of “scientific theory” and see how it compares to the definition of a scientific law. > [@](#): > > That’s handy. So what if I hypothesis that David Copperfield can fly. Is that now a fact because I observed it? No, because you didn’t observe it. > [@](#): > > Well let’s see, I thoroughly discredited your claim that there is no mnechanistic difference between macro and micro evolution with refernces. No, actually, you didn’t. > [@](#): > > I thoroughly discredited your repeated assertion that speciation is not a process, with references. My assertion is that speciation is not a MECHANISM. > [@](#): > > Cite!. > > I’ve provided references that contradict this. A mechanism is any process that produces a result accor9idng to the definition provided. Speciation IS the result. Speciation IS the result. Speciation IS the result. The mechanism is HOW. You don’t know what you’re talking about > [@](#): > > Can you tell us what bizarre world dictionary you are pulling these defintion from Diogenes? What have I defined incorrectly? > [@](#): > > Cite! > To call speciation a “mechanism” in itself is simply to say that speciation is a process that produces something, most obviously new species. The production of a new species s called SPECIATION. Speciation IS the result. It is not the mechanism. Speciation does not cause itself. > [@](#): > > Yes I do know what retrogenes are. Now I;m waiting for the relevance to be introduced to this apparent red herring. You asked for unequivocal genetic evidence of macroevolution. Retrogenes provide that evidence. You asked for a cite, I gave it to you and now you’re claiming it’s irrelevant (probably because you don’t understand it). > [@](#): > > No, you said the evidence was unequivocal. And it is. > [@](#): > > 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. Retrogenes allow no rational doubt whatsoever. > [@](#): > > 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. Retrogenes are unequivocal evidence. If you disagree, tell me why. Tell me where they leave room for doubt. The FACT is, you asked for unequivocal evidence and I gave it to you. Checkmate. Case closed. Game over. I don’t blame you for running away from it. Your protestations are themselves, just lame equivocations. > [@](#): > > 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. Yoiu said I couldn’t produce evidence that was unequivocal. I produced retrogenes. If you think the evidence can be refuted, explain why. Otherwise, my cite stands. I supported my claim. > [@](#): > > I see. You make a claim, I ask for a reference and you say it’s sophistry so you don’t need to produce. When you ask for a cite that an observed event is a fact, then yes, you are engaging in sophistry and no cite needs to be provided. This entire tack is just an evasive tactic on your part so that you don’t have to actually address any evidence. > [@](#): > > And I knew what that distinction is so no, I didn’t say it and the whole thing is a strawman. You DID say it and you obviously DON"T know what the distinction is. > [@](#): > > A reference for your claim that speciation is not a theory. This is ridiculous. You don’t know what the word theory means.Here is the first definition from Google: > [@](#): > > An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. Speciation is not an EXPLANATION for anything. Get it? Speciation is a WHAT, not a WHY. > [@](#): > > A reference for your claim that speciation is not a process. I didn’t say that. > [@](#): > > A reference for your claim that speciation is not a mechanism. It doesn’t match the definition of “mechanism.” Speciation is not an explanation for itself. > [@](#): > > 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. They’ve been refuted by nothing but your total ignorance of the terminology. > [@](#): > > 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. This is childish, desperate equivocating, > [@](#): > > 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. That doesn’t say anything about a mechanistic difference between micro and macro evolution and it’s completely devoid of context or explanation. > [@](#): > > 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. All your doing is citing various mechanistic affects on evolution in general. None of those factors are unique to _macro_, although they can _lead_ to macro, they are not _required_ for macro to occur and speciation still occurs through micro. > [@](#): > > 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. You have provided no evidence to the contrary and the context of my original post in that was responding to common creationist canard that “micro” occurs but not “macro.” The _implication_ in that statement is that there is a _barrier_, and that’s what I was responding to. > [@](#): > > 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. Well maybe some other part of the article backs up your claims because nithing you quoted does any such thing. > [@](#): > > 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. If it’s directly observed then it’s a fact that it happens. > [@](#): > > 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. Desperate, sweaty handwaving. > [@](#): > > 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. Erwin said that “may” be true, he didn’t say it WAS true and your quote lacked any further explanation so it’s kind of hard to respond to just one sentence. I suspect that the article does not really claim what you think it claims, nor would a single (seemingly) speculative article be proof of anything anway. > [@](#): > > Absolute nonsense and a total strawman. Nobody ever claimed that anything > 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. [There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html) ---
**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, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/94 "2005-12-22T08:47:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s a silly semantic game to say that there are no facts. No, IMO it’s a crucial distinction. A fact is immutably true. When people use and hear the word “fact” they therefore tend assume that it is immutably true. Fact as you are using it is somehting that changes regularly and will almost certainly change again within the next 100 years based on the track record of science. This isn’t a silly sematic game, it’s an important pratcical distinction. Let me put it like this. If I said to someone “It is a fact that Negroes are a separate race”, as I would have done only 50 years ago based on your usage of the word fact, do you think that would produce any more or less reaction than if I said “Evidence suggests that Negroes are a separate race”? Your usage of fact also leads us into the problematic area of when we define somehting as fact. Is germ theory of disease a fact? Do you think people would react differently if they were told that it wasn’t a scientific fact? Is global warming a fact? Do you think people would react differently if they were told that it was a scientific fact? Is the overkill hypothesis a fact? Do you think people would react differently if they were told that it was a scientific fact? So where do you think we should delineate fact and theory? And who do you think should get to decide? By allowing the use of the word fact we get the type of abuse of the wrod that DtC tried to utilise. When somone says that something is incontrovertibly proven (as is the case with all things in science) he repsponded that it was fact and was incontrovertibly proven in an attempt to quash argument. That’s not healthy. ---
**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, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/95 "2005-12-22T09:05:19Z")
**Diogenes** , I suspect \*\*Blake \*\* is operating from the epistomological position that all “truths” in science are constructed from potentially unreliable sensory evidence. So, for example, it’s not strictly correct to say that it’s a “fact” that a pot of water boils when heated. Our eyes receive a pattern of photons consistent with the “theory” that the water is boiling, but, like all theories in science it’s truth value is provisional and subject to falsification. (e.g. perhaps we’re merely looking at a very accurate movie of a pot of boiling water.) While this level of epistomological rigor may sometimes be useful to remind us that experimental procedures provide only evidence and not absolute truth, it hardly seems worth the energy that’s been expended in this thread. Scientists have observed speciation many times. Yes, it’s possible their brains misinterpreted the sensory evidence presented to them. Perhaps their experimental methodologies were flawed. The “fact” that speciation has been observed is provisional, just as the “fact” that the sun rose yesterday morning is provisional. **Blake** , have I accurately stated your position? ---
**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, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/96 "2005-12-22T09:07:05Z")
Diogenes , First off, thank you for your talk.origins reference at the end of your last post. It took along time but you got there. So now we know where you got the idea that micro and macro evolutionary processes are the same. Fair enough. Nonetheless I have provided evidence that disputes the claim, and frankly peer reviewed journals trump websites IMO, even one as reputable as talk.origins. In this matter we must agree to differ and let spectators make up their own mind. I still maintain in concordance with Erwin and other references that I will provide for you if you wish, that microevolutionary processes can _not_ (or at leats may not) explain macroevolutionary changes.you have proven yourself to be incapable of enegaing honetsly in this debate. Beyond that I have asked for references for your other claims numerous times, you refuse to provide them yet still construct your entire argument on the very assertion you have refused to support. Worse yet you persist in doing so even when I post references showing that your claims are objectively wrong (speciation is not a process) or arguments showing how silly your position is (opening a door is an event and thus can’t be a mechanism to enter a building). You won’t even acknowledge that those assertions on your part are wrong. Worse yet you persist in claiming that you have provided every reference I requested when quite clearly you have not. You have refused multiple times to provide refercnes for the majority of tour claims. (For those lurkers interested, try to fond where DtC provided a reference for his repeated assertion that speciation is not a process). Your extremely long and rambling posts are nothing more than argument from assertion. You can’t support any of the assertions with anything. You have in short shown that you are full of much bluster but little substance, and that you are dishonest as well. I make that claim of dishonesty because it is so easy to point out that I have requested a refercnce for several claims that you have never produced, yet you have claimed multiple times to have provided all references requested. That is a lie. When you have something more to your argument than endless repitaion of argument from assertion then I will take you seriously. Untiil then so long as you don’t rpeat any new ignorant nonsense I will leave you to your devices and spingears if he can be bothered. I see no point in trying to engage you when all you have is empty assertions along the lines of “Speciation isn’t a process.” I have provided references showing that there are no facts in science. I have provided references showing that speciation is a process and that speciation is an event. If anyone still wishes to believe your empty claims to the contrary then I really can’t help much by inviting you to repeat them endlessly, which is all you ever do. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/97 "2005-12-22T09:09:06Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Have scientists observed instances in which descendents of a common ancestor are no longer able to interbreed, i.e. speciation? Yes, as long as we don’t insist on a kindergarten definition of ‘observe’ (i.e. that it was witnessed first-hand by a human being in real time) - Endogenous Retroviral Insertions are a class of observations, as are things like bioregiography, embryology, other genetic analyses, morphological studies of the fossil record etc. Quite apart from that, speciation _has_ been observed in several instances in real time - there’s a discussion of the topic [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) - but the point is that observation, in a scientific context simply isn’t restricted to real-time scrutiny by a human being. In fact I will argue that there is and can be no such thing as direct, contemporaneous observation; _ **every single thing** _ we observe is separated from us by time, space and the resolution of our apparatus; it is merely a question of degree. ---
**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, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/98 "2005-12-22T09:17:52Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Yes, as long as we don’t insist on a kindergarten definition of ‘observe’ (i.e. that it was witnessed first-hand by a human being in real time) - Endogenous Retroviral Insertions are a class of observations, as are things like bioregiography, embryology, other genetic analyses, morphological studies of the fossil record etc. > > Quite apart from that, speciation _has_ been observed in several instances in real time - there’s a discussion of the topic [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) - but the point is that observation, in a scientific context simply isn’t restricted to real-time scrutiny by a human being. In fact I will argue that there is and can be no such thing as direct, contemporaneous observation; _ **every single thing** _ we observe is separated from us by time, space and the resolution of our apparatus; it is merely a question of degree. My question was rhetorical rather than factual. I’m interested in finding out if Blake personally believes that speciation has been observed or not. Is this argument about speciation at all, or merely the difference between a “fact” and an “observed phenomenon”? ---
**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, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/99 "2005-12-22T09:29:05Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > [ **Blake** , have I accurately stated your position? No, it is far more practical than that. 50 years ago it was a fact that there were biological races by your usage of the word fact. The different races had been observed, they weren’t the result of a mass hallucination, or “a very accurate movie”. They were real insofar as we can know anything is real. Yet today no scientist accepts the existence of biological races at all. Has it ceased to be a fact? 500 years ago it was a fact that the sun revolved around a stationary Earth. It was observed. The observations weren’t the result of amass hallucination, or “a very accurate movie”. They were real insofar as we can know anything is real. Yet today no scientist accepts the Earth centric solar system at all. Has it ceased to be a fact? Science is ever changing. Someone once said that all science has been proved wrong and all science will be proved wrong. There is a strong possibility that he was correct. Almost nothing we accepted as fact 200 years is still thought to be correct, and little from 100 years ago. So if a majority of what we currently accept is destined to be proved wrong then what is a fact? That is why I have never before heard a scientist dispute the old adage that there are no facts in science. There are just theories with differing degrees of evidentiary support. This isn’t something mystical or semantic or even particularly epistemiological. It’s simply what experience tells us. The sun used to orbit the Erath then our perception shifted and we knew for a fact it didn’t. We used to know that two objects couldn’t exist ion the same place at the same time, then our perception shifted and we knew for a fact that they could. So how do you know that next year we won’t get an equivalent shift in our perspective regarding speciation? Every generation is quite convinced that their models are near perfect and just need a little tweaking, and every time they are shown to be completely wrong. What confidence should we have that our models are correct? That doesn’t mean they aren’t good models but it does mean they are just models and not facts. Speciation is a very good model. It explains a lot of things and is supported by a lot of evidence. But why do you believe that it is an immutable fact and not just a very good model? And if you don’t believe it is an immutable fact then why say that it is? To put it another way, 500 years ago observation told people that the complexity of life had to have been the result of a designer. Those observations were real, not the product of a defective brain or an illusion. By your standard didn’t that make the existence of a designer a fact 500 years ago? But he isn’t a fact any more. So if fact is so completely mutable doesn’t it actually become less useful than “well supported theory”? And if that is the case then why use the term? > [@](#): > > My question was rhetorical rather than factual. I’m interested in finding out if Blake personally believes that speciation has been observed or not. Is this argument about speciation at all, or merely the difference between a “fact” and an “observed phenomenon”? Which is precisely what I suspected, you were being disingenuous in asking the question. Hence my response. If you can not be bothered to read my contributions on the subject then there is little point in my covering precisely the same ground for your sake. If you wish to receive an answer to a new question on a new subject then please just ask and stop trying to be ‘clever’. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508/100 "2005-12-22T09:29:37Z")
Fair enough, but as I said, I will argue (and not just through beligerence - I actually believe it’s true) that there is nothing about the real world we can ever know that is not based on some kind of inference, regardless of how solid a fact we may accept it to be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-banned-right-or-wrong/336508.md?page=6)