Intelligent Design banned...right or wrong?

Great Debates
81

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 you can’t provide the references I keep asking for. Oh hang on, yes I do.

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.

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?

Cite.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Now you have yes. That’s moving the goalposts. A classic weasel tactics.

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 :smiley:

:rolleyes:

Of course there isn’t.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I didn’t.

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

Already explained everything that was pertinent, remember? If you have any more specific relevant questions then I will be happy to answer them

82

Blake, have scientists observed instances of speciation?

83

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. How do you respond to them?

Once again, anything to support this claim?

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 then doesn’t that suggest that speciation is in fact a theory or hypothesis and not a law at all?

84

This question has already been answered at least twice. Better to do a search.

85

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.

86

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?

87

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.

88

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?

89

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.

90

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.

91

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.

92

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?

93

No. I haven’t been "called’ on anything. I’m just sick of playing along with a childish game.

I’ve supported everything I’ve said. Screaming “Cite!” everytime I say that a fact is a fact is just a waste of bandwidth.

Are these the questions you were referring to?

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.

You want a cite for the definition of a scientific law? Fine. Knock yourself out.

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?

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.

No, because you didn’t observe it.

No, actually, you didn’t.

My assertion is that speciation is not a MECHANISM.

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

What have I defined incorrectly?

The production of a new species s called SPECIATION. Speciation IS the result. It is not the mechanism. Speciation does not cause itself.

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).

And it is.

Retrogenes allow no rational doubt whatsoever.

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.

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.

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.

You DID say it and you obviously DON"T know what the distinction is.

This is ridiculous. You don’t know what the word theory means.Here is the first definition from Google:

Speciation is not an EXPLANATION for anything. Get it? Speciation is a WHAT, not a WHY.

I didn’t say that.

It doesn’t match the definition of “mechanism.” Speciation is not an explanation for itself.

They’ve been refuted by nothing but your total ignorance of the terminology.

This is childish, desperate equivocating,

That doesn’t say anything about a mechanistic difference between micro and macro evolution and it’s completely devoid of context or explanation.

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.

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.

Well maybe some other part of the article backs up your claims because nithing you quoted does any such thing.

If it’s directly observed then it’s a fact that it happens.

Desperate, sweaty handwaving.

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.

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

94

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.

95

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?

96

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.

97

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 - 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.

98

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”?

99

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?

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’.

100

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.