Evolution and Creation an Honest Question

[delphi_ote]

Do you understand what you read? YES or NO????

Anyway, you get an A in your "Introduction to neo-Darwinism 090" course. Direct questions are often answered by regurgitating pap. Intellectual honesty in most courses just gets one in trouble.




No interest in an actual response to my question, I see. Do you even understand what I asked?

And for extra credit what is your considered opinion on the common ancestry of Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, & Viruses.

Do you agree, hammy? Not "Per" any theory. No words you'll use to dodge away later. Do you agree? Yes. or. No.

 

[hammegk]

Sure: yes or no.

Your turn.

No interest in an actual response to my question, I see. Do you even understand what I asked?

Yes, but not enough to comment, other than to bleat 'pseudo-intellectual'? Or no; just bleat 'pseudo-intellectual' for the hell of it?

And for extra credit what is your considered opinion on the common ancestry of Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, & Viruses.

Try actual thought, connecting up some of the factoids stuffed in your head. It might not hurt.

 

[delphi_ote]

Sure: yes or no.

 

[hammegk]

Another for you. Are you dumber than I think you are? Yes. or. No.

 

[delphi_ote]

Another for you. Are you dumber than I think you are? Yes. or. No.

I assure you I have more knowledge of modern biology than you do, hammy. Call me all the names you want. It's obvious you're stilll

Let us know your position or this conversation is not going anywhere. I'm not playing your game anymore. You've wasted so much time and bandwidth with your pointless waffling. You've derailed thread after thread to say nothing at all. Let us know your position or hush already!

Is it or is it not your position that all species have a common ancestor? Is it or is it not your position that species evolve? Is it or is it not your position that evolution is the cause of speciation?

 

[hammegk]

I assure you I have more knowledge of modern biology than you do, hammy.

Since my knowledge is some years out of date other than keeping current as best I can at informed layman's level, I hope so.

Let us know your position or this conversation is not going anywhere. I'm not playing your game anymore. You've wasted so much time and bandwidth with your pointless waffling. You've derailed thread after thread to say nothing at all. Let us know your position or hush already!

My position? That neo-Darwinism has weak points everywhere it's examined in any detail.

Is it or is it not your position that all species have a common ancestor?

My position is I no more know the actual answer to that question than you do. Your textbooks & professors pretend they know.

Why don't you provide a comment on the common ancestry of Euk/Prok/Vir from your current knowledge base?

Is it or is it not your position that species evolve?

Mutation and heredity are incontrovertible facts, yes.

Is it or is it not your position that evolution is the cause of speciation?

As you've pointed out species definitions are malleable; by some definitions speciation has been demonstrated in the lab and in nature.

As others have pointed out, the historic phenotype classification are passe.

Noting that genotypes seem to offer an alternate, we move to my original comment wondering about possible comparison of table of elements to a (yet far from complete) 'table of genotypes', how much freedom actually existed, and how much of the end result was controlled by the laws of physics as the table of elements is so controlled.

The person dancing seems to be you.

 

[Hellbound]

As you've pointed out species definitions are malleable; by some all scientifically-accepted definitions speciation has been demonstrated in the lab and in nature.

Just wanted to make a correction here.

 

[hammegk]

Sure. I agree that malleable defines all scientifically-accepted (for the moment) definitions of species.

 

[Hellbound]

Sure. I agree that malleable defines all scientifically-accepted (for the moment) definitions of species.

Then you are mis-informed, contrary to your earlier claims. The definitions of species are, in general, clear. Howeve,r there are some species that will blur the line under any single definition.

However, whichever definition you choose, we have observed speciation events within those defintions. And while new definitions have had to be developed, the individual definitions are not malleable, as you imply.

You are dishonest and ignorant, hammy. As always.

 

[drkitten]

My position? That neo-Darwinism has weak points everywhere it's examined in any detail.

You keep saying this, but you never actually identify any weak points, or even give a convincing criticism. Instead, you equivocate on definitions -- for example, shifting the definition of "speciation" to suggest that "macro-evolution" has never occurred, despite the fact that for any definition you've been able to suggest, speciation events have occurred.

But if you insist that "neo-Darwinism," or as it's more commonly called, "modern evolutionary theory" has weak points everywhere, you should be able to illustrate one or two of them in clear, convincing, detail.

Let me suggest a subject area, since it's pretty uncontroversial among practicing evolutionists. All mammals share a common ancestry. In fact, evolutionary biologists have a pretty good idea of the specifics of that common ancestry; in particular, the most recent common ancestor of all (living) mammals probably lived in the southern part of Pangaea (or a recently-separated Gondwana), about 180 million years ago, in the Lower Jurassic period. Prior to that, we have a whole series of "mammal-like reptiles" that show progressive development away from the reptilian and towards the mammalian -- for example, the development of the mammalian inner ear bones, the mammalian gait with the legs underneath the body, and the specifically mammalian spine structure allowing flexibility and eventually the grooming of fur.

What's the "weak point" involved in this specific, and well-attested, theory of common ancestry?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hate to get involved in this kind of exchange but that doesn't always stop me.

Hammegk, explain to me where "weak points everywhere it's examined in any detail" are in the volume of evidence we now have from the genetic science field that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

 

[hammegk]

Then you are mis-informed, contrary to your earlier claims. The definitions of species are, in general, clear.

Subject to the next re-definition, I agree.

How confident are you that at a high "easiest-defined" phenptype level - say, chihuahuas, great danes, wolves, foxes, etc - the genetics would cause you to state they are different species.

However, whichever definition you choose, we have observed speciation events within those defintions. And while new definitions have had to be developed, the individual definitions are not malleable, as you imply.

Better said, we have defined speciation events by our definitions. You say the definitions are cast in stone today. Perhaps you are correct.

You are dishonest and ignorant, hammy. As always.

Thanks for sharing.

You keep saying this, but you never actually identify any weak points, or even give a convincing criticism. Instead, you equivocate on definitions -- for example, shifting the definition of "speciation" to suggest that "macro-evolution" has never occurred, despite the fact that for any definition you've been able to suggest, speciation events have occurred.

I don't recall ever suggesting any definition of speciation. And the weak points abound at the research level -- if, could be, maybe, we think, it's indicated that -- but solidify to 100% fact in the popular press.

But if you insist that "neo-Darwinism," or as it's more commonly called, "modern evolutionary theory" has weak points everywhere, you should be able to illustrate one or two of them in clear, convincing, detail.

Read your own papers. See what you think.

Let me suggest a subject area, since it's pretty uncontroversial among practicing evolutionists. All mammals share a common ancestry. In fact, evolutionary biologists have a pretty good idea of the specifics of that common ancestry; in particular, the most recent common ancestor of all (living) mammals probably lived in the southern part of Pangaea (or a recently-separated Gondwana), about 180 million years ago, in the Lower Jurassic period. Prior to that, we have a whole series of "mammal-like reptiles" that show progressive development away from the reptilian and towards the mammalian -- for example, the development of the mammalian inner ear bones, the mammalian gait with the legs underneath the body, and the specifically mammalian spine structure allowing flexibility and eventually the grooming of fur.

What's the "weak point" involved in this specific, and well-attested, theory of common ancestry?

Thanks. An actual area to examine. I'll do so,and see what turns up. My initial comment is that your comments certainly reflect current thinking, and I'm willing to accept their certainty at, say, 95% confidence. My worldview does not slip into dualism to cover the missing 5%. What confidence level do you assign?

The possibility of added abiogenesis events, and parallel evolution -- how many times has the eye been re-done -- are not ruled out sfaik.

I hate to get involved in this kind of exchange but that doesn't always stop me.

Hammegk, explain to me where "weak points everywhere it's examined in any detail" are in the volume of evidence we now have from the genetic science field that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

I agree that no refereed paper will be authored and published any time soon that does not support the theory of evolution (that is, neo-Darwinism).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree that no refereed paper will be authored and published any time soon that does not support the theory of evolution (that is, neo-Darwinism).

But it isn't just the papers, it's the accumulation of data. No more worry about missing links and transitional fossils, the underlying process has been revealed and is complete.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Ah, hammy is a conspiracy theorist. No surprise there. Again. It only exemplifies his ignorance.

 

[steenkh]

And the weak points abound at the research level -- if, could be, maybe, we think, it's indicated that -- but solidify to 100% fact in the popular press.

So if the researchers do not ascribe 100% certainty to their findings, you will claim that there are weak points? Is there an area of science that does not abound in weak points outside mathematics?

 

[cyborg]

The only think hammy is certain about is thought exists 100%.

Maybe.

Yeah, you're not going to get much sense out of him there.

 

[Hellbound]

Subject to the next re-definition, I agree.

How confident are you that at a high "easiest-defined" phenptype level - say, chihuahuas, great danes, wolves, foxes, etc - the genetics would cause you to state they are different species.


Better said, we have defined speciation events by our definitions. You say the definitions are cast in stone today. Perhaps you are correct.

Let me try one more time. Perhaps I'm using words that are too big.

Yes, we have many definitions of species.

Yes, we add new definitions at times, and I expect this to happen again as we learn more.

Problem 1: You imply that we come up with new definitions as a way to blur the lines, or confuse things, or to be able to "move the goalposts". This is incorrect.

Problem 2: You seem to imply that the definitions were added so we could then say "we've observed speciation". We observed speciation under the older definitions, as well. We've abserved speciation under all the definitions we use. This is a non-issue.

The entire reason new definitions were proposed was when the old definitions became unuseable, not because we get speciation events under that defintion, but because we found species which blurred the lines of our definition. For example, ring species play havoc with the reproductive defintion of species.

As to your phenotype-genetics question, I think we come to the root of your problem. You seem to be saying that because the various species definitions can give different results as to what is a species, the entire concept is invalid? Is that your argument? Because a reproductive defintion draws the lines in different places than a phenotype-based definition, which draws different lines than a genetic definition?

This is actually to be expected under the modern theory of evolution. Species is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, and given the gradual nature of evolution it is expected that, no matter what defintion you use, there will be some areas where the lines are blurred. Currently, the genetic definitions offer the best distinction, and classification systems are being redeveloped to accomodate that.

You are either ignorant of the facts, dishonestly representing the facts, or both. I don't see any other way to state it.

 

[drkitten]

I don't recall ever suggesting any definition of speciation.

No, you simply vaguely criticise any existing definition, but without

And the weak points abound at the research level

No, they don't. Or if they do, you should be able to identify them.

Read your own papers. See what you think.

I'm not asking what I think. I'm asking what weak points you find.

I suspect -- in fact, I state forthrightly -- that you aren't actually aware of any.

Thanks. An actual area to examine. I'll do so,and see what turns up.

I suspect this is the last we'll hear of this.

My initial comment is that your comments certainly reflect current thinking, and I'm willing to accept their certainty at, say, 95% confidence. My worldview does not slip into dualism to cover the missing 5%. What confidence level do you assign?

100% minus epsilon -- approximately the same confidence that I assign to heliocentrism, Kirchoff's current and voltage laws or Harvey's theory of the circulation of the blood.

The possibility of added abiogenesis events, and parallel evolution -- how many times has the eye been re-done -- are not ruled out sfaik.

Nor has the possibiliity that fairies make bread rise. On the other hand, there is as much evidence to support the idea that fairies make bread rise asthere is to suggest that mammals do not share common ancestry. At what level of confidence are you willing to accept the 'yeast' hypothesis?

 

[hammegk]

But it isn't just the papers, it's the accumulation of data. No more worry about missing links and transitional fossils, the underlying process has been revealed and is complete.

We agree an underlying process has been revealed. The 'completeness' part is another issue.

Ah, hammy is a conspiracy theorist. No surprise there. Again. It only exemplifies his ignorance.

Eos, honey, shouldn't you be barefoot in the kitchen awaiting the next scientific pronunciamento you can swallow whole without thought?

Let me try one more time. Perhaps I'm using words that are too big.

Some here may have trouble with big words, but it's usually not me.

Problem 1: You imply that we come up with new definitions as a way to blur the lines, or confuse things, or to be able to "move the goalposts". This is incorrect.

Problem 2: You seem to imply that the definitions were added so we could then say "we've observed speciation". We observed speciation under the older definitions, as well. We've abserved speciation under all the definitions we use. This is a non-issue.

Can anyone else spot the circular argument?

The entire reason new definitions were proposed was when the old definitions became unuseable, not because we get speciation events under that defintion, but because we found species which blurred the lines of our definition. For example, ring species play havoc with the reproductive defintion of species.

Yeah, one of those darn redefinitions to get the just-so-story back on the tracks.

As to your phenotype-genetics question, I think we come to the root of your problem. You seem to be saying that because the various species definitions can give different results as to what is a species, the entire concept is invalid? Is that your argument? Because a reproductive defintion draws the lines in different places than a phenotype-based definition, which draws different lines than a genetic definition?

Not "invalid"; worthy of consideration.

This is actually to be expected under the modern theory of evolution. Species is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, and given the gradual nature of evolution it is expected that, no matter what defintion you use, there will be some areas where the lines are blurred. Currently, the genetic definitions offer the best distinction, and classification systems are being redeveloped to accomodate that.

Yes, thank you. Additional re-definitions.

You are either ignorant of the facts, dishonestly representing the facts, or both. I don't see any other way to state it.

I assign less confidence to the conclusions you reach with the facts than you appear to.

No, you simply vaguely criticise any existing definition, but without ....

That's true.

No, they don't. Or if they do, you should be able to identify them.

I suspect you have no problem doing so, but would be hard-pressed to admit it. If experts in fields contend no weak points are inherent in their theories, they are fibbing.

I'm not asking what I think. I'm asking what weak points you find.

I suspect -- in fact, I state forthrightly -- that you aren't actually aware of any.

Only in the general sense. At the moment nothing specific comes to mind.

I suspect this is the last we'll hear of this.

Nothing to report yet, anyway.

100% minus epsilon -- approximately the same confidence that I assign to heliocentrism, Kirchoff's current and voltage laws or Harvey's theory of the circulation of the blood.

Heliocentrism is pretty certain. I'm too lazy to google to see, for example, how Kirchoff's Laws work with semiconductors, of if Harvey has not undergone a few revisions.

Epsilon, it's value, why you require an epsilon, and the implications thereof are my main interest.

Nor has the possibiliity that fairies make bread rise. On the other hand, there is as much evidence to support the idea that fairies make bread rise asthere is to suggest that mammals do not share common ancestry. At what level of confidence are you willing to accept the 'yeast' hypothesis?

100-epsilon.

 

[drkitten]

Heliocentrism is pretty certain. I'm too lazy to google to see, for example, how Kirchoff's Laws work with semiconductors, of if Harvey has not undergone a few revisions.

Epsilon, it's value, why you require an epsilon, and the implications thereof are my main interest.

But you don't continualliy post ill-informed ravings about how heliocentrism is a "just-so" story.

If the confidence level of heliocentrism or the yeast theory of bread rising is 100%-epsilon, so is the confidence level in the modern theory of evolution.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the uncertainty (the epsilon) involved with the theory of evolution is greater than the epsilon involved in a claim of heliocentrism or yeast-ism.

In fact, you have never shown that you have any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that there is any uncertainty at all involved in the theory of evolution; based on the knowledge of the subject that you have displayed, the certainty for the theory of evolution cannot be shown to be different from exactly 100%.

If you have any actual evidence to suggest that the theory of evolution is less certain than the theory of yeast-ism, I invite you to present it. I strongly suspect that you will not, and I equally strongly suspect that the reason is because you can not.