Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

Of course not,

Gee, data. Thanks. I took Paul's comment as a "no", but he didn't seem quite so sure.

you drivelling halfwit.

Temper, temper, little fella ...

Before you beg us to educate you, try reading a basic textbook on the subject until you understand it.

I've done a bit of research, but that point eluded me.

If drkitten called you "not even scientifically semi-literate", that is putting it very mildly.

And you, sir, are an ass (but most here already know that).

Now, please have a nice day, before you give yourself an aneurism.

 

[hammegk]

Instead of constantly using the Socratic Method to get others to constantly answer a different question than the one actually asked, why don't you just provide a precise definition of what you would personally accept as a "speciation event," and then let's see if someone else here can provide the published evidence to satisfy your definition.

Yeah, we all wish someone, somewhere, could provide more substantive definitions than currently exist. Cheer up, someone may as soon as they identify something new they want to tout as a "speciation". Sorry. I can't.

Note: This is where you would ordinarily respond with, "OK, why don't you propose a definition for speciation," thereby avoiding having to do it yourself, so that if someone else later satisfies my definition, you can continue to deny the proof, because you never accepted my definition.

Been there, done that.

Er, the definition of species is still evolving.

http://humboldt.edu/~kll1/speciesdef.html

That paper purports to be last updated in 1998. Perhaps someone can provide a few definitions more to get us all up to date?

Would you care to offer a new one?



Meanwhile, DrAdequate may choose enlighten us as to where the math is that demonstrates the reptile to bird sequence. If it does not exist, what does that make the Dr other than the usual kettle?

 

[kjkent1]

Oh well, I tried. Your response was as I predicted.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yeah, we all wish someone, somewhere, could provide more substantive definitions than currently exist. Cheer up, someone may as soon as they identify something new they want to tout as a "speciation". Sorry. I can't.

So you argue emphatically about speciation, god, and free will without being able to give a definition of any of them. I'm at a loss to understand where the content is.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

That's something we can agree on.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy and I agree on something! Time for a beer!

Oh, wait ...

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

So you argue emphatically about speciation, god, and free will without being able to give a definition of any of them. I'm at a loss to understand where the content is.

~~ Paul

The content is irrelevant. Hammegk's goal is to maintain superiority over all debate opponents by demonstrating that he cannot be outargued on any subject.

The technique can be summarized as "skillful avoidance." It involves:

1. Never directly answering a question, because that leads to someone later using your previous answer to prove you wrong.

2. Rely on the implicit hole in every conclusion that nothing can be proven absolutely true or false, because ultimately, everything is dependent on the belief of the observer in the accuracy of his observations.

3. When all else fails, resort to sarcasm in order to draw a hostile emotional response from your opponent -- and then when you obtain the response -- criticize the responder for making an ad hominem.

Persistent use of this technique can effectively destroy any useful online debate in an unmoderated forum, because it tends to divert the conversation from the substantive, to the purely argumentative.

 

[hammegk]

Damn. Is that what I'm doing? Sucked you right in it seems.

Back near topic, do no responses to my question on definitions mean y'all haven't made up a new one since 1998? Paulie, where are 'ya? You're the guy who ceaselessly whines for definitions.

 

[kjkent1]

Damn. Is that what I'm doing? Sucked you right in it seems.

Back near topic, do no responses to my question on definitions mean y'all haven't made up a new one since 1998? Paulie, where are 'ya? You're the guy who ceaselessly whines for definitions.

You were asked directly to provide your personal definition of what would satisfy you as a speciation event.

You are now exhibiting propensity #1, as previously described, by refusing to answer, and trying to get others to answer instead.

Please stop wasting everyone's time, and answer the question.

 

[hammegk]

I've stated a number of times I have no answer.

Move on.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Back near topic, do no responses to my question on definitions mean y'all haven't made up a new one since 1998? Paulie, where are 'ya? You're the guy who ceaselessly whines for definitions.

I ceaselessly whine for definitions when people insist on chit-chatting about concepts that appear to be undefined: god, free will, macroevolution. If you don't make claims about these things, I won't whine for definitions.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

Actually the question is somewhat interesting. I'd guess that the insect kingdom would offer some answers to this question on speciation. Unfortunately, I'm not an entomologist and can't speak intelligently on the subject. What defines differences between ant species?

HOwever,on a related note, a quick search pulled this article on the speciation of plant-insect systems in tandem.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/22/12626

Seems one main assumption that has been made in this debate, that of speciation being an event that occurs in isolation from other species is just wrong. In fact it seems that genetic drift of completely different species can influence the evolution of another species. A point that is at once obvious, but seems to be ignored in this thread. or at least not discussed.

 

[kjkent1]

I've stated a number of times I have no answer.

Move on.

If you have no answer, then what is your objection to the definitions provided by evolution advocates, and their proofs that speciation occurs?

If your objection is that they have moved the goal post, then why does this bother you? Science must be open to new proofs.

 

[PixyMisa]

What you have done is move the goalposts on wheels to define "speciation" and then pretend you've demonstrated how speciation occurs

Either you are lying, or you are utterly ignorant on the topic. I won't speculate as to which.

there are cats & dogs, species, and we all know basically what I mean by species.

Okay, I'll go for hopelessly ignorant. Cats and dogs are different families, Felidae and Canidae respectively, in the order Carnivora.

A speciation event has not been demonstarted in labs, models, or nature.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

And please spare us a re-gurgitation of the pap that demonstrates -- in the lab and in nature -- the bacteria that remain bacteria, birds that remain birds, plants that remain the same plant, ring species that remain the same species.

So, you are demanding phyletic change - change at the level of the phylum - or even at the level of the kingdom? Do you know how rare that is, how long it takes? Do you understand that this is several orders of magnitude away from speciation?

Well, clearly you don't.

Remain, that is, until the appropriate and needed re-definition of species has been provided to cover each specific case.

Wrong. The definitions of species came first. Since then, we have observed examples for all of those definitions.

Nor do we need to review the fossils, which at least do demonstrate new species occuring.

And why not?

It would not bother my worldview an iota if you actually found an event that demonstrates speciation (that the world would acclaim as proof of what some name macro-ev). What bothers me is the pretense you have done so, and that all who don't accept results to date as that proof are dunces.

Hammy, you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've stated a number of times I have no answer.

Then how do you presume to argue the point?

 

[articulett]

And you, sir, are an ass (but most here already know that).

I think that is a common delusion of the biggest asses. I suspect that if a poll were taken, you'd be at the top of ass heap, and Dr. Adequate probably wouldn't even have his nomination seconded. And I know how you feel about me, but I relish being in the company of your enemies--they are the more intelligent members on this forum from what I've gathered-- But what I want to know is who on this forum do you think "gets you"? Even other creationists tend not to engage you--I think you may have confused the voices in your head with the support of others.

 

[articulett]

Then how do you presume to argue the point?

Just by ad homs, as usual.

Now that we've "invented" molecular genetics--we get a snapshot of speciation as it's occurring... There are many hybrids and speciating plants and animals, and evolution just makes surviving branches of the tree more different through time. Humans become more of the mutations that helped them survive--and Chimps become more chimpish as the gene pool they draw from is from their surviving ancestors. We can look at both genomes and extrapolate what was conserved (useful for both species) and what diverged--benefiting one group over another in the survival.

This is like having a close up picture of atoms to let us know that they are "real"--that what we understand about them is true and continually being refined. Given the length of time for speciation to occur in complex organisms, I can't imagine how much more obvious the evidence could be. Creationists seem purposefully ignorant--purposely unwilling to see the obvious. They avoid definitions and continuums and all lines of thought that might lead to the possibility that the entities' responsible for their existence were far from almighty...

It boils down to an ego thing, doesn't it?--that's why Hammegk has to use ad homs. He's trying to elevate himself by putting others down, because his arguments have no merit. And he sees himself as so very glorious that he can't imagine that his existence is other than purposeful and pre-ordained. The world exists to bring forth him. I suspect my cat thinks the same.

 

[PixyMisa]

He's trying to elevate himself by putting others down, because his arguments have no merit. And he sees himself as so very glorious that he can't imagine that his existence is other than purposeful and pre-ordained.

So it would seem to me. I have seen him make a positive contribution - twice, I think - but as for the other 99.9%...

The world exists to bring forth him. I suspect my cat thinks the same.

Yes, but cats have concrete evidence for their belief. Clearly mankind exists to open cupboards and operate can-openers.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've stated a number of times I have no answer.
Move on.

We can't move on from this point, because this is the entirety of your argument.

We have definitions for species.

Given each of those definitions, we have observed speciation events.

You wish to dispute this, but given any of those definitions, the fact is that speciation has been observed.

If you want to claim otherwise, you have to either (a) provide an alternative definition of species, or (b) refute a whole bunch of thoroughly documented examples.

Since you choose to do neither, your position is rendered invalid.

Again, for the term macro-evolution. Evolution is simply the action of natural selection upon genetic variability. The smallest unit of change is the single gene, and we have certainly observed this to happen. These changes accumulate; we have observed this to happen. There is no known mechanism for enforcing a limit upon the accumulation of changes.

So if you want to assert a definition for macro-evolution that is not simply an arbitrary quantification of accumulated genetic change, you must first propose and then demonstrate the reality of such a limit.

You have not even attempted to do this, so your disputes involving macro-evolution are also rendered invalid.

 

[joobz]

I think that is a common delusion of the biggest asses. I suspect that if a poll were taken, you'd be at the top of ass heap, and Dr. Adequate probably wouldn't even have his nomination seconded. And I know how you feel about me, but I relish being in the company of your enemies--they are the more intelligent members on this forum from what I've gathered-- But what I want to know is who on this forum do you think "gets you"? Even other creationists tend not to engage you--I think you may have confused the voices in your head with the support of others.

I'll stand up for hammegk. Although, i doubt he'll want me in his corner. I do not think i have earned much clout or respect to be considered a useful ally.

I haven't followed the recent exchange too too closely, but I can say that I've almost always enjoyed his presence in threads. He, in my estimation, is worlds more enjoyable to read than Kleinman and others of his ilk who are demonstrably liars.

I agree that hammagk tends to be obscure and not offer much substance or background into his comments, but i've always google-fu-ed a bit about comments he's made (e.g., dualism, just-so stories, objective humanism, materialism...) to try and figure out what he's getting at. It's taught me a bit about some aspects of philosophy that I, as an engineer, never bothered to look into.

And maybe it's me being new to the boards, but he never really said evolution is a lie or that it is impossible or that creationism is the key. It seems that he is just playing the skeptical observer here. Although, i do wish he would provide a definition of speciation that he would agree with or most agree with.