Annoying creationists

[PixyMisa]

The problem is, as far as I can tell, Hammy doesn't know the meaning of most of the terms he uses. Certainly in anything scientific (as we see here), but also in matters philosophical. He will make an obscure reference, but he will never explain what he means by it.

Take a look at what he says regarding speciation. He claims that the field of evolutionary biology is not merely wrong but constructed of deliberate lies, but he has nothing, nothing, to back up his assertions.

This is the hammecratic method in a nutshell.

The only reason you can't prove he is lying is that he never takes an unambiguous position on anything - except that everyone but him is somehow wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ah, that's it!

You and I are skeptics.

Hammy is a cynic.

 

[joobz]

Ah, that's it!

You and I are skeptics.

Hammy is a cynic.

We'll his avatar does say Curmudgeon.
ALthough, I always thought his admitted world view, objective humanism, was quite optimistic. And appealing to someone who is currently re-evaluating his religious-philisophical outlook.

 

[Kotatsu]

A speciation event has not been demonstarted in labs, models, or nature. 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. Remain, that is, until the appropriate and needed re-definition of species has been provided to cover each specific case.

I'm not at work now (it being Sunday), and it's been perhaps half a year since I read about it last, but does not the allopolyploidy experiments of Song et al. (or was it Soltis & Soltis who did it first?) where the progeny after five (or six? [1]) generations were both genotypically and phenotypically different from both parent species --- does not this count as a case where lab experiments have shown the possibility of speciation where the progeny does not resemble the parents in some significant aspects? I don't think they called the progeny "new species", though.

---
(1) I could check all these details tomorrow. Notice that I am by necessity vague and may change my description of their papers when I get the oppurtunity to read them again. This is not due to deceptiveness.

 

[Kotatsu]

Back near topic, do no responses to my question on definitions mean y'all haven't made up a new one since 1998?

I seem to have missed the relevance of 1998, probably due to oversight, but I'd suggest that the whole barcoding things --- with all its shortcomings --- is some sort of new definition (or at least redefinition, restatement, refinement, or other permutation of one of the older definitions) of species that has come about since 1998. For oligochaetes, it actually seems to work quite well in general; I have no idea if it generally works for other groups, but know that it does not work for some types of beetles.

 

[articulett]

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


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

I think underestimated his Hammy's negative contributions--he's up to nearly 8000 posts--you need at least one more space in your decimal--or if you haven't read them all, then I suppose there could be a third positive contribution, making 99.9% slightly more accurate.

Yes, my dogs think I'm god; my cats think they're gods.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

You bastage! You've just made the definitions of macroevolution and species even more difficult to pin down.

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 ...

Make sure you Google mu. You'll need to know that one.

~~ Paul

 

[Myriad]

A conceptual portrait of creationists examining the fossil record:

C: You want me to believe that everything is made of atoms. Like, a table is made of atoms, right?

S: That's right.

C: Here is a picture of a table. Please point out the atoms.

S: It's all atoms, but the individual atoms are too small to see in that picture.

C: Then show me a picture where you can see the atoms.

S: No problem. Here's a scanning tunneling microscope image of atoms.

C: Of course those are atoms. I never denied that atoms exist. But are they the kind of atoms that a table is made of?

S: Yes.

C: I don't see a table. Please point out the table in your picture of atoms.

S: The table is too large to see in that picture.

C: Then show me a picture where you can see the table.

... and so on, and so on ...

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[hammegk]

If your objection is that they have moved the goal post, then why does this bother you?

Circular arguments, where one begins by assuming the answer, bother me when presented as 'proof' the original assumption was correct.

Science must be open to new proofs.

Then find one, and present it.

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

I see. Who pissed on your corn-flakes?

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

Hmm. You seriously suggest that the ability of humans to order things, and draw imaginary lines to provide boxes that are then named, is our best evidence demonstrating a speciation event?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Opinion, opinion, opinion; undemonstrated by other than wishful thinking -- hey, let's move the edge of our imaginary box here! Yeah, that'll convince the rubes.

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.

Yeah, we both wish that darn fossil record -- or data anywhere -- would shed some light on a speciation event.

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

The definitions make good, infinitely malleable, just-so-stories, anyway.

And why not?

Fine. Make your review.

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

You concern for me is touching.

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

I see. So the whole of Modern Evolutionary Theory rests on my ability to provide a definition of species?

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.

And the fact that you, and most materialists, find that absolutely convincing, is the final 'proof'?

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.

I do? ROFL.

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.

Yup. I agree. Now all you need is a demonstrable macro-ev event.

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.

I must?

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

Thanks for sharing your opinion in this matter.

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.

Thanks. Why not? And, why wouldn't you be a useful ally?

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.

Thank you.

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.

Yeah, and it's a crummy job, but someone needs to do it.

Although,i do wish he would provide a definition of speciation that he would agree with or most agree with.

I wish I could, too.

The problem is, as far as I can tell, Hammy doesn't know the meaning of most of the terms he uses.

And your problem is that you are wrong in that assessment.

Certainly in anything scientific (as we see here), but also in matters philosophical. He will make an obscure reference, but he will never explain what he means by it.

Take a look at what he says regarding speciation. He claims that the field of evolutionary biology is not merely wrong but constructed of deliberate lies, but he has nothing, nothing, to back up his assertions.

Other than the fact that it's the definition of speciation that has no meaning. Back to just-so-stories.

The only reason you can't prove he is lying is that he never takes an unambiguous position on anything - except that everyone but him is somehow wrong.

Waaah. Life is a bitch, and then you die.

We'll his avatar does say Curmudgeon.
ALthough, I always thought his admitted world view, objective humanism, was quite optimistic.

Ouch! Objective idealism!

I'm not at work now (it being Sunday), and it's been perhaps half a year since I read about it last, but does not the allopolyploidy experiments of Song et al. (or was it Soltis & Soltis who did it first?) where the progeny after five (or six? [1]) generations were both genotypically and phenotypically different from both parent species --- does not this count as a case where lab experiments have shown the possibility of speciation where the progeny does not resemble the parents in some significant aspects? I don't think they called the progeny "new species", though.

Each Kingdom has it's own challenges in interpretation, although Plantae doesn't get much play.

---
(1) I could check all these details tomorrow. Notice that I am by necessity vague and may change my description of their papers when I get the oppurtunity to read them again. This is not due to deceptiveness.

Your added comments will be welcomed.

I seem to have missed the relevance of 1998, probably due to oversight,

I'd previously provide a link with a plethora of 'species definitions' that was compiled in 1998.

but I'd suggest that the whole barcoding things --- with all its shortcomings --- is some sort of new definition (or at least redefinition, restatement, refinement, or other permutation of one of the older definitions) of species that has come about since 1998. For oligochaetes, it actually seems to work quite well in general; I have no idea if it generally works for other groups, but know that it does not work for some types of beetles.

I don't understand the 'barcoding' comment.

Er, and I almost hate to say it, but, A worm is a worm.

 

[delphi_ote]

Circular arguments, where one begins by assuming the answer, bother me when presented as 'proof' the original assumption was correct.

Darwin started with the physical evidence and developed a theory to explain it. This theory has been vindicated many times over by multiple independent lines of evidence. There's no circular argument coming from the science camp. Implying that scientists need to agree on a perfect definition of species before they can explain the origin of species is as absurd as demanding they have a mathematically precise definition of "red" and "pink" before they can explain the origin of colors.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yup. I agree. Now all you need is a demonstrable macro-ev event.

Are you willing to define exactly what you mean by demonstrable here?

~~ Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

I see. Who pissed on your corn-flakes?

No one, but you pissed in this discussion.

Hmm. You seriously suggest that the ability of humans to order things, and draw imaginary lines to provide boxes that are then named, is our best evidence demonstrating a speciation event?

In a sense, yes.

Species are named after the fact based on a variety of criteria. The same goes for every layer of the taxonomy, up through genera and families all the way to kingdoms, and at every level there is some degree of arbitrariness in the distinctions made. Often - when whole ranges of intermediary species have gone extinct - the distinction is clear. Other times, not.

But we have workable definitions of the term species, definitions that have proved themselves useful in the study of biology, and by any and all of those definitions, speciation events have been observed.

Opinion, opinion, opinion; undemonstrated by other than wishful thinking -- hey, let's move the edge of our imaginary box here! Yeah, that'll convince the rubes.

Again, a demonstration of your ignorance and your desperate struggle to avoid honest debate.

You have been invited to select one of the accepted definition of species
or to provide your own. You have done neither, so your argument is meaningless.

Yeah, we both wish that darn fossil record -- or data anywhere -- would shed some light on a speciation event.

Meaning what?

The definitions make good, infinitely malleable, just-so-stories, anyway.

False. The definitions are specific. For each and every one of the definitions, we have observed speciation.

Fine. Make your review.

I see no need to do so, given that your entire argument is specious; I just want to know why you said what you said.

You concern for me is touching.

Oh, I'm not concerned; just making an observation.

I see. So the whole of Modern Evolutionary Theory rests on my ability to provide a definition of species?

No. Any potential value of your participation here rests on your ability to provide a definition of species. Evolutionary Theory will get on just fine without you.

And the fact that you, and most materialists, find that absolutely convincing, is the final 'proof'?

What are you talking about?

We have definitions for the term species. For each of those definitions, we have observed speciation events. That's simply a statement of fact.

I do? ROFL.

Well, you could continue to make ill-informed remarks and be regarded by all as an ignoramus; your choice.

Yup. I agree. Now all you need is a demonstrable macro-ev event.

By my definition of macro-evolution, a number of such events have already been documented.

If you disagree, explain why.

I must?

Or pursue the alternative outlined above, yes. I believe that exhausts the possibilities.

And your problem is that you are wrong in that assessment.

Well, yes, there's an assertion. Evidence?

Other than the fact that it's the definition of speciation that has no meaning. Back to just-so-stories.

Which definition of species (and hence, of speciation) do you disagree with, and why?

Waaah. Life is a bitch, and then you die.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say here?

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you willing to define exactly what you mean by demonstrable here?

I'm not sure there's a lot of point in him doing so, given that he flatly refuses to define macro-evolution.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hammy, to sum up:

You are disputing the scientific position on speciation, but you neither accept the scientific definition of speciation nor provide your own.

You are raising questions regarding macro-evolution, but neither accept the scientific definition of macro-evolution nor provide your own.

Until you do, your statements on these subjects are semantically null. They cannot be interpreted, let alone answered. They don't mean anything.

Do you intend to correct this failing?

 

[kjkent1]

Hammy, to sum up:

You are disputing the scientific position on speciation, but you neither accept the scientific definition of speciation nor provide your own.

You are raising questions regarding macro-evolution, but neither accept the scientific definition of macro-evolution nor provide your own.

Until you do, your statements on these subjects are semantically null. They cannot be interpreted, let alone answered. They don't mean anything.

Do you intend to correct this failing?

hammegk has provided a dozen definitions for speciation/macro-evolution. He wants you to prove them all. However, after you do, he will surprise you by telling you that none of those definitions are sufficient to satisfy his requirements.

Then, when you ask him again for his requirements, he will tell you that he doesn't have any -- but that he knows yours don't satisfy.

The objective is to maintain a non-substantive argument in order to prove superiority over others who outside of an anonymous internet forum, would be credited with superior education and intellect. But, on the internet, where no one can be forced to answer a direct question, hammegk's debating technique cannot be overcome, except by either refusing to discuss anything with him, or banning him from the forum.

Of course, you can choose to adopt the identical debating technique. But, hammegk will not give up -- not ever. So, you will be stuck orbiting with him at the argument "event horizon" indefinitely. Because, while you may have a life off the internet, hammegk's life "is" this internet, and beating you at an argument on any/every subject is what he lives for.

The empirical evidence for this is readily available. hammegk has nearly 8,000 posts on this website. And, if you're interested, I can show you another website where I believe that he has 16,000+ more.

 

[joobz]

Ouch! Objective idealism!

Oops, that's what I meant. i was writing that late last night inbetween writing a grant due on monday.

My mind was more concerned about polymeric antioxidants and treatment of vascular oxidative stress.

 

[hammegk]

If there be a poster elsewhere with 16,000+ posts it isn't me.

Here a couple years ago I lost about 3000 courtesy of a management fracas and resulting db re-org. As to spending way too much time on this forum, I plead guilty. Sue me.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you will define sue and lawyer, I'll get right on it.

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

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

Once again Hamme uses words with regard to their actual meanings.

Dr. Adequate is what is known as a wit. Quite distinct from an ass, insomuch as wit is intentionally amusing.

 

[Yahzi]

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

A trick he learned from Socrates. Too bad we can't teach him the trick the Athenians finally figured out for dealing with it.

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.

May I suggest the /ignore feature as a moderating influence?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could click on a poster and see how many active members have them on /ignore? Someday, in a more perfect internet...