Has evolution done stopped?

[Arikay]

You do realize darwins words are not the last for evolution, but the first, right?

Even though it doesnt seem he said what you think he said, even if he was wrong it wouldnt matter to the current theory.

 

[SirKenin]

You do realize darwins words are not the last for evolution, but the first, right?

Even though it doesnt seem he said what you think he said, even if he was wrong it wouldnt matter to the current theory.

I have begun to realize that debating with an Evolutionist is pointless.

Once you've developed your strategy, their team runs off to play in the adjacent field. lol

 

[Arikay]

I have begun to realize that suggesting people dont debate well, is not a good debating strategy and does nothing to help the debate.

However, you seem to be treating darwins words as if they are the last words on evolution, I am mentioning that it isnt, it was pretty much the first.

I have begun to realize that debating with an Evolutionist is pointless.

Once you've developed your strategy, their team runs off to play in the adjacent field. lol

 

[SirKenin]

I have begun to realize that suggesting people dont debate well, is not a good debating strategy and does nothing to help the debate.

However, you seem to be treating darwins words as if they are the last words on evolution, I am mentioning that it isnt, it was pretty much the first.

How can one debate, when you can't even stick to a game plan? How do we play a fair game of soccer when you keep moving the stupid net? What is the definition of a homerun? The first person to hit a Pawn over the center line?

I focus in on one core concept, and you drag me all over our gracious God's green earth, only to return to the same basic concept. Over and over and over again. "But this plant that we manipulated!! Look at this plant!!!!"

You call THAT good debating skills? I call that circular logic.

 

[Arikay]

Speaking of circular...

What plant was manipulated?

How can one debate, when you can't even stick to a game plan? How do we play a fair game of soccer when you keep moving the stupid net? What is the definition of a homerun? The first person to hit a Pawn over the center line?

I focus in on one core concept, and you drag me all over our gracious God's green earth, only to return to the same basic concept. Over and over and over again. "But this plant that we manipulated!! Look at this plant!!!!"

You call THAT good debating skills? I call that circular logic.

 

[SirKenin]

Speaking of circular...

What plant was manipulated?

Not that it really matters, but I'm sure we'll get back around to it sooner rather than later if we talk about this long enough. We'll probably do a few cycles past the vegetarian flies, too, while we're at it. rofl

 

[Arikay]

Sure, If you want to...
but before we do, you would need to answer some of the questions I ask.

What plant was manipulated?

Not that it really matters, but I'm sure we'll get back around to it sooner rather than later if we talk about this long enough. We'll probably do a few cycles past the vegetarian flies, too, while we're at it. rofl

 

[SirKenin]

Sure, If you want to...
but before we do, you would need to answer some of the questions I ask.

What plant was manipulated?

I'm not going to play tennis with you if you keep trying to hit the ball over the fence. Hmmmm?

Oh, and I brought these along, to put a break in the circle...

Then, like I told lucaspa, if you want to play, make sure you've established the ground rules.

I can't make myself any more clear-cut than I have already, so the ball is now in your court.

 

[euphoric]

How can one debate, when you can't even stick to a game plan? How do we play a fair game of soccer when you keep moving the stupid net? What is the definition of a homerun? The first person to hit a Pawn over the center line?

I focus in on one core concept, and you drag me all over our gracious God's green earth, only to return to the same basic concept. Over and over and over again. "But this plant that we manipulated!! Look at this plant!!!!"

You call THAT good debating skills? I call that circular logic.

Before you get too far into congratulating yourself, I will point out that other than grotesquely misrepresenting a single sentence of Darwin's and then trying to bluff about how the rest of the paragraph backed up your point (which it didn't), I've yet to see you provide a coherent premise in this thread. No one's moving goalposts on you. I simply asked what you thought finding a mistake in a 150 year-old book would accomplish? The book has quite a few mistakes in it as a matter of fact. If you're trying to use this as an argument against the validity of evolutionary theory, then it's a waste of your time. There's 150 years of scientific discovery and added knowledge to contend with. You might want to bone up on that before you go charging into debates.

The plants were examples of speciation. If anyone is moving goalposts it's you. You ask for examples of speciation and then when they are provided, you complain that it's only plants. How ridiculous.

-brett

 

[Arikay]

So you want a debate, but you are unwilling to back up your claim by first answering my question about which plant, and then answering my next question (that I havent asked yet, but was going to depending on your answer) to provide evidence that it was manipulated.

I am confused.

If you want an actual debate, maybe start a thread, and post some ground rules, and anyone willing to accept them can debate with you. I might be interested, but first you need to quite beating around the bush (there is an irony there you know) and start the debate.

I'm not going to play tennis with you if you keep trying to hit the ball over the fence. Hmmmm?

Oh, and I brought these along, to put a break in the circle...

Then, like I told lucaspa, if you want to play, make sure you've established the ground rules.

I can't make myself any more clear-cut than I have already, so the ball is now in your court.

 

[euphoric]

I'm not going to play tennis with you if you keep trying to hit the ball over the fence. Hmmmm?

Oh, and I brought these along, to put a break in the circle...

Then, like I told lucaspa, if you want to play, make sure you've established the ground rules.

I can't make myself any more clear-cut than I have already, so the ball is now in your court.

Now you're just rambling, no one is taking you in circles. They're simply correcting the strawman you've created. The reason that the discussion goes in circles is because you keep going back to a false model no matter how many times the flaws are explained to you. We've seen this before.

a) Creationist comes charging in with a bunch of rhetoric about evolution.
b) More knowledgeable board members correct the misstatements.
c) Creationist ignores corrections and doggedly insists that he's right despite readily available evidence.
d) Others correct misconceptions again.
e) Creationist attempts graceful exit by stammering about how "evolutionists" just don't get it. Then makes big deal about it being a waste of their time to continue,

Same song 500th verse. If you want to actually discuss what natural selection is, then that's fine. But here's a hint, you're talking to people (especially lucaspa) who actually know what it is. They aren't going to let you misrepresent the concept to suit your purposes.

-brett

 

[SirKenin]

Before you get too far into congratulating yourself, I will point out that other than grotesquely misrepresenting a single sentence of Darwin's and then trying to bluff about how the rest of the paragraph backed up your point (which it didn't), I've yet to see you provide a coherent premise in this thread.

Are we talking that post to lucaspa? Show me how the rest of the paragraph (and in particular the part I highlighted) doesn't back up the rest of the sentence and my point.

No one's moving goalposts on you. I simply asked what you thought finding a mistake in a 150 year-old book would accomplish? The book has quite a few mistakes in it as a matter of fact.

Ok. 30 minutes ago it was defendable and according to you I didn't prove a thing. Now it's all a mistake. Look.. Team Evolution is running off with the net!! lol Well, by logical extension and applying atheist/humanist arguments, it sounds like the whole book is rubbish then, doesn't it? After all, isn't that how the Atheists and Humanists debunk the Bible? Well that's just great. How about I go back to playing Delta Force Black Hawk Down while you figure out which parts of the book you can validly defend as correct, and which game you want to play.

If you're trying to use this as an argument against the validity of evolutionary theory, then it's a waste of your time. There's 150 years of scientific discovery and added knowledge to contend with. You might want to bone up on that before you go charging into debates.

Yes, those goal posts that keep moving. I think I've heard them already. When one argument fails, it becomes "Well have you heard about this new eco-bio theory?"

The plants were examples of speciation. If anyone is moving goalposts it's you. You ask for examples of speciation and then when they are provided, you complain that it's only plants. How ridiculous.

-brett

I want more than a few man manipulated examples. If we're going to see human intervention, I'd like to see where man could reproduce evolving a human from an ape in a lab. How about evolving an amoeba into ANYTHING? Even come close. I wanted to see other things besides the same abused examples, almost as though they are the only card in your hand. I know they are examples of speciation, but not examples of natural selection. (besides, I'm not interested in your plants. Plants bore me. lol )

Once I saw valid examples of natural selection, I might be able to proceed with my point. I can't, though, because our friend Arikay keeps trying to hit the silly ball over the fence and lucaspa can't figure out whether he's playing baseball, chess or Q3TA.

 

[Jet Black]

drfeelgood: I have read through this thread, and I really don'T see what you are on about. you spend so long now whingeing about how "team evolution" is messing about with the rules, and I don't see your criticism at all? all that is happening is that lucaspa is presenting you with the data and explanations, and you are contunually just not getting it. what exactly are the questions you want to ask, and what "rules" should everyone abide by?

 

[SirKenin]

Oh man.. You know what? Even if we never agree, I am having the greatest chuckle over here. I really needed that. I hope I'm not the only one getting a good laugh out of this whole thing.

I'm having fun. lol

 

[SirKenin]

drfeelgood: I have read through this thread, and I really don'T see what you are on about. you spend so long now whingeing about how "team evolution" is messing about with the rules, and I don't see your criticism at all? all that is happening is that lucaspa is presenting you with the data and explanations, and you are contunually just not getting it. what exactly are the questions you want to ask, and what "rules" should everyone abide by?

What is there not to get? That his definition of Natural Selection contradicts both Darwins material, as lucaspa himself presented it, and my reiteration of same?

Unless we can come to some basic understandings and establish some basic ground rules, how can we ever proceed? He hasn't proved anything, like I already said, except that when one argument doesn't pan out, he moves on to the next theory.

Your other friends run off on tangents about what plants were discussed, or they'll just plain out say the book, and theory, under discussion is full of holes and 150 year old mistakes anyways. That there's new theories now. Of course, if I tried to defend the Bible or Creationism the way you've presented these arguments, you'd laugh me off the boards.

 

[Arikay]

You know whats funny, is that after all your complaints about no one wanting to debate, you are continuing to post off topic comments and ignoring those who want to debate with you, including being asked to start a thread where we can debate.

I am begining to wonder who exactly is going around in circles here.

 

[Jet Black]

What is there not to get? That his definition of Natural Selection contradicts both Darwins material, as lucaspa himself presented it, and my reiteration of same?

Unless we can come to some basic understandings and establish some basic ground rules, how can we ever proceed? He hasn't proved anything, like I already said, except that when one argument doesn't pan out, he moves on to the next theory.

Your other friends run off on tangents about what plants were discussed, or they'll just plain out say the book, and theory, under discussion is full of holes and 150 year old mistakes anyways. That there's new theories now. Of course, if I tried to defend the Bible or Creationism the way you've presented these arguments, you'd laugh me off the boards.

this is because there are aspects of Darwin that are wrong, and aspects that are right. Darwin's theory was a foundation which was later modified and improved upon in order to end up with the current ideas on evolution (you will have to ask lucaspa, as his knowledge is very extensive) My field is physics, and I only know a bit about evolution, so I can only provide an analogy; If I were explaining mecahanics to you, I would start off with Newton's laws, which, while a few hundred years old, would provide you with an understanding of the basics. Only once you had understood the conceptual stuff would I move onto the details and the tougher stuff, and eventually General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There would be literally no point me explaining the latter to you from the outset as you simply wouldn't have the physical understanding to be able to grasp it.
Furthermore, going back to evolution, learning about Darwin first, and then discussing consecutively more and more modern theories gives an insight into the scientific method, everything starts off with a kind of broad sketch, which outlines the rough details and features, and then with better understanding and analysis of the evidence you build up a clearer and clearer picture.

 

[euphoric]

Are we talking that post to lucaspa? Show me how the rest of the paragraph (and in particular the part I highlighted) doesn't back up the rest of the sentence and my point.

I already did. In fact I quoted the entire section in post #68. It's on page 7. Read it.

Ok. 30 minutes ago it was defendable and according to you I didn't prove a thing. Now it's all a mistake. Look.. Team Evolution is running off with the net!! lol Well, by logical extension and applying atheist/humanist arguments, it sounds like the whole book is rubbish then, doesn't it? After all, isn't that how the Atheists and Humanists debunk the Bible? Well that's just great. How about I go back to playing Delta Force Black Hawk Down while you figure out which parts of the book you can validly defend as correct, and which game you want to play.

Don't be dense. I said that you were misrepresenting what Darwin said in that portion of the book. It was a ridiculous misrepresentation and that fact was pointed out to you. No one on this thread has contended at any point that The Origin of Species or any of Darwin's work is error-free. To suggest that we have is a bald-faced lie.

The only time I've seen anyone use a single error in the Bible to prove a point is in opposition to claims of Biblical inerrancy. I doubt any reasonable person would assert that a single mistake renders the entire Bible invalid as a moral code or even a description of events. It would however negate claims on inerrancy by definition. But none of this goes to the point, science doesn't rely on any single work or set of data as gospel. Science doesn't treat research like theists treat religious texts. The two aren't remotely comparable.

Yes, those goal posts that keep moving. I think I've heard them already. When one argument fails, it becomes "Well have you heard about this new eco-bio theory?"

This is ridiculous. You're complaint here is that science doesn't hold on to models or hypotheses even after they are falsified by the evidence. Science gains knowledge constantly. When new data arises, current theories are either supported, falsified or modified to accomodate the new data. That is precisely what makes science the best tool for explaining the way the world around us works. If your issue is with the scientific method in general, then propose a better one (not in this thread mind you).

I want more than a few man manipulated examples. If we're going to see human intervention, I'd like to see where man could reproduce evolving a human from an ape in a lab. How about evolving an amoeba into ANYTHING? Even come close. I wanted to see other things besides the same abused examples, almost as though they are the only card in your hand. I know they are examples of speciation, but not examples of natural selection. (besides, I'm not interested in your plants. Plants bore me. lol )

So you want data to support your cartoon version of evolution. Sorry to say that most scientists don't spend valuable lab time trying to provide evidence for people's absurd misunderstandings of scientific theories. The examples provided you were of observed speciation. Now you're moving goalposts like a madman.

Once I saw valid examples of natural selection, I might be able to proceed with my point. I can't, though, because our friend Arikay keeps trying to hit the silly ball over the fence and lucaspa can't figure out whether he's playing baseball, chess or Q3TA.

Don't compound bad sports metaphors by mixing them constantly. It's silly and all of the handwaving in the world won't make the evidence presented to you go away. If you have a coherent response (not dismissal) to those instances of speciation, then present it.

 

[SirKenin]

I already did. In fact I quoted the entire section in post #68. It's on page 7. Read it.

We're not talking the same thing... I'm talking about my post (#80) on page 8.

Your conclusions in page 68 are erroneous. Based on a false premise.

No where in this does Darwin suggest that, because part of a population evolves, the original poulation must become extinct. Again, he is simply pointing out that because the number of species is not growing steadily toward infinity due to competition for resources, and new species are evolving, some species do suffer extinction.

You completely misrepresented Darwin's position on this, but let's assume for the sake of argument that your characterization was correct. What conceivable damage would such a thing do to the validity of evolutionary theory?

-brett

What is the problem here? The problem is that we don't agree on what natural selection is. Darwin specified what it is. I reiterated what it is. However, you guys have attempted to redefine it, to reword it if you would, to meet your own needs.

That's what I call "running off with the net". I have a reason I was pursuing that, but until you can concur with Darwins own definition, there is no sense of me going any further.

Don't be dense.

I don't think there's any need for this.

I said that you were misrepresenting what Darwin said in that portion of the book. It was a ridiculous misrepresentation and that fact was pointed out to you.

The only thing that was pointed out to me was your misunderstanding of the concept of Natural Selection. Once again, when we have established the ground rules, when we have settled upon what theory you are going to run with, when we have agreed with Darwin on what Natural Selection is, I can continue. Then, and only then, will it make sense to you.

No one on this thread has contended at any point that The Origin of Species or any of Darwin's work is error-free. To suggest that we have is a bald-faced lie.

I didn't say you did. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

This is ridiculous. You're complaint here is that science doesn't hold on to models or hypotheses even after they are falsified by the evidence. Science gains knowledge constantly. When new data arises, current theories are either supported, falsified or modified to accomodate the new data.

No.. That's not my complaint at all. What's ridiculous is that you are defending the theory one minute, rewording it the next, and then calling it erroneous and full of holes the minute after.. Running off to play in the other field once I've developed a strategy.

So you want data to support your cartoon version of evolution. Sorry to say that most scientists don't spend valuable lab time trying to provide evidence for people's absurd misunderstandings of scientific theories. The examples provided you were of observed speciation. Now you're moving goalposts like a madman.

This isn't cartoon evolution. This is reality, and the biggest stumbling block to evolutionists. You claim we came from apes. You claim amoebas evolved into fish and birds and whatever else. You've had plenty of opportunity, but you can't reprodruce your own theories in the lab. You can accuse me of and call me whatever you want. The proof is in the pudding. Science is all about facts you say. Ok. Where are they? No theory, and I mean NO theory, is allowed to be presented today without reproducible results. You try posting a theory in the Medical Journal without being able to produce tangible, consistently reproducible results. You can't. You get laughed out of the profession.

What makes you immune?

Human intervention won't work. What makes you think Natural Selection will? All the rubbish you've been presenting is exactly that. Rubbish. When faced with the obvious you run off. You duck out, claiming errancy. Asking me what I hope to gain pointing out fallacies in a 150 year old theory. You're not playing fair ball. There's a reason I'm using the metaphors that I am.

If you could just grant Darwin's definition of his own theory "This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection" - Darwin, then perhaps I could sit here and have an intelligent conversation with you. Until then there's no sense in "presenting" anything...

 

[Nathan David]

Dr. Feelgood, several examples of speciation by natural selection were presented to you. You cannot claim biologists have no evidence when it is sitting right in front of you. If you have a serious refutation of the evidence, please post it. But "plants are boring" is not a serious refutation.