Mark Ramsey's Reply to Aron-Ra in the Texas Evolution Debate
- Thread starter mikeynov
- Start date
Lucretius said:
It's slightly annoying insofar as Ramsey will undoubtedly refuse to reply head-on to any serious point Aron makes. I make this inference based on seeing countless such examples and based on Ramsey's initial, dishonest response, use of language and so forth.
So it will read like the sort of insanity we regularly see around here: Aron will cite all sorts of empirical evidence, use actually correct reasoning to address Ramsey's claims, and Ramsey will systematically ignore it all in favor of machine gunning out one PRATT after another.
Upvote
0
More unbelievable nonsence:
"The second major portion of what is generically called 'evolution' in textbooks was more specifically referred to as descent with modification by Darwin. This idea predates Darwin.The ancient Egyptians, for example, believed 2500 years before Darwin that a cow gave birth to the first human and hence worshipped cows"
And thats like Evolution? FOO!_
Ed
"The second major portion of what is generically called 'evolution' in textbooks was more specifically referred to as descent with modification by Darwin. This idea predates Darwin.The ancient Egyptians, for example, believed 2500 years before Darwin that a cow gave birth to the first human and hence worshipped cows"
And thats like Evolution? FOO!_
Ed
Upvote
0
Edx said:
Can you imagine how odd Ramsey's reply is going to sound to Bakker and the cell biologist? lol
This is a good wake-up call to see exactly the sort of nonsense that's actually being suggested as part of the textbook science curricula in Texas.
Why not just give the kids URL's for all of the creationist web-inspired sources? These people frighten me.
Upvote
0
Id love to be a fly on the wall to see his reaction.mikeynov said:
Yea its probably a good thing he is even more of a moron than I gave him credit for.
Yea especially when guys like dad say its okay to steal, rape, kill and destroy as long as you think it is god inspired.
Ed
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Edx said:
I'll never figure this place out. I changed that "you" to "who" before there was any reply, but the quote still comes up "you" in your post.
Anyhow, I don't really doubt you're right. But there's always that twinge of anxiety until the thing's settled.
Upvote
0
H
HRE
Guest
I don't think we want Aron to give this guy the thrashing he deserves.
He will become defensive and aggressive simultaneously, and, for the most part, his arguments look good to the layman -- which the school board is composed of.
Aron needs to employ every single people management skill he's ever heard of to not just show Ramsey to be scientifically incorrect, but to convince him of evolution. Remember that a man convinced against his will is unconvinced still.
Aron also needs to take a leaf out of Dr. Dino's book and engage in the...duplicity needed to make the laypeople understand this. Let's face it -- he can spout the science as long as he wants, and the judges will just fall asleep. He needs to use sound bytes and friendly, colorful images.
He will become defensive and aggressive simultaneously, and, for the most part, his arguments look good to the layman -- which the school board is composed of.
Aron needs to employ every single people management skill he's ever heard of to not just show Ramsey to be scientifically incorrect, but to convince him of evolution. Remember that a man convinced against his will is unconvinced still.
Aron also needs to take a leaf out of Dr. Dino's book and engage in the...duplicity needed to make the laypeople understand this. Let's face it -- he can spout the science as long as he wants, and the judges will just fall asleep. He needs to use sound bytes and friendly, colorful images.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
HRE said:
No, you can't go into a debate trying to win over your opponent. The only way to "win" this type of debate is to convince the onlookers.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Why have Creationists been silent (or virtually silent) in this thread so far? There are plenty of issues and plenty of points to refute... so where are they?
Is it just me, or does the number of linked evidences supporting the evolution side, the lower the number of Creationist comments or attempts at replies?
Is it just me, or does the number of linked evidences supporting the evolution side, the lower the number of Creationist comments or attempts at replies?
Upvote
0
USincognito said:
The problem with misinformation is that it takes only a few seconds to say it, and an exponentially longer time to frame it in the proper context to correct it. Honestly, a book could be written on why Ramsey's post is terrible. The various layers of obfuscation, misinformation and/or misunderstanding is impressive.
From the ground up, this guy:
1) Has no idea what evolution means
2) Uses terms in an intentionally vague way (e.g. 'genetic information,' 'true transitional form' etc)
3) Isn't familiar with what evidence exists
4) Refuses to address individual rebuttals on a point-per-point basis
5) Isn't afraid to mischaracterize anything his opponent says in order to make his opponent look foolish
As a further example of #5, Ramsey brings up Aron's mentioning of biotechnological applications of evolution, and that Aron's examples are irrelevent because they're a product of human intelligence, and thus not representative of nature. Now look at what Aron was talking about in his original post, one of the 'claimed' weakness of evolution on Ramsey's own site:
What's so weird about this isn't really the dishonesty - it's that Ramsey is doing this in front of a public audience, on record. It's not like it's hard to figure out he's blatantly distorting the context of Aron's statements.
Anyways, in case nobody noticed, my personal opinion is that this guy is pretty indefensible, so it doesn't entirely surprise me that the creationists on this board aren't jumping to his rescue. Oh, I'm sure a few would and probably still will, but I tried to be thorough enough to provide general sources of information for the long list of PRATTS and show how honestly lame Ramsey's tactics and argument really are.
Upvote
0
I made a post on studentofnature about this, but Ramsey's initial offering revolves around three intentionally undefined terms:
'evolution'
'genetic information'
'(true) transitional fossil/form.'
After a bit of thought, I see that they're related, at least in his head.
Based on Ramsey's own words, I believe that his concept of evolution is, quite literally, the one pictured here on the left:
I believe this based on comments such as the following:
Sometimes called the 'great chain of being,' Ramsey portrays evolution, or at least his 'upward evolution,' as a rise in complexity over time. So, in Ramsey world, evolution starts at the bottom rung of the ladder, presumably with bacteria, and then 'upward evolution' takes it towards ever-increasing levels of complexity.
So, bacteria beget the more complex protista that beget the more complex invertebrates that beget the more complex vertebrates until we arrive at 'us,' at the top, the pinnacle of evolution, a masterpiece of complexity and the seeming end-product of evolution.
Now, this is a critical misunderstanding. In Ramsey world, humans are undoubtedly 'the most evolved' organism, whereas our proposed ancestry, including the reptiles and amphibians, are 'lower.'
So, with this in mind, the 'genetic information' Ramsey is talking about is that which occurs at every rung of that ladder to make life increasingly complex. I doubt he's thought it out too much beyond that. He definitely believes it has 'something to do with DNA,' and has undoubtedly taken on some of the pseudo-scientific ID arguments in this regards, including Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and the like. However, Ramsey is no Dembski, so he never really expounds on what exactly 'genetic information' is in his own eyes. But based on his own creationist background, it's probably something akin to what WarriorAngel recently offered - a human sprouting wings, some organism with a new body system or some other saltation-of-genetics model.
Lastly we have 'transitional' forms. Now, I'm going to guess that Ramsey isn't actually foolish enough to believe that there's no candidates for 'transitionals,' and I believe he very purposefully said 'true' transitionals to cover his tail as he undoubtedly realize that Aron, much more familiar with the fossil record than he, was going to call him on this point. I'd go so far as to say that Ramsey probably expects it, but by not having defined transitional, he will undoubtedly brush aside every single, solitary example (expectedly) offered by Aron in his next response.
So what is a true transitional form in Ramsey world? I've picked up on a few clues:
Firstly, looks at Ramsey's comments in regards to human ancestry:
Obviously, he's taking a lot of creative license in what he's saying, and screwing up a lot in his interpretation, but his 'point' is that you can't conclusively prove that proposed transitionals are DIRECTLY ancestral to one lineage and DIRECTLY descended from another. This is the first half of his definition, imho.
The second half becomes clear in the following comment:
This, in my opinion, shows the other way Ramsey is going to cover his butt - even if Aron shows that a given proposed transitional is undoubtedly part of a grouping of organisms which meet his criteria (with the caveat that no particular, identified species could ever be positively concluded to be, itself, as directly meeting his criteria), he can fall back on this - that the only evidence that 'counts' is an analysis of DNA.
My guess is that he realizes that this request is Totally Impossible even above and beyond his other qualification of transitional. Short of a time machine, it's profoundly unlikely to have any preserved DNA from highly ancestral organisms bordering on the absurd.
So, after Aron undoubtedly gives Ramsey a barrage of transitionals that would be hard to defend with his hardline, "you can't absolutely prove that that particular specimen was part of a population that was directly descended from A and directly ancestral to B," he will simply fall back to "without DNA testing, you're relying on APPARENT similarities, and that's not 'PROOF.'"
I'm really not trying to paint Ramsey is some sort of clever mastermind - I don't give him that much credit. But even creationists can get together and figure out how to properly obfuscate their arguments to the point that they're extremely hard to take down. This was made possible by Ramsey refusing any set of definitions, and I find it entirely likely that he will continue to do so at every step, so he can always weasel his way out of dealing with the enormity of evidence that he has to on some level realize will be leveled at him.
This all of course is just my $.02 - and I won't pretend to tell Aron how to reply, but I do hope he reads this and take into consideration Ramsey's apparent mentality. Then again, I'm pretty sure he has him figured out.
'evolution'
'genetic information'
'(true) transitional fossil/form.'
After a bit of thought, I see that they're related, at least in his head.
Based on Ramsey's own words, I believe that his concept of evolution is, quite literally, the one pictured here on the left:
I believe this based on comments such as the following:
Sometimes called the 'great chain of being,' Ramsey portrays evolution, or at least his 'upward evolution,' as a rise in complexity over time. So, in Ramsey world, evolution starts at the bottom rung of the ladder, presumably with bacteria, and then 'upward evolution' takes it towards ever-increasing levels of complexity.
So, bacteria beget the more complex protista that beget the more complex invertebrates that beget the more complex vertebrates until we arrive at 'us,' at the top, the pinnacle of evolution, a masterpiece of complexity and the seeming end-product of evolution.
Now, this is a critical misunderstanding. In Ramsey world, humans are undoubtedly 'the most evolved' organism, whereas our proposed ancestry, including the reptiles and amphibians, are 'lower.'
So, with this in mind, the 'genetic information' Ramsey is talking about is that which occurs at every rung of that ladder to make life increasingly complex. I doubt he's thought it out too much beyond that. He definitely believes it has 'something to do with DNA,' and has undoubtedly taken on some of the pseudo-scientific ID arguments in this regards, including Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and the like. However, Ramsey is no Dembski, so he never really expounds on what exactly 'genetic information' is in his own eyes. But based on his own creationist background, it's probably something akin to what WarriorAngel recently offered - a human sprouting wings, some organism with a new body system or some other saltation-of-genetics model.
Lastly we have 'transitional' forms. Now, I'm going to guess that Ramsey isn't actually foolish enough to believe that there's no candidates for 'transitionals,' and I believe he very purposefully said 'true' transitionals to cover his tail as he undoubtedly realize that Aron, much more familiar with the fossil record than he, was going to call him on this point. I'd go so far as to say that Ramsey probably expects it, but by not having defined transitional, he will undoubtedly brush aside every single, solitary example (expectedly) offered by Aron in his next response.
So what is a true transitional form in Ramsey world? I've picked up on a few clues:
Firstly, looks at Ramsey's comments in regards to human ancestry:
Obviously, he's taking a lot of creative license in what he's saying, and screwing up a lot in his interpretation, but his 'point' is that you can't conclusively prove that proposed transitionals are DIRECTLY ancestral to one lineage and DIRECTLY descended from another. This is the first half of his definition, imho.
The second half becomes clear in the following comment:
This, in my opinion, shows the other way Ramsey is going to cover his butt - even if Aron shows that a given proposed transitional is undoubtedly part of a grouping of organisms which meet his criteria (with the caveat that no particular, identified species could ever be positively concluded to be, itself, as directly meeting his criteria), he can fall back on this - that the only evidence that 'counts' is an analysis of DNA.
My guess is that he realizes that this request is Totally Impossible even above and beyond his other qualification of transitional. Short of a time machine, it's profoundly unlikely to have any preserved DNA from highly ancestral organisms bordering on the absurd.
So, after Aron undoubtedly gives Ramsey a barrage of transitionals that would be hard to defend with his hardline, "you can't absolutely prove that that particular specimen was part of a population that was directly descended from A and directly ancestral to B," he will simply fall back to "without DNA testing, you're relying on APPARENT similarities, and that's not 'PROOF.'"
I'm really not trying to paint Ramsey is some sort of clever mastermind - I don't give him that much credit. But even creationists can get together and figure out how to properly obfuscate their arguments to the point that they're extremely hard to take down. This was made possible by Ramsey refusing any set of definitions, and I find it entirely likely that he will continue to do so at every step, so he can always weasel his way out of dealing with the enormity of evidence that he has to on some level realize will be leveled at him.
This all of course is just my $.02 - and I won't pretend to tell Aron how to reply, but I do hope he reads this and take into consideration Ramsey's apparent mentality. Then again, I'm pretty sure he has him figured out.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
As a few basic suggestions on each term, with the obvious disclaimer that I'm just a layperson watching this debate with general interest:
1) Evolution - make sure it's well-defined and easy to understand. It needs to be made abundantly clear to the audience that Ramsey is operating on a fundamentally flawed perception of Evolution that was discarded by the time Darwin hit the scene. Since Ramsey pretty obviously never even read Aron's definitions, I'd say it's time to copy/paste the biological evolution definition and make sure that the implications are laid out plainly.
Also, counter-examples of evolution which results in 'less' complexity over geologic time would probably be useful, including a general reduction in the number of bones composing the skull structure in vertebrates. An example of this was a transition from metautostylic jaw attachment (jaw attaches to brain case via dentary) to craniostylic jaw attachment (jaw directly connected to brain case, composed of a single bone - the dentary) in the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals:
Of course, Ramsey would never, ever, ever accept "just a picture," and would probably reject most reconstructions of fossil evidence if 100% of the structure weren't preserved.
2) Correct his misunderstanding of "genetic information." The talk.origins link found here has enough to demonstrate the general point, but my guess is that Ramsey will object to examples of unicellular organisms (e.g. bacteria, yeast) being relevent to a discussion of 'higher' evolutionary forms. Pandas thumb recently linked a variety of peer reviewed articles on this subject that I will track down - though they were pretty information heavy. As much as Ramsey likes his 'information' talk, I kind of doubt he's familiar with Shannon Information Theory (see glaudys' link in OP).
Ramsey will undoubtedly reject all examples of an 'increase in information' that are based on computer simulation, so bringing up examples in aeuronautics, bioinformatics and such probably won't do much to phase him. "Those are computers, and they're intelligently designed. So I win."
3) I'd address his concept of 'transitional form' by A) providing the abundance of transitional forms that you undoubtedly will as well as B) demonstrating evidence for the twin nested hierarchy.
For item B, it's going to be in a slightly different way than this concept is usually introduced. That is, the twin-nested hierarchy is generally shown to support the idea of convergence of evidence - but in this case, show that morphological comparisons (i.e. the zoological basis of early comparative studies) were shown to be pretty damn reliable by genetic evidence. There's a wealth of material in this regards, and it won't be hard to bombard him with cladograms that yield common conclusions, which should establish the reliability of morphological comparisons in respect to the 'genetic' evidence that he will bait and switch you with.
This will also be a good time to point out the other lines of convergence, and query him as to why all the molecular evidence converges, as you suggested.
I think if you can demonstrate to the judges/audience that Ramsey's entire perception of evolution is built on a house of cards while simultaneously using Ramsey's own reasoning against him (that is, common ancestry of extant organisms can be rightfully inferred and tested statistically based on the convergence of molecular evidence alone minus any fossil record whatsoever), the ownination should be obvious to even laypeople.
Re-disclaimer - all my $.02, ignore as you see fit.
1) Evolution - make sure it's well-defined and easy to understand. It needs to be made abundantly clear to the audience that Ramsey is operating on a fundamentally flawed perception of Evolution that was discarded by the time Darwin hit the scene. Since Ramsey pretty obviously never even read Aron's definitions, I'd say it's time to copy/paste the biological evolution definition and make sure that the implications are laid out plainly.
Also, counter-examples of evolution which results in 'less' complexity over geologic time would probably be useful, including a general reduction in the number of bones composing the skull structure in vertebrates. An example of this was a transition from metautostylic jaw attachment (jaw attaches to brain case via dentary) to craniostylic jaw attachment (jaw directly connected to brain case, composed of a single bone - the dentary) in the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals:
Of course, Ramsey would never, ever, ever accept "just a picture," and would probably reject most reconstructions of fossil evidence if 100% of the structure weren't preserved.
2) Correct his misunderstanding of "genetic information." The talk.origins link found here has enough to demonstrate the general point, but my guess is that Ramsey will object to examples of unicellular organisms (e.g. bacteria, yeast) being relevent to a discussion of 'higher' evolutionary forms. Pandas thumb recently linked a variety of peer reviewed articles on this subject that I will track down - though they were pretty information heavy. As much as Ramsey likes his 'information' talk, I kind of doubt he's familiar with Shannon Information Theory (see glaudys' link in OP).
Ramsey will undoubtedly reject all examples of an 'increase in information' that are based on computer simulation, so bringing up examples in aeuronautics, bioinformatics and such probably won't do much to phase him. "Those are computers, and they're intelligently designed. So I win."
3) I'd address his concept of 'transitional form' by A) providing the abundance of transitional forms that you undoubtedly will as well as B) demonstrating evidence for the twin nested hierarchy.
For item B, it's going to be in a slightly different way than this concept is usually introduced. That is, the twin-nested hierarchy is generally shown to support the idea of convergence of evidence - but in this case, show that morphological comparisons (i.e. the zoological basis of early comparative studies) were shown to be pretty damn reliable by genetic evidence. There's a wealth of material in this regards, and it won't be hard to bombard him with cladograms that yield common conclusions, which should establish the reliability of morphological comparisons in respect to the 'genetic' evidence that he will bait and switch you with.
This will also be a good time to point out the other lines of convergence, and query him as to why all the molecular evidence converges, as you suggested.
I think if you can demonstrate to the judges/audience that Ramsey's entire perception of evolution is built on a house of cards while simultaneously using Ramsey's own reasoning against him (that is, common ancestry of extant organisms can be rightfully inferred and tested statistically based on the convergence of molecular evidence alone minus any fossil record whatsoever), the ownination should be obvious to even laypeople.
Re-disclaimer - all my $.02, ignore as you see fit.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
