Nesslig20
Active Member
Last night, I had the pleasure to listen to a discussion during the hangout Open Discussion #171 on youtube channel "Debate Colosseum". I listened for not more than five minutes of the guy called Christian Hillbilly (CH). The typical creationist falsehoods of "information" and 99% mutations being harmful or deleterious spewed out of CH's mouth. If you look him up on youtube, he has the same name with his phone number right next to it. This guy is demanding for attention, and I am willing to give him the attention, not the type he wants but the type he deserves (or rather needs).
My challenge is this:
Description of the challenge
My goal is to prove to his satisfaction that the statement "evolution happens" is a fact,
that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation for biodiversity
and that it is the only explanation for biodiversity that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Some definitions:
Fact: A point of data that is true by observation - something that is verifiable by objective means.
Example: the statement "objects fall down if no force is counteracting it" is a fact.
Evidence: A fact or facts that concordant with or otherwise support one conclusion over any other. A fact that can be accounted for by multiple explanations doesn't qualify as evidence. Only if it can be accounted for by one, then it qualifies as evidence.
Proof: In the legal sense, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting a proposition, which shows that this proposition is at least mostly true beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, in order for me to prove evolution, all I have to give are multiple facts supporting the theory of evolution, which cannot be accounted for by any other explanation.
More definitions:
Hypothesis: A potential explanation for a phenomenon, which is potentially falsifiable and makes specific predictions on what the results would be of future tests, experimentations, observations and discoveries. If the hypothesis is true we should expect X if it is false we should expect Y.
Scientific Law: A general statements or mathematical formula of science that is always true under specific circumstances.
Example Objects with mass attract each other with a force that is proportional to the mass of the objects in question and the gravitational constant and is squared inversely proportional to the distance of the objects. Or to put it in mathematics.
Science: A systematic process with the specific goal to improve the understanding of the natural world in practical application or math, by using, along with several principles, "methodological naturalism" aka the scientific method - science can only investigate what can be objectively observed, tested and understood i.e. that which are natural as in part of the natural (physical, material, etc) world, as opposed to the supernatural (that which is outside perceptible reality). Science involves observation and experimentation, falsifiable hypotheses and constructing scientific theories that provide explanations for natural phenomena.
Scientific theory: A body of knowledge that unifies all known relevant facts, hypotheses, and scientific laws, under a field of study. It is a proposed explanation, which posits mechanism(s) to explain a set of related facts/phenomena. Theories represents the highest form of confidence science can achieve in understanding nature. All scientific theories have to be a well-substantiated explanation, where the hypotheses/predictions of which have been repeatedly tested and confirmed by experiments and observation. Scientific theories are never considered fixed or complete, they are continuously being improved by revising or building upon their frame work, due to new discoveries.
Example of fields of science and their central theories, although some overlap with other fields especially those within physics.
Classical physics:
- Classical (Newtonian) mechanics of motion
- Kinetic theory (thermodynamics)
- Electromagnetic theory
- Strong interaction
- Weak interaction
- (Newtonian) Theory of gravity
Modern physics (improved upon the classical physics):
- (Einsteins) Theory of relativity
----- Special theory of relativity (classical motion)
----- General theory of relativity (gravity)
- Quantum theory
----- Quantum thermodynamics
----- Quantum field theory, which produced the standard model of particle physics often dubbed as "the theory of almost everything".
QFT combines three (electromagnetic-, weak- and strong) of the four fundamental forces.
------------------ Quantum chromodynamics (QCD, strong force)
------------- Electro-Weak theory (EWT, combines the electromagnetic- and weak force)
------------------ Quantum electrodynamics (QED, electromagnetic force)
------------------ Quantum flavordynamics (QFD, weak force)
The major goal of physicists is to come up with a quantum mechanical description of the fourth fundamental force (gravity) and combine it with the rest in a unifying theory of everything.
Cosmology:
- Big bang theory
- heliocentric theory (earth revolves around the sun)
- Geospheric theory (earth is a sphere)
Geology:
- Plate tectonic theory
Chemistry:
- Atomic theory
Medicine:
- Germ theory of disease
Biology:
- Cell theory
- Theory of evolution
Obscure examples:
- Economic theory
- Music theory
- Shannon information theory
- Chaos theory
Also since the challenge involve "evolution" and the theory of evolution, we need to specify what those words mean also.
Evolution (in context of biology): In general usage, "evolution" can be synonymous with "change" or "development", but within the context of science and this challenge, evolution specifically refers to an aspect of biology - in which case, it is summarily defined as "Descent with Inherent [genetic] modification". Paraphrased for clarity, it specifically is a process of changing allele frequencies among reproductive populations over generations, which leads to changes in either the morphology and/or physiology of descendant subsets. When compiled over many generations, these changes can expand biodiversity when increasing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches that are increasingly distinct from their ancestors and/or cousins. - Or if you prefer, the process by which life forms diversify via "descent with modification".
Micro-evolution: Small scale evolution that happens within a species or within an interbreeding population.
Macro-evolution: Large scale evolution that happens above the species level - between different species or interbreeding populations. The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level, also known as speciation (= formation of a new species)
The theory of evolution: The unifying theory of biology that explains the unity and diversity of life and its history, in which life diversified via "Descent with modification" (aka evolution) from a series of flowering lineages connected by common ancestry; as well as explaining and describing why and how the process of evolution happens by several mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. The theory overlaps and concords with several fields of science primarily biology: cellular biology, anatomy, especially genetics and taxonomy, but also geology and paleontology.
NOTE: Evolution is defined as "Descent with inherent modification" and you cannot have descendants without ancestors, thus evolution doesn't explain the origins of life nor what happened before it like the big bang nor was it meant to explain these, those are other subjects not relevant to evolution. Just like the theory of gravity explains the interaction of matter, not how matter originated, the theory of evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it originated. Those who are thinking that the theory of evolution includes abiogenesis, planetary accretion, nuclear synthesis, stellar formation and big bang are having a gross misconception.
The misconception perpetuated by the convicted felon non other than Kent Hovind, put on a chick track.
Also evolution isn't a religion either, despite allegations of those who are desperate to project their own flaws onto others, pretending that there is a level playing field or that two options are somehow equal.
Religion: A doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which posits a promise, that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being.
Many people, with many different religions (christian, muslim, jew, etc), even those that believe in God accept evolution, so evolution isn't atheism or anti-God either. "Evolutionism/Darwinism" is in the same sense a religion and a scientific theory as "Gravitism/Newtonism" is.
Criteria of the challenge
I have done this type of challenge before and I know from experience that many people want this discussion to go like me throwing facts over their heads and they will miss it each point obtusely, either deliberate or unintended, so that they can dismiss each an every tree in order to not deny the forest (analogy with forest and tree). Often by the common thoughtless phrases "Goddidit" or "That doesn't prove anything"
But I won't play that game of ducking and dodging.
This won't be a debate, rather it will be an interactive discussion where I will ask direct questions and I will expect a direct answer for each from CH and visa versa.
We will do this in one step at a time to make the replies short. And this process goes like this:
1. It will require an education and explanations on what the terms mean. I have given several definitions in this post and I will ask you to go through all of them and understand what they mean, if you don't, ask which one and specify what you don't understand. In order to communicate we must first both know what the terms, that we are using, means. And giving evidence for evolution to someone who doesn't understand what evolution and other relevant terms means, is pointless. Sometimes when a new term comes up, we will have give a solid definition to make sure we are on the same page.
2. After the basic understanding is established, I will be laying out the evidence for evolution. In small doses. I will ask which one you accept and which ones you don't or don't understand yet, in which case I will explain it and I will have provide scientific peer reviewed literature or .edu sites, backing it up or I can merely demonstrate the points directly by giving pictures of let's say fossils, etc. Each point will have to be acknowledge before we progress to the next.
3. We will also during our discussion go through what your understanding of the subject is and what you would want to see about evolution and your questions about it. If they are based on misconceptions, I will correct you on them. If they are legit point, I will address them for you. Once again, each point has to be acknowledge before we progress to the next.
You cannot ask non-sequitur questions nor questions that need clarification first while expecting an immediate answer.
For example if you ask for examples of mutations increase in information I will demand first that you define what genetic information is and how to measure it. If you cannot, this question is ignored.
Side tracking or attempts to change the subject will be pointed out and ignored and I will keep you focussed on the subject at hand
If you want to discuss abiogenesis, the origin of the universe or the existence of God and Jesus, than I have to disappoint you. None of those are relevant to the subject. I can declare for the sake of argument that abiogenesis, big bang cosmology are all wrong and that God exists, and all that would have no effect on the subject of the challenge. Also obvious attempts to side track like challenges to a public debate or hangout will be ignored also.
Repeatedly ignoring direct questions and/or not acknowledging points means you fail the challenge.
There is no limit like "three strikes your out". If you don't answer the question I will repeatedly ask it until I get an direct adequate answer or a clarification response.
Also to clarify, these rules apply to both of us. If I don't answer your question or don't come back with a clarification, feel free to point that out.
If you accept the challenge, this conversation will end in one of these ways
1. I will fail the challenge.
2. You will accept on public record that my challenge has been met and thus I succeeded.
3. You will quickly ignore direct questions and not acknowledging points repeatedly until you run away to avoid the admission that my challenge has been met. And hoping that no one will think that you ran away, while this conversation with all my repeated questions will stay here on the LoR for everyone to clearly see that you indeed ran away. In which case you fail the challenge for not participating.
Do you accept the challenge and its criteria so we can start? Make an account on the League of Reason and post here either a clear YES or a NO.
My challenge is this:
Description of the challenge
My goal is to prove to his satisfaction that the statement "evolution happens" is a fact,
that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation for biodiversity
and that it is the only explanation for biodiversity that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Some definitions:
Fact: A point of data that is true by observation - something that is verifiable by objective means.
Example: the statement "objects fall down if no force is counteracting it" is a fact.
Evidence: A fact or facts that concordant with or otherwise support one conclusion over any other. A fact that can be accounted for by multiple explanations doesn't qualify as evidence. Only if it can be accounted for by one, then it qualifies as evidence.
Proof: In the legal sense, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting a proposition, which shows that this proposition is at least mostly true beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, in order for me to prove evolution, all I have to give are multiple facts supporting the theory of evolution, which cannot be accounted for by any other explanation.
More definitions:
Hypothesis: A potential explanation for a phenomenon, which is potentially falsifiable and makes specific predictions on what the results would be of future tests, experimentations, observations and discoveries. If the hypothesis is true we should expect X if it is false we should expect Y.
Scientific Law: A general statements or mathematical formula of science that is always true under specific circumstances.
Example Objects with mass attract each other with a force that is proportional to the mass of the objects in question and the gravitational constant and is squared inversely proportional to the distance of the objects. Or to put it in mathematics.
Science: A systematic process with the specific goal to improve the understanding of the natural world in practical application or math, by using, along with several principles, "methodological naturalism" aka the scientific method - science can only investigate what can be objectively observed, tested and understood i.e. that which are natural as in part of the natural (physical, material, etc) world, as opposed to the supernatural (that which is outside perceptible reality). Science involves observation and experimentation, falsifiable hypotheses and constructing scientific theories that provide explanations for natural phenomena.
Scientific theory: A body of knowledge that unifies all known relevant facts, hypotheses, and scientific laws, under a field of study. It is a proposed explanation, which posits mechanism(s) to explain a set of related facts/phenomena. Theories represents the highest form of confidence science can achieve in understanding nature. All scientific theories have to be a well-substantiated explanation, where the hypotheses/predictions of which have been repeatedly tested and confirmed by experiments and observation. Scientific theories are never considered fixed or complete, they are continuously being improved by revising or building upon their frame work, due to new discoveries.
Example of fields of science and their central theories, although some overlap with other fields especially those within physics.
Classical physics:
- Classical (Newtonian) mechanics of motion
- Kinetic theory (thermodynamics)
- Electromagnetic theory
- Strong interaction
- Weak interaction
- (Newtonian) Theory of gravity
Modern physics (improved upon the classical physics):
- (Einsteins) Theory of relativity
----- Special theory of relativity (classical motion)
----- General theory of relativity (gravity)
- Quantum theory
----- Quantum thermodynamics
----- Quantum field theory, which produced the standard model of particle physics often dubbed as "the theory of almost everything".
QFT combines three (electromagnetic-, weak- and strong) of the four fundamental forces.
------------------ Quantum chromodynamics (QCD, strong force)
------------- Electro-Weak theory (EWT, combines the electromagnetic- and weak force)
------------------ Quantum electrodynamics (QED, electromagnetic force)
------------------ Quantum flavordynamics (QFD, weak force)
The major goal of physicists is to come up with a quantum mechanical description of the fourth fundamental force (gravity) and combine it with the rest in a unifying theory of everything.
Cosmology:
- Big bang theory
- heliocentric theory (earth revolves around the sun)
- Geospheric theory (earth is a sphere)
Geology:
- Plate tectonic theory
Chemistry:
- Atomic theory
Medicine:
- Germ theory of disease
Biology:
- Cell theory
- Theory of evolution
Obscure examples:
- Economic theory
- Music theory
- Shannon information theory
- Chaos theory
Also since the challenge involve "evolution" and the theory of evolution, we need to specify what those words mean also.
Evolution (in context of biology): In general usage, "evolution" can be synonymous with "change" or "development", but within the context of science and this challenge, evolution specifically refers to an aspect of biology - in which case, it is summarily defined as "Descent with Inherent [genetic] modification". Paraphrased for clarity, it specifically is a process of changing allele frequencies among reproductive populations over generations, which leads to changes in either the morphology and/or physiology of descendant subsets. When compiled over many generations, these changes can expand biodiversity when increasing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches that are increasingly distinct from their ancestors and/or cousins. - Or if you prefer, the process by which life forms diversify via "descent with modification".
Micro-evolution: Small scale evolution that happens within a species or within an interbreeding population.
Macro-evolution: Large scale evolution that happens above the species level - between different species or interbreeding populations. The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level, also known as speciation (= formation of a new species)
The theory of evolution: The unifying theory of biology that explains the unity and diversity of life and its history, in which life diversified via "Descent with modification" (aka evolution) from a series of flowering lineages connected by common ancestry; as well as explaining and describing why and how the process of evolution happens by several mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. The theory overlaps and concords with several fields of science primarily biology: cellular biology, anatomy, especially genetics and taxonomy, but also geology and paleontology.
NOTE: Evolution is defined as "Descent with inherent modification" and you cannot have descendants without ancestors, thus evolution doesn't explain the origins of life nor what happened before it like the big bang nor was it meant to explain these, those are other subjects not relevant to evolution. Just like the theory of gravity explains the interaction of matter, not how matter originated, the theory of evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it originated. Those who are thinking that the theory of evolution includes abiogenesis, planetary accretion, nuclear synthesis, stellar formation and big bang are having a gross misconception.
The misconception perpetuated by the convicted felon non other than Kent Hovind, put on a chick track.
Also evolution isn't a religion either, despite allegations of those who are desperate to project their own flaws onto others, pretending that there is a level playing field or that two options are somehow equal.
Religion: A doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which posits a promise, that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being.
Many people, with many different religions (christian, muslim, jew, etc), even those that believe in God accept evolution, so evolution isn't atheism or anti-God either. "Evolutionism/Darwinism" is in the same sense a religion and a scientific theory as "Gravitism/Newtonism" is.
Criteria of the challenge
I have done this type of challenge before and I know from experience that many people want this discussion to go like me throwing facts over their heads and they will miss it each point obtusely, either deliberate or unintended, so that they can dismiss each an every tree in order to not deny the forest (analogy with forest and tree). Often by the common thoughtless phrases "Goddidit" or "That doesn't prove anything"
But I won't play that game of ducking and dodging.
This won't be a debate, rather it will be an interactive discussion where I will ask direct questions and I will expect a direct answer for each from CH and visa versa.
We will do this in one step at a time to make the replies short. And this process goes like this:
1. It will require an education and explanations on what the terms mean. I have given several definitions in this post and I will ask you to go through all of them and understand what they mean, if you don't, ask which one and specify what you don't understand. In order to communicate we must first both know what the terms, that we are using, means. And giving evidence for evolution to someone who doesn't understand what evolution and other relevant terms means, is pointless. Sometimes when a new term comes up, we will have give a solid definition to make sure we are on the same page.
2. After the basic understanding is established, I will be laying out the evidence for evolution. In small doses. I will ask which one you accept and which ones you don't or don't understand yet, in which case I will explain it and I will have provide scientific peer reviewed literature or .edu sites, backing it up or I can merely demonstrate the points directly by giving pictures of let's say fossils, etc. Each point will have to be acknowledge before we progress to the next.
3. We will also during our discussion go through what your understanding of the subject is and what you would want to see about evolution and your questions about it. If they are based on misconceptions, I will correct you on them. If they are legit point, I will address them for you. Once again, each point has to be acknowledge before we progress to the next.
You cannot ask non-sequitur questions nor questions that need clarification first while expecting an immediate answer.
For example if you ask for examples of mutations increase in information I will demand first that you define what genetic information is and how to measure it. If you cannot, this question is ignored.
Side tracking or attempts to change the subject will be pointed out and ignored and I will keep you focussed on the subject at hand
If you want to discuss abiogenesis, the origin of the universe or the existence of God and Jesus, than I have to disappoint you. None of those are relevant to the subject. I can declare for the sake of argument that abiogenesis, big bang cosmology are all wrong and that God exists, and all that would have no effect on the subject of the challenge. Also obvious attempts to side track like challenges to a public debate or hangout will be ignored also.
Repeatedly ignoring direct questions and/or not acknowledging points means you fail the challenge.
There is no limit like "three strikes your out". If you don't answer the question I will repeatedly ask it until I get an direct adequate answer or a clarification response.
Also to clarify, these rules apply to both of us. If I don't answer your question or don't come back with a clarification, feel free to point that out.
If you accept the challenge, this conversation will end in one of these ways
1. I will fail the challenge.
2. You will accept on public record that my challenge has been met and thus I succeeded.
3. You will quickly ignore direct questions and not acknowledging points repeatedly until you run away to avoid the admission that my challenge has been met. And hoping that no one will think that you ran away, while this conversation with all my repeated questions will stay here on the LoR for everyone to clearly see that you indeed ran away. In which case you fail the challenge for not participating.
Do you accept the challenge and its criteria so we can start? Make an account on the League of Reason and post here either a clear YES or a NO.
