Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evol...

[Squawk]

Does evidence support neo-darwinian evolution.

This is the comments thread for the debate which can be found here

Squawk and Micah1116 are not permitted to post in this thread or any other discussing the debate (other than this post, duh). Lets have a nice clean fight, obey my commands, break when I say etc etc...

Fun

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

This will either be really interesting, or very boring.

May I suggest that whoever is chosen as moderator be an active participant in the debate? Not as far as content, but in the interest in maintaining proper debate etiquette? That is to say, both parties need to present a positive case for their position as opposed to making a fallacious case from ignorance or incredulity? Also, if one person posts some ideas, the other person has to address those ideas directly instead of ignoring them and moving forward?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Here's hoping that any of these get answered:

micah:
(1) would you want to know if you're wrong? (this is NOT a trivial question, and really is worth pondering; I have met people who ultimately decided they wouldn't want to know)
(2) is what you believe falsifiable (read: is there *anything* that you can think of that would convince you that you were wrong)
(3) If there were a conflict between science and your beliefs which would you choose/believe?
(4) do you believe that "god did it" is *always* superior to "I don't know"?

Not betting on it though...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I will make the same suggestion that I made in the last "debate" micah1116 had. Before you answer micah1116, go back to the first "debate" he had and see if Proteus already answered him. If he did, quote what Proteus said to him and ask why he is still using arguments that were debunked.

 

[Giliell]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

*takes a cup of coffee*
Lebkuchen, anybody?

Now, let's see if micah can up with some coherent argument at least.
He should define what he considers to be a morphological change first, I'd say, since his denial of that was quite frustrating the penultimate time

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

*takes a cup of coffee*
Lebkuchen, anybody?

Now, let's see if micah can up with some coherent argument at least.
He should define what he considers to be a morphological change first, I'd say, since his denial of that was quite frustrating the penultimate time

Oh thank you, that looks lovely!

 

[Daealis]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Well, if the rest will be as solid and well written as the first post of the debate, it'll be entertaining to read, even if it were to become a bit one-sided.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

If anyone is interested here is a paper from about 20 years ago showing that human chromosome two is the result of a fusion event. Shows you how out of date some people are

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.abstract

 

[nasher168]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

most humans already have the genes for different eye colors. Please explain how changing color of anything, can change the form and structure of an organism. Claiming that changes to color is evolution, is total nonsense.

Go for the throat, Squawk. Don't give him any room to manoeuvre on that one, or it'll keep coming up with him denying any examples you give changes the form and structure.

 

[Cephei]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Beware of red herrings.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

The very first thing micah says is absolute and total bollocks. I really shouldn't be surprised, so why am I?

And seriously, 3 minutes on google and I found the reason why this so-called "inconsistency" isn't inconsistent, in an article about the discovery of this ERV not being in the human genome. But I guess it'd be too inconvenient to include that little bit where it's being explained. There's even a wikipedia artile on PtERV1.

Also, still not evidence for a "common designer", despite the claim made. Shame on micah for that. That's badly written propaganda.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Also, a polite inquiry, are you actually nephilimfree?

Micah1116 is not NephilimFree. However, he is one of NephilimFree's biggest fans.

During Micah1116's first debate, Proteus also thought he was NephilimFree and so did I. However, the last posts from micah1116 during that debate were not the same style as NephilimFree. Therefore, it is my opinion that he is just a fan and thinks that he can take any evolutionary proponent down with the "facts" he obtains from NephilimFree.

 

[Krpi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Easy enough to find out if it's Nephy. If it is him he'll, sooner or later, post a video claiming credit for winning several debates against some of the most prominent atheist minds on the internet. And that's only if he's feeling humble.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I'm disappointed that Micah is using nephilimfree as a source for some of his materials. That guy knows nothing about science. It's a questionable reference. It's better that he independently use up-to-date research and studies, because the results of past studies may have already been updated by new ones.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I personally just find info that I believe refutes evolutionists claims, I'm not trying to plagurize anything, and this tactic you are using, is an attempt to ignore the information provided, and switch the subject.

In one sentence, we have an admission of ignorance and incompetence. That must be some kind of record, even for a creationist.

First off, just because you find something that you believe refutes evolution means nothing. What are your qualifications to state what counts as good information? Two years of research on the Ethernet?

You are arguing from incredulity. That is something that all of us here have seen a million times.

Second, no, it is not an attempt to ignore the information. It is exposing that you are a poor scholar. It is fine to use quotes and arguments made from articles you have read, but at least cite the sources you are using. As you have stated, your plagiarism was not done on purpose, but it does show how little you know about conducting research and presenting it in a meaningful way. If one is unable to do that, what are the chances they are able to find meaningful information against any theory in science?

Furthermore, plagiarism, whether accidental or done with intent, is an academic crime. You are stealing someone's ideas and trying to pass them off as your own. If you do not understand why that is bad, than there really is no hope for you.

 

[Dustnite]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

It would be nice if you would atleast try and refute the infiormation I provided you, your going after the creationist sources, rather than the actual information.

Wtf, micah...

Did you even read his post? Your doing the same exact thing you did in Proteus' debate. You don't actually read anything your presented and you argue from incredulity. Are you rubbing your tongue over your computer screen in a vain attempt to absorb knowledge?

He soundly refuted all your pathetic arguments and gave you a direction to revise your definitions. Post something of substance or GTFO..

 

[Daealis]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I was thinking just about the same. When Squawk points out that "hey, this information comes from a source that generates unscientific bullshit!" Micah seems to stop reading, even though the next paragraph(or in other cases the one before the dismissal) shreds the evidence itself apart. Just because the sources are ridiculed doesn't make the rest of the refutation invalid. That reminds me of a recent Coughlan vid, where some critic said he is using ad hominems, when he calls the other guy names during the proper refutation of his arguments.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

We really need terms defined... (thanks to scalyblue for posting this image so long ago)

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Awesome pic borrofburi, cheers.

I especially loved this part:

Why didn't you mention anything about chromosome 2?

When just 2 paragraphs above that, Squawk completely trashes Micha's argument. :lol:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Thus far the creationist pigeon has knocked over all the pieces and shit on the board... all that remains is for it to fly off triumphantly chirping victory to all its friends.