Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolution?

[Gnug215]

This is the debate between stevebee92653 and Inferno.

The topis is: "Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolution?"

As usual, they are the only two who are allowed to post in this topic. A debate thread for everyone else will be put up in the general discussions board.
Find it here: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6758


(There have been no requests for a limit or any other provisions, nor has a post limit been suggested.)

Go!

 

[Inferno]

Re: Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolut

I have been given the honor to give make the opening statement. I would like to thank my opponent for joining me here and agreeing to the debate, as well as the mods for setting this up.
My opponent is stevebee92653, the owner of the YouTube Channel with the same name and the owner/author of the site http://www.evillusion.net/.

On the first page, he boldly declares that

Darwin's theory needs to be rejected by objective science, and work on a new theory begun. My goal is not to prove intelligent design, although the fact that ID was necessary to invent, design, assemble, and sustain living nature, species, and bio-systems is beyond obvious. Evidence for ID is a byproduct of this discussion. I cannot blindly ignore ID, as is done by virtually every evolutionaut. Intelligence is in the formula, and I have no idea what form it took/takes.

I disagree (obviously, otherwise we would not currently be having this discussion) so I want to make my position clear:
The modern Theory of Evolution (ToE) is the only current model that we have to explain the diversity of life. Not only is it the only model, but it is also superbly supported by all of the available evidence. (Meaning that there is no contradictory evidence.) While minor parts of the theory are still being worked out, (Which of the three competing theories about the evolution of flight in theropods, which then led to the emergence of modern Birds?) there is no reasonable doubt that the main frame of the ToE holds true. As far as scientific theories go, the ToE seems to be the one best supported by evidence.
As theories can be potentially falsified, it is obviously possible for the ToE to be wrong, but if I were to give that a likelihood in percentage, I'd have to say that the ToE seems to have a roughly 99% certainty of ~surviving" scientific scrutiny of future generations.

What could potentially falsify the ToE?
For example a gross imperfection in the fossil record, as J. B. S. Haldane pointed out with his famous line:

I will give up my belief in evolution if someone finds a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian.

Another example would be Irreducible Complexity. (IC) It is this I want to address in this first post.

Both 10 impossibilities for evolution section four (Eyes and Hearts) as well as Sight and Sound - A daunting task for evolution focus on the impossibilities of an eye evolving.

Notice the opening sentence to the link, section 4:

Eye and heart/lung systems are two excellent examples of organs that cannot have possibly evolved, as any pre-functioning steps to a fully functioning organ would be completely useless.

We seem to be dealing with an IC organ here, according to Stevebee. Let's analyze this claim in this post.

Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors. Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs.

Is this how any Biologist ever explained it? I doubt it, but then I haven't seen all Biologists in action.
Before I get into an explanation of how this process actually did happen, I want to address a few questions Steve raises on the aforementioned links.

And, of course, the question arises, why didn't "simple eyed" creatures cited by evolutionauts fully evolve complex visual systems? Why are they here as "simple" eyes when they have had 2,000 times longer than evolutionauts say it took eyes to evolve in the first place?

This, it seems to me, shows a profound misunderstanding of Evolution and Natural Selection.
The first thing we have to understand is that creatures don't have to evolve or they might evolve very slowly, because there are little to no evolutionary pressures on them. This is explained by Punctuated Equilibrium.

For the second reason as to why they did not evolve more complex visual systems, I will have to use Dawkins analogy of Mount Improbable. I don't think that his analogy is good enough though, so I'll add one slight detail to it:
Evolution is like a mountaineer, trying to climb a mountain covered in clouds/mist, so he can't know where to go, he has no goal in mind except climbing. This mountaineer (he, for the sake of convenience) is also unable to climb down from a peak he is attempting to climb.
If said Mountaineer reaches one of the many peaks, he can't climb down again. (Dollo's Law of Irreversibility)
It is now obvious that these simple eyed creatures might have reached a peak they could not get down from.

Now Stevebee correctly states that we should find some evidence for the Evolution of the Eye. What form can this evidence take though? Well we won't find a lot of evidence from the fossil record, because eyes don't preserve too well. We might find eye sockets, but no actual eyes. We also find the precursor of the eye, a light sensitive patch of cells on the skin.
However, we could find animals that are alive today and that show this adaption. Stevebee's mentions exactly this animal, Euglena, but goes on to mention that

[it] NEVER evolved into a multi -celled species. It's light sensitive spot isn't any kind of eye. It reacts to heat or electromagnetic waves, and makes no images. The spot isn't "light sensitive", and it never evolved into anything more than what it is.

This shows another misunderstanding of what the ToE actually suggests. The above quote would have us believe in an Aristotelian chain of being, even though this is not what we'd expect to find:

We do not expect Euglena to evolve into a multi-cellular being, we are only interested in finding an animal that is currently using a sensitive patch of ~skin" that can detect light.
Even reading the Wikipedia entry to Euglena shows that it is indeed reacting to light. While there still seems to be a controversy about how exactly Euglena ~sees", (Kivic and Vesk, 2006) it is plainly obvious that it does, as a matter of fact, react to light.
And what does Euglena do with this light-sensitive patch? Is determines the intensity of light and positions itself in areas where it can better perform photosynthesis.

Me now encounter four sub-topics, that could each warrant a wall of text on their own, but I don't want to overstep 2000 words (we didn't agree on that, I just don't want to make this boring nor a Gish Gallop) so I'll just briefly sum them up:
1) ~Good vs Bad mutations: One step forward, many back?"
No. First of all, the mutations don't necessarily all affect the same organ. We also don't see evolution happening on one individual, but rather on species. For example, it might be that out of ten individuals, eight get worse eyesight, one remains the same and one gets better eyesight. This one would have a better chance of surviving, passing on genes, etc. etc. I would suggest ~Natural Selection made easy - Potholer54" as an easy introduction.

2) ~Could retina cells evolve in the stomach?"
It's rather easy to answer this one. Does a retinal cell increase the fitness of an individual if it were in the stomach? I highly doubt it, to say the least. I for one don't want to watch my food getting digested, at least not every time. (And I doubt that it would be useful to be able to do so.)

3) ~Did the eye evolve only once or millions of times?"
This is still debated, but Dawkins estimates that it evolved roughly 40 times on different occasions.
One thing I found mentioned in Stevebee's text was ~Kind". I would therefore ask him to define exactly what a ~kind" is.

Now follows an explanation of how the eye could have evolved, followed by the rebuttals that I will now analyze, disregarding the ones that I have already explained:
~What causes the indentation?"
Mutations. Get one random mutation to make an indentation, however slight it may be, and you will have a favorable mutation. The individual with said mutation is then better adapted to survive, having the opportunity to generate more offspring. Dawkins mentions that at 0:30 of your video, stating:
~Things begin to get better. Now, our hypothetical animal could steer by light, (...)"

This prompts me to point out another misunderstanding: Not all mutations in a series have to be beneficial mutations, they can also be neutral. The fitness of the individual should not decrease. This is evident in Lenski et al. 2008 - Study on E. coli showing that a neutral mutation at roughly generation 20,000 could then result in a major benefit at roughly mutation 33,000.

The next few paragraphs again shows a misunderstanding of the ToE. Evolution is not a thinking entity, it does not plan. It also doesn't stop mutation rates as soon as ~pretty good perfection was achieved~ but the mutations stop having a beneficial effect. I've already explained the peaks of mount improbable above, so I won't point out that the eye may be at such a peak. I'll instead try an analogy:
I have size 46 shoes/feet. Were I to go into a shoe shop blindfolded, with the shoes laid out from small size towards large size from left to right, I'd start by trying on a shoe somewhere in the middle. Let's assume that I've caught a size 42, one that is too small. I continue towards the right, with the shoes getting slightly larger, better. When I have reached the size 46, a nearly perfect fit, do I then continue to try a size 47? That wouldn't really increase my ability to walk.

So to sum up that confusing paragraph above: The mutations don't stop, but the selective pressure stops. The mutations stop being beneficial and become neutral or detrimental instead.

Having finished with that first link and not having the time for the second, I'd like to ask a few questions:
If beings have not evolved, how did they come about? Was it ~Intelligent Design"? If so, who or what is behind this Design? And who or what designed the designer? Isn't it going to be an infinite regression?

 

[stevebee92653]

Re: Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolut

Thanks for asking me. You seem like a reasonable person. Calm and rational. So far. Interesting to read the discussion posts for this thread. Before I say anything at all, the auto-pilot demeaners are in gear. They all say the same thing. Different names, different people, same stuff. I find that rather strange. This science has a strange hold on people which took me a while to get used to.
Your challenges are very typical. Nothing I have not seen dozens of times. Your problem is you don't question them yourself. That fact I don't understand. Why don't you take a look from another angle? From my point of view? Ask yourself what a skeptic might say about your "mountain of evidence"?
Your first entry is large, and covers a lot of ground. I would recommend we be more concise. Otherwise, responses will take a very long time.

The modern Theory of Evolution (ToE) is the only current model that we have to explain the diversity of life. Not only is it the only model, but it is also superbly supported by all of the available evidence. (Meaning that there is no contradictory evidence.) While minor parts of the theory are still being worked out, (Which of the three competing theories about the evolution of flight in theropods, which then led to the emergence of modern Birds?) there is no reasonable doubt that the main frame of the ToE holds true. As far as scientific theories go, the ToE seems to be the one best supported by evidence.

I do agree. Evolution is the only current non-religious model for origins. I won't say "scientific model", because that it is not. The false assumption is that we NEED a model. While evolution is the only non-religious model, it is certainly not the only choice. As choices go, currently we have (1) the religious non-scientific model , (2) the evolution model, also non-scientific, and (3) "we simply don't know, nor do we have enough information to make a viable model." Number (2) is your stance, (3) is mine; and it's scientific. It matches the evidence best.
The contrary evidence for evolution is immense, and ignored by evolutionauts. You bring up the three theories for the evolution of bird flight. All are astounding in their absurdity. And not backed up by any type of evidence whatsoever. They are fables made up by frustrated scientists who are trying to please their peers in group-psychology fashion. Come up with something, anything, to get evolution out of a hole, and you will get many back pats. Plus the constant need to keep grants coming in. No results, no $$$.

What could potentially falsify the ToE?

You have a major hurdle right out of the chute. The fact that NS and RM cannot invent, design, assemble, and sustain any bio-system. Not the simple ones like bird nests, and not the complex ones like heart/lung/blood/vessel/nerve/brain controller systems. There is simply no absolute way that these two, and any others, could arise from an IQ of zero, random non-occurring healthy tissue mutation/formation and a selection processes. So there is your falsification. Even if you can come up with a story for hearts, you cannot describe how interdependent systems like hearts and lungs and all the "stuff" (vessels, nerves, brain controllers, blood"¦"¦.) that goes along with them could evolve without blueprints. They all depend on each other for existence. Which means they had to somehow arise together. In some sort of unison. Evolution fails that hurdle. And once evolution cannot pass the first major hurdle, all other claims for evolution are dead meat. So this one must be thrust under the rug by evolution so the argument can turn to other "evidences". The others are smokescreens for the evolution of bio-systems.

Is this how any Biologist ever explained it? I doubt it, but then I haven't seen all Biologists in action.

You need to know that where I am coming from, no multi-cellular species that ever existed has any idea how all of living nature formed. Ergo I don't care what any biologist might say about my writing. That is not a good angle of attack for you. I realize that most biologists march the march, and are in lock step with evolution. So don't waste your time with that one. There is plenty of my own thinking and writing for you to attack. Science, lucky for us, isn't done by majority vote. Or the sun would still be going around the earth, and we sure wouldn't have Relativity.

This, it seems to me, shows a profound misunderstanding of Evolution and Natural Selection.

If you wish to debate me, this is also very bad strategy. The notion that I don't understand evolution is ludicrous, and will end the debate quickly. This is such a lame strategy, and used so often and tiringly by your peers. So, please, don't insult yourself by using repeatedly used phrases that are headache inducing. Have you seen my blog? My CV. My readings. I WAS you only a few short years ago. A staunch evolutionaut. I have two vids on Indoctrination. I would suggest you take a look before writing again. You will find your comment strategies are well documented and predicted there.

The first thing we have to understand is that creatures don't have to evolve or they might evolve very slowly, because there are little to no evolutionary pressures on them. This is explained by Punctuated Equilibrium.

Do you know what "excuse after the fact" is? "It didn't happen, and here is the excuse". "Oh, and this DID happen, so that's evolution in action!" You have it made. Anything is evidence for you . Zero evolution is just as good as evolution. And, do you know what makes it that way? Punctuated Equilibrium! Which is just ANOTHER lame excuse with a technical sounding name for zero evolution where there should be TONS. Check my vid on "Evolution's Bent Mountain". Check out "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" on Google. THAT is evolution. One huge Monday Morning Quarterback episode.

It is now obvious that these simple eyed creatures might have reached a peak they could not get down from.

It is now "obvious" they they "might have reached"? Do you realize that something that "might have" done anything isn't in the category of "obvious". This is nothing but a Dawkins bedtime story, which you innocently believe, and is retold by you. How can you actually quote this story, and think it's science. A climber can't "get down" the mountain? Better let all climbers know that. Bad story, bad choice. Bad example. Bad toy mountain. According to the predictions of evolution, retold so many times, the species populations with the bad eyes should have been gobbled up."Oh, except these species with bad eyes."

This shows another misunderstanding of what the ToE actually suggests.

Again, you need to get rid of this strategy.http://evillusion.wordpress.com/why-i-say-you-are-indoctrinated/
Try #16. You have hit many others on my list on your first post.

We do not expect Euglena to evolve into a multi-cellular being, we are only interested in finding an animal that is currently using a sensitive patch of ~skin" that can detect light.

Right. The Monday Morning Quarterback Syndrome. It didn't happen. so WE predict it didn't happen! Science is so easy. Specially this one.

We might find eye sockets, but no actual eyes

"We"? Do you go out on the digs? You are so full of "we's". Try #11 on the link I gave you. Beside "we", you use my favorite evo-term again. "might", which goes with "perhaps" and "maybe".
Right. There are tons of eye sockets in the fossil record, but none that show the cup to pinhole camera steps. Keep digging, and when you find them, THEN make a theory. Plus, remember, they have to show up in a single species, or VERY closely related ones, as the advances for eyes that evolved could not make it into a second species.

Euglenia doesn't see. It reacts to EMR. Not light. Light is "manufactured" in our visual cortex. We call it light because that is how we perceive it. And there is no possible pathway from Euglenia to an eyeball. See if you can make one up.

Regarding your three:
(1) What if a species evolved liver tissues that was being selected for, and another evolved pancreatic tissues, and another evolved 5% vision. Would the species with 5% vision eat up the other two, and that would be that for livers and pancreas for thousands of years? But what if the liver evovler had a few teeth, and could blindly gobble up......This is such a complex game, one which y'all seem to think is played one organ/system at a time. Well, nature isn't that way. It's not that neat. Sorry.

(2) Would a species survive better with eyes in the back of its head? Of course they would. Forget the stomach. Where are those species with eyes in the back of the head? Did evolution forget that one? Just think of what an immense survival improvement it would be. Four eyes, two in back, two in front. Even one in front, and one in back would be tough.

(3) Dawkins estimates? What gives Dawkins the power to estimate how many species evolved eyes? Do you believe him? Why? Would 40 species be able to spread vision to all of the millions of species that have vision today? Did every MRCA of each phylum evolve a visual system independently? What are the odds of NS and RM forming eyeballs, optic nerves, visual cortices, codes, lenses, iris, corneas, iris muscles, 6 oculomotor muscles, nerves to control them, brain controllers........on and on, all in one single species? Absurd. Then 40 different species?

Mutations. Get one random mutation to make an indentation, however slight it may be, and you will have a favorable mutation. The individual with said mutation is then better adapted to survive, having the opportunity to generate more offspring. Dawkins mentions that at 0:30 of your video, stating:
~Things begin to get better. Now, our hypothetical animal could steer by light, (...)"

Oh. What about the optic nerves, visual cortices, codes, blood supplies........on and on. Did the hypothetical animal form hypothetical dents then hookup hypothetical optic nerves to the hypothetical brain, and teach the brain what to do with the hypothetical signals that would soon be rocketing toward it? How exactly did RM and NS form all of that? "¦one tiny step at a time?

The next few paragraphs again shows a misunderstanding of the ToE.

Sigh. This isn't going well.

Were your e.coli, still e. coli in the example you gave? They have been around hundreds of millions of years, and you cite a change in e. coli?

Your shoe story is more bedtime story fare. Do you realize that comparing the fitting of your shoes blindfolded and the evolution of any bio-system from bird nests to heart/lung systems is........I won't say. I will leave that thought to you.

Well, I don't know how we did. Your stuff is right out of the handbook. Not questioned by you yourself. And again, I say why? Why don't you realize that so many of your examples are referred information from others who sucked it in and relayed to you it without skepticism or question on their part?

Having finished with that first link and not having the time for the second, I'd like to ask a few questions:
If beings have not evolved, how did they come about? Was it ~Intelligent Design"? If so, who or what is behind this Design? And who or what designed the designer? Isn't it going to be an infinite regression?

[/quote]

This is answered very thoroughly on the first page of my blog. Did you read it? My short answer is also in the second paragraph above, (3).
I will finish with a question:
You list Euglena or the like, as some kind of precursor to complex vision. Then we skip to indentations on the face. How did those light sensitive cells actually make it to the face of some early species? And just the right place on the face? How did random mutations place the indents on the face in two bilaterally symmetrical locations. How could random be so damn non-random and perfect? Did some species get indents on other parts of their bodies which caused them to be prey for other species? Randomness should have placed indents everywhere if it did at all. Why indents in the first place? Strange, don't you think? Do we have species that look like golf balls? How did we get an optic nerve? Wait. Bilateral optic nerves? A code that communicated with the visual cortex. A visual cortex. Did mutations teach the visual cortex how to decipher the code and form light, color, and visual images? I could go on and on with this one question, but that just will mean you will have more answers to make up. So I will leave it with that.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolut

The following is not a reply, but merely a way to publicly archive my PM exchange between stevebee92653 and myself prior to this debate. Stevebee has agreed to this and Gnug has allowed me to post twice. Thanks to both.

Jan 16, 2011
An invitation to a debate plus some corrections
Hello stevebee92653

I've recently had someone point me to your website and I've noticed a few things I wanted to point out.
I've noticed that most of the debates you've had were over youtube, in the comments section. I think you'll agree with me that youtube has two functions that makes it inadequate for a debate:
1) The posts are limited to 500 characters.
2) Anyone can reply, which usually results in a very confusing conversation, where one is left wondering what on earth happened in the ten minutes where one went for a glass of water.
I therefore propose to you the following:
A debate on the (highly) respected LeagueOfReason forum which can be found here: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/index.php
The positive aspects are that the posts aren't limited (Though we could agree upon posts with a maximum of 2000 words. After all, we shouldn't spend hours on end just reading what the other person wrote.) and that it is a 1v1 debate, where no other person can but in. This format also gives both participants the time they need to research topics, to include links/quotes/images/videos/etc. and we will of course be moderated, so there will be no disregarding the standard guidelines of courtesy from either side.

If you are agreeable, just register an account there and tell me your username, so that I can get a private debate set up.

With that out of the way, I feel that I must criticize (hopefully constructively) some information on your website. (http://www.evillusion.net/)
I won't go and prove any science here (as I have stated, youtube just doesn't have the format to do so) but I'll rather point out some quotes that you seem to have gotten wrong.

For example, on your debate with cdk007 (http://evillusion.wordpress.com/i-debate-evillusionists/23-m-i-debate-cdk007-and-extantfrodo/) you state the following:
"(Me: Actually Darwin was dazzled by the eye, and admitted he had no idea. He was worried the formation of the eye and other complex bio-systems would kill his theory. He couldn't imagine how such a structure could evolve. )"

I take it that you are referring to the following quote:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.

If that is indeed the quote you are referring to (you might not be, though this is the quote I have, up until now, always seen used) then you have missed out the lines just following the quote:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144) "

This is explained in detail here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
as well as here: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Darwin_on_Eye_Evolution
and here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Popular_quote_mines#The_Eye_and_Natural_Selection

Already this PM is longer than I intended so I'll leave it with this one correction for now and if you get back to me, I will continue with the aforementioned errors one at a time.

All the best,
sasirut (On LeagueOfReason: Inferno)
Sent to: stevebee92653

Jan 16, 2011

Sure, if you want to go at it, good with me. I will check in at your site. Who are you and what is your education? I would like some info on who I am talking to.
Regarding Darwin's quote:
The rest of Darwin's quote is dripping with doubt.
"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."
It hardly concerns Darwin, "how a nerve becomes sensitive to light?" He had no idea how nerves function. Physio just wasn't up to speed at the time. The fact that he had such heavy doubts in the first part of his statement is not eliminated by the second part. He described doubts so many times during his life. If he was living today, I would bet he would be a pretty big skeptic of his own writings. But that matters not, since humans now know so much more than Darwin ever did. Darwin also stated that he despised flowers. He couldn't find even a fable to explain their evolution, which is the case today. This kind of discussion from Darwin was frequent and my quote doesn't alter the that frequent context. He displayed doubts, and readily expresses those doubts. Which does nothing to the the modern argument. Dawkins is even more fun for quotes.
Regards
Steve

Jan 16, 2011

Sure thing.

My name is Benedikt Lernhart, am 20 years old and I live in Vienna, Austria. I'm currently studying Geography and History in my 4th semester at University to become a teacher. I've been studying (privately) Biology, with Evolutionary Biology as the main subject, for nearly four years now and I'd like to think that I've become quite proficient.
I don't really know what else I could add to that so if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

For the debate, I'd suggest a title similar to "Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolution", but again feel free to suggest a different title.

Regards
Ben

Jan 16, 2011

I am logged on as stevebee92653. Next step is yours if you know how to set up a thread. I have been "arguing:" at rationalskepticism.org for the past few months. The style is pretty ugly. Evolutionauts argue by demeaning. There is very little actual scientific discussion, unfortunately. It's about 20 to 1 against me there. 20 demeaners and me. So if you want to talk science, that would be fine. I don't want to get into another demeaning match. If you would like a hint of what my discussion, and theirs, looks like: www.rationalskepticism.org. Go to Creationism and Intelligent Design then Why stevebee is Wrong. I think we are on page 63, almost all demeaning. I don't really care. I find it hard to believe people would spend so much time writing negative bullshit like they do. But that's their choice. I find it rather amusing. That people would spend so much time writing stuff about me. "liar, bad dentist, lousy education, ignorant, dishonest,......" On and on. I pick a few to answer, but find most of it a complete waste of time.

Strange that you have private lessons in bio and evo? I have never heard of that. Why not in university? Why would you take a course on evolution? Why not read a book, if the course doesn't count?

I would like to get a handle on your goal.
Do you want to debate me to show me where I am wrong?
Are you in the mindset that you are 100% correct?
That you know how all of nature formed?
Or as a questioner/doubter yourself, and you want to know more?
Steve

Jan 17, 2011

Well part of why I want to do this is because I've looked at a few of your debates and it's like you say: A huge gang-up on one person. That's why I chose the LeagueOfReason, they have the option to set a debate to only two participants and a moderator.
Now about my goal... Yes, I do think that you are wrong and if we find out that you are, then that's OK. If we find out that I am wrong than that's OK too. It's all about a search for truth, at least for me. Maybe there are things I/you haven't thought about yet, maybe we have misunderstandings about the concept, etc. You always have to challenge the scientific consensus and see if it is still correct. If a theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then it's not worth anything.
Am I in the mindset that I am 100% correct? Well no, at most I could be 99% correct (that's the definition of a theory after all, that it can potentially be falsified) but since we don't know everything about life/evolution/biology yet, I can at best only be fractionally correct. But I take it that you want to ask "How likely is it, do you think, that evolution is wrong?" Very unlikely. Evolution is our currently best theory for the diversity of life and it seems very unlikely that there are significant flaws in it.
Do I know how all of nature formed? Of course not. Nobody does. I doubt that we every will know. But we can get close.
Do I want to know more? Yes. Some developments since the last message: I have been accepted into the Biology course at my Uni for next semester (starting March) and I have been asked to teach a class in Biology. (Alongside my courses in History and Geography that I teach.) I always want to know more, I believe that it is the only way that humans can live "multiple lives".

About my private lessons: I may have formulated that wrong. I sometimes slightly mix up the translations from German to English. I meant "in private, in the enclosures of my home, alone". Basically "reading a book". Sorry for the confusion.

Now about the debate: I haven't found your profile on the leagueofreason site yet and I can only ask for a thread to be opened once you have created an account there.

All the best
Ben

The rest is just "OK, waiting for you."

The reply will be up in a few hours.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolut

Before I start my response, I want to alert anyone reading this that I will (for this post and any others I might make in an active debate) add annotations like Wikipedia does, as in [1], and then make a list of my references at the bottom.
Also note that I am only quoting one line per paragraph, just so that you can trace where I was quoting from.

I'd like to thank my opponent for raising the level of the debates we have so far witnessed here (micah, etc.), but I must criticize some formal aspects before we set off: (If the reader d
1) "evolutionauts"
I thought that we could be above this level of immaturity. Calling someone an "Evolutionaut" is tantamount to calling someone an "IDiot" or a "Creotard". It is of course your right to use this words, but I will refrain from the same.
2) "Sigh"
Another formal no-no, though you may of course use it.
3) "Your challenges are very typical"
As were yours. Nothing that you have posted on your website is new to me.

Also, I tried to limit myself to one topic, I'm sorry if it was too long.

Very well, onward we charge.

Evolution is the only current non-religious model for origins.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it explains the diversity of life. The origin of life would be Abiogenesis.

The false assumption is that we NEED a model.

So it's also a false assumption that we NEED a model to explain viruses, gravity, digestion, etc.? The quest of science is to find out about stuff.

(2) the evolution model, also non-scientific

(My edit: I should have said "theory", not "model". I didn't see that mistake until it was too late.)

And why, exactly? It conforms to all of the standards required of a theory: It conforms with all previous theories, it is supported by many strands of evidence and it is dynamic, changeable, correctable and potentially falsifiable. It MAY be wrong (as I have said, the chances for that are extremely slim) but it is certainly scientific.

(...) Come up with something, anything, to get evolution out of a hole, and you will get many back pats. (...)

So all of science works just fine, but evolutionary biology is somehow tainted? Is that your position?
You also mention that the three possible theories for the evolution of birds are "absurd". Why, exactly? What is your evidence for that?

(...) So there is your falsification.

Even though you've heard it a thousand times: What you've presented here is a classical argument from ignorance. [1] What exactly are your reasons for stating that it is "impossible"? Because so far, you haven't presented any, even though you state as a fact that what you say is the case.

hearts and lungs and all the "stuff" (vessels, nerves, brain controllers, blood"¦"¦.) that goes along with them

Well I really want to remain with the eye for now, but there are actually quite a few indicators to all of these.
Take only the heart: We have extremely simple apparatuses in worms, more sophisticated ones in fish, more sophisticated ones in frogs, then Lizards, then turtles and then eventually human ones. [2]

This obviously doesn't suggest that worms evolved "into" humans or anything like that, it just shows that we know about the incremental changes that are needed and that indeed can be found today.

(...) I realize that most biologists march the march(...)

Do they really? What would their motives be for that? You mention money, yet it is clear that anyone who would be able to challenge the scientific consensus on any matter (be that evolution, gravity, etc.) would receive recognitions far beyond anything (s)he could reasonably hope to attain.
If there really is a conspiracy behind biological science, then I fail to see the reason.

(...) The notion that I don't understand evolution is ludicrous (...) Have you seen my blog? My CV. My readings. I WAS you only a few short years ago. A staunch evolutionaut.(...)

I find this comment in bad taste, as I have pointed out at the very top. (See "evolutionaut")
I also resent the comment that you were me. It's the same "argument" Kirk Cameron uses and we both know that it's not correct.

As to the first part of the comment: "early hearts are like tumors", "why didn't the eyes continue to evolve", etc.
That is simply not the way any scientist represents these things, so what else is it but a misunderstanding on your part of what they are actually explaining? I'll gladly use a term you are more partial to.

(...) Punctuated Equilibrium! Which is just ANOTHER lame excuse with a technical sounding name for zero evolution where there should be TONS. (...)

By your logic, theories should therefore remain the same, not be corrected when a flaw is found?
Bees were not supposed to be able to fly, according to early science. [3] Yet we found out later how they do that.
Also, why should there be "tons of evolution"? The ToE is an explanation of what we see in life, so we have to account for the fact that evolutionary change is not always constant.
Just as a clarification: You're using the term incorrectly.

It's also absolutely wrong to call this "zero evolution" because that would mean that evolution has stopped. No, it hasn't, it has simply slowed down and it will speed up again once the evolutionary pressures change. Evolution only stops when a species is not alive anymore.

(...) How can you actually quote this story, and think it's science. (...)

I've explicitly stated that this was an analogy. How else would I make people understand what I'm talking about? I could just chuck Dollo's Law of Irreversibility, Gould's Law of Evolutionary Economics, etc. at people for days, but it wouldn't make them understand the underlying principle. Mount Improbable is a analogy, nothing more and nothing less.
My "it is obvious" and "might have reached" is intended to show that we don't know which of the two reasons applies, it can be any one of those.

(...)Right. There are tons of eye sockets in the fossil record, but none that show the cup to pinhole camera steps. Keep digging, and when you find them, THEN make a theory.(...)

But we've found just that! [4] [5]
The fossil in this find is 400 million years old and it shows a transition from jawed to jaw-less fish.
Have we found every single fossil? Well of course not.

Euglenia doesn't see. It reacts to EMR. Not light. Light is "manufactured" in our visual cortex. We call it light because that is how we perceive it. And there is no possible pathway from Euglenia to an eyeball. See if you can make one up.

Euglenas absorption spectrum shows peaks in the 400-500nm region, which we call "light", specifically "blue light". I also never said that it sees the way that we do, but rather that it is responsive to light. (Also see "sees".) It is exactly what we'd expect of a light-sensitive patch of "skin". (In this case: PFB)
You are also once again misrepresenting the ToE. I've explicitly stated that we would NOT expect to see Euglena "evolve into" an eyeball or a multicellular anything. Instead, we were looking for a modern equivalent of what could have been our ancestor and we've found it.

(...)What if a species evolved liver tissues(...)

They would only evolve that if it had an evolutionary advantage. Arguably a more sensible comparison is the cheetah and the gazelle. Wouldn't the cheetah just eat the gazelle as soon as it evolved teeth? Well first of all, the gazelle would run away, it lives in packs to the cheetah might get the slowest gazelle (thus eliminating not-so-fit-for-the-environment species) and if the cheetah is too slow, it would itself die. (thus eliminating...) But there's not just one of each, there are hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands.
You make the fallacy of thinking about about individuals.

(...)Would a species survive better(...)

Oh you mean something like Horseshoe crabs? Or Horses? Because they can see nearly 360,°. [6] [7]

(...)Dawkins estimates?(...)

His estimates were based on the different "designs" of eyes. Yes, 40 species a few hundred million years ago would have been able to do that. Even one is possible and in the light of some new genetic data even seems more likely.
That's why I say "estimates", because the data is not complete.
As to "what are the odds": Pretty good. After all, Natural Selection is a pretty deterministic process.

(...)one tiny step at a time? (...)

That's what the evidence suggests, yes. If we'd have one huge step and "tadaaa", then we'd have cause for concern. But with the evidence above and some genetic studies, this is what the evidence points to. [8]

Were your e.coli, still e. coli in the example you gave? They have been around hundreds of millions of years, and you cite a change in e. coli?

Of course they were E. Coli, what else should we expect? The study has been going on for some 23 years now. (Starting 24th of February 1988)

Well, I don't know how we did. Your stuff is right out of the handbook. Not questioned by you yourself. And again, I say why? Why don't you realize that so many of your examples are referred information from others who sucked it in and relayed to you it without skepticism or question on their part?

This prompts me to tell a little story, a personal anecdote.
After I read my first books on evolution, I thought that it was all pretty cool, but that after all my Grandma had always told me that God made us, so I wasn't quite sure. (Even though I was already an Atheist at that time.)
I wanted to find something where I myself could test evolution. (Before I continue: I didn't know anything about Atavisms at that time, I had never heard of that term.) I found that I could wiggle my ears, yet nobody I knew could. Here was my entry point, this is how I could confirm that what I had read is correct: I needed to find a possible explanation for me being able to wiggle my ears. It was completely clear for me that if I couldn't find a mechanism, evolution was bunk.
It didn't take me long, with my Grandma having a cat and all. (Hint: They turn their ears to hear better!) One look at the cat moving its ears and I understood.
Now, nearly four years after that incident, I've read a book called "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne. He can wiggle his ears, too. I was sitting in the subway when I came across that part in the book and said to myself: "If he's going to explain that this is a vestigiality from cats, I'm going to scream."
Judge for yourself if I screamed:

And here's a final example: if you can wiggle your ears, you're demonstrating evolution. We have three muscles under our scalp that attach to our ears. (...) These are the same muscles used by other animals, like cats and horses, to move their ears around, helping them localize sounds.

People looked at me funny, but that was OK. I had just gotten the final proof that I needed for a hypothesis that I had carried around for four years.
So please, don't talk about me lacking skepticism.

How did those light sensitive cells actually make it to the face of some early species?

Didn't we cover this already? Random Mutation.

And just the right place on the face?

Where else? They wouldn't make much sense on your lower back or behind your knees.

How did random mutations place the indents on the face in two bilaterally symmetrical locations.

Finally an interesting question. We are what is called bilateral animals, belonging to Bilateria. You can either search Wikipedia for "Hox Gene" or read source [9].

How could random be so damn non-random and perfect?

That's the thing: Natural Selection.
As I've already explained, NS is extremely deterministic. So much in fact that it has led to improvements. Engineers now often employ evolutionary algorithms, very notably in hardware. [10]

Did some species get indents on other parts of their bodies which caused them to be prey for other species?

If that ever happened, they would have died out pretty quickly, don't you think?

Why indents in the first place?

It's in the nature of Random Mutations to be Random. We can see this every day. I've already cited the Lenski study. That was Random Mutations + Natural Selection in action.

Do we have species that look like golf balls?

Why should we? What advantage would they have over other organisms?
We have Viruses, though they are not animals. Would you count them?
But what relevance does that have on ANYTHING? You're just making up crazy stuff now.

you will have more answers to make up.

So you won't be swayed by evidence?

Also, ridiculous. I've noticed a pattern in all of your answers: I/We don't know how X formed, therefore Evolution is wrong. No sir, that's not how it works.
So for your next post, I'd like you to do the following: Give evidence how and why your statements are correct. Show that there is an actual flaw in Evolution instead of saying "there's a gap in your knowledge, ergo you're wrong".
I'd also like to point out that you've quite often mentioned that your understanding of Evolution is "oh so good" and that I shouldn't tell you that you are mistaken. Tell me then: Are you incapable of error? Because you've made quite a few. I'm sure I'll make at least one error along the way, too. But then, I don't claim some knowledge I don't possess.

Take a look (no posting) at the Discussion thread, there are some interesting things that were said. I like to follow my own schematic though, so you got far more of a reply than many here would be willing to give you.

Links:
[1] - Argument from Ignorance
[2] - Article on the Evolution of hearts
[3] - Article on the flight of bees
[4] - Scientific paper on the evolution of eyes
[5] - Scientific paper on the fossil evidence for the evolution of eyes in vertebrates
[6] - Wikipedia: Horseshoe crab
[7] - Wikipedia: Equine vision
[8] - Scientific paper: genetic evidence on the evolution of the eye
[9] - Scientific paper: Hox genes, DPP and Bilateral evolution
[10] - Wikipedia: Evolvable Hardware

 

[stevebee92653]

Re: Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolut

**What do you find demeaning about the term "evolutionaut"? It's composed of the word, evolution, and the suffix,aut meaning "voyager". It must be "evolution" that you find distasteful.
**"Sigh" was used as tongue in cheek, after the fourth time in one post that you gave the "he doesn't understand evolution" comment. The only time I have seen it used is by your fellow evolutionauts, who use it frequently.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it explains the diversity of life. The origin of life would be Abiogenesis.

**Again an unbelievably tired and overused "explanation". I was obviously talking about the "origin" of bio-systems and species, just as Darwin used the word in the title of his book. I didn't expect a trite explanation about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I have heard that "abiogenesis isn't evolution" thing time and time again. Like pushing a button, and out it comes. In reality, evolution must excise abiogenesis, as there is no rational explanation or even good fable for the beginning of life. The start of life IS the start of evolution, and they are tightly intertwined anyway.


**The false assumption is that we NEED a model.

So it's also a false assumption that we NEED a model to explain viruses, gravity, digestion, etc.? The quest of science is to find out about stuff.

**So you also have a model for the origin of gravity, viruses, and digestion, as well as all species and bio-systems? Is there no end to what you evolutionauts can make up?

(Evolution) is supported by many strands of evidence and it is dynamic, changeable, correctable and potentially falsifiable. It MAY be wrong (as I have said, the chances for that are extremely slim) but it is certainly scientific.

**Natural selection and random mutations is correctable? How so. Tiny additions, but no corrections for the fact that little evolution occurred within species, and there is no plausible explanation for the origin of organs and bio-systems. The "change" and "correction" needs to be dumping the whole mess.

You also mention that the three possible theories for the evolution of birds are "absurd". Why, exactly? What is your evidence for that?

**Watch my video on the evolution of birds and flight. Part 2.

What you've presented here is a classical argument from ignorance.

** So you are incensed about my use of the suffix for "voyager" but you have no trouble using "ignorance"? Is that the case?

What exactly are your reasons for stating that it is "impossible"? Because so far, you haven't presented any, even though you state as a fact that what you say is the case.

**I have ten impossibilities on two pages of my my blog (p. 4a and 4b), along with many many more on other pages. Pages 36, 35, 32"¦"¦. You choose to ignore them and ask the question as if they're invisible. Would you like me to retell the blog here for you?

Take only the heart: We have extremely simple apparatuses in worms, more sophisticated ones in fish, more sophisticated ones in frogs, then Lizards, then turtles and then eventually human ones.

My gawd, another "we". You are full of repeat p. 34's.

**Do you have any notion that your evolution of the heart stories and every peer reviewed paper I have read on the subject always start with fully formed worm hearts or the like. I don't care how many chambers they have. Try taking a hacksaw and cutting out half of the air pressure chamber of a ball pump. Will it pump? Actually don't bother, you know the answer. Would a heart with half a chamber pump blood. And even if it would, where did the oxygen-holding blood come from? And the vessels? And brain controllers, and nerves, and"¦"¦. Which is why I say that an evolving heart would be like carrying a tumor around for thousands of years, while the first chamber is closing and sealing. So fool yourself, and start with a fully functioning worm or frog heart. Me? I am concerned with what there was before a sealed heart formed with blood, vessels, nerves, and brain controllers "¦"¦. Start me with a multicelled species with no blood or heart. That is science. You answer is a complete avoidance. And you are satisfied with that. Your paper listed below on the evolution of hearts is a complete avoidance or reality and science as well.

If there really is a conspiracy behind biological science, then I fail to see the reason.
**A reason beyond group psychology keeping their, jobs, and money, is if there is no evolution there is no atheism. How would atheism explain the existence of life without evolution? There simply isn't one, and it kills an entire belief systems. Evolution and atheism are mutually dependent. One cannot exist without the other. Belief systems are unimaginably strong.
I also resent the comment that you were me. It's the same "argument" Kirk Cameron uses and we both know that it's not correct.

**You use "ignorance" and "stevebee doesn't understand" so freely, but you resent the fact that I used to believe as you do? How strangely sensitive of you.

**Re: Adding punctuated equilibrium to the TOE:
By your logic, theories should therefore remain the same, not be corrected when a flaw is found?

**You mean when a major fable cannot be supported by the fossil record, add a minor fable, punctuated equilibrium, to save the major fable? Is this your idea of correcting a theory?

Bees were not supposed to be able to fly, according to early science. [3] Yet WE found out later how they do that.

** Were you in on the find? If not, then entomologists et al did the find. Not "we". Certainly you don't consider yourself in on the find do you? And what does bee flight have to do with the discussion anyway?

Also, why should there be "tons of evolution"? The ToE is an explanation of what we see in life, so we have to account for the fact that evolutionary change is not always constant.

** Another excuse for zero evolution.

(Evolution) "¦.will speed up again once the evolutionary pressures change. Evolution only stops when a species is not alive anymore.

**You can even predict the future? Amazing how evolution endows people with such powers. No wonder you don't want to give it up. "It didn't happen in the past, but it WILL happen in the future!"

How else would I make people understand what I'm talking about? I could just chuck Dollo's Law of Irreversibility, Gould's Law of Evolutionary Economics, etc. at people for days, but it wouldn't make them understand the underlying principle.

**Gould's and Dollo's Law: Two more minor fables about a major fable. They just pile up, one on top of the other.

Mount Improbable is a analogy, nothing more and nothing less.

**It's a stupid toy used to fool children and "easy to please and satisfy" adults.

But we've found just that! The fossil in this find is 400 million years old and it shows a transition from jawed to jaw-less fish.
You are also once again misrepresenting the ToE. I've explicitly stated that we would NOT expect to see Euglena "evolve into" an eyeball or a multicellular anything.

** My gawd, were you in all of these finds AGAIN?

Wouldn't the cheetah just eat the gazelle as soon as it evolved teeth?

**I hate to tell you but cheetahs didn't evolve teeth. Teeth were around long before cheetahs came on the scene.

Oh you mean something like Horseshoe crabs? Or Horses? Because they can see nearly 360,°.

**Again, I hate to tell you that horseshoe crabs didn't evolve a lick in 250,000,000 years. According to your own peer reviewed paper that you cited below. Bad example for you. Is this another example of punctuated equilibrium?

His (Dawkins) estimates were based on the different "designs" of eyes. Yes, 40 species a few hundred million years ago would have been able to do that. Even one is possible and in the light of some new genetic data even seems more likely.
That's why I say "estimates", because the data is not complete.
As to "what are the odds": Pretty good. After all, Natural Selection is a pretty deterministic process.

**Just astounding what you evolutionauts know that we mere mortals just don't. I REALLY wish I were that smart. And just what is your scientific experience, or ANY experience, that allows you to say the odds of vision evolving on it's own in many different species is "pretty good"?

That's what the evidence suggests, yes. If we'd have one huge step and "tadaaa", then we'd have cause for concern. But with the evidence above and some genetic studies, this is what the evidence points to. [8]

** "¦"¦."we'd" have cause for concern? Again, you couldn't possibly be a better example of #11 on page 34.

Of course they were E. Coli, what else should we expect? The study has been going on for some 23 years now. (Starting 24th of February 1988)

**So all of that evolution in 23 years? Can you imagine what E. Coli then should look like after hundreds of millions/billions of years? Was that punctuated equilibrium in action until the scientists got hold of it?

**Your ear wiggling story is heart warming! I can certainly see why you believe evolution. What more could a person need other than Mount Improbable and ear wiggling to convince that person that evolution is the way all of living nature came about. I certainly can't figure out why people looked at you funny.

**How did those light sensitive cells actually make it to the face of some early species?

Didn't we cover this already? Random Mutation.

**How could ANY "random" place light sensitive cells in the correct location of the face/head? Then it isn't random. Sorry.

**And just the right place on the face?

Where else? They wouldn't make much sense on your lower back or behind your knees.

**"Sense"? Uh oh. Very bad word for you to use. "Sense" implies thought. Intelligence. You blew it right there.
**How did random mutations place the indents on the face in two bilaterally symmetrical locations. How could "random" form indents in the first place of all of the billions of possibilities. Randomness picked indents?

Finally an interesting question. We are what is called bilateral animals, belonging to Bilateria. You can either search
Wikipedia for "Hox Gene" or read source [9].

**We have two eyes on our faces/heads because we are bilatarians. Astounding.

**How could random be so damn non-random and perfect?

That's the thing: Natural Selection.
As I've already explained, NS is extremely deterministic. So much in fact that it has led to improvements. Engineers now often employ evolutionary algorithms, very notably in hardware.

**So natural selection is intelligent? "Deterministic" demands intelligence and guidance.
**Did some species get indents on other parts of their bodies which caused them to be prey for other species?

If that ever happened, they would have died out pretty quickly, don't you think?

**No, I don't think indents would cause any animal to die. I guess the randomness of eye evolution took some time off so the indents could be placed in just the right location.
**Again, why indents in the first place?

It's in the nature of Random Mutations to be Random. We can see this every day. I've already cited the Lenski study. That was Random Mutations + Natural Selection in action.

**Again, part of randomness is indents? Doesn't seem too random to me. "We" see this every day?" Species showing up with strange indents in their heads or bodies? I can honestly say I have never seen that, but I am glad you have. To me it seems pretty strange that all of those many millions of years ago there was so many species that got these indents, but there are none today that I know of. Doesn't that seem a bit weird to you? Oh, that's right, you see them every day. Sorry.

**Do we have species that look like golf balls?

Why should we? What advantage would they have over other organisms?

**Gawd, because it's RANDOM? Random mutations don't occur because they are advantageous. They occur randomly for no good reason, then DETERMINISTIC natural selection takes over and selects the good ones. Throws out the bad. You should know that.

We have Viruses, though they are not animals. Would you count them?
But what relevance does that have on ANYTHING? You're just making up crazy stuff now.

**What? Count viruses? No thanks.

So you won't be swayed by evidence?

**I won't be swayed by Mt. Improbable, random indents that aren't random, demonstrations of heart evolution starting with fully formed and functioning hearts and ignoring co-dependent organs/entities, such as lungs, nerves, vessels, blood"¦.., and wiggly ears, no.

Are you incapable of error? Because you've made quite a few. I'm sure I'll make at least one error along the way, too. But then, I don't claim some knowledge I don't possess.

**You claim to know how all of nature's species and bio-systems formed, and you don't "possess" that knowledge. You just think you do. You have obviously been fooled.
You passed up the questions I had for you on the formation and hookup of the optic nerve, the formation of the visual cortex, and formation of the code. As I said, the indents you claim were the precursors to vision were useless until all of the hookups were manufactured and assembled. Which is why I said they were nothing but tumors for a very long time. Of course I still say that is the case. I don't blame you for skipping the question, since there is no answer.
I see this "debate" as me asking you questions, and you coming up with dogma and non answers that are not close to satisfactory or reality. Except to you and your allies. A perfect example:

Stevebee: And (how were the eye-indents placed on) just the right place on the face?

Inferno: Where else? They wouldn't make much sense on your lower back or behind your knees.

To spend my time trying to explain to you why this answer is absurd is in itself absurd. You also asked me to tell you why evolution is impossible, when I have pages dedicated to the subject on my blog. You can challenge them all you want, and post on my blog. Feel free to copy anything you would like here for full attack purposes. I requested that you to take a look at my page 34 so you don't constantly give repeated evo-indoctrinate communications as you have. You either didn't or enjoy writing looking very indoctrinated. I really don't have the time to retell everything I've posted in my blog and displayed in my vids for you here. Or spending so much time explaining why your non-answers are not acceptable. Maybe if you really open your mind and take a self-critical look at your writing, you will get the idea. So I will cut this "debate" off, You can have the last word, if you wish which I promise I will read and give a short response to so you will know I did. And thanks for asking me over. Bye

 

[Squawk]

Re: Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolut

We'll consider that the end of the debate, posting now free for all in the comments thread. Inferno, if you want to stick another post on the end of this, fine.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Does evidence support the neo-darwinian theory of evolut

Wow, I think that that's a new record...

Well steve, your understanding of evolution was even worse than I thought. And you say that you understand it, look at the evidence?

Try taking a hacksaw and cutting out half of the air pressure chamber of a ball pump. Will it pump?

This is NOT an intermediary stage in evolution.
Nobody is proposing hearts like the one below:
Link to image that is over 1280 pixels wide.

**You use "ignorance" and "stevebee doesn't understand" so freely, but you resent the fact that I used to believe as you do? How strangely sensitive of you.

No, I resent the fact that you SAY that you did, while even a fleeting glance at your more obvious errors show you to completely lack any understanding of ToE. Or science for that matter.

** Were you in on the find? If not, then entomologists et al did the find. Not "we". Certainly you don't consider yourself in on the find do you? And what does bee flight have to do with the discussion anyway?

We: Scientists
You: You
The flight of the bee was an example of how we CORRECT things in science, when we find that they are wrong. There was something wrong with our interpretation of the fossil record (gradual evolution) so we sought out the mistake and corrected it. That's the way real science works.

**Again, I hate to tell you that horseshoe crabs didn't evolve a lick in 250,000,000 years. According to your own peer reviewed paper that you cited below. Bad example for you. Is this another example of punctuated equilibrium?

Are you that deluded that you can't even understand that it was an example you wanted for "eyes at the back of their heads"? You asked for that, I've presented you EXACTLY that. What else does it take you to show that you're wrong?

You claim to know how all of nature's species and bio-systems formed, and you don't "possess" that knowledge.

"Jesus homeopaths get on my nerves with the old "Well science doesn't know everything". Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop!" Dara O'Briain Roughly at 1:48

All the rest of your post is just a load of "well check page X on my blog". And you were the one who said that I should narrow my scope? Pathetic.
You make every single one of the errors you yourself criticize, you have not posted a SINGLE piece of evidence, yet you still claim as a fact that all of the things that I have presented are not good enough. On what basis, exactly?
You accuse me of having worded my post strongly, when nearly everybody in the peanut gallery stated that I shouldn't even reply to your first post because it's full of ad hominems? Ridiculous.

At the end of this shambles, I feel like Sir David Attenborough at 3:40 of "We're all connected" where he just throws his hands up in despair.

Well, it did teach me two things:
1) Never expect reason from an ID proponent.
2) Be more pedantic or Squawk will be all over me.