Home > congress, debate, science > Debate going down @ The Right Scoop

Debate going down @ The Right Scoop

October 20, 2010

Here it is folks, an intense debate by yours truly, and commenter Dan_Tumser. This was sparked by Christine O’Donnell debate against Chris Coons dealing with teaching the theory of evolution. The Right Scoop has the Beck commentary in video form. O’Donnell was questioning Coons governing philosophy of not allowing states to control school curriculum.

Also, spark up debate in the comments here! Bring it on! This is what Conservatives do, we are not afraid of the ideas.

Some highlights:

Dan_Tumser responding to geopolicy (Tony):
From your language I have to ask if you accept the veracity of cladistic phylogenetics. If this is the case then where do you draw the line in the nested hierarchy separating the “kinds,” and “sorts?” By what basis do you do this and how is it not arbitrary?Responding;
1. Look at any phylogenetic “Tree of Life,” and taxonomic classifications combined with fossil aging, the strata they have been found in and genetic analysis. Working backwards, Homo Sapiens is found as a species of Hominoidea (apes) which is part of the Anthropoidea clade. Go further back and you hit Primates.You can’t outgrow your ancestry. If you accept cladistic phylogeny at all you will need to accept the monophyletic hierarchy, which with the studies I listed and more is constructed chronologically, morphologically and when we have access to the genome, genetically, and they all line up. 

The process of systematic classification set up by the hard-line creationist Carrolus Linneaus puts us both in the apes, which comes from monkeys, making us both. He knew and admitted this himself, his challenge to the scientific community was to find an explanation for this or refute it. It has not been refuted, the basics of his taxonomy are the basis of a much more detailed and extensive system today. What did happen though was the Theory of Evolution explains this perfectly.

If the word monkey means anything at all, you and I qualify, accept it.

2. There are multiple different kinds of Speciation actually, there isn’t only what you see with ring species. What you describe is Parapatric & Peripatric speciation, but you leave out Sympatric speciation, Phyletic speciation and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Your example of the frog and fish is absurd, what you describe would in fact disprove the Evolution you claim it would evidence. It’s essentially the same as asking for a Crocoduck, and I hope you don’t like Kirk Cameron. As I showed in my response to #1, you can’t outgrow your ancestry, a frog’s descendants will always be a frog just as we will always be apes. That’s how taxonomy works.

Evolution doesn’t say such radical changes happen in single generation, something like that would be so genetically disimilar to even it’s nearest relatives even hybridization would be impossible. Evolution happens over long periods of successive incremental changes. You know this, you are either strawmanning or are misinformed.

What you say actually happens is what I compared to walking 20ft, but for some reason you insist on a barrier with no evidence stopping species from reaching the 20miles.

3. Then explain to me the Design/creation explanations for Atavisms and the ERVs in our 3billion base pair genome that we share in common with other apes in the EXACT same places. Also the evidenced relationship of T-rex and modern Aves.

4. You essentially claim induction for design is sufficient over methological naturalism. It is a leap to supernatural causation. I don’t understand why people still rely on the Teleological Argument, Hume and Kant eviscerated it ages ago.

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension. “neo-darwinists,” if you are so fond of the word, don’t say that genetic drift and environmental pressures worked any differently in the past. You point to several things that are actually argued by people like myself and somehow claim that it is evidence against our side of the public debate (there is no debate among biologists).

There is nothing about Evolution that says a frog would give birth to something so radically different as a “fish” and not be a frog. That would disprove Evolution and be evidence for creation. You concede that new species can develop so I have to ask again in case it got lost in the rest of my post.

The textbooks of ID say that the designer poofs these basic archetypes into existence fully formed, so what are your definitions of the “kinds,” “sorts,” or archetypes? How far back in the phylogenetic record do you go to start work with your scissors and arbitrarily cut clades out to move them off to the side arising seperately.

Examples will do, since the wording would probably be pretty vague.

(I’m working on a paper while I write this, if that was unclear, please say so and I’ll edit or fix in another post)

Geopolicy – Tony response
2. You are all wrong. Speciation has several types which are; Allopatric, peripatric, sympatric, parapatric speciation types. All dealing with extremes of geographical isolation.
Punctuated Equilibria, or PE, is not a type of speciation. It is an attempt by Stephen Jay Gould to explain the observation of lack of gradualism in the fossil record originally proposed to be there by Darwin. Gould asserts that species can change instantaneously on geologic time scales (i.e thousands of years). Speciation is the mechanism, in its many forms that could have caused PE. PE is not speciation proper.
20 feet to 20 miles. OK fine, that is completely in line with creationist thinking because the thing walking 20 miles didn’t change drastically or come from the same single cell or whatever. To follow the logic further, many different base patterns walked 20 miles genetically developing similar conserved areas along the way through convergent evolution. Into what we can observe today.3. Its a biological evolution explanation not ID or creationist. The biological evolution process is called Convergent evolution. Convergent evolution causes the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.4. Methodological naturalism or the Scientific Method essentially, is used significantly with ID. That is how you derive that things were designed not spontaneously happening or created in the first place. ID determines things are guided, not unguided and spontaneously happening. 

4a. A frog has to give birth to something radically different after generations. If it doesn’t than how can we have one single common ancestor? Answer is, we don’t, we have poly base patterns and poly processes that formed the tree of life that we try to follow in the fossil record today with incredible neo-darwinist assumption and bias.

4b. No ID textbook ever states that the “designer poofs these basic archetypes.” You have to separate foundations of study and interpretation if you are to understand. That sentence I quoted from you is the origin of life discussion, centered on philosophy or theology of creationism. Frankly its pretty disrespectful how you present it as well…

Quick note… Now that we know we are dealing with philosophy and theology rather then scientific observation. God could of quite possibly utilized abiogenesis, designing it to create life out of nothing. You see there is a blending of philosophy/theology and science there, that is creationist language. So, to be scientific or like an ID theorist and not a creationist, the answer is: “abiogenesis was designed to happen.”

The use of language in that manner escapes otherwise intelligent scientists forcing them to commit philosophical bias within peer-reviewed science articles.

m_quick post
This is getting ridiculous. When Beck says ignoramus crap like this it discredits everything else he says. Rush and Beck (and probably a lot of conservatives) should just stop trying to talk about science.Seriously, he sounds like an idiot. No one says we evolved from monkeys. There are about 2 dozen “missing links” from a common ancestor of all primates to homo sapians. He can easily look this up. From Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo ergaster etc.We have google. There’s no excuse. 

geopolicy (Tony) response

Why do these different missing links have to prove one common ancestor? Why couldn’t there be two ancestors or many original ancestors, or can be called base patterns? Why can’t these missing links be either fully primate or fully human?

One ancestor for humans, and one ancestor for primates, etc, etc. These parallel lines of ancestry produce immense similarity because of convergent evolution. It does not show one common ancestor as the new-darwinists think but two independent common ancestries.

In what way is that scientifically inaccurate to posit that? It isn’t, it is inaccurate because it contradicts your neo-darwinist philosophy.

%d bloggers like this: