Mod note.

Micha, half of your post isn't even yours, the second half of the post is Just Squawks post. Explain please, this post won't count towards your debate total

oops! I must have clicked the quote button sometime during the course of typing and it quote your whole post. I'll rewrite the post, but if you could, don't delete my post until I write a new one, so I can just copy and paste what I've already written.

You'd better define what you mean by interbreed here. Interbreed would typically refer to breeding between subspecies, for example between a Lion and a Tiger. Although we would consider, in common usage, a lion and a tiger to be distinct species, by rigorous classification they are not. There have been instances of ligers that are just about fertile (have produced offspring when mated with a tiger). You'll recall my definition of species earlier, a population throughout which gene transfer can occur.

In your case though we are dealing with "kinds". This brings up an issue, because what you are proposing is that I try and bring up an example of two different "kinds" interbreeding. Unfortunately for us you have declined to define kind, beyond saying "it is based on morphology". Thus my polydactylous cats example still stands.

Until and unless you define kinds rigorously I simply cannot answer this question in a satisfactory way. If you define "kinds" as being above species level (by my definition of species) then what you propose is not possible. If it is below species level then it is possible. Variation in morphology below species level will have no impact on ability to interbreed, since the ability to breed is constrained by genetics, not phenotype (unless we consider mechanical issues like the Chiwawa and Great Dane getting jiggy).

Are there any structural differences between a lion and a tiger? I never said to show me different kinds interbreeding, I said to show me organisms with different structure interbreeding. I defined kind.

If evolution predicted a population of ants morphing into populations of elephants, then yes I would. However that is not what I expect to see, and is not what evolutionary theory predicts. Evolutionary theory would predict that the precursor population to the ants would look, to all intents and purposes, identical to the extant population of ants. Just a few minor differences, principally in shape. We'd expect to see variation on existing structure, which is indeed what we do see.

The pre-curser to that population the same, and again and again. Transitions only become apparent when considered with "near neighbours", which is why comparative anatomy is so useful and why Linnaeus, oh so long ago, categorized humans as apes.

Your avoiding the issue, infact ants date back to 60 million years according to you guys, and yet it hasn't changed a bit. Comparing anatomy doesn't show evolution, how is that evidence for anything? Your just making assumptions, your not showing that they are related.

Nylonaise, e-coli, flu. Why do you think the flu vaccine is different every year? Reality denial isn't going to get you far in this debate.

Denial? What morphological change has occured.

Nylonaise: http://www.nephilimfree.com/articles/ge ... lonase.htm

I'm I'm sure instead of actually refuting the information, you'll attack the source.

E coli,flu: http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-an ... esistance/

Is there any evidence that antibiotic resistance or biochemical adaptation can lead to morphological change? Or are you ASSUMING that is will contrary to all evidence.

And my polydactylous cat is what, a different kind?

No, it is a duplication of the SAME structure, it's not a new structure, there's not new genetic information that causes it to occur.

Well lets just use your previous example of the birds wing. Could you highlight any aspect of the birds wing that, through so called "cosmetic changes" could not have arisen from the precursor form as seen in the thoropod dinosaurs? Could you highlight any structure in any organism that could not have formed from small incremental changes of ancestral forms? Just one example, your best please.

How can cosmetic changes, which are color,size, and shape, cause a dinosaur to evolve into a bird. The burden of proof is one you, not me. There's not a single structure that could arise due to cosmetic changes. Can a fish evolve legs due to cosmetic changes? Can a bacteria evolve into a mite due to cosmetic changes?

Wish I'd looked for this earlier

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1443819
Effects of temperature on the development of meristic characters in Natrix fasciata
DW Osgood - Copeia, 1978 - JSTOR

This was the first paper of use when I searched for "snake vertebra duplication".

What does this paper look at? It looks at the development of a species of snake, Natrix fasciata (Banded water snake) when the embryos are exposed to different temperatures. Joy, guess what they found.

"These extra half-ventrals were usually correlated with duplications of vertebral elements and extra ribs."

How is duplicating an already existing structure going to cause evolution? Please explain that one. Duplication of existing structures is a real process, but it doesn't cause evolution, it eithr has no effect or has a negative effect. Can you duplicate ribs on a snake and cause it to evolve legs? Ofcourse not, duplication of existing structures isn't evidence for evolution. Why can't you show me an entirely new structure that is new to the species.

Pick a structure.

Any structure, it's your choice.

Goal post shift. Ignored

You mean problem for evolution, so your going to ignore it.

Oh please! You know what it is caused by. Spina bifida does no such thing. How does duplication in spinal vertebrae support your idea that we used to have a tail? When such a disorder can occur in any organism that has a spine, and even one evolutionists don't believe had a tail.

You'd better define what you mean by interbreed here. Interbreed would typically refer to breeding between subspecies, for example between a Lion and a Tiger. Although we would consider, in common usage, a lion and a tiger to be distinct species, by rigorous classification they are not. There have been instances of ligers that are just about fertile (have produced offspring when mated with a tiger). You'll recall my definition of species earlier, a population throughout which gene transfer can occur.

In your case though we are dealing with "kinds". This brings up an issue, because what you are proposing is that I try and bring up an example of two different "kinds" interbreeding. Unfortunately for us you have declined to define kind, beyond saying "it is based on morphology". Thus my polydactylous cats example still stands.

Until and unless you define kinds rigorously I simply cannot answer this question in a satisfactory way. If you define "kinds" as being above species level (by my definition of species) then what you propose is not possible. If it is below species level then it is possible. Variation in morphology below species level will have no impact on ability to interbreed, since the ability to breed is constrained by genetics, not phenotype (unless we consider mechanical issues like the Chiwawa and Great Dane getting jiggy).

Are there any structural differences between a lion and a tiger? I never said to show me different kinds interbreeding, I said to show me organisms with different structure interbreeding. I defined kind.

If evolution predicted a population of ants morphing into populations of elephants, then yes I would. However that is not what I expect to see, and is not what evolutionary theory predicts. Evolutionary theory would predict that the precursor population to the ants would look, to all intents and purposes, identical to the extant population of ants. Just a few minor differences, principally in shape. We'd expect to see variation on existing structure, which is indeed what we do see.

The pre-curser to that population the same, and again and again. Transitions only become apparent when considered with "near neighbours", which is why comparative anatomy is so useful and why Linnaeus, oh so long ago, categorized humans as apes.

Your avoiding the issue, infact ants date back to 60 million years according to you guys, and yet it hasn't changed a bit. Comparing anatomy doesn't show evolution, how is that evidence for anything? Your just making assumptions, your not showing that they are related.

Nylonaise, e-coli, flu. Why do you think the flu vaccine is different every year? Reality denial isn't going to get you far in this debate.

Denial? What morphological change has occured.

Nylonaise: http://www.nephilimfree.com/articles/ge ... lonase.htm

I'm I'm sure instead of actually refuting the information, you'll attack the source.

E coli,flu: http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-an ... esistance/

Is there any evidence that antibiotic resistance or biochemical adaptation can lead to morphological change? Or are you ASSUMING that is will contrary to all evidence.

And my polydactylous cat is what, a different kind?

No, it is a duplication of the SAME structure, it's not a new structure, there's not new genetic information that causes it to occur.

Well lets just use your previous example of the birds wing. Could you highlight any aspect of the birds wing that, through so called "cosmetic changes" could not have arisen from the precursor form as seen in the thoropod dinosaurs? Could you highlight any structure in any organism that could not have formed from small incremental changes of ancestral forms? Just one example, your best please.

How can cosmetic changes, which are color,size, and shape, cause a dinosaur to evolve into a bird. The burden of proof is one you, not me. There's not a single structure that could arise due to cosmetic changes. Can a fish evolve legs due to cosmetic changes? Can a bacteria evolve into a mite due to cosmetic changes?

Wish I'd looked for this earlier

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1443819
Effects of temperature on the development of meristic characters in Natrix fasciata
DW Osgood - Copeia, 1978 - JSTOR

This was the first paper of use when I searched for "snake vertebra duplication".

What does this paper look at? It looks at the development of a species of snake, Natrix fasciata (Banded water snake) when the embryos are exposed to different temperatures. Joy, guess what they found.

"These extra half-ventrals were usually correlated with duplications of vertebral elements and extra ribs."

How is duplicating an already existing structure going to cause evolution? Please explain that one. Duplication of existing structures is a real process, but it doesn't cause evolution, it eithr has no effect or has a negative effect. Can you duplicate ribs on a snake and cause it to evolve legs? Ofcourse not, duplication of existing structures isn't evidence for evolution. Why can't you show me an entirely new structure that is new to the species.

Pick a structure.

Any structure, it's your choice.

It's a fish that can "walk" using it's pectoral fins. The precursor form is just a fish with fins that can't be used for walking. No real "morphological change" as you seem to want, required, and yet here it is walking. This is exactly (ish) how the original tetrapods evolved.

You avoided my question, do you have fossils of this organism without legs? How do you know they didn't walk before? Where do you get that idea from?

Goal post shift. Ignored

You mean problem for evolution, so your going to ignore it.

Good good, so that would mean my provided examples match your definition of a tail. What was your objection again? Note that this definition would make your spina bifida case a true tail

Oh please! You know what it is caused by. Spina bifida does no such thing. How does duplication in spinal vertebrae support your idea that we used to have a tail? When such a disorder can occur in any organism that has a spine, and even one evolutionists don't believe had a tail.

It's a fish that can "walk" using it's pectoral fins. The precursor form is just a fish with fins that can't be used for walking. No real "morphological change" as you seem to want, required, and yet here it is walking. This is exactly (ish) how the original tetrapods evolved.

You avoided my question, do you have fossils of this organism without legs? How do you know they didn't walk before? Where do you get that idea from?

Mod note.
Third time lucky?

Do you even read what you post?

Read the entire post again. It has no place in informed debate.

Mod note:

That's 15 posts each now.

Both participants may now post their final summary post (NOT a debate post!).

When that's done, the debate will be closed down.

After that both participants are free to post about this debate in other areas of the forum, including the debate comments thread.

Thanks to Squawk and micah1116 for participating.

And so this debate is at an end. 15 posts each and we move to our conclusions.

This has been an interesting experience, most definitely a worthwhile one, though tinted with sadness. I've learned new things during research for my posts, particularly the stuff on PtERV1 and HERV-K-CG1 and I enjoyed presenting those papers. I hope others have found those posts informative.

Before I start to sum up properly I'd like to extend an offer to any creationist who has read this debate. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this debate, or indeed any aspect of evolutionary theory, in confidence, then I am more than willing to enter into a pm discussion to go into more depth. Such a situation arising can be the only positive outcome here, this debate will be deemed a success by me if someone, somewhere, has started to question the straw men, untruths and lies that have been shoved down their throats about evolutionary theory. I don't intend such a discussion to be a debate, any debate should be out in the open where others can read and benefit, but rather an open invitation to ask genuine questions with a desire to understand.

But lets return to the debate. In my opening post I suggested various courses this debate might take. I mentioned ERV's, Chromosome fusion and gene fixation specifically. Micah's opening post expressed incredulity that "evolutionists" still rely on these arguments and he presented what he thought was a rebuttal.

The series of posts following then consisted of my dismantling of his objections, followed by Micah's version of the Gish gallop and the goal post shift. On every occasions when Micah was shown to be in error he simply ignored the information posted and moved on to pastures new, where the process repeated.

Micah eventually settled on two areas. The "kind", and morphological change. The two are intimately related, and both are creationist favourites. When pressed he has been unable to define kind in any meaningful way, or find a single instance of the requirement for a new, non-derived structure to appear and become fixed in the population. When examples are presented that show his definition to be in error he simply adds or changes the definition, over and over. I argued that evolution from an early tetrapod to a human, or bird, requires not a single instance of a new, non-derived structure, and Micah has been unable to provide any two consecutive fossils in the record (and note he had nearly 400 million years worth of fossils to play with) that would require such a new structure.

In short, Micah has been arguing against a straw man of evolution and has yet to realise it. Micah, your latest definition of kind would mean that men and women are of a different kind.

My signature on these boards, for a long time, read "Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity lasts a lifetime". This statement should explain where my values lie. I don't care what you know, but I do care that you are willing to learn. I care that you be willing to put in the time and effort to better yourself, to consider alternative points of view, to do the research when required. I value critical thinking and I deplore a closed mind.

Through actions in this debate Micah has displayed a closed mind. The "effort" he has expended on each post is best described as minimal, as evidenced by his last post in this debate. It was submitted a second time after I pointed out the major errors in a mod note and it still contains duplications, misquotes and general bad formatting. Attacking the person rather than the argument is often a logical fallacy (ad hom), but when a poster in a formal debate cannot even be bothered to preview and spell check his own post before submitting the only conclusion can be apathy. Apathy for the truth, contempt for the audience, contempt for the opposition.

I hope that someone, somewhere, will read this and start to think. I hope that one day that might be Micah. With genuine questions rather than a debate format perhaps evolutionary principles could be explained to him. Perhaps with patience he might begin to understand why I mock his positions. Maybe I'm not the best person to educate, I know I can be harsh, but at times it's hard to restrain oneself. Maybe I've helped others with this debate.

I hope that Micah really doesn't understand this debate. I'd argue that he can't, because to understand it and throw up the objections he has would require dishonesty and I have a tendency to believe the best of people. Which brings me onto something I wish to address.

Micah, you said I'd dismiss Nephilimfree as a source. You're right. He is a dishonest fuckwit, a liar and a moron. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it is raining outside. He is the epitome of everything that I despise about the creationist movement. Not creationists, you understand, but the creationist movement, that movement that is obsessed with polluting minds with untruths. Too many people are victims of the dishonesty and lies that he and those like him spread and I hope you are simply a victim of this type of propaganda. His "argument" against nylonaise is only valid if you permit him to redefine evolution (descent with inherited variation in a reproducing population). Please don't value arguments against straw men.

The debate is at an end. I suppose I should leave it to others to declare the winner, but then I'd rather that point wasn't laboured. A perfect conclusion to this would be that pm I mentioned, from any creationist, asking for more information, asking for me to expand on any idea, and a genuine willingness to listen. If this debate serves to free just one person from delusion it will have been worthwhile. I send out an open offer, any request will be kept in confidence. I won't parade anything said in private in order to claim "victory". Micah, that offer extends to you as much as any other creationist who may read this.

Until the next time.

Squawk

First, I'd like to thank Squawk for debating me, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the creation vs evolution topic.

I'm still not convinced that there is a shred of real evidence supporting evolution, all that I saw you present were assumptions, not actual observed science that supports what evolution contends. During the entire debate, you didn't show me a single example of an organism evolving a new structure new to the species, which is exactly what evolution contends happened. Instead you showed me duplication of already existing structures, which doesn't support evolution since the body plans of organisms on earth are incredibly different. You showed me fossils that you believed were transitonal, but yet showed no direct transition, again they are assumptions.

Another example of an assumption you displayed was using comparitive anatomy and saying it was an example of morphological change. The change you said happened was not observed, it is assumed. I hope you can atleast partially see how your beliefs are assumptions and not observable science.

So again, we'll have to agree to disagree

Floorboards.