Come one, come all, see the Gore3000 vs Dan Day cage match! Two men enter, one man leaves!
Okay, gore3000, time to enter the sudden-death match.
You have been claiming for quite some time that transition from an egg-laying birth method to a placental birth method is "impossible", because a) it couldn't happen all in one generation, and b) it couldn't happen gradually across multiple generations either.
I agree with you on "a", so no need to argue that one. That leaves us with the proposition of whether it is provably impossible to do it gradualistically across multiple generations, as you claim, or whether nothing impossible obviously stands in the way of the transition.
You, remarkably enough, claim:
"However, that many of the essential parts of it had to have occurred in a single generation is also very obvious and this totally disproves evolution since they clearly could not have." [your post #886] -- *tagged G3K_statement_001*What's remarkable about this is that you're claiming to know with certainty what some "essential parts" would be, *and* have a list of one or more them which "very obviously" had to occur "in a single generation", *and* that at least one of these alleged combinations is so unlikely as to "totally disprove evolution". *tagged DD_statement_001*
If I haven't stated your position properly, speak up now...
So let's have a clean, orderly debate on that proposition.
Rules of the deathmatch
Rule #1: Responses will alternate. This is my turn, after I post this it'll be your turn to respond, then mine, etc.
Rule #2: Participants (that's you and me) can ask each other numbered questions relating to the deathmatch issue any time it is their turn to post. (Questions must be numbered to designate them as "official" questions as opposed to just rhetorical questions, requests for clarification, etc.)
Rule #3: All numbered questions *must* be answered by the recipient during his next turn
Rule #4: Failure to clearly and specifically post an answer to any question will count as "sudden death" and forfeit the match, resulting in the win of the other participant.
Rule #5: Defensive answers (e.g., "I don't have to tell you that") count as failure to answer and will forfeit the match.
Rule #6: Posing questions which clearly have no direct bearing on the matter at issue (e.g. "why is there air?", asked Dataman) will result in forfeiture.
Rule #7: Personal insults, broadsides against any particular belief system, etc., are off limits. The first person to throw a cheap shot loses. This is about proving/disproving a claim, and sticking to the topic.
Rule #8: There is no rule #8.
Rule #9: Failing to respond to a post within 48 hours will be considered forfeiture of the match.
Rule #10: The match ends when one of the following occurs:
a) Someone forfeits according to the above rules.b) Gore3000 wins if he proposes a step in the transition which is both clearly *necessary* to happen in a single generation, *and* statistically impossible to have happened in a single generation -- and Dan Day can't refute it by showing that it's not actually necessary, could workably be done over more than one generation, or is not impossible after all.
c) Dan Day wins if he can propose a complete sequence of gradualistic steps from egg-laying to a successful placental-birth (no matter how primitive as long as it could in theory work), each step by itself a selective advantage and not ridiculously unlikely -- which Gore3000 can not refute by showing some specific insurmountable likelihood, or pointing out a truly required missing step.
d) Dan Day also wins if he shoots down all of Gore3000's "impossibilities" (see "b") and Gore3000 can't come up with a worthy new one over the next 48 hours.
e) Someone concedes.
Rule #11: No one has to prove that things *did* happen the way they suggest, only that it *could* in theory. We're only arguing "impossible even in theory -- or not" here, remember, *not* reconstruction of the true history of life, or evolution as a whole, or the operation of DNA, etc.
Rule #12: The rules can be modified with the consent of both parties -- I'm not interested in having anyone win (or lose) on a technicality or due to poor/ambiguous rules or "gotchas".
Rule #13: Both parties must act in "good faith" (be honest, sincere, show trust, etc.) No weaseling, evasions, attempts to use loopholes in the rules, running out the timer, catch-22's, "have you stopped beating your wife", etc.
And now on with the show
(My "official" questions to you will be flagged with labels of the form, "DD?###", where "DD" signifies that it's my question to you, "?" flags it as a question, and "###" is the numeric sequence number for easy reference.)
I hope you'll decide to participate, since you seem very confident about claim to your ability to "prove" it. So I don't see why you should have any qualms about putting it to a real test. And it should be fun, I hope.
My first round of questions deals with making sure the rules are acceptable, and that we agree on the fairness of the deathmatch as a test of your claim.
DD?001: Gore3000, do you accept this formal, "by the rules" debate on your claim? (Yes or no)
DD?002: Do you agree with my understanding of your claim as summarized in the paragraph tagged "DD_statement_001" (and if not, how should it be modified to be a more accurate summary while still a *testable* one -- i.e., one which can possibly be successfully proven *or* successfully falsified)?
DD?003: Do you agree that this is a fair way to put your claim to the test, since (my reasoning goes) in order to prove your claim you should be able to point to a *specific*, *necessary* stage which *must* be done in a single generation but can not plausibly *be* done?
DD?004: Do you also agree that if you can't point specifically to such a step, you have personally failed to prove the "total impossibility" of such a gradualistic transition?
DD?005: Do you accept the rules as I have proposed them, or would you like to propose some changes/additions before we get fully into the debate?
You now have 48 hours to respond.