CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[Two Thumbs]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

Evolution just means to change. Adaptation means to change to fit certain conditions. The scientific meaning in the biological context is evolution is cumulative adaptation of populations of organisms.

Please explain why you think evolution fails at the TK Boundary.

Crocodiles survived the TK extinction event. The rodent posited to be the ancestral mammal came from a common ancestor with the crocodile long before there was either crocodiles or mammals of any kind.

please explain how an underground mammal evolved to live in trees.

there's no reasonable explanation

climate change led to the extinction of animals or the minor adaptation, adaption and evolution are not different words with the same meaning.

ex; a pig has fat back legs and small(ish) teeth, it lives in a pen and has no fear of predators.
a boar back has large front legs and thinner back legs, it lives in the wild and predators fear it.


they are both pigs and can breed b/c they are both pigs, one is just adapted to living in the wild

 

[Syriusly]

Actually Polar Bears are considered separate species. Of course Brown Bears and Polar Bears are very closely related species.
DNA study clarifies relationship between polar bears and brown bears

Similarly wolves and coyotes can cross breed- but they are different species.
Red Wolf Recovery Program

Actually, DNA can differentiate between human races. Are they different species, too?

Actually genetically there are no 'human races'

 

[Syriusly]

I thought this was a debate of 'Evolution vs Creationism'

Is this just another "Evolution- and the people who don't think its true thread"?

No, but why can't we cover one thing at a time? You want to ask me questions before you've answered mine. Sounds like you're ducking out.

I provided a very specific post- regarding the evolution of one species- brown bear- to another species- polar bear. You have yet to actually address what I said in my post.

At the same time I asked you to provide a statement regarding- what I can only suppose is your position- which is a statement supporting Creationism. You have yet to do so.

You pose a challenge- I respond
I pose a challenge- you respond

That is how a debate works.

You're wanting to jump back and forth. I'm not gonna be sucked into that pattern. You did not make the case to support a common ancestor. Tell us who or what the common ancestor is. A brown bear and a polar bear are both bears. You're talking about breeding and adaptation. That does not make a case for chickens and snakes coming from the same ancestor.

I get that you don't want to be asked to argue pro-Creationism.

How about you respond to my actual post- specifically.

You're wrong, but the fact that you keep ducking the subject at hand in an attempt to avoid answering my very basic questions shows me that YOU are the one who does not want to argue your theory. I can see that you're unable to meet the challenge.
I think I have a fair compromise for us. I'm gonna leave for a while (work) but when I come back later I'll hit you up, ok?

Not a problem- I will be offline for awhile shortly. I provided a solid statement of my position- I look forward to you responding to my original post if you want a debate.

 

[Syriusly]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

The very concept of specie is an old idea that is meaningless. The differences in species are nothing more than a very large amount of adaptation.

adapted from what?

earth was a tumbling ball of flaming rock
then we got hit by a lot of comets and we got water, still tumbled
then we got hit by a rock the size of the moon
that gave the earth rings that eventually became the moon
that gave us spin, season and weather
where did life come from?
from random lighting hitting rocks and water?

evolution fails from the start and refails, hard, at the tk

There is nothing in your entire post regarding evolution.

Your post is a failure if you were attempting to debate 'evolution'.

 

[Syriusly]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

Evolution just means to change. Adaptation means to change to fit certain conditions. The scientific meaning in the biological context is evolution is cumulative adaptation of populations of organisms.

Please explain why you think evolution fails at the TK Boundary.

Crocodiles survived the TK extinction event. The rodent posited to be the ancestral mammal came from a common ancestor with the crocodile long before there was either crocodiles or mammals of any kind.

please explain how an underground mammal evolved to live in trees.

there's no reasonable explanation

climate change led to the extinction of animals or the minor adaptation, adaption and evolution are not different words with the same meaning.

ex; a pig has fat back legs and small(ish) teeth, it lives in a pen and has no fear of predators.
a boar back has large front legs and thinner back legs, it lives in the wild and predators fear it.


they are both pigs and can breed b/c they are both pigs, one is just adapted to living in the wild

Not sure why you are describing wild-feral pigs and domestic pigs at all- since as you pointed out- they are both pigs

 

[Syriusly]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

Evolution just means to change. Adaptation means to change to fit certain conditions. The scientific meaning in the biological context is evolution is cumulative adaptation of populations of organisms.

Please explain why you think evolution fails at the TK Boundary.

Crocodiles survived the TK extinction event. The rodent posited to be the ancestral mammal came from a common ancestor with the crocodile long before there was either crocodiles or mammals of any kind.

please explain how an underground mammal evolved to live in trees.

It would be easier if you were more specific- but since you weren't- I will be.

Underground mammal: ground squirrel (various species)
Tree living mammal: squirrel (various species)

How could a ground squirrel evolve into a tree living squirrel? Not really hard to come up with a scenario- population of ground squirrels exists isolated from other ground squirrel populations- ground squirrels who can climb better than other ground squirrels can reach more food, survive some kinds of predators better- and produce more offspring- eventually offspring become better adapted to living in trees than in burrows- and live in trees.

Though I have no idea whether the ancestor of both ground squirrels and tree squirrels was underground living or arboreal- could easily have been either. Mammals are highly adaptable.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Being a creationist I have no problems with the use of any organizing theory but given the amount of out and out fraud used by the defenders of evolution such as Nebraska Man at the Scopes trial I am rather dubious that evolutionary theory can be defended as an organizing principle without a flame war breaking out.

What "fraud" is put out by the defenders of evolution? Oh, you cite one example from decades ago.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

Evolution just means to change. Adaptation means to change to fit certain conditions. The scientific meaning in the biological context is evolution is cumulative adaptation of populations of organisms.

Please explain why you think evolution fails at the TK Boundary.

Crocodiles survived the TK extinction event. The rodent posited to be the ancestral mammal came from a common ancestor with the crocodile long before there was either crocodiles or mammals of any kind.

please explain how an underground mammal evolved to live in trees.

there's no reasonable explanation

climate change led to the extinction of animals or the minor adaptation, adaption and evolution are not different words with the same meaning.

ex; a pig has fat back legs and small(ish) teeth, it lives in a pen and has no fear of predators.
a boar back has large front legs and thinner back legs, it lives in the wild and predators fear it.


they are both pigs and can breed b/c they are both pigs, one is just adapted to living in the wild

There a many reasonable explanations, one already put forth. Not too mention many other examples of various different yet similar species surviving in very different ways: flying fish, mudskippers, grounded birds such as emus and peacocks, primates which live in trees and others which live on the ground and still others who live both on the ground and in the trees. By adapting through natural selection.

Evolution and adaptation are not two different words with the same meaning: evolution is a broad term which simply means change, afaptation has a narrower definition of changing to be better suited to one's environment. One could say "finches survived by evolving better adaptations".

 

[rdean]

Years ago, when you went to a college or university, there was only one course on evolution. Now, with so many discoveries, one university might have dozens of courses on evolution.
Magical creation only needs a hand up, a head bowed, eyes closed and the willingness to say "I believe" based on nothing but what someone said.

 

[320 Years of History]

The instant you come across someone talking about "a horse didn't become a bear" or some other such silliness, you may as well move on because the instant they utter that (or similar) remark, you realize that they don't get that one aspect of evolution is that Archea and other prokaryotes are what evolved into bears, horses, birds, etc. You have two choices with those folks:

This is exactly what I've been saying. You claim that all creatures evolved from the same common ancestor, yet when challenged to explain how, this is how you avoid it.

You can ask for that proof until your are blue in the face and perhaps you'll find a fool or three who will absolve you and other theists of their burden of proof with regard to the assertion "God exists." I, however, am not among "the three." You see, when two parties are in a discussion, and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. (Cargile, James (January 1997). "On the Burden of Proof". Philosophy (Cambridge University Press) 72 (279): 59–83.)

Equally important to note is that science does not present evolution with the assertion that "because life evolved, it's thus clear that God does not exist." Consequently, whether one can show ever stinking link from one prokaryote right up to today's house cats, for example, is irrelevant to the proof of whether (a) God exists. It's irrelevant because in the debate of whether God exists, the initial assertion is "a god exists." In the atheist line of argument, "no god exists" is the conclusion at which they arrive when they examine the arguments supporting the assertion/premise "a god exists." In other words, what atheists say is, "we do not find that the theist arguments in support of the assertion 'there is a god' are sufficiently convincing for us to accept the assertion as true."

Furthermore, atheists, the smart ones at least, realize that no matter how comprehensive becomes, or incomplete remains, science's ability to establish the physical and genetic links/steps that got us from prokaryotes to, say, house cats, the fact is that even a 100% complete set of links would not disprove or prove that one or several supernatural beings exist. What such an accomplishment would do is show beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is exactly what got us from "primordial soup" to today's cats, dogs, people, etc.

When it comes to establishing whether one or several supernatural beings exist, let alone what "it" did or didn't do re: the state of the Earth as we observe it today or in the past, the burden of proof rests with the theists. And when attempting to support that assertion, theists do not get to utilize irrational lines of argument to make their case (although nearly all of us try to).

When you ask, in the context of the topic presently at hand, "how did prokaryotes evolve into the critters and plants we see today?", the implication of your doing so is this: science cannot provide a 100% complete picture of how evolved each life form we see today; therefore the assertion "a god exists" has not been disproven. Because it has not been disproven, it must be true." I would think that most high schoolers can see the illogic of that line, yet more than a few grown people put it forth. Perhaps they have forgotten what they learned in school about logic?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

The very concept of specie is an old idea that is meaningless. The differences in species are nothing more than a very large amount of adaptation.

adapted from what?

earth was a tumbling ball of flaming rock
then we got hit by a lot of comets and we got water, still tumbled
then we got hit by a rock the size of the moon
that gave the earth rings that eventually became the moon
that gave us spin, season and weather
where did life come from?
from random lighting hitting rocks and water?

evolution fails from the start and refails, hard, at the tk

That is a terrible oversimplification of the scientific narrative of the early history of the planet.

Would you mind explaining why evolution fails at the TK boundary.

 

[320 Years of History]

The objective terminology in this debate should be "gradual transformation into new species" vs. "interventional creation of new species." The former theory is derived from the observable adaptation of species to their local environment (e.g., polar bears), but has little archaeological evidence or biological explanation for their transformation into entirely new species. .

That is a great jumping off point for a discussion.

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.
Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." He adds, "In this respect the cave bear's history is far from unique."

One small fossil, one giant step for polar bear evolution

Polar Bears can and do mate with Grizzly Bears and produce viable offspring. From a genetic standpoint, they are not different species.

For folks who've not bothered to examine why it is that two modern species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, your assertion may be convincing of something. To one who has bothered to understand the very meaning of the term "species" and the specifics of polar bear and grizzly bear evolution, it doesn't say much, and it's certainly convincing and indicative nothing pertaining to the discussion at hand. It's but a bit of interesting factual information that confounds the ignorant's attempts to have a rational discussion.

The lack of agreement among scholars -- life science, philosophical, et al -- is one of the means creationists exploit in their efforts to support the assertion "God exists." The bear example you provided is just one of the specific circumstances they offer in that vein of "thinking."

 

[petro]

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

 

[320 Years of History]

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

The question "what came before?" introduces The Cosmological Argument. Until recently, that question had no potential answer other than God. That is no longer so. While Dongshan He's paper doesn't directly answer the question, it does present the mathematical framework for understanding that the answer to it may plausibly be "nothing." Even before that research showed the possibility of the answer's being "nothing," not having an incontrovertible answer to "what came before?" does not by any means ensure that "God" (or some group of gods) is the correct answer.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

I understand your questions- but you do realize that they aren't really part of the debate- right?

 

[Elvis Obama]

The Cosmological Argument

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

I understand your questions- but you do realize that they aren't really part of the debate- right?

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

 

[petro]

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

The question "what came before?" introduces The Cosmological Argument. Until recently, that question had no potential answer other than God. That is no longer so. While Dongshan He's paper doesn't directly answer the question, it does present the mathematical framework for understanding that the answer to it may plausibly be "nothing." Even before that research showed the possibility of the answer's being "nothing," not having an incontrovertible answer to "what came before?" does not by any means ensure that "God" (or some group of gods) is the correct answer.

I

It is the Cosmological Argument that stirs my interest far more than the either or proposition of Science vs. Religion. I also find the Holographic Principle an interesting concept. The true answer may be one we may never answer unlike those posting the either or and seem very sure of their viewpoints. I guess my questions go towards both sides of this debate. To the pure Creationist...do you deny the scientific and mathematical nature of the Universe we observe and the very fact that we witness evolution in life forms on our world? "God" would have to be a scientist just based on what we observe. To the pure Evolutionist...can you conceive the notion of higher intelligence and that we very well may just be a scientific experiment by something a couple of billion years more evolved than us puny humans. We possibly could have been created by a scientist that some call a "God". Also can you explain why so many of science are still believers in "God" as they see a design element in what they study. Becoming a scientist doesn't get you an automatic card into the Atheist club.

 

[petro]

The Cosmological Argument

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

I understand your questions- but you do realize that they aren't really part of the debate- right?

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

The very title of the OP and what I have read here suggest otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

The Cosmological Argument

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

I understand your questions- but you do realize that they aren't really part of the debate- right?

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

Yep- but I am ever hopeful.

 

[320 Years of History]

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

The question "what came before?" introduces The Cosmological Argument. Until recently, that question had no potential answer other than God. That is no longer so. While Dongshan He's paper doesn't directly answer the question, it does present the mathematical framework for understanding that the answer to it may plausibly be "nothing." Even before that research showed the possibility of the answer's being "nothing," not having an incontrovertible answer to "what came before?" does not by any means ensure that "God" (or some group of gods) is the correct answer.

I

It is the Cosmological Argument that stirs my interest far more than the either or proposition of Science vs. Religion. I also find the Holographic Principle an interesting concept. The true answer may be one we may never answer unlike those posting the either or and seem very sure of their viewpoints. I guess my questions go towards both sides of this debate.

To the pure Creationist...do you deny the scientific and mathematical nature of the Universe we observe and the very fact that we witness evolution in life forms on our world? "God" would have to be a scientist just based on what we observe. To the pure Evolutionist...can you conceive the notion of higher intelligence and that we very well may just be a scientific experiment by something a couple of billion years more evolved than us puny humans. We possibly could have been created by a scientist that some call a "God".

Also can you explain why so many of science are still believers in "God" as they see a design element in what they study. Becoming a scientist doesn't get you an automatic card into the Atheist club.

Well at the risk of sounding somewhat Jabba-like, no matter what one's personal view regarding the veracity of the claim "there is a god," it's essential that one fully understand the arguments put forth to support that assertion and the rebuttals to them. Understanding those lines of thought allows a critical thinker to recognize the flaws in the logic given by either side.

• Creationists -- These folks need to free themselves from presenting their case as though the existing "evidence" supporting their argument is incontrovertible. It's not, and it's not going to be until some god shows up with inviolable proof that he/she/it is exactly that. They need to realize that science isn't trying to disprove the existence of a god or that that god is the cause of all we observe. What science is trying to do is figure out, as best it can, what has or could have caused it.
  
  Creationists also need to recognize that what makes them feel as though the arguments supporting the existence of a divine creator is infallible, cogent and sufficiently convincing is their faith, and perhaps also that which they believe is promised to them as a consequence of having faith in the surety of the assertion. They also need to get over their strange need to justify their faith -- be it using reason or anything else.
  
  There is no need to justify having faith in a god; that one's faith makes one feel good about "something" or many/several things is reason enough to have it. It doesn't need explaining or justification beyond that. If one has it, one does. If one does not, one doesn't. The only person to whom one must prove the worth, and strength of one's faith is oneself, and doing that effectively doesn't call for debating the matter with anyone else.
  
  
• Evolutionists -- First of all, I'm assuming you are using the term "evolutionists" synonymously with atheists. Doing so is neither fair, intellectually rigorous, or accurate. There are theist and atheist evolutionists.
  
  Evolutionists, be they atheist or not, are in most cases quite capable of conceiving of some "higher being." It's just that they have yet to receive from the folks who assert that being's existence any deductively rigorous proof that there exists such a being. (refer to my "burden of proof" post earlier in this thread) Since atheists demand a 100% level of certainty in order to accept the verity of "there is a god," a rigorous/valid formal proof supporting that assertion is what will be necessary to convince the most ardent atheists they are incorrect.
  
  Well, there's not much to say about that. We can't collectively insist that folks accept our informal proofs for a god's existence. If some folks are going to insist on 100% certainty re: the matter of a supernatural being's existence, well, they just are. For those of use who demand less than 100% proof, faith is what fills the gap between "whatever percent" and 100%. It stands to reason that a person having zero faith -- regardless of why -- will demand 100% objective certainty. The more faith one has, and the more one is willing to live/act/believe based on the presence of that faith, the lower the degree of objective certainty one demands.

Blue:
I think the remarks in the second bulleted section above answer, at a high level, the question you've asked. Alternatively, if you made it to the conclusion of the essay I wrote for my thread in the Structured Debate section of USMB, you'll have found the remainder of my answer to it. (I'm guessing you didn't make it to the end seeing as you asked the question you did....)