It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

There are 160349 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#120331 Jul 29, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Cut/paste (on iPhone) is easier still!
;-)
I'll take yer word for that. I've never had one...
KAB

Taiwan

#120332 Jul 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, KAB, what I have said is consistent.
Must I spell it out again? There will be ONE original survivor after 24 generations if you start with 1000 female lines. If the original population are identical except for one with a mutant haplotype variation, its odds of being "the one" are 1/1000. Very small.
Yes, it has a 75% chance of making it to the next generation, but the odds get eaten away as each generation passes.
Look again. It has 1/4 chance of disappearing in gen 1. 1/2 chance of producing 1 heir, and 1/4 chance of 2 heirs.
If it produces 1 heir, then there is a 75% chance of surviving another generation. From the start, 75% of 75%(56%). If it produces 2 heirs, 15/16 chance, and 1/16 chance of disappearing. All up, 94% OF 75%(70%). But also, 4/16 chances of producing only 1 female heir out of 4....taking it back to step one again and another cumulative cut of only having a 75% chance of surviving.
This becomes considerably more complex after 2, 3, 4 generations, but in each case you are ADDING more chances that the new hap will not survive to gen 24. And after 24 generations, that adds up to 99.9% chance of extinction.
Of the 1000 starters, the likely last survivor will be one of the 999 originals, not the new upstart.
This is further complicated if we add one new mutation in every generation. But still that is only 24 new mutation haps in total and the original is still likely to be the dominant haplotype by far. In this case there should be a number of rare variants floating around the extinction point in the population.
But there is a very small chance, about 0.2%, that a new variant has beaten the odds and is challenging for ">50%" of the current distribution and thus replacing the original as the dominant haplotype.
So fixing a new haplotype as the dominant one is rare, not something likely in 24 generations or 100. In fact, the statistical estimate based on actual population and mutation rate estimates is one every 3500 years (about 175 generations), getting away from my idealised model. Thats ONE change.
Now, you see that multitude of haplotypes in the map? You see also that many are daughters and granddaughters of variants as well.
You could even start with a tiny population and arbitrarily bump up the mutation rate (against all evidence, but hey, thats what creationists do), and it still will not work.
Squeezing the haplotype tree into 4500 years is not going to be possible by any stretch of the assumptions.
At the same time, REALISTIC modelling of the haplotype tree shows consistency with both historical migration records, with archaeological evidence, and even with linguistic analysis. NONE of that accords with a 4500 radiation from scratch.
I guess you still haven't really grasped the absurdity of your position as it crumbles under the weight of multiple independent lines of contrary evidence converging on a resounding NO to the Flood. But for the time being, we will ignore that and just stick with the haplotypes.
Try modifying the population assumption to growing rather than stable. That is more realistic, isn't it?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120333 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have to do is provide confirming data, and you'll have my attention and serious consideration.
I doubt it, as I've personally presented the data several times to you before.

But here goes -- again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Highlights:

"The highest rates of growth global population increases above 1.8% per year were seen briefly during the 1950s, and for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s. The growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, then declined to below 1.1% by 2012."

As I am at work now, I am limited in doing the research for you. I suggest you go online or to a library, and research 'paleodemography','birth rate', or 'infant mortality', as they are pertinent in your hypothesis.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120334 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>Try modifying the population assumption to growing rather than stable. That is more realistic, isn't it?
No.

Population growth for the bulk of human history hovered around 0.1%, and occasionally fell into negative numbers.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120335 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If no organism exhibited more genetic diversity than it is possible to have accumulated in the time since the flood.

We have already informed you that there is far to much genetic diversity in humans. And there are many species far more diverse than us. Even the NEE 70,000 ybp would not have decreased the genetic diversity NEARLY as much as a breeding pool of only 6 humans.

And as already noted a population of less that 1,000 simply would not survive. You would need at least 500 with excellent management (making sure mating pairs are as genetically dissimilar as possible and certainly nothing closer than a second cousin).

And the possibility of long term survival when there are only 6 pairs and all the males are related.... I could do the math, but I am certain there would be a number of zeros after the decimal point.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120336 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that either of the conditions you describe has been confirmed, so there is nothing to explain.

They have been confirmed. I would have to dig up specific references to the first one but can do so if you intend to abdicate your responsibility again.

The second one

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2....




Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So where is your fallback. You would not admit this much if you did not have a fallback.
How do you explain the biodiversity of species that are so diverse that they must have hundreds of millions of generations since their LCA with others of the same species?
How do you explain how the most recent bottleneck in humans was over 50,000 years ago and the last major bottleneck was about 70k years ago.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120337 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you won't quote me to confirm those assertions. Failure to do so will be a rather strong indication of who is lying here.

You are already a known and confirmed liar. When potential lying is involved you will always be the first suspect rounded up.

Your cult encourages lying so that is another strike right off the top.

Not supplying a reference is just not supplying a reference. It does not implicate the person who does not provide it. It would be nice, however.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120338 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are back to depending upon each newly generated hap having very little chance of long term survival, and this after vehemently arguing that your earlier mathematical analysis did not show that. No wonder I want confirming data for whatever position you take. BTW, you once again skipped the confirming data, and expect me to accept your assertions. I won't.

This is an unsupported assertion. You did not provide any data that this is wrong.

I think you are confusing two separate issues and your brainwashed mind is merging them as and EDM (ego defense mechanism).

No wonder I want confirming data for whatever position you take. BTW, you once again skipped the confirming data, and expect me to accept your assertions. I won't.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120339 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The odds of mtDNA hap survival generation by generation, as you have noted, are roughly 75%. Those are rather good propagation odds, as you have noted.

I don't think you understood the issue. You might want to look it over again to see if you can find your error.


Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is simply no way for it to be "20 generation" . Haplotypes have to originate from a single point and then beat the odds over many generations to become established as we have already seen. Then "daughter" haps, adding another variation to the first variant, have to go through the same process. And so on.
The hap map disproves the Flood conclusively.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120340 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The straighforward answer according to the data/analysis given and the conditions I noted is that there is a good likelihood that the present diversity could have been generated in the last 4500 years.
Now is your chance to use the data to demonstrate otherwise, not just assert "It ain't so", as you always do.

This is why you should not be "analyzing" data. If you don't understand what you are looking at and why it works the way it does you will come up with silly answers.

I noticed that you again did not provide the path to your lie,.... er "conclusion".

Why is that, do you think?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120341 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I routinely don't respond to anything you assert without confirming data since I have thoroughly discredited you as a source of reliable info.


ATTENTION EVERYONE! IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE?

Why do you do this to yourself?



Not to mention your post was complete projection. I provide source information far more often than you do. I provide data when it is simple enough that even you can come up with the correct answer which, I admit, is not as often as I would like.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
um..... that is EXACTLY your approach, dumbarse.
Review my crushing post again and tell me what made you so fearful that you could not even respond.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have nothing again.
BTW, why should we believe anything you say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
So JW's are known, proven and ADMITTED liars.
What is your response to the woman who the watchtower threatened with having her children taken away from her and told her the court did not have the right to know the truth of her being a good mother?
Lets stay on THAT subject, shall we?
I bet you don't respond.
I bet you are too chicken to watch the video.
Come on! I won't tell on you!
Do you fear the watchtower that much?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The actual link I sent you a day or two back showing the library of haplotype families IS the data confirming that observed genetic diversity could not have occurred in the last 5000 years.
So no, I am not merely making assertions. I am offering you both an exploration of the logic of how it works - as per our discussions, which are not complete - and the underlying data (DATA! KAB, DATA!) of the existing haplotype families as per that link.
Sorry to mess with your little "DATA DATA DATA" gimmick, but I am calling your tiresome bluff. When you examine the data PROVIDED along with an understanding of haplotype dispersion,(i.e the DATA and the LOGIC)you will have no choice but to accept that there is no way that the human population (or most other animals) was reduced to the numbers given in the Noah myth.
Just warning you in advance. Time for you to invent a diversion fast, if you want to save yourself. How about that good old delaying tactic of misconstruing what I say and wasting a good week or so as I try to sort it out? That is one of your favourites eh?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120342 Jul 29, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate that, macumazahn.
I gots my moments. Just want to see KAB squirm out from underneath this.

But snakes are very good at squirming.

Nevertheless he loses every battle. His squirming is in the form of simply denying everything. I provide crushing evidence and he denies that I am a good source. It is amusing when viewed from above.

I know it is pointless to argue with a JW since they are trained to lie ("spiritual warfare").

A serious discussion requires everyone to be on similar civil and moral levels.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120343 Jul 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, KAB, what I have said is consistent.
Must I spell it out again? There will be ONE original survivor after 24 generations if you start with 1000 female lines. If the original population are identical except for one with a mutant haplotype variation, its odds of being "the one" are 1/1000. Very small.
Yes, it has a 75% chance of making it to the next generation, but the odds get eaten away as each generation passes.
Look again. It has 1/4 chance of disappearing in gen 1. 1/2 chance of producing 1 heir, and 1/4 chance of 2 heirs.
If it produces 1 heir, then there is a 75% chance of surviving another generation. From the start, 75% of 75%(56%). If it produces 2 heirs, 15/16 chance, and 1/16 chance of disappearing. All up, 94% OF 75%(70%). But also, 4/16 chances of producing only 1 female heir out of 4....taking it back to step one again and another cumulative cut of only having a 75% chance of surviving.
This becomes considerably more complex after 2, 3, 4 generations, but in each case you are ADDING more chances that the new hap will not survive to gen 24. And after 24 generations, that adds up to 99.9% chance of extinction.
Of the 1000 starters, the likely last survivor will be one of the 999 originals, not the new upstart.
This is further complicated if we add one new mutation in every generation. But still that is only 24 new mutation haps in total and the original is still likely to be the dominant haplotype by far. In this case there should be a number of rare variants floating around the extinction point in the population.
But there is a very small chance, about 0.2%, that a new variant has beaten the odds and is challenging for ">50%" of the current distribution and thus replacing the original as the dominant haplotype.
So fixing a new haplotype as the dominant one is rare, not something likely in 24 generations or 100. In fact, the statistical estimate based on actual population and mutation rate estimates is one every 3500 years (about 175 generations), getting away from my idealised model. Thats ONE change.
Now, you see that multitude of haplotypes in the map? You see also that many are daughters and granddaughters of variants as well.
You could even start with a tiny population and arbitrarily bump up the mutation rate (against all evidence, but hey, thats what creationists do), and it still will not work.
Squeezing the haplotype tree into 4500 years is not going to be possible by any stretch of the assumptions.
At the same time, REALISTIC modelling of the haplotype tree shows consistency with both historical migration records, with archaeological evidence, and even with linguistic analysis. NONE of that accords with a 4500 radiation from scratch.
I guess you still haven't really grasped the absurdity of your position as it crumbles under the weight of multiple independent lines of contrary evidence converging on a resounding NO to the Flood. But for the time being, we will ignore that and just stick with the haplotypes.

The math is straight forward and simple. He just cannot allow himself to get it. If you ever examine the JWs and realize the garbage they have to swallow then you will realize that even your clear and factual post will provide no serious challenge to him. His brain has been configured to accept watchtower data only. Just like a hard drive in the old days could only accept data in one format and not another.

Unless you can convince him that he can get go-to-heaven points out of this, he will simply ignore it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120344 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have to do is provide confirming data, and you'll have my attention and serious consideration.

This is another lie.

You don't look at the data, you quote-mine the article and take anything out of context that suits your programming.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120345 Jul 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Try modifying the population assumption to growing rather than stable. That is more realistic, isn't it?

Growing an inbred population?

You are missing the point of the exercise. The point is modeling what we would actually see. Not making up what would happen if the reality does not appeal to us.

Increasing the birth rate would seem to make the situation worse, rather than better. But I have not done the math on that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120346 Jul 29, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Population growth for the bulk of human history hovered around 0.1%, and occasionally fell into negative numbers.

Are you sure about the .1%?

that would be .001.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120347 Jul 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Are you sure about the .1%?

that would be .001.
No. NOT sure.

Working from memory, but I thought 0.1% was right.

CERTAINLY not the near 100.0% proposed by KAB.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120348 Jul 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
ATTENTION EVERYONE! IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
Self-evident.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120349 Jul 29, 2013
Re: World Population growth:

Population change affects all our lives in a much more immediate way today than it has throughout most of human history. For the first one-half million years of human existence, the population growth rate was about zero. The population stayed about the same size from year to year. It was not until the 1700s that the modern era of population growth began. Between 1850 and 1900, the annual growth rate reached 0.5 percent. The rate surged to 2.0 percent by the mid-1960s, dropped to 1.7 percent by the mid-1980s, and declined to about 1.2 percent by 2005.

Human population grew rapidly during the Industrial Revolution, not because the birth rate increased, but because the death rate began to fall. This mortality revolution began in the 1700s in Europe and spread to North America by the mid-1800s. Death rates fell as new farming and transportation technology expanded the food supply and lessened the danger of famine. New technologies and increasing industrialization improved public health and living standards. Late in the 19th century, birth rates also began to fall in Europe and North America, slowing the population growth that had resulted from continued moderately higher birth rates than death rates.

Since 1900, both birth and death rates in the more developed countries have continued to fall in tandem, with a few interruptions. A worldwide influenza pandemic in 1918 caused the death of between 20 million and 40 million people and produced a temporary increase in the death rate. A slight increase in birth rates occurred after World Wars I and II. Since the 1950s, birth rates have continued their decline, while death rates declined into the 1960s but have been slowly increasing since. In some European countries, declining birth rates and an increase in death rates are contributing to declining population size. The total fertility rate (TFR) in many more-developed countries is well below replacement levels of two children per couple.

The Demographic Transition

Demographers have attempted to explain the experience of these more developed countries as a demographic transition from high birth rates and death rates to the current low levels. This process tends to occur in three stages. First, birth and death rates are both high, so little growth occurs. Second, death rates fall due to improved living conditions, while birth rates remain high. During this period population grows rapidly. The third stage of the transition is reached when fertility falls and closes the gap between birth and death rates, resulting again in a slower pace of population growth. The figure "Population Growth Through Natural Increase" is a crude representation of this transition. All the more developed countries have entered this third stage of the demographic transition, and some have gone on to a fourth stage in which death rates are higher than birth rates, and the population declines.

http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/H...

Just found this informative.

Didn't you, KAB?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#120350 Jul 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
ATTENTION EVERYONE! IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE?
Why do you do this to yourself?
Not to mention your post was complete projection. I provide source information far more often than you do. I provide data when it is simple enough that even you can come up with the correct answer which, I admit, is not as often as I would like.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
um..... that is EXACTLY your approach, dumbarse.
Review my crushing post again and tell me what made you so fearful that you could not even respond.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have nothing again.
BTW, why should we believe anything you say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
So JW's are known, proven and ADMITTED liars.
What is your response to the woman who the watchtower threatened with having her children taken away from her and told her the court did not have the right to know the truth of her being a good mother?
Lets stay on THAT subject, shall we?
I bet you don't respond.
I bet you are too chicken to watch the video.
Come on! I won't tell on you!
Do you fear the watchtower that much?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The actual link I sent you a day or two back showing the library of haplotype families IS the data confirming that observed genetic diversity could not have occurred in the last 5000 years.
So no, I am not merely making assertions. I am offering you both an exploration of the logic of how it works - as per our discussions, which are not complete - and the underlying data (DATA! KAB, DATA!) of the existing haplotype families as per that link.
Sorry to mess with your little "DATA DATA DATA" gimmick, but I am calling your tiresome bluff. When you examine the data PROVIDED along with an understanding of haplotype dispersion,(i.e the DATA and the LOGIC)you will have no choice but to accept that there is no way that the human population (or most other animals) was reduced to the numbers given in the Noah myth.
Just warning you in advance. Time for you to invent a diversion fast, if you want to save yourself. How about that good old delaying tactic of misconstruing what I say and wasting a good week or so as I try to sort it out? That is one of your favourites eh?
Even KAB knows that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Asheville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tuesday arrests: Asheville man arrested for rem... (Dec '07) 8 hr Nick 15
Keith Young Hearing With Board of Elections 9 hr Keith Young 1
Mayor Liz Manheimer Secret Meeting on AirBnB an... 16 hr Keith Young 1
What Ever Happened To Murdered Plastic Surgeon 18 hr Wondering 1
UnClean Hands Mon Cecil Bogwell 2
A sight not seen before Mon ANONYMOUS 1
Maurice Clemmons is the true hero (Dec '09) Sun Hell yeah 20

Asheville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages