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

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

There are 142761 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123674 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how I'm the ONLY one providing specific data citations, quotes even, from the reference provided from YOUR side! Quote specifics from your own source to confirm your assertions if you want my further attention on this matter.

LOL. Why would anyone want your attention. Even you can't deal with that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123675 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what they say, in your case at least. If you don't have your opinion, you don't have anything.

That there is NO 4,500 ybp bottleneck in humans and other species of land animals is not an opinion but a fact of genetic research.

Reality is not your strong suit.

You never tire of getting your butt kicked. But such is the way of using cognitive dissonance for self deception.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123676 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this again. Is it your understanding that the DNA STRUCTURE is consistent throughout the entire mtDNA region? If not, how do you understand it to vary? This time I emphasized the key word since your response indicates you are confused about what's being asked.

I suggest reading chimneys post for comprehension.

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Already discussed. There are hypervariable regions (which are used in short term geneology tracking, a few generations), and longer term more stable portions.
The hypervariable portions mutate rapidly, the more stable portions mutate slowly.
If n=3 at 4500 years,
1. The hypervariable portions would show a nested hierarchy. They don't - on a species wide scale they are a jumble, as to be expected if mutation has been occurring for too long a period at too great a rate.
2. The slower mutating regions would not show a nested hierarchy or show a very limited one, because they would not change frequently enough in 4500 years to explain the hierarchy we see in them. As our lengthy exercise a couple of months back demonstrated.
However, if a dishonest researcher takes the hierarchy shown in the slower changing portions (as per the hierarchies we have seen), and applies the change rate found in the hypervariable regions, he can fool idiots. And its not accidental deception, its deliberate.
The change rate applicable must be to the same sequence as the one that the nested hierarchy has been derived from. Now go back and check your sources and see if they have been honest. Hint: they haven't."
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123677 Dec 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB you cannot be this dumb.
If there was a flood, ALL of them would have to qualify. The cheetah stands out precisely because its an exception. Meaning the cheetah suffered a near extinction event in the last few thousand years, but most other animals did not.
If you cannot even fathom this elementary logic, you are just not worth talking to.
With so many from which to choose, why do you not just provide specific data confirming no Biblical flood timeframe bottleneck for some species?

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123678 Dec 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to be a pain, but KAB is a JW, not an SDA.
JW's are a wholey owned subsidiary cult of the WTBTS. They exist for the benefit of the WTBTS egos and coffers.
I know. It was a jab at KAB. He isn't important enough even to remember pertinent personal details. I am surprised you didn't catch it considering our previous discussions of KAB's cult status. I must be making it too obscure.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123679 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
With so many from which to choose, why do you not just provide specific data confirming no Biblical flood timeframe bottleneck for some species?
It has already been supplied to you for people. All we need is one and that is sufficient.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123680 Dec 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to harangue you with minor errors, but KAB is NOT technically savvy.
While I may understand that to be sarcasm, he is not technically savvy enough to have that amount of insight.
You got that one. I must agree it is beyond KAB to catch the sarcasm.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123681 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are not very technically savvy and have a reading comprehension somewhat similar to a doorknob. Those values are four different estimates based on the mutation rates for VNTR families from chickens and humans. The article clearly states that mutation rates have not been calculated for feline FTZ8 VNTR loci. The former rates were used to estimate the time of the population bottleneck of the cheetah. Three of these estimates exceed the time of the flood and one falls short. So each estimate does not support a cheetah population bottleneck at 4500 byp. The evaluation of the mtDNA also supported an ancient bottleneck consistent with 10,000 ybp or greater.
The four values are not a statistical upper and lower ranges for some mean that would include the 4500 byp age of the alleged global flood. You f@<ked this up like you do everything.
Thank you for finally addressing the data. I hope Dogen is observing your example. Now what is the reasoning GIVEN IN THE PAPER (quote or citation please) leading from the 4 values to the 10,000 ybp offering?

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123682 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how I'm the ONLY one providing specific data citations, quotes even, from the reference provided from YOUR side! Quote specifics from your own source to confirm your assertions if you want my further attention on this matter.
In one post you claim we don't provided data, resources or references, while acknowledging that we are the only ones providing such. Do you even see the dichotomy and the irony?

I am not making an assertion. You are and now you are telling me that you can no longer provide the support you claim to have for your assertion. If you know anything, you would post it here. You are just stalling for time and trying to make it seem as if we are the ones using your lies and tricks. Either post your claims and the evidence to support them or concede that the overwhelming evidence we provide refutes your claims.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123683 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this again. Is it your understanding that the DNA STRUCTURE is consistent throughout the entire mtDNA region? If not, how do you understand it to vary? This time I emphasized the key word since your response indicates you are confused about what's being asked.
You obviously no nothing about molecular biology to even ask a stupid question like this.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123684 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for finally addressing the data. I hope Dogen is observing your example. Now what is the reasoning GIVEN IN THE PAPER (quote or citation please) leading from the 4 values to the 10,000 ybp offering?
I have previously provided that information. Why don't you tell us what you think the values mean.

You are just groping for answers from us. I would like you to provide your own answers and support them with REAL data please. That would be a refreshing change.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123685 Dec 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be daft.
Indeed, the bottom provides no buoyancy, but I suspect that by now we all know what does. One side isn't going to acknowledge it tho, right? That's because they were all lock-step initially opposed to what has proven to be correct.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123686 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for finally addressing the data. I hope Dogen is observing your example. Now what is the reasoning GIVEN IN THE PAPER (quote or citation please) leading from the 4 values to the 10,000 ybp offering?
Again, this was data provided by us. Since you never provide data, someone has to.

This is not the first time I have addressed the data. It is a lie for you to say so. Why do you lie all the time. Don't you get that it is WEAKNESS to lie. Your position is WEAK or NONEXISTENT if you have to LIE. So I conclude that you LIE because you can't support your position. Considering the evidence against a global flood, the weakness of your position is self evident.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123687 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Why not stop speculating ignorantly and review all the evidence. Even the Bible doesn't describe your gentle up welling flood. You can't even get it straight. One minute you advocate it for being gentle and now you are implying it isn't. The lies are hard to keep straight for you aren't they.
Of course yours is all speculation and no evidence exists to support it. This was known 300 years ago when this type of flood was refuted then.
Poor psychotic SDA.
I know how fast water would rise to accumulate several thousand feet in 40 days. Do you?
Perhaps you never did word problems or weren't good with them in school.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#123688 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know how fast water would rise to accumulate several thousand feet in 40 days. Do you?
Perhaps you never did word problems or weren't good with them in school.
This is a dodge. You claim some sort of up welling flood that wouldn't leave evidence behind or the evidence would be ambiguous because it wouldn't be turbulent according to your view. You offer no data to support this speculation. Even the Bible speaks against the idea.

Your assertion is a desperate act of one trying to cover the fact that no evidence exists to support your original claim of a global flood.

Consider that I can count myself among those that repeatedly show you to be ignorant of technical knowledge, it is amusing to see you take these little swipes at me. The cherry on top is that you claim to know something, but don't reveal it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123689 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The paper doesn't indicate the range, but the several lines of evidence reviewed indicate 10,000 years which also coincides with a known megafauna extinction event.
Why don't you throws some limits around 10,000 years yourself. You being technically savvy at what not. You didn't even recognize what the four ages indicated in the paper represented. It would be laughable to see what you come up with. I know you won't. You need us to do your footwork for you.
You have failed to refute every piece of evidence presented here. You have attempted to refute them with no evidence and childish speculation, lies and stupidity. I don't expect honest address of the facts and rational conclusion from you. You are clearly incapable of either.
I knew exactly what the four ages represent. That's why I quoted the related content from the paper. Given that the cheetah mutation rate data is not available, the four ages were examples derived from data which is available to give an idea of what the bottleneck timing might be. 10,000 was chosen from within this broad range mainly to coincide with the end of the ice age, wasn't it? That is what the matter of fact science of the paper shows, isn't it?

BTW, have I failed to mention that I have a strong physical science background?(i.e., I'm not a head therapist?)
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123690 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So all the evidence of glaciers moving is just the figment of our imaginations. You better call a press conference with this news.
It's too late. The reference provided from you side already explains quite well how glaciers can move and be frozen to their subtrate at the same time!
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123691 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That you ask this question tells me you are groping for more answers from us. If you felt like you understood the article and had something to say, you would have.
If I give you answers, you don't accept them because they are from me (BTW, How scientific is that?), so I try to lead you to the correct answers allowing you to discover them "for your selves". The hope is you will accept them because you "discovered" them yourselves. However, it appears you may be too proud/obstinate/uncooperative even for that, the buoyancy consideration being a case in point.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123692 Dec 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That there is NO 4,500 ybp bottleneck in humans and other species of land animals is not an opinion but a fact of genetic research.
Reality is not your strong suit.
You never tire of getting your butt kicked. But such is the way of using cognitive dissonance for self deception.
Isn't the more accurate statement that no 4,500 ybp bottleneck has been detected in the lifeforms you mention. Didn't you recently show great concern for clearly distinguishing between "no" and "none found"?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#123693 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It has already been supplied to you for people. All we need is one and that is sufficient.
Perhaps someday you will learn not to rely on Dogen. Data confirming no 4500 ybp bottleneck in humans has not been provided. If you know otherwise, then specifically reference it.

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
Poll Is it time for Darcell Grimes to leave WLOS? (Nov '07) 3 hr MrIceberg1989 915
News Confederate flag fan defends the stars & bars 3 hr rebel111 136
Time Again 4 hr DWI BOTHWELL 11
Buncy's gone to alt.appalachian 4 hr Donna Oakestree 8
It's True: PLANNED PARENTHOOD SELLS MURDERED BA... 5 hr Ruthann Fletcher 24
Top 10 Reasons Chicago Sucks (Jul '13) 16 hr Bababoom 82
How Obama Deceived The Public On Healthcare (Nov '13) Sun Thomass Hoffman 109
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages