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

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

There are 159266 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.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#22080 Jan 18, 2010
Kantfan wrote:
The thing that is interesting is that a lot of atheists will reject God, but will not reject freedom? Why is that? They are almost the same concept.
How you figure? "Worship me or burn in hell!"

You call that freedom? Must be why they supported the Divine Right of Kings for centuries.(sarcasm)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#22081 Jan 18, 2010
Michael wrote:
Evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. There are no facts/data that supports Darwinism. His “theory” is based on assumptions. First, Darwin assumed that there was a tendency for animals and plants to reproduce geometrically. By this he meant that a pair of animals had far more offspring than was necessary to replace themselves. A fish may lay millions of eggs in its lifetime. If each egg produced a full-grown adult, the population of that species would swell ominously in a short time. Darwin's second assumption was that the number of individuals in a species remained relatively constant. The third assumption was that since large numbers of the offspring failed to reach maturity, there was a struggle or competition for food and reproduction. Darwin further assumed that there was variability between individuals and that the variability was unlimited. The fifth assumption was that natural selection allowed only the "fittest" to survive. Finally, Darwin assumed that the environment changed continuously so that the definition of what is "fittest" changed with time. Darwin also believed that the process of change was gradual. He stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwinism is false and science has revealed such.
Boy, we've never heard all this before.(eyeroll)

So what "scientific alternative" do you propose?
Michael wrote:
If you still believe in Darwinism, I recommend you read A Meaningful World by Dr. Ben Wiker and/or rent the DVDs Creatures that Defy Evolution. And with an open mind.
And why should we pay attention to a reality-denying theologian's opinions on biology?(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#22082 Jan 18, 2010
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Dr. Wiker may have interesting things to say, but his credentials certainly do not point to him being an expert (in any way) in the field of evolutionary science.
He apparently had something to say about Kinsey. I tell ya, fundies are obsessed...
Rolando Mota

Albuquerque, NM

#22083 Jan 18, 2010
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, it'll occur right in the midst of this global warming.
I promised to get back to you on this.

"The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715 when very few sunspots were observed. This was not due to a lack of observations; during the 17th century, Giovanni Domenico Cassini carried out a systematic program of solar observations at the Observatoire de Paris."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Num...

"The Little Ice Age was a period of cooling that occurred after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period. While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by Francois E Matthew in 1939."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_T...

"The term thermohaline circulation refers to the part of the large-scale ocean circulation that is driven by global density gradients created by surface heat and freshwater fluxes. Wind-driven surface currents head polewards from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean, cooling all the while and eventually sinking at high latitudes."

Water density is related to salinity and temperature. The sinking at high altitudes is do to the fact that the density of the water increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermohalin...

As global temperature increases, polar ice melts and dilutes the water at higher altitude. The decreased salinity results in decreasing density of the water and thus it will not sink into the oceanic trenches.

"(One) possibility (explaining the Little Ice Age) is that there was a slowing of thermohaline circulation. The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water to the North Atlantic, possibly caused by a period of warming before the Little Ice Age known as the Medieval Warm Period. There is some concern that shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming period." - wiki

"September 3, 2009: The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot." - NASA

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_...

http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sun-spot-p...

As we are in a protracted minimum at the start of solar cycle 24 and the peak in 2014 is expected to be relatively weak, there is a good chance that I may not be around to witness the shutdown of the next shutdown of thermohaline circulation. Of course, if the current unprecedented spike in ocean temperature is the result of human activity, I may just be lucky enough to freeze to death in the dark.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#22084 Jan 18, 2010
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
How you figure? "Worship me or burn in hell!"
You call that freedom? Must be why they supported the Divine Right of Kings for centuries.(sarcasm)
This idea of fundamentalists (and some other Christians) that freedom and God go together is a really bad case of apologetics, IMHO.

Since the Enlightenment, it has been the opinion of most that freedom is a good thing. For fundamentalists, good things come from God, which means that God must want us to have freedom.

But this does not fit with the Bible. All this "Lord", "Master", "obey or go to Hell" sure doesn't fit with democratic ideals of freedom. They sound a lot more compatible with a police state.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#22085 Jan 18, 2010
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if you HATE KITTENS!!!
>:-(
I'm quite fond of kittens in pickle jars.
Rolando

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#22086 Jan 18, 2010
Theist wrote:
Yes science assures us that theories and what not are what lead our beliefs, to an extent, but they are still theories for the most part.
Every time you use the "it's just a theory" argument, the baby Jesus cries. Just so you know.
And, it also exposes you as a completely scientifically illiterate jacktard. So, think twice the next time you think you're being clever by saying theories are nothing better than educated guesses.
They are, in fact, the most strongly evidenced explanations for a given set of natural phenomena that we have. Theories are what have made technological innovations occur so rapidly for the last 100 years, resulting in far more advancement than during the previous 5,000 years.
Theist wrote:
Facts like, every microscopic cell in your body consists of 46 chromosomes, 23 from a males sperm, and 23 from a woman's egg, contain thousands upon thousands of genes, these genes contain DNA, a code about 3+ billion letters long. Along this sequence, specific genes are activated to create specific proteins to create a human and your other 11 organ systems to efficiently run your body.
Yes. These are all facts. Facts are marginally useful, but they don't EXPLAIN anything. Grass is green. Great, but so what? What CAUSES the green in grass? What is that green for? I have a pimple. Great, but what causes the pimple? How can it be treated? How can they be prevented? Someone is having a heart attack. Great, but so what? What is a heart attack? What causes them to happen? How can they be treated? How can they be prevented?
Facts are what is. Theories explain what is. Facts < Theories.
Things fall down: Fact. Gravity : Theory (explanation which has been thoroughly tested and evidenced). Which is the more useful thing? The fact or the theory?
Theist wrote:
Millions of small facts such as this allow me to feel that god exists.
That makes absolutely no sense. Does the way ice crystals form convince you that God exists? How about the way carrion bakes in the blazing sun, forming a leathery sheet over the rotting flesh beneath, providing a protective layer for the maggots inside the abdominal cavity? Does every natural process convince you of God's existence, or only the ones that you personally find fascinating? Because lots of things are fascinating. Being fascinating, however, is as much evidence of God's existence as the ability to light one's farts is evidence of God's existence.
Theist wrote:
Now, i'm not saying evolution doesn't exist. It does to the point where I believe superior traits are acquired throughout time.
Hold up there, genius. Traits are ACQUIRED? Please explain EXACTLY what you mean by "acquired." How are traits acquired?
Theist wrote:
But I do not believe we come from apes.
OMG IM NOT A MUNKY!
Seriously, stop being a retard for a second and pay attention:
list every characteristic that you think defines the great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, etc.), and then list which characteristics do NOT apply to humans.
Theist wrote:
If one you were to be missing 1 chromosome, you'd be a chimpanzee.
Not quite. We have all the same chromosomes, but two chimpanzee chromosomes fused together to form human chromosome 2. In fact, that's why the two chromosomes that make it up in chimpanzees are now called 2A and 2B.
So, thus far we have "just a theory," "man is not a monkey," "23 chromosomes, not 24," and "argument from incredulity." And, possibly, LaMarckian acquisition of traits. You're firing on all cylinders up to this point.
(continued)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#22087 Jan 18, 2010
Theist wrote:
Let's see what else. Look at out brains, we have the ability to even question such notions such as life, existence, science.
How big are your jaw muscles? Go to youtube and search for "What Darwin Never Knew." Watch it, and learn why our brains are so big and fancy. It's fascinating. And, it's true.
Theist wrote:
What are these little organs pulsing with energy that allows us such comprehension, intelligence. Our brains are more complex than anything we've come across. It's a fleshy cpu more complicated than any cpu.
Right. So?
Theist wrote:
Was it mere chance, or billions of years of evolution? Even if it was billions of years of evolution, then other animals should be much more intelligent. I'm telling you, human beings don't properly fit into the equation.
Why would other animals be much more intelligent?
This is what evolution IS: change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. The ability to survive to reproductive age, reproduce, and have offspring that do the same determines which alleles are passed on to future generations and spread throughout the population.
This is NOT what evolution is: life forms gradually becoming stronger/smarter/larger/faster /(more of whatever characteristic someone thinks is most important) over time just because they reproduce.
There is no defined goal of evolution. Evolution of the population happens passively, but the traits that are passed on to future generations are chosen actively. It is not a gradient; it is a continuum, interacting with every other life form's evolutionary continuum. Some of these continua involve rapid changes; others, very few (consider the cockroach or the ant or the horseshoe crab).
Changes occur when a different trait proves more advantageous for survival and reproductive success than another. If there is very little change in a life form's ability to survive and successfully reproduce, why would it change? Nature lives by the motto, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Theist wrote:
There's something different about us, something unique...on Earth atleast. We get to comprehend our existence, our playgrounds, and grasp life.
Can you prove conclusively that this is true? Are you able to communicate with, say, dolphins and know that they don't comprehend their existence and "grasp life," whatever that means? How about octopus? They're pretty darn intelligent. Do you know what they're thinking? How do you get to the point where you know the activity inside every animal's mind? Isn't that the tiniest bit arrogant on your part?
Theist wrote:
What in science accounts for these facts?
They're not facts just because you say them. That's not how reality works, though that never stopped religious fundamentalists from pretending it's so.
Theist wrote:
They don't, most craziest of shit is already here, but a lot of it cannot be explained. It's impressive how much we know, but be advised we know not shit in reality. We've come a longs way in a couple thousand years, thanks to the many geniuses, and we continue to know more with momentum.
But we still don't know much, just a scratch on the surface.
We have the ability to use our minds, to harness science itself, to know more about our lives and this universe. But I really really really do have a feeling one day, that science itself will prove god's existence. We use it as a tool. Science is a tool man is equipped with; science comes from man's thought, and thought comes from our brains. These little CPU's with eyeballs connected to them allowing us to observe and question.
Science cannot discover that which is undefinable, undetectable, and unknowable. If you can just define what God is, with a high degree of certainty, then scientists can devise methods to detect it. However, if it cannot be defined, it cannot be detected.
So, what, exactly, is God?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#22088 Jan 18, 2010
Kantfan wrote:
I think that it is interesting that you all can accept the concept of freedom as substantial but you reject the concept of God.
Kant argues that there are only three "true" metaphysical concepts: Freedom, Immortality, and God. They all act within the confines of an a priori argument; there are no points of subject empiricism that can be used to verify (if) any inherent truths. The contention is that we can only understand the conceptual if we use reason.
The thing that is interesting is that a lot of atheists will reject God, but will not reject freedom? Why is that? They are almost the same concept. We can only rationalize freedom, you can not prove it. Even a random number generator can only generate numbers given to it. So how can you reconcile the two?
Define freedom.
Define God.
Explain how they are "almost the same concept."

“Question everything.”

Since: Jan 07

Lookingglass Land

#22089 Jan 18, 2010
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
How cool. I'm cruising lala.com for freedom songs and just found 'Abi Yoyo'.
'Run for your lives. Abey Yoyo's coming, she'll eat you alive'- Pete Seeger.
Yo YO yo, yo YO yo, yo YO yo!!!!

“Question everything.”

Since: Jan 07

Lookingglass Land

#22090 Jan 18, 2010
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
How you figure? "Worship me or burn in hell!"
You call that freedom? Must be why they supported the Divine Right of Kings for centuries.(sarcasm)
Religionists who worship sadistic gods develop a sort of Stockholm syndrom IMO.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#22091 Jan 18, 2010
Michael wrote:
Evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. There are no facts/data that supports Darwinism. His “theory” is based on assumptions. First, Darwin assumed that there was a tendency for animals and plants to reproduce geometrically. By this he meant that a pair of animals had far more offspring than was necessary to replace themselves. A fish may lay millions of eggs in its lifetime. If each egg produced a full-grown adult, the population of that species would swell ominously in a short time.
I guess the concept of predators is new to you?
Michael wrote:
Darwin's second assumption was that the number of individuals in a species remained relatively constant.
I guess the concept of predators is new to you?
Michael wrote:
The third assumption was that since large numbers of the offspring failed to reach maturity, there was a struggle or competition for food and reproduction. Darwin further assumed that there was variability between individuals and that the variability was unlimited.
So, there is NO competition among members of the same species? And, there is a defined limit to the variability of characteristics between individuals of the same species? Please define this limit and provide the citation for said limit.

[QUOTE who="Michael"The fifth assumption was that natural selection allowed only the "fittest" to survive.[/QUOTE]

You're bastardizing the meaning of the phrase. "Survival of the fittest" is a horribly simplified explanation. What it means is that those traits in individuals that give those individuals a better chance at survival and successful reproduction will tend to be passed on to future generations at a greater rate than traits that provide no greater advantage of survival and successful reproduction. Is there something in this that confuses you?
Michael wrote:
Finally, Darwin assumed that the environment changed continuously so that the definition of what is "fittest" changed with time.
Unless you're aware of a vacuum in which any species is capable of living and reproducing, this is true. No environment on Earth is static. There is always change. It's just the degree to which the environment (weather, predators, invasive species, etc.) will change that is unknown, but every environment changes, and the changes are continuous. If you can find a single place on Earth where this is not true, please let us know. I'm sure everyone here is excited to learn of a static Earth environment.
Michael wrote:
Darwin also believed that the process of change was gradual. He stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
And every complex organ HAS been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications. Name a single organ that could only have happened by being introduced to the species in its present form. Please, enlighten us. Your views on biology are hotly anticipated by all.
Michael wrote:
Darwinism is false and science has revealed such.
Well, everyone, he said it's false and science has proven it. I guess it must be true!

See, so far all you've done is list a bunch of half-truths and mined quotes. You haven't done this little thing we like to call "provide evidence." If you had done that, you'd at least not be considered a complete asshat. Too bad, so sad.
Michael wrote:
If you still believe in Darwinism, I recommend you read A Meaningful World by Dr. Ben Wiker and/or rent the DVDs Creatures that Defy Evolution. And with an open mind.
Scientists are incredibly open-minded. They're willing to overturn everything they understand if compelling evidence presents itself. Can't say the same for the ultra-religious, however. Hypocrite.
Sheila

Texarkana, TX

#22092 Jan 18, 2010
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if you HATE KITTENS!!!
>:-(
My kitty is so sweet, she does a little dance if you rub her right.
Sheila

Texarkana, TX

#22093 Jan 18, 2010
Abbey Yoyo wrote:
<quoted text>
Religionists who worship sadistic gods develop a sort of Stockholm syndrom IMO.
I thought that only applied to those being held captive. Bound and gagged, um, and possibly tortured...a little?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#22094 Jan 19, 2010
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm quite fond of kittens in pickle jars.
Rolando
Ask and thou shalt get.

http://www.premierphotographer.com/category/K...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#22095 Jan 19, 2010
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you use the "it's just a theory" argument, the baby Jesus cries. Just so you know.
Cuz he too likes kittens.

:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#22096 Jan 19, 2010
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Define freedom.
Define God.
Explain how they are "almost the same concept."
Freedom = nice. God = vewy nice.

Therefore nice must has come fwom vewy nice!

:-D
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#22097 Jan 19, 2010
Sheila wrote:
<quoted text>My kitty is so sweet, she does a little dance if you rub her right.
Ahem.

(Dude adjusts collar)
Sheila

Texarkana, TX

#22098 Jan 19, 2010
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask and thou shalt get.
http://www.premierphotographer.com/category/K...
Aah...the paradox of a pocketed pussytat.
Michael

Charlotte, NC

#22099 Jan 19, 2010
Christopher Pearsoll wrote:
Why is it that the majority of the folks coming in here from North Carolina are all of the 'ignorant hick who's going to ramble on about how wrong Evolution is even though they haven't clue one about it' variety?
I mean really guys, you're making your state look bad.
It's not evolution that is wrong. It is Darwinism, which has no scientific evidence to support 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.

Skyland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Asheville Sucks! 4 hr Billy Blowmeat 4
I Feel Unsafe At Asheville Oneness Deeksha 4 hr Muffy Pierce 16
Lesbianism @ Asheville Oness Blessing 4 hr Muffy Pierce 17
Support President Trump 5 hr Muffy Pierce 26
Asheville Nature Center a JOKE! 10 hr Ripped Off 1
Asheville needs an Amtrak Station! Mon Georgia Native 3
Top 10 reasons why Asheville sucks (Jun '10) Mon Georgia Native 298

Skyland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Skyland Mortgages