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

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

There are 154808 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#121721 Oct 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they do. They force one to turn vague ideas into specifics, to really think through the nuts'n'bolts of a problem.
You can say, KAB, "Oh there just had to be enough mutation at the right time in the right circumstances, and you have these migrations containing only the newer level haptypes and all the old ones die off in the population left behind....etc.etc.etc...
But when you are forced to sit down and work through these scenarios using the data we know and reasonable assumptions... then you see WHY your scenarios do not work.
<quoted text>
Correct. So when you put the formulas in, you are confronted with the need to make them realistic. Nuts n bolts.
<quoted text>
Yes, but also note that where I have stretched assumptions, I have generally done it in a direction that would favour YOUR position, not mine. And it still did not work.
<quoted text>
I did everything I could think of that would work for YOU. Such as doubling population every generation from the flood for as long as possible consistent with 7 bn people alive today. Such as assuming pure random mixing across the whole population which favours you not me (because it allows wider dispersal of new haptypes faster).
<quoted text>
We are not talking about a "proportion of the mtDNA genome". We are talking about point mutations etc on that genome. That means a single base difference can amount to a new haplotype.
The difficulty you have is in explaining why all the older haptypes are gone. Some should remain if all but 3 ancestral haps have been generated since 4500 years ago. And remember its not only the oldest. Several generations of haptypes are no longer present but their existence is understood by the distribution of changes in the daughter types which do exist.
I cannot make your hypothesis work. Of course there is more to it than just my puny effort - all of modern genetics cannot make it work even when "creation scientists" try.
What saddens me is that while real science is building an ever deeper understanding of the true history and migration patterns of human populations over the real time scales (ditto physics, biology, geology, astronomy etc) involved, that you guys lock yourselves in the cage of biblical literalism when we have discovered so many more exciting and awesome things about the universe we live in.
None of that means you HAVE to abandon God, or even abandon the moral sense of the Bible. But taking the Bible literally? That is just silly.
With regard to generating haps in short order, what's unacceptable about the following study and the conclusion to which it leads?

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondr...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121722 Oct 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As already agreed, its not flood evidence if non flood explanations are just as viable. You need to find something that is hard to explain without a global WW flood.
On the other hand, not just haptypes but ice cores, the atacama desert, archeological finds, known methods of sedimentation etc etc, are evidence against a global flood because it is hard to explain them in the context of one.
So, is your view that if evidence may not have been produced by a flood, then it wasn't? Why does that not seem to have a very scientific ring to it?

BTW, I have addressed shortcomings of ice core, Atacama, archaeological finds, etc. On which aspects do you need a refresher global flood explanation?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121723 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
With regard to generating haps in short order, what's unacceptable about the following study and the conclusion to which it leads?
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondr...
It isn't a study, but it does reference a study. It seems to be an outline of a method to determine mutation rates and that part is interesting if there were something quantify. While reading the reason that such a study would be useful, Plaisted mentions that his idea wouldn't be dependent on radiometric dating. Measuring mutation rates doesn't depend on radiometric dating.

I don't think this would be anymore useful in haplotype analysis than the methodology followed now.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121724 Oct 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We got to the point where you were asking the following:
What if in a migration, all the new haptypes were concentrated in the migrating part and all the old haptypes were retained in the population left behind (statistically totally improbable), and the part that migrated thrived but the one left behind died out, and this statistically improbable scenario played out not just once but repeatedly all over the world, time after time etc etc.
That is where you had reached. In other words, you had reached absurdity in the attempt to make the data fit your scenario.
Now, unless you can think of something more realistic, your scenario is falsified.
My position is not the improbable "all or nothing" you cite, but rather tipping the balance one way or another in isolated migrated populations, just as the data shows has occurred (e.g., why are different branches of the hap tree exclusive to different locations on the planet? Don't you want those older haps to have gone along for the ride?).

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121725 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So, is your view that if evidence may not have been produced by a flood, then it wasn't? Why does that not seem to have a very scientific ring to it?
BTW, I have addressed shortcomings of ice core, Atacama, archaeological finds, etc. On which aspects do you need a refresher global flood explanation?
Kind of twisting things into straw aren't you.

Addressing them, doesn't mean that your argument was good or successful. So far it hasn't been. You haven't shown that those three sources of evidence against a global flood don't hold up. You need a refresher in reality, but alas, that probably will never come along.

Keep twisting and turning. It won't help, but it is all that we know you can do.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121726 Oct 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Belly up? My refusal to take your delusional claims seriously? Don't be stupid.
Oh...
Right...
It's KAB.
Carry on being stupid. It's what you're best at anyway.
Out of ammunition and belly-up again I see.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121727 Oct 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is data of localized floods from different points in the world. Not evidence of a single, global flood.
No one is arguing that floods don't happen or haven't happened, but thanks for providing evidence to refute an undisputed point. On rare occasions you do provide data.
Is that like the Son of Sam pointing out all the people that he didn't kill as evidence that he isn't a killer.
You know what they say. All flood evidence is local.
That's what makes global floods so hard to recognize! It can be difficult to distinguish one flood from another without a program. But hey, we do have a program. It's called the Bible.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121728 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of ammunition and belly-up again I see.
Yes, you are.

But that has never stopped you in the past now has it? It should not stop you now either.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121729 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
With regard to generating haps in short order, what's unacceptable about the following study and the conclusion to which it leads?
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondr...
I am going to have to stick with my original, tentative assessment. It doesn't really sound like the author has much knowledge of biology. I wouldn't base your argument on this KAB, no matter what you think it concludes. It doesn't.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121730 Oct 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It isn't a study, but it does reference a study. It seems to be an outline of a method to determine mutation rates and that part is interesting if there were something quantify. While reading the reason that such a study would be useful, Plaisted mentions that his idea wouldn't be dependent on radiometric dating. Measuring mutation rates doesn't depend on radiometric dating.
I don't think this would be anymore useful in haplotype analysis than the methodology followed now.
Thanks for demonstrating you're not technically savvy. There's no fault in that BTW. Not everybody is or is required to be. You should rely on someone who is, though, to help you understand enough of the points being made to enable you to draw valid conclusions.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121731 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what they say. All flood evidence is local.
That's what makes global floods so hard to recognize! It can be difficult to distinguish one flood from another without a program. But hey, we do have a program. It's called the Bible.
I don't know that anyone says that.

What makes global flood evidence so difficult to find is that there isn't any. You would have to have difficult to recognize global flood evidence in hand so to speak even to make such a claim as you are making. There is none. No difficult or easy to recognize evidence. No evidence lit up like the Vegas strip with lights, fireworks and showgirls.

I can't imagine that if such an event as a global flood were to have occurred in the last 4500 years, that there wouldn't be some obvious evidence left behind. As you say, local floods leave plenty of evidence even evidence that is 1000's of years old.

But hey, the Bible is mostly allegory so not much of a program to use for science. Only scared, fools cling so closely to it in lieu of the theology it represents and bastardize it into an idol.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121732 Oct 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are.
But that has never stopped you in the past now has it? It should not stop you now either.
You can bet the house it won't.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121733 Oct 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Kind of twisting things into straw aren't you.
Addressing them, doesn't mean that your argument was good or successful. So far it hasn't been. You haven't shown that those three sources of evidence against a global flood don't hold up. You need a refresher in reality, but alas, that probably will never come along.
Keep twisting and turning. It won't help, but it is all that we know you can do.
You're entitled to your opinion.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121734 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121735 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating you're not technically savvy. There's no fault in that BTW. Not everybody is or is required to be. You should rely on someone who is, though, to help you understand enough of the points being made to enable you to draw valid conclusions.
You called it a study. It isn't. The author mentions facts that are not true. Any real points being made were in the excerpts from the actual study.

So, no this does demonstrate not only my ability to understand technical information in biology, but to see misinterpretation of that information.

I am sorry that you don't understand how your position has been completely destroyed by people that do understand science and aren't delusional.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121736 Oct 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am going to have to stick with my original, tentative assessment. It doesn't really sound like the author has much knowledge of biology. I wouldn't base your argument on this KAB, no matter what you think it concludes. It doesn't.
Thanks for the specifics. How could I possibly counter the points you cite? Very convincing!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121737 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
With regard to generating haps in short order, what's unacceptable about the following study and the conclusion to which it leads?
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondr...
So what is the rate of human mitochondrial DNA mutation? How does it compare to genomic mutation rates for humans? How does it compare to rates determined from protein sequences? What impact, if any, would optimizing the rate determination do with regard to haplotype data? How would you determine an unbroken lineage going back 1,000 with a high degree of certainty? Do you need 50 generations? Could you optimize it with different groups of with 10 or even fewer generations? The most important question is this. How will you dodge and dance your way out of this if it all shows that the science is bang on?

Come on KAB. You are so technically savvy, surely you already have the answers to this and more on the next episode of As KAB Turns.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121738 Oct 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the specifics. How could I possibly counter the points you cite? Very convincing!
So you think radiometric dating is required in determining mutation rates. You think some pieces cut out of an actual study support speculation. What about the unsupported point that the author makes about the differences in reported mutation rates from different studies. I didn't see any data. You certainly don't seem to mind it if something you think supports your view is data-free.

You are getting boring. I'm going somewhere else.

Have fun with your pseudoscience.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121739 Oct 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know that anyone says that.
What makes global flood evidence so difficult to find is that there isn't any. You would have to have difficult to recognize global flood evidence in hand so to speak even to make such a claim as you are making. There is none. No difficult or easy to recognize evidence. No evidence lit up like the Vegas strip with lights, fireworks and showgirls.
I can't imagine that if such an event as a global flood were to have occurred in the last 4500 years, that there wouldn't be some obvious evidence left behind. As you say, local floods leave plenty of evidence even evidence that is 1000's of years old.
But hey, the Bible is mostly allegory so not much of a program to use for science. Only scared, fools cling so closely to it in lieu of the theology it represents and bastardize it into an idol.
Do you contend that some flood evidence is not local?
BTW, a document provided by the creator of all things need not and should not be an idol. It should represent the supreme authority (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121740 Oct 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You're entitled to your opinion.
Yes, I am entitled to my opinion, and apart from confirming data it's worthless.

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.

ACLU Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News ACLU want Obama to commute sentence for Chelsea... Tue GrowUp 2
News Trump signs pledge to back GOP's 2016 president... (Sep '15) Dec 1 Freedom Speaks 4
News Supreme Court has not decided if it will hear G... Nov 29 meh plus 8
News Lawyer at center of Jeff Sessions racism contro... Nov 22 Philosophic 74
News Court Orders Better Facilities for Detained Ill... Nov 22 spytheweb 1
News Source: Trump immigration plan mirrors post-9/1... Nov 17 tomin cali 1
News ACLU urges probe into transgender teen's suicid... Nov 14 Cath League of Du... 1
More from around the web