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

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 ... Full Story

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#102328 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
SERIOUSLY?!!
YOU ARE THE ONE ADVOCATING A THEORY THAT WAS PROPOSED BY MEN LONG BEFORE YOU, AND IS MADE POPULAR BY CONSENSUS; WHILE I AM ARGUING FROM MY LOGICAL CAPACITY AND POTENTIAL TO REASON, YET YOU ASK ME WHAT? "Do you have any thoughts of your own?"
ARE YOU STUPID OR SOMETHING (as if I have to ask)?!
I've studied the evidence for Evolution and find it convincing.

As for your capacity for logic and reason; you have demonstrated none.

My advice is: More Books, Less Ganja!
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102329 Nov 18, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that knowing things is the same thing as knowledge.
<quoted text>
I pursued an education in Biology. You have some opinions based on admitted ignorance of the subject. Who's the bigger obstacle?
<quoted text>
Conclusions can be based scientific study. Wouldn't it be silly to research topics if no conclusions could be drawn?
<quoted text>
...but not the integrity to withhold your baseless opinions .
You know what, just... just... just... go away.

You obviously think you are dealing with someone like yourself.

I have done biology, physics and chemistry and am now furthering my education in math (calculus).

Go away... you have nothing to contribute to my knowledge nor the improvement of my thinking skills.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102330 Nov 18, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
I've studied the evidence for Evolution and find it convincing.
As for your capacity for logic and reason; you have demonstrated none.
My advice is: More Books, Less Ganja!
My advice for you is to stop being a gullible fool... Think you can handle that?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#102331 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
My advice for you is to stop being a gullible fool... Think you can handle that?
As I mentioned; I've studied the evidence for Evolution and find it convincing.

Apparently, you haven't but still have strong opinions based on what other people have told you.

Who's being gullible?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#102332 Nov 18, 2012
I'm enjoying our discussion, but have to go to a movie. Perhaps we can continue later.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102333 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
If you search for causes, then you will be led to search for causes of the causes; which I am told leads to an "Infinite regress". As such, the search for causes is self defeating, eventually futile.
So is the search for cause meaningful? And if it is; why is it that when we search for causes beyond those you have identified, we are being irrational/illogical?

We don't know there is infinite regress and scientific searching always leads to greater understanding and application.

What is the alternative? Live in caves?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102334 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I utterly fail to see how reproducing what is not needed encourages the survival of any species; no matter what you explanation is.
How do you know that noncoding genes dont serve at least as some kind of resource or provide some material for the coding genes.

Some noncoding genes are useful.

But they are not selected for.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102335 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
One famous thinker said: "I know that I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing". It is people like you who assume to know, that are obstacles in the way of knowledge.
For your information, much of what was thought to be "Junk" DNA has been found to have vital functions.
Therefore you cannot conclude that some genetic material are inactive; you can only say that you have not yet discovered thier function.
People like you are obstacles to science, not advocates of science and discovery.
Conclusions like the ones you made that some DNA is useless actually prevent further research into DNA structure; therefore you retard scientific study.
At least I have the integrity to admit when I am not able to understand.

Clearly you do not understand the process of science and do not know there is a difference between what is actually known and not.

One does not advance science by continuing to try to reinvent the wheel, but rather by refining the wheel, improving it and putting it to myriad uses.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102336 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please. "Useful in ancestral forms"? Your story is as consistent as a horizon lined with mountain peaks.
"Some of this genetic material is utilized for different purposes than it originally had"; therefore you cannot know what functions they will take on next.
Like I said in previous posts: just because evolution theory is a working idea, doesnt mean it is the fact or reality.

Madrone was quite correct in his statement. We have much in our genome that is no longer functional due to evolution or mutations. This is a subject that can be easily researched.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is 100% confirmed to happen. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the the fact of evolution.

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


MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Much of our genome is composed of the damaged remains of genes which were useful in ancestral forms. These genes are recognizable, but too damaged to be functional.
Some of this genetic material is utilized for different purposes than it originally had, but most is just taking up space.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102337 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
SERIOUSLY?!!
YOU ARE THE ONE ADVOCATING A THEORY THAT WAS PROPOSED BY MEN LONG BEFORE YOU, AND IS MADE POPULAR BY CONSENSUS; WHILE I AM ARGUING FROM MY LOGICAL CAPACITY AND POTENTIAL TO REASON, YET YOU ASK ME WHAT? "Do you have any thoughts of your own?"
ARE YOU STUPID OR SOMETHING (as if I have to ask)?!

It is interesting that most of your original thoughts are from the traditional list of creationist canards.

You claim not to be a creationist, yet you continue to offer things from their playbook.

What is one to believe?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102338 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what, just... just... just... go away.
You obviously think you are dealing with someone like yourself.
I have done biology, physics and chemistry and am now furthering my education in math (calculus).
Go away... you have nothing to contribute to my knowledge nor the improvement of my thinking skills.

Thinking skills are like the engine of a car.

Information is the drive train and wheels.

You are going no where without both.

Why not just try to learn what people are trying to teach you and look up the answers on a reliable source if you think they are wrong.
heh

Saint Louis, MO

#102339 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Facts are the minutia upon which scientific theories are based. At one time the theory put forth by Copernicus was seen as heresy by the church. Now even most but not all creationists accept that the Earth orbits the sun.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102341 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know there is infinite regress and scientific searching always leads to greater understanding and application.
What is the alternative? Live in caves?
I am not sure I understand that answer.

Could you please be more detailed?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102342 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you do not understand the process of science and do not know there is a difference between what is actually known and not.
One does not advance science by continuing to try to reinvent the wheel, but rather by refining the wheel, improving it and putting it to myriad uses.
I like that.

But I have also learned that evolution would not be so... productive considering the influence of mutations. In that mutation rarely ever results in the survival of the mutated organism.

Could you explain how mutation could encourage evolution (if it could)?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102343 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that.
But I have also learned that evolution would not be so... productive considering the influence of mutations. In that mutation rarely ever results in the survival of the mutated organism.
Could you explain how mutation could encourage evolution (if it could)?
You have a false idea of mutations. The vast majority of mutations are benign or slightly beneficial. Very few are detrimental.

The average mutation per person is on the order of 150. You have over 100 mutations. Do you think that you can't reproduce?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102344 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =icquVsYy2hcXX&feature=rel ated
What a maroon!

He tries to claim that something material cannot make something immaterial. He forgot that he is a material object and he is making something immaterial: false ideas. A properly thinking person can make correct ideas, the idiot you linked to seems only able to make incorrect ideas. Both are immaterial objects made by something material.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102345 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Madrone was quite correct in his statement. We have much in our genome that is no longer functional due to evolution or mutations. This is a subject that can be easily researched.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is 100% confirmed to happen. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the the fact of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fac...
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Much of our genome is composed of the damaged remains of genes which were useful in ancestral forms. These genes are recognizable, but too damaged to be functional.
Some of this genetic material is utilized for different purposes than it originally had, but most is just taking up space.
As much as it may appear that I contest the concept of evolution, I dont really.

But I will question the means by which any theory/concept is justified when the conclusions I draw from my own observation and understanding is challenged. If I can make an incorrect interpretation of reality, so can everyone else (whether they actually do or not).

It is the mind that rationalizes and the value of rationalizations is determined only by its logical consistency. Do you know that negative charges are really "negative"; or have they simply been assigned these labels for the sake of reference and study?

The popularity of an opinion does not imply that it is true; Consensus is not even apart of scientific method.

It simply cannot be that my interpretation of experiences and reality in general are less valid than others for the mere fact that people dont agree with me.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102346 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Thinking skills are like the engine of a car.
Information is the drive train and wheels.
You are going no where without both.
Why not just try to learn what people are trying to teach you and look up the answers on a reliable source if you think they are wrong.
I assume by reliable source you mean "others with like opinions who can give more details".

Because the act of comparing one side of an argument another side that suggests the contrary or offers claims to disprove it is a highly effective method of learning.

As such, I have found that there is as much information to disprove evolution as there is to prove it; and the the people who advocate evolution are seldom of any greater intellectual integrity than the ones who speak against it.

If I were an outsider listening to both creationists and evolutionists, I would consider them both deeply flawed in your understanding.

Your efforts to limit the subjectivity of your conception of reality are eventually futile. Though scientific method is considerably efficient, you limit the scope of your understanding by narrowing your mind to only that which seems convenient.

You have nothing to teach me.
Tyler in _______

Philadelphia, PA

#102347 Nov 18, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that.
But I have also learned that evolution would not be so... productive considering the influence of mutations. In that mutation rarely ever results in the survival of the mutated organism.
Could you explain how mutation could encourage evolution (if it could)?
Hi this is a pretty common misconception about evolution.

Mutation is a broad term that covers a number of errors that can occur during gene replication. Mutations can be base mutations, where a single base is swapped out for another, up through insertions, deletions, and at the high end the duplication, deletion, or merging of whole chunks of code.

As you can guess from all that, mutation can affect organisms at very small or very significant levels.

The big misconception is that mutations are bad. This is not so. The truth is that the vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever on a species' survival rate. This could mean it doesn't do anything, or that it's just an insignificant mutation like changing eye color or something.

On either end of the mutation bell curve are the beneficial and detrimental mutations, in roughly equal parts. However, the mechanisms of evolution--including, but not limited to, natural selection--tend to suppress those mutations that are "detrimental," while encouraging those mutations that are "beneficial," leading to a relatively quick gene fixation.

The conclusion, then, is that mutations only rarely have an effect on survivability, which is why evolution takes so long to do anything significant. You yourself, in fact, were born with anywhere between 60 and 200 mutations alone, along with every other human on Earth. The fact that we only rarely hear about babies born with detrimental mutations, e.g. certain kinds of giantism, or beneficial mutations, e.g. the "German superboy," should put this misconception to rest.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102348 Nov 18, 2012
God Is Hate wrote:
http://www.godishate.blogspot. com/2012/10/the-cult-of-dusty- and-wisdom-of-dusty.html
Only an evil moron would believe in the talking snake theory.
The Bible is a lie and it should be burned along with it's believers.
God is pig.
...a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones;
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/pics/hitler2....
who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CPQYfaBtodQ/TIJjFXe...
who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short;
who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it;
who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body;
who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell;
who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself;
who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself;
and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!--Mark Twain--
Was it God who decided that some children were bad, or did you?

God says in Isaiah that it is He that creates good and forms evil; therefore He is superior to and in control over both, and therefore has no need to prefer one more than the other.

Did God tell Mark Twain that crap or did he decide that thats the way it was? Or perhaps he formed his conception based on what he is told that God is?

I would rather take a change with a heartless God than a meaningless existence, evolving from nothing and returning to nothing.

Mark Twain was a bitch.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min The Dude 127,880
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 min Ooogah Boogah 13,578
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr Dogen 89
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 16 hr DanFromSmithville 175,466
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 22 hr MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE