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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
100,361 - 100,380 of 135,716 Comments Last updated 22 min ago
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102349
Nov 18, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have seen that it takes an idiot to know and idiot; for the logical mind can make sense of anything.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102350
Nov 18, 2012
 
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We have gone over this before. The so called arguments against evolution can easily be shown to be badly flawed.

Bringing up arguments against evolution is not good enough to debunk it. They must be valid arguments. If they are shown to be in error they should not be brought up again. Your side tends to keep bringing up old busted arguments. Isn't it reasonable that we might get a bit testy when running into that sort of nonsensical objections to evolution?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102351
Nov 18, 2012
 
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen that it takes an idiot to know and idiot; for the logical mind can make sense of anything.
I am not going to put any effort into refuting nonsense. When the idiot who made your video puts up such an obviously false claim and tries to base his reasoning upon that there is no point in going any further.

Evil, there is a reason that peer review is out there. Any serious claims should be put before peer review. Then the experts can look at your ideas and tell you if you might have a point or if you are wrong. If you are wrong they will tell you why.

There is a reason that creationists avoid peer review like the plague. They know, even with their "best" arguments that they are wrong. The nonsense you linked to in that video would only have made a board roll in laughter.
Tyler in _______

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102352
Nov 18, 2012
 
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The problem is that most information that disproves evolution is... well, wrong. You saw how common the mutation misconception is and how easy it is to fall into it. The case is similar for things like the sad strawman of information theory that creationists like to trot out, the global flood hypothesis, and more: all based on flawed understandings or outright denial of facts, motivated by non-scientific goals.

In addition, while popular consensus is not an indication of truth /per se/, scientific consensus is a special case. Scientific consensus is the agreement between the vast majority of experts in the field. While consensus does not mean incontestable, in general, if 99.99% of people that study a subject for years say a particular thing about that subject, then it is probably safe to say that it is as close to true as we are going to get at this moment in time.

Last of all, it should be noted that creationists and evolution proponents are not even close to being on even footing in terms of intellectual integrity. Ted Hovind, famous for holding a degree from patriot bible college and having penned the single worst graduate thesis in the history of ever, and Ray "Banana Man" "I Have Scientific Proof of God" Comfort are both counted among the ranks of creationists, which wouldn't be such a terrible thing if creationists would quit quoting them as if they actually had any authority. The nearest example I can think of on the other side is Richard Dawkins, and his only real flaw is that he's just not a particularly nice person, not anything with his scientific education or research. Further, creationist sources have a very bad habit of misrepresenting information, be it by misquotes, bad research, or worse. AiG and CRM are both examples: look up the "great secret of paleontology" quote by Stephen Gould and see how many of their articles take it as proof that paleontologists are enacting some great conspiracy against God. It's almost painful to look at. While some evolution supporters are surely guilty of the same, they're not nearly as frequent, nor do you tend to see it in popular sources such as TalkOrigins.

So yeah.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102353
Nov 18, 2012
 
Tyler, that is Kent Hovind, not Ted. Otherwise you pretty much nailed it.
Tyler in _______

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102354
Nov 18, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Tyler, that is Kent Hovind, not Ted. Otherwise you pretty much nailed it.
Whoops I'm typing on a phone.

Gosh I can't wait to have internet again.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102355
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--
It appears you have a wholesale misunderstanding.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102356
Nov 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tyler in _______ wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that most information that disproves evolution is... well, wrong. You saw how common the mutation misconception is and how easy it is to fall into it. The case is similar for things like the sad strawman of information theory that creationists like to trot out, the global flood hypothesis, and more: all based on flawed understandings or outright denial of facts, motivated by non-scientific goals.
In addition, while popular consensus is not an indication of truth /per se/, scientific consensus is a special case. Scientific consensus is the agreement between the vast majority of experts in the field. While consensus does not mean incontestable, in general, if 99.99% of people that study a subject for years say a particular thing about that subject, then it is probably safe to say that it is as close to true as we are going to get at this moment in time.
Last of all, it should be noted that creationists and evolution proponents are not even close to being on even footing in terms of intellectual integrity. Ted Hovind, famous for holding a degree from patriot bible college and having penned the single worst graduate thesis in the history of ever, and Ray "Banana Man" "I Have Scientific Proof of God" Comfort are both counted among the ranks of creationists, which wouldn't be such a terrible thing if creationists would quit quoting them as if they actually had any authority. The nearest example I can think of on the other side is Richard Dawkins, and his only real flaw is that he's just not a particularly nice person, not anything with his scientific education or research. Further, creationist sources have a very bad habit of misrepresenting information, be it by misquotes, bad research, or worse. AiG and CRM are both examples: look up the "great secret of paleontology" quote by Stephen Gould and see how many of their articles take it as proof that paleontologists are enacting some great conspiracy against God. It's almost painful to look at. While some evolution supporters are surely guilty of the same, they're not nearly as frequent, nor do you tend to see it in popular sources such as TalkOrigins.
So yeah.
Inasmuch as you state that most of the information that disproves evolution is... well, wrong, which of the information that disproves evolution is... well, right?
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102357
Nov 18, 2012
 
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure I understand that answer.
Could you please be more detailed?
You have to either make something up that violates your own rules or admit that energy is potentially eternal. Do the former and regress is a problem. Do the latter and it is not (and your creator god ceases to be necessary). Logic is not your friend.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102358
Nov 18, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a false idea of mutations. The vast majority of mutations are benign or slightly beneficial. Very few are detrimental.
I bet you can't back that with valid evidence.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102359
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)?
And where did you learn that from? Be honest.

Most mutations are neutral. You have over 100 mutations. By your logic, you should be dead.

Come on...tell us where you heard most mutations are fatal. It wasn't in a science class. A Hovind lecture? Some creationist website? Some random fundamentalist Christian blathering on the innertubes? You can tell us.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102360
Nov 18, 2012
 
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How do you challenge something you are admittedly and demonstrably ignorant of? Learn first, and only after that should you attempt to challenge (with evidence). You're just another blithering idiot until you fix that gaping hole in your brain. Fill it with legitimate education.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102361
Nov 18, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I bet you can't back that with valid evidence.
You have over 100 mutations. Are you dead or infertile or otherwise incapable of having viable offspring (finding a fertile live female to mate with notwithstanding)?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102362
Nov 18, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

We are very very close to understanding how the first cell appeared.
Close doesn't count except in the case of horseshoes and hand granades. You are far from close.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102363
Nov 18, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have to do is provide a evidence that life was spontaneously generated by a deity. I bet you can't.
I've always said I take my creationists beliefs on faith. You can't be that honest.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102364
Nov 18, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
I've always said I take my creationists beliefs on faith. You can't be that honest.
And, of course, "faith" is your code word for arrogant stupidity.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••