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
103,561 - 103,580 of 136,241 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105574 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean she should present the data on the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis and accumulating so called beneficial mutations and evolutionists inability to explain 'how' this process continues over billions of years?
Or do you mean she should present some of the numerous articles out there on the deterioration of the genome that aligns with the fall?
I wonder if negative effects could have possibly come from a less noisy and deteriorated genome. Oh! heavens NO, that would be evidence for the fall, and that may also align with a genetic bottle neck, what, perhaps around 5,000ya. That may align with the MRHCA!
This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer
model of recent human history which suggests that the
common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived
between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago.
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...
Can't evolutionary researchers at least have the courtesy to bias all their results suffiently consistently such that they do not support creationism?
Did Noah's flood happen as a year-long global cataclysmic event? Yes or no.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105575 Dec 30, 2012
You say that living things can evolve from one kind of living thing into something completely different over time, but this has never been observed in the history of the planet, so how do you know?
In our own lifetime, we have seen a population diverge to the point that their members cannot mate with the parent population. Biologist Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated with Creationist Duane Gish, claims to have created such events in his own laboratory. He has invited Gish to come into his laboratory and observe such events, but Gish has never accepted his invitation.

Human intervention can create a new species. There is a microbe known colloquially as a “nylon bug,” which feasts upon nylon. This population is now unable to mate with its parent species.

A pair of Australian wallabies escaped from a zoo in Hawaii. They wandered into the wilderness, where they and their offspring adapted to Hawaiian vegetation. Their offspring is now unable to mate with their cousins in Australia.
You belittle talking animals and infer GOD can't create such, even though birds talk everyday, so....how do you know this never occurred?
Yes, I know that cuckoos say “cuckoo” and whippoorwills say “whippoorwill.” But that is not the same as constructing coherent sentences in a human language.

I don’t know that a snake never talked or a donkey never talked. I am merely asking for more evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105576 Dec 30, 2012
Nope, she is still peddling the same old shit that was debunked over a month ago.

Thanks Maz for the update. You were wrong then, you are still wrong now.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105577 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
By that comment I assume you are requesting the JW present evidence and data that an evolutionist is going to ratify, do you? On what planet are you from Kitten?
IOW, you demand a creationist provide a higher level of substantiation that any evolutionist can present for anything.
Sorry Kitten, you can't demand data and then when data is presented with a creationist interpretation you call it a red herring. If handwaving is all you evos have to come up with then there is absolutley no point having a discussion with any of you.
If these are red herrings then you will have no trouble in articulating why that data only appears to support creationism, but doesn't. Then you can explain how your algorithmic magic and assumed cohorts are anything more than an assumption.
If you are like many other evolutionists, and I am sure you are, let's predict your response.
Ahh I go with, refering to over 150 years of instability and falsifications with every new flavour of the month being promoted as your so called irrefutable evidence that only the ignorant would not accept! Is that it?
In the end you will be demanding that creationists likewise present over 150 years of outdated waffle and libraries of it, to claim any comaprative validity to the molecules to man conundrum, is that it?
Is chemistry an atheistic conspiracy? How about physics?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105578 Dec 30, 2012
You say that natural processes that are random, haphazard, without aim or method, produced the most complex thing in the known universe, the human brain, but how do you know?
Because the fossil evidence shows that reptiles developed before simple mammals, and simple mammals developed before complex mammals. The brains of simple mammals resemble the entire brains of reptiles on the inside but contain another layer on the outside. Complex mammals such as us contain the aforementioned reptilian brain on the inside, the aforementioned simple mammal brain on the next layer, and a third layer. For further information on this, looked up “triune brain.”

This observation is in perfect according with the fossil findings. Paleontologists have found a progression from reptiles to mammals which is so smooth that they cannot agree on where to draw the line.

Why do you keep asking “how do you know?” I thought I told you that I am an agnostic, and am therefore not absolutely sure about anything. I subscribe to evolutionary theory only because I don’t know of any better explanation of what science has uncovered.

I might lend more credence to the Bible if you can explain why it is any more authoritative than any other ancient scripture. There is an ancient scripture that says that when Jesus was a little boy, he misused his supernatural power by zapping everybody who offended him. One time, Jesus was at the riverside, making mud figurines. Somebody ran past, not noticing, and stepped on his figurines. So Jesus put a whammy on this person. Mary and Joseph got so concerned about this that they were afraid to let him out of the house.

Do you believe that? If not, then why do you believe the Bible?

Another ancient scripture says that baby John the Baptist’s mother was fleeing King Herod’s wrath. A mountain divided in half, allowed the entrance of baby John and his mommy, and closed back up again..

Do you believe that? If not, then why do you believe the Bible?

When Krishna was in his mother’s womb, the King heard a prophecy that the child was born to be King. So he put Krishna’s parents in jail. One night, when Krishna was born, the prison bars opened for Krishna’s mother. Krishna carried the baby to a nearby village. She had to cross a river, but the waters promptly parted for her benefit. In the nearby village, she switched baby Krishna with a girl cousin who was born at the same time. She carried the girl cousin back. Again the waters parted and again the cell bars opened.

The next day, the King tried to kill the baby by bashing her head on the prison cell wall.
The girl immediately sprouted wings, flew out of the king’s hands, and spoke to the king in clear language.

Do you believe that? If not, then why do you believe the Bible?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105579 Dec 30, 2012
That this kind of complexity is not a product of design, even though a walk through the woods and you can't even find the complexity of a 2 hinged nut cracker without DNA, yet randomness produced the human brain?....so how do you know this to be true?
Lo siento, pero no comprendo.
Why do skeptics think there is no reason for others to be skeptical of their silliness?
I can’t speak for other skeptics, but this skeptic thinks there is reason for others to be skeptical of anything. At one time, I was skeptical myself.“Where are there still monkeys?”“What good is half an eye?” I asked all the questions, and I listened to all the answers.

I would have no objection to an honest case for Creationism. Icons of Evolution is a relatively honest Creationist book, and I would recommend it for any seeker interested in the subject. Darwin’s Black Box seems to be another relatively honest Creationist book, but it is too technical for me.

What I take issue with is the continual quote mines, ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and straw man attacks that we usually hear from Creationists. If Creationists really have truth on their side, as they claim that they do, then they should be able to do very well with a clean campaign.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105580 Dec 30, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
KAB wrote:
Only those adhering to and conducting themselves in harmony with that espoused by and embodied in the complete context of the Bible are the true religion (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
If I saw religious believers behaving any better than religious skeptics, I might take notice.
Only 7% of wars are religiously based and I can present research that suggests certain religious beliefs increase prosocial behaviour.

This 7% is not mostly Christians.

However, you are correct in saying that some atheists are more resectful than some theists. That means not all theists are perfect and if they were I doubt that would make any difference to you anyway.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105581 Dec 30, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Noah's flood happen as a year-long global cataclysmic event? Yes or no.
So now we are oing to go with provide an answer to every question even though evos aren't even close to that yet.

How about this? An allegation was made for creos to provide data. I have presented some.

Now what is it going to be, let's play a game of score some irrelevant point over something of yoru choosing, is it.

I am saying that creos can and have provided data and interpretations that support that data.

I don't really care what an evolutionist thinks of it anymore than what you care about what I think of yours.

To say creos can't present any in their support is false.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105582 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only 7% of wars are religiously based and I can present research that suggests certain religious beliefs increase prosocial behaviour.
This 7% is not mostly Christians.
However, you are correct in saying that some atheists are more resectful than some theists. That means not all theists are perfect and if they were I doubt that would make any difference to you anyway.
Wow, you are completely disconnected from reality .. or peddling snake oil. Seems more like peddling though.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105583 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So now we are oing to go with provide an answer to every question even though evos aren't even close to that yet.
How about this? An allegation was made for creos to provide data. I have presented some.
Now what is it going to be, let's play a game of score some irrelevant point over something of yoru choosing, is it.
I am saying that creos can and have provided data and interpretations that support that data.
I don't really care what an evolutionist thinks of it anymore than what you care about what I think of yours.
To say creos can't present any in their support is false.
If it needs to be interpreted, the it is not evidence.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#105584 Dec 30, 2012
I see Maz is still printing off reams of the same old creationist toilet paper she has become famous for.
Yes, it is disconnected with reality and has the completely misinterpretted and/or misunderstood references to prove it.
Per usual, Maz continues to claim that none of what she posts has been refuted and has the bulletproof virtue of cited references.
She is being dishonst in this because they have been refuted numerous times by numerous people and the references, well you can site references on any insane rant. Maz is proof of that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105585 Dec 30, 2012
antichrist wrote:
Ima burst some bubbles.....live life, have fun, and quit trying to figure shit out. JUST LIVE PEOPLE!!!!
Trying to figure shit out can BE fun.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105586 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the silly ones really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE is about to be thrown into that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
You are referring of course to the ENCODE project, and the actual findings were that 20% either codes or controls coding of useful cellular activity. The remaining "functions" are exactly what one would expect with junk - endless repetitive transcription of useless RNA sequences that buzz around and are disassembled. Parasitical ERV style activity, etc.

Encode has been criticised for labeling as "functional", any DNA activity at all, as opposed to simply sitting there inertly. That is like calling the mindless activity of the bureaucratically monstrous Soviet Politburo "functional"!

The joke is on you.

Like all your claims, you either misrepresent or draw false conclusions from real scientific data. Perhaps Creation Scientists should be call Junk Scientists, though they regard their useless parasitical yapping as close to 100% functional, no doubt.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105587 Dec 31, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
I see Maz is still printing off reams of the same old creationist toilet paper she has become famous for.
Yes, it is disconnected with reality and has the completely misinterpretted and/or misunderstood references to prove it.
Per usual, Maz continues to claim that none of what she posts has been refuted and has the bulletproof virtue of cited references.
She is being dishonst in this because they have been refuted numerous times by numerous people and the references, well you can site references on any insane rant. Maz is proof of that.
Toilet paper would look more like the blank pages you offer. I can type, therefore I must exist, regardless of having nothing of substance to say other than "Quack, I don't like croes"

Being dishonest would more reflect the methods evolutionist use and like to pretend is science. Being dishonest and delusionary would be suggesting only the ignorant could possibly not accept evolutionary ramblings as if no well credentialled researchers could possibly be creationists.

In what universe is widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees not able to be interpreted as evidence of the genetic change that occured as a result of the fall? And as opposed to what other great story? What evidence have you got to say otherwise other than a bunch of algorithmical magic.

"We estimate that humans and chimpanzees have accumulated approximately 140,000 slightly deleterious mutations each, mutations that would have been eliminated by selection in murids."

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

In what universe is the falsifiaction of over a decade of tooting off about junk being great evidence for TOE against creos telling you your methods were flawed and false make evolutionists look any more credible than Santa.

Mine is not an insane rant. An insane rant would look more like an evolutionist quacking away suggesting their own assumptions are any more credible or that they have all the answers.

Indeed evolutionists do not even have a scientific method. It is a nonsense.

"In an era of large-scale biological research, we ask questions about the role of statistical analyses in advancing coherent theories of diseases and their mechanisms. We advocate for reinterpretation of the scientific method in the context of large-scale data analysis opportunities and for renewed appreciation of falsifiable hypotheses, so that we can learn more from our best mistakes."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

Unfortunately it is the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in the evolution debate.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105588 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this....
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating....
Bull. Fitness deteriorates in the absence of natural selection, demonstrated by actual experiment.

Also, by actual experiment, fitness is restored over generations by the reintroduction of natural selection. After enough generations, it is restored completely.

Note too, that it is not restored by the specific reversal of the mutations that caused the loss of fitness - that would be exceedingly low probability. It is restored by the selection of novel mutations which must thereby, by definition, be beneficial.

As usual, the parasitical Junk Scientists took the work of REAL scientific researchers such as Kimura and twisted it to support their foregone scriptural conclusions.

Suzanne Estes and Michael Lynch,“ Rapid Fitness Recovery In Mutationally Degraded Lines Of Caenorhabditis Elegans” Evolution 57(5):1022-1030. 2003

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1554/0014-38...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105589 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE.
Only someone with absolutely minimal knowledge of the fossil record or the geological processes of earth's development could possibly say something so stupid.

Fergedaboutit.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105590 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
In what universe is the falsifiaction of over a decade of tooting off about junk being great evidence for TOE against creos telling you your methods were flawed and false make evolutionists look any more credible than Santa.
Unfortunately for you, it looks like the genome is still mostly junk.

But to double your misfortune, this happens to be an asymmetric argument.

If there is no junk, evolution can accommodate that, as there is no a priori requirement for junk DNA according to evolution. It is not a core prediction of evolution. In fact if there is a fitness advantage to eliminating it, it might disappear.

On the other hand, if there happen to be large amounts of junk, it is a problem for creationists, but not for evolution.

There are falsification tests for evolution, but this is not it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105591 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Indeed evolutionists do not even have a scientific method. It is a nonsense.
Being lectured on the scientific method by a Creation Scientist is like being lectured on sexual morality by a pedophile.

You aren't Catholic by any chance?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105592 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are referring of course to the ENCODE project, and the actual findings were that 20% either codes or controls coding of useful cellular activity. The remaining "functions" are exactly what one would expect with junk - endless repetitive transcription of useless RNA sequences that buzz around and are disassembled. Parasitical ERV style activity, etc.
Encode has been criticised for labeling as "functional", any DNA activity at all, as opposed to simply sitting there inertly. That is like calling the mindless activity of the bureaucratically monstrous Soviet Politburo "functional"!
The joke is on you.
Like all your claims, you either misrepresent or draw false conclusions from real scientific data. Perhaps Creation Scientists should be call Junk Scientists, though they regard their useless parasitical yapping as close to 100% functional, no doubt.
No my dear, my conclusions are as good as the convolutions you evos come up with.

Come on, will one of you evos put some words up instead of gobble. I have asked evos to clarify a claim and all you have done is peed in my pocket. How is the increasing degeration of the genome explained away exactly in evolutionary terms?

Please do tell me how these evolutionary reseachers are parasitically yapping? I may agree.

“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

If you want to call your evolutionary researchers idiots when their published findings are too uncomfortable for you then, how about we not discriminate on the basis of bias and just agree that they are all idiots that have no idea what they are talking about.

How am I wrong about my take on the junk dna fiasco? What, am I wrong because the truth is a little embarassing? Are you saying evos did not shove junk dna down creos throats adnauseum for over a decade? What? What What is your problem? Embarassment of the truth.

Oh evolutionists are so confused. It does not matter what sort of function non coding dna has, it just needs to have a function. Activity means function. That's along way from dead and functionless, buddy! Evos are going to struggle over definitions again are they?

You have to change the meaning of vestigial to suit the data from no function to different function, evos have no idea what the 'same' really means, and now they are about to reinvent the definition of function. How are you lot going to define function now? I can't wait to hear it!

Interpretation is just that. Data is data. Data is interpreted under evolutionary assumptions or creationist assumptions. The sooner some of you evolutionists grow up and decide you want to have a grown up discussion the better.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105593 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Being lectured on the scientific method by a Creation Scientist is like being lectured on sexual morality by a pedophile.
You aren't Catholic by any chance?
I love it when evos are gobsmacked and think ridicule is clever demonstrating they have no clue what they are talking about.

Keep it coming. It shows how stupid you are.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 15 min Gillette 172
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min Subduction Zone 115,086
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 53 min One way or another 172,497
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 1 hr TurkanaBoy 296
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Wed Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... (Feb '14) Aug 14 The Dude 1,831
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••