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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105634 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What kills me is no matter what the evidence shows....it supports human from non-human evolution and they make things up as they go and slap the label "Scientific evidence on it" The scientific method be damned!!
"Evolution takes millions and millions of years to occur"....."What? The Cambrian explosion??"....Well, PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIUM!!!! Even though PE has never been observed or tested.......The origin of life?.......Life is much to complex to have evolved naturally?.....PANSPERMIA!!!!! Which has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up!!!!
Welcome to the group!
As you have been told many times, the Cambrian Period was around 50 million years long AND we find soft bodied multicellullar forms in the preceding Ediacaran.

Punctuated equilibrium merely means the rate of change is not steady. It does not mean "sudden". And it has been observed. Creatures introduced to new environments in historical periods have shown significant change in several generations as they adapted to a different environments. That is exactly what PE means. As they become re-optimised to the new environment, the rate of change will slow...until a new environmental change affects the equilibrium and the creatures adapt again (or go extinct).
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105635 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to tell you the bad news, what you have is a philosophy, not a science. You have an 'anything goes' psuedo science at best.
Very true! I've been saying that very same thing for years!!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105636 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do ou even know what youa re talking about, you dope.
On what planet are you getting your biology lessons on?
You haven't made a rebuttal yet. All you have done is fallen on your ass.
What went before? What the heck are you dribbling about?
Do you know what it is to articulate a response, dopey?
Hilarious. I made one crack about your pedophiliac parasitism on real science and get accused of all kinds of things for doing so.

And what do you call this empty load of verbiage?

Fitness is restored by natural selection, in direct contradiction of your claim that deterioration is inevitable. Muller's ratchet fails, Sanford fails, and you fail. As per the experimental evidence I provided a link to above.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105637 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have been told many times, the Cambrian Period was around 50 million years long AND we find soft bodied multicellullar forms in the preceding Ediacaran.
Punctuated equilibrium merely means the rate of change is not steady. It does not mean "sudden". And it has been observed. Creatures introduced to new environments in historical periods have shown significant change in several generations as they adapted to a different environments. That is exactly what PE means. As they become re-optimised to the new environment, the rate of change will slow...until a new environmental change affects the equilibrium and the creatures adapt again (or go extinct).
In your dreams. When the fossil evidence in the Cambrian displayed fully formed creatures with no evidence of a previous ancestor, suddenly PE was born to explain it!! No evidence to support that PE ever occurred, just a "made up" wild guess, and an unearned smug responce unbacked by the scientific method.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105638 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious. I made one crack about your pedophiliac parasitism on real science and get accused of all kinds of things for doing so.
And what do you call this empty load of verbiage?
Fitness is restored by natural selection, in direct contradiction of your claim that deterioration is inevitable. Muller's ratchet fails, Sanford fails, and you fail. As per the experimental evidence I provided a link to above.
You must be careful, they will even twist jokes or quips to their own vile needs if you give them room. It's the nature of the delusion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105639 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand that deterioration of the genome, eg accumulation of deleterious mutations, has NOTHING to do with non coding DNA being functional?
That shows how much you know. In fact the two items are strongly linked. IN the question of whether deleterious mutations must build up faster than they can be removed by natural selection, the specificity of the genome and how much of the genome is highly specific is critical.

If say 1% of the genome is highly specific, then 99 out of 100 point mutations will not matter at all. If 10% is highly specific, 9 out of 10 won't matter (and 1 in 10 will).

Getting closer to the point. 1.5% of the genome is actively coding. Does that mean all of that 1.5% is highly specific? Not at all. For example, 70% of cytochrome-c, a short ubiquitous protein, is hardly functional, to the point where wild variations in structure don't matter. It that is a proxy for proteins in general, then we can say that only 0.5% of the genome contains highly specific coding sequences.

Now onto the support/control structures. Lets say they are 10% highly specific and 90% low or non-specific. Then mutations affecting only the 10% that is highly specific will matter.

And of course, most will be neutral or deleterious, and only a few beneficial.

So the question in population genetics is, at the known rates of mutation accumulation, is the amount accumulated on the highly specific portions of the genome low enough for natural selection to prevent deterioration. Its not a question we can answer theoretically until we know exactly how much specificity is in the genome and what proportion of changes are really deleterious, neutral, or beneficial.

However, as posted, experimental results short cut that effort and show that fitness recovery occurs meaning the answer is - at least for the nematode and fruit fly, yes...natural selection works to clean up deterioration in the genome successfully.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105640 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere number 2:

So the appendix aids in digestion.
That I don't doubt.
But I still doubt that the appendix is exactly the same as the appendix bestowed upon Adam and Eve.

The original appendix was supposed to aid in the digestion of tree bark. We lost our taste for tree bark, so our appendices dwindled down to their present size.

This isn't the first time we've heard a Creationist argue that an alleged vestigial organ has been put to good use, and therefore could not be a vestigial organ.
When the topic of whale evolution comes up,
an Evolutionist sometimes announces that the whale carries a mammalian pelvis.
A Creationist usually replies that it couldn't be a mammalian pelvis, because whales use that organ for X-rated entertainment.

Either Creationist don't realize that a population cannot find a new use for a vestigial organ or they hope that we don't.
But you don't have to be an eminent scientist to know that wings on birds and arms on bipedal animals are modified forelimbs.

Look at how we use our body parts today, and then assume the Creationist premise.
The people of Genesis must have used their noses and ears to wear sunglasses.
They must have used their feet to press the gas pedal.
They must have used their fingers to type nasty notes on the Internet.

If you've had your appendix removed, then for goodness sake be sure not to eat any more tree bark.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105641 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In your dreams. When the fossil evidence in the Cambrian displayed fully formed creatures with no evidence of a previous ancestor, suddenly PE was born to explain it!! No evidence to support that PE ever occurred, just a "made up" wild guess, and an unearned smug responce unbacked by the scientific method.
Two points.

1. The Cambrian was revealed, for a long time, through the exclusive window of the Burgess Shale. Just because that is the only window, does not mean that all the creatures revealed there suddenly appeared at once.

2. PE was alluded to even by Darwin in his first book (though not by that name). So you can cut the crap. The first time I told you this over a year ago, I bothered to find the actual quotation supporting it. But since you repeat the lie, I cannot be bothered again. Gould made a lot of the point and brought it to the attention of evolutionary theorists, but it was already embodied in the theory.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105643 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere number 3, second reference:

Regarding bird evolution, MazHere gleefully claims that Evolutionists "have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet."

To support her claim, she links us to an article on the subject. Sure enough, the abstract for the article begins with a discussion of this problem. But MazHere must not have read as far as the end of the abstract, because it is there that the authors announce the finding of footprints in Argentina which shed light on this problem.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105644 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere numbers 4 and 5:

So epistasis (that's interaction of genes which do not arise by mutation), genome reduction (process whereby the set of genetic material shrinks relative to its ancestor), and environmental threats work to counteract Evolution!

That proves that Evolution doesn't exist?

All it takes is one little bitty magnet to lift a nail off a table. Yet gravity tries to pull everything toward the center of the earth.
So here we see magnetism counteracting gravity.
Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105645 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere number 6:

Here we see that the molecular clock has been reset slower than it had been set the first time.
I can't see what MazHere's point is here, unless it's that the Evolutionists were wrong the first time, so they must be dumb dodobirds for being wrong in the first place.
In fact, if we read this article for its implications for Creationism, we will have to say that it hurts Young Earth Creationism.
After all, the farther back we push the dates, the farther we get from Bishop Ussher's dates.

If MazHere is saying that scientists don't have the last word, I'm sure every scientist in the world will agree with her.
If scientists had the last word, there would be no reason for them to keep their labs open.
Nor would there be reason for the science journals to keep publishing findings that will take place next month, and the month after that, and the month after that.

If MazHere clings to a book which hasn't changed in two thousand years, she probably doesn't understand that.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105646 Dec 31, 2012
Marksman11, when did anyone on this thread ever advocate panspermia?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105647 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
"KittenKoder" and her list of questions: Note again a lack of scientific engagement, just scratching around hoping for the best!
What's the data suggesting creationism?
I Have been talking about some but you are too arrogant to acknowledge it. What would you like a book or the libraries of twoodle and falsifications you can present?
What is the theory of creationism, and what does it explain?
That the universe has a beginning, plants were created before the creatures of the sea and evolutionists have screwed up birds and whales. Evolutionists pretend they were the first to think of their line up but they weren't.
What mechanisms are included in creationism?
Somatic change and adapatation that is limited as all data supports.
What mathematical laws are derived from creationism that help benefit us?
About as many as TOE. None.
What technology has been developed with the assistance of the creation theory?
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor
What illnesses have been cured with the aid of the creation theory?
None, the same as TOE. However prayer has been found to aid recovery. Research connects certain religious beliefs to increased prosocial behaviour.
Most importantly, what is the theory? Aside from the assertion of "god dun it," of course.
I separate the coalesecence of matter based on physics that identify energy can produce matter, just like evolutionists separate abiogenesis from TOE of which they have absolutley no idea about nor support for.
Oh Wow Kitten, you have gone from being a philosopher to an asker of questions. Well done! When do you suppose you may ever engage in some sort of scientific discourse for a novel idea?
Do you suppose if you can show I have about as little idea as you lot do that you are going to be sprookin gfrom a better platform?
Now how about you answer my questions? Or is this just about you trying to score irrelevant points that do nothing to detract from the fact that creationists are able to present support for their views, whether you like it or not.
It is like as if a creationist having some support for their view would be the end of the world for evolutionists. So ridiculous do you look after your junk dna and human knuckle walking fiasco that as far as I am concerned you will never recover your credibility.
Oh Maz, you just contradicted yourself again.

At least you admit you have no "scientific theory" of creationism.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105648 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'll say it AGAIN!!! I understand all that, and have for years, but do you really think that if the biblical GOD exists, and is the creator of ALL THINGS, he hasn't the ability for a male child to be brought forth in a virgin birth? For GOD, that is nothing!!!!
IF is a very large word, and upon that word rests the entirety of the tale. "IF God exists" could he not also create and employ a process by which different kinds of living organisms might develop and diversify from earlier forms? Where is your faith?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105649 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
I have demonstrated you are a crack pot Dude and have no idea what you are talking about. Would you like me to repost the crap you went on about showing your inabilty differentiating functional non coding dna from the accumualtion of deleterious mutations.
That was your big hero point a post ago.
No, I would prefer you not repost what I already posted. Not out of shame, but simply because I've already posted it. What I would like is for you to come up with a coherent rebuttal for once. Only then you may possibly refer to me as a crackpot with no idea what I'm talking about. Which is highly ironic coming from a creationist who claims science they reject proves science wrong therefore Godmagic. Until then you have demonstrated zip all. As usual.
MazHere wrote:
Now you want a scientific theory in the space of post when you can't present one with all the libraries of hubris you have at your disposal.
How about you just suck it up.
Sucked it up, chewed on it, spat it out, spding, barely even noticed. We already have a working theory. You don't.
MazHere wrote:
Creos have got support for their paradign and they certianly don't need evolutionists acceptance.
I just demonstrated otherwise. Being a dishonest hypocrite is not a great way to claim you have "support". Especially since the scientific community in general accepts evolution and rejects creationism.

Still ain't gotten over your Black Knight syndrome, huh?
MazHere wrote:
Its all red herrings. See I can prove it with BS like Kitten.
You should quit now before you loose the last of your credibility.
Why? You lost yours months ago. You only come back for more because you have a monumentally massive martyr complex and no shame.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105650 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
On MazHere number 3, second reference:
Regarding bird evolution, MazHere gleefully claims that Evolutionists "have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet."
To support her claim, she links us to an article on the subject. Sure enough, the abstract for the article begins with a discussion of this problem. But MazHere must not have read as far as the end of the abstract, because it is there that the authors announce the finding of footprints in Argentina which shed light on this problem.
Just like what happened months ago. Poor old Maz is stuck in a timewarp. Maybe that's why Maz keeps asking us to debunk what we've already debunked over and over? Perhaps she's never really seen it because she's out of phase-sync with the normal space-time continuum?

:-O
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105651 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Marksman11, when did anyone on this thread ever advocate panspermia?
It is merely one of many numerous hypotheses related to abiogenesis, which is not really strongly advocated by the scientific community as a whole. But since it's validity is currently somewhat nebulous, AND it contradicts the claims of creationism, Markie claims it's one of the things evolution relies on and due to its undemonstrated status then the theory of evolution "must" crumble.

This is despite the fact that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

If you recall from the other thread Maz was one of the most blatant liars one could come across. Markie on the other hand puts Maz to shame and has done for over 3 years. No matter how many times we debunk a caricature he will still fall back to the same old caricature.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105652 Dec 31, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
IF is a very large word, and upon that word rests the entirety of the tale. "IF God exists" could he not also create and employ a process by which different kinds of living organisms might develop and diversify from earlier forms? Where is your faith?
Oh, that's the one thing he will admit to - faith. And since he has faith evolution "must" also be based on faith. Doesn't matter we've demonstrated evolution numerous times because how do we know that wasn't God just making it look that way? Then we point out Markie's dishonest approach then he'll complain you're a big meanie, put you on his sh t list and won't talk to you no more. But he's still a big tough guy who'd beat you up if you called him a liar in person. Marvel at his manliness!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105653 Dec 31, 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.
... but due to genetics factors definitely had numerous living contemporaries and did NOT lead back to 8 people on a big boat or 2 people in a garden with a talking lizard.

Of course this was something *else* we already went over 2 months ago.

Keep quote-mining, Mazzy.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105654 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think Joseph and Mary didn't consummate their marriage on their wedding night?
Me? Nothing at all, but the vast majority of Christians believe in a virgin birth, ergo (and contrary to the duties as set by Torah) no nookie for Mr. & Mrs. Of Nazareth.

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) 17 min replaytime 116,495
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... 31 min Kong_ 55
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 37 min One way or another 173,497
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys 52 min Kong_ 2
Amino Acid Sequeneces prove Darwin a Liar 56 min Kong_ 10
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 1 hr MikeF 474
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 1 hr Dogen 48
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••