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

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

There are 164926 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.

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Regina

#105876 Jan 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you make the typical assumption that all life has always contained the same complexity of genetic coding that exists in the human or protozoa?
You marvel at the Patek Philippe watch, but have little thought of the time it took for organisms to leech metals into ore.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/subcellular.htm...
Kind of funny that you would use that Shakespeare quote cuz let me tell ya something brother, I have seen and experienced shit that you would NOT believe and could not explain if you had experienced them for yourself.
As for what else I "assume", it's not an assumption, it's called a fact. There's more than enough data to refute the possibility that the genetic code was randomly constructed. It's all about the codons and the way the genetic code clusters certain amino acid assignments.
What you hinted at in your question to me is what sounds like the hypothesis of Biosynthetic Expansion. Yes, I'm also aware of the circumstantial evidence supporting it but hell, I can give you lots of circumstantial evidence of God too. The problem is the precise and detailed hypotheses about which amino acids entered the code in what order have proved more than problematic.

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Regina

#105877 Jan 1, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Got your fallback position all marked out, I see.
Life generated in a lab will prove that life can come about without a deity, or any other magic "poof".
No, it'll just prove that life requires some kind of "creator".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105878 Jan 1, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What you need to get your head is that your entire belief system is based on mysteries, failed experiments and change, so don't be condescending to me. You have little to toot your horn about.
False. My views are based on what is known to greater or lesser certainties, combined with a simple "I don't know" where our knowledge is lacking...rather than inserting an ersatz explanation in the form of "what we don't know must be God".

So dark matter is a mystery? Of course. We know very little about it...it might not even be the correct explanation for observed anomalies in galactic scale gravity effects. Its a hypothesis, and understood to be one.

What is wrong with simply accepting what we do not know, and researching to try to find out? Why do you have to insist you know an answer which you really have no way of knowing?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105879 Jan 1, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't say this to you.
Anything is better than being a huge FW and religious bigot such as yourself you hateful pan licker. If ever I have seen evidence for TOE it would be in a reject such as yourself.
Yes, I was hard on KAB to the point of nastiness. This followed a series of discussions you were not around for, a few weeks back.

KAB regarded the genocides of the Midianites and Amelokites as justified. KAB chooses not to see any similarities between these events and later genocides...presumably you as a certified Biblical literalist probably share the same views.

To anyone rational, this is a testament to the way that dogmatism can warp moral judgement to a monstrous degree. If someone came on here and tried to justify the Nazi genocides against Jews and Gypsies, they would be called worse than what I said to KAB. And they would be justified in receiving that criticism. So how do we get through to people who believe that monstrous behaviors can be OK in some circumstances, while at the same time calling their opponents "moral relativists"?

Perhaps YOU can answer those questions somewhat better than KAB did.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#105880 Jan 1, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it'll just prove that life requires some kind of "creator".
If that were true, creating synthetic chemistry unknown in nature would have done that long ago. Just because something can be created by man, it does not logically follow that there must be an even more grand creator. With your argument the inventor of anything that does not have an analog in nature would show a creator.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#105881 Jan 1, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of funny that you would use that Shakespeare quote cuz let me tell ya something brother, I have seen and experienced shit that you would NOT believe and could not explain if you had experienced them for yourself.
As for what else I "assume", it's not an assumption, it's called a fact. There's more than enough data to refute the possibility that the genetic code was randomly constructed. It's all about the codons and the way the genetic code clusters certain amino acid assignments.
What you hinted at in your question to me is what sounds like the hypothesis of Biosynthetic Expansion. Yes, I'm also aware of the circumstantial evidence supporting it but hell, I can give you lots of circumstantial evidence of God too. The problem is the precise and detailed hypotheses about which amino acids entered the code in what order have proved more than problematic.
Is the genetic code randomly constructed?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105882 Jan 1, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be because evolutionists need mankind to be. Ape is not a taxonomic classification.
In actual fact these classifications are for the most part arbitrary.
Primate is a necessary classification to try to make the case for common ancestry.
Indeed if the criteria for Primate was tweaked mankind could just as easily be excluded. Homology and classification is biased in favour of assumptions and is arbitrary.
Mankind is a mammal as a description of reproductive systems.
From there....
Mankind is furless, Mankind is an obligate biped, mankind does not have any arboreal features as all other so called primates do including the terrestrial ones. Mankind can make meaning of the world in a way that no other species with similar traits are able to do.
So even though one can present the taxonomic classes you have posted, they are arbitrary and actually reflect nothing more than evolutionists assumptions.
Evolutionists are apes purley because they want to be.
Your claim that taxonomy is arbitrary is falsified by the fact that Linnaeus developed the classification system in 1735, more than a century before Darwin published. If the system were arbitrary then the odds are it would also have been entirely inconsistent with evolution, and would have required a massive reorganisation.

However, even the modern cladistic system which specifically bases relationships on evolutionary relationships, gives an extremely close match to the Linnaean system.

The nested hierarchy is a real manifestation of living systems and is found not only in anatomical comparisons, but the fossil record and genome analysis. The nested hierarchy IS a core falsifiable prediction of common ancestry and thus evolution.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#105883 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False. My views are based on what is known to greater or lesser certainties, combined with a simple "I don't know" where our knowledge is lacking...rather than inserting an ersatz explanation in the form of "what we don't know must be God".
So dark matter is a mystery? Of course. We know very little about it...it might not even be the correct explanation for observed anomalies in galactic scale gravity effects. Its a hypothesis, and understood to be one.
What is wrong with simply accepting what we do not know, and researching to try to find out? Why do you have to insist you know an answer which you really have no way of knowing?
You are a very tough opponent for someone like Maz. You weild logic and reason to a degree I wish I could.

You have certainly stirred her up. She tries very hard and not very convincingly as you no doubt have noticed to use the Behe strategy of taking something new and little understood as proof against evolution and for a creator. I would say it is pointless to bother giving her any attention, accept that when someone does show her the folly of her efforts, I learn something. Through her efforts to defeat evolution, I have learned a great deal more about evolution. The irony that this anti-evolution creationist has provided me with new material to review, forced me to dig deeper and acted as a foil for solid argument from others that have provided me with new insight is delicious to the taste. Even if she chooses to disregard this, I still know and enjoy it all the more.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105884 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What evolutionists don't seem to understand is that nothing demonstrated in the lab is anything more than an example of adaptation. Adaptation is not a means for a tetrapod to adapt into a whale. Adaptation is a requirement of life in a changing environment where immunity is also required.
Correct: adaptation is what lab experiments and field work reveal directly.

However, evolution is merely the same adaptation response extended indefinitely in time.

If you believe, on the other hand, that adaptation has set limits then by all means present it.

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Regina

#105885 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>The chance that all life evolved from a common ancestor is miniscule: 1 chance in 10&#8743;150,000,000,000 according to
evolutiondismantled.com
The fact there are odds given still leaves the possibility, no matter how unlikely the odds may be.
However, the odds that ALL life evolved from a common ancestor are 0%, unless someone's gonna argue that plants and animals have a common ancestor.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105886 Jan 2, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it'll just prove that life requires some kind of "creator".
That depends. If life is created in the lab by reproducing conditions that could have occurred naturally in the deep past, then its not proof that life needs a creator, only that life needs the right conditions to arise.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#105887 Jan 2, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact there are odds given still leaves the possibility, no matter how unlikely the odds may be.
However, the odds that ALL life evolved from a common ancestor are 0%, unless someone's gonna argue that plants and animals have a common ancestor.
At some point they shared a common ancestor. You haven't been doing your research.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105888 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Your premise is a silly one. You have no idea of every situation. 1....there are exceptions to everyone of your examples, and 2....it is silly to base the validity of a religion on examples of childrens individuality. Maybe you should search out the validity of the resurrection, rather than which children like milk. Frankly, I found your post creepy!
Is it? It looks like what TR is saying is that a real problem, this evil of pedophilia, can be traced to some real explanations and that there are discoverable reasons why some men's sexual proclivities are warped in this way. This kind of understanding can lead, possibly, to real solutions to the problem. A real solution that might remove the urge in the first place.

On the other hand, your proposed answer, I am guessing, goes something like this: man has Original Sin and has to control his bad urges and beg forgiveness from Christ for the bad things he has thought and done.

It might be one solution, but it does not get to the core. Its more of a traditional control solution based on the fact that nobody had any real idea why some men do bad things, so they put a label on it, called it bad, and told men than unimaginably painful punishments would await them for all eternity if they did not control themselves.

Modern science including evolution can explain a lot about our behaviors and help us understand them and where necessary modify them. That last bit has been the role of religions in the past - controlling human behavior in a way that makes civilisation possible. I am not one for grand social experiments that ignore the accumulated wisdom of the past. We saw where utopian communism and hippy free love delusions got us.

However, really understanding ourselves rather than just slapping a label on things has got to be a good thing, and if this knowledge is used wisely should lead to good outcomes in the future. You will note that TR's posts contained a lot of scientific support for the value of the traditional family structure.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105889 Jan 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are a very tough opponent for someone like Maz. You weild logic and reason to a degree I wish I could.
You have certainly stirred her up. She tries very hard and not very convincingly as you no doubt have noticed to use the Behe strategy of taking something new and little understood as proof against evolution and for a creator. I would say it is pointless to bother giving her any attention, accept that when someone does show her the folly of her efforts, I learn something. Through her efforts to defeat evolution, I have learned a great deal more about evolution. The irony that this anti-evolution creationist has provided me with new material to review, forced me to dig deeper and acted as a foil for solid argument from others that have provided me with new insight is delicious to the taste. Even if she chooses to disregard this, I still know and enjoy it all the more.
Opponents of any scientific theory actually do the theory a good service, by keeping it honest. They raise questions, and while they might ultimately fail to make their case, such as Sanford, Behe and others have failed to do, they do force supporters of evolution to consider their position more carefully, and provide real justification for what they might have just assumed.

Like you, I have learned a ton about evolution by engaging in these debates. Maz is so far one of the better spokesmen for the opposition compared to most of them!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105890 Jan 2, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman11, thank you for reading my posts.
How shall I research the validity of the resurrection?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible for a human to survive without oxygen?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible for a human to fly without modern technology?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible to be heart-dead but not brain-dead for three days?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible to live in Heaven and not be visible to astronauts?
Or shall I research why the resurrection myth which you believe is any more scientifically verifiable than the resurrection myths about Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Ra, Osiris, Orion, Dionysus, Adonis, Inanna, Ishtar, Persephone, Bari, Baldr, and Quetzalcoatl?
I heard that the Baldr resurrection was real.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105891 Jan 2, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
This would be a LIE!
Why do you "fundamentalist christian creationists" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion? I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.
<quoted text>
This would be a LIE!
<quoted text>
This would be a LIE!
We are not the ones who have been an ABYSMAL FAILURE at producing anything of scientific value in 2000+ years. We are not the ones who get laughed at because of our silly adherence to childishly ridiculous, bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES. We are not the ones who have to LIE, I repeat, LIE about the research, the empirical evidence, scientists, science and REALITY in order to maintain the delusions about a 6000 year old cosmos, the first man magically conjuring up out of a pile of dirt, magic fruit that makes you immortal, evil exists because some naked chick ate a piece of magic fruit because a talking snake told her to, etc., etc., etc..
Oh my goodness, you are having a little tanty, aren't you? I hope you feel better now.

I am not a JW and I don't particularly care how old the cosmos is. However your dating methods are another topic altogether and leave much to be desired.

Thankyou for trying to surprise me with all these above unsubstantiatiated and false statements but you haven't.

Let me recap this solid stance of yours:

Dirt miraculously and unstubratiatingly organized itself into a complex factory of reproduction instead of some higher intelligence do a similar thing but on a larger scale. Actually, your scenario sounds the more non-plausible.

Your entire cosmology was overturned with an expanding universe and dark energy, a powerful and unknown mystery is invented to hand wave that away because previous cosmology was falsified. That is meant to be more convincing than geocentric models that do not require the 'mystery' of dark matter.

You certainly do not appear to have anything to toot your horn about. Let me show evolutionists just one reason, why!

This published paper appears to support much of what creationists have been suggesting all along. It is backed by cited commentry.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.

The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Ado...

This article says a similar thing.

Learning from our GWAS mistakes: from experimental design to scientific method (2012)

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

I think it is now time to again reassert another claim that creationists have been making.....Evolutionists require at least as much faith as any creationist, and likely more!

I don't think it is me that is doing the lying around here.

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Regina

#105892 Jan 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Is the genetic code randomly constructed?
Well, with no intent to insult you but since so many people confuse the terms and what they are, do you actually mean the genetic code? Or do you mean DNA or the genome?
I will respond tomorrow as it's after 3:30AM here and I need some rack time.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105893 Jan 2, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
There's more than enough data to refute the possibility that the genetic code was randomly constructed.
Indeed. But then, no real biologist has ever claimed that the genome we observe today was randomly constructed. There is this non random element called natural selection. You guys always forget that when you make these straw man arguments!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105894 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Darls, I am just giving you guys what you want. You rant about mankind being just an ape, so you can wear it. I thought you'd be pleased.
Whadya mean, "just an ape"?

Apes are extraordinary creatures.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#105895 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Opponents of any scientific theory actually do the theory a good service, by keeping it honest. They raise questions, and while they might ultimately fail to make their case, such as Sanford, Behe and others have failed to do, they do force supporters of evolution to consider their position more carefully, and provide real justification for what they might have just assumed.
Like you, I have learned a ton about evolution by engaging in these debates. Maz is so far one of the better spokesmen for the opposition compared to most of them!
Speaking of the Maz.

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
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 6 hr Frindly 3,243
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 39
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr Frindly 83,830
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 18 hr MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
More from around the web