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
103,881 - 103,900 of 134,475 Comments Last updated 30 min ago

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105896
Jan 2, 2013
 
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well YOU said genetic code. I didn't bring it into play. So, I am referring to what you brought up. Either way, they are influenced by the nonrandom force of natural selection as indicated by Chimney1.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105897
Jan 2, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So evolutionists have been lying and decieving creationists again about science? THey've been tell us that our DNA is 98% identical to some apes. THey failed to tell us that only 5 to 7% is 98% indentical. Why do they have to be so dishonest to support what they claim is the truth? THe truth should be easy to support.
No, actually the first estimates, based on the whole genome, were derived by a test involving the pairing of chimp DNA with human DNA and testing the breakup-temperature point. This was done with other combinations too. The test is, that the closer the pairing, the closer the break-up temperature is to a human-human DNA match.

This was done before examination of the sequence base by base was possible, and it gave an original estimate that still closely matches what we can do now with more rigor.

Human and Chimp DNA are about 98% identical.

Of course, this alone is not proof of common ancestry. Evidence for that comes from the nature of the differences, which in large parts are random elements that reveal the nested hierarchy of all living things...and it matches the fossil record. Independently. i.e. Conclusively, as the odds against independent corroboration of the same nested hierarchy by very different lines of evidence being merely chance are monstrous.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105898
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!
I don't know if I consider her position amongst creationist apologists all that highly, but at least she does attempt to use, however wrongly, references to actual science. None the less, I owe her for providing the selection pressure to evolve my knowledge of evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105899
Jan 2, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
Let me recap this solid stance of yours:
Dirt miraculously and unstubratiatingly organized itself into a complex factory of reproduction...
Actually, hypotheses of abiogenesis are looking for non miraculous pathways. And of course, this is not evolution. Evolution would not care if the first bacterium was zapped into existence miraculously. But you knew that already - you just like to fudge the point.
Your entire cosmology was overturned with an expanding universe and dark energy,
Likewise evolution does not depend on big bang theory, dark matter, or any other cosmological hypothesis. All it requires in these terms is sufficient time. Geology and radiometric dating already show that however it got here, the earth has been around a very long time.
a powerful and unknown mystery is invented to hand wave that away
Rubbish. A hypothesis is developed to account for what is observed. And that hypothesis is going to have to make some observational predictions that are validated before it is accepted. It is also competing against alternatives such as changes to the theory of relativity.

And...evolution does not depend on it anyway.
You certainly do not appear to have anything to toot your horn about.
Correct or flawed, our approach has yielded far more knowledge about the universe in 500 years than yours did in the previous 5000!
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....
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...
Yes - there is a lot of error in studies, SPECIFICALLY studies that purport to translate loose observational CORRELATIONS into suspected CAUSES. Frequent in observational studies in Medicine, Social Sciences, and Economics. Not in Evolutionary Biology, which relies far less on this type of statistical research.

But feel free to try and juxtapose a KNOWN issue with statistically derived data into a general attempt at discrediting the scientific method. Its all you've got!

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105900
Jan 2, 2013
 
marksman, if my diagnosis and solution for pedophilia is "creepy," what do you suggest instead?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105901
Jan 2, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I am having trouble posting. If this is a double. I apologize in advance.... Thanks for your gracious comments in other posts.

Cladistics is prefered because your tree is not working, and is quite a mess. Did Linnaeus predict whales would be classified as tetrapods? Did he set up for the 3 domains of life or just 2?

The fact that I can separate man from ape demonstrates it is arbitrarily about, if one is seeking similarity or difference.

I suggest Hierarchies are a mess.. Sorry!

Aves...
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%2...

Cetacia, where we all know dna contradicts morphology and morphology is all there is in fossils.eg whales/hippos/pigs.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...

The system is arbitrary for the reasons I have already outlined in mankind. I am also able to choose suites of traits that equally separate man from other primates, let alone chimps. It IS therefore arbitrary.

Old bible writers already had the basic outline sorted, anyway, so I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

And still..I am not an ape!

Look at this.... Rather than me try to challenge all, read this..

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

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...

So although evolutionists can present mountains of papers, I suggest are biased and contrived, it appears their credibility is fairly challenged by evolutionary researchers, not just me. The only difference is they still believe 'it all evolved', and I do not.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105902
Jan 2, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know if I consider her position amongst creationist apologists all that highly, but at least she does attempt to use, however wrongly, references to actual science. None the less, I owe her for providing the selection pressure to evolve my knowledge of evolution.
I have just replied to another post of yours and am seeing if it loads because for some reason I cannot see it.

My post has this in it......sorry if the info is a duplicate...

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

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...

So although evolutionists can present mountains of papers, I suggest are biased and contrived, it appears their credibility is fairly challenged by evolutionary researchers, not just me. The only difference is they still believe 'it all evolved', and I do not.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105903
Jan 2, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, hypotheses of abiogenesis are looking for non miraculous pathways. And of course, this is not evolution. Evolution would not care if the first bacterium was zapped into existence miraculously. But you knew that already - you just like to fudge the point.
!
How about you speak to the article above and demonstrate exactly how I am fudging anything?

It appears you are the fudge.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105904
Jan 2, 2013
 
MazHere, if you can't agree that we're apes,
can you agree that we're mammals? If not, then which part of this definition do you take issue with:

Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, whose young feed on milk that is produced by the mother's mammary glands. Unlike other vertebrates, mammals have a diaphragm that separates the heart and lungs from the other internal organs, red blood cells that lack a nucleus, and usually hair or fur. All mammals but the monotremes bear live young.

It is no mere coincidence that the most popular household pets are our canine and feline cousins.
Mammals are the only animals which like to be touched because mammals are the only animals with fur which needs to be cleaned. When we stroke an animal's fur, the animal reacts as if we were licking them.

Conversely, when we pet dogs and cats, we are using them as child surrogates, since dogs and cats are roughly equivalent to babies in size.

When we stroke a dog or a cat, our inner brains tell us that we are inspecting a juvenile for lice. Likewise, when we stroke another human being, our inner brains tell us the same thing. Of course, we lost most of our fur long ago, but our inner brains don't know that.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105905
Jan 2, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you have nothing observable about your god, nothing testable, nothing replicable either ... but you still believe it. So my question is, why do you lie about yourself?
Listen Mrs. Ape, how many times do I have to explain to you that I take my beliefs in faith? You don't,(so you dishonestly say), yet none of the foundations for your beliefs pass the scientific method of observability, testability, and replication. I'm honest in that I take my beliefs in faith. You can't and won't be that honest.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105906
Jan 2, 2013
 
Usuallyunique wrote:
Mazhere-
I am impressed with your writing... I haven't really had time to fully go through all of your posted links, but I have gone to several.
Firstly, christian creationism is typically argued in pieces, because taken as whole it the theory simply daunting the challenges you have to overcome to arrive at the conclusions you have.
1. Proof that God exists.
2. Proof that who you think is God is actually God as you consider him/her, as you cannot check his ID and have really no way of knowing if it's a hi-tech alien. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but you have no known absolute way of knowing.
3. Proof that God even cares about what he has created on this planet.
4. Proof that God communicated to the writers in the bible and they did not misinterpret him.
5. Proof that the writings of the bible haven't been altered in any way. Only way of doing this is to know you possess all of the original writings, which is now impossible.
6. Proof that your particular interpretation of the interpretation of gods' thoughts is actually what God communicated.
Go step by step.
We'll wait.
Here's the rub: Those who do not subscribe to your particular belief system are at advantage when it comes to facts. Nothing is a smoking gun, but just like a murder mystery most, but not all evidence, is pointing to a scenario that isn't possible with how genesis describes origins.
You don't see it that way, I know. I was just like you. arguing in favor of creationism, which is actually kind of funny, as creationists aren't even a single group. Every religion on earth has something to say how we got here.
You defended KAB, as you are both arguing a single point. But the beauty(and ugly) of deism is that you have to pick a camp. You can't be catholic and muslim, or JW for that matter. Yet, all three can come on this forum and fight evolution, but they really are wasting their time. Fight each other. You can't all be right.
It is you guys that ignorantly demand proof. We creationists are honest enough to admit that our beliefs are faith based. We don't have to scientifically prove our beliefs. Science is not qualified to verify our beliefs. It is ignorant to even request scientific proof for beliefs rooted in a supernatural deity. Your premise is all wrong. You keep requesting we provide scientific proof, when our beliefs are beyond scientific verification. We are not like you. WE don't think like you. We don't want to think like you. We pity people that do think like you, and we teach our children not to think like you.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105907
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?
Start with reading, "Who moved the Stone?", then examine the facts displayed in the gospels, then the history of the disciples, then start asking questions of why? WHy did the disciples die the deaths they died? Where were they when they died and why were they there? Were they alone? Why would they die these terrible deaths defending the resurrection of Jesus? Would you die alone for a lie? What changed Peter from the inability to even tell a little girl he was a follower of Jesus, to about 50 days later standing before the leaders of Israel and accusing them of killing the messiah? What gave him this change in courage? How did John go from a "Son of Thunder" to the apostle of love in one instant? What event changed him? What changed Thomas from doubting, to die in Madras India while trying to esablish a church there to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus? Attack this like the FBI would a murder case. Start here and then get serious. Your eternity depends on it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105908
Jan 2, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Got your fallback position all marked out, I see.
No, what you see is that you haven't thought this thing through, like you thought you had.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>
Life generated in a lab will prove that life can come about without a deity, or any other magic "poof".
No, what it proves is that nature can not produce life without a designer to organise and guide it. Again, you have not thought this through. If nature can not produce life, and a deity is not needed, then a scientist is needed. So who produced this living scientist that is going to produce the first life?

Gottcha!!!!!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105909
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.
Statisics show that once you reach 1 in 10 to the 50th. power, you have reached statical zero possiblities of the event occuring. My number was beyond that.
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That is exactly the argument that those in here (unsuccessfully) try to make. They believe we are kin to tobacco stalks.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105910
Jan 2, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman, if my diagnosis and solution for pedophilia is "creepy," what do you suggest instead?
Don't base the validity of religious beliefs on your interests in sexual perversions.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105911
Jan 2, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
When we stroke a dog or a cat, our inner brains tell us that we are inspecting a juvenile for lice. Likewise, when we stroke another human being, our inner brains tell us the same thing. Of course, we lost most of our fur long ago, but our inner brains don't know that.
You are joking, right?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••