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

There are 141333 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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107039 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =KAp9sFVdERQXX
Yep. This is another example of the ignorance that substantiates evolutionists are actually the publishing clueless.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107040 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl...
"...which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls"

Kind of shoots your Noah's Clan theory in the foot, huh?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107041 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This is another example of the ignorance that substantiates evolutionists are actually the publishing clueless.
Yep. This is another example of a pompous ass who makes bold assertions which she refuses to back up.
KAB

United States

#107042 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, I have got to say that when your simple two liners attract so much 'judged' ridicule from these evos such as this post has, I know you are hitting nerves that make evos dance like puppets. Keep up the good work!
I long ago recognized them as encouraging signs.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107043 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Patience,
"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl ...
The deterioration of the genome of organisms is well documented. This forms the basis of my number 5 support for a creationist paradigm.

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited and may be a consequence of the fall. Evolutionists are left to find convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE and life 'evolve' for billions of years, despite all costs. The data appears to align with creationism than it does TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

It is interesting to get some clarity around how many varieties there initially were.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107044 Jan 11, 2013
Tone, tone , tone. Give the mouth a piece of soap, FFS.

quote:
We are not talking about dating, although we already have over the past weeks and Kong dropped out and the rest tuned to evotards and I could get no more sense out of what was left eg samuim146, inconsistent decay rates etc. We are not talking about God or abiogenesis.
>>>>...We are talking about what CAN be scientifically demonstrated with some hint of credibility.
end quote.

Well we ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED WITH HIGH CREDIBILITY.
What you are on about i something entirely different like red herrings and strawmen to disguise your ignorance.

quote:
We are doing cetacea. I am presenting my evidence to support my claim that the fossil evidence better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.

end quote.

You would first have to establish the or even a creationist paradigm.(do the tohu and the bohu establish a creo-paradigm...me thinks not.)
You even stated some pages back that you saw two options -misunderstanding physics- of which you liked the god option best.
You continue to rant and i would not be the only one that wonders how much of that quasi-scientific quote-mining you actually understand!

'Dating and doing whales.':-o

So you know zilch about dating methods and how to interprete the results. Nor as i saw about the reasons for the way results are presented as they are.
(mind i'm reading allready two days after some absense.)
I suggest you 'do' the whales in your sparetime.
The discussion is getting silly.

Some people here do not have to proof their bona fides anymore when it comes to being knowledgable and well versed in the scientific method. Kong would be one of those.
KAB

United States

#107045 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
"...which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls"
Kind of shoots your Noah's Clan theory in the foot, huh?
"May be". That means may not be? Hey, they're not dead yet!
It seems you shot from the hip. You may want to check your own foot!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107046 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This is another example of a pompous ass who makes bold assertions which she refuses to back up.
Thanks for demonstrating what an ignorant ass looks like. I have backed up my assertions and I am now awaiting some signs of this reasoning ability mankind is meant to have that you are not demonstrating.

Well with enough whipping you finally had a go for once. Good! Ok ... "HAD two pairs of limbs" does not distinguish Ichthyosaurus from cetacia because whales are supposedly tetrapods and also come from 4 limbed tetrapods. So this does not appear to be a reptilian trait anymore than cetacean have 4 'legs'. As for digit like bones in flippers I am not sure what they are talking about. Is it not the digits in whale flippers that evos are always going on about. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have a soft tissue flipper that encases most of the forelimb, and elongated digits with an increased number of phalanges (hyperphalangy). http://www.ncbi.nl m.nih.gov/pubmed/1 7516431 The shoulder blades do appear to be different to current cetaceans from a quick look but the resulting pectoral arch resembles much that of the mammalian orni-thorhynchus. Ichthyosaurus are varied and some have a single temporal fenestra like mammals and cetacean does. The pair of fenestra are a reptilian hallmark but a single one is not. http://hydrodictyo n.eeb.uconn.edu/pe ople/schwenk/3254_ Lab9-10_Artio_Peri sso_etc07.pdf These traits do not appear to make Ichthyosaurus any more reptilian than and any other cetacean. Given warm bloodedness, live birth, blow hole, dorsel fin, looks like a porpoise etc I don't think Ichthyosaurus is any more reptilian than cetacean. Can you or some evo please further clarify why these traits are seen as identifying these many varieties of Ichthyosaurus as being all reptilian as opposed to some being mammalian which some certainly appear to be?(8 hrs ago | post #106951)

Now, tell me why much the same reptillisn traits in cetacia make Ichy a reptile but cetacean are placental mammal?. If you don't know find. One actually needs some research skills to tow a debate otherwise you are just a time waster, like you!
KAB

United States

#107047 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
"...which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls"
Kind of shoots your Noah's Clan theory in the foot, huh?
P.S., Has the population been at least doubling every hundred years?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107048 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"May be". That means may not be? Hey, they're not dead yet!
It seems you shot from the hip. You may want to check your own foot!
It was your link, bucko. And it is counter to your claims. So suck it up.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107049 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This is another example of the ignorance that substantiates evolutionists are actually the publishing clueless.
Devolution is not part of some creo paradigm. Of your set it is.
It's an allready old dutch theory, that overlaps evolution and agrees with it on a lot of points.(We allready discussed that months ago. And short at that, as in old news. Not taking progress into account )
Putting people as/on the pinacle of evolution or creation is showing a lack of understanding for the way eco-systems operate and more simply...take away the bacteria and you will drop dead on the spot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107050 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating what an ignorant ass looks like.
You're welcome. But I don't really believe that's your picture anyway.
MazHere wrote:
I have backed up my assertions...
You have not. I have challenged your assertions (and they are no more than that) several times and you've run away rather than replying.
MazHere wrote:
Now, tell me why much the same reptillisn traits in cetacia make Ichy a reptile but cetacean are placental mammal?. If you don't know find. One actually needs some research skills to tow a debate otherwise you are just a time waster, like you!
Asked and answered. Ignoring the information provided just makes you out to be a fraud.

And, by the way, the earth was not formed before the sun.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107051 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating what an ignorant ass looks like. I have backed up my assertions and I am now awaiting some signs of this reasoning ability mankind is meant to have that you are not demonstrating.
Well with enough whipping you finally had a go for once. Good! Ok ... "HAD two pairs of limbs" does not distinguish Ichthyosaurus from cetacia because whales are supposedly tetrapods and also come from 4 limbed tetrapods. So this does not appear to be a reptilian trait anymore than cetacean have 4 'legs'. As for digit like bones in flippers I am not sure what they are talking about. Is it not the digits in whale flippers that evos are always going on about. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have a soft tissue flipper that encases most of the forelimb, and elongated digits with an increased number of phalanges (hyperphalangy). http://www.ncbi.nl m.nih.gov/pubmed/1 7516431 The shoulder blades do appear to be different to current cetaceans from a quick look but the resulting pectoral arch resembles much that of the mammalian orni-thorhynchus. Ichthyosaurus are varied and some have a single temporal fenestra like mammals and cetacean does. The pair of fenestra are a reptilian hallmark but a single one is not. http://hydrodictyo n.eeb.uconn.edu/pe ople/schwenk/3254_ Lab9-10_Artio_Peri sso_etc07.pdf These traits do not appear to make Ichthyosaurus any more reptilian than and any other cetacean. Given warm bloodedness, live birth, blow hole, dorsel fin, looks like a porpoise etc I don't think Ichthyosaurus is any more reptilian than cetacean. Can you or some evo please further clarify why these traits are seen as identifying these many varieties of Ichthyosaurus as being all reptilian as opposed to some being mammalian which some certainly appear to be?(8 hrs ago | post #106951)
Now, tell me why much the same reptillisn traits in cetacia make Ichy a reptile but cetacean are placental mammal?. If you don't know find. One actually needs some research skills to tow a debate otherwise you are just a time waster, like you!
Well, by the way you reason you have clearly stumbled uopon a concestor.
Congratulations!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107052 Jan 11, 2013
Does ths article state that the human genome is irrevocably down the drain, Mazhere?
What is the gain for humans?
What is it ofset to?

Abstract
Although sequences containing regulatory elements located close to protein-coding genes are often only weakly conserved during evolution, comparisons of rodent genomes have implied that these sequences are subject to some selective constraints. Evolutionary conservation is particularly apparent upstream of coding sequences and in first introns, regions that are enriched for regulatory elements. By comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes, we show here that there is almost no evidence for conservation in these regions in hominids. Furthermore, we show that gene expression is diverging more rapidly in hominids than in murids per unit of neutral sequence divergence. By combining data on polymorphism levels in human noncoding DNA and the corresponding humanchimpanzee divergence, we show that the proportion of adaptive substitutions in these regions in hominids is very low. It therefore seems likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.

Citation: Keightley PD, Lercher MJ, Eyre-Walker A (2005) Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes. PLoS Biol 3(2): e42. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.00300 42

---
reading is a skill.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107053 Jan 11, 2013
We are mutating.
Nothing to do with the fall, but simple observable evolution.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107054 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Tone, tone , tone. Give the mouth a piece of soap, FFS.
quote:
We are not talking about dating, although we already have over the past weeks and Kong dropped out and the rest tuned to evotards and I could get no more sense out of what was left eg samuim146, inconsistent decay rates etc. We are not talking about God or abiogenesis.
>>>>...We are talking about what CAN be scientifically demonstrated with some hint of credibility.
end quote.
Well we ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED WITH HIGH CREDIBILITY.
What you are on about i something entirely different like red herrings and strawmen to disguise your ignorance.
quote:
We are doing cetacea. I am presenting my evidence to support my claim that the fossil evidence better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.
end quote.
You would first have to establish the or even a creationist paradigm.(do the tohu and the bohu establish a creo-paradigm...me thinks not.)
You even stated some pages back that you saw two options -misunderstanding physics- of which you liked the god option best.
You continue to rant and i would not be the only one that wonders how much of that quasi-scientific quote-mining you actually understand!
'Dating and doing whales.':-o
So you know zilch about dating methods and how to interprete the results. Nor as i saw about the reasons for the way results are presented as they are.
(mind i'm reading allready two days after some absense.)
I suggest you 'do' the whales in your sparetime.
The discussion is getting silly.
Some people here do not have to proof their bona fides anymore when it comes to being knowledgable and well versed in the scientific method. Kong would be one of those.
So I take it you have no idea how to defend Ichy as being a reptile? GREAT, then go to the back of the class. You prefer to be the mad woman jumping all over the place in a delusional state of confused evasion. Yes I have done lots of research into dating methods and I know what contamination and an inconsistent deacay rate means. Do you?

I have done the whales in my spare time and found Basilosaurus dated to 49mya while Indohyus is dated to 48mya. I also found previous empirical evidence re the timing of 15 million years is now supported by the 'empirical' evidence of 4 million years. Futher more to that I provided links to the information....DNA contradicts morphology pig/hippo/whale, Indohyus is just like a variety of modern day mouse deer, ambulocetus natans looks like a variety of sea lion, there is one deteriorated specimen of a middle ear that was not colocated with an indohyus fossil, and that ain't all the warts on your whales!!!!!

Now either accept that the evo line up of Pakecetus, Indohyus, ambulocetus natans, basilosaurus are a misrepresentation of the fossil record or articulate why you think they are convincing.

The last time some evo tried to defend this mess they soon dissappeared. I suggest none of these have anything to do with true cetaceans. They are a bunch of fossils not even related at the family rank.

So you're welcome to defend your own line up. That is fair. Off you go. But don't offer 'they said so' and take off, because that is when I see you lot as scared little defiant children.

I suggest your whale line up is a misrepresentation for the reasons outlined above. Evos are good at buzzing like flies but really can't stay focused on any point to its conclusion. I can understand why!

However you still need to refute Ichy being a mammal dated to 245mya by clarifying the reptilian traits as being unique to it and not cetacea. There is overwhelming evidence of cetacean traits, the best being a blow hole.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#107055 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still choking on your rock critters, you hero?
I have shown that the so called reptilian traits of Ichthyosaurus are ficticious and no more reptilian than other cetaceans. The idea is to respond with scientific data like Kong has been and you tried once until you turned to jelly.
Why fall to pieces now you lot? Must be because you are all apes without the ability to make meaning of the world. Evos are a better demonstration of devolution than any fossil.
You have shown that? Really? Where did you do this? Fantasy Land?

No my idea is to give you back scientific data, sarcasm, humor, parody and jovial disdain. All the things the nonsense you bring to the table deserves. In other words, I don't take what you say seriously at all. No reasonable person could.

I can understand a person taking a certain position, but you take a position and spend an inordinate amount of time looking like a bumbling clown trying to defend it with balloon juice, ignorance and nonsense.

I accept the evidence that supports the classification of ichthyosaurs as reptiles. I have seen nothing that causes me to doubt that evidence and I have seen no evidence that indicates that they are not reptiles. All you have done is make a statement and supported it with a couple of pieces of evidence that are not strong enough to consider reclassifying the group. This tells me that you are, willfully or naturally, ignorant of science in general, biology, taxonomy, reptiles and cetaceans.

All your bluster, misinformation and repeating the lie will not change that. It makes me wonder what you hope to gain. I can't imagine you just one day decided I am going to start posting on Topix and I am going to do my best to look like a fool doing it. Because that is exactly what you are accomplishing. As long as you continue this tactic, I will continue to dismiss your ideas and treat you with all the flipant humor you deserve. If you were serious, others might be willing to listen, but since you don't listen and don't view the entire exchange seriously, I won't either.

Would you like more egg for your face madame?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107056 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Tone, tone , tone. Give the mouth a piece of soap, FFS.
quote:
We are not talking about dating, although we already have over the past weeks and Kong dropped out and the rest tuned to evotards and I could get no more sense out of what was left eg samuim146, inconsistent decay rates etc. We are not talking about God or abiogenesis.
>>>>...We are talking about what CAN be scientifically demonstrated with some hint of credibility.
end quote.
Well we ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED WITH HIGH CREDIBILITY.
What you are on about i something entirely different like red herrings and strawmen to disguise your ignorance.
quote:
We are doing cetacea. I am presenting my evidence to support my claim that the fossil evidence better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.
end quote.
You would first have to establish the or even a creationist paradigm.(do the tohu and the bohu establish a creo-paradigm...me thinks not.)
You even stated some pages back that you saw two options -misunderstanding physics- of which you liked the god option best.
You continue to rant and i would not be the only one that wonders how much of that quasi-scientific quote-mining you actually understand!
'Dating and doing whales.':-o
So you know zilch about dating methods and how to interprete the results. Nor as i saw about the reasons for the way results are presented as they are.
(mind i'm reading allready two days after some absense.)
I suggest you 'do' the whales in your sparetime.
The discussion is getting silly.
Some people here do not have to proof their bona fides anymore when it comes to being knowledgable and well versed in the scientific method. Kong would be one of those.
So I take it you have no idea how to defend Ichy as being a reptile, I take it? You prefer to be the mad woman jumping all over the place in a delusional state of confused evasion. Yes I have done lots of research into dating methods and I know what contamination and an inconsistent deacay rate means. Do you?

I have done the whales in my spare time and found Basilosaurus dated to 49mya while Indohyus is dated to 48mya. I also found previous empirical evidence re the timing of 15 million years is now supported by the 'empirical' evidence of 4 million years. Futher more to that I provided links to the information....DNA contradicts morphology pig/hippo/whale, Indohyus is just like a variety of modern day mouse deer, ambulocetus natans looks like a variety of sea lion, there is one deteriorated specimen of a middle ear that was not colocated with an indohyus fossil, and that ain't all the warts on your whales!!!!!

Now either accept that the evo line up of Pakecetus, Indohyus, ambulocetus natans, basilosaurus are a misrepresentation of the fossil record or articulate why you think they are convincing.

The last time some evo tried to defend this mess they soon dissappeared. I suggest none of these have anything to do with true cetaceans. They are a bunch of fossils not even related at the family rank.

So you're welcome to defend your own line up. That is fair. Off you go. But don't offer 'they said so' and take off, because that is when I see you lot as scared little defiant children.

I suggest your whale line up is a misrepresentation for the reasons outlined above. Evos are good at buzzing like flies but really can't stay focused on any point to its conclusion. I can understand why!

However you still need to refute Ichy being a mammal dated to 245mya by clarifying the reptilian traits as being unique to it and not cetacea. There is overwhelming evidence of cetacean traits, the best being a blow hole.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#107057 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It was your link, bucko. And it is counter to your claims. So suck it up.
Is KAB doing that too? He must have learned from MazHere, the Queen of providing links that actually refute what she says. It does make it easier if they are going to cooperate like that.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107058 Jan 11, 2013
Here's the 'intellect' we're dealing with:

"Light years are the figment of scientists imagination. Indeed these bright sparks are no longer measuring the doppler effect in relation to red shift because doppler does not apply to expansion. It is meant to measure distance."

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min Aura Mytha 163,789
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr SoE 178,614
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 4 hr UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 20 hr Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web