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

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

There are 159188 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107103 Jan 11, 2013
I didn't realize that baleen have two blow holes and toothed whales only have one.

Maz, does that mean that they aren't related to each other. Do you think they are some kind of bat?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107104 Jan 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>

KittenKoder wrote:
You like making things up, we know this, but you pretend to know when you do not. There is no "Law of Biogenesis,"

<MM replies>
BIology online says you're stupid.

Law of biogenesis

Definition

noun

(1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_ ...

KittenKoder wrote:

and there is zero evidence that any god exists, much less your specific one. Follow the facts, and life is likely the result of chemical reactions, since there is no other possibility so far.

<MM replies>
There is no possibility that random chemical reactions caused it. It's like this buttercup, all you have to do to disprove creation is replicate a naturalistic origin of life. I've been waiting many years now, be the first in history to do so!!! Please!!!!!
Are you just going to dodge this?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107105 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>The Law of Biogenesis says that life only comes from a previous life. That life doesn't spontainiously generate. The bible says that GOD is a living GOD, thus life from life and the law of biogenesis is satisfied, and the atheist world view demands a violation of the science they work, and this demand has never been satisfied.
Okay, I've pickaxed through that turgid mess - am I to understand that you're a proponent of "omnia celluli e celluli"?

Only that's got problems.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107106 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you seem to think inbreeding is a good thing. Well, you think genocide is a good thing so why not? Anything goes, eh Adolf?
Explain how you reason that I think inbreeding is a good thing. I forewarn you that to do it without quoting me for confirmation will leave you exposed as a presumptuous fool.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107107 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you just going to dodge this?
If there was an actual link I might address it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107108 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So suddenly observation matters to an evolutionists???
I vaguely recall you making some point of this but forgot th context.
Science starts with observation, followed by trying to explain the how and then replicate either by making another observation or by some other means in the toolbox.

Apropos faith. In judaism faith is very down to earth. Is the earth so to say. Direct visible action, and i do not mean miracles.
None of this mumbo jumbo.

Half the nonsense we have to reply to are caused because of mistranslating/misunderstandin g the hebrew book compounded by other weird ideas as created in the 4th century and middleages.

God as creator f.i.
Judaism teaches that we can not define god, so why would the first bumpersticker on his ass read 'CREATOR'!
Living woud indeed be closest to the entire system that sustains all life as we know it as well as life itself. Even dead is the way of all things.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#107109 Jan 11, 2013
“Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa

The ability to control fire was a crucial turning point in human evolution, but the question when hominins first developed this ability still remains. Here we show that micromorphological and Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (mFTIR) analyses of intact sediments at the site of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa, provide unambiguous evidence—in the form of burned bone and ashed plant remains—that burning took place in the cave during the early Acheulean occupation, approximately 1.0 Ma. To the best of our knowledge, this is the earliest secure evidence for burning in an archaeological context.”

Hmmm….controlled use of fire by PRE-humans a million years ago. I wonder what Adam and Eve were doing.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/27/...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107110 Jan 11, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, I've pickaxed through that turgid mess - am I to understand that you're a proponent of "omnia celluli e celluli"?
Only that's got problems.
yep loads of cellulite and - itis (which is a serious condition)

Cellula gives less trouble.
The origin:
Bedeutungen:

[1] Biologie, neulateinisch: der Grundsatz der Zelltheorie und der Zytologie, erstmals formuliert von Rudolf Virchow in seinem Aufsatz über die „Cellularpathologie“ aus dem Jahr 1855[1], der besagt, dass eine Zelle immer nur aus einer Zelle hervorgehen kann. Die Zelle wurde somit als kleinste Einheit der Struktur und als kleinste Einheit der Vermehrung festgeschrieben. "Diese Betrachtungsweise wurde in den folgenden Jahrzehnten noch durch die Erkenntnis ergänzt, daß die Zelle auch drittens die kleinste Einheit der Funktion des Lebendigen ist." Mit diesen Theoremen war die Zelltheorie von Schwann und Schleiden konsequent zu Ende entwickelt.[2]
Herkunft:

Der Grundsatz "omnis cellula e cellula" wurde erstmals 1855 von Rudolf Virchow in seinem Aufsatz über die "Cellularpathologie" geprägt.[3]

google cell theory Schwann and Schleiden.
It's not like they had evolution in mind or had ever heard of such alien things as virus.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107111 Jan 11, 2013
Apropos bumperstickers.(smithsonianmag )
quote

"The only novelty in my work is the attempt to explain how species become modified," Darwin later wrote. He did not mean to belittle his achievement. The how, backed up by an abundance of evidence, was crucial: nature throws up endless biological variations, and they either flourish or fade away in the face of disease, hunger, predation and other factors. Darwin's term for it was "natural selection"; Wallace called it the "struggle for existence." But we often act today as if Darwin invented the idea of evolution itself, including the theory that human beings developed from an ape ancestor. And Wallace we forget altogether.

In fact, scientists had been talking about our primate origins at least since 1699, after the London physician Edward Tyson dissected a chimpanzee and documented a disturbing likeness to human anatomy. And the idea of evolution had been around for generations.

In the 1770s, Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin, a physician and philosopher, publicly declared that different species had evolved from a common ancestor. He even had the motto "E conchis omnia" ("Everything from shells") painted on his carriage, prompting a local clergyman to lambaste him in verse:

Great wizard he! by magic spells
Can all things raise from cockle shells.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/...
Follow us:@SmithsonianMag on Twitter

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107112 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
yep loads of cellulite and - itis (which is a serious condition)
Cellula gives less trouble.
The origin:
Bedeutungen:
[1] Biologie, neulateinisch: der Grundsatz der Zelltheorie und der Zytologie, erstmals formuliert von Rudolf Virchow in seinem Aufsatz über die „Cellularpathologie“ aus dem Jahr 1855[1], der besagt, dass eine Zelle immer nur aus einer Zelle hervorgehen kann. Die Zelle wurde somit als kleinste Einheit der Struktur und als kleinste Einheit der Vermehrung festgeschrieben. "Diese Betrachtungsweise wurde in den folgenden Jahrzehnten noch durch die Erkenntnis ergänzt, daß die Zelle auch drittens die kleinste Einheit der Funktion des Lebendigen ist." Mit diesen Theoremen war die Zelltheorie von Schwann und Schleiden konsequent zu Ende entwickelt.[2]
Herkunft:
Der Grundsatz "omnis cellula e cellula" wurde erstmals 1855 von Rudolf Virchow in seinem Aufsatz über die "Cellularpathologie" geprägt.[3]
google cell theory Schwann and Schleiden.
It's not like they had evolution in mind or had ever heard of such alien things as virus.
Dammit, I read that notion originally in Latin.
I'm not gonna go look for it now.

Nor am I gonna argue wi' either Schwann or Schleiden.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107113 Jan 11, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
“Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa
The ability to control fire was a crucial turning point in human evolution, but the question when hominins first developed this ability still remains. Here we show that micromorphological and Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (mFTIR) analyses of intact sediments at the site of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa, provide unambiguous evidence—in the form of burned bone and ashed plant remains—that burning took place in the cave during the early Acheulean occupation, approximately 1.0 Ma. To the best of our knowledge, this is the earliest secure evidence for burning in an archaeological context.”
Hmmm….controlled use of fire by PRE-humans a million years ago. I wonder what Adam and Eve were doing.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/27/...
More convergent evolution?
Most interesting 'word.
I also wondered about those huge 25 kg axe-heads in Australia...as in here be giants. But i've found no other information on these elusive hominids.
Afrika is another of those unexplored continents.
I suddenly realise that certain information i needed took a good twenty years to be processed and finally come available.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107114 Jan 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Convergent evolution explains it and here is how. Similar environments would put the same selective pressure onto different organisms to drive the evolution of similar characters. Eyes have evolved at least 13 different times over history. We know this based on how developed these different eyes are, how they are constructed, and the origin of the tissues involved. Human eyes do a good job of capturing images but they are poorly constructed. A squid has much better constructed eyes. Light entering a human eye has to go through blood vessels and nerves before the image hits the retina. All this has to be dealt with. Light entering a squid eye does not have to go through nerves and blood vessels and there is no blind spot to deal with either (another flaw of our eyes). Both eyes evolved seperately to serve the same function. Thus they look roughly alike, because evolution can only with with what it is given under the conditions that exist.
An analogy might be if numerous teams of people were asked to construct a machine to do a specific task. All teams work independently, under the same conditions. They have to use the raw materials and supplies available to them in their respective areas. Since the available material may differ somewhat, this difference isn't likely to be very large and since the goal is the same for all, the result is likely to be very similar in appearance though there may be striking differences. We could even go further and classify or group the resultant machines based on shared characters. For instance if over half the group got external casing and some internal parts from the same supplier, it would drive the designs that subgroup came up with and be the basis to conclude a relationship.
However, shared characters are not the end all of it. It is the nature of the character, its origin and plasticity among other things that will determine its value in classification. By your methodology we could classify ichthyosaurs and cetaceans as fish just as easily as classifying them as each other.
It is convergent evolution based on a selection for the same environment by organisms with two different aged and points of origin.
Your classification Maz, leaves out the fact that whales don't have a reptilian ear. If it can't explain that, it can't hold up. The explanation that best fits the evidence is reptilian origin for ichthyosaurs and mammalian origin for cetaceans with similarity in some characters due to convergence.
Maz, did you know that whale ear bones are completely unique amongst mammals. That is a dead give away for paleontologists when they find them amongst fossils in the field.
It's ironic that in your effort to support evolution you describe a design process. Go figure. Open YOUR eyes!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107115 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You can not replicate the origin of life. You can keep looking, but the more you look, the closer you are going to get to GOD.
Why is it that every time we look closer, we still never see any gods?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107116 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ironic that in your effort to support evolution you describe a design process. Go figure. Open YOUR eyes!
It isn't irony, it is an analogy. I picked my wording as carefully as I could because I predicted creationist would skip the meat of the argument and comment on this analogy. Funny how right I was. Notice also, I did not use the word design with the intention of giving you as little rope to grab as I could. However, the analogy is still apt and the designer in nature is good old natural selection.

Besides when discussing a subject that it obviously too difficult for you and Maz, one is left but to look for analogies that you might understand. It is good to see that my analogy was bang on.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107117 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain how you reason that I think inbreeding is a good thing. I forewarn you that to do it without quoting me for confirmation will leave you exposed as a presumptuous fool.
Did Mike F get your panties in a wad with a big old bowl full of reality? Good!
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#107118 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you just going to dodge this?
Life meaning biological life. If your God is energy, your God is not life. Energy is energy, not life. Dust/clay/dirt is non-living material. Your Bible says we came from non-living material.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#107119 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ironic that in your effort to support evolution you describe a design process. Go figure. Open YOUR eyes!
As an ANALOGY, you shitwit.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107120 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ironic that in your effort to support evolution you describe a design process. Go figure. Open YOUR eyes!
My flawed, but still good image capture system developed by natural selection remains as always, wide open. That is how I can see a blind fool when he responds to my posts. Open YOUR eyes KAB and stop blinding them with a proven unreliable source. Since the data suporting my last statements has been given numerous times, I spare us all the redundant and lengthy series of posts that would be necessary to contain it in its fullness.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107123 Jan 12, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, I've pickaxed through that turgid mess - am I to understand that you're a proponent of "omnia celluli e celluli"?
Only that's got problems.
i have no idea what you are taking about.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107124 Jan 12, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If there was an actual link I might address it.
I posted the link twice. What do you want. It hand delivered?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min Subduction Zone 57,715
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr STEPIN IN 219,579
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr IB DaMann 1,744
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr IB DaMann 27,214
News Intelligent Design Education Day Fri Dogen 1
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 15 bofo 1,756
More from around the web