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 (Page 5,253)

Showing posts 105,041 - 105,060 of133,967
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107061
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I usually stick to the hominid family.
Since we allready have some great experts on the whales.
I would first have to read Kong.
You veer to allsides as if you had a couple of stubbies too many.

Could you first explain to me why a mammalian ichtyosaurus would be most unlikely.(it's not like we are overwhelmed with fossils)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107062
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MAAT wrote:
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 human–chimpanzee 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.
Honey, I could have posted the abstract because I sourced the link. Clearly that link speaks to the accumulation of deleterious mutations because the effectiveness of natural selection has declined.

"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."

Did you notice the word LIKELY? In actual fact researchers have no idea what the population size was at any time in the ancient past. They use what suites them. So in the end this research provides data that the homonid genome is deteriorating through the accumulation of deleterious muations and they offer an evolutionary get out of a falsification for free card by offering a possible scenarion.

The problem is I have provided multiple examples of deteriorating genomes and I can provide a plethora more....

..... AND I was talking to KAB in support.

That is not my discussion. KAB can handle you lot running around like lunatics going from one topic to another and not concluding any point. Talk to him. He wraps you lot up in foil and bakes you very easily.

If you lot cannot offer a reply then I will take the point as being established. Placental mammals are dated to 245mya and falsify the current evolutionary mess that isn't evidence for anything, and provides support for Devonian cetaceans!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107063
Jan 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be unsupportive if they naturally became extinct. Maybe I'll keep my eye on 'em. Do you know what that means?
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?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107064
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, if every single reptile ever found whether in the fossil record or alive today had a feature and if a fossil was found with that feature would you say it was a reptile or a mammal? Please note, no mammal alive or in the fossil record has been found to have this feature. Why would you say that animal was a mammal?
You sound desperately confused! I can't even work out what you are talking about? Do you know? A blow hole is the signature of cetacea. I'd say that shared traits are a sign of the one designer particularly when evolutionists cannot get their fossil evidence for major morphological change to have some credibility.

Ichy is a mammal because it has the hallmark of cetacean mammals, a blow hole. That is accompanied by warm bloodedness and life birth and it looks like a dolphin. It does not have the hallmark of a reptile as stated because some Ichy varieties have a single fenetra found in cetacean mammals.

Now I have said that for about the 10th time. How about you take those evogoggles off and learn the art of reading and research and stop confusing yourself.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107065
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I usually stick to the hominid family.
Since we allready have some great experts on the whales.
I would first have to read Kong.
You veer to allsides as if you had a couple of stubbies too many.
Could you first explain to me why a mammalian ichtyosaurus would be most unlikely.(it's not like we are overwhelmed with fossils)
This is veering to asides. I think ichy is a mammal and that is most likely. Are you a nut? I think Ichy being a reptile is MOST UNLIKELY for the reasons outlined many times.

Evo researchers say this is a reptile. Ichy is a plethora of different varieties of who knows what. Most are single fossils that say nothing.

Stephen Jay Gould expresses the wonder of it all:

"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing — the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor."

You escape artists.......

Evos publish and therefore believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107066
Jan 11, 2013
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaur
I think this answers most questions.

Convergent evolution...non-boney later-found appendix, sex determined viviparity...but nevertheless still classified as non-mammal.

So frankly it has no baring on the entire whale story.
---
Those kind of patronizing honeys make my skin crawl.

What the article states is that a different defence was found because genetic diversity did not offer a big enough pool to cover all eventualities. So instead of conserving certain traits a kind of wild recombining and adjusting developed.
The confusion arises because it willy-nilly uses hominid -homo sapiens the only representive left unless they also used neanderthal and denisovan genome-, homo-sapiens-chimpz and rodent research results.
Though f.i. chimpz and H.S. have markedly diverged in rate of genome characteristics production.

The article on the japanese research clarifies it by pointing out that mutation is on the rise.(and has been since we split from our last concestor.)

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107067
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound desperately confused! I can't even work out what you are talking about? Do you know? A blow hole is the signature of cetacea. I'd say that shared traits are a sign of the one designer particularly when evolutionists cannot get their fossil evidence for major morphological change to have some credibility.
Ichy is a mammal because it has the hallmark of cetacean mammals, a blow hole. That is accompanied by warm bloodedness and life birth and it looks like a dolphin. It does not have the hallmark of a reptile as stated because some Ichy varieties have a single fenetra found in cetacean mammals.
Now I have said that for about the 10th time. How about you take those evogoggles off and learn the art of reading and research and stop confusing yourself.
99% of mammals don't have blowholes.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107069
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, I could have posted the abstract because I sourced the link. Clearly that link speaks to the accumulation of deleterious mutations because the effectiveness of natural selection has declined.
"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."
Did you notice the word LIKELY? In actual fact researchers have no idea what the population size was at any time in the ancient past. They use what suites them. So in the end this research provides data that the homonid genome is deteriorating through the accumulation of deleterious muations and they offer an evolutionary get out of a falsification for free card by offering a possible scenarion.
The problem is I have provided multiple examples of deteriorating genomes and I can provide a plethora more....
..... AND I was talking to KAB in support.
That is not my discussion. KAB can handle you lot running around like lunatics going from one topic to another and not concluding any point. Talk to him. He wraps you lot up in foil and bakes you very easily.
If you lot cannot offer a reply then I will take the point as being established. Placental mammals are dated to 245mya and falsify the current evolutionary mess that isn't evidence for anything, and provides support for Devonian cetaceans!
You start to sound desperate.
I'm cool in comparison. The bees bee.
Do you have some trouble with landanimals going back to sea at various points in time?
Do you have great trouble with the idea of concestors and beneficial mutations >scientific and plausible< or in the ichty-case convergent evolution? So having no baring upon the whale family question as posed?

Talking to KAB means giving him 17 pages of ice measurement data, which he will approach clueless, than claims to have lost followed with the statement that nobody ever gives him REAL DATA.
So his newest claim was that he tries to weedle the best out of us.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107070
Jan 11, 2013
 
Population size is not relevant, though genome changes can provide a clue as to a stressed so dwindling population and thus quick adaptations to deal with the treath.
So you reason the wrong way round.

Why? It is not logical!
...darn forgot the entire flood. ;))

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107071
Jan 11, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Let me tell you something Pal. Christianity has been around a lot longer than evolution. Christianity is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. I wouldn't even consider evolution a hammer.
Let's see Evolution has been occuring for billions of years and Christianity is a little over 2000 years old. I think you need to re-look at your data.

Now, if you were honest, you might have said that our understanding of how evolution works can be argued to be about 150 years old, but that wouldn't be accurate either. We have been using animal and plant breeding techniques for hundreds, even thousands of years. They worked in spite of our limited understanding of the mechanisms of how they worked.

If history is any guide one day Christianity will join many hundreds of other religions as footnotes in a history books. I know, it annoys you to no end, but every evangelical member of every religion that came before yours felt exactly the same way you do -- just something for you to look forward to. Which I find incredibly amusing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107072
Jan 11, 2013
 
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see Evolution has been occuring for billions of years and Christianity is a little over 2000 years old. I think you need to re-look at your data.
Now, if you were honest, you might have said that our understanding of how evolution works can be argued to be about 150 years old, but that wouldn't be accurate either. We have been using animal and plant breeding techniques for hundreds, even thousands of years. They worked in spite of our limited understanding of the mechanisms of how they worked.
If history is any guide one day Christianity will join many hundreds of other religions as footnotes in a history books. I know, it annoys you to no end, but every evangelical member of every religion that came before yours felt exactly the same way you do -- just something for you to look forward to. Which I find incredibly amusing.
Sorry, but one word bothers me ... "re-look." lol You mean "look again," not "in regards to looking." I don't know what that one word bothered me.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107073
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is veering to asides. I think ichy is a mammal and that is most likely. Are you a nut? I think Ichy being a reptile is MOST UNLIKELY for the reasons outlined many times.
Evo researchers say this is a reptile. Ichy is a plethora of different varieties of who knows what. Most are single fossils that say nothing.
Stephen Jay Gould expresses the wonder of it all:
"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing — the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor."
You escape artists.......
Evos publish and therefore believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about!
Gould aside, we do not know what animal returned to the water.
But given viviparity i was thinking of a certain shark that eats the eggs and others while in the 'womb'.
A whaleshark is also an odd one out.
Probably the difference is not just in the majority typical reptile form present but in the development of the typical mammalian womb and lactation.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107074
Jan 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least in this direction the posts are demonstrably valid.
LOL sure! DEMONstrably as in Lord of Lies.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107075
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Since this post all I see is evotard waffle and gibberish around why I am not responding to other strolls down the garden path. That is is course apart from the fact that every ridicule has already been spoken to.
If you evotards wanted to demonstrate your whale ancestry and I kept shoving abiogenesis up your butts then you would suggest I was an evading idiot. Likewise that is what you all look like to me. Pompous evading idiots and pretenders.
So Dan and Kong finally got their act together and now because I can challenge these so called reptilian traits all you evos have once again deteriorated into babbling evotards. I love it.
This is great to see and what I expected.
Cetacea is dated 245mya in ichthyosaurus and evos cannot sustainf these mythical reptilian traits. Michagan whale fossils were found in strata dated to 290myo that were contaminated and could not reliably be carbon dated.
The other fact that appears to be coming forth and being substatiated as we speak is my claim that evolutionists are clueless.
Maz, why do you keep trying to maintain the same fabrications, even when you have been PROVEN wrong? Repeating the same gibberish over and over because you are proud of your misconceptions is nothing to be proud of.
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107076
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound desperately confused! I can't even work out what you are talking about? Do you know? A blow hole is the signature of cetacea. I'd say that shared traits are a sign of the one designer particularly when evolutionists cannot get their fossil evidence for major morphological change to have some credibility.
Ichy is a mammal because it has the hallmark of cetacean mammals, a blow hole. That is accompanied by warm bloodedness and life birth and it looks like a dolphin. It does not have the hallmark of a reptile as stated because some Ichy varieties have a single fenetra found in cetacean mammals.
Now I have said that for about the 10th time. How about you take those evogoggles off and learn the art of reading and research and stop confusing yourself.
Are pandas bears?
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107077
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!
The tentative language of science should not be mistaken for the ridiculous being just as likely as the reasonable.
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107078
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is veering to asides. I think ichy is a mammal and that is most likely. Are you a nut? I think Ichy being a reptile is MOST UNLIKELY for the reasons outlined many times.
Evo researchers say this is a reptile. Ichy is a plethora of different varieties of who knows what. Most are single fossils that say nothing.
Stephen Jay Gould expresses the wonder of it all:
"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing — the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor."
You escape artists.......
Evos publish and therefore believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about!
Are pandas bears?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107079
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditto reply to Dan above.
The only extra thing I will add is Whales don’t have lips, so they can’t really suckle the milk. Instead it’s almost injected into the baby’s mouth.
Dan's said much the same thing with less words. But, yes, if I miss a considered post then do prompt me. After all there are so many silly replies that it is very easy to miss the ones that are appropriate.
Still I maintain that Ichthyosaurus is evidence in support of cetacea being here around 250mya, modern aves are dated to 212mya, evos evidence for cetacea is a mesrepresentation and creos predicted non coding dna would have function.
So you have heard how the fossil evidence aligns with my view in aves and cetacia. You know why I don't think evos have evidence. What are the facts?
The fact here is that cetacean traits have popped up 250 years ago according to current dating methods. Is that a fact we both agree on?
Which side of the debate does this FACT better align with? I say creationism because I do not need to speak to convergent evolution. For me these triats should have been around all the way back close to the Devonian.
How does this FACT align with evolutionism?
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107080
Jan 11, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are pandas bears?
Marsupials!

Please let me be correct, it would be so cool to remember such a small detail now.
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107081
Jan 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What?! No confirming data!?(Actually, no data at all). Why am I not surprised since you seem to thrive in a fairy tale world? Hmm, where have I seen that declaration before?
We've already demonstrated why such a flood with such a boat for such a time would not be survivable. Just tell us which species of pine trees can survive complete submersion beneath a mile of salt water. Or, how about just one. Can you name even one? Any evidence that at least supports survivability would be interesting. Empirical evidence of this alleged flood would be globally significant. Even you said that, based on the empirical evidence, this flood story is nothing more than just that.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 105,041 - 105,060 of133,967
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••