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

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

There are 142648 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#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

#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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107082 Jan 11, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are pandas bears?
Erm, I know! I know!

As much as koalas are - or bearcats (binturong)...
LowellGuy

United States

#107083 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You nailed it! Overwhelmingly most are not inclined to pay for what they don't want to know (2 Timothy 4:3,4; Matthew 7:13,14)
It's spelled "hear," not "know."

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#107084 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.
Obviuosly a blow hole is not the signature of Cetecea since reptiles had if first. You are giving far too much weight to it as a character, while limited in its presence to a small number of organisms, which is not unique to only one group. It is an aquatic adaptation to move the nostrils to the top of the head. Since both ichthyosaurs and cetaceans are marine animals it isn't surprising they possess similar features. You still can't get away from the reptilian ear. Even if some species may have had ears similar to cetaceans, and I don't know this to be true, that isn't strong evidence to move them across classes. Live birth as I stated is a character shared across numerous classes of vertebrates and addresses the adaptation ot a marine environment. Warm bloodness is another adaptation to cold that would have been encountered in marine environments. The ichtyosaur is a reptile that evolved to live in a marine environment. Whales and dolphins are mammals that evolved to live in a marine environment. It is not a shocking surprise that they would employee similar traits to achieve this.

It may be your best try yet, but it is not convincing evidence to move ichthyosaurs across classes to Mammalia and move whale evolution back 200 million years.

I agree, they had one designer for both these groups of organisms and that same designer for life over the entire earth. That designer is natural selection.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107085 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.
I'll give this to you, Maz: You certainly do have an extremely high opinion of yourself!

Ichthy's NOSTRILS (NOT "blowhole") were located between the eyes and base of the snout, not the top of the head.

Ichthy DOES have some features that they share with present-day Cetacea, but these characteristics are simply examples of covergent evolution.

Although Ichthy was viviporous, there are several other examples of reptile species that also have live birth, including several species of snakes, lizards and amphibians.

Yes, Ichthy was warm-blooded. So were dinosaurs.

Ichthy clearly had a diapsid skull, and Diapsids are reptiles.

It was also presented here (forgot the poster -- sorry) that Icthy had both reptilian ears and lower jaw features.

Ichthy was described as a reptile in "A History of British Fossils, Volume 2"

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/books/britfossils/p...

which was published in 1949, a full decade before Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", so there was no philosophical axe to grind in callng Ichthy a reptile rather than a mammal.

Your pronouncement that "Ichthyosaurs are Mammals!" is based upon your ignorance, nothing more. You are not a Paleontologist, and your opinion about this subject -- presumably among many other subjects -- is meaningless.

If you wish to have Ichthy reclassified, you're going to have to do much better than what you've presented here.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107086 Jan 11, 2013
WHOOPS!

"A History of British Fossils, Volume 2" was published in **1849**, not 1949,

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#107087 Jan 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give this to you, Maz: You certainly do have an extremely high opinion of yourself!
Ichthy's NOSTRILS (NOT "blowhole") were located between the eyes and base of the snout, not the top of the head.
Ichthy DOES have some features that they share with present-day Cetacea, but these characteristics are simply examples of covergent evolution.
Although Ichthy was viviporous, there are several other examples of reptile species that also have live birth, including several species of snakes, lizards and amphibians.
Yes, Ichthy was warm-blooded. So were dinosaurs.
Ichthy clearly had a diapsid skull, and Diapsids are reptiles.
It was also presented here (forgot the poster -- sorry) that Icthy had both reptilian ears and lower jaw features.
Ichthy was described as a reptile in "A History of British Fossils, Volume 2"
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/books/britfossils/p...
which was published in 1949, a full decade before Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", so there was no philosophical axe to grind in callng Ichthy a reptile rather than a mammal.
Your pronouncement that "Ichthyosaurs are Mammals!" is based upon your ignorance, nothing more. You are not a Paleontologist, and your opinion about this subject -- presumably among many other subjects -- is meaningless.
If you wish to have Ichthy reclassified, you're going to have to do much better than what you've presented here.
Nice work. You give an even better description of nostril placement in ichthyosaurs than I have. I just said on top of the head, but clearly it that is too braod a description and you have found what I couldn't. So they are just nostrils. I wondered. I have until now been left with Maz's contention to base my arguement around. So not a true blow hole in the sense of whales. More like crocodilian nostrils except at the base of the snout rather than the tip.

Well done.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107088 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You have your answer, Marky.
I most certainly do.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107089 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
God says your wrong:
Genesis 2:7
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..."
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.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107090 Jan 11, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you don't know but geologists do, 4.5 billion years.
No they don't, and you don't either. No one was there to witness it, or document it. All you have is a faith based belief based on a few of the mostly unknown peramiters.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107091 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiki: octalite. Cell walls have always been the issue. None disputes bio-chemical reactions being at the base of all life.
Then replicate it!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107092 Jan 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
His motivation was as you correctly state, personal recognition. He wanted fame for himself and glory for Great Britain. Evolution was the vehicle, not the destination.
Just as with you, being INCAPABLE of distinguishing the difference because your investment in promoting Creationism over scientific inquiry is personal, not selfless. It's all about the motivation. What is mine, you might ask? Entertainment.
He chose an evolutionary hoax because he knew, and it was obvious, they needed the help. Still do.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#107093 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
You prefer to be the mad woman jumping all over the place in a delusional state of confused evasion.
How can you not see yourself in this description?
MazHere wrote:
There is overwhelming evidence of cetacean traits, the best being a blow hole.
Ichthyosaurs didn't have a blowhole.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107094 Jan 11, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
And you don't know that the Earth is only 6000-10000 years old.
DUH! Dummy, I never said it was.
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
You weren't there to see your "god" magically poof the universe into existence.
I never said I was.
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is regurgitate the words and ideas of some bronze age, goat herders who wrote a FAIRY TALE some 2300+ years ago.
I rarely ever even mention creationism. I'm not here to promote creationism. I'm here showing the psuedoscience of the evolutionary fallasy.
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Me personally, and I imagine for the VAST majority of people on our planet,...<snip>
It doesn't matter what you think.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107095 Jan 11, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
You LIE about everything else. Chances are that this is just another one of your LIES.
It doesn't matter what you think.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107096 Jan 11, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman11 wrote:
HAHAHA...you don't even know emperically that the earth is a million years old. You weren't there to observe the origin of life, and all you do is spout what other have told you, that also weren't there and don't know.
You mean Creationists were there to witness the creation of Adam and Eve?
Did I say that? Do you know the difference between faith based beliefs, and your faith in science?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107097 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
We are mutating.
Nothing to do with the fall, but simple observable evolution.
So suddenly observation matters to an evolutionists???

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107098 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then replicate it!!
We can replicate life, we're looking for how it can happen without our intervention.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107099 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.[QUOTE]Christianity goes back to the very moment of creation. NOW....you relook!!![QUOTE who="TedHOhio"]<q uoted text> Which I find incredibly amusing.
No oNe cares how you feel.

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
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 9 min Chimney1 49
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 43 min Paul Porter1 171,927
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 3 hr GTID62 269
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr dirtclod 20,623
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) 14 hr Chimney1 248
evolution is correct. prove me wrong Fri Paul Porter1 9
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... Fri Paul Porter1 36
More from around the web