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

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 ... Read more

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107125 Jan 12, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I think the word you are searching for is "Pistis". And I don't get him as creator from the hebrew. I get it from the greek in John 1.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107126 Jan 12, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that every time we look closer, we still never see any gods?
Because you don't want too. One thing is for sure, your science is leading you to no answers.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107127 Jan 12, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>He chose an evolutionary hoax because he knew, and it was obvious, they needed the help. Still do.
Gawd you are dense. Are people like you and the Maz as a Hatter intrinsically incapable of self honesty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/328...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107128 Jan 12, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Did I say that? Do you know the difference between faith based beliefs, and your faith in science?
Yes, it would be obvious to anyone whose brain is not handicapped by being hardwired with a propensity toward religion. Unfortunately, the devout cannot seem to help but project their own proclivity toward irrational faith onto others' motivations, emotions and processes.
I'm truly sorry, apparently that's just the way God made you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107129 Jan 12, 2013
MAAT wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I chthyosaur
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.)
Re Ichy...Wiki speaks to what I have refuted. I have read Wiki and it adds nothing in refute. Ichthyosaurus is no more reptilian than cetacean.

It all has something to do with whale ancestry because Ichy is a cetacean and the data appears to support me.

From a side view of the skull, mammals (humans and whales) possess one temporal fenestra — a single opening below and behind the eye socket. Ichthyosaurus also has one temporal fenestra, IF the reconstruction has merit. What is observed without guesswork, is that reptiles have 2 fenestra on each side and mammals have one, which is a FACT.

Ichy is classed as 'warm blooded' by whatever means evos wish to use be it flawed or not. The point being reptiles are cold blooded and mammals are warm blooded and we know that for a FACT as well.

Much the same goes for all these so called reptilian traits. Now instead of making me chase my tail requoting post information you go find that post and stop evading.

I say the fossil evidence and facts better aligns with creationism eg Aves and Cetacea, and gets evolutionists using their imaginations and story telling ability eg. whale evolution, reptilian mammals.

Cont'd next post...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107130 Jan 12, 2013
Re the deteriorating genome.....

What defence was that you say the research spoke to in that deteriorating genome research? I saw no DEFENCE. What I saw and all that was stated was a hopeful handwave around a 'likely' bottleneck that said nothing about any defence system.

We all know the body has a defence system. The obvious is if deleterious mutations are accumulating then any 'system' is obviously not working very well these days.

You see what you evolutionists are not good at is separating data from its interpretation. Data can also be flawed as I have posted research to.

Now.....The research is one of a plethora that states in the first instance, without any quackery having started yet, that the genome is DETERIORATING. In this case it was due to the increase in the accumulation of deleterious mutations.

Are you with me so far? If not go back and read the above until you are.

Then comes the interpretation of that data, be the data flawed or not.

We have different interpretations of the same data.

Your well credentialled researchers actually had nothing to say except they think it was a bottleneck that caused this accumulation and the resulting drop in natural selections ability to deal with deleterious mutations.

I think the deteriorating genome is a result of a perfect genome showing signs of the fall and mankinds inability to live eternal lives, like I'd expect any good God to have a go at doing. Such research also beggs the ability of the genome to have survived at all for billions of years if the FACTS mean anything at all to evolutionists.

The result of accumulating beneficial mutations and epistasis is also overwhelmingly negative. That is the initial data before any interpretations ensue. Do you know this? OR do I need to post the links.

So even though many do not like a creationist or biblical paradigm, even theist evolutionists could see this as evidence of the 'fall'.

The FACTS are there is much evidence that the genome is deteriorating and that fact aligns better with a creo paradigm than evolution.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107131 Jan 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Gawd you are dense. Are people like you and the Maz as a Hatter intrinsically incapable of self honesty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/328...
I'd say mad hatters look more like thoses that make many hero posts of self gratification but can't stay on topic and go forward. Many like you fall apart, change topic like lunatics, and then devolve into babbling idiots. eg, the evodribble above.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107132 Jan 12, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So suddenly observation matters to an evolutionists???
Not yet that I know of!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107133 Jan 12, 2013
Maz, Re the deteriorating genome:

Did you post anything besides already debunked articles? Articles that have been debunked many times tend to be "hand waved" into away since the work was already done and no one is anxious to repeat that work for the twentieth or thirtieth time.

I know that you are guilty of repeating arguments of yours that have been totally debunked. You probably cited an author who did not know what he was writing about.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107134 Jan 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Re Ichy...Wiki speaks to what I have refuted. I have read Wiki and it adds nothing in refute. Ichthyosaurus is no more reptilian than cetacean.
It all has something to do with whale ancestry because Ichy is a cetacean and the data appears to support me.
Uh.....no. Actually it does not.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>From a side view of the skull, mammals (humans and whales) possess one temporal fenestra — a single opening below and behind the eye socket. Ichthyosaurus also has one temporal fenestra, IF the reconstruction has merit. What is observed without guesswork, is that reptiles have 2 fenestra on each side and mammals have one, which is a FACT.
...four subclasses were:
1 ~ Anapsida – no fenestrae – cotylosaurs and Chelonia (turtles and relatives)
2 ~ Synapsida – one low fenestra – pelycosaurs and therapsids (the 'mammal-like reptiles')
3 ~ Euryapsida – one high fenestra (above the postorbital and squamosal)– protorosaurs (small, early lizard-like reptiles) and the marine sauropterygians and ichthyosaurs, the latter called Parapsida in Osborn's work.
4 ~ Diapsida – two fenestrae – most reptiles, including lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and pterosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile

Perhaps Ichthy later in its EVOLUTION developed one fenestrae....

"New Mixosaurid Ichthyosaur Specimen from the Middle Triassic of SW China: Further Evidence for the Diapsid Origin of Ichthyosaurs" (Diapsid meaning 2 fenestrae).

http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/content...
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Ichy is classed as 'warm blooded' by whatever means evos wish to use be it flawed or not. The point being reptiles are cold blooded and mammals are warm blooded and we know that for a FACT as well.
Dinosaurs were also warm blooded. THAT is a fact also.

"Dinosaurs Were Warm-Blooded Reptiles: Mammal Bone Study Sheds Light On Dinosaur Physiology" June 28, 2012

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/...
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Much the same goes for all these so called reptilian traits. Now instead of making me chase my tail requoting post information you go find that post and stop evading.

I say the fossil evidence and facts better aligns with creationism eg Aves and Cetacea, and gets evolutionists using their imaginations and story telling ability eg. whale evolution, reptilian mammals.
As I said earlier, you certainly do have a high opinion of yourself! You seem to think that you make a couple of simple observations, then make a pronouncement, and the entire field of paleontology for the past couple of hundred years is supposed to roll over.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107135 Jan 12, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I think the word you are searching for is "Pistis". And I don't get him as creator from the hebrew. I get it from the greek in John 1.
I'm not interested in the theology as found in John , nor in the gnostic 2nd c. text or roman/greek pistis:
This article is about the personification in Classical Greek mythology. For the Gnostic deity, see Pistis Sophia.
In Greek mythology, Pistis (&#928;&#943;&#963 ;&#964;&#953;&#962 ;) was the personification of good faith, trust and reliability. She is mentioned together with such other personifications as Elpis (Hope), Sophrosyne (Prudence), and the Charites, who were all associated with honesty and harmony among people.[1]

Her Roman equivalent was Fides, a personified concept significant in Roman culture.

Faith in judaism is simply people, land , god and the land holds the spirit of all those gone before.
There is no split between good and evil as we see in zarathustrian ideas that found their way in modern religion, nor is there heaven or hell.

If you have pistis in mind, however interesting as christian concept that is just your idea.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107136 Jan 12, 2013
MazHere, see pg 5256
The only suggestion i will make is to read DFS and Kong again.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Concise and compelling, and not negated sofar by any iterated arguement you have put forward.
And it does indeed get a bit tiresome to read reems of the same old same.

The genome and everything concerned is a lot more complicated than you make it appear. By now we must have lost our appendages and be all braindead given your arguement and the time passed sofar.
Mind a day in gengesis is just a day, grammatically and contextual. it was written to keep believers observant to the sabbath. placed first since to the priests this matters.
We find several other contradicting version further on in the book.
So it's not a law of Medes and Persians.
We just play make believe in order to have this discussion.
The fall is an allegory, and at that a retellig of a story in the region...it did not really happen!.

This discussion should come with some warning like the put on television shows.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107137 Jan 12, 2013
Deteriation of DNA (nuclear Y or mitDNA that can also repair) i consider only when it comes to old material. e.g.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
The possibility of making new combinations is about 10^86 which are more options than atoms in the universe. So no worries here.

Markman... celluli e celluli is an allusion to the Kenneth Miller book. a.o.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107138 Jan 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, Re the deteriorating genome:
Did you post anything besides already debunked articles? Articles that have been debunked many times tend to be "hand waved" into away since the work was already done and no one is anxious to repeat that work for the twentieth or thirtieth time.
I know that you are guilty of repeating arguments of yours that have been totally debunked. You probably cited an author who did not know what he was writing about.
So you reckon you have falsified your evolutionists and their work on the deteriorating genome do you?

I repeatedly post such articles because you are too ignorant to understand the difference between data and interpretation, but hthat does not surprize me.

I will await your published paper that demonstates evolutionary researchers are idiots. I have already provided many.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107139 Jan 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you reckon you have falsified your evolutionists and their work on the deteriorating genome do you?
I repeatedly post such articles because you are too ignorant to understand the difference between data and interpretation, but hthat does not surprize me.
I will await your published paper that demonstates evolutionary researchers are idiots. I have already provided many.
No, we have falsified your misunderstanding of it. There was no evolutionist claim of a deteriorating genome. You have a tendency to read articles and misinterpreting them. Take the article that you thought debunked the population bottleneck and yet did nothing of the sort.

And no, you repeatedly post articles that you do not understand. Answers may be slow in coming because it takes us a while to understand where the hell your deranged brain went off the track.

Lastly, you have not posted one article that shows that researchers are idiots. You have shown yourself to be one many times over.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107140 Jan 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Gawd you are dense. Are people like you and the Maz as a Hatter intrinsically incapable of self honesty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/328...
From your very own link!
"Charles Dawson gave British palaeontology what it had craved for so long: A British ancestor; a missing link from the home counties."
Like I said, he gave them what they didn't have, but really wanted.
"CRACK!!! IT'S OUTTA HERE!!!"
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107141 Jan 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it would be obvious to anyone whose brain is not handicapped by being hardwired with a propensity toward religion. Unfortunately, the devout cannot seem to help but project their own proclivity toward irrational faith onto others' motivations, emotions and processes.
I'm truly sorry, apparently that's just the way God made you.
Yo just wish you were faithless. You're not even close, in fact it takes more faith to believe that random, without aim or method, haphazard processes produced the most complex living thing in the known universe, than to accept creationism. I don't have enough faith to believe what you believe.

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) 3 min Chimney1 154,473
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr MikeF 880
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr Dogen 178,064
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Patrick n Angela 17,896
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 20 hr Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Thu MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Wed Paul Porter1 1
More from around the web