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

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

There are 154859 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#107145 Jan 12, 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.
Do you need everything in babytalk? You cited the wisent which several sources noted the detrimental effect of a very limited gene pool. Odd that you would cite something like that when it runs counter to your claim that Noah & Co has no such problem.

Regardless, you remain an arrogant ass.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107146 Jan 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Again I sugest that Kong is intentionally leading the forum astray.
Evos have many classifications that mean absolutely nothing. Ichy is one of them.
If that's how you feel, why the fuss to get Icthy reclassified as a mammal?

DER!
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a book where you can see the writer also argiung for the mammalian placental traits and single blow hole that Ichy displays, pg317. Blue whlaes have a double blow hole. The reason evos do not always call it a blowhole is obvious.
http://books.google.com.au/books...
You've gotta be kidding.*This*(above) is the best you can come up with?

(Review) "The Great Sea-Serpent, first published by A. C. Oudemans in 1892, is a foundational text in cryptozoology."

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Sea-Serpent-C-Oud...

CRYPTOZOOLOGY.

What's next? A treatise about jackalopes?

'Nuf said.

Checking your link to "The Great Sea Serpent", we find the following on pg 317:

"I would invite the intention of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited by the vertebrae .... ".

(and)

"...I would inquire whether these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptilian; and, again whether they are not rather marsupial than placential?"

A SINGLE discription. From a book about (snicker) "Cryptozoology".

You said there are 80 species of Ichthys. Find one with a picture of a blow-hole located at the top of the skull. A DRAWING even from a reputable website. I've looked, and cannot find one.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Yes some species of reptile have live births which further demonstrates these classifications you lot use are useless.
Well SURE....it's clearly not as good as the biblical "kind".[\SARCASM]
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>The jaw shows, they also most likely fed on fish, and a few of the larger species had heavy jaws and teeth that indicated they fed on smaller reptiles.
Yup. No argument there.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>If you think a dolphin head and beak looks like a reptile, all I can say is I do not argue with the insanely delusional.
Of course Ichthy looked like a dolphin...on the surface, anyway......a bit. Covergent Evolution.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>The same goes for the single fenestra which is a mammal trait found in whales, humans and Ichy, but not reptiles.
...four subclasses (of reptile) 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
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Warm bloodedness belongs to Ichy, man, whale and birds, not reptiles.
And Dinosaurs. Dont forget dinosaurs
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Ichy appears to be most likely a variety of cetacean and shares no more reptilian traits than cetacean today.
Then by all means submit a paper to Nature for its consideration, making sure to use as your reference "The Great Sea Serpent".

I'm sure those reviewing your work could use a chuckle.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107147 Jan 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Use whatever label you want. You described an intelligent process as analogous to purportedly mindless evolution. That, by definition constitutes irony. Also, design, by definition, involves intelligence. If you prefer to avoid those realities then provide an analogy which doesn't involve intelligence, and you'll be all set.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107148 Jan 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Did Mike F get your panties in a wad with a big old bowl full of reality? Good!
Are you the designated presumptuous fool proxy?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107149 Jan 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you need everything in babytalk? You cited the wisent which several sources noted the detrimental effect of a very limited gene pool. Odd that you would cite something like that when it runs counter to your claim that Noah & Co has no such problem.
Regardless, you remain an arrogant ass.
Let's see now. Did I claim no problems for Noah & Co, or did I claim survival? Perhaps you would like the opportunity to present the truth to the class.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#107150 Jan 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see now. Did I claim no problems for Noah & Co, or did I claim survival? Perhaps you would like the opportunity to present the truth to the class.
You did claim inbreeding would not be a problem for Noah et al.

No explanation to the class is necessary. They been here all along and know what a fraud you are.

Oh! And before I forget, what a total loon you are as well.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107151 Jan 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I is NOT a misunderstanding to state that research highlighted a DETERIORATING genome.
Now you can struggle, offer your apologies with 'likely', suggest I can't read English any better than you and still the results will say the same thing.
AND more importantly this data, without the hubris to explain it in evolutionary terms and turn evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery of liklihood , actually supports a creationist paradigm better than an evolutionary one. Would you guys not have loved for your research to demonstrate the genome was coping well in expelling deleterious mutations? Well it isn't Too bad for you evos, as usual.
The point is that you are stuck in the mud.
1.) according to my reading of the bible there was a fall.
Thus any deteriorating of anything, let alone a genome, nevermind the cause,...is thus proof. Any mutation or repair is automatically classed as fabulating. For that matter anything that does not fit your viewpoint.
2.)You keep introducing aunt sallies instead of developing an understanding of the actual process in it's full scope.

Therefore we consider your socalled creo-paradigm of no interest and credulity whatsoever. It's scientifically flawed and at base intellectually dishonest.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107152 Jan 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I is NOT a misunderstanding to state that research highlighted a DETERIORATING genome.[QUOTE]]

It is if you think that the research claims that any extent genomes are deteriorating. For example, I have seen articles of DNA deteriorating after an animal dies. I have not seen any articles that say current genomes are deteriorating.

Oh wait, Sanford. Yes, he made some ludicrous claims. There were debunked long ago and no one takes Sanford seriously today.

[QUOTE]Now you can struggle, offer your apologies with 'likely', suggest I can't read English any better than you and still the results will say the same thing.
Maz, the only struggle is to see how you misinterpreted an article that supports evolution. There is no struggle to show that you are wrong in all of your "arguments". And yes, the results of the many papers you quote do all say the same thing. That life evolved.
AND more importantly this data, without the hubris to explain it in evolutionary terms and turn evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery of liklihood , actually supports a creationist paradigm better than an evolutionary one. Would you guys not have loved for your research to demonstrate the genome was coping well in expelling deleterious mutations? Well it isn't Too bad for you evos, as usual.
You have still failed to bring up one case where the research supports creation. It would help you if you avoided false dichotomies. Remember, evidence against evolution, which you have yet to post, is still NOT necessarily evidence for creation, and usually it isn't.

That is a fact that bone headed creationists have a huge problem understanding.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107153 Jan 12, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Because you don't want too. One thing is for sure, your science is leading you to no answers.
You presume way too much. Then you make a flat out lie, typing on a machine brought to you by science, over a network system brought to you by science.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107154 Jan 12, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I posted the link twice. What do you want. It hand delivered?
Well, a link that leads to what you are actually talking about would suffice.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107155 Jan 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You did claim inbreeding would not be a problem for Noah et al.
No explanation to the class is necessary. They been here all along and know what a fraud you are.
Oh! And before I forget, what a total loon you are as well.
I see you've selected the confirmation-free dataless presumptuous fool option as expected.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107156 Jan 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Use whatever label you want. You described an intelligent process as analogous to purportedly mindless evolution. That, by definition constitutes irony. Also, design, by definition, involves intelligence. If you prefer to avoid those realities then provide an analogy which doesn't involve intelligence, and you'll be all set.
I made an analogy. It is a straw. I see you grasping for them all the time.

I don't feel the need to operate under any definition you or those like you dictate, I am just well aware of the mentality of those like you.

There is no irony in using a human example to explain a natural process. Since we are humans, it has become a conventional method of conveying information and offering new ways to think. It is because humans are fruitful in providing these types of analogies that some have been fooled into believing that they are meaningful evidence of supreme being or designer.

You are just pissed that you are so transparent and obsessive that I was able to predict in advance that you or another moron like you would jump when I used a simple tool. Isn't it interesting that I can use one simple tool, to get a response from another simple tool.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107157 Jan 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you the designated presumptuous fool proxy?
I suggest you contact Topix if you are looking for part time work. I don't know what designated presumptuous fool proxy pays, but I bet careful review of you CV and posts here will show you to be the best candidate for the job.

By all means add me as a reference. Happy to help.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107158 Jan 12, 2013
Does anyone think that creationist intentionally encourage the most ignorant, irrational and unstable of their flock to post on here just to stonewall arguments with repetitive nonsense?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107159 Jan 12, 2013
Who are you referring to?
If the Creationists on this thread are the "most ignorant, irrational, and unstable of their flock," they have close competition with other Creationists that I've seen.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107160 Jan 12, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Who are you referring to?
If the Creationists on this thread are the "most ignorant, irrational, and unstable of their flock," they have close competition with other Creationists that I've seen.
A difference that makes nae difference is nae difference at a'...

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107161 Jan 12, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Faith is believing in something without evidence and without ANY doubts or questions. What is there for atheists to doubt if we don't believe in a deity? First of all, you cannot say "..in FACT it takes more faith to not believe" because that is 100% opinionated. Second of all, I would like to address the difference between me and you. Atheists do NOT have faith because faith has no benefit for us. We base our philosophy on what we know and learn. We use evidence and knowledge to understand the universe: why would we turn to something else just because we don't know for certain how 'this' or 'that' happened? Science is constantly asking questions and putting theories to the test. When religious people don't have an answer, well they always do because god did it. Their lack of knowledge of the universe is ALWAYS backed up by god. Science's lack of knowledge of things AREN'T backed up by anything 100%. We have theories and commonly accept them, but not 100%. Do you see my point here? Science is the farthest thing from faith. Not believing in Hera and Zues would take the same amount of faith now wouldn't it?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107162 Jan 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's how you feel, why the fuss to get Icthy reclassified as a mammal?
DER!
<quoted text>
You've gotta be kidding.*This*(above) is the best you can come up with?
(Review) "The Great Sea-Serpent, first published by A. C. Oudemans in 1892, is a foundational text in cryptozoology."
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Sea-Serpent-C-Oud...
CRYPTOZOOLOGY.
What's next? A treatise about jackalopes?
'Nuf said.
Checking your link to "The Great Sea Serpent", we find the following on pg 317:
"I would invite the intention of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited by the vertebrae .... ".
(and)
"...I would inquire whether these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptilian; and, again whether they are not rather marsupial than placential?"
A SINGLE discription. From a book about (snicker) "Cryptozoology".
You said there are 80 species of Ichthys. Find one with a picture of a blow-hole located at the top of the skull. A DRAWING even from a reputable website. I've looked, and cannot find one.
<quoted text>
Well SURE....it's clearly not as good as the biblical "kind".[\SARCASM]
<quoted text>
Yup. No argument there.
<quoted text>
Of course Ichthy looked like a dolphin...on the surface, anyway......a bit. Covergent Evolution.
<quoted text>
...four subclasses (of reptile) 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
<quoted text>
And Dinosaurs. Dont forget dinosaurs
<quoted text>
Then by all means submit a paper to Nature for its consideration, making sure to use as your reference "The Great Sea Serpent".
I'm sure those reviewing your work could use a chuckle.
Maz is a real study in mental instability.

I wonder how Maz will deal with the fact that Dolphins, like most mammals, have wide tails that move up-and-down. Ichthyosaurs, like fish and reptiles, have tall tails that move side-to-side. Seems like a critical difference she will have to build a serious lie to get around.

Is it your serve or Subduction Zone's. Maz will let me know by who she answers next.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107163 Jan 12, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Who are you referring to?
If the Creationists on this thread are the "most ignorant, irrational, and unstable of their flock," they have close competition with other Creationists that I've seen.
I was thinking of KAB, Maz, marksman, and some of the more frequent flyers. It is as much a question about the frustation of seeing them provided with solid data and either ignoring it or mangling it with near insane misinterpretation.

I have met some that were rational people and didn't try to turn the Bible into a science textbook. They do't have to lie or creatively alter facts so they are made to fit their personal views either. They weren't fundamentalists.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107164 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Now explain to me why Ichthyosaurus is classified as a reptile. If you can't then you can take a ticket and stand at the end of the line of loosers that like to think they talk science but actually talk twoddle.
For the fourth, or is it the fifth, time:

Ichthys do not have the single jawbone and 3-boned middle ear characteristic of mammals and deriving from transitions seen in the Therapsid forebears of mammals.

Whales do.

This is a highly derived and peculiar feature of mammals and exceedingly unlikely to have evolved twice, independently, as would be required of whales were in fact descended from Ichthys and not from other mammals.

We have a very good set of transitions from land based mammals to modern whales with Ambulocetus etc.

Other features lacking in Ichthys are mammalian dentition, a blow hole, and they have a vertical tail. We also have good antecedent fossils for early and pre-Ichthys showing they came from the Archosaur line, not the Therapsid line.

So apart from a superficial resemblance to some whales (and to some Tuna for that matter), we know they were neither fish nor mammals but reptiles.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 22 min River Tam 23,590
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Aura Mytha 216,930
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr One way or another 179,748
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 4 hr GoTrump 1,050
Evolution in action (May '16) Dec 7 Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web