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

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

There are 143930 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.

KAB

United States

#107766 Jan 16, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you contend the same about the Yeti, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's? Because there are living witnesses they are not "imagined", just unverified by science?
Then you contend the same thing about the Holy Grail, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments? They have been sought for decades, centuries, millennia - and since they predate any living observer by at least 2,000 years, they are as mythical as Quetzalcoatl and Excalibur?
Living observers are not necessary, just demonstrated reliable sources. In this regard, I may be amiss in my assessment of the Okapi sightings, since I don't personally know the reliability of the observers.
Except for the Biblical references, the entities you mention are not attested by demonstrated reliable sources.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107767 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have told you before, Marksman, I do not "believe in" abiogenesis or any other scientific theory. Until you can understand this point, you will get nowhere.
THat is the weakest dodge i've seen. Ok, answer this, Do you accept abiogenesis? Word games, do you really have to resort to this? I told you your philosophy fails terribly. You just proved it by being forced to play a word game.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

No, you are the one dodging, by trying to paint everyone into a false dichotomy.
You seem to think there are only two possibilities. One "believes in something" or one rejects it.
That is not how it works.
Then present the 3rd option. Either GOD created life, or it was created by naturalistic means. That is exactly how it works, and if it doesn't then provide this observable 3rd. option. I BET YOU CAN"T!!! I love it when your painted into a corner with no escape except admitting your philosophy has failed you.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107768 Jan 16, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman11 wrote:
Piltdown man was taught in science text books for decades!!! A version of Ernst Haeckels infamous embryonic recapitulation pictures is still used in textbooks today as evidence for Darwinism, well over a century after it was shown to be a fraud by Haeckels peers. So please excuse our desperation. Unlike you guys, we want the kids taught truth. Not hoax's as truth.
Let me guess:
You read Icons of Evolution and believed everything it said.
You'd guess wrong. Never read it. Unlike you guys, I think for myself.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107769 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So you really want me to believe that humans evolved from non-humans, but you can't even tell be the difference between the two, nor when, how, or what caused it? You really want people to believe that?
Hhhhmmmm and your god picked up a hand of dust and created Adam and Lilith...... And you want people to believe that... LOL

Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107770 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You'd guess wrong. Never read it. Unlike you guys, I think for myself.
yaaaaaaa right.... you think for yourself yet base your life off a 2000 year old comic book

now that's good
KAB

United States

#107771 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Mazhere is.
Acc. to Maz it's all devolving and going extict or braindead.
Maz strives to be an example of proving that man is the intelligent pinnacle of creation and at the same time that braindeath is setting in.
Maz is in other words doing her stinkiest best to live up to the creationist paradigm.
Nothing in your characterization of Maz precludes the gradual accumulation of variations.

BTW, statistically, hasn't scientific experience been that most variations are detrimental?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#107772 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that presenting an alternative refutes nothing?
What if the alternative fits the facts and the statement or statements being refuted, do not. For example, jumping to a conclusion based on very little evidence.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107773 Jan 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Why KAB, the first that always comes to mind is the two different versions of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible immediately starts with these two similar but contradictory versions of creation and goes down hill from there. I discovered this independently when I was young and as I grew older discovered it was known for hundreds of years prior to my existence. Biblical scholars have shown even to the point of using specialized software that they are different and were written by different authors. Another is the population of Nod that Cain was able to marry into. Where did they come from? How about all the different stories of Christ's resurection. The cast of characters changes with each telling. I am sure you will provide answers, but I doubt they will be anything I have encountered or found to be wanting.
So, no I don't presently believe in a literal translation of the Bible and that is not a conclusion without proof.
Cain=spear cannot be Nod= aimlessly wandering, Nod said to be east of eden.( Aimlessly wandering is though that is what he is said to do) Habel has various meanings.
They are considered to be twins since no intermediate pregnancy is told about their births. It seems Seth (recall Osiris myth) seems to be an addition to not make all humans effectively be the offspring of Cain.
But again nothing should be taken literal, but it pays to look at various interpretations of the stories and what can be learned or extrapolated.

Though not on the tax-payers expenses and all those kids never learning that the bible should for the most part not be taken literal. Jewish kids are tought that for every story they must try and come up with as many different interpretation it could allow.
This is seen as the true wisdom.

Christians will simply say that they see jesus allavro...oh and evil and satan.
And that would be it.
It's so dull!

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107774 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
So you really want me to believe that humans evolved from non-humans, but you can't even tell be the difference between the two, nor when, how, or what caused it? You really want people to believe that?
That's a clever double bind.
If there isn't a smooth fossil succession, Creationists tell us that God created both species.
If there is a smooth fossil succession, Creationists demand a clear boundary.

Marksman, what time does day stop and night start?
At what age does a child change into an adult?
At how many degrees does the weather stop being cold and start being hot?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107775 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So you really want me to believe that humans evolved from non-humans, but you can't even tell be the difference between the two, nor when, how, or what caused it? You really want people to believe that?
Excuse me but weren't you also partaking in evolution v. creation were this was discussed extensively.

So going on and on, with some weird notion that everyone must have very short memories and be just as desinterested in what others write as you display, is counterproductive.

So no we do not have to ( i posted the relevant studies i think a bloody well 6 times!) keep on repeating ourselves or even try to correct all the vile misinterpretations you ascribe to others.
That is shaitanic i.e. backstabbing by publicly portraying people in a false light. Spreading malicious rumour.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#107776 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the subject areas you mention involve science. You can be sure they also include content which goes outside the bounds of true science. It's good that you are humble enough to acknowledge your weakness in the half-life realm. I encourage you to remember that things are not always what they seem. Unfortunately, not all "science" is true science, and I'm not referring only to fraud. Degrees of misuse and ignorance is a better characterization. Remember, scientists are actually just imperfect people too.
The book has not been shown to be inconsistent. If it has been, you will provide conclusive confirming data in response to this post, but you won't. Every document is subject to interpretation. That should not be confused with the notion that the interpretations are valid. That's where data prevails and saves the day once again. Interpretations can/should be tested to determine validity.
You're on your own with Maz, Markie, and the like. If the atmosphere becomes too non-conducive to progress, I will not remain.
I don't know what "true" science is I guess. Some sciences are more descriptive and others lend room for more experimentation. How would you do an experiment with plate tectonics for instance? Does being more descriptive in nature make a science not a "true" science? Classical taxonomy is highly descriptive. Are the contributions of taxonomy any less valuable especially in light of the keystone position taxonomy plays in biology?

A science like paleontology has actual evidence in the fossil record. It is broken because of the history of the earth, chemistry of fossilization, origin of the fossils, type of animal or plant and animal or palnt part, geography and so on. Is paleontology less of a science despite the fact that it can show a changing lineage of organisms from the prehistoric to the present based on those fossils, but they can't presently show certain events experimentally.

Based on past experience of your writing, I think that what you are calling "true" science is the science you accept that either fits your beliefs or has no negative impact on them. If it doesn't meet those criteria, then it is not "true" science. Science, fortunately doesn't care what you believe, or I believe or what a politician or preacher believes. The scientific method distills the toxin of belief out at as much as possible and the results are what they are. Interpretation, I agree, will vary, but there is self regulating mechanism to aid in dealing with that as well. It isn't perfect, but science has shown itself to be one of the best if not the best methods for describing the world around us. It is certainly less prone to the infection of bias, by its practitioners than religion has proven to be.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107777 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in your characterization of Maz precludes the gradual accumulation of variations.
BTW, statistically, hasn't scientific experience been that most variations are detrimental?
Maz does not do gradual, it's all or nothing and both at the same time. What ever fits the mood or idea du jour.

Well have they.
Some study thus put some manova or whatever tool on the subjective experience described by scientists, that variations are detrimental.
Wel KAB not that i'm aware of.

I was just pointing out that mazhere is not consistent, except in calling people names, that is.
So in her case a bit more variation would not be considered detrimental by the subjective experience of the scientist here.
You pick any statistical tool and start calculating.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#107778 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Cain=spear cannot be Nod= aimlessly wandering, Nod said to be east of eden.( Aimlessly wandering is though that is what he is said to do) Habel has various meanings.
They are considered to be twins since no intermediate pregnancy is told about their births. It seems Seth (recall Osiris myth) seems to be an addition to not make all humans effectively be the offspring of Cain.
But again nothing should be taken literal, but it pays to look at various interpretations of the stories and what can be learned or extrapolated.
Though not on the tax-payers expenses and all those kids never learning that the bible should for the most part not be taken literal. Jewish kids are tought that for every story they must try and come up with as many different interpretation it could allow.
This is seen as the true wisdom.
Christians will simply say that they see jesus allavro...oh and evil and satan.
And that would be it.
It's so dull!
I agree. I have done some further reading on the subject including explanations as to where the people that Cain joined, came from. It isn't satifactory, but it is interesting.

Yeah, they see more evil than good and spend far too much time worrying about what others are doing with their genitals. That seems to be the result of repression and maybe some mental illness.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#107779 Jan 16, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a clever double bind.
If there isn't a smooth fossil succession, Creationists tell us that God created both species.
If there is a smooth fossil succession, Creationists demand a clear boundary.
Marksman, what time does day stop and night start?
At what age does a child change into an adult?
At how many degrees does the weather stop being cold and start being hot?
Those are some great questions. I will have to remember this and what Chimney1 wrote in response as well.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107780 Jan 16, 2013
Double binds, emotional ones particularly, are nasty. It makes people feel powerless c.q. learned helplessness.
Often observed in abused people.

The way out is to have choice, freewill to decide and having something to decide.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107781 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, an assertion based on experience, personal as described, and observed. Besides, you described how your religious experience contributed to turning you against religion. If it was a "false religious" experience, such an outcome would hardly be unexpected.
Ah, "No True Scotsman." You're never one to pass up a chance to use poor reasoning and logical fallacies. Way to meet expectations, champ.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107782 Jan 16, 2013
To not entirely do dsicredit to KAB as if everything revolves around maz, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variatio...
neutral or detrimental but can later proof to have a beneficial effect.
In humans that is champion in doubling genes, by oncogenetic process steered by methylation, we find that on the whole such changes are neutral.
A propensity for neutrality.(studies somewhere on this board, probably in evo v crea. though i think i also posted it here.)
But that effect would also depend on hetero-or homozygotes. Some variations in the nuclei would be silent but the other part of the doubled gene, with overall the same function, continous the fuction.
Heterozygotism is usually percieved as having a better change against disease and parasites.
Usually more genetic variation i.e. mutation and less inbreeding guarantees a species to be more successful.
You could google : genetic variations detrimental.
And so make up your own mind and understand that it's not just superficial mazhere logic going : all mutations are bad.
There is a lot more to the issue.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107783 Jan 16, 2013
cont. for clarity. From an artivle on the Florida panther and declining population.

Over short time scales, genetic variation is important for a population's survival as well. For example, a genetically variable population is more resistant to pathogens and parasites. This occurs at two different levels. At an individual level, populations with high levels of genetic variation generally include many individuals who are heterozygous that is, they carry two different gene versions at important locations in the genome. Individuals with many heterozygous genes are less likely to be susceptible to diseases and parasites than are individuals with many genes that are homozygous (i.e., the individual carries two copies of the same gene version for a particular gene). That's because individuals that are heterozygous for genes involved in parasite and pathogen resistance have twice the chance of carrying the right gene version to resist the pathogen-of-the-day than do individuals homozygous for those genes. It's a bit like buying two tickets for a raffle instead of one. The more tickets you have, the more likely one of them will be a winner. The same reasoning applies at the population level. A genetically variable population is likely to include some individuals who happen to be genetically resistant to the disease or pest enabling the population to survive to the next generation, even if many individual animals die or become sick. For the Florida panthers, bringing in new blood increased heterozygosity, improving the health of individuals, and made the population less likely to be wiped out by a single disease or parasite.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107784 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You'd guess wrong. Never read it. Unlike you guys, I think for myself.
If you did, you'd not continue to use the same old canards and fallacies. So the next question is, why do you insist on lying?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107785 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Any publications are peer-reviewed. And even before publication the actual conclusions and method are discussed thoroughly, which makes some peolple miss dead-lines.
The scientific process of pree-viewed scrutiniy insures that mistakes will be picked up on.
If nothing was done wrong in the method employed during the excavation of a fossil and dting methods but some mistake creeped in later use of the statistical method, that will be picked up on.
Science is a selfcorrecting proces.
That is why we do not throw tantrums or throw all research out of the window.
And usually we have read what led up to the conclusion.
If we find no fold we can quote it without any qualms.
To scrutinize data you must first understand it KAB.
You are lacking in that department, nevermind how much data we've thrown your way.
Let's just see how it goes next time someone from your side provides some data. I realize I may have quite a long wait for that.

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) 6 min dirtclod 173,697
News Intelligent design 4 hr FREE SERVANT 23
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mon GreyGhost 178,696
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sun Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Sun Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Sun Paul Porter1 421
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Sun Paul Porter1 56
More from around the web