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

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

There are 162036 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108939 Jan 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet it did, how about that.
Wouldn't you be happy if there were scientific evidence to back it? Sorry for you!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108940 Jan 25, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>]

Hard to tell. That's why I asked.
No, that is not what it said.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108941 Jan 25, 2013
Marky, where was you refutation that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens could not interbreed? I must have missed that.

But then of course you have never refuted anything at any time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108942 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, that is not what it said.
What did you mean to say about molecules? You know that if it is read as you wrote it it is clear that you were wrong. You have to remember that words have specific meanings.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#108943 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong and that is irrelevant. I asked you for this observable proof of human from non-human evolution, not the origin of life. <quoted text>WHAT????? You just posted …( i will edit for clarity)
"We can follow humans (Homo-sapiens) back through a line of different ‘Homo’ species for many tens of thousands of years. These are:,...<edit>...Homo-ne anderthalensis,..<edit>. . etc.
We humans are the last of the ‘Homo’ line."
So "homo"'s are human and we are the last of this "human" line.....
But then you totally contradict yourself by saying.....
"DNA tells us that the ancient Neanderthals were not human"
But more than that, your information is wrong.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
"On 16 November 2006, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory issued a press release suggesting Neanderthals and ancient humans probably did not interbreed.[64] Edward M. Rubin, director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), sequenced a fraction (0.00002) of genomic nuclear DNA (nDNA) from a 38,000-year-old Vindia Neanderthal femur..... Rubin said, "While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level."[65]
Also note your flaw in saying that neanderthals are not human is refuted by.....
"between the two species of humans did not occur,"
Thus they are both human.
<quoted text>%99.5<quoted text>Just refuted.<quoted text>Sorry, but it isn't!
Well everyone keeps saying you can't trust Wikipedia. Try the link below.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/...

Your data also seems to be out of date (2006) It was in 2010 that Svante Paabo, director department of genetics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology announced that they had
sequenced the human and Neanderthal genomes and found that we humans carry a small percentage (1 to 4 percent) of Neanderthal genes. This is accepted in the science community...check around

That we modern humans carry those genes today is proof of the ancient matings AND proof that the mating produced fertile offspring. This indicates that we are in the same line as other extinct 'Homo' species.

However, and we knew this before, human and Neanderthal DNA does not match enough to classify them as 'human'

I wasn't trying to confuse you, but it is true that we are in the same line as the great apes. We are of the 'Homo' genus just as Neanderthals were, and the genetic connection has been made to the rather long line of predecessors.

500,000 years ago some of those predecessors were living in caves in China (and other places of course) AND making tools and probably fire.

I don't know how you're going to get around it. Before all we had was the skeletons, then along came DNA and told the same story. Everything is converging.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#108944 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Wouldn't you be happy if there were scientific evidence to back it? Sorry for you!!
We DO have the evidence my friend. Just admit it....you lost.

And its not only that, there are many many more things that are proven wrong in your position.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#108945 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then they shouldn't be to hard to refute because I usually give good reason as to why i believe the way I do. Yet you don't.
"Faith" is never a GOOD reason to believe anything.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108946 Jan 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well everyone keeps saying you can't trust Wikipedia. Try the link below.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/...
Your data also seems to be out of date (2006) It was in 2010 that Svante Paabo, director department of genetics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology announced that they had
sequenced the human and Neanderthal genomes and found that we humans carry a small percentage (1 to 4 percent) of Neanderthal genes. This is accepted in the science community...check around
That we modern humans carry those genes today is proof of the ancient matings AND proof that the mating produced fertile offspring. This indicates that we are in the same line as other extinct 'Homo' species.
However, and we knew this before, human and Neanderthal DNA does not match enough to classify them as 'human'
I wasn't trying to confuse you, but it is true that we are in the same line as the great apes. We are of the 'Homo' genus just as Neanderthals were, and the genetic connection has been made to the rather long line of predecessors.
500,000 years ago some of those predecessors were living in caves in China (and other places of course) AND making tools and probably fire.
I don't know how you're going to get around it. Before all we had was the skeletons, then along came DNA and told the same story. Everything is converging.
1....I don't think anyone can say with any certainty what happed 500,000 years ago. Heck, we don't even know who built the Great Pyramid about 5 thousand years ago, and there is some doubt one who killed JFK just 60 years ago. I ain't buying it.2....You guys like to say we and apes had a common ancester because our DNA is like 99.5 percent identical, but Neanderthal is not human although his DNA is 99.5% the same as ours, and he is on our limb of the tree.If that is the case the 99.5 percent DNA matches show nothing of heredity.3....you guys have yet to tell me what evolved to make a non-human into a human. Was it the JAW? is it the brain size? What happened that says that this non-human evolved into humans? What's the difference???
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108947 Jan 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Marky, where was you refutation that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens could not interbreed? I must have missed that.
But then of course you have never refuted anything at any time.
It's called scrolling a page or two. Apply a little effort. It works for some folks!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108948 Jan 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
We DO have the evidence my friend. Just admit it....you lost.
And its not only that, there are many many more things that are proven wrong in your position.
Rest well in your padded cell my friend.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108949 Jan 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What did you mean to say about molecules? You know that if it is read as you wrote it it is clear that you were wrong. You have to remember that words have specific meanings.
What part of "NO" molecules are not alive don't you understand?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108950 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What part of "NO" molecules are not alive don't you understand?
Like I said, what you said was wrong. Now we know you know nothing of chemistry. You at best have a high school level of knowledge of the science.

Seeing that you failed at chemistry I am very sure you failed at showing that Neanderthal did not interbreed with Homo sapiens.

When you want to learn a bit drop me a line.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108951 Jan 26, 2013
Marky, if you don't like my explanation of why men have boobies, what's your explanation?
Did our Intelligent Designer endow the entire mammal class with an organ which only half of us will ever use?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108952 Jan 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you notice that "create" and "made" are different words? Why is that do you think?
The difference between the words "bere" and "asah" is apparently negligible, since they are interchangeable in 2:4 of Bereshit.

Why didn't you provide that data, KAB?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108953 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
What part of "NO" molecules are not alive don't you understand?
...but no life without molecules. Right?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108954 Jan 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
AAwwww, you spoil all my fun.
Nope...the Bible is obviously wrong
That's 1 for the good guys..:-)
Well it's all latin and greek churchfather indoctrination to me.
There is no HE-GOD doing any creating.
If you would read bereshyt (Ba-ra- and reshyt containing by means of rank, forming/containing=bara, the judges=elohyim,{all} heaven and earth. Nu duality, just a statement that all thats known is as one.) as 'Bere Sit' it would state that Elohiym (plural and by the luck or unluck of the draw male)'contained six'. Forming/containing heaven and earth. They judges it all and as gods(esses) naturespirits and planets formed all mankind knew and had awarded powers too. Usually the same powers, though the name could differ. Therefore Be whatever shall be or YHWH is a rather smart move, since people understood their local spirit/god etc. to have those powers anyway.

Which takes us straight back to the older mythical text that relates to MaRDuK showing the old gods/planets/judges in disarray their place and himself, in so doing, becoming the new headhoncho.

But for the pesky creationist discussion:
When a day is numbered (so apart from grammar and the dead give away morning and evening) so yom aleph(=1) it means a 24 hour day.
In other cases the term (a.o.) olam is used.

--A pertinent thought, cropped up reading all those selfrighteous posts---
The Torah characterizes a person as a sinner against his soul when he denies himself wine in pursuit of a spiritual level that is beyond his grasp.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108955 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>A day is the length of time it takes the earth to rotate one complete cycle. It has nothing to do with daylight and dark, and the sun has of yet to be created. It is daylight 23 hours a day in some locations. Your ignorance stems from your arrogance of fabricating a mythical scenario as if your conclusion is true just because YOU PRESENTED it. Your conclusions are not my authority, nor is my faith based on your flawed conclusions!
LOL! Mythical scenario? Ignorance and arrogance? You support that the Earth was created before Sol was! 23 hour days? Was the Torah written in Moses' Fortress of Solitude or by elves in his workshop??

A mythical scenario? I did not write this:
"3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

How by God or the Heavens do you construe that MY conclusions are flawed when you are contending that a "day" in the Torah could have meant a period of light north of the Arctic Circle?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108956 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Then they shouldn't be to hard to refute because I usually give good reason as to why i believe the way I do. Yet you don't.
You crow continually that your opinions concerning your God are based on Faith (belief without evidence). There is no reason to try to refute (or even describe) things which live only in your imagination.

You claim that the things you imagine manifest themselves in reality, but never in a way that is unambiguous enough to examine.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108957 Jan 26, 2013
See also wiki Akitu
or sumerian myths, where we also find the flood story.
http://www.bandoli.no/sumerianlegacy.htm

Elohyim is also used as judges, further on, simply meaning people with that function.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108958 Jan 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between the words "bere" and "asah" is apparently negligible, since they are interchangeable in 2:4 of Bereshit.
Why didn't you provide that data, KAB?
`asah, "do" or "make";[7] or "completely developed", from Hebrew:`assu.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min IB DaMann 75,173
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 2 hr Endofdays 517
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Eagle 12 - 169
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 3 hr Science 140
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 5 hr Science 265
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Nemesis 32,051
Evidence that no god exists 6 hr Nemesis 7
More from around the web