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 ... Full Story
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108925 Jan 25, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I wrote:
Marky, did Madrone really make all those statements?
Or is that merely the latest production from your straw man factory?
marksman11 wrote:
Why don't you ask him?
Because you're putting those words in Madrone's mouth, that's why.
You have accused me of putting words in your mouth,
now let's be consistent.
What is up with you? Do you live in a fantasy world or something? I've never accused you of putting words in my mouth. I accused you of misquoting me. Why don't you just hit "reply" to the post you are addressing, and what you are responding too is right there. Where you got that stuff you claimed I said, I'll never know. Besides I already replied to this.....I think? I did a lot of posting tonight.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108926 Jan 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
And what dishonest, wishful, fantasy was that my friend?
If you can't remember your own words that were right there with the post you are replying too.......<shakes head> never mind. You said you had proof of human from non-human evolution. I asked you for this observable evidence and you posted this BS because you know you can't.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108927 Jan 25, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Molecules never contain Carbon or Hydrogen?
Is that what it said?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108928 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
as if you have a grasp on reality, and know the answers to all of lifes mysteries!!
Having a grasp on reality tells me I DON'T know the answers to all of life's mysteries. Not surprising that you can't understand that.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108929 Jan 25, 2013
Now to answer marksman’s questions:
<<<Do you accept a biogenesis event?>>>
We discussed this only a few days ago.
I stated that I didn’t know how life started, I didn’t care, and that the question had nothing to do with the subject of evolution of humans from non-humans.
You replied with an out-of-context quotation from Eugenie Scott.
Have you forgotten this already?
<<<Do you accept that humans evolved from non-humans?>>>
No, I’m on this board masquerading as an Evolutionist just to fool people.
<<<Do you accept that the two genders evolved simultaneously?>>>
We went around on this before, too.
I replied with #105988 on page 5202.
<<<Do you accept that there is no GOD?>>>
We went around on this before, three.
I said I didn’t know whether there was a god or not, since there is no evidence either way.
You accused me of lacking a vertebrae, lacking gonads, and lacking goodness knows what else.
Does everything you’re told go in one ear and out the other?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108930 Jan 25, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Having a grasp on reality tells me I DON'T know the answers to all of life's mysteries. Not surprising that you can't understand that.
Then why dishonestly reply as if you do?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108931 Jan 25, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I replied with #105988 on page 5202.
You made no post on page 5202.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#108932 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't remember your own words that were right there with the post you are replying too.......<shakes head> never mind. You said you had proof of human from non-human evolution. I asked you for this observable evidence and you posted this BS because you know you can't.
To the contrary my friend.

Evolution has nothing to say about the *beginning* of life. It only kicks in after life is already cooking. We can follow humans (Homo-sapiens) back through a line of different ‘Homo’ species for many tens of thousands of years. These are: Homo-erectus, Homo-neanderthalensis, Homo-habilis, Homo-heidelbergensis, Homo-ergaster, etc.

We humans are the last of the ‘Homo’ line. DNA has proven that humans and Neanderthals mated and produce fertile offspring more than 30,000 years ago and as a consequence most all non-sub Saharan humans on earth today carry some Neanderthal genes/blood in them.

DNA tells us that the ancient Neanderthals were not human…their DNA does not match ours close enough. Yet we were able to mate with them and produce fertile children. Ask a biologists or DNA scientist; that is a humongous thing…it ties together things that paleoanthropologists and archaeologists have been telling the scientific community for decades.

We ARE related to the great ape family and we evolved from non-human ancestors

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/...

Accept it or not, I don't care, but it's the way things are going now.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108933 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You made no post on page 5202.
I finally found your post on page 5201, and creation is a much better explanation than that fantasy you presented, and creation is no less magical that what you posted!!!There is no way evolution can do the unobserved biological gymnastics you infered.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108934 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
"no. molecules are inorganic, meaning that they make up nonliving matter. They are not considered organic, or living, because all living matter contains both carbon and hydrogen."
]
MADRONE wrote:
Molecules never contain Carbon or Hydrogen?
marksman11 wrote:
Is that what it said?
Hard to tell. That's why I asked.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#108935 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I finally found your post on page 5201, and creation is a much better explanation than that fantasy you presented, and creation is no less magical that what you posted!!!There is no way evolution can do the unobserved biological gymnastics you infered.
Yet it did, how about that.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108936 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Then why dishonestly reply as if you do?
No dishonesty involved. I just think that some of the things you believe are based only on your delusion.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108937 Jan 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
To the contrary my friend.
Evolution has nothing to say about the *beginning* of life. It only kicks in after life is already cooking.
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.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>We can follow humans (Homo-sapiens) back through a line of different ‘Homo’ species for many tens of thousands of years. These are: Homo-erectus, Homo-neanderthalensis, Homo-habilis, Homo-heidelbergensis, Homo-ergaster, etc.
We humans are the last of the ‘Homo’ line. DNA has proven that humans and Neanderthals mated and produce fertile offspring more than 30,000 years ago and as a consequence most all non-sub Saharan humans on earth today carry some Neanderthal genes/blood in them.
DNA tells us that the ancient Neanderthals were not human
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.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
their DNA does not match ours close enough.
%99.5
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Yet we were able to mate with them and produce fertile children.
Just refuted.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Accept it or not, I don't care, but it's the way things are going now.
Sorry, but it isn't!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108938 Jan 25, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
No dishonesty involved. I just think that some of the things you believe are based only on your delusion.
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.
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

Tempe, AZ.

#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

Tempe, AZ.

#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.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Wolftracks 134,844
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 12 min Gillette 1,001
How would creationists explain... 4 hr Chimney1 451
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Chimney1 13,644
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 21 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 21 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) Sun spiderlover 77
More from around the web