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

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

There are 141397 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109339 Jan 29, 2013
QUOTE who="Chimney1"
And that is why natural selection.

I actually intend a reply to markman II
Really fatal flaws are not viable. Inbreeding, severely reduced population in the sense of limited gene-diversity.
Usually environmental impact.
But i thought we allready made it clear that the net effect is neutral to beneficial, given the double copying process.
And at that there is always still the need for a methylation switch.
You must be familiar with the term 'carrier'.
At least you are now using the term severely complex, instead of irreducible. So i have faith, you'll get there.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109340 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You believe that, but as for me, I'll believe....
Psalms 118
8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.
|-0 As if you would even have a clue as to what lord!
You use a mismatched non-sensical translation that if filled with christian ideological crap to sell jesus.

And we are having this stupid off-topic conversation precisely because of the interpretation christians have.

So we should be discussing ancient darwinism versus modern ideas, or stick to some mutually agreed upon yardstick.
That probably arose because creationist are too clueless to talk and understand the differences. Nor are they up to scratch with the developments.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109341 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
QUOTE who="Chimney1"
And that is why natural selection.
I actually intend a reply to markman II
Really fatal flaws are not viable. Inbreeding, severely reduced population in the sense of limited gene-diversity.
Usually environmental impact.
But i thought we allready made it clear that the net effect is neutral to beneficial, given the double copying process.
And at that there is always still the need for a methylation switch.
You must be familiar with the term 'carrier'.
At least you are now using the term severely complex, instead of irreducible. So i have faith, you'll get there.
Are you responding to me or to Marksman?

Get where?

IC is flawed even in principle. Unless you can identify all the possible pathways to a given complex structure,(which you could never do), there is no way to prove that something is irreducibly complex. IC advocates reverse the reality, demanding that evolutionists supply every possible step in every single structure they can find in nature before they will accept irreducible complexity is an assumption, not an argument. Then when the steps are supplied, they just move onto the next one. "Oh yeah, then what about whales' balls?" Blah blah.

They ignore the fact that once a few of their shibboleths have been knocked down, the principle should become clear. But sadly, it does not. Once the development of the 3-boned middle ear was shown to have emerged, step by step, in mammal-like reptiles, you would think that critics would get the point regarding both IC and "macroevolution". But they don't.

Furthermore IC advocates make the universal mistake of assuming the functionality observed today was always the "goal" of the structure or parts of the structure, ignoring the fact that components may have had entirely different functions.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109342 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Heartfelt!
Therefore I try to liven things up, explore the rims.
Yesterday i also had this same feeling, especially with a bunch of morons just shouting abuse and deflecting.
But we kind of discussed that in creation versus evolution:
it used to be them asking and stating wrong assertion on evolution for 5 minutes, and we would explain for 5 hours.
Now it's them ranting for 5 hours and our explanations are not read, and you can't even get in edgewise for 5 minutes!
Sometimes i feel like playing the devils advocate just to get some interesting civilised discussion going. 9-9
Just yesterday I was reading about a televised debate (BBC) between William Lane Craig and 4 other theists against Christopher Hitchens. Each speaker had 10 minutes to speak, so Hitchens only had 10 minutes to refute 50 minutes of anti-evolution rhetoric.

Craig then declared that the theists won the debate since Hitchens didn't refute every one of their points during his 10 minutes.

Doesn't surprise me though. It's the kind of dishonesty we see from creationists every day.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109343 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you responding to me or to Marksman?
Get where?
IC is flawed even in principle. Unless you can identify all the possible pathways to a given complex structure,(which you could never do), there is no way to prove that something is irreducibly complex. IC advocates reverse the reality, demanding that evolutionists supply every possible step in every single structure they can find in nature before they will accept irreducible complexity is an assumption, not an argument. Then when the steps are supplied, they just move onto the next one. "Oh yeah, then what about whales' balls?" Blah blah.
They ignore the fact that once a few of their shibboleths have been knocked down, the principle should become clear. But sadly, it does not. Once the development of the 3-boned middle ear was shown to have emerged, step by step, in mammal-like reptiles, you would think that critics would get the point regarding both IC and "macroevolution". But they don't.
Furthermore IC advocates make the universal mistake of assuming the functionality observed today was always the "goal" of the structure or parts of the structure, ignoring the fact that components may have had entirely different functions.
kudoos.

I indeed meant to post to markman II ( one can have such impulses)
but should have quoted differently. My bad.
But the gist was about your statement. So i just left it at that, as a better starting point for a comment.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109344 Jan 30, 2013
Get where? chimney1 wrote

Wel after reading about his distrust of people, quoting a psalm, it would be a no-hoper.

Psalms is as a matter of fact a three-part rond-dicht (apparently untranslatable), it reconnects to the beginning again. It never stops.
Some psalms are christian made or do not connect to torah, so i do not put my faith in psalms.

Maybe someone here recognizes the verse-form and can name it:

What you think, is what you create.
What you feel, you attract.
What you imagine, you Become

Become What you think....etc. going round ad infinitum.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109345 Jan 30, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Just yesterday I was reading about a televised debate (BBC) between William Lane Craig and 4 other theists against Christopher Hitchens. Each speaker had 10 minutes to speak, so Hitchens only had 10 minutes to refute 50 minutes of anti-evolution rhetoric.
Craig then declared that the theists won the debate since Hitchens didn't refute every one of their points during his 10 minutes.
Doesn't surprise me though. It's the kind of dishonesty we see from creationists every day.
It does demonstrate the point.

But i'm rather surprised that the BBC would go for such a format.
I'll bet it rained complaints. Not fair at all, but one likes the underdog, so you can bet evolution thrives!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109346 Jan 30, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Get where? chimney1 wrote
Wel after reading about his distrust of people, quoting a psalm, it would be a no-hoper.
Psalms is as a matter of fact a three-part rond-dicht (apparently untranslatable), it reconnects to the beginning again. It never stops.
Some psalms are christian made or do not connect to torah, so i do not put my faith in psalms.
Maybe someone here recognizes the verse-form and can name it:
What you think, is what you create.
What you feel, you attract.
What you imagine, you Become
Become What you think....etc. going round ad infinitum.
You do seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of ancient languages and culture. Was this a result of Bible study in the first place?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109347 Jan 30, 2013
.marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You believe that, but as for me, I'll believe....
Psalms 118
8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.

end quote

And the fifth commandment states to honour thou father and mother to live happy all thy days.
But it says nothing about a wife.

So are you now supposed to have it on with the two you should honour to live happily ever after!

The example comes from scottish prose, that was a written language only way past the 17th century.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109348 Jan 30, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Just yesterday I was reading about a televised debate (BBC) between William Lane Craig and 4 other theists against Christopher Hitchens. Each speaker had 10 minutes to speak, so Hitchens only had 10 minutes to refute 50 minutes of anti-evolution rhetoric.
Craig then declared that the theists won the debate since Hitchens didn't refute every one of their points during his 10 minutes.
Doesn't surprise me though. It's the kind of dishonesty we see from creationists every day.
Billy pulls that crap every single time, he's a POS, dishonest and rotten to the core, and only so he can sell books and crap to millions of gullible morons he caters to.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109349 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Billy pulls that crap every single time, he's a POS, dishonest and rotten to the core, and only so he can sell books and crap to millions of gullible morons he caters to.
What is a POS?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109350 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a POS?
Piece of shiz.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109351 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of ancient languages and culture. Was this a result of Bible study in the first place?
No. I always had an intrest in etymology, ANE history, archeology and anthropology. Evolution is. full stop thus.
Particularly the gaps. Languages a part of upbringing. So three just for starters.
I was on a worldforum that provides a network in case someone needs a helping hand and got invited to join FFI.
That's were i dismembered the western catholic history of the bible, as well as all things islam. Since that journey i lost all intrest in the gospel or the 'OT' version.
It being thrown in your face so to say.
Except for recently having had a real close look at the codex sinaiticus and the eastern history of christianity.
But for judaism and particularly ancient hebrew and it's cognates, i needed a different forum, since the first comes in many shapes and forms. The philosophy is rather unknown to most.
I would say it's more of a pass-time. Like reading the DSS as bedtime prose.
It's mainly the unresolved translations that i go back to time and time again. Since ideas change and older work is no longer relevant.
Or a stint at physics, just what catches my intrest.
But i would thus say that the gaps in history, or wrong interpretations keep it alive.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109352 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Piece of shiz.
personal
object
stratification
Hmm an entire post failed to materialise...the darn welcome back, give your opinion nonsense.

Thus on general principles a quote from the Barenaked Ladies:
"You've got to kick at the darkness 'till it bleeds!"

Posting profanities or offensive material... ah that's when you have to cuss the mod.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109354 Jan 30, 2013
Alzheimer by the way is related to beta amyloid.
just google.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109355 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It almost seems that mutations and selection can perform miracles!!

You still can't name (nor understand) the other mechanisms of evolution, LOL!
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> It might seem more "real" if it wasn't for the fact that most mutations are neutral or fatal to the system.

Incorrect. Most mutations are neutral. A fatal mutation is immediately removed from the gene pool so is not an issue. If you have 150 mutations (current estimate) and even 10% were fatal then the chances of survival would be 15:1 against for any given organism.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

None needed. Only learning the scientific facts of evolution and keeping your brain open to new information (i.e. not reading everything on the subject with hostility).
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> ....no evidence for human from non-human evolution that isn't better explained by creationism,

Sorry, but this is just not true. The fact is that creationism can rationalize anything but EXPLAINS nothing. It is impossible to imagine a world created for life that does not sport life. But, in fact, creationism makes no predictions and cannot do so.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> plus creationism explains the mysteries that human from non-human evolution can not answer.

What mysteries? Who has a better mechanism, based on the facts, on the origin of life.- Science
Who has a better understanding of the continuing evolution of DNA?- Science
Who has a better understanding of what life is and is made of?- Science again.

All creationism has is a failed philosophy based on religious dogma.

The rest of your post was an information-less rant and is therefore not worth responding to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109356 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care how long it has been around, or who laid claim to it. It has never been observed and is a psuedoscientific fantasy.

You have cart proceeding horse yet again.

PE is part of the modern theory of evolution BECAUSE it IS OBSERVED. The observation came first and the implications to the ToE filtered down. PE is ACTUALLY what is found in the DNA and Fossil record. It is proven by molecular clock timing of changes and in the morphology of fossils in the record.

So your suggesting that it has never been observed is pretty amusing. Sort of like claiming auto accidents never happen as the remains of your car are being towed away.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109357 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can easily admit when I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG!!
In which case this entire thread is just one big long Markie apology.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109358 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The comparison between DNA and human language is an analogy, and it falls down at the critical point.
Any human language is ultimately an arbitrary code. There is no actual relation between the sound RED and the colour we assign to that word. Could as easily be ROUGE or even blubgump. The only reason that sound has meaning is because we agree it does. Thus language is abstract and symbolic. It needs a conscious entity interpreting it to mean anything.
The DNA "code" on the other hand is simply a physical template. The base sequence AAA will cause the amino acid Lysine to attach to the sequence. Why? Not because someone decided AAA MEANS Lysine, but simply because its the right chemical bond. It fits. The other amino acids like proline do not.
You cannot decide that from now on that proline will stick to ATT instead, the way a teenager can decide "sick" means "cool" which means "really good" which means "bad!". That is the difference. Human language is abstract, arbitrary symbolism, while DNA is nothing more than a physical template.
<quoted text>
I am happy for your friend. Fortunately for him, that would suggest that the brain matter was not actually destroyed but its activity was being impeded by the copper. In Alzheimers, brain tissue is progressively destroyed. Now, when an old man does not even recognise his wife or know he was ever married to her, that cannot be "inability to act on his thoughts". Its a destruction of his memory records, and suggests that the memories were within the destroyed brain, not floating above it somehow.
Likewise there have been documented radical changes in personality following brain damage. Also loss of thing like the ability to even imagine 3-D space, the inability to perceive something as above, below, or behind something else. Now that would be weird...
But the point is, if I took away your memories, and your personality, and even your ability to conceive things, what is left of Marksman? His "soul"?
Think of the person who had a trumaric brain injury and ended up with two entirely separate personalities, one atheist and one Christian. Did he have TWO souls? If not, would he go to heaven or hell, and why?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109359 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what you call allowing for more than one meaning of something. It's better characterized as objective handling of language, however. Thus, we can call failure to make such allowance bias which apparently is your admission.
Nah, not bias. Merely reasonable skepticism.

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) 23 min Zog Has-fallen 19,097
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 31 min ChromiuMan 475
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min dirtclod 164,475
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 15 hr Dogen 1,874
When is Quote Mining Justified? 23 hr Zog Has-fallen 26
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri Ooogah Boogah 178,618
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu GTID62 86
More from around the web