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

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

There are 141863 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.

marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109440 Jan 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Marky, you also lost the right to dispute the claim that the universe came from nothing. If you won't look at powerful evidence for it all you have to work with is willful ignorance, a very weak tool.
I do believe that the universe came from nothing. GOD created it ex nihilo.
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109441 Jan 30, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>

If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't need to pretend that your imaginary God is going to get even with people that don't agree with you.
It bothers me because you are too ignorant to know what is coming.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109442 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>You shouoldn't see "increasing human and less apelike" at all. We are not decinded from apes according to you guys.
No, according to the science, we ARE descended from apes but not from a modern species of ape. They have been evolving too. The chimp is our closest cousin anatomically and genetically, our closest living relative. The common ancestor of both looked far more like a chimp because it was our ancestors, not chimps, that underwent radical environmental changes and with the emergence of bipedalism, a cascade of anatomical and behavioral changes.
I see you know even less about perpetual motion than you do evolution.
Good grief. I wasn't talking about perpetual motion. I was talking about momentum and inertia, fundamental qualities since Newton. In the absence of an opposing force, an object will remain in its existing state of motion forever. This is not the same thing as a perpetual motion machine, which is a contraption claimed to generate useful energy and keep going from no source in spite of the friction and thermodynamic losses acting on it.

But its interesting to see that by your very confusion on this subject, you still do have the medieval attitude that the natural state of an object is to be at rest! That is exactly an example of "common sense intuition" which is dead wrong, just as I was saying, and how science often violates human preconceived notions.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109443 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know why either but it is obvious that the religious beliefs of christians in this forum are attacked with hatered. They berate and attack the name of the one I consider my LORD and Savior. It doesn't bother me at all, because they are the ones who are going to give an account of their disrespect given him. Not me. I think that is what they know, and what they dread.
I have seen very few attacks on God or even Jesus. What I see are attacks on people who insist on corrupting and distorting science based on a BOOK, written by HUMANS, 3000-1700 years ago, that clearly includes a lot of pre-scientific mythology and should not be taken literally when we have evidence to the contrary.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109444 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but I just see that as a long, although nice, dodge....because you didn't get the point. You are trying to tell me that random biology can produce information!! How can you explain that? Even you stated....
"It needs a conscious entity interpreting it to mean anything."
Then you did not read this carefully. I said a major DIFFERENCE between human symbolic language and the DNA template is that human language DOES need a conscious entity to interpret it, while DNA does not - its simply a chemical template.
Again, you are saying that random mutations can not only create information,

mutations PLUS non-random natural selection.
Excellent point. Nicely stated and like I originally said, I really don't know the difference, that the mind and soul might or might not be the same. You make a good point that they may not be reality. I certainly don't know, but I think it still possible they are entwined as if one is, if this is even possible, "biological thought" and the soul is spiritual. That the biological thought can desolve, as the soul rides along until the end. That may be terribly wrong, and I freely admit I don't know, but I think the larger point is even if the mind deteriorates, is it possible for matter, unaided over time, to produce a mind, consciousness, and self awareness? I say, NO WAY! Not even close!
Well, like I agreed, consciousness is mysterious. But for me the evidence of Alzheimers etc shows it does seem to emerge from the brain, which is the only place we have observably found it. Actually...the only consciousness we can really observe is our own. We infer it in others on the assumption that they are probably like us and not just blank robots going through the motions!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109445 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>DUH?? Is that not what I just said. He spouted a bunch of BS that there is no way of proving< Such as life exists elsewhere in the universe.....says this BS with confidence, and the outcome is, to the intelligent skeptic, he looked stupid.<quoted text>I stopped because I already had plenty to refute him, and not 40 more minutes of my life to waste on BS.
I believe he said it is highly likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Since we know that life appeared and evolved here naturally why do you think it would not happen elsewhere? Even if you are a big enough of an idiot to believe the Genesis myth do you think that God would make uncounted billions upon billions of planets without putting life on some of them?

It seems that you are projecting again. You know that you are a bullshitting idiot and assume that everyone else is too.

Sorry, your failures are not their failures.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109446 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>"Punctuated equilibrium originated as a logical extension of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation as applied to the fossil record. Although some of the basic workings of the theory were proposed and identified by Mayr in 1954,[3] historians of science generally recognize the 1972 paper by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould as the foundational document of the new paleobiological research program."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equil...
PE does appear in Darwin, though not by name, just as Mike and I have pointed out to you. I even copied the passage where its obvious.

However, lets get to the point. The validity of PE is not about whether Darwin thought of it - that would be religious/doctrinal/authoritar ian thinking, not scientific. The validity is whether we see evidence of it and whether it is intrinsic to the theoretical framework of evolution itself.

Darwin suggested that the rate of change in species would be affected by environmental factors, and its clear to any student of evolution that environmental instability is going to force either more rapid change on a species, if they can adapt fast enough, or extinction. There is nothing "tacked on" about the concept of PE.

The last point is that even if it WAS tacked on - the way, for example Margullis' concept that mitochondria were once free living bacteria was tacked on, it still does not matter! Science is not religious dogma...we are allowed to update our theories, you know! What matters is whether an addition explains an observation while remaining consistent with existing observation and theory. That is how knowledge grows.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109447 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
It bothers me because you are too ignorant to know what is coming.
Then provide evidence. Without it, your beliefs are indistinguishable from pure delusion. The fact that you really, really, really think you now what's coming provides no convincing evidence.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109448 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, according to the science, we ARE descended from apes but not from a modern species of ape. They have been evolving too. The chimp is our closest cousin anatomically and genetically, our closest living relative. The common ancestor of both looked far more like a chimp because it was our ancestors, not chimps, that underwent radical environmental changes and with the emergence of bipedalism, a cascade of anatomical and behavioral changes.
See? That doesn't even make sense. We did not decend from apes, but we did from older apes? We both came from a common ancester that looked like a chimp but wasn't an ape.....See? It's really silly Chimney. Surely you can't believe your own words!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief. I wasn't talking about perpetual motion. I was talking about momentum and inertia, fundamental qualities since Newton. In the absence of an opposing force, an object will remain in its existing state of motion forever. This is not the same thing as a perpetual motion machine, which is a contraption claimed to generate useful energy and keep going from no source in spite of the friction and thermodynamic losses acting on it.
"per·pet·u·al mo·tion

Noun

1.A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing."

http://hp-notebook.us.msn.com/...

Granted, it had your defintion on the list, but this is the #1 definition, and the one I was referencing, which leaves your post incorrect, and what you stated was indeed perpetual motion.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But its interesting to see that by your very confusion on this subject, you still do have the medieval attitude that the natural state of an object is to be at rest!
I think I just proved what I mean.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> That is exactly an example of "common sense intuition" which is dead wrong, just as I was saying, and how science often violates human preconceived notions.
How ironic, wouldn't you say?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109449 Jan 30, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide evidence. Without it, your beliefs are indistinguishable from pure delusion. The fact that you really, really, really think you now what's coming provides no convincing evidence.
You remember that if when you die and you stand before GOD, remind him that he gave you no evidence......ok?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109450 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems about right, essentially the same proportion ballpark as those taking an active interest in determining and propagating what is true. Apparently you don't count yourself among them.
Right, because getting the pronunciation of YHWH correct is SO important.

BTW, it quite possible and even likely that YHWH was taken by the Israelites from the Midian god that was called YWH...which archeologists and language experts think was pronounced...get this...Yahoo.

But then, I would guess that you aren't interested at all in that bit of truth. To you, truth is what you want it to be.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109451 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>See? That doesn't even make sense. We did not decend from apes, but we did from older apes? We both came from a common ancester that looked like a chimp but wasn't an ape.....See? It's really silly Chimney. Surely you can't believe your own words!!
An "ape" is not a species, its a family of creatures. Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutangs are all modern apes. Their ancestors were still apes, going back 25 million years when their ancestral line merged with monkeys (who have been around even longer).

We have found older species of apes (and monkeys)that no longer exist.

Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape that was geographically split for climatic reasons...and some of its descendants became the chimps and bonobos we see today, while others became the family of hominids that we see in the fossil record. And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species.
<quoted text>
"per·pet·u·al mo·tion
Noun
1.A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing."
http://hp-notebook.us.msn.com/...
Granted, it had your defintion on the list, but this is the #1 definition, and the one I was referencing, which leaves your post incorrect, and what you stated was indeed perpetual motion.
<quoted text>I think I just proved what I mean.<quoted text>How ironic, wouldn't you say?
Yes, my apologies. I assumed you were about to refer to "perpetual motion machines" which are impossible.

However, perpetual motion itself is not, and can be summarised in Newton's First Law:

"If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero)."

This was in stark contrast to the medieval view that everything natural came to rest unless a constant force was acting on it, which is false. According to Newton, things will only slow down if a net force is acting against the direction of motion.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109452 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
You remember that if when you die and you stand before GOD, remind him that he gave you no evidence......ok?
And when you stand before the REAL Creator of the Universe, try to explain why you devoted your life to a phony, pipsqueak God that can't stick up for Itself.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109453 Jan 30, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, because getting the pronunciation of YHWH correct is SO important.
BTW, it quite possible and even likely that YHWH was taken by the Israelites from the Midian god that was called YWH...which archeologists and language experts think was pronounced...get this...Yahoo.
But then, I would guess that you aren't interested at all in that bit of truth. To you, truth is what you want it to be.
So "a bunch of yahoos" is blasphemy to monotheists?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109454 Jan 31, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
And when you stand before the REAL Creator of the Universe, try to explain why you devoted your life to a phony, pipsqueak God that can't stick up for Itself.
We both will be standing side by side. I can't wait.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109455 Jan 31, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
And when you stand before the REAL Creator of the Universe, try to explain why you devoted your life to a phony, pipsqueak God that can't stick up for Itself.
Are you agreeing that there is an intelligent designer?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109456 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
PE does appear in Darwin, though not by name, just as Mike and I have pointed out to you. I even copied the passage where its obvious.
However, lets get to the point. The validity of PE is not about whether Darwin thought of it - that would be religious/doctrinal/authoritar ian thinking, not scientific. The validity is whether we see evidence of it and whether it is intrinsic to the theoretical framework of evolution itself.
Darwin suggested that the rate of change in species would be affected by environmental factors, and its clear to any student of evolution that environmental instability is going to force either more rapid change on a species, if they can adapt fast enough, or extinction. There is nothing "tacked on" about the concept of PE.
The last point is that even if it WAS tacked on - the way, for example Margullis' concept that mitochondria were once free living bacteria was tacked on, it still does not matter! Science is not religious dogma...we are allowed to update our theories, you know! What matters is whether an addition explains an observation while remaining consistent with existing observation and theory. That is how knowledge grows.
No, knowledge grows from observation, testing, and replication. PE was needed to explain the Cambrian Explosion, so it was fabricated, after years of claiming that evolution took vast eons of time, but then when it appeared in the Cambrian that more complex systems were being found without any evidence of a preceding ancestor, that "eons" were no longer tenable, that PE was fabricated. It wasn't discovered, or observed. It was fabricated to support a preconcieved conclusion of an unsupported philosophy.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109457 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
We both will be standing side by side.
Standing? You seem not to understand the ramifications of death.
marksman11 wrote:
I can't wait.
Of course you can wait. How long have you folks been waiting for Jesus to come back? Your patience (and credulity) is astonishing.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109458 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
An "ape" is not a species, its a family of creatures. Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutangs are all modern apes. Their ancestors were still apes, going back 25 million years when their ancestral line merged with monkeys (who have been around even longer).
We have found older species of apes (and monkeys)that no longer exist.
Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape that was geographically split for climatic reasons...and some of its descendants became the chimps and bonobos we see today, while others became the family of hominids that we see in the fossil record. And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species.
See?That is why the whole thing seems extremely made up, contrived, decieving, and contradictory. We are told that we did not desend from apes, but that we have a common ancestor, while you tell me, "Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape....[edited for brevity] And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species". Se the contradiction?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, my apologies. I assumed you were about to refer to "perpetual motion machines" which are impossible.
Absolutely no problem.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109459 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Are you agreeing that there is an intelligent designer?
Of course not. Just pulling your chain.

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) 13 min Paul Porter1 169,047
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr Paul Porter1 6,223
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 5 hr GTID62 198
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 hr MikeF 19,806
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 22 hr Chimney1 15
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Jul 2 qiu 1
More from around the web