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

There are 20 comments on the Mar 15, 2009, Asheville Citizen-Times story 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

#109741 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>With all due respect to you, there is something wrong here. Look at it from my view. Why even state that we and apes have a common ancestor, if that ancestor is also an ape? Why not just say, apes are our ancestors? There was a direct change in evolutionary claims a while back where evolutionists had to change their story. It was changed from "apes are our ancestors" to,"No, apes and humans share a common ancestor". So now we are back to "Apes are our ancestors again". I'm just really skeptical, but in my opinion, this gives me reason to be. Don't worry about giving a long reply. It really isn't that big a deal. It's just to me, it doesn't make sense.
You were on that page too! And your fallacies are discussed by Tangled on that page or the previous one.

What is wrong, was the changing goal-post.
So crea never developed a solid reference system.

When i try to explain that concestor (in the swedish study and the other one) are a term meaning that we were then alike, but groups moving away from each other change in slightly different ways, so that after some time they become quite distinct.
Fossils are too wide spaced to really envision it.

The point is that you can also reason that simians and other bipedals (a term as Tangled introduced to prevent confusion) derived from us.
Merely for the reason that we are slightly faster in duplication.
After our last split from the simians we really went ahead full spead.

The puzzle for me is still homo erectus. That held on way longer than we did sofar, but nevertheless seems to have been concestor with us. And seems to have a link with early homo sapiens.
So 'retro-mating'(wrong term, but since mating was still possible and bringing forth descendants)and thus making the tree more like a bush with loops seems to have happened too.


What is wrong is that

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109742 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't criticize science in general.
Yeah, you do.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109743 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No offence taken, but I think you are wrong.
That is a given:-)
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to live in an exclusively YES/NO world and cannot tolerate a YES/NO/MAYBE world, which is the one we really live in.
e.g.
GOD? MAYBE
ABIOGENESIS? MAYBE
EVOLUTION? YES
LITERAL GENESIS? NO
To complicate things further, "MAYBE" can go all the way from 95% to 5%.
I have no problems with "maybe", but I don't give you the authority to judge which is which. IMHO it would be more like.....

GOD? yes
ABIOGENESIS? no
EVOLUTION? no
LITERAL GENESIS? maybe

See how opinions come into view? You praclamations are not emperical science. Just your biased opinion.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

MAYBE.
But there is absolutely no good evidence for it.
On the other hand, I have seen the dissolution of a person's entire memory, personality, and understanding proceed step by step as their brain decayed. Its not looking good for a separate soul, but its definitely well south of 50%
I don't think you have the knowleadge to make that statement. There has only been one person who has passed through that curtain of death and returned to tell us about it, and that was Jesus.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109744 Feb 4, 2013
'Co-ancestors' i find a really confusing term.
Saw that in a study on population economics, but they state they borrowed it from Dawkins,as in groups splitting in distinct populations. Namely 1 and 2,for purposes of the study.

Concestors -common ancestors.

Laughter evolved about 10 million years ago.
Human laughter changed with changes in the voicbox (FOX2 gene, should i look it up or trust my memory.)after the split from chimpanzees and bonobos 5,5 million years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/04...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109745 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is a given:-)<quoted text>I have no problems with "maybe", but I don't give you the authority to judge which is which. IMHO it would be more like.....
GOD? yes
ABIOGENESIS? no
EVOLUTION? no
LITERAL GENESIS? maybe
See how opinions come into view? You praclamations are not emperical science. Just your biased opinion.<quoted text>I don't think you have the knowleadge to make that statement. There has only been one person who has passed through that curtain of death and returned to tell us about it, and that was Jesus.
You are as usual a bit behind on information.
In the meantime we've read up on scientific studies.

Jesus is common as mud. A dime a dozen returning from death.
Does the term 'netherworld' ring a bell?
Been a theme for thousands of agricultural years to bring spring back.
Man dying, after three days after midwinter the rise would be complete.
Besides who says he arose?
The vatican does not claim that; and the gospels contradict each other. If a guy can eat fish, he has maybe never been dead.
Loosing conscious, as in loosing the ghost.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109746 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No worries. For one, I don't think humans are just another ape. THere is no ape even close to us. There is no ape that is a musician, carpenter, artist, poet, contractor, doctor, plumber, electricain, multible language expert, pilot, engineer, mechanic, politican, lawyer, surgeon, mason,....etc. I believe the bible where it says that humans are superior. Evolution says we are just another animal. It is obvious we are not.
The term for animals and people is the same.
Upon 'creation'(just playing along here, Alzheimer seems to be a concern somehow)the term for both is the same : nephesh.

In the later narrative they become named, and thus particular.

God makes it clear that adam is not to be seen as the same as god.
God is responsible for the wellbeing of Adam.
As adam is of the well-being of the planet he inhabits.
And so be it. A responsibility thus.

Superior is for those that suffer inferiority complexes and get a power-kick from a little bit of say so. Sorry sort.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109747 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>With all due respect to you, there is something wrong here. Look at it from my view. Why even state that we and apes have a common ancestor, if that ancestor is also an ape? Why not just say, apes are our ancestors? There was a direct change in evolutionary claims a while back where evolutionists had to change their story. It was changed from "apes are our ancestors" to,"No, apes and humans share a common ancestor". So now we are back to "Apes are our ancestors again". I'm just really skeptical, but in my opinion, this gives me reason to be. Don't worry about giving a long reply. It really isn't that big a deal. It's just to me, it doesn't make sense.


Nor does basic science nor the scientific method make sense to you.

Modern apes are not our ancestors so it is misleading to say "apes our are ancestors".

We ARE an ape, so again the expression is paradoxical.

It is more accurate to say humans and other apes have a common ancestor.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109748 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, and I can believe it. For one, you say talking animals is completely unsupported by physical evidence? Yet there are birds that talk all day long.

"Parroting" is not "talking". Sorry but Fail.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> But the bigger point is, I believe the supernatural exists, and because I do, I believe that things can occur supernaturally and I take it on faith. You don't. You are committed to a naturalist world view, where you claim faith has no place.

Naturalism does not state the supernatural does not exist. Naturalism states that we only have evidence for what we can experience or measure. So far science has not found anything that cannot be explained under naturalism, but it is not for naturalism to assume that it cannot happen.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Yet you accept abiogenesis as valid, with zero evidence to support it.

This has been shown to be a lie on your part. There is massive evidence for abiogenesis. Even you believe in abiogenesis though you refuse to call it by it's true name.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You accept punctuated Equalibria, but the only way you can is in faith.

No, PE is a scientific OBSERVATION. Subsuming PE under the guise of biological evolution makes it part of the modern Theory of Evolution. PE is an OBSERVED FACT that had to be explained and is now successfully explained under the ToE.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> So you are not comparing apples to apples. I don't mean to insult you, but my views are much more honest than yours.

Actually, your views are predicated upon a fundamental dishonesty with yourself and your fixed religious delusions. It is not necessary to have religious delusions to be a Christian. In fact, it is a massive hindrance.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> I accept the supernatural and admit I accept it in faith.

Blind faith, in this case, as you have never observed one supernatural event in your life. Don't feel bad. I have had mystical/religious experiences but never observed a supernatural event either.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You accept naturalism, but can't admit the ovious, that you are forced to also accept some of it in faith.

The whole point of naturalism is to get science away from faith (which has allowed it to make massive progress) and keep it objective. It has done well in that. Science has made progress and religion (at least as practiced by many) seems to be regressing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109749 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said....
"It doesn't bother me, in fact I welcome it. It means I am making a point that they can't refute, so inturn it comforts them to hurl insults, but the truth remains, they stand there refuted! "
Thank you for making my point once again!!

And you cannot answer for all the lies you have told and have been pointed out to you. You just ignore them an continue to lie. Why do you do this?

The obvious answer is that you are a coward who knows he is lying.

Have a nice day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109750 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are a drug addict. Science has never replicated the origin of life. THere is no machine that is even close to the human brain. And besides, you refute yourself because you claim nature can produce this human brain!!!GAME OVER!!! SHUT THIS FORUM DOWN!!! EVOLUTION LOSES!!!!

Evolution won over a hundred years ago.

Proof:

1. There has never been even one scientific hypothesis against it?

2. Evolution is observed in the genomic record.

3. Evolution is observed in the fossil record.

4. Evolution is observed in the field.

5. Evolution is observed in the laboratory.

6. Evolution is now used in developing new medical technologies and in saving lives.


http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Th...

http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2010/07/19...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109751 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What does it say for you when millions if not billions read daily the works of these goat herders, and people don't even care enough about you to even acknowledge that you suck?

I have always found your blending of logical fallacies to be most creative.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109752 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No worries. For one, I don't think humans are just another ape. THere is no ape even close to us. There is no ape that is a musician, carpenter, artist, poet, contractor, doctor, plumber, electricain, multible language expert, pilot, engineer, mechanic, politican, lawyer, surgeon, mason,....etc. I believe the bible where it says that humans are superior. Evolution says we are just another animal. It is obvious we are not.

Perhaps are more advanced than us because they have not need of becoming a musician, carpenter, artist, poet, contractor, doctor, plumber, electricain, multible language expert, pilot, engineer, mechanic, politican, lawyer, surgeon, mason, nor any need of those services.

We have been rooked into this "superior" thing and all the animals (that we are not killing off) are laughing at us.

The apes may not like it, but we are one of them. We are just the shallow end of the gene pool.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109753 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is a given:-)<quoted text>I have no problems with "maybe", but I don't give you the authority to judge which is which. IMHO it would be more like.....
GOD? yes
ABIOGENESIS? no
EVOLUTION? no
LITERAL GENESIS? maybe
See how opinions come into view? You praclamations are not emperical science. Just your biased opinion.<quoted text>I don't think you have the knowleadge to make that statement. There has only been one person who has passed through that curtain of death and returned to tell us about it, and that was Jesus.

GOD? yes (Faith based belief)
ABIOGENESIS? Yes (logical fact that is supported by empirical evidence)
EVOLUTION? Yes (Proven and observable fact)
LITERAL GENESIS? No (fact based on all known evidence).

So, as you can see, some of the above are opinion based and others are fact based and some in the middle.

A "maybe" would reflect absence of established belief and openness to learning the facts.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109754 Feb 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
GOD? yes (Faith based belief)
ABIOGENESIS? Yes (logical fact that is supported by empirical evidence)
EVOLUTION? Yes (Proven and observable fact)
LITERAL GENESIS? No (fact based on all known evidence).
So, as you can see, some of the above are opinion based and others are fact based and some in the middle.
A "maybe" would reflect absence of established belief and openness to learning the facts.
Interesting some would say that 'maybe' reflects hostility.
No intention to actually accept or be open to a different point of view.
Equivocating thus.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109755 Feb 4, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting some would say that 'maybe' reflects hostility.
No intention to actually accept or be open to a different point of view.
Equivocating thus.
Hmm..
If a Muslim replies "Maybe" if asked whether Simon Rushdie SHOULD be beheaded, or SHOULD NOT be beheaded?
LowellGuy

Central Islip, NY

#109756 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>With all due respect to you, there is something wrong here. Look at it from my view.
Insert "head up ass" comment here.
marksman11 wrote:
Why even state that we and apes have a common ancestor, if that ancestor is also an ape? Why not just say, apes are our ancestors?
Isn't discussing the subtlety of word choice with someone who openly admits that "flippers" and "fins" are interchangeable kind of a pointless exercise?
marksman11 wrote:
There was a direct change in evolutionary claims a while back where evolutionists had to change their story. It was changed from "apes are our ancestors" to,"No, apes and humans share a common ancestor". So now we are back to "Apes are our ancestors again". I'm just really skeptical, but in my opinion, this gives me reason to be.
That's due to your profound ignorance and your fervent hope to find anything, no matter how meaningless, upon which to rest your case. Because you have expressed open contempt for learning, we've pretty much stopped trying to teach you. Whose fault is that? Shit, you even used a refutation of your ignorance as though it were making your case. You're never wrong AND you are, in your own words, the world's greatest scientist who thinks 1.10 > 1.9. Oh, to see what the sky looks like in your world.
marksman11 wrote:
Don't worry about giving a long reply. It really isn't that big a deal. It's just to me, it doesn't make sense.
Only because you refuse to learn. We've made every effort, and you have made every effort to resist. The incredulity you harbor is due to your ignorance, and only that which you fear most can change that. When you stop saying "I already know," and start saying "I want to learn," then you can learn. Your certainty is exactly what distances you from understanding. It's not too late for you to improve your mind, but first you have to want to do it. It's much like quitting smoking. We're watching for the signs, but we're not holding our breaths.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109757 Feb 4, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting some would say that 'maybe' reflects hostility.
No intention to actually accept or be open to a different point of view.
Equivocating thus.

An honest maybe = maybe not = neutrality.

Of course that is the idealized version. In normal social context I am certain you are correct.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109758 Feb 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm..
If a Muslim replies "Maybe" if asked whether Simon Rushdie SHOULD be beheaded, or SHOULD NOT be beheaded?
I know it is also an option in enquetes.
If ...would you... Y N M dK.
But if you ask someone that is genuinely considering an option. Or is not really in agreement, they would clarify both sides of the issue.
If someone just answer 'maybe' you can forget about it, usually.
Even something as simple as a drink after work.
In bodylanguage it would be: i do not care.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109759 Feb 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
An honest maybe = maybe not = neutrality.
Of course that is the idealized version. In normal social context I am certain you are correct.
I've learned not to invest in 'maybe' people, ever since i picked it up.
Saved tons of negative energy.
I would answer: i don't know (yet).
But if i just find someone tiresome, i also state: maybe.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109760 Feb 4, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I've learned not to invest in 'maybe' people, ever since i picked it up.
Saved tons of negative energy.
I would answer: i don't know (yet).
But if i just find someone tiresome, i also state: maybe.
So a reply of, "I don't know... I might agree or disagree with that stance, maybe. <shrug>." indicates a non-negative response to a tiresome person.

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 Chimney1 160,900
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Chimney1 18,686
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 32 min Chimney1 1,355
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Bumper Sticker Boy 13,670
No Place For ID? 8 hr GTID62 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri hpcaban 178,585
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web