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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
107,781 - 107,800 of 135,641 Comments Last updated 47 min ago
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109825
Feb 5, 2013
 

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109826
Feb 5, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
Wow, I agree with marky. This is good news. The bill was tabled in Montana, and once a bill is tabled they tend to die. And a similar bill has died in Colorado.

The anti-science bills are going to fail, even in the conservative states. Great news!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109828
Feb 5, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I disagree that we are superior because we have evolved to be superior. I think we are superior because we were created to over see all these life forms. THere is scripture to support that. Also, I disagree that chimps are better climbers. If a human sets out to do something like climbing, then without evolving, they can do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ZFQxXI8wzoYXX
My point was, yes, we are better at the things you listed.

However, "superior" in the evolutionary sense is about fitness and adaptability, and really only time will tell. Big brains, fast accurate flight, good climbing, sharp teeth are all just means to an end, and the test is survival.

The fossil record it littered with relics that became the best at something, for a time, but specialisation has its costs. In our case, it may be the ability to destroy ourselves through all the wonderful weapons this brain has been able to dream up. Lets hope not. Still, questions of future human survival are meaningless to you, because you think you know the answer to that already.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109829
Feb 5, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>These rabid scientists like Eugeneie Scott! If she isn't biased, why spend you life battling something you are not biased against? Why does Richard Dawkins even bring up GOD? Why does Bill Maher fill the world with his hate for christians? Why would a physics professor say that stars died for you, not Jesus? Why all these things protecting a philosophy if they are not biased?
Dawkins was merrily writing his books on evolution for 20 years before he became militant. I think he has gone overboard, but he has given his reasons.

1. Minor reason - getting sick of creationists deliberately quote mining and distorting his own words and the words of other evolutionists. As an academic, this is a red flag to a bull. Academic argue and disagree with great passion, but they do not deliberately twist their opponents words, which is rightly seen as low and despicable behavior. But still he said little, until

2. 911. This travesty of indoctrinated, insane thinking converted into disgusting action has led many previous fence sitters to take a more active stance against religion and religious indoctrination. If you think the criticism should have been restricted to Islam specifically, you are missing the point.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109830
Feb 5, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have your faith in science. The reason is Piltdown man is not alone. Haeckles embryos were in school test books for decades, falsely presenting fabricated hoaxes to children. How about "Lucy" who was presented as a transition between ape and man? While not a hoax (the claim was the hoax)Lucy definately was NOT A TRANSITIONAL fossil as was claimed by many.Or how about Nebraska man? Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the Department of Palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, wrote the following ..
“The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape."
It was a pigs tooth.
I could continue, but I think this is plenty to show valid reason for skeptism of human from non-human evolution.
<quoted text>Very unconvincing. THere are probably trillions of human, ape, child, adult, deformed, exagerated, abnormal skulls on the planet today. If it's background is unknown, the interpretations would be insain!
No, I do not think you could continue much further, because you have just about mined out the entire repertoire of frauds in evolution.

You will note that all of these frauds (and Lucy is not a fraud but genuine intermediate as explained below), belong to an early period of the science and were uncovered by biologists themselves. A perfect example of the scientific method at work.

When we had only one or two fossils, Piltdown could be put there as a possible find (though even early on it was treated with suspicion, which you always forget). But what happens over time? More and more evidence is uncovered. Even before radiometric dating conclusively falsified Piltdown, it had become something of a joke as real finds piled up and told a very different story of what really happened in the past. There is now a continuum of fossil finds from apelike Lucy to modern humans. Lucy fits that broader pattern. Piltdown never did.

And FYI, "Nebraska Man" was never taken seriously by the scientific community. Haeckel was investigated and eventually found wanting, though not completely false.

As to your final theory of abnormalities...that was the assumption for the very first Neanderthal found! But more kept turning up...and a whole continuum. If they are abnormalities...WHY are there no "normal" i.e. modern skulls from the same periods? Why are there other "abnormal" skulls? Why do the abnormalities, tracked over time, just happen to coincide EXACTLY with a progression from apelike to human form? Nah.

That is just silly.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109831
Feb 5, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Impressive post. Tempered and fair, but grounded in reality.
Thanks. After I hit the send button and saw how long it was I thought bugger, nobody is going to read that!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109832
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What a ridiculous reply. My pointing out that there are liberal scientists with an axe to grind has nothing to do with the dark ages, of couse that never stopped you from making a pointless rely before.
Its funny, how these reversals work.

Economically, I am a conservative and socially a libertarian (nothing like a liberal).

But the Party that would champion these things has got itself so entrenched in the religious fundamentalist whacko core, that its created a false split. Now its supposedly liberal-socialist-pro-science versus conservative-free market-anti-science, and its BS.

The Founding Fathers were very smart in separating Church from State, and this is just the sort of stupidity they had in mind. They knew religious beliefs were faith based, not rational, whereas issues of public policy and business should be kept on a rational basis.

Religion is not a conservative cause. For much of history and in much of the world, religion has been connected to socialist causes. The big champion of free market capitalism, Ayn Rand, is trumpeted by the Tea Party and guys like Paul Ryan, ignoring the fact that ATHEISM was right at the core of her philosophy. You wont find many more anti-religious writings that hers; she leaves Dawkins in the dust.

You have been sold a false bill of goods. Evolution is not a liberal cause. Its a scientific theory.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109833
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was, yes, we are better at the things you listed.
However, "superior" in the evolutionary sense is about fitness and adaptability, and really only time will tell. Big brains, fast accurate flight, good climbing, sharp teeth are all just means to an end, and the test is survival.[QUOTE]That is why humans are superior. We can't fly, so we made systems that can fly us around. They don't do that. We are great climbers if we need to be, but we can also fabricate ropes, and suction cups if we need them. Skies to slide on, boats to ride on, and skates to roll on. Teeth? Is their another animal that can fabricate themselves new teeth to replace their old ones? I think superior describes us well, and that isn't a word game. If evolution be true, what haven't other animals evolved the ability to do these things?[QUOTE who="Chimney1"]<q uoted text>
The fossil record it littered with relics that became the best at something, for a time, but specialisation has its costs. In our case, it may be the ability to destroy ourselves through all the wonderful weapons this brain has been able to dream up. Lets hope not.
Well, you make it sound as if even the most well adapted never die. Of course they do, and if years later their fossil is found, it doesn't mean that they weren't the most fit. Even the most fit, die!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> Still, questions of future human survival are meaningless to you, because you think you know the answer to that already.
True. No ones getting out of here alive:-)
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109834
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins was merrily writing his books on evolution for 20 years before he became militant. I think he has gone overboard, but he has given his reasons.
I disagree. I think he is obcessed. Look at Christopher Hitchins. Debated religion up to his death, knowing he was dying. He could have spent time with his family and loved ones, but his unprovable biases were more important. These people, including Bill Maher are insain, in which Bill Maher owes Donald Trump 5 million dollars for charity. He hasn't paid yet.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Minor reason - getting sick of creationists deliberately quote mining and distorting his own words and the words of other evolutionists. As an academic, this is a red flag to a bull. Academic argue and disagree with great passion, but they do not deliberately twist their opponents words, which is rightly seen as low and despicable behavior. But still he said little, until
No, I ain't buying that. Most all evolutionists don't do that and could care less what the "uneducated" ones deem true or false. He has religious biases. I think to him his atheism is more important for him to protect than his biology.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
2. 911. This travesty of indoctrinated, insane thinking converted into disgusting action has led many previous fence sitters to take a more active stance against religion and religious indoctrination. If you think the criticism should have been restricted to Islam specifically, you are missing the point.
There are those who claim Hitler was a Darwinist, and the Great Solution was merely his way of speeding up evolution to it's ultimate conclusion. Did evolution kill 6 million Jews, or a hand full of missguided and derranged Germans? Right, it was the Germans. Same with 911, it wasn't religion that caused 911, it was like the Germans, some misguided and derranged people. If Dawkins can't figure that one out, people need to hand wave him away in the first place.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109835
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:

Creationism gets trashed in courts all over the country. Why would you call attention to this?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109836
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was, yes, we are better at the things you listed.
However, "superior" in the evolutionary sense is about fitness and adaptability, and really only time will tell. Big brains, fast accurate flight, good climbing, sharp teeth are all just means to an end, and the test is survival.
That is why humans are superior. We can't fly, so we made systems that can fly us around. They don't do that. We are great climbers if we need to be, but we can also fabricate ropes, and suction cups if we need them. Skies to slide on, boats to ride on, and skates to roll on. Teeth? Is their another animal that can fabricate themselves new teeth to replace their old ones? I think superior describes us well, and that isn't a word game. If evolution be true, what haven't other animals evolved the ability to do these things?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109837
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/y ears-antievolution-legislation -so-far-0014699

Pointless. These battles have been going on for over 80 years. Creationism eventually looses 100% of the time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109838
Feb 6, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins was merrily writing his books on evolution for 20 years before he became militant. I think he has gone overboard, but he has given his reasons.
1. Minor reason - getting sick of creationists deliberately quote mining and distorting his own words and the words of other evolutionists. As an academic, this is a red flag to a bull. Academic argue and disagree with great passion, but they do not deliberately twist their opponents words, which is rightly seen as low and despicable behavior. But still he said little, until
2. 911. This travesty of indoctrinated, insane thinking converted into disgusting action has led many previous fence sitters to take a more active stance against religion and religious indoctrination. If you think the criticism should have been restricted to Islam specifically, you are missing the point.

While I disagree with Dawkins I must admit I agree with his reasoning. It is irritating dealing with chronic liars.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109839
Feb 6, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. After I hit the send button and saw how long it was I thought bugger, nobody is going to read that!

I read it. I do think that longer posts invites people to ignore or skim them. However I love posts with meat in them. Not just saying that creationism is misguided, but giving point by point why it wrong it great.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109840
Feb 6, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its funny, how these reversals work.
Economically, I am a conservative and socially a libertarian (nothing like a liberal).
But the Party that would champion these things has got itself so entrenched in the religious fundamentalist whacko core, that its created a false split. Now its supposedly liberal-socialist-pro-science versus conservative-free market-anti-science, and its BS.
The Founding Fathers were very smart in separating Church from State, and this is just the sort of stupidity they had in mind. They knew religious beliefs were faith based, not rational, whereas issues of public policy and business should be kept on a rational basis.
Religion is not a conservative cause. For much of history and in much of the world, religion has been connected to socialist causes. The big champion of free market capitalism, Ayn Rand, is trumpeted by the Tea Party and guys like Paul Ryan, ignoring the fact that ATHEISM was right at the core of her philosophy. You wont find many more anti-religious writings that hers; she leaves Dawkins in the dust.
You have been sold a false bill of goods. Evolution is not a liberal cause. Its a scientific theory.

In my humble(?) opinion:
I think that the fundamentalist Christian's, which were once the boon of the Republican party, are becoming a substantial burden and are weakening that party. And one of the major agendas of the Fundies is their war against science. How can supporting geocentricism be a benefit in the long run?

The Republicans need to come back to center and that means they need to pander less to the extreme right, who will vote for them anyway (as they are programmed to do).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109841
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, you make it sound as if even the most well adapted never die. Of course they do, and if years later their fossil is found, it doesn't mean that they weren't the most fit. Even the most fit, die!!<quoted text>True. No ones getting out of here alive:-)

Actually there is a species of sponge that is technically immortal. Of course they get eaten by other animals so still do not really last that long in nature. But they never die of old age.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109842
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I do not think you could continue much further, because you have just about mined out the entire repertoire of frauds in evolution.
You will note that all of these frauds (and Lucy is not a fraud but genuine intermediate as explained below), belong to an early period of the science and were uncovered by biologists themselves. A perfect example of the scientific method at work.
When we had only one or two fossils, Piltdown could be put there as a possible find (though even early on it was treated with suspicion, which you always forget). But what happens over time? More and more evidence is uncovered. Even before radiometric dating conclusively falsified Piltdown, it had become something of a joke as real finds piled up and told a very different story of what really happened in the past. There is now a continuum of fossil finds from apelike Lucy to modern humans. Lucy fits that broader pattern. Piltdown never did.
And FYI, "Nebraska Man" was never taken seriously by the scientific community.
"Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature."

http://antidarwinism.com/evolutionisahoax.htm...
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Haeckel was investigated and eventually found wanting, though not completely false.
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:




"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts....[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolut...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109843
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree. I think he is obcessed. Look at Christopher Hitchins. Debated religion up to his death, knowing he was dying. He could have spent time with his family and loved ones, but his unprovable biases were more important. These people, including Bill Maher are insain, in which Bill Maher owes Donald Trump 5 million dollars for charity. He hasn't paid yet.<quoted text>No, I ain't buying that. Most all evolutionists don't do that and could care less what the "uneducated" ones deem true or false. He has religious biases. I think to him his atheism is more important for him to protect than his biology.<quoted text>There are those who claim Hitler was a Darwinist, and the Great Solution was merely his way of speeding up evolution to it's ultimate conclusion. Did evolution kill 6 million Jews, or a hand full of missguided and derranged Germans? Right, it was the Germans. Same with 911, it wasn't religion that caused 911, it was like the Germans, some misguided and derranged people. If Dawkins can't figure that one out, people need to hand wave him away in the first place.

I have to agree with your last paragraph, at least mainly. However it was specifically fundamentalist religious views (or what was being sold as such) that lead to 911. So here the link to religion is a bit clearer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109844
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is why humans are superior. We can't fly, so we made systems that can fly us around. They don't do that. We are great climbers if we need to be, but we can also fabricate ropes, and suction cups if we need them. Skies to slide on, boats to ride on, and skates to roll on. Teeth? Is their another animal that can fabricate themselves new teeth to replace their old ones? I think superior describes us well, and that isn't a word game. If evolution be true, what haven't other animals evolved the ability to do these things?

"Superior" is one of those relative words that really does not fit here.

Because of our brain size we are a very adaptable species. But not superior.

It is like your misuse of the word "complexity". It is also a word that only works in context and only in a relative sense.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109845
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As to your final theory of abnormalities...that was the assumption for the very first Neanderthal found! But more kept turning up...and a whole continuum. If they are abnormalities...WHY are there no "normal" i.e. modern skulls from the same periods? Why are there other "abnormal" skulls? Why do the abnormalities, tracked over time, just happen to coincide EXACTLY with a progression from apelike to human form? Nah.
That is just silly.
There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing. When will you learn that fossils can't support evolution because they can't give you their heritage. All you have is interpretation of a lot of different images and bones, and just like Nebraska man, evolutionists from one tooth can draw a picture of the whole family even though it is the tooth of a pig!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••