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

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

There are 161443 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.

Elohim

Branford, CT

#110191 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to make such a prediction, you are required to make assumptions that you cannot make... namely... purposes and attributes of an intelligent creator. What self evident facts tell you that creationism predicts a clear dividing line between species? I challenge you to defend your position without referencing relgion.
Creationism is ALL about religion, no science involved what so ever.
KAB

United States

#110192 Feb 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.
Did you say this or not?
As soon as you show us that there's something more to DNA testing, which is how genetic bottlenecks are detected, than chemistry, you will have provided data. Your claim will have been supported with evidence. Wouldn't that be interesting, to support your claims with evidence, rather than simply insisting that everyone else disprove your claims?
Yes, I stated, "There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.
"

DNA testing and genetic bottleneck determination are not identically the same thing. DNA testing is PART of the process of determining genetic bottlenecks.

Additionally, in the following reference, do you discern the use of probability/statistics in the process?

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/...

So, my claim is now supported (as I always do upon request when possible) with evidence, interesting!
KAB

United States

#110193 Feb 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're going to detect genetic bottlenecks, it will require DNA testing to detect them. And, as DNA is nothing more than chemistry, there is absolutely nothing more to genetic bottlenecks nor detecting them than chemistry, you are wrong. I am right. QED. Suck balls.
For your sake, I hope at least one of your trusted comrades will have the courage and concern for you to identify the fallacy in your reasoning here.
KAB

United States

#110194 Feb 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
To bad we don't know who wrote 2 Timothy nor what his credentials are. We also don't know what the author would have considered 'scripture' to be. Presumably he was referring to what we Christians would call the "Old Testament". Not all the books of the bible were written before 2 Timothy. Also, there were many books (Jewish and proto-Christian) running around and not all are included in the bible. The writings of Paul (et al) were not popular in the 1st century as they were considered heretics to Jesus' followers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bib...
In your references did you notice the lack of confirming data for your points?
KAB

United States

#110195 Feb 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As per typical you do not address the meat of the post and just assert tangential items.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
As I recall, Chimney1 once wrote a post which went over this.
He explained that our ancestors lived in a place in eastern Africa where the jungle was turning into savannah land.
This made it necessary for our ancestors to adapt to savannah land.
Meanwhile, other species of monkeys and apes were doing just fine where there they were.
Chimney1's post should explain the why-are-there-still-monkeys question quite adequately.
Did you miss that post? Or did you merely decide to ignore it?
<quoted text>
That's quite a double bind you got us in, Marky Boy!
If there isn't a smooth fossil succession, you can complain about the missing links.
If there is a smooth fossil succession, you can say "you can't define the difference between the two."
<quoted text>
What you say is not true of the cheetahs.
They all look alike because they went through a bottleneck.
If there were a world flood in 2500 BC, as you say there was, we would all look alike too.
In the interest of continuing progress toward accurate knowledge, I generally only address that which is incorrect in order to set it right.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110196 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I stated, "There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.
"
DNA testing and genetic bottleneck determination are not identically the same thing. DNA testing is PART of the process of determining genetic bottlenecks.
Additionally, in the following reference, do you discern the use of probability/statistics in the process?
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/...
So, my claim is now supported (as I always do upon request when possible) with evidence, interesting!
Without the chemical reactions, you have nothing with which to determine genetic bottlenecks.

Tell us...where does that in any way discuss genetic bottlenecks? Oh, right...nowhere. No chemical reaction, no genetic bottleneck. You do also realize that statistics are used in EVERY genetic test of any kind, right? But, all DNA tests of any kind are chemical reactions. What we make of the chemical reactions depends on the nature of the reactions.

But, is it your contention that the entire scientific community is incompetent regarding genetic bottlenecks in all organisms, or that DNA testing is inherently flawed?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#110197 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to make such a prediction, you are required to make assumptions that you cannot make... namely... purposes and attributes of an intelligent creator. What self evident facts tell you that creationism predicts a clear dividing line between species? I challenge you to defend your position without referencing relgion.
Oh, so now you're ADMITTING that God could have used evolution? Because it's either that or you're saying that God just made it LOOK like evolution.

Is it a clear dividing line or not? You tell us?

Besides, what makes you think you can tell God what to do anyway?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110198 Feb 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>A supernatural ex nihilo event of creation by an intelligent designer.<quoted text>Science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural.<quoted text>It's called the bible.
Yes, now show us something that's actually supernatural, so far nothing has been presented, ever, that cannot be analyzed using the scientific method.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110199 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to make such a prediction, you are required to make assumptions that you cannot make... namely... purposes and attributes of an intelligent creator. What self evident facts tell you that creationism predicts a clear dividing line between species? I challenge you to defend your position without referencing relgion.
For the millionth time, nothing is self evident as that would be paradoxical in itself.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110200 Feb 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't rcall it ever being said they did.<quoted text>I couldn't care less what the church said. THe church is not my authority. THe bible is, and the bible has never made that statement.Much like the church said the sun revolves around the earth. The bible never said that either.<quoted text>What do you think Jeremiah 31 was talking about when GOD was going to make a new covenant? John 1 gives us that new covenant!!!
Adam rib eve.

The church wrote your bible. So even if you still go with their bible it's still there opinions.

Jeremiah is ancient-old history and has nothing to do with the NT who's very name is declaration of voiding the Tanakh.
And the perception of the the law and the old god being declared nil and void.

Precicely qouting john 1 makes that obvious. John is nothing but a reflection of the debate and theology of the church fathers.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110201 Feb 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
To bad we don't know who wrote 2 Timothy nor what his credentials are. We also don't know what the author would have considered 'scripture' to be. Presumably he was referring to what we Christians would call the "Old Testament". Not all the books of the bible were written before 2 Timothy. Also, there were many books (Jewish and proto-Christian) running around and not all are included in the bible. The writings of Paul (et al) were not popular in the 1st century as they were considered heretics to Jesus' followers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bib...
Timothy was a son of paul, in the sense of follower.
Since Pual uses the appelation 'gods' for those following the teachings this must mean that we can safely transport any contribution far into the future.(As in definitely not first century, nor do his travels compute, and a more Syriac interpretation.)
No old bible has paul or even john with the assertions claimed by Markmen.
From 1000 CE you can start contemplating paul and other books as we know them today.
Which is not to say that exerpts and thoughts were not around.
But judging the times then by bibles now is anachronistic.

For some reason that has trouble filtering trough most bigots.
KAB

United States

#110202 Feb 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Without the chemical reactions, you have nothing with which to determine genetic bottlenecks.
Tell us...where does that in any way discuss genetic bottlenecks? Oh, right...nowhere. No chemical reaction, no genetic bottleneck. You do also realize that statistics are used in EVERY genetic test of any kind, right? But, all DNA tests of any kind are chemical reactions. What we make of the chemical reactions depends on the nature of the reactions.
But, is it your contention that the entire scientific community is incompetent regarding genetic bottlenecks in all organisms, or that DNA testing is inherently flawed?
Neither, oh purveyor of false dichotomies.

If you want to know my position on a matter, don't use a multiple choice approach, especially since considerable experience now has demonstrated that my answer is usually not among your choices. I realize that you present the options as if they are the only possibilities, but alas, you have almost always proven to be incorrect. So why waste the effort? However, if you must continue your pattern, remember to include "none of the above" among the choices.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110203 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither, oh purveyor of false dichotomies.
If you want to know my position on a matter, don't use a multiple choice approach, especially since considerable experience now has demonstrated that my answer is usually not among your choices. I realize that you present the options as if they are the only possibilities, but alas, you have almost always proven to be incorrect. So why waste the effort? However, if you must continue your pattern, remember to include "none of the above" among the choices.
Your answer is USUALLY a marvelous exercise in not answering any questions in any way.

Why do you propose there has been no genetic bottleneck detected in all types of organisms around the world, tracing back to 4500 years ago?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110204 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither, oh purveyor of false dichotomies.
If you want to know my position on a matter, don't use a multiple choice approach, especially since considerable experience now has demonstrated that my answer is usually not among your choices. I realize that you present the options as if they are the only possibilities, but alas, you have almost always proven to be incorrect. So why waste the effort? However, if you must continue your pattern, remember to include "none of the above" among the choices.
"None of the above" would mean you're wrong in your original assertion.
KAB

United States

#110206 Feb 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your answer is USUALLY a marvelous exercise in not answering any questions in any way.
Why do you propose there has been no genetic bottleneck detected in all types of organisms around the world, tracing back to 4500 years ago?
Not all bottlenecks are discernible, and their timing is determined based on gene variation related assumptions. In short, it's educated guesswork. At least that's my present understanding. I am prepared to change that based on the specific data and/or references you provide.
KAB

United States

#110207 Feb 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"None of the above" would mean you're wrong in your original assertion.
Please explain. That's an opportunity to demonstrate ability to use data effectively. Go for it!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110208 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain. That's an opportunity to demonstrate ability to use data effectively. Go for it!

Her ability to use data is not in question. Your ability to comprehend it without your bias is.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110209 Feb 13, 2013
All right, then, maybe not exactly alike, but darn close.
There is very little difference between one cheetah and another cheetah, and their bottleneck was a lot longer ago than 2500 BC.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110210 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant the/a word for "god" in whatever language you choose to consider.
But you insist on "global flood" in English.

Sorry, Sunshine, that horse don't jump.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110211 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, only up to about 6,000 years ago.
Hmm.

6,000 years ago the Sumerian civilization was already at its height.

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) 14 min Paul Scott 70,368
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Paul Scott 30,412
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 4 hr replaytime 77
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Paul Scott 3,818
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 5 hr Paul Scott 228
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr Paul Scott 221,446
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 6 hr Subduction Zone 57
More from around the web