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

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

There are 143878 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.

KAB

United States

#110230 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Data says it would have taken longer. But you assert that it would not have taken as long.
And a cheetah is one of your best case examples.
Is 3529 greater or less than 4500?

As to the cheetah being best case, didn't I ask "What's next"?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110231 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not without confirming data. You can state anything you want, but can you confirm it as true?

Yep.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

" Carter, Robert A. and Philip, Graham Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Number 63) The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (2010) ISBN 978-1-885923-66-0 p.2, at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/... ; "Radiometric data suggest that the whole Southern Mesopotamian Ubaid period, including Ubaid 0 and 5, is of immense duration, spanning nearly three millenia from about 6500 to 3800 B.C."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110232 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> BTW, I have on occasion opposed doctors after assimilating their expert info and advice, and it has proven to be the wise course.

My daughters mother-in-law did this too. She is now dying.

[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text> In case you're interested, the appropriate process is to gather expert info, then reason thru it and draw your conclusions, which may not be the same as theirs, yet still supported by their data.

No, you have to have a reason to question an expert. The legitimate reasons to do so are certainly quite numerous. Base incredulity is not one of them, however.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110233 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is 3529 greater or less than 4500?
As to the cheetah being best case, didn't I ask "What's next"?

As you failed with the Cheetah data we would most enjoy continuing to rub your nose in it till you change the subject.

Did you take all the dates as equal or did you pick the one you liked?

Did you note the different methodology for the dates or did you just pick the one you liked?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110234 Feb 14, 2013
I found the passage which you are referring to.
However, it goes on to say "Because demographic considerations would make the survival of a few individuals from such a catastrophe unlikely, a series of less severe bottlenecks spread over time and over geographic space is more realistic."

Here are some quotes from the article:

"The back calculation ... supports the placement of the bottleneck on the order of the end of the Pleistocene, about 10,000 years ago."

"The results support an ancient bottleneck 6000-20,000 years before the present."
KAB

United States

#110235 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
" Carter, Robert A. and Philip, Graham Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Number 63) The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (2010) ISBN 978-1-885923-66-0 p.2, at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/... ; "Radiometric data suggest that the whole Southern Mesopotamian Ubaid period, including Ubaid 0 and 5, is of immense duration, spanning nearly three millenia from about 6500 to 3800 B.C."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu
That's not data. It's a reference to data, and even then the data is only credited with suggesting, not confirming.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110236 Feb 14, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm.
6,000 years ago the Sumerian civilization was already at its height.
Ah the Ubaid. Sumerians are presumed to have entered later.
Ubaid later sttled in UVA. uhh...language bump that would be the unified arab emirates.
The only arab country i know that had archeologists scoure the place, insists on C14 dating, and are now proud of their progeny.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110237 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
" Carter, Robert A. and Philip, Graham Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Number 63) The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (2010) ISBN 978-1-885923-66-0 p.2, at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/... ; "Radiometric data suggest that the whole Southern Mesopotamian Ubaid period, including Ubaid 0 and 5, is of immense duration, spanning nearly three millenia from about 6500 to 3800 B.C."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu
Ah jumped the gun.
Execellent.
By 2000 BC the demise of the Sumerian civilisitation set in.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110238 Feb 14, 2013
Suggest, tentatively...and such words are normal in scientific papers.
It is an asknowledgement that their research will be scrutinized again, and someone might falsify it.
So the scientific method in full swing.
The formulation is always carefull.
If you read some of the data we provided you would have been familiar with this practice.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110239 Feb 14, 2013
V.A.E just for that part of the populace that would be from my region.
KAB

United States

#110240 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have to have a reason to question an expert. The legitimate reasons to do so are certainly quite numerous. Base incredulity is not one of them, however.
If your daughter's mother-in-law took her action without understanding the info she was provided, she may have acted unwisely, depending on her objective.

I agree regarding the incredulity. One should be able to use the available data to justify one's conclusion.
KAB

United States

#110241 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As you failed with the Cheetah data we would most enjoy continuing to rub your nose in it till you change the subject.
Did you take all the dates as equal or did you pick the one you liked?
Did you note the different methodology for the dates or did you just pick the one you liked?
I considered the full range of data along with the explanation of methodology, and objectively realized that the correct answer could scientifically legitimately be 4500 years. How did you decide the correct answer is 10,000?
KAB

United States

#110242 Feb 14, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Suggest, tentatively...and such words are normal in scientific papers.
It is an asknowledgement that their research will be scrutinized again, and someone might falsify it.
So the scientific method in full swing.
The formulation is always carefull.
If you read some of the data we provided you would have been familiar with this practice.
I am very familiar with the practice, and use it routinely in my own work. It means "this may not be correct, but it's what we think now".
KAB

United States

#110243 Feb 14, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I found the passage which you are referring to.
However, it goes on to say "Because demographic considerations would make the survival of a few individuals from such a catastrophe unlikely, a series of less severe bottlenecks spread over time and over geographic space is more realistic."
Here are some quotes from the article:
"The back calculation ... supports the placement of the bottleneck on the order of the end of the Pleistocene, about 10,000 years ago."
"The results support an ancient bottleneck 6000-20,000 years before the present."
Those are summary statements. What is the span or possible span according to the actual data?
KAB

United States

#110244 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As you failed with the Cheetah data we would most enjoy continuing to rub your nose in it till you change the subject.
Did you take all the dates as equal or did you pick the one you liked?
Did you note the different methodology for the dates or did you just pick the one you liked?
I don't change subjects until they are either resolved or can be taken no further.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110245 Feb 14, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Good morning, marksman. I hope you and your loved ones are well.
It appears elohim doesn't have the firm grasp of statistical mechanics that you and I share.
God bless you.
oh, he does:-)
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110246 Feb 14, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution accounts for consciousness just as Matthew does, just without that blessed confusing layer.
Matthew 13:16
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Then please explain the processes in which consciousness evolved! THank you.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110247 Feb 14, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
Blessed are the confused, for they shall inherit right wing politics.
-- I said that.
no doubt:-)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110248 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not data. It's a reference to data, and even then the data is only credited with suggesting, not confirming.


sorry chump. You lost again.

Anyone with a sincere interest in the truth can follow these resources. Since you are unwilling to do that a summary refutation is what you get. But refuted you are, unless you have any data....

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
" Carter, Robert A. and Philip, Graham Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Number 63) The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (2010) ISBN 978-1-885923-66-0 p.2, at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/ ... ; "Radiometric data suggest that the whole Southern Mesopotamian Ubaid period, including Ubaid 0 and 5, is of immense duration, spanning nearly three millenia from about 6500 to 3800 B.C."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110249 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If your daughter's mother-in-law took her action without understanding the info she was provided, she may have acted unwisely, depending on her objective.
I agree regarding the incredulity. One should be able to use the available data to justify one's conclusion.

She understood the information fully.

It is odd that you reject incredulity when it is the defining characteristic of your posts.

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
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 25 min Zog Has-fallen 59
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 28 min Aura Mytha 173,307
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 66
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 3 hr Chimney1 420
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 5 hr Zog Has-fallen 46
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 10 hr DanFromSmithville 178,688
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... 10 hr DanFromSmithville 133
More from around the web