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

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

There are 143948 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110250 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

I read the research. You just picked the one that serves your confirmation bias. That is not logical.

Did you understand the methodologies used to supply those dates.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110251 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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".

That is cynical at best and does not capture the actual meaning.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110252 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are summary statements. What is the span or possible span according to the actual data?

It does not matter. If there were 200 data points and 199 were 50,000 years or more and one stated 4,000 years you would pick the 4,000 years every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110253 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't change subjects until they are either resolved or can be taken no further.

Continue to rub your nose in it is what it shall be then!

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?
Did you consider scientifically valid methods of combining the data (as the researchers actually did)?
Why is one number better that what is found in aggregate?


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110254 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then please explain the processes in which consciousness evolved! THank you.

There are models for this. I will not quote them since I don't really agree with them. It is certainly an open issue.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110255 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then please explain the processes in which consciousness evolved! THank you.
What is the definition of "consciousness" that you're using? Self-awareness?
KAB

United States

#110256 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
She understood the information fully.
It is odd that you reject incredulity when it is the defining characteristic of your posts.
If she understood the info fully, why did she make a presumably poor decision?

Regarding incredulity, please flag the next one of my posts which espouses the position "I just don't believe that could be".
KAB

United States

#110257 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the research. You just picked the one that serves your confirmation bias. That is not logical.
Did you understand the methodologies used to supply those dates.
Yes
KAB

United States

#110258 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is cynical at best and does not capture the actual meaning.
Then give us the actual meaning.
KAB

United States

#110259 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter. If there were 200 data points and 199 were 50,000 years or more and one stated 4,000 years you would pick the 4,000 years every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Not without additional corroborating data.
KAB

United States

#110260 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Continue to rub your nose in it is what it shall be then!
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?
Did you consider scientifically valid methods of combining the data (as the researchers actually did)?
Why is one number better that what is found in aggregate?
My position is not that any one number is better than the others, and did you note that no number was 4500?.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110261 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If she understood the info fully, why did she make a presumably poor decision?

For the same reason you do. Cognitive bias.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Regarding incredulity, please flag the next one of my posts which espouses the position "I just don't believe that could be".

You are incredulous about your incredulity! Now THAT if funny!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110262 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes

I am glad you are aware of your bias in this case.

Since your choice does not conform to the previously mention scientific method but DOES conform to an a priori religious bias, don't you think you should rethink?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110263 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not without additional corroborating data.

This is a lie. The corroborating data all gave higher values and you have implicitly chosen the only one that conforms to your cult indoctrination.

The best answer of 10,000 years is a close approximation to the average with some weighting toward the more reliable measures.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter. If there were 200 data points and 199 were 50,000 years or more and one stated 4,000 years you would pick the 4,000 years every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110264 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My position is not that any one number is better than the others, and did you note that no number was 4500?.

Certainly. You went with number that was easiest to rationalize into your world view.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110265 Feb 14, 2013
New evidence for Human evolution (released today, Feb 14th):

Humans and chimps share genetic strategy in battle against pathogens
February 14th, 2013 in Biology / Biotechnology

A genome-wide analysis searching for evidence of long-lived balancing selection—where the evolutionary process acts not to select the single best adaptation but to maintain genetic variation in a population—has uncovered at least six regions of the genome where humans and chimpanzees share the same combination of genetic variants.

The finding, to be published Feb. 14 in the journal Science, suggests that in these regions, human genetic variation dates back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees millions of years ago, before the species split. It also highlights the importance of the dynamic co-evolution of human hosts and their pathogens in maintaining genetic variation.

<<more at link below>>

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-humans-chimps-ge...
LowellGuy

Oakland Gardens, NY

#110266 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then please explain the processes in which consciousness evolved! THank you.
Even without a scientific explanation, "God did it" doesn't win by default. That's an argument from ignorance.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110267 Feb 14, 2013
KAB, that was an excellent quote mine.

I don't know which one I like better,
this one or the one which marksman11 made from Eugenie Scott's book.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110268 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not without confirming data. You can state anything you want, but can you confirm it as true?
Good grief. Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

We have their buildings, their artwork, their sculpture, their writing.

Here, I'll let the British Museum introduce you:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/cultures...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110269 Feb 14, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Good grief. Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Now he is being deliberately obtuse?

NOW he is being deliberately obtuse?!!

When has KAB EVER NOT been deliberately obtuse?

EVER!?

I bet you that his next post will be deliberately obtuse!

What kind of odds do you need?

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 DanFromSmithville 174,022
News Intelligent design 56 min MikeF 24
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Thu Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed macumazahn 1,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Wed macumazahn 20,900
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Wed karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Wed dollarsbill 14
More from around the web