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

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 ... Full Story

““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.

“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.

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
What you should know about Tuesday's vote on ev... (Feb '08) 10 min IAMIOOWAN 516
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min SobieskiSavedEurope 131,781
How would creationists explain... 26 min Hidingfromyou 286
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Brian_G 13,614
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr The Dude 427
Science News (Sep '13) 7 hr positronium 2,939
sea-dwelling dinosaur found alive (Apr '10) 8 hr The Dude 87
More from around the web