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

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

There are 151481 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#115608 May 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you're still dishonestly conflating evolution with abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
I'd go through the reasons again but you already know them, and have failed to address them since the very first time.
Same applies to every other fundie too, so at least you're not alone with your complete and total utter abject failure.
As much as you wish you could divorce yourself from abiogenesis, the problem will not go away.
All life requires DNA.
The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115609 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
You cannot logically defend abiogenesis by appeals to science.
Gee, if not science, then what?

Ah, yes. You're not interested in science so you don't like it when we bring it up.
HTS wrote:
The only line of defense you can present is that you think evolution occurred, therefore abiosgenesis must have occurred.
Incorrect. In fact evolution need not have occurred at all. The fact it has is another matter entirely.

Abiogenesis occurring is based on two simple things:

1 - Life being present.

2 - Earth being finite.

Whether or not life changed over time is completely irrelevant. HOW abiogenesis occurred is also completely irrelevant to the point that it DID occur. It could have been:

1 - Natural process(es)

2 - Space aliens

3 - Goddidit with magic

4 - A currently unknown 4th option which no-one has considered or thought of yet.
HTS wrote:
Your explanation has the appearance of science, but it isn't.
Spontaneous nucleotide phosphorylation and RNA oligopolimerization in abiotic conditions doesn't prove anything. It would be like suggesting that a monkey could type a Shakespearean play because you had documented that it could randomly type keys.
Your analogy fails as it does not take into account some very important things:

1 - Chemistry is NOT random.

2 - Natural selection.

3 - Given enough time a monkey COULD type useful things by accident.

4 - Emergent properties - small steps taken, all useless steps discarded while each useful one is kept, so the process does not have to start from scratch each time.

5 - There are literally TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of monkeys across the universe all doing the same experiment, DRASTICALLY reducing the odds when all are taken into account.
HTS wrote:
No experiment has demonstrated that nucleotides could self organize into a genetic code. The observations you sited referred to random sequences of RNA nucleotides, NOT a genetic code. A monkey can randomly type keys. That does not mean he can compose Shakespeare. There's a big difference.
Yes there is. First, DNA self-organises.

EVERY

SINGLE

DAY.

Period.

No "intelligent intervention" by invisible magic Jew wizards required.

Second, DNA is chemistry. The "code" you refer to (A,C,G,T) was invented by humans as a way to help us describe the chemical reactions involved. And we have over 60 years of biomedical research to back up that fact.

So what YOU propose is ANOTHER "code", one that so far no creationist on the planet has been able to describe. It is STILL possible that DNA was in fact "designed", all you need to do is provide scientific evidence of the designer and its methods. Of course you HAVE been informed of all this, what, must be well over a year ago by now.

And also of course abio STILL has no bearing on the scientific validity of evolution. It would be CONVENIENT for you if it was, that way you can nip evolution in the bud without actually having to address it. Which is really what the whole abiogenesis argument is about.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115610 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
I never said it was "magic"
You didn't have to. The Bible did it for you.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
Your EVOLUTIONDIDIT WITH PIXIE DUST dogma the only way you can explain anything, so you need to think before you hurl accusations.
Actually it isn't, since if you had noticed we've never invoked pixie dust. It's the fact we HAVE thought, then presented you with evidence you have never addressed is the reason why we can level accusations at you that have basis. All you have is your Black Knight routine.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115611 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you seriously think you're making a valid point.
The link you provided referred to a computer program which took randomly selected keystrokes and compared them to Shakespeare's works. In other words, the selective device utilized had an end goal. Your post only proves my point... the only hypothetical selection device that you can imagine requires intelligence.
Yes, I am. I am pointing whenever you make your monkey claim it shows you really have no clue. You do not understand evolution or abiogensis. Natural selection is a very important part of evolution. Natural selection selects for survival. Just as the computer program selected for Shakespeare's works, that is what you wanted after all. It is hypocritical of you to complain about Shakespeare's works being selected when that was the goal after all.

The goal of DNA is to keep on existing. It is selected by evolution and its selection results in life. Both analogies are perfectly consistent.

You want to ignore the role that selection can have in accomplishing something. Your problem with evolution is that you give it the wrong goal. Man was not the goal of evolution. The only goal is continued survival. For that the bacteria could be said to be the winner so far of the evolutionary race. We are not even on the podium. For some reason that reality bothers you to no end.

Analogies must fit nature to be valid. If there is a selection system in nature, which there is, then there should be a selection system in your analogy. You got mad at me since I showed monkeys can type Shakespeare when a selection system is added. Just as life can evolve when a selection system is added.

By leaving out the selection system your monkey analogy does not accurately reflect the real world. It is a worthless analogy. My version was better since it had both variation, monkeys typing randomly, and a selection system, if a word or phrase of Shakespeare's appeared it was preserved. Just as life that is successful is preserved and passes on its genes.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115612 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you wish you could divorce yourself from abiogenesis, the problem will not go away.
All life requires DNA.
The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing.
Well it WOULD...

Except we've demonstrated that abiogenesis is NOT impossible. The ONLY way it would be impossible would be if you can demonstrate that planet Earth has NEVER developed life.

Good luck with that.

Until that time evolution remains unaffected. It doesn't matter if life was magically poofed into existence by your magic Jew. If this wizard of yours exists, it used evolution. Life is here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to prove otherwise you have to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115613 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But likely you would wish you were.
Yeah, I'd suggest he join Noah's crew instead. It would all be over a lot quicker.

(evil grin)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115614 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you wish you could divorce yourself from abiogenesis, the problem will not go away.
All life requires DNA.
The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing.
Wrong on two counts. First your whole claim is wrong since evolution deals with live after it exists. The first life could have been magicked into existence by a god and it could still have evolved to form us. The lack of not understanding abiogenesis is not a problem. And remember even creatards believe in an abiogenesis event.

Second natural abiogenesis has not been proven wrong in any way and it is a topic of research today. It is a tough problem, no one has ever denied that, but every year we understand more and more and no one has claimed that those understandings show that natural abiogenesis is impossible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115615 May 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is "nothing is ever certain in science" an extraordinary claim?

No.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, a corollary of that premise is "anything is possible".

True but not at all the point.

To this day I am sometimes astonished at your ignorance of science and the scientific method. I have posted a link to a decent online book on the scientific method that can be read in less than three hours, but you have never deemed it worthwhile to read it.

The hard won understanding in science that new information can throw out old understanding is based on the many false starts in early "science" that ended up being wrong.

Remember, I have already demonstrated (better than most of your demonstrations) that the earth is a cube.
KAB

United States

#115616 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an outright lie. Stomachs are known to be full of acid. KNOWN! Stomach are known not to have significant amounts of breathable air. KNOWN!
<quoted text>
Here. Digest this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomach
Thanks for the reference confirming there's considerable variety in stomachs. Further, why not consider some other site in the creature, perhaps lung, or are you content with declaring but not confirming it can't be done?
KAB

United States

#115617 May 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No you have not.
You're entitled to your opinion.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#115618 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
This entire discussion is pointless.
Jonah being swallowed by a whale is only one of many miracles of the Bible that cannot be explained by appeals to known scientific laws. It is believed that a higher power exists, that can operate through laws that man does not understand. I find the parting of the Red Sea by Moses and Christ raising Lazarus from the dead much more difficult to explain in terms of known laws of science. Why is everyone fixating on Jonah?
It doesn't matter which example of magic you use. None of it can be shown to actually have occurred. Not one example you mention has any supporting evidence outside of the Bible.

Do you realize that prior to the reformation, most theologians considered a literal interpretation of the Bible to be reserved for the ignorant, illiterate and uneducated. The inability to differentiate between allegory and fact seems to plug you right into that group.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#115619 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you wish you could divorce yourself from abiogenesis, the problem will not go away.
All life requires DNA.
The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing.
Evolution does not require that life came about in any particular way. Thus refuting abiogenesis would not impact the validity of evolution. If you wish to continue believing that erroneous idea it is your business.
KAB

United States

#115620 May 15, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Should we list the "Extraordinary claims" made by you along with the evidence you've presented FOR those claims? Perhaps you've phrased them as "It's **POSSIBLE** that....".
Assertion: Noachian Flood
Evidence presented FOR Noachian Flood:(Crickets)
Assertion: Jonah's Whale Home
Evidence presented FOR Jonah/Whale:(NADA)
*******
In either case presented above, we've shown with only the slightest shadow of doubt that these Biblical claims are nonsense from a scientific reality point.
Your only alternative is Magic, or 'Steath Floods' that leave no evidence, and whales that have have not only lost their ability to digest their contents, but somehow can actually sustain a grown man for 3 days.
Again, you're welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe....just stop pretending it is rational, or that it is science.
Now you contradict yourself within the confines of a single post. You cling tenaciously, apparently as a disciple of the Guy, to the notion that science cannot be certain about anything. Then against that backdrop you proclaim something to be magic (i.e., the science of uncertainty not involved?).

I, on the other hand, readily acknowledge accepting something which physical science, in general, seems to indicate is very unlikely. All the same, I do like to quantify (data) how unlikely because sometimes things prove to be more likely than we may think.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115621 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HST, why do you keep mentioning monkeys and Shakespeare? Applying a form of selection to the problem makes it possible:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
Applying selection to chemistry makes abiogenesis possible.
It's the old question.
"If an infinite number of monkeys randomly hit the keys of an infinite number of typewriters, would they eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare?"
And of course the answer is "yes."
Somehow I guess he believes that the area of the biosphere over the course of a couple billion years is not enough time to produce the preface of the first chapter of the complete works of Life.
And naturally, that conclusively dictates that man is only 6,000 years old.
KAB

United States

#115622 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for reinforcing that you are a liar.
BTW, it is perfectly permissible for ME to draw conclusions without providing YOU with data.
<quoted text>
What flesh don't they dissolve?
Yes, you are always entitled to your opinion. The data is just for getting me to join you.

Regarding undisolved flesh, remember the stomach!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115623 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is nonsense from a scientific reality point.
Abiogenesis is nonsense only to dishonest cretins who distort Pasteur's statement and to attribute him a far greater scope of knowledge than he actually had.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115624 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Of all the BS you've spewed, this surpasses everything
"We know how abiogenesis occurred"
Care to elaborate...

Simple logic.

P1. The universe (and earth) were once devoid of live.
(no one I know disagrees on this point)

P2. Life now exists in the universe (specifically on earth).
(again, I can find no disagreement on this point)

C: Abiogenesis occurred at some point in time.
(conclusion follows from premises).

Unless you can dispute one of the premises we need not have this discussion again.


Is is

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115625 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was "magic"
Your EVOLUTIONDIDIT WITH PIXIE DUST dogma the only way you can explain anything, so you need to think before you hurl accusations.

I don't remember any mention of pixie dust in the MES theory.

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

I searched for both 'pixie' and 'dust' and it did not come up in the article.

I also searched google for "modern synthes of evolution" AND pixie dust and did not get any significant hits.

Perhaps you need to check your sources again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115626 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you wish you could divorce yourself from abiogenesis, the problem will not go away.
All life requires DNA.
The impossibility of abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing.

Evolution is not dependent on HOW life got here. Only that life exists. It is not terrible difficult to conceptualize so I don't know what your problem is.

Aside from that abiogenesis clearly occurred as I demonstrated above.

While all SCIENTIFIC hypotheses regarding abiogenesis involve naturalistic means, it is not necessary to evolution that abiogenesis occur by such means. In this case magic poofing (while unlikely) works just as well as scientific explanations.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115627 May 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.

Seems to be a consensus of opinion, if you have not noticed.


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) 20 min syamsu 204,848
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 25 min Thinking 18,518
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Thinking 43,194
Sun could not have formed as thought 14 hr U think Im wrong 19
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Wed It aint necessari... 912
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Aug 22 Bren 1
Transfer Old iPhone Data to Samsung Galaxy S7 w... Aug 22 CarLayshia 1
More from around the web