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

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

There are 151419 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118517 Jun 23, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Like i said, you need an education. Germanic does not mean German alone, but includes Dutch, German, English, Danish, etc.
Right, and all those languages belong to the people whose language started them.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118518 Jun 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The notion that not everything is "owned" and that some things are just there in the public domain, freely available for everyone, so even the concept of "ownership" is inapplicable.
Who owns the decimal number system Charles?
Melvil Dewey?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118519 Jun 23, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Welcome back! now answer my question, where did the English came from and who were the Anglo Saxons?
Unga Bunga.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118520 Jun 23, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> English belongs to England, why? because it was first spoken there. facts and sources: Wikipedia.
What is the copyright or patent number?
thewordofme

Tucson, AZ

#118521 Jun 23, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Hello Word, you don't get it, am i English? no, but i understand the language. My position is that, since they started it, it belongs to them.
What I am trying to say Charles is that ANY language does not "belong" to anyone.
YES, the early Angles and Germanic tribes originate the language and all honor goes to them for that, but even though they originated it, they don't own it. Language cannot be owned by anyone. NO ONE can own a language.
All they can do is say they are from the people who originated English....if they are from the bloodline of the originators.
Except for 1 or 2 artificial languages, language is made up by tribes and groups of many people who communicate with each other almost daily, and work it out between themselves.
The peoples and tribes that are the most successful and powerful in financial, political, and military dealings in their areas of influence have the most speakers it seems.
Right now English is the most prevalent language because of the past and present economic, political, and military power of the English speaking Democratic countries. English is the official language of science and aviation all over the world. It is the official language of the European Union and the United Nations and a number of Caribbean nations. It is the leading language of International discourse.
There are more Native Spanish and Chinese speaker in the world, but because of English being the common 'lingua franca' all over the world it will probably end up eventually becoming the world's biggest Native language.
But, that's only my opinion.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118522 Jun 23, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
What I am trying to say Charles....
You can succeed in <saying> whatever you want to a religie. While it will likely be perfectly clear to reasonable bystanders, it in no way though any number of attempts means it's likely to be understood by the target.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118523 Jun 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have heard different estimates regarding the number of genes we share with chimpanzees. It still doesn't change the fact that we are more closely related to Neanderthals than chimps. Evidence shows that we have interbred with Neanderthals in the past.
So you are saying that modern humans do not show the same percentage difference in our genes and those of chimpanzees and Neanderthals. Big surprise there. That is essentially what I said. What is your point.
By the way good luck with that football, the chimps and the cross breeding research.
What is the evidence showing that we have interbred with Neanderthals but not with chimps?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118524 Jun 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence showing that we have interbred with Neanderthals but not with chimps?

We don't have specific evidence from your lineage. I suspect you should have a talk with your parents.

You will get more out of your mother if you give her a banana.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118525 Jun 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence showing that we have interbred with Neanderthals but not with chimps?
Chimps and the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.
Neanderthals had 46 chromosomes, the same number as homo sapiens.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118526 Jun 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimps and the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.
Neanderthals had 46 chromosomes, the same number as homo sapiens.
To be honest a different number of chromosomes is not an insurmountable barrier to interbreeding.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118527 Jun 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem here is you are not comparing the same thing.
If we use the figure 98% for the commonality of chimp/human genes (and this differs depending on the method), you are basically saying that 2 out of every 100 bases is different.
But when you say a gene is "neanderthal" or "human", you are only saying that there is a sequence, which may only differ by one part in 1000, that is found in neanderthal DNA and in some humans but not others. As this is a unique Neanderthal marker, we can assume that it either arose independently in some humans by chance, which the odds are enormously against, or we can note that humans and neanderthals rubbed shoulders for a time after the human migration out of Africa and this explains why just the Out of Africa humans carry these sequences but not the humans who stayed in Africa.
In non-African humans, up to 4% of the genome carries these unique markers. Again, the markers themselves may only differ by a tiny percentage like 1/1000 (0.1%) but that is enough to identify them.
Are there any sequences in chimps which are found in some humans but not others?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118528 Jun 23, 2013
Being away for a week or so has provideded a valuable experiment. This forum has already gone virtually completely dataless while post-for-post appearing so authoritative. This must especially delight Dr. D.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118529 Jun 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
To be honest a different number of chromosomes is not an insurmountable barrier to interbreeding.
Genetics isn't my thing, but isn't it a barrier to fertile offspring?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118530 Jun 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence showing that we have interbred with Neanderthals but not with chimps?
What is the evidence you have read anything on the subject?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118531 Jun 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any sequences in chimps which are found in some humans but not others?
No.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118532 Jun 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimps and the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.
Neanderthals had 46 chromosomes, the same number as homo sapiens.
Your response appears to rest on the notion that organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can't/don't interbreed.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118533 Jun 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetics isn't my thing, but isn't it a barrier to fertile offspring?
Ohh, you wanted fertile offspring.

Seriously that is not my specialty either. But somehow man had to keep breeding after a pair of chromosomes were first fused in our not too recent past.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118534 Jun 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
Being away for a week or so has provideded a valuable experiment. This forum has already gone virtually completely dataless while post-for-post appearing so authoritative. This must especially delight Dr. D.

You were gone?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118535 Jun 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response appears to rest on the notion that organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can't/don't interbreed.
As usual, you provide ZERO information and you seem to be pointless.
A horse and donkey will produce either a mule or hinny, depending on the species of the sire and dame. The offspring will be sterile (a "mule," in that sense of the word). No genetic traits can be handed down because there will be no more generations of offspring.
Ligers and tigons have 38 chromosomes, the same as both tigers and lions. They are not sterile, but the chances of a viable offspring is greatly reduced because of their genetic mix.
Am I wrong on this?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118536 Jun 23, 2013
Holy crap! The number of chromosomes does not seem to be too terribly important.

Take Zebras for example they naturally have from 32 to 46 chromosomes, depending upon species. Yet they can breed with donkeys with 62 chromosomes:

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

Also, if I recall correctly, wild horses have different number of chromosomes than domesticated horses. I will search for the appropriate articles.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min _Susan_ 16,200
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 7 min Reno Hoock 228
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Regolith Based Li... 40,745
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Aura Mytha 201,601
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 1 hr THE LONE WORKER 49
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 6 hr Chazofsaints 18
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Wed ChristineM 96
More from around the web