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

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

There are 141831 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.

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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118537 Jun 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Look at the promiscuity of Genghis Khan. If the fusion of chromosomes in a male progenitor of the distant past gave rise to a significant competitive advantage, particularly in a relatively small population? Or if the same telomeres were damaged in a statistically perceptible number of individuals through a retrovirus?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118538 Jun 23, 2013
Here you go. There were different species of wild horse:

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

"Przewalski's Horse has some biological differences from the domestic horse; unlike domesticated horses and the Tarpan, which both have 64 chromosomes, Przewalski's Horse has 66 chromosomes due to a Robertsonian translocation. However, the offspring of Przewalski and domestic horses are fertile, possessing 65 chromosomes."

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118539 Jun 23, 2013
I read an article a year or two ago proposing advantages/disadvantages of long vs. short chromosomal chains.
The numbers of chromosomes even among humans is not hard and fast at 46, but the vast majority have 46. I recall that Downs syndrome is caused by a partial or even full extra copy of the 21st chromosome.
Genetics doesn't entertain me. I just like to poke at our ape cousins AKA Bonzo AKA religies. I realize it isn't PC to make fun of them, but it's not like they are cognizant.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118540 Jun 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any sequences in chimps which are found in some humans but not others?
Here is an interesting article on blood types.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/34...

It seems the ABO differences have deep evolutionary roots and so this would be an example of a sequence found in some humans but not others, though also some chimps and not others.

However, the sequence mixing with Neanderthals is of an entirely different character, as it is confined geographically to the offspring of people who would have come into contact with Neanderthals after the migration from Africa.(And a similar story holds for the Denisovan sequences in East Asia.) Blood type differences do not fit that model, but instead appear to be a common primate trait that gives different levels of resistance to different pathogens among individuals.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118541 Jun 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence showing that we have interbred with Neanderthals but not with chimps?
I am not sure it has been proven that we cannot.

However, if other creatures are any guide, the ability to interbreed declines with evolutionary distance and the estimated 6-7 million year split is great enough to prevent inter-fertility.

Even when there is little superficial change, isolated populations undergo progressive genetic drift in different directions which, similarly to the drift in isolated human languages, renders the two genetic "languages" to be incomprehensible, eventually.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118543 Jun 24, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
I read an article a year or two ago proposing advantages/disadvantages of long vs. short chromosomal chains.
The numbers of chromosomes even among humans is not hard and fast at 46, but the vast majority have 46. I recall that Downs syndrome is caused by a partial or even full extra copy of the 21st chromosome.
Genetics doesn't entertain me. I just like to poke at our ape cousins AKA Bonzo AKA religies. I realize it isn't PC to make fun of them, but it's not like they are cognizant.
The more we learn about life, the more we realize there is no normal for any living organism. Another interesting factoid, 98.6F isn't the normal temperature for humans, and the most recent average is actually 97.9F. That should mess with their heads more. Genetics is fun, but complicated, so very complicated, to study. I understand the basics, a strong background in chemistry helped a lot with that, but as to which chemicals control which traits I'm still a bit hazy on. I understand the hormones now, and how those work, as well as how viruses work in an infected organism, and how the immune system functions, but that's the extent of my studies thus far.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118544 Jun 24, 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?
I meant, ownership by origination. Now, if something did not come into form( originate) how can people make use of that thing? if English did not come/ came into form, how can people of other languages have access to it?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118545 Jun 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not find anything on wiki that suggests that England owns English.
So sales receipt.
No deed.
No title
No copyright
No certificate of ownership
No patent
No court record
No license
No assignment of rights
No registration
Not even a certificate of authenticity!
Further, to own requires one to
have rightful possession
have control over
hold full rights
hold title
None of these apply to England's relationship of the English language.
So, we have seen again that your statement is false.
Please use a dictionary if you are unsure about the meaning of a word.
I call that, laziness in the highest order. I am not English, but i can speak it, many reasons are associated with that, that you ignorantly failed to look at. More of license trash, but you can not bend the truth.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118546 Jun 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you are confusing own and origination. They are not related words and one does not imply the other.
Basic error.
Don' t shy away from the truth, Asian. What i said and wrote is the truth, every reasonable humans knew/ knows that.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118547 Jun 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not relevant to the question of ownership of the English language.
Just accept the fact, you don' t know. You were the same liar that said, English originated from Northern Germany, and i asked you a simple question, where in Germany as a whole, English is taken as first or native language, to no avail. Waiting!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118548 Jun 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not relevant to the question of ownership of the English language.
Not relevant to your excuses. If the English did not introduced the language, people like you or i( me), would 'nt have had access to the language, by that implication, they are the owners of the languague, so giving excuses of licenses, is not relevant here.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118549 Jun 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not relevant to the question of who OWNS a language.
My statement is logically perfect.
Stupid and stupid.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118550 Jun 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not.
<quoted text>
That is not true or even logical.
Belong to means to be the property of. English is not the property of anyone.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belong
Please learn the meaning of the English words.
Clearly and logically right! The English introduced their language to all the countries that takes English as first or official language, by that, they are the owners of the language, but passed it through conquest to other nations, so no licensing involved.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118551 Jun 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Stupid and stupid.
Indeed you are.

GREECE OWNS ENGLISH! Where's my 500 then? Efcharisto.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118552 Jun 24, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Family Tree is a documentary-style television comedy created by
Christopher Guest and Jim Piddock. The series premiered on May 12, 2013,
on the American pay television network HBO and will appear this summer
on the British network BBC Two.-Wikipedia
Why do you ask?
No! i am talking about, genealogy. From parents( ancestors) to their offsprings( progenies).

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118553 Jun 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, and all those languages belong to the people whose language started them.
Going by your premise, all languages belongs to God the creator.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118554 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the copyright or patent number?
Not relevant. Now, refute my statement.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118555 Jun 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your mention of Germanic tribes was general, not all the Germanic tribes did that. Take note! There were all Germanic, but some were Dutch, Danish, German and English.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118556 Jun 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> A blithering idiot? No problem, but you are a ravine lunatic!
A *ravine* lunatic, huh?

You're too funny, Chuckles.

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) 7 min PointBlankPeriod 168,913
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 3 hr Brian_G 6,217
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr ChristineM 19,788
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 22 hr Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Thu qiu 1
More from around the web