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
KAB

Oxford, NC

#119080 Jul 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No? Ever see bird nests?
Yes, I have seen bird nests.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#119081 Jul 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for yet another dataless and useless assertion.
Design data is all around you. Perhaps you should take note of it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#119082 Jul 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how the Atacama is not significant to a world wide flood but a landslide in Canada is.
The Atacama would be significant to a world wide flood if it could be confirmed that it did not experience a relatively slow rise of water followed by a slow receding over the course of about a year 4500 years ago. Also, a landslide which waited 1.4 million years to occur just at the time of a reported one year global flood does seem to be significant.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#119083 Jul 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a case of simple "confirming data" - there are many facts in that post.
Surely I do not need to confirm the following, at least...
Eukaryotes have separate nuclear DNA and a lot more of it than bacteria.
Eukaryotes have some organelles such as mitochondria that carry their own genes and provide evidence of previously being separate bacteria themselves.
The template of vertebrates from amphibians to mammals is recognisably very similar.
Sexual recombination allow the crossing over of genetic changes from one creature to another.
These were the data elements of my post. Are they even contentious? You might not like the conclusions or hypotheses I drew from this combination of facts, but in that case the response is to argue why my conclusions did not follow from my premises, not to blindly ask for "data" yet again!
What's significantly lacking is quantification and confirmation of rate of change per generation for eukaryotes, similar to how we know that after 50,000 generations, bacteria are still bacteria.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119084 Jul 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if the flood occurred then the bottleneck occurred. Foolproof detection is the challenge. If you think that's been accomplished then provide some confirming data. I would provide it but haven't found any.
Science doesn't recognize concepts like "foolproof." Your desire to hold science to a ridiculous standard and use its inability to meet said standard as some sort of evidence of your fairy tale stories possibly being true is as obvious a grasp at straws as one could hope for. Desperation is setting in.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#119085 Jul 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never heard of "unbounded evolution". Is that one of your fantasies/delusions?
However, evolution (regular type) is observable and an established fact. The only explanation of evolution that fits observations and makes predictions is the Theory of Evolution.
The ToE is the best and only scientific theory of origins of species.
There is need for a distinction since your side seems to think that if genomes change from generation to generation, which they do, then that alone explains all the variety of life, even tho the observed process hasn't been shown to calculably give the observed status quo.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#119086 Jul 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Local variety. Of course P waves always transverse the globe.
If memory serves, the side of the crater looks as if the support was cut out from underneath. This would be the case if the rim wall could no longer support the weight, not as if a sheer force was applied.
That would be most consistent with an earthquake, slightly less probable due to glaciation.
It appears that memory doesn't serve. Data would serve much better.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#119087 Jul 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "good reason" is an assertion as you provide no basis for it.
Do you understand what an assertion is?
"Good" is a judgment call. My judgment is the data, coupled with the well known fact that I have numerous times directly demonstrated your lack of credibility as a source of correct info.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119088 Jul 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's significantly lacking is quantification and confirmation of rate of change per generation for eukaryotes, similar to how we know that after 50,000 generations, bacteria are still bacteria.
KAB, this is the wrong way of looking at the issue.

If you look at Lenski's 12 flasks, you can see a similar gradual improvement as they adapt to the medium, at first quickly and then more slowly as they become adapted. Normal adaptation response.

But in one flask alone there is a discontinuity, which shows up quite suddenly. This is a result of two mutations spaced many generations apart, with the effect only occurring after the second one. Suddenly, the ability to digest citrate, which creates a population explosion in this one flask.

Likewise, for an event like the inclusion of a mitochondrion that was previously a separate bacterial entity, the event is a singular discontinuity. It happened, probably only once. You cannot draw a nice graph of the event unfolding over 10 or 10,000 generations. Its a discontinuity.

Not only that, but if this inclusion provided a major advantage, it could have set off a cascade of complementary changes too, and then settled at a new equilibrium for a while.

There are a number of such events in the evolutionary framework. If they happened, they most likely only happened once and we cannot pin down the event in the way you are suggesting.

And even the normal change of populations is not going to be a linear generation by generation event. In Lenski's other 11 flasks, the rate of change was initially rapid then slowed. This is what we expect to happen when a novel environment is introduced. The better it adapts, the less it continues to change.

If you want data, look up the populations in the lenski flasks to confirm what I am saying.

Likewise, evolution follows a variable rate of change depending on the instability or stability of the environment. We simply do not know enough about the conditions 1-2 billion years ago to start mapping this out with any detail. The best we can hope for, I would say, is to sort out the likely order of changes from bacteria to eukaryote. That is good enough.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119089 Jul 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is need for a distinction since your side seems to think that if genomes change from generation to generation, which they do, then that alone explains all the variety of life, even tho the observed process hasn't been shown to calculably give the observed status quo.
Status quo? Even today, when a new species is introduced to a novel environment, we often see significant changes from the parent stock occurring within a few generations. While this alone does not "prove" all of evolution, it is consistent with it and exactly what we would expect over such restricted timescales.

When we consider that degree of change sometimes in less than a century, and extrapolate that through hundreds and thousands of centuries, even millions of centuries, there is plenty of time for the changes AS OBSERVED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

You are like the guy looking at the very last frame of a 3 hour movie, insisting that the whole movie was like that one frame. I move back one frame and the change is tiny. That is all we get to see directly, which is why we have to rely on the fossil record (and genomic sequencing) to work out the rest.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119090 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design data is all around you. Perhaps you should take note of it.
Sure. My computer, my phone, my van, etc.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119091 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Atacama would be significant to a world wide flood if it could be confirmed that it did not experience a relatively slow rise of water followed by a slow receding over the course of about a year 4500 years ago.
Knock it off. We've been over this a dozen times. The amount of water necessary to flood the world to the required depth (in 40 days!!!) would have been anything but your silly ass stealth flood.
KAB wrote:
Also, a landslide which waited 1.4 million years to occur just at the time of a reported one year global flood does seem to be significant.
Significant, yes, in that it is but one data point. As opposed to thousands of other data points that refute your flood.

Funny that you consider yourself logical. Guess what? You aren't. Not even close.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119092 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that memory doesn't serve. Data would serve much better.
Data? You mean the stuff you routinely ignore if it doesn't fit your so-called arguments?
KAB

United States

#119094 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. See my last post.
You have to UNDERSTAND this stuff. Not just throw numbers around.
Regarding your last post, how is it that eukaryotes have had more years than bacteria to accumulate mutations?

You have to UNDERSTAND this stuff, largely by quantifying (that's code for throw numbers around) relevant factors.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#119095 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design data is all around you. Perhaps you should take note of it.
Nothing that was not designed by humans so far. Are you hiding something that we have not seen yet?
KAB

United States

#119096 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
HELLO!! Is this thing on?
YOU. YOU. YOU.
You are the one who is under obligation to the scientific method to produce such. Research on the human genome says the last major bottleneck occurred over 70,000 years ago.
Does that line up with your flood?
How was the 70,000 years determined (data, not thoughts about what might have been done)?

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#119097 Jul 2, 2013
There are some people who always seem angry. Don't let these people get to you or bring you down. The battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with their self.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#119098 Jul 2, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
There are some people who always seem angry. Don't let these people get to you or bring you down. The battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with their self.
Good observation. Why do you suppose so many religious people end up that way? Perhaps it's the frustration of being trapped in a delusion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119099 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have seen bird nests.
And It's a New World (Intentionally Stupid).... RECORD!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119100 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design data is all around you. Perhaps you should take note of it.

I have a patient that says that people I can't see are all around me.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Blitzking 141,689
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 14,458
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... 2 hr NoahLovesU 5
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 9 hr Dogen 775
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 13 hr -TheExam- 13,957
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 20 hr NoahLovesU 1,954
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Jan 22 TurkanaBoy 2
More from around the web