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

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

There are 141796 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.

“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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119101 Jul 2, 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.

Evolutionary ROC is not a stable fixed thing in any life form. ROC will depend upon genome length, environment, conserved areas, exposure to mutagens.......

So what is lacking will continue to be lacking. We will learn to understand the variable better but they will still be (ahem) variable.

As bacteria are part of the food chain we will have bacteria for as long as we have other life forms.
KAB

United States

#119102 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
But we are not talking in general. We are talking about the creation myth in Gen 1.
It is very specific.
You should read it some time.
Real translation please. Who knows what that Satan inspired nonsense that you people call a bible says.
If Gen 1 is very specific then be very specific about the point(s) you want to highlight and how they make your point that the Genesis reference is to a literal 24 hour day.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119103 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If Gen 1 is very specific then be very specific about the point(s) you want to highlight and how they make your point that the Genesis reference is to a literal 24 hour day.
HEre we go again!

Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Seems pretty specific.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119104 Jul 2, 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.

Unless you look at the data in a myopic manor, what is observed certainly does explain the variety of life. You cannot calculate change as it tends to go in fits and spurts as demanded by the environment and allowed for by genetic mutation and the other mechanisms by which evolution proceeds.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119105 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that memory doesn't serve. Data would serve much better.

And here you are again with none to offer.

Shock.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119106 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.

So, in other words this is an unsupported assertion.

I can assert the same thing (and with increased credibility). Observe: I have observed that KAB exhibits poor judgement, that coupled with the well known fact that I have numerous times directly demonstrated his lack of credibility as a source of correct info.

See. An I could point to hundreds of posts where you have implied or stated incorrect things and have denied, both implicitly and explicitly what is true.

So I can say it and it sticks, whereas when you say it to me it does not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119107 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

LOL. You are exposing your ignorance again.

I caught you in your ignorance so you are trying to break out with more ignorance.

Eukaryotes typically have more DNA (which I see you don't understand), reproduce sexually (more exposure to novel genetic changes), competition, ecological niches, and the drivers (mechanisms) of evolution.

You seriously can't understand why a population of complex, long strand DNA, sexually reproducing organisms would be exposed to more evolutionary pressures than bacteria?

Seriously?

I feel like I am arguing with a 6th grader.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119108 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How was the 70,000 years determined (data, not thoughts about what might have been done)?

Is this MY job?

I don't think so.

Since you are inept at locating data I will throw you one bone.

http://ice2.uab.ca t/argo/Argo_actualitzacio/argo _butlleti/ccee/geologia/arxius /1Ambrose%201998.pdf

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119109 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If Gen 1 is very specific then be very specific about the point(s) you want to highlight and how they make your point that the Genesis reference is to a literal 24 hour day.

Pick any real Bible and look at it.

What are you afraid of? Why another dodge attempt?

Here are ONLY the relevant verses from Gen 1 (NASB)

==-=-=-=-=
2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep

3 Then God said,“Let there be light”; and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

[DUH.... slobber,.. droooooll ..... He called the light DAY and the darkness NIGHT..... how can anyone be so stupid that this is not perfectly clear]


8 God called the [i]expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day....

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 Then God said,“Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.


31.....And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119110 Jul 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
HEre we go again!
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Seems pretty specific.

Even more specific than Pi.

Of course he is playing the traditional fundy game of "look closer".

It goes like this.

Sane person: There is a house made of bricks.
Fundy: Are you sure? Look closer.

Sane person: okay,... I see bricks.
Fundy: Are you sure? Look closer.

Sane person: I see a brick.
Fundy: Ah ha! A brick is not a house.

Sane person: but the brick is attached to the house.....

Slowly the sane person loses his sanity.

FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#119111 Jul 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
HEre we go again!
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Seems pretty specific.
You are not reading far enough. Read the part where God saw that it was good on that day and you can see that he was overviewing his work.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#119112 Jul 2, 2013
Chapter two of Genesis says in the day that God created the heavens and the earth, so this leads me to believe it was all created at once and God overviewed his work for six days and then he rested on the seventh day and his work was finished after he had seen to it that it was all good.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119113 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more specific than Pi.
Of course he is playing the traditional fundy game of "look closer".
It goes like this.
Sane person: There is a house made of bricks.
Fundy: Are you sure? Look closer.
Sane person: okay,... I see bricks.
Fundy: Are you sure? Look closer.
Sane person: I see a brick.
Fundy: Ah ha! A brick is not a house.
Sane person: but the brick is attached to the house.....
Slowly the sane person loses his sanity.
And the "KAB's Totally Flexible Dictionary"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119114 Jul 2, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>You are not reading far enough. Read the part where God saw that it was good on that day and you can see that he was overviewing his work.
It says what it says. Go argue with god.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119115 Jul 2, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>You are not reading far enough. Read the part where God saw that it was good on that day and you can see that he was overviewing his work.

You are not up on what we are talking about, are you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119116 Jul 2, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Chapter two of Genesis says in the day that God created the heavens and the earth, so this leads me to believe it was all created at once and God overviewed his work for six days and then he rested on the seventh day and his work was finished after he had seen to it that it was all good.

I recommend actually reading Chapter 1 again.
KAB

United States

#119117 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
How much human evolution have we seen in the same period of time?
As our mutation rate is much higher than most bacteria (due to DNA length) we should have evolved more in the same period of time than e.Coli.
You DO understand that, don't you?
e.coli are not used because they evolve quickly (the exact opposite is true). They are used because it is easy to make a billion that are nearly exactly alike, are expendable, have short life spans, have very few complicating factors (sexual reproduction is messy), are easy to sequence, and have simple genomes. One can track change via generations, but mutations tend to happen in a linear (not generational) time scale.
If you think about what CAUSES mutations you can see why.
Thinking about what CAUSES mutations I can see why e. coli could be expected to have experienced many more mutations than humans. BTW, this also makes us data even.

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) 6 min DanFromSmithville 168,564
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr dirtclod 19,743
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 3 hr polymath257 6,169
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 7 hr Chimney1 190
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Jun 28 Chimney1 178,667
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web