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

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

There are 163801 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 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119572 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
By your analysis, in a stable population, virtually every mtDNA haplotype introduced disappears in about 24 generations. To you does that seem to pass the sniff test?
Of course it does, in a population of 1000 and using the assumptions I offered, it cannot be any other way.

Of course, you also have to remember that new novel variations are being introduced all through these generations as well. To get a clearer picture, now imagine that a single new variation is introduced at random among one of the 1000 women in each generation. So as current numbers are dwindling, new variants are emerging. That should make it interesting. And don't forget, that because the new variant strikes at random, it can either hit one of the original haplotypes or it can hit one that already underwent a variation previously...you could call that a "granddaughter" variant of the original type.

You can see the development of a nested hierarchy in action here.

You can also begin to see why a timescale of 5000 years is not possible no matter how you try to stretch or squeeze the assumptions.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119573 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have repeatedly asserted that the flood never happened, and you have mede reference to purported data confirming those assertions. The only thing you have not done, albeit minor in your assessment, is actually provide the confirming data or specific references to it.
I really wonder how you manage to take all the evidence in that you have been given already and yet continue to delude yourself that a WW Flood is possible.

The only assumption you can be left with is that God, embarrassed by his genocidal murderous spree, covered up the evidence!

Well, humans nailed him anyway.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119574 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what the shortest time the global flood evidence in its entirety could have persisted. I'm not a global flood evidence dynamics expert. That's why I seek confirming data for any relevant assertions made.
Why would a global flood's evidence be less likely to persist than a local flood's evidence? Why would a year-long flood's evidence be less likely to persist than a week-long flood's evidence? Why would a younger flood's evidence be less likely to persist than an older flood's evidence?

Why would a universal genetic bottleneck not be detected by geneticists, while many other genetic bottlenecks are detected? How is it that they just so happen to miss the biggest, most extreme genetic bottleneck possible among all Earth life (certainly all terrestrial life)?

When there are basic fundamental problems with your narrative like these, why would we, or anybody of sound mind, begin with the assumption that it's true rather than simply not accepting it as true until the evidence...EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE...demonstrates that it is?

Again: how many claims need a book have in it that are demonstrably true for all the claims that can't be demonstrated to be true to be accepted as true prima facie? There must be some numeric threshold, or some ratio of demonstrable : not demonstrable claims. You've never actually laid this formula out. It's subjective, according to you. Whatever meets your criteria is whatever you say meets it, and nobody gets to look in the black box. That's not how science works, that's not how skepticism works, and that's not how logic works. Are you being scientific? Are you being skeptical? Are you being reasonable? No on all fronts. As soon as you let everyone see inside the black box, you'll begin to do these three things. Until then, wishful thinking and nothing more.
KAB

Taiwan

#119575 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A global flood would not form a mountain. If anything it would erode them.
Standing water doesn't erode nearly as effectively as running water. A comparison of an upwelling global flood with a standard running water flood would help you appreciate that.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119576 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All it takes is some data to confirm the assertions, but your side continues to be virtually all talk and no confirming data. Try providing one example of data preserved from another flood, stemming from conditions which were the same as for the global flood. In other words, pick a flood, as I have requested before, and let's get specific and see where it leads. Why won't you do that? Are you afraid of the data?
And, as we've said before, to determine if a natural phenomenon took place, stories are not adequate as evidence. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is what matters. No matter how many people say a global flood occurred centuries, if not millennia, before their birth, the claim will NEVER be taken as fact until the empirical evidence demonstrates that it occurred. As soon as you can not only overcome the contradictory evidence (lack of universal genetic bottleneck, lack of geological evidence, lack of significant universal simultaneous cultural interruptions, and so on), AND have positive empirical evidence to support the premise, it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

Now, do you have ANY of that?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119577 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Standing water doesn't erode nearly as effectively as running water. A comparison of an upwelling global flood with a standard running water flood would help you appreciate that.
And you're of the mind that rapidly rising ocean levels (by rain and "fountains of the deep" or tectonic shifts under the ocean) wouldn't result in violent oceanic activity. Minor earthquakes cause tidal waves that wipe out entire island cities. Now, add greater tectonic activity and the rapidly increasing mass of the ocean, and tell us all why you think this would result in a gentle rise without violent tsunamis greater than anything the planet has ever seen. Go ahead. We're all eager to hear how increasing all the variables results in LOWER oceanic activity.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119578 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I look for evidence constantly and consistently, and your side constantly refuses to provide it. I do seek to find it myself, but realize I'm only one person, and you represent the opposition, and therefore, could be expected to be more likely to readily have such evidence at the ready.
So, if I claimed that a dragon was living in my basement, you wouldn't just take my word for it. After all, I'm just a fallible human being.

What if 100 different people, none related directly to me or each other, from different parts of the world, with no vested interest in the outcome, said that there's a fire-breathing dragon living in my basement?

What if those 100 people were also able to provide identical descriptions of the dragon? Is it true then?

What if those 100 people go to their deaths professing the existence of this dragon? What if they're killed specifically for this profession?

What if those 100 people also made a bunch of other claims, all of which had been proven true? Now would you accept the dragon as real? Or, does the claim about the dragon have to stand on its own merits and its own evidence?
KAB

Taiwan

#119579 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on the exact year of the flood. They were being built through the time period in question.
But since we have proven that the flood did not actually happen this is just a mental exercise,..... correct?
So you have no particular pyramid in mind. Your just making your usual off-the-cuff assertions.
KAB

Taiwan

#119580 Jul 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>But floods from older times and of lesser scale have left evidence. The fact that they leave evidence that was not distorted or obliterated by a global flood is again evidence against such a flood.
You will again start your dance to go over the same ground that has been trodden flat with evidence. It is all you have.
Give a specific example of the evidence you have in mind, if you dare.
KAB

Taiwan

#119581 Jul 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Go get it yourself. It is your job you lazy bum.
The funny thing is that you are trapped between two moving walls. One is no evidence for a flood and the other is evidence of things that wouldn't exist if there was a flood. While you are in denial, the walls are still closing in.
I've noticed you feeling the pressure (less amunition, more vitriol).

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119582 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All it takes is some data to confirm the assertions, but your side continues to be virtually all talk and no confirming data. Try providing one example of data preserved from another flood, stemming from conditions which were the same as for the global flood. In other words, pick a flood, as I have requested before, and let's get specific and see where it leads. Why won't you do that? Are you afraid of the data?
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/19/scien...

"The new research, published today in the journal Nature, found evidence of at least two floods between 180,000 and 450,000 years ago."

These were floods that cut off Britain from mainland Europe, twice. Probably the result of rising sea levels during interglacial periods. Now following up, to the Nature article.

http://www.livescience.com/1711-megaflood-cre...

The original paper discussing how sonar in the English Channel was used etc to make the discovery...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n71...

But its a paying subscriber journal.

Nevertheless, what you demanded.
KAB

Taiwan

#119583 Jul 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it does, in a population of 1000 and using the assumptions I offered, it cannot be any other way.
Of course, you also have to remember that new novel variations are being introduced all through these generations as well. To get a clearer picture, now imagine that a single new variation is introduced at random among one of the 1000 women in each generation. So as current numbers are dwindling, new variants are emerging. That should make it interesting. And don't forget, that because the new variant strikes at random, it can either hit one of the original haplotypes or it can hit one that already underwent a variation previously...you could call that a "granddaughter" variant of the original type.
You can see the development of a nested hierarchy in action here.
You can also begin to see why a timescale of 5000 years is not possible no matter how you try to stretch or squeeze the assumptions.
I can see that in your analysis no mtDNA haplotype can be older than about 500 years, and I don't think you believe that to be the case.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119584 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what the shortest time the global flood evidence in its entirety could have persisted. I'm not a global flood evidence dynamics expert. That's why I seek confirming data for any relevant assertions made.

Whereas there have never been a global flood and whereas we can have no data for events that never occurred it is therefore not possible to provide you with data for the global flood.

Likewise we cannot provide evidence for talking snakes for similar reasons.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119585 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If I become convinced there are none giving objective consideration to my input, I'm ought of here.

We have given objective consideration to your input and come to the conclusion that it is crap.

I am calling your bluff. You need to be here to decrease your own internal cognitive dissonance. You aren't going anywhere.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119586 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Data is the foundation for confirming correct understanding. Understanding itself may be correct or incorrect.

You either did not read or understand my post.

Further, you are the most data adverse person here. If you believe what everyone else knows is wrong, isn't that the definition of a delusion.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119587 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I do know that science seeks to falsify, but your side has refused to falsify the 4500 ybp bottleneck posssibility, stating it's my responsibility to prove it true, although you now indicat it's your responsibility to falsify it. Go figure!
BTW, I have provided 2 such bottleneck examples so far.

It IS your responsibility. But WE did it anyway. The lack of a bottleneck in humans (and every other other animal we examined). So we have conclusive proof that the flood never happened.

You have shown zero examples so far. The requirement for your side would be 100% of all land animal life (at minimum).

You lost again. Global flood verdict is in. Final answer: No Global Flood.

Have a nice day.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119588 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I look for evidence constantly and consistently, and your side constantly refuses to provide it. I do seek to find it myself, but realize I'm only one person, and you represent the opposition, and therefore, could be expected to be more likely to readily have such evidence at the ready.

Sorry, all lies.

You don't provide much in the way of evidence/data.
The global flood has been refuted via multiple tests including, most recently, genetic bottleneck data. It simply is not possible.
It IS your responsibility (under the scientific method) to provide evidence. However, if I EVER find any evidence for a global flood I promise to provide it to you. Don't hold your breath.

Global Flood - Case Closed

KAB

Taiwan

#119589 Jul 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I really wonder how you manage to take all the evidence in that you have been given already and yet continue to delude yourself that a WW Flood is possible.
The only assumption you can be left with is that God, embarrassed by his genocidal murderous spree, covered up the evidence!
Well, humans nailed him anyway.
I haven't been given evidence, only assertions that there is such. That's why I keep asking for the data. In the past, I had the same perceptions as you, but discovered there's no there there.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119590 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science tell us that every population bottleneck in a species is guaranteed detectable genetically? Data please!

Detectability of a genetic bottleneck decreases with age, generational length and is related to the size of the bottleneck. A minor bottleneck could be very difficult to detect after as little as 25 - 50,000 years. A major bottleneck quite a bit longer. A near extinction event (like we are discussing) among species with longer generations and normally large numbers would be detectable for probably up to 250,000 years.

"estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]"

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

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119591 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science tell us that every population bottleneck in a species is guaranteed detectable genetically? Data please!

No.

But for humans we have detected bottlenecks (not genetic in this case) from over a million years ago. Here are some others.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/...

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 hr Eagle 12 - 32,607
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 80,071
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sep 23 ChromiuMan 222,780
What's your religion? Sep 22 Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web