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

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

There are 154837 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119607 Jul 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Once again, all we see is you wait a week or a month or a year, and post the same baloney all over again. Rational debate does not work that way Marksman.
THe truth never changes my friend. Human from non-human evolution is not observable, testable, or replicatable then, and it remains the same today. It is not a valid scientific theory, it is a humanistic philosophy. There is not a drop of science in it. Fossils are not evidence for your faith based belief because they do not show heritage. All they show is that something once existed, and the rest is nothing more but biased interpretation. Both were true the day the forum began and it is still true today. You claim to have addressed these things point for point, and you are living in a dream if you think that. Your "excuses" answers my statements about like punctuated equalibria has been observed, tested, and replicated. It is a fantasy to explain another fantasy, and that is also what your "excuses" do. Not a drop of science in either.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119608 Jul 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> THe truth never changes my friend. Human from non-human evolution is not observable, testable, or replicatable then, and it remains the same today. It is not a valid scientific theory, it is a humanistic philosophy. There is not a drop of science in it. Fossils are not evidence for your faith based belief because they do not show heritage. All they show is that something once existed, and the rest is nothing more but biased interpretation. Both were true the day the forum began and it is still true today. You claim to have addressed these things point for point, and you are living in a dream if you think that. Your "excuses" answers my statements about like punctuated equalibria has been observed, tested, and replicated. It is a fantasy to explain another fantasy, and that is also what your "excuses" do. Not a drop of science in either.
Of course it is observable. The only problem is that you don't like the method of observation. And yet it is testable. Since we can observe it we can test whether those observations fit into the claim of man's evolution from other apes. So far it has.

So how do you propose making those observations?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119609 Jul 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> THe truth never changes my friend. Human from non-human evolution is not observable, testable, or replicatable then, and it remains the same today. It is not a valid scientific theory, it is a humanistic philosophy. There is not a drop of science in it. Fossils are not evidence for your faith based belief because they do not show heritage. All they show is that something once existed, and the rest is nothing more but biased interpretation. Both were true the day the forum began and it is still true today. You claim to have addressed these things point for point, and you are living in a dream if you think that. Your "excuses" answers my statements about like punctuated equalibria has been observed, tested, and replicated. It is a fantasy to explain another fantasy, and that is also what your "excuses" do. Not a drop of science in either.
All BS as we have shown. You have become nothing more than a chronic liar and whiner. You refuse to learn, that is on you. Where is your Bible does it say you have to ignore reality to be a Christian. I am unable to find such a passage in mine.
KAB

Taiwan

#119610 Jul 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Here's a clue to the answer. What are tsunamis like in the open ocean? Why do ships head out to sea when one is appoaching?
KAB

Taiwan

#119611 Jul 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Will you allow me to see the dragon?
KAB

Taiwan

#119612 Jul 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Is a breached dam like the Noachian flood? This is not what I requested.
KAB

Taiwan

#119613 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That's an interesting approach. First make an assertion that something didn't occur. Then, based on that assertion, decide not to seek data regarding the matter.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119614 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a clue to the answer. What are tsunamis like in the open ocean? Why do ships head out to sea when one is appoaching?

Since a global flood has never happened and not actually possible the question is moot.

Moot: Rendered unimportant by recent events or information.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119615 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Will you allow me to see the dragon?

No.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119616 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a breached dam like the Noachian flood? This is not what I requested.

Not at all. A breached dam actually happens. Noachian floods are myths.
As are the floods of Ziusudra, Gilgamesh, and Atrahasis that predate Noah's myth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119617 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an interesting approach. First make an assertion that something didn't occur. Then, based on that assertion, decide not to seek data regarding the matter.

That is not exactly your approach. Your approach is to make an assertion that something did occur. Then, based on that assertion, decide to seek data regarding the matter.

My approach was to provide the data that it is not possible based on a number of lines of evidence (most recently the bottleneck refutation).

At any rate the flood has been refuted. It is not possible based on the bottleneck data alone.

You know it and it eats at you.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119618 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Will you allow me to see the dragon?
Is this a come on? Watch out Lowell Guy.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119619 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Isn't that what they told Copernicus?
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119620 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Does science tell us that every population bottleneck in a species is guaranteed detectable genetically? Data please!
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119621 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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/...
Thanks for the dataless article.
Chimney1

UAE

#119622 Jul 15, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> THe truth never changes my friend. Human from non-human evolution is not observable, testable, or replicatable then, and it remains the same today. It is not a valid scientific theory, it is a humanistic philosophy. There is not a drop of science in it. Fossils are not evidence for your faith based belief because they do not show heritage. All they show is that something once existed, and the rest is nothing more but biased interpretation. Both were true the day the forum began and it is still true today. You claim to have addressed these things point for point, and you are living in a dream if you think that. Your "excuses" answers my statements about like punctuated equalibria has been observed, tested, and replicated. It is a fantasy to explain another fantasy, and that is also what your "excuses" do. Not a drop of science in either.
Nope, your conclusions above were refuted in previous discussions. Since you have not answered these refutations you cannot simply keep repeating your original assertions.
Chimney1

UAE

#119623 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a breached dam like the Noachian flood? This is not what I requested.
Rubbish. You asked for a smaller flood preceding your alleged Noachian one. Took about 5 minutes to find one. Now you want to specify the kind of flood? The one referred to was caused by a rise in sea levels. That is as close to the noah flood as you are going to get. The whole point also was that we can see plenty of evidence for geological events large and small giing back miiloons of years but nothing that can be attributed only to a worldwide flood a mee 5000 years back. So even a "breached dam" event would serve the purpose required.

This is further evidence that this alleged flood of massive proportions never occured.
Chimney1

UAE

#119624 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science tell us that every population bottleneck in a species is guaranteed detectable genetically? Data please!
Yeah I would say it does. But why dont you stop asking gibbersh questions and go and find out for yourself? I for one am getting tired of your little game of continually demanding data and then making silly excuses when you get it. Ohhhhh wrong kind of flood. Ooooohhhh can you guarantee this or that.

Can you offer an alternative explanation for why cheetahs show a bottleneck 10000 years ago but few other creatures do? You cannot. So a fair and balanced, objective person, would accept the evidence.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119625 Jul 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Zip, nada, nothing, zero, null,|0|, nadir, naught, nil, nix, nobody, nought, nullity, scratch, zilch.
The bottom of the ocean is under MILES of water and it has no effect on the geography.
You are so not technically savvy. This is a matter of a physical system experiencing a major parametric shift and adjusting to a new equilibrium. You are trying to compare a disturbed state to an equilibrium state.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119626 Jul 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science works in the opposite way you do.
Science would propose a hypothesis like so:
'A global flood occurred in the last 10,000 years'
Then a means to test that.
'A global flood would have caused bottlenecks in all species'
A means to falsify:
'If there is not a common bottleneck then the hypothesis is falsified'.
So bottlenecks would be checked for a significant number of species. If all species do not show a common bottleneck then the hypothesis is falsified.
As we already have this data we know there is not a near extinction level bottleneck in ANY species that we have examined in our review.
Ergo no universal bottleneck and no flood.
Of course this is a very summary view of how science actually works to highlight the points important to this discussion.
If we already have this data, why isn't it being provided? It should be so simple, yet you don't go beyond asserting it. That could make one suspicious that the assertions may not be correct.

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) 2 min Into The Night 23,571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min It aint necessari... 216,904
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr IB DaMann 48,837
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 9 hr One way or another 179,742
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 16 hr GoTrump 1,047
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web