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

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

There are 169726 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.

KAB

Taiwan

#119692 Jul 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already provided this. I also gave a list of things influencing how long a population bottleneck will be obvious.
Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for detecting recent population declines.
Peery MZ, Kirby R, Reid BN, Stoelting R, Doucet-Bëer E, Robinson S, Vásquez-Carrillo C, Pauli JN, Palsbøll PJ. Mol Ecol. 2012 Jul;21(14):3403-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05635 .x. Epub 2012 May 30. Review.
Defining the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transmission genetic bottleneck in a region with multiple circulating subtypes and recombinant forms. Nofemela A, Bandawe G, Thebus R, Marais J, Wood N, Hoffmann O, Maboko L, Hoelscher M, Woodman Z, Williamson C.
Virology. 2011 Jul 5;415(2):107-13. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2010.12.027. Epub 2011 May 4.
Previous estimates of mitochondrial DNA mutation level variance did not account for sampling error: comparing the mtDNA genetic bottleneck in mice and humans. Wonnapinij P, Chinnery PF, Samuels DC. Am J Hum Genet. 2010 Apr 9;86(4):540-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.02.023. Epub 2010 Apr 1.
Lack of a genetic bottleneck in a recent Lessepsian bioinvader, the blue-barred parrotfish, Scarus ghobban. Bariche M, Bernardi G.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009 Nov;53(2):592-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.06.017. Epub 2009 Jul 3. PMID: 1957765
Taking the parrotfish article, how do you see it relating to the global flood?
KAB

Taiwan

#119693 Jul 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide your made up, non-existent data of a global flood forming a mountain.
Oh! That's right! You don't have any data, do you? Even made up crap.
I know what happens when pressure is applied to some parts of a fixed volume pliable object. Do you?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119694 Jul 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Marky, See attached for a link to "observations".
You might not agree with the results found, but these are scientific observations nevertheless.
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-homo-species-d-c...
One more Homo species? Recent 3-D-comparative analysis confirms status of Homo floresiensis as a fossil human species
You actually posted something in which the scientists don't even know what it is, as evidence that humans evolved from none humans? You made my case, not yours!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119695 Jul 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, your conclusions above were refuted in previous discussions. Since you have not answered these refutations you cannot simply keep repeating your original assertions.
Excuses clothed in fantasy are not explanations and need not be treated as such.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119696 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>And YOU seem to have forgotten that such tsunamis hitting land would have left behind physical evidence that does not exist. Whoops, you failed.
Not to mention the erosion caused by the draining of that massive amount of water.

Again, evidence of floodwater erosion is seen in multiple places on earth from much longer ago.
KAB

Taiwan

#119697 Jul 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What part I don't give a flying f**k didn't you get?
<quoted text>
See above comment.
<quoted text>
Absolute lie. You have not interest at all in what is correct. You're only interest is in maintaining your belief in myths.
Firing blanks again, I see.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119698 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what happens when pressure is applied to some parts of a fixed volume pliable object. Do you?
I do.

Now, Mr I-Have-to-Change-the-Subject-B ecause-I-Have-No-Answer, how about your provide your made up, non-existent data of a global flood forming a mountain.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119699 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Firing blanks again, I see.
Nope. Balls-on accurate.

Now, about that mountain building flood data that you keep dodging...
KAB

Taiwan

#119700 Jul 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That you equate yourself with someone like Copernicus is irony, hypocrisy, delusion obscene and almost pornographic.
Did the mainstream tell Copernicus he was wacked, and was he correct? That's the extent of the comparison. To wit, having everyone against you doesn't mean you're wrong, so you should cease using that fallacious line of reasoning.
KAB

Taiwan

#119701 Jul 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
With the number of species numbering in the millions, you have a long way to go.
Thanks for highlighting why proving the universal genetic bottleneck is a futile approach.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119702 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the mainstream tell Copernicus he was wacked, and was he correct? That's the extent of the comparison. To wit, having everyone against you doesn't mean you're wrong, so you should cease using that fallacious line of reasoning.
You're still wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119703 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for highlighting why proving the universal genetic bottleneck is a futile approach.
Of course, you know damn right well that not what I alluded to but then totally dishonesty is part and parcel of your religion.

You are right about one thing, proving your imaginary universal bottleneck is a waste of time. It never happened 4500 years ago.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#119704 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the mainstream tell Copernicus he was wacked, and was he correct? That's the extent of the comparison. To wit, having everyone against you doesn't mean you're wrong, so you should cease using that fallacious line of reasoning.
You are reaching for straws. The mainstream at the time was the Church which however indirectly you represent here. Again in a position against science and facts. Your position is as then based solely on a literal interpretation of scripture. Unlike then, science has developed a massively robust body of evidence in numerous fields and along even more numerous lines. The comparison is just you reaching for straws as you drown in the evidence that refutes your mythical flood.

Even the modern Church has embraced far more science than you seem to have done or understand. This is all about your fear. If part of the book you worship is falsified, then how can you continue on in your belief. You can. People have been doing that for a long, long time.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#119705 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what happens when pressure is applied to some parts of a fixed volume pliable object. Do you?
This seems like a dataless post to me. You are making an assertion, but you don't have anything to support it or even relate it to the discussion. This is more of your dithering and belaboring.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#119706 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the mainstream tell Copernicus he was wacked, and was he correct? That's the extent of the comparison. To wit, having everyone against you doesn't mean you're wrong, so you should cease using that fallacious line of reasoning.
If the Church would have brought evidence of equal or greater extent to refute Copernicus, I could see the comparison, maybe. You realize that in this comparison, you are the Church and not Copernicus.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#119707 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for highlighting why proving the universal genetic bottleneck is a futile approach.
Well sure it is a futile approach, but that seems to be what you thrive on.

If a finite number of species are examined for a genetic bottleneck occurring at a specified time and it doesn't show up in any of these organisms, that pretty much rules out a universal bottleneck for that time.

With the techniques available today, a bottleneck at 4500 years in even a handful of organisms would be as apparent as a roadside billboard. If a thousand organisms were examined and one of them were to actually have a bottleneck in or around 4500 years, that wouldn't help you either. But, I bet you would cling to that one piece of evidence with a death grip.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#119708 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how I respond in some detail to data you assert I am ignoring. Such a response more characteristically results from analyzing/scrutinizing. Your side consistently takes the approach that if you provide something, it by definition accomplishes your purpose, and that is the end of the matter. It appears that your idea of a valid court system is one in which if the prosecution presents its case, that's all that's needed, and the accused is thereby convicted. I don't subscribe to that approach. I recognize it's necessary to allow for and objectively consider both side's cases before reaching a verdict.

Ignoring for a moment that the above is a complete lie and not at all what you do or are interested in doing....


When one side is completely unable to counter the evidence of the other then that side typically loses. Since genetic evidence presents the equivalent of a Ultra HD 4K video of the crime, clear face shots of the perp, finger prints and DNA and your defense it to simply ignore it or ask the other side to provide evidence for you, then your case is lost.

If you want objectivity then provide it. So far you are throwing the case to us.

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has facts, and those facts have to be guarded by men with science. Who's gonna do it? You? You, KAB? We have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#119709 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't given any evidence yet. You've just been trying to reason your way thru the situation, and you're currently in conflict with yourself. You now acknowledge, not surprisingly, that haplotypes, in general, live to a ripe old age. Yet you gave a straightforward mathematical analysis of how each one, upon being introduced, disappears in about 24 generations. Now reconcile the conflict, or you could cut to the chase and provide direct observation data from the real world showing what does happen.

Your lack of understanding of the data does not cause an issue for those of us who do.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#119710 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have forgotten that at the height of the global flood there was no land. Thus, tsunamis not a problem.

Several, very obvious, problems with this.

1. We have refuted the notion of a literal global flood occurring in at least the last 100,000 years.

2. Your waive of hand does not account for what would have happened as flood waters rose and receded.

3. No global flood ever occurred.

4. You have admitted you have no evidence for a global flood.

5. You are suffering from the delusion that as long as you keep arguing you are still in the game. You lost long ago.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#119711 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you checked the flood gauge lately?

Is it right next to the talking snake gauge?

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
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 23 min Rose_NoHo 97
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr The First Amendment 95,350
The “cumulative evidence” problem 3 hr Davidjayjordan 28
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 3 hr Davidjayjordan 20
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 3 hr Davidjayjordan 61
E equals MC squared 23 hr Jim Ryan 15
News Just So: The Microbe-To-Man Evolution Story Is ... Sat Elganned 1