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

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

There are 165406 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

#119772 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that none of the 4500 year old flood evidence is from a global flood?
Because you have provided evidence that can be explained just as well by smaller local processes while at the same time ignored evidence that rules out the flood.

You still fail to understand something basic to the scientific method. Any amount of data can support a hypothesis and while that is good, it only takes ONE verified disproofof to send the whole hypothesis into the dustbin. Atacama, the ice sheets, and the absence of bottlenecks each separately and individually are enough to refute the flood. You might even explain away one of them but the other two still falsify the hypothesis. And of course these are by no means the only falsifications. Nope, wont go into them until you at leasst understand how bottlenecks work, something you have not demonstrated yet.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119773 Jul 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you look for ways the Bible story could be wrong, and you have yet to find a single piece of evidence that disagrees with the Bible flood story? REALLY? So, our lack of genetic bottleneck at 4500 years ago doesn't disagree with the story?
Failure to find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not all bottlenecks are genetically detectable. You have to confirm that there was no bottleneck, not just fail to find one, especially when you're not even trying to find it.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119774 Jul 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic bottlenecks are empirical evidence. If geneticists aren't finding universal genetic bottlenecks at 4500 years ago, is it incompetence or conspiracy that drives that lack of detection? Or, did God magically undo the genetic effects? Or, is the greatest (breadth and depth) genetic bottleneck the world has ever known simply not detectable in the way every other genetic bottleneck has been detectable?
If not every genetic bottleneck is genetically detectable, how do you know every bottleneck has been detected?
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119775 Jul 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have no made up data for a global flood forming a mountain.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119776 Jul 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Balls-on accurate.
Now, about that mountain building flood data that you keep dodging...
I don't know of any physical data directly from a flood which confirms the flood built a mountain.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119777 Jul 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still wrong.
You're still entitled to your opinion.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119778 Jul 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sometimes things are accomplished unintentionally, don't you agree?
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119779 Jul 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I don't even care about continuing in my belief. I abandoned my previous belief (your current belief) to get to where I am, and have no qualms about going back or proceeding to another. I just follow the data, ALL of it.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119780 Jul 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I have applied pressure to parts of a fixed volume pliable object. Have you? That's data!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119781 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no made up data for a global flood forming a mountain.
Nor any real data either. Imagine my shock.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119782 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still entitled to your opinion.
You're still entitled to your delusions.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119783 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes things are accomplished unintentionally, don't you agree?
Of course. Not that it has anything to do with this discussion.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119784 Jul 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
If you had confirming data, it would indeed be a different matter. Barring that, the overwhelming (universal?) prevailing finding may be wrong, isn't that right?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119785 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have applied pressure to parts of a fixed volume pliable object. Have you? That's data!
I have no doubt that you have. Perhaps if you knocked it off for a while, you would be able to think clearly.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119786 Jul 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You seem to be holding rather tightly to not having found a 4500 year old bottleneck in some species. Beware, it could prove futile. It does appear tho that you might be willing to consider some scientific details of bottleneck determination/detection. That is commendable. Please provide some of such detail for how failure to find a bottleneck in a specific instance confirms there was no bottleneck.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119787 Jul 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Wasn't he proven to be in error?
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119788 Jul 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have not admitted to having no evidence for a global flood.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119789 Jul 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He has a dragon gauge reading. Actually a GFG will work just as well on dragons and vice versa.
I await the confirming dragon gauge article.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119790 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Failure to find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not all bottlenecks are genetically detectable. You have to confirm that there was no bottleneck, not just fail to find one, especially when you're not even trying to find it.
And, as soon as you can explain why the necessary universal genetic bottleneck is so damned difficult to detect, while so many others, earlier AND later, are detectable, you'll have a point.

Reject the greater miracle.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119791 Jul 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a problem.
If the global flood were true then we would see bottle necks in all major species of animals.
We do not see that.
Therefore no global flood.
Major bottlenecks are easier to detect than minor ones.
Near extinction level bottlenecks are even more obvious.
Bottlenecks are easier to detect in species that have longer generations (and further back into the past due to such).
Humans are an ideal species in which to detect bottlenecks and indeed we have a confirmed major one 70,000 years ago. A 4,500 year near extinction level bottleneck would be glaring, but is not to be found in humans nor any of the other animals we have examined.
Conclusion: there was no near extinction level event (global flood) 4,500 years ago.
period.
Perhaps the bottleneck attributed to 70,000 years ago is misplaced.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 11 min Subduction Zone 4,867
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min Regolith Based Li... 85,543
What's your religion? 48 min Dogen 23
God hates Tennessee 12 hr MakinProgress 5
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Jan 15 was auch immer 8
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
Genetic Algorithms - Episode 2: The Next Genera... Jan 14 danlovy 1
More from around the web