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

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

There are 151492 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120227 Jul 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. I provided data acknowledging there could have been a cheetah bottleneck 4500 years ago. I hoped your side would not cherry pick its way into not accepting that.

The article on Cheetah bottlenecks refuted that idea. You are looking at numbers and not all the information in the article.

If I were to say that my son is between 10 and 20 years old and my wife said that our son is between 5 and 15 years old, would it be wise for you to conclude that our son is 5?

Duh!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120228 Jul 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It hardly seems necessary to redundantly cite the studies your side cites. I just highlight those which are otherwise not mentioned.

Dan nailed you again. You are just crying because you hate data. You know it biotach slaps you.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#120229 Jul 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but we only need to confirm that ONE did NOT experience a bottleneck to falsify the Flood. Don't you get this simple point YET? For example, in your carnivore article, 31 that is THIRTY ONE different carnivore species had genetic variability GREATER than the Cheetah's.
Thats all it took. Flood falsified.
You act as if diversity/generation proceeds at the same pace for all species and all species propagate at the same rate vs time. If you think about it a while, I don't think you'll find that to be the case.

I sense a resurrection in progress.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#120230 Jul 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Science can CONFIRM many things. What is cannot do is PROVE a THEORY in the same way that maths can PROVE a THEOREM.
Supporting facts confirm theories. However, as another explanation for those supporting facts is always possible in principle, we do not say the theory is thereby PROVED. PROOF means no other possibility can exist.
Well stated! In light of your observation, it's most unfortunate that your side so often acts as if there is only one possible explanation for a set of data, nested hierarchy for example.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#120231 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's still not data.
And, conceptually, if even ONE of those species is confirmed not to have experienced such a bottleneck at that time, your whole story is blown out of the *ahem* water.
Do you truly not see how this works?
I see and agree completely with this point, as I always have.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#120232 Jul 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see and agree completely with this point, as I always have.
Oh, good.

So, no Flood, no Noah - where does that leave the rest of the Biblical mythos?
KAB

Taiwan

#120233 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>List 'em, so I can look up your claim.
Oh, and what's an "African buffalo"?
Do you mean the Cape Buffalo (Syncerus caffer)?
That so-called "bottleneck" was nothing of the sort. It was traced to slow interbreeding between the Eastern/Southern and Western/Central subspecies, which diverged about 150,000 years ago. That's a bit outside your time frame, I think.
Here: "All analyses converged on the existence of two distinct lineages, corresponding to a group encompassing West and Central African populations and a group encompassing East and Southern African populations. The former is currently assigned to two to three subspecies (S. c. nanus, S. c. brachyceros, S. c. aequinoctialis) and the latter to a separate subspecies (S. c. caffer). Forty-two per cent of the total amount of genetic diversity is explained by the between-lineage component, with one to seventeen female migrants per generation inferred as consistent with the isolation-with-migration model. The two lineages diverged between 145 000 to 449 000 years ago, with strong indications for a population expansion in both lineages, as revealed by coalescent-based analyses, summary statistics and a star-like topology of the haplotype network for the S. c. caffer lineage."
Full DATA here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...
Actually, I think I had in mind this African buffalo,

"African buffalo maintain high genetic diversity in the major histocompatibility complex in spite of historically known population bottlenecks"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j....
KAB

Taiwan

#120234 Jul 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Thanks for the attempt, but it's still just more summary reference statements without confirming data.
KAB

Taiwan

#120235 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
So now that KAB has the data that he asked for it's all over, right?
I mean he wouldn't lie or ignore data of well respected scientists, would he?
I don't ignore well respected scientists. I examine and scrutinize their work. Scientists are people too. They can be as biased or mistaken as you unless they provide confirming data for their positions. For example, a respected scientist is credited with stating that parts of the Atacama have not seen a drop of water in 200,000 years, impossible for any human to confirm with certainty.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#120236 Jul 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I think I had in mind this African buffalo,
"African buffalo maintain high genetic diversity in the major histocompatibility complex in spite of historically known population bottlenecks"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j....
Ah, yes. That does seem to be the Cape buff.

Did you miss the first friggin' sentence in the paper you linked? "Historical population collapses caused by rinderpest epidemics..."???

Rinderpest is a fly-borne disease. Not an effing flood.

PAY ATTENTION!!!
KAB

Taiwan

#120237 Jul 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dataless declaration does not change the facts.
We have already demonstrated why you cannot have a comparatively minor 70k year bottleneck that is detectable while a very recent NEE bottleneck is undetectable in the same species.
So you can keep lying and pretending, but that must feel pretty hollow for you.
So sad.
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are geneticists too incompetent to identify the greatest genetic bottleneck (aside from total extinction) to ever occur in the history of the planet, which occurred to ALL terrestrial life no more than 5000 years ago despite being able to identify lesser bottlenecks longer ago, or is it part of a massive conspiracy against the veracity of the Bible? Or, did God simply hide the evidence by changing the DNA of every terrestrial organism post-deluge? One of these MUST be the case. Or, if not, genetic bottlenecks cannot be accurately identified and dated, though that would kind of lead us right back to the incompetence. I wish you'd weigh in on this at some point, rather than avoiding it with "none of the above." You keep declaring that things that should be identifiable with our current technology might not be identifiable, and you insert some deus ex machina in a black box as the solution to the problem.
Sorry, but science doesn't work like that. You don't get to say "things must be like X, and the evidence disagrees with X, so there must be something causing X to look like it isn't true even though it most certainly is, and because X must be true, that something must also be true, so the mystery is explained by appealing to a yet greater mystery."
You have to start with known phenomena and known causes for phenomena. You don't get to start with magic. That is NOT science. If you think you're being rational, remember that rational begins with demonstrable reality. Until the mechanisms for the magic you claim must have existed can be demonstrated, you're not being rational. You're just asserting.
You have asserted, not demonstrated.
KAB

Taiwan

#120238 Jul 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So where is it?
This would seem to be the kind of thing that "creation scientists" would love to research. They could prove the flood in one easy step.
Why do I not expect to see this sort of research in my lifetime?
You might be able to find some genetic traces of it.
KAB

Taiwan

#120239 Jul 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget that this is a non-non sequitur as the dates don't line up.
I do hope you will get past this run of assertions that you are on and will someday supply us with some DATA that SUPPORTS your contention.
I guess I should get used to disappointment.
YOU definitely should.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120240 Jul 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You act as if diversity/generation proceeds at the same pace for all species and all species propagate at the same rate vs time. If you think about it a while, I don't think you'll find that to be the case.
I sense a resurrection in progress.

You don't understand the issues and there are several of them. The reasons extinctions occur (one of them) is that a population (species) cannot change fast enough. One of the reasons they might not be able to is because of lack of population (genomic) diversity. I think it safe to say that all species NEVER propagate at the same rate, nor is there any expectation in science that they do so. Propagation rates are accounted for by using the average for the species (which is actually the same thing).

Now, do you have any data that suggests that ANY of the refutations for Noah's flood are invalid, inaccurate or unsupported?

If not then the ashes of your myth continue to blow in the wind.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120241 Jul 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Well stated! In light of your observation, it's most unfortunate that your side so often acts as if there is only one possible explanation for a set of data, nested hierarchy for example.

Again, this is a lie. There may be an infinite possible explanations for a given set of data. But only one that is scientifically supported.

Nested hierarchy is not an explanation of the data, it is the pattern the data falls into.

Maybe your next myth will do better.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120242 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's still not data.
And, conceptually, if even ONE of those species is confirmed not to have experienced such a bottleneck at that time, your whole story is blown out of the *ahem* water.
Do you truly not see how this works?
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see and agree completely with this point, as I always have.

Thus so, since we are certain that there are a number of species that show no evidence of a bottleneck 4500 ybp, we can (yet again) conclude that da flud never happened and is a myth.

Can we confirm this now?

If not, why not? The data could not possibly be more conclusive.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120243 Jul 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I think I had in mind this African buffalo,
"African buffalo maintain high genetic diversity in the major histocompatibility complex in spite of historically known population bottlenecks"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j....

minor bottlenecks due to disease and famine in the region.

Not a bottleneck down to 3 breading pairs.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#120244 Jul 26, 2013
The battle continues.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#120245 Jul 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's still not data.
And, conceptually, if even ONE of those species is confirmed not to have experienced such a bottleneck at that time, your whole story is blown out of the *ahem* water.
Do you truly not see how this works?
<quoted text>
Thus so, since we are certain that there are a number of species that show no evidence of a bottleneck 4500 ybp, we can (yet again) conclude that da flud never happened and is a myth.
Can we confirm this now?
If not, why not? The data could not possibly be more conclusive.
*snicker*

Wait 5.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#120246 Jul 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's still not data.
And, conceptually, if even ONE of those species is confirmed not to have experienced such a bottleneck at that time, your whole story is blown out of the *ahem* water.
Do you truly not see how this works?
<quoted text>
Thus so, since we are certain that there are a number of species that show no evidence of a bottleneck 4500 ybp, we can (yet again) conclude that da flud never happened and is a myth.
Can we confirm this now?
If not, why not? The data could not possibly be more conclusive.
Yes.

KAB's about lost it.

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) 2 min Dogen 205,177
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min THE LONE WORKER 43,296
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 53 min ChristineM 18,585
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr ChristineM 917
Questions about first life 5 hr Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Sat One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Sat FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web