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

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

There are 169754 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

#121112 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Some haps end. I get it. You've also acknowledged that not all haps end. You've also acknowledged the likelihood of a new generation of haps about every 6 generations of humans. You probably also recognize that not all present haps exist in equal abundance. Voila! Hap map generated. That is just where the math takes us.
See? You could not even follow what I did say. I never said there would be a new hap "about every 6th generation".

I said that in a doubling from 3 original couples, we would expect one hap mutation to have occurred by then.

When the population grows, the number of hap mutations PER GENERATION grows because the total number of females grows. But this still is not connected to the likelihood that a new hap will become entrenched in the population permanently. THAT relates back to the very first calcs I showed you.

But you clearly did not get any of it. You keep getting it wrong and then saying I said things I did not (because as above, you misunderstand), or forming wrong conclusions.

Those who have followed the stats through have concluded a common ancestral female line from approx 200,000 years ago. Those creationists who know how it works and have tried to compress it to 4500 years have failed.

If you don't believe me, show me the alternative creationist calculations that make it work. They don't exist.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121113 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Providing and reasoning on the data is as far as I go. I leave repetitious "Yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't" to you.
You have provided exactly no data in this case.

I have provided several links to hap trees etc.

I have explained to you some basics in the hope that you would understand the problem, at least. Even, laboriously, taken you through some calculations.

You have failed to follow any of it. Dismally.

Therefore your opinion is invalid.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121114 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Whose magic has me invoking "no significant defects"? It's not mine!
You claimed that the severe inbreeding following the floods would not matter because the genome was less defective back then.

We showed you that in the rare cases that DNA has been preserved from back then, there are significant defects, which is evidence against your assertion of a low defect gene.

And how would you justify your claim in the first place? By appealing to the supernatural of course. Evolutionists do not claim there was any time of genetic "low defects" nor do they need to nor does any evidence support the notion (as above). Therefore you are once again invoking magic to support your claim.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121115 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Some haps end.

Yes.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>You've also acknowledged that not all haps end.

Yes
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>You've also acknowledged the likelihood of a new generation of haps about every 6 generations of humans.

I don't remember that. Anyway, the generation of a HAP does not mean it will continue.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You probably also recognize that not all present haps exist in equal abundance. Voila!

Yes
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Hap map generated. That is just where the math takes us.

No. You are somehow adding purple to apples and getting 37.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121116 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Providing and reasoning on the data is as far as I go. I leave repetitious "Yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't" to you.

You're entitled to your lie.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121117 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have the record in a demonstrated reliable source coupled with no data confirming such is not possible.

Obviously you made a few typos.

I corrected it for you:

I only have the record in a demonstrated UNreliable source coupled with no data confirming such is possible.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121118 Aug 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are a deluded joke. You lie to us and you lie to yourself. We have pages of data to show this.

Well, he IS a Jehovah's Witness, so....

They are taught to lie to themselves and others before they can crawl.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121119 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.

Facts =/= opinion.

Maybe a dictionary would help you.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121120 Aug 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> When the population grows, the number of hap mutations PER GENERATION grows because the total number of females grows. But this still is not connected to the likelihood that a new hap will become entrenched in the population permanently. THAT relates back to the very first calcs I showed you..

This is the key point. He thinks if a new hap occur then it is there for good.

It is like claiming 100 trillion for the global population of humans, ignoring the fact that most of them are dead.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121121 Aug 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the key point. He thinks if a new hap occur then it is there for good.
It is like claiming 100 trillion for the global population of humans, ignoring the fact that most of them are dead.
KAB did not even begin to follow the analysis. Why would he? If he did he would have to accept the conclusions.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121122 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. I provide data and draw attention to it's consequences. I don't require any particular conclusion from you.
Nothing I said was opinion. Everything I said was fact. Not a single opinion. Whenever you realize your words have led you into a corner and someone points it out to you, you resort to "You're entitled to your opinion." Documented fact.
KAB

United States

#121123 Aug 30, 2013
Jenji wrote:
There are no facts for or against evolution, or God. It's a matter of personal choice, and one group does absolutely no good toward 'convincing' the other group of anything, when they engage in name-calling and nastiness and putdowns. I never slander someone for not believing the way I do, and I don't appreciate it when others tell me I'm stupid or ignorant something for the beliefs I have. I guess it's all part of my Live and Let Live philosophy, you go do your thing and let me do mine.
It's unfortunate you think there are no facts for or against evolution or God (Romans 1:20,21; John 17:3). I agree with you about name-calling and nastiness, and I avoid it. Why be guided, however, by beliefs which are demonstrably incorrect? To the extent something is confirmed and can be known, should that not replace one's "belief"? BTW, I recognize that not everything is confirmed (Hebrews 12:6).

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121124 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have the record in a demonstrated reliable source coupled with no data confirming such is not possible.
In other words, bullshit.

Thanks for the confirmation, Word Weasel.
KAB

United States

#121125 Aug 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you mean that your only belief is in data that is based on conclusions.
The confirming data is that you believe what you are told, like a good little dub. Regardless of the data provided you maintain your conclusions because they are required to maintain your belief.
You're entitled to your demonstrably incorrect opinion.
KAB

United States

#121126 Aug 30, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you'd get along much better with Paul the Promoter than Jesus the Reformer.
Do you not accept the Bible's direction on this matter of not keeping company with those described by 1 Corinthians 5?
KAB

United States

#121127 Aug 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But the JW LOVE the sexually immoral. They harbor and refuse to report cases of child molestation. And if the child, on coming of age, talks to the authorities then they are disfellowshiped.
What a racket if your are a child molester! Join the JW, repeatedly molest children and only have to say sorry to the elders to get away with it and do more.
You're entitled to your opinion, but in this case you open yourself to libel/slander.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121128 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>When I see a specific concern from a specific document, I will respond.
CMan wrote:
<quoted text>And of course, you only respond to what you deem a "specific concern" - and even then with a feint. Your selective reality is pretty convenient - albeit dishonest as a $20 Rolex.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>Genesis doesn't make points which are demonstrably incorrect.
CMan wrote:
<quoted text>All that is required from you is a single word answer to a simple "yes" or "no" question:
Did plants appear before the Sun and the planets?
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.
Observable, testable, repeatable, documented, reliable....
Yes, I AM entitled to that opinion.
KAB

United States

#121129 Aug 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are attempting to assume around the issue. Is there a universal bottleneck 4,500 years ago?
Would there be one if there had been a global flood?
There would be a universal bottleneck if there had been a global flood?
KAB

United States

#121130 Aug 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not to someone who thinks his immortality depends on believing that.
To anyone objective, the conflict with physical evidence is obvious from start to finish. We have pointed out numerous conflicts, and you have done your best to rationalise them, not hesitating to ignore all the known rules of physics when it suited you.
On that basis one could justify any random creation story. Magic makes all things possible. Since you accept magic but you are arguing with people who do not, why are you bothering?
I do not accept "magic" opposed to that which is demonstrable. You are welcome to attempt to prove otherwise with data. Anything else is opinion which you are entitled to and proves nothing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121131 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There would be a universal bottleneck if there had been a global flood?
Congratulations. You've outdone yourself in the Stupid Question Department.

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
The “cumulative evidence” problem 24 min jla2w 30
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min The First Amendment 95,362
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 2 hr Rose_NoHo 21
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 3 hr JUST SAYING 63
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 8 hr Rose_NoHo 97
E equals MC squared Sun Jim Ryan 15
News Just So: The Microbe-To-Man Evolution Story Is ... Jun 16 Elganned 1