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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121165 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your dataless opinion.
Just like your opinion that it's impossible for the Earth to be enshrouded in a mirage that confounds all our math and equipment.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121166 Aug 30, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "99 reasons" is a compilation of data-less assertions.
That's Urban Cowboy. Understandably difficult to keep the liars straight.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121167 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I assert that I didn't "demonstrate that the Earth isn't shrouded by a mirage that confounds our instruments and our mathematics/physics". You're welcome to try to prove otherwise.
You said it was impossible for that to be the case, but you provide no evidence to support that assertion. What is it called when someone does not follow the standards to which he holds others?
KAB

Scottsdale, AZ

#121168 Aug 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have not provided opinions. You have. I have provided data, questions, and reasoning based directly on the data (yours and mine). How have your calculations confirmed that the 20 level hap map could not be generated in 4500 years? You have presented a case that an individual mutation has a struggle to become "fixed", but I don't recall that you have addressed the matter of how many haps are in play thru time.
KAB

Scottsdale, AZ

#121169 Aug 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Regarding who can follow and who can't, how is "no significant defects" the same as "less defective" (your reasoning, not mine!)?

I have never stated anything about a "low defect gene", another failure to follow on your part.

Also, just in case it's not a type-o, we're not considering "floods" here, just one, another possible failure to follow on your part.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121170 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How is a new hap within "about every sixth generation" different from one having "occurred by then" (i.e., within 6 generations)?
Again, you acknowledge that new haps do become entrenched, so on average, how many become entrenched per generation? Remember that as the population grows, so does the number of haps in play.
I agree that one of us is getting it wrong. Beyond that I leave the data to stand on its own.
Its totally different.

A new hap mutation would appear witjin the first 6 gens becuase of the frequency of mutation diivided by the total number of females existing ti that point.

When the populatoon is higher there will be mutatoons in every generation in fact. However the chances of a new ine fixing long term in yhe population is tiny in each case.

As discussed, the odds are too low to create the hap tree we have.

Its getting boring watching you wriggle and writhe with denial while never once coming up with a scenario that makes your wishful thinking possible..

Nobody has been able to make your scenario possible. Prove me wrong or be honest forr once in your life.
Dogen

Indianapolis, IN

#121171 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only wave the opinion flag when opinions are given instead of data. I see you have noted that is frequently, reflecting the relative dirth of data provided by your side.

This is an obvious lie. You wave the opinion flag whenever a summary of previous evidence has been referenced. In other words you use it every time an issue comes up that you have already lost the data battle and you want to deny it.

Do you not see what you are doing? Is all of this delusions or are you a little aware of your fundamental dishonesty?
Dogen

Indianapolis, IN

#121172 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your dataless opinion.

The fact that the data exists in previous posts and not the current one does not mean the fact being pointed to is dataless (and it is beyond opinion).

I intend to continue to call you on your lies.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#121173 Aug 30, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Crap.
That's Urban Cowboy.
My apologies, KAB.
They all blend together after a while. One big jar of Skippy.
Dogen

Indianapolis, IN

#121174 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How is a new hap within "about every sixth generation" different from one having "occurred by then" (i.e., within 6 generations)?
Again, you acknowledge that new haps do become entrenched, so on average, how many become entrenched per generation?

Looking at Halogroups new ones average zero. Well, much less than one. Eyeballing the data I would say about one every 5,000 years.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Remember that as the population grows, so does the number of haps in play.

It would not seem so as the newest Halotype group (H3) has been around for about 10,000 years.

The problem is that the further we go back the more duplicate ancestors we have.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I agree that one of us is getting it wrong. Beyond that I leave the data to stand on its own.

Thank you for admitting you got it wrong. The data does, in fact, confirm that.

and please note when reading the above when I am referring to Haplotype and when I am referring to Haplogroup to avoid confusion.
Dogen

Indianapolis, IN

#121175 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not provided opinions. You have. I have provided data, questions, and reasoning based directly on the data (yours and mine).

This is a lie.

You did not provide the data and your questions are an attempt to avoid the conclusions of the data.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> How have your calculations confirmed that the 20 level hap map could not be generated in 4500 years?

Genetics confirms that. He does not have too.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You have presented a case that an individual mutation has a struggle to become "fixed", but I don't recall that you have addressed the matter of how many haps are in play thru time.

It does not matter to the issue under discussion. Only surviving haps and haptypes matter.

You are just trying to hide the fact that you lost again.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121176 Aug 30, 2013

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121177 Aug 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>They all blend together after a while. One big jar of Skippy.
The atheist's nightmare!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121178 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not provided opinions. You have. I have provided data, questions, and reasoning based directly on the data (yours and mine).
So, the impossibility of the Earth mirage isn't merely opinion? Show us the evidence that demonstrates this impossibility.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121179 Aug 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Yes
<quoted text>
I don't remember that. Anyway, the generation of a HAP does not mean it will continue.
<quoted text>
Yes
<quoted text>
No. You are somehow adding purple to apples and getting 37.
Thanks for acknowledging I reasoned directly on data provided, and that you don't remember everything. It is, therefore, appropriate not to accept as correct what you offer unaccompanied by confirming data.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121180 Aug 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for acknowledging I reasoned directly on data provided, and that you don't remember everything. It is, therefore, appropriate not to accept as correct what you offer unaccompanied by confirming data.
No, you reasoned on your failure to understand the data provided.

repeatedly.

You still show no inkling that you understand the data provided.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121181 Aug 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts =/= opinion.
Maybe a dictionary would help you.
Even a fact provided without confirmation is rightfully viewed as opinion by any who have not been provided the confirmation.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121182 Aug 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're entitled to your opinion that nothing you said was opinion, and that's a fact!
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121183 Aug 31, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations. You've outdone yourself in the Stupid Question Department.
Sorry about the question mark. That was meant to be a statement. I think it was a copy-and-paste error.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121184 Aug 31, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly! Which is why your 'demonstrated reliable source' is nothing more than your personal opinion and proves nothing.
There is, of course, the record of reliability behind that opinion.

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) 24 min Patrick 18,708
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min syamsu 205,489
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr nanoanomaly 936
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Into The Night 43,411
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 16 hr Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Aug 28 Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Aug 27 One way or another 16
More from around the web