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.

KAB

United States

#121413 Sep 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
To repeat the point.
IF there had been a recent flood bottleneck and IF haptypes had proliferated from there at an amazingly rapid rate, we would observe all (or most) of the 20 levels of the hap tree in populations today. Then you could talk about co-existence, not replacement.
But we don't.
We see the latest levels only. Not levels 1, 2, 3, 4 etc, only level 20 and 19. Because the earlier ones HAVE been replaced.
Not because I say so, but because they cannot be found in human populations. If the flood was recent, then the older levels would not only exist, they would be the most common so if they are there they should easily have been found.
Starting to follow the logic?
Is your position that ONLY the "20th" levels exist today, and is that actually so?

I grant you this. If the entire genome is taken as a whole, then no genome from 4500 years ago probably still exists, although it is not impossible, is it?
KAB

United States

#121414 Sep 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
To repeat the point.
IF there had been a recent flood bottleneck and IF haptypes had proliferated from there at an amazingly rapid rate, we would observe all (or most) of the 20 levels of the hap tree in populations today. Then you could talk about co-existence, not replacement.
But we don't.
We see the latest levels only. Not levels 1, 2, 3, 4 etc, only level 20 and 19. Because the earlier ones HAVE been replaced.
Not because I say so, but because they cannot be found in human populations. If the flood was recent, then the older levels would not only exist, they would be the most common so if they are there they should easily have been found.
Starting to follow the logic?
If you're confident levels 19 and 20 coexist today, why not also 18?
KAB

United States

#121415 Sep 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
About 10,000 lives per year in the U.S.
http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-bloo...
Among the watchtower dead are mostly children.
There are rumors that the Watchtower may reverse course on this in the not distant future. I have my doubts. They are pretty stupid.
FROM THE RECENT ARCHIVES:

Doc is so deceitful!
His reference doesn't even claim 10,000 lives saved.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121416 Sep 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My "framing" reference was not to the structure/nature of the hap tree. It was to your fixation with haps "replacing" and "dominating" others as if that is a requirement for each new hap. Existence and sustenance are allowable and sufficient.
Now please provide the diagrams, and let's see if we can make some progress in mutual understanding and finding common ground.
Duplicitous diplomatic drivel without the slightest trace of sincerity.
By "common ground" you mean agree that Genesis is the Factual, Infallible and Absolutely Impeccable Word of God as Interpreted and Defended by the Jehovah's Witnesses - whatever version of that the GB is endorsing this year.
Chimney1

UAE

#121418 Sep 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't suppose you also noticed that "cc" was not replaced. I also know you realize that starting with the deduced original sequence XXXccXXXXXXX, it is certainly possible that within about six generations the sequence XXXccXXXabXX could have been produced, and likewise, somewhere along the way, the sequence XXXccXXXXXzz, all easily within 4500 years.
KAB the whole point is that we cannot FIND any XXXccXXXXXXXXXX sequences in today's population. They are gone. In cases where earlier hap types are not gone, we observe them. But most of the earlier levels ARE gone. Not because I said so.

So yes, it would be easy for the "ab" and "zz" sequences to simply be added to existing "cc" haps, but what is not explained or possible in your scenario is what happened to all the pure cc population. In 4500 years they should not be gone but they are.

And remember this is simplified. There are 20 levels not just one and most of the earlier types have disappeared. So THAT is the problem you have explaining especially that with a population doubling scenario the disappearance of old hap types is impossible over the doubling period.
Chimney1

UAE

#121419 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're confident levels 19 and 20 coexist today, why not also 18?
Its possible that a member of 17 or 16 is around. But what we know is that most have disappeared and all of the ealiest levels are gone. After testing tens of thousands of individuals all over the world there is no trace of them.

Do you understand that the XXXccXXXXXXXXXX without the other changes was an existing state at some point that gave rise to the later versions but itself cannot be found in anyone today? All manner of different mutations DO coexist today but not the earliest levels. That is why I told you they are reconstructed using cimputer analysis. The most parsimonious (shortest and most efficient) tree is assumed and that is bad news for you because when they put their lower limit on mta "eve" its more than 160, 000 years ago. Not something that a trivial assumptions change is going ro turn into 4500.
Chimney1

UAE

#121420 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The repetition is not due to my lack of understanding. It stems from your failure to answer the question I've been asking, apparently due to your lack of understanding.
No it most assuredly is due to your lack of understanding.

XXXCCXXXXXXXXXX is not a hplotype found in the populaton today. But we know it existed once because we do have

XXXCCXXXXXXXXzz

And

XXXCCXXXXXXmnXX

In the population today. So zz and mn represent newer mutations in daughter groups. The parent is nowhere to be found and sorry but it takes far longer than 4500 years for multiple consecutive instances like the one above to layer one over the other. It would take even LONGER if you assumed high population growth from n=3 as you already noted. There should be hardly ANY loss of the earlier tyoes. And yet they are lost.

Signalling two things. 1 / that these trees have been developing from a single haptype for at least 160k years and 2/ rapid growth from n=3 only 4500 years ago is impossible.
Chimney1

UAE

#121421 Sep 10, 2013
Sorry dont be confused by the use of capital C in the last example. Of course I mean

XXXccXXXXXXXXXXX

I only made them small cap so they would stand out more and its not significant to our discussion.
KAB

United States

#121422 Sep 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Duplicitous diplomatic drivel without the slightest trace of sincerity.
By "common ground" you mean agree that Genesis is the Factual, Infallible and Absolutely Impeccable Word of God as Interpreted and Defended by the Jehovah's Witnesses - whatever version of that the GB is endorsing this year.
No
KAB

United States

#121423 Sep 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB the whole point is that we cannot FIND any XXXccXXXXXXXXXX sequences in today's population. They are gone. In cases where earlier hap types are not gone, we observe them. But most of the earlier levels ARE gone. Not because I said so.
So yes, it would be easy for the "ab" and "zz" sequences to simply be added to existing "cc" haps, but what is not explained or possible in your scenario is what happened to all the pure cc population. In 4500 years they should not be gone but they are.
And remember this is simplified. There are 20 levels not just one and most of the earlier types have disappeared. So THAT is the problem you have explaining especially that with a population doubling scenario the disappearance of old hap types is impossible over the doubling period.
With mutations occurring every generation why would you expect any pure "cc" population remaining after approx. 200 generations? Also, examine the mtDNA hap tree. It appears to represent a number of present-day individuals who have only the L0 level in common. Why would there be anybody genetically that close to the point of origin after 200,000 years?
KAB

United States

#121424 Sep 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its possible that a member of 17 or 16 is around. But what we know is that most have disappeared and all of the ealiest levels are gone. After testing tens of thousands of individuals all over the world there is no trace of them.
Do you understand that the XXXccXXXXXXXXXX without the other changes was an existing state at some point that gave rise to the later versions but itself cannot be found in anyone today? All manner of different mutations DO coexist today but not the earliest levels. That is why I told you they are reconstructed using cimputer analysis. The most parsimonious (shortest and most efficient) tree is assumed and that is bad news for you because when they put their lower limit on mta "eve" its more than 160, 000 years ago. Not something that a trivial assumptions change is going ro turn into 4500.
There is no bad news here for me until you provide data confirming as correct the determination of the 160,000 years. That's how things are moved out of the realm of because they say so.
KAB

United States

#121425 Sep 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No it most assuredly is due to your lack of understanding.
XXXCCXXXXXXXXXX is not a hplotype found in the populaton today. But we know it existed once because we do have
XXXCCXXXXXXXXzz
And
XXXCCXXXXXXmnXX
In the population today. So zz and mn represent newer mutations in daughter groups. The parent is nowhere to be found and sorry but it takes far longer than 4500 years for multiple consecutive instances like the one above to layer one over the other. It would take even LONGER if you assumed high population growth from n=3 as you already noted. There should be hardly ANY loss of the earlier tyoes. And yet they are lost.
Signalling two things. 1 / that these trees have been developing from a single haptype for at least 160k years and 2/ rapid growth from n=3 only 4500 years ago is impossible.
Do you notice how every time you state a conclusion, you just declare something (e.g., "it takes far longer than 4500 years for multiple consecutive instances like the one above to layer one over the other") rather than have it follow directly from the data provided? Why is that, do you think?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121426 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No

You take your orders from the Watchtower.

The Watchtower takes orders from Satan.

Know them by the fruits.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121427 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
With mutations occurring every generation why would you expect any pure "cc" population remaining after approx. 200 generations? Also, examine the mtDNA hap tree. It appears to represent a number of present-day individuals who have only the L0 level in common. Why would there be anybody genetically that close to the point of origin after 200,000 years?

What do all of the people with the L0 level have in common?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121428 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no bad news here for me until you provide data confirming as correct the determination of the 160,000 years. That's how things are moved out of the realm of because they say so.

Sorry, you don't get to make the rules.

We don't have to accept something that is next to impossible. Scientific reality gets moved IN, based on data, not the other way around.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121429 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice how every time you state a conclusion, you just declare something (e.g., "it takes far longer than 4500 years for multiple consecutive instances like the one above to layer one over the other") rather than have it follow directly from the data provided? Why is that, do you think?

This is a lie.

Providing a summary of the data provided is valid once the data has been provided. Which it has.

Goodbye.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121430 Sep 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What do all of the people with the L0 level have in common?
They have the L0 root in common.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121431 Sep 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you don't get to make the rules.
We don't have to accept something that is next to impossible. Scientific reality gets moved IN, based on data, not the other way around.
I take note every time you provide confirming data. I haven't taken note for quite a while.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121432 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They have the L0 root in common.

That is what I expected.

Zero comprehension.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121433 Sep 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I take note every time you provide confirming data. I haven't taken note for quite a while.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you don't get to make the rules.
We don't have to accept something that is next to impossible. Scientific reality gets moved IN, based on data, not the other way around.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Into The Night 43,330
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 59 min The Northener 205,211
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 18,594
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 10 hr ChristineM 917
Questions about first life 13 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