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

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

There are 170093 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

#121581 Sep 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How many species do you have in mind, and how realistic is it to expect to provide bottleneck data for ALL of them?
Sorry, but we don't need ALL of them.

In fact we really only need ONE, proving that ONE got through the flood without a bottleneck. Every species we find that lacks the bottleneck GOT THROUGH. But if it were only one that had no bottleneck, we would suspect its some sort of special case.

But if we had tested only 50 species (its higher), and only the cheetah had a bottleneck, ALL the others must have got through the supposed flood period without a population crash.

Therefore, the story of Noah's ark and all the land creatures outside the ark dying is simply - FALSE.

If you cannot even follow this basic logic, there is little hope for you KAB.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121582 Sep 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My proposal didn't work for you because you erroneously chose to serially concatenate the 3500 year disappearance of each hap level. Try a staggered parallel progression.
I will honestly try that (again) just for you. But I will be busy this weekend which starts today over here...next week.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121583 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't expect anything from the regulars on here. I just provide info.
Uh-huh.

KABs standards:

Information from the regulars: Unconfirmed supporting data

Information from KAB himself: Compelling supporting data

Laughable.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121584 Sep 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This would simply be a lie or a delusion.
Delusion.
KAB

United States

#121585 Sep 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but we don't need ALL of them.
In fact we really only need ONE, proving that ONE got through the flood without a bottleneck. Every species we find that lacks the bottleneck GOT THROUGH. But if it were only one that had no bottleneck, we would suspect its some sort of special case.
But if we had tested only 50 species (its higher), and only the cheetah had a bottleneck, ALL the others must have got through the supposed flood period without a population crash.
Therefore, the story of Noah's ark and all the land creatures outside the ark dying is simply - FALSE.
If you cannot even follow this basic logic, there is little hope for you KAB.
I follow the logic completely. Now provide the "ONE" data confiming no 4500 ybp flood bottleneck. Be advised that science acknowledges that not genetically "finding" a bottleneck doesn't mean there wasn't one.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121586 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not even trying to win, but it's apparent that it's important to you. I just provide info.
Kudos and then some, because you've amply demonstrated that you are exceedingly proficient at not winning.
Actually, I'm completely baffled in finding any motivation for you to post at all, unless it's to fulfill some private fancy of living out a Monty Python sketch.
KAB

United States

#121587 Sep 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh.
KABs standards:
Information from the regulars: Unconfirmed supporting data
Information from KAB himself: Compelling supporting data
Laughable.
If you stop laughing it will enable you to attempt to prove it wrong instead of just thinking it so. Relying on the thinking alone could eventually prove embarassing (Matthew 24:37-39).

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121588 Sep 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh.
KABs standards:
Information from the regulars: Unconfirmed supporting data
Information from KAB himself: Compelling supporting data
Laughable.
"KAB's" and "standards" are mutually antagonistic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121589 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I follow the logic completely. Now provide the "ONE" data confiming no 4500 ybp flood bottleneck. Be advised that science acknowledges that not genetically "finding" a bottleneck doesn't mean there wasn't one.
Yes, it does mean there wasn't one.

Because the genetic diversity we see today in that population is too great to have come from a few individuals so recently. Is it this very simple misunderstanding that has kept you sounding dumber than dumb for all this time, on this subject?

We have been looking just at mtDNA but the same applies to the whole genome. The higher the degree of diversity, the longer it has been since that population could have suffered a bottleneck.

So the genetic diversity is POSITIVE evidence of a large population going a long way back without interruption. Its not just lack of evidence for your case, its positive evidence falsifying your case.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121590 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you stop laughing it will enable you to attempt to prove it wrong instead of just thinking it so.
You've been proven wrong repeatedly. It seems you are the only one who doesn't realize it.
KAB wrote:
Relying on the thinking alone could eventually prove embarassing
Which is why we stick to evidence while you stick to pipe-dreams.
KAB wrote:
(Matthew 24:37-39).
Blah, blah, blah.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121591 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I follow the logic completely. Now provide the "ONE" data confiming no 4500 ybp flood bottleneck. Be advised that science acknowledges that not genetically "finding" a bottleneck doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Sorry, this is your job, not ours.

And you are incorrect in your statement about bottlenecks. There is no way that scientific research into a species genome that is looking for bottlenecks (in major land animals) is going to miss a near extinction event from only 4,500 years ago.

This is made WORSE for you in that many species (humans for example) show clear evidence of much milder bottlenecks much further in the past.

Try to work through it. See if you can borrow a brain from someone for 15 minutes.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121592 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you stop laughing it will enable you to attempt to prove it wrong instead of just thinking it so. Relying on the thinking alone could eventually prove embarassing (Matthew 24:37-39).

Why would he have to prove it wrong, again?

Your "logic" may work on dubs, but simply asserting the evidence does not support us (when it does) is not impressive.
KAB

United States

#121593 Sep 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Kudos and then some, because you've amply demonstrated that you are exceedingly proficient at not winning.
Actually, I'm completely baffled in finding any motivation for you to post at all, unless it's to fulfill some private fancy of living out a Monty Python sketch.
The motivation is simple. I detest false religion (i.e., that which is in conflict with what is demonstrably true). I seek to provide correct info whenever/wherever I have opportunity for the benefit of those interested in receiving it.
KAB

United States

#121594 Sep 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it does mean there wasn't one.
Because the genetic diversity we see today in that population is too great to have come from a few individuals so recently. Is it this very simple misunderstanding that has kept you sounding dumber than dumb for all this time, on this subject?
We have been looking just at mtDNA but the same applies to the whole genome. The higher the degree of diversity, the longer it has been since that population could have suffered a bottleneck.
So the genetic diversity is POSITIVE evidence of a large population going a long way back without interruption. Its not just lack of evidence for your case, its positive evidence falsifying your case.
I agree with your reasoning. Now all you need is to provide data confirming that what you state is true. Remember we still haven't resolved the human mtDNA hap tree's timeframe.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121595 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The motivation is simple. I detest false religion (i.e., that which is in conflict with what is demonstrably true).


Obviously not since your cult is demonstrably false.

Does a demonstrably true religion spend 100 years creating false prophecies? Of course not.

HUNDREDS if not thousands of examples available of the falsehood of the Watchtower cults doctrines and dogma.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I seek to provide correct info whenever/wherever I have opportunity for the benefit of those interested in receiving it.

You might believe this if you are delusional. However your history in this forum demonstrates that your statement is incorrect and that you are fully enmeshed in your religious doctrine and are committed to disputing the facts that are in conflict with your distorted beliefs.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121596 Sep 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your reasoning. Now all you need is to provide data confirming that what you state is true. Remember we still haven't resolved the human mtDNA hap tree's timeframe.

This has been made available to you.

Another refutation of your error prone beliefs.

Who do you think you are talking to when you post lies? All of us here know you.

The person you are posting for, who you are trying to impress, is yourself.

Fortunately for you your target audience is proven gullible (member of mind control religious cult).

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it does mean there wasn't one.
Because the genetic diversity we see today in that population is too great to have come from a few individuals so recently. Is it this very simple misunderstanding that has kept you sounding dumber than dumb for all this time, on this subject?
We have been looking just at mtDNA but the same applies to the whole genome. The higher the degree of diversity, the longer it has been since that population could have suffered a bottleneck.
So the genetic diversity is POSITIVE evidence of a large population going a long way back without interruption. Its not just lack of evidence for your case, its positive evidence falsifying your case.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121597 Sep 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The motivation is simple. I detest false religion (i.e., that which is in conflict with what is demonstrably true). I seek to provide correct info whenever/wherever I have opportunity for the benefit of those interested in receiving it.
gosh - we are ALL on the same page then, because everybody who disagrees with you detests false religion (i.e., that which is in conflict with what is demonstrably true).

Maybe it's just that your feelings about the Bible would be on par with Hershey's feeling that their products cure diabetes.

(BTW, "detest" is not synonymous with "digest and "correct" is not synonymous with "corrupt.")
fisherofmen

Charlotte, NC

#121598 Sep 21, 2013
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
They evolved from older primates; they and we are related as cousins. So say the fossils...AND the DNA, AND the ERVs...
What did older primates evolve from? There are ancient, primitive, primate-like animals known from the early Cenozoic; they evolved from early placental mammals that evolved sometime during the later Mesozoic.
Mammals can be traced back to the early part of the Mesozoic; early mammals laid eggs (some still do...just as we might expect of groups in isolated areas). There is a nice sequence of fossils showing evolution from reptiles, to mammal-like reptiles, to mammals.
There are also fossils showing transitions from amphibian to reptile, and great fossils showing transitions from fish to amphibian.
Friend the missing link is still missing. Evoulution is a fraud! The piltdown man fraud is one of many hoaxes that fooled and utterly embarrassed the scientific community. Charles Dawson a British lawyer and amateur geologist,announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an ape like jaw in a gravel pit near piltdown, England... Dawsons discovery caused the evolutionist experts to instantly declare the piltdown man ( estimated to be 300,000 to a million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwins missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 years or so. Then in the fifties... Scientist began to suspect misattribution. In 1953 that suspicion gave wat to a full blown scandal: oiltdown man is a hoax. Radiocarbon test proved that its skull belonged to a 600 year old woman, and its jaw from a 500 year old orangutan from the east Indies.Piltdown man is not the only supposed human ancestor to be debunked.MANY alleged missing links are based on only a single fossil fragment and wishful thinking of evolutionists. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. The list goes on and on. Missing link is still missing folks! And it will remain missing for it does not exist. Now it seems evolutionist proclaim that since our dna is 98 % similar to chimps proves their theroy. But we also have 50% dna similar to a banana but that doesnt make us a banana any more than it makes us come from a chimp.Be careful that you dont fall for the illogic of this"evolutionary proof" or scientists will make a monkey out of you or worse a banana. Lolol

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121599 Sep 21, 2013
fisherofmen wrote:
<quoted text> Friend the missing link is still missing. Evoulution is a fraud! The piltdown man fraud is one of many hoaxes that fooled and utterly embarrassed the scientific community. Charles Dawson a British lawyer and amateur geologist,announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an ape like jaw in a gravel pit near piltdown, England... Dawsons discovery caused the evolutionist experts to instantly declare the piltdown man ( estimated to be 300,000 to a million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwins missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 years or so. Then in the fifties... Scientist began to suspect misattribution. In 1953 that suspicion gave wat to a full blown scandal: oiltdown man is a hoax. Radiocarbon test proved that its skull belonged to a 600 year old woman, and its jaw from a 500 year old orangutan from the east Indies.Piltdown man is not the only supposed human ancestor to be debunked.MANY alleged missing links are based on only a single fossil fragment and wishful thinking of evolutionists. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. The list goes on and on. Missing link is still missing folks! And it will remain missing for it does not exist. Now it seems evolutionist proclaim that since our dna is 98 % similar to chimps proves their theroy. But we also have 50% dna similar to a banana but that doesnt make us a banana any more than it makes us come from a chimp.Be careful that you dont fall for the illogic of this"evolutionary proof" or scientists will make a monkey out of you or worse a banana. Lolol
Do you seriously believe that

evolution depends on Piltdown

that

so called Nebraska Man was ever considered a serious candidate in human evolution

that

no other discoveries of ape/hominid intermediates exist.

Good grief. You haven't got a clue.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121600 Sep 21, 2013
fisherofmen wrote:
<quoted text> Friend the missing link is still missing. Evoulution is a fraud! The piltdown man fraud is one of many hoaxes that fooled and utterly embarrassed the scientific community. Charles Dawson a British lawyer and amateur geologist,announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an ape like jaw in a gravel pit near piltdown, England... Dawsons discovery caused the evolutionist experts to instantly declare the piltdown man ( estimated to be 300,000 to a million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwins missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 years or so. Then in the fifties... Scientist began to suspect misattribution. In 1953 that suspicion gave wat to a full blown scandal: oiltdown man is a hoax. Radiocarbon test proved that its skull belonged to a 600 year old woman, and its jaw from a 500 year old orangutan from the east Indies.Piltdown man is not the only supposed human ancestor to be debunked.MANY alleged missing links are based on only a single fossil fragment and wishful thinking of evolutionists. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. The list goes on and on. Missing link is still missing folks! And it will remain missing for it does not exist. Now it seems evolutionist proclaim that since our dna is 98 % similar to chimps proves their theroy. But we also have 50% dna similar to a banana but that doesnt make us a banana any more than it makes us come from a chimp.Be careful that you dont fall for the illogic of this"evolutionary proof" or scientists will make a monkey out of you or worse a banana. Lolol

What rock did this guy crawl out from under.

I am old enough to actually remember some of these old "arguments".

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
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 17 min 15th Dalai Lama 27
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr blacklagoon 3 95,414
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 3 hr THOUGHTS 1,879
Souls have weight .. 21 grams Experiment 3 hr Simon 20
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 19 hr Dogen 116
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 19 hr Dogen 268
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... Jun 20 Rose_NoHo 106