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

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

There are 141850 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.

The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#121636 Oct 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Looks like God is mastrubating.
Open wide and say, "aaaaahhhh"...

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121637 Oct 15, 2013
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck trying to get them to acknowledge that?
Evos are not too keen on the concept of "inability to detect "x" does not imply the non existence of "x""... Hence we have debates...
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you have none then there's no way you can possible know just what it is you are supposed to believe in.
Accepting words of men who claim some invisible entity talked to them as divine is just silly.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121638 Oct 15, 2013
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck trying to get them to acknowledge that?
Evos are not too keen on the concept of "inability to detect "x" does not imply the non existence of "x""... Hence we have debates...
Please elaborate on the circumstances leading to an undetectable genetic bottleneck occurring in all species at the same point it time.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#121639 Oct 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you seek, at all costs, to avoid the truth.
"Truth"?

Do you even believe that there is such a thing as "truth"?

If I remember correctly from past discussions on this or like topics; you yourself denied the existence of things such as "proof" and "truth" and "certainty"...
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#121640 Oct 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What!??!?
Yes, if there is no evidence of a bottleneck we can then state that there was not one.
Or can't you understand fairly simple genetics?
Dont you understand that "there is no evidence" is not the same as "it never existed"?

As a matter of fact, you CANNOT rationally conclude that "there is no evidence"...

...you can however, honestly and objectively say "NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND"...

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#121641 Oct 15, 2013
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck trying to get them to acknowledge that?
Evos are not too keen on the concept of "inability to detect "x" does not imply the non existence of "x""... Hence we have debates...
Back again huh. I can tell the quality of your posts have remained down at their usual level.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#121642 Oct 15, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I agree...
Igor Trip wrote:
If you have none then there's no way you can possible know just what it is you are supposed to believe in.
Thats where the limts of your thinking skills are revealed...

You actually can know what you are supposed to believe without evidence...

You see, the only thing required for any belief to be valid, is for it to be consistent with a previously held assumption...
Igor Trip wrote:
Accepting words of men who claim some invisible entity talked to them as divine is just silly.
Garbage.

It is no necessary to listen to anyone...

As long as you accept the assumption/s as simply as accepting that x=3, the implications will be made plain (by way of the principle of equality).

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121643 Oct 15, 2013
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Open wide and say, "aaaaahhhh"...
The Handjob of God?

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#121644 Oct 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The Handjob of God?
Dang it. I ran out of props.

Props to you for the post anyway.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#121645 Oct 15, 2013
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree...
<quoted text>
Thats where the limts of your thinking skills are revealed...
You actually can know what you are supposed to believe without evidence...
You see, the only thing required for any belief to be valid, is for it to be consistent with a previously held assumption...
<quoted text>
Garbage.
It is no necessary to listen to anyone...
As long as you accept the assumption/s as simply as accepting that x=3, the implications will be made plain (by way of the principle of equality).
Glad we got that straightened out. We don't have to listen to you then.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121646 Oct 15, 2013
The Hand of God wrote:
Thats where the limts of your thinking skills are revealed...
You actually can know what you are supposed to believe without evidence...
You see, the only thing required for any belief to be valid, is for it to be consistent with a previously held assumption...
So if it is assumed the earth is flat and you then believe the world is flat that proves the world is flat?

There's no reason why an unsupported assumption should be correct.
There's no reason why an unsupported belief should be correct.
Added together they only prove our inability to out guess the universe.
The Hand of God wrote:
Garbage.
It is no necessary to listen to anyone...
As long as you accept the assumption/s as simply as accepting that x=3, the implications will be made plain (by way of the principle of equality).
But how do I know x=3 rather than and other number?
In all the maths I did in school x only rarely equaled 3.

You can presume you have knowledge of God and this universe all you like but until you provide some evidence we will continue to presume you're just making bad guesses.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121647 Oct 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Please elaborate on the circumstances leading to an undetectable genetic bottleneck occurring in all species at the same point it time.
I can just hear the average fundie...
"Just like I told you last month.'That there is no evidence that the check was ever written does not indicate the check is not in the mail'. HEY! Come back with my car!!!"

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#121648 Oct 15, 2013
I have a bit of catching up to do.
pg 5910
Not to bad only about 1300 posts.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#121649 Oct 15, 2013
Nothing new under the sun.

In Jamaica x is still equaling 3.
By means of the principle of equality.

One one coco full basket. Eeh!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121651 Oct 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you haven't in fact left the building, tr seemingly recognizing and acknowledging that my positions are data not doctrine based. If my understanding of the data is flawed, I am open to having that demonstrated, of course, with data. I appreciate your willingness to address the reality rather than your imagination.
Thanks. Been on holiday in Turkey. Great place.

I have to say I do think your understanding of the data is flawed. I think anyone who sets out to prove one particular viewpoint no matter how strongly the data fits a different theory better is going to have problems.

In the case of the haptypes, there were few preconceptions in the scientists studying the issue. The answer could have been 10k years or 1 million. I think they were generally surprised at how far back it came out because until about 30 years back H. Sapiens was thought to be younger.

Still the fossil and migratory records now fit consistently with a date in the 150k range. No data fit the 5k range that you want to be the case.

The same thing happened in Geology more than 200 years ago, well before evolution. Early geologists went out confident that they would find all kinds of evidence for the Flood that they were sure had occurred. They were disturbed to find no such thing but instead plenty of eviidence that no such thing had happened.

This plus piles of evidence from every quarter tells us that the Bible is not a document to be understood literally.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121652 Oct 22, 2013
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont you understand that "there is no evidence" is not the same as "it never existed"?
As a matter of fact, you CANNOT rationally conclude that "there is no evidence"...
...you can however, honestly and objectively say "NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND"...
Wrong because you are speaking as if a bottleneck were a thing...but its actually the lack of a thing. And the evidence against the bottleneck is a thing that can be found and is evidence AGAINST a bottleneck, not merely lack of evidence FOR one.

High genetic diversity in a population is a thing that cannot be explained if a recent severe fall in numbers has occurred. There will not jave been sufficient time or numbers to generate that variety, that number of mutations that could drift through a population.

Therefore lack of a bottleneck is more than "lack of evidence", its positively evidence against n=3, 5000 years ago. Or anything close to that.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#121653 Oct 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. Been on holiday in Turkey. Great place.
I have to say I do think your understanding of the data is flawed. I think anyone who sets out to prove one particular viewpoint no matter how strongly the data fits a different theory better is going to have problems.
In the case of the haptypes, there were few preconceptions in the scientists studying the issue. The answer could have been 10k years or 1 million. I think they were generally surprised at how far back it came out because until about 30 years back H. Sapiens was thought to be younger.
Still the fossil and migratory records now fit consistently with a date in the 150k range. No data fit the 5k range that you want to be the case.
The same thing happened in Geology more than 200 years ago, well before evolution. Early geologists went out confident that they would find all kinds of evidence for the Flood that they were sure had occurred. They were disturbed to find no such thing but instead plenty of eviidence that no such thing had happened.
This plus piles of evidence from every quarter tells us that the Bible is not a document to be understood literally.
If you think my understanding of the data is flawed that's fine, since you're free to think whatever you want. I have not set out to prove any preconceived viewpoint. My viewpoints are developed thru examining the data, all of it available to me. That's why I appreciate whatever you can provide, but not what you think.
The scientists studying the issue are not told science has no idea how old modern humans are, are they? Perhaps you can provide/cite some data confirming your 30 years back, fossil, and migratory points.
Were the 200 year old geologists the ones who found the 4500 year old data in the 1.4 million year old northern Canadian global scale flood gauge?
You can begin confirming those piles of evidence from every quarter (except northern Canada, of course not that quarter) by providing or citing one specific quantified item at a time, and we'll see where it leads.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#121654 Oct 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong because you are speaking as if a bottleneck were a thing...but its actually the lack of a thing. And the evidence against the bottleneck is a thing that can be found and is evidence AGAINST a bottleneck, not merely lack of evidence FOR one.
High genetic diversity in a population is a thing that cannot be explained if a recent severe fall in numbers has occurred. There will not jave been sufficient time or numbers to generate that variety, that number of mutations that could drift through a population.
Therefore lack of a bottleneck is more than "lack of evidence", its positively evidence against n=3, 5000 years ago. Or anything close to that.
High genetic diversity in a population can be explained if the mutation rate is sufficiently high in a rapid growth period following the bottleneck.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#121655 Oct 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
High genetic diversity in a population can be explained if the mutation rate is sufficiently high in a rapid growth period following the bottleneck.
Oh crap.

This again.

KAB....back up the record 6 months ago.
Chimney1

Dubai, UAE

#121656 Oct 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
High genetic diversity in a population can be explained if the mutation rate is sufficiently high in a rapid growth period following the bottleneck.
No it cannot because that pattern would not accommodate the systematic losses of the earliest mutations and the preservation of multiple nested lineages only represented by the most recent levels.

This has been explained. What I am finding interesting both here and on a different thread, different subject, is that people without biblical preconceptions grasp complex material quickly and get it while those whose minds are already determined to cling to a biblical view keep running around in circles desperately trying to make square pegs fit round holes. Many of these people are basically intelligent but their ability to reason is impaired by cultish demands that reality fit dogma.

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) 1 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Chimney1 168,950
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 6 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Jul 2 qiu 1
More from around the web