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

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

There are 162493 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121808 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The most interesting aspect of the study results is that the data showed science may not be bang on. Somehow I don't think you comprehended that. It seems you stumbled on a bit of unrelated radiocarbon.

"not bang on" sounds like projection on your part.

Let us know when you get back from the land of make believe. Life free from cult rule is true bliss.


“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121809 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think radiometric dating is required in determining mutation rates.
Are you unaware that reported mutation rates from different studies vary widely? If that's the case, I can and will provide data.
I didn't think you would last long. You do have a track record you know.
Why do you think you source would include mention of it in relation to mutation rates? What makes you think I am unaware that mutation rates vary? It is even noted in the questionable speculation you linked. Seems a silly point to post when you know the opposite is correct. Will it be more incomplete data and creationist speculation? If so, you needn't bother.

Why do you think mutation rates vary from different studies? Do you think it is that the science is poor? I mean, that is what you want ultimately. To impugn the science because the findings go against a book you think is infallible, but isn't.

Does variability in the rates indicate imprecision in the techniques, inaccuracy in the techniques, differences in the genes or species, or differences in temporal and physical conditions of the organisms being studied?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121810 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think radiometric dating is required in determining mutation rates.
Are you unaware that reported mutation rates from different studies vary widely? If that's the case, I can and will provide data.
I didn't think you would last long. You do have a track record you know.

Are you aware mutation rates will vary based on exposure to mutanigens and length of genome. Mutation rates are not a constant but can be measured over long periods of time and averaged.

You can't and won't provide the data.

I didn't think you would last long. You do have a track record you know.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121811 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that direct measurements of mtDNA mutations are now possible. That's why I'm puzzled that results of such have been so hard to find. Closely related is how difficult it is to find a mother-child pair of complete sequence results. Why is that, do you think?

They are not hard to find.

I think I gave 3 posts or so of references on day.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121812 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think you have addressed the shortcomings of ices cores etc. But leaving that aside, the scientific principle of Occam's Razor works against you. Its says that the most straightforward and least extra-ordinary explanation for a phenomenon is best given two explanations that could be correct.
So if we see evidence that is compatible with a World-Wide Flood lasting for a year and covering all the land, ordered by an unproven supernatural deity who was angry with humans, AND compatible with a simple local flood (which we observe frequently even now), then we should choose the most ordinary alternative.
To prove your extraordinary case, you would need some evidence for it that was NOT easily explained by far more ordinary events.
Side note 1 - you would also need to explain why there is so little evidence for such a massive cataclysm, when far older catastrophes have left undeniable marks.
Side note 2 - you would also need to explain all the evidence which appears against your scenario, such as the intact ice cores, atacama, lack of bottlenecks in most species, etc.
These are the reasons that nobody who is objective would accept the WWF scenario today. When Ancients concocted that story, far less was known about the world than today.
Have you considered the amazingly timely unique massive sidewall slough debris in the northern Canadian global scale flood gauge?

Side Response 1 - Are the other catastrophes the same as a global upwelling flood rising slowly over 40 days and subsiding over the course of most of a year?

Side Response 2 - What about an intact ice core precludes a global flood?

These are reasons why nobody objective would accept your position without exploring the part of the situation you don't provide.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121813 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My reference was to the study cited by Plaisted. I just happened to find it in Plaisted's article. Does who cites the data change the data? How scientifically objective is that, not willing to accept data on its own merits regardless of where you find it?
If I go find and provide the original work will you then address the data?
You obviously were not very clear since everyone that responded to your post gave the same answer that it was not a study. Comments about the study referenced would be pointless without the full and complete work that I only recently found and have not yet read.

You asked a nonspecific question and got the correct answer. It isn't our fault you post was so flawed.

How scientifically objective is it to accept Plaisted when you have already said he is wrong about some of the content of the material you linked and you haven't bothered to verify it further according to you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121814 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My reference was to the study cited by Plaisted. I just happened to find it in Plaisted's article. Does who cites the data change the data? How scientifically objective is that, not willing to accept data on its own merits regardless of where you find it?
If I go find and provide the original work will you then address the data?

Acceptablity of data depends on a number of factors. All data is not created equal.

My earlier post demonstrated how you can improve your lying. I suggest you read it because you current batch of lies are tranparent.

I also could not help but to notice that you ran screaming from a larger pond where you had more people calling you out on your nonsense. You are now back to your little pond where you can continue your lies with less restence.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121815 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you considered the amazingly timely unique massive sidewall slough debris in the northern Canadian global scale flood gauge?
Side Response 1 - Are the other catastrophes the same as a global upwelling flood rising slowly over 40 days and subsiding over the course of most of a year?
Side Response 2 - What about an intact ice core precludes a global flood?
These are reasons why nobody objective would accept your position without exploring the part of the situation you don't provide.

Refuted - There is no such thing as a global flood gauge as there is no such thing as a global flood.

Refuted - Never happened.

Refuted - by their dating.

Nonsense. You have the position lacking objectivity. and steeped in cult indoctrination.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121816 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My reference was to the study cited by Plaisted. I just happened to find it in Plaisted's article. Does who cites the data change the data? How scientifically objective is that, not willing to accept data on its own merits regardless of where you find it?
If I go find and provide the original work will you then address the data?
Your reference was to the whole linked article.

By the way, another flaw in your linked article. Mutation rates can and are related to evolutionary time scales, but these aren't necessary to calculating the rates. The rates are independent of the time scales, but can be supportive.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121817 Oct 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously were not very clear since everyone that responded to your post gave the same answer that it was not a study. Comments about the study referenced would be pointless without the full and complete work that I only recently found and have not yet read.
You asked a nonspecific question and got the correct answer. It isn't our fault you post was so flawed.
How scientifically objective is it to accept Plaisted when you have already said he is wrong about some of the content of the material you linked and you haven't bothered to verify it further according to you.

He will never admit he is wrong because he is brainwashed and frankly too dumb to break free from its reigns.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121818 Oct 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Acceptablity of data depends on a number of factors. All data is not created equal.
My earlier post demonstrated how you can improve your lying. I suggest you read it because you current batch of lies are tranparent.
I also could not help but to notice that you ran screaming from a larger pond where you had more people calling you out on your nonsense. You are now back to your little pond where you can continue your lies with less restence.
LOL! That is a good description. Something like that came to my mind, but not so very descriptive as yours.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121819 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you cannot prove that the Bible is "a document provided by the creator of all things".
And even if you could, you cannot prove that the creator of all things would necessarily tell the truth. You can claim that God would never lie but at the same time you claim that He can do Anything - He is supposedly Omnipotent.
Perhaps the whole thing was meant to be an allegory, a moral lesson. Perhaps the people of Ancient times were not ready to have evolution, plate tectonics, and cosmology all explained to them in detail. We tell kids stories, don't we?
You are correct. I cannot prove the Bible is a document provided by the creator of all things anymore than you can prove evolution is the answer for the complete variety of life. This is as it should be (Hebrews 11:6).

What one can do gives no assurance of what he will do.

No matter how I may simplify things, I do not lie to my kids. Do you?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121820 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I read your article then attempted to find the original by Thomas J Parsons on Google.
After getting through 10 pages of references exclusively by creationist sites, also referring to the paper but never finding the paper itself, I gave up.
If you can find the original paper, I can comment. I am not interested in creationist comment on the original, as I have seen far too much quote mining to trust creationist comment on any legitimate research (deliberate lies about the works and statements of Coe, Prevot, Haldane, Kimura, Crow, Kondrashov, Gould, Dawkins, Von Neumann, Einstein, and Darwin for starters).
However, if I can read the original, I can draw my own conclusions. If it really supports your case, I will consider it.
I too am not interested in creationist comment. Perhaps the following will help to appease you and assist in making my point while I continue looking for the Parsons paper.

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2008/01/...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121821 Oct 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text> Previously refuted.
<quoted text> A global flood would not be at all hard to recognize for the plethora of reasons we have provided.
<quoted text>
A confirmed UNreliable sources does not an event make. The allegorical tales are just what they are. Allegorical tales. If you don't find the meaning in the story you are not going to find it in the geological column.
You have been lied to. Take it out on the people who lied to you. Not on the ones that bring you the message of the truth.
Do you think some flood evidence is not local?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121822 Oct 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Addressed is not the same as refuted. Something you have yet to do. You have only bullshitted your way around it with such nuggets as "I must have a one year resolution".
Why does that not seem to have a very scientific ring to it?
Perhaps you have forgotten it was a one year flood. Scientifically, a methodology with 500 year resolution would very likely not detect it. Just provide data with capability of detecting a slowly upwelling and subsiding global flood 4500 years ancient.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121823 Oct 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a break. I and others have slapped you down more ways than I can count.
Neither out of ammunition nor belly up. You just like the little snot-nosed kid who keep repeating "Why? Why? Why?". You're not interested in answers. You're just here to pat yourself on the ass.
Thanks for reinforcing my observation.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#121824 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think some flood evidence is not local?
That's a negative argument.

The ACTUAL argument is: is there any (real) evidence for a global flood?

The answer is....of course...."NO".
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121825 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We would expect those older haps to have disappeared if the migrations occurred far further back than under 4500 years ago. But YOU proposed they could disappear faster if only the new hap migrated and then the population staying behind died out. Yeah that would work....if you ignore the facts that there is no reason for the migrating pop to magically only contain the new haps, and just as magically, for this whole scenario to be repeated scores of times over and over with stay ay home populations continually and quickly dying out.
So yes, this scenario of yours as an explanation for the disappearance of all the older haptypes within 4500 years is wildly improbable and worse, archeology and history contradict it anyway.
How about if the mutation rate is much greater and the migrating pops generally contain a minority of older haps? Shall we move on to the archaeology and history for back-up?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121826 Oct 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He will never admit he is wrong because he is brainwashed and frankly too dumb to break free from its reigns.
I agree. He just gets chewed up and then scrambles onto the next topic for more of the same.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121827 Oct 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How about if the mutation rate is much greater and the migrating pops generally contain a minority of older haps? Shall we move on to the archaeology and history for back-up?
You speak of the mutation rate as if one size fits all. What rates for certain mutations are slower? If the genomic rate is slower then it would potentially push back divergence times and alter conclusions regarding our ancestry, but it would demolish your creationist position even further.

What if's are interesting mental exercises, but they are not evidence. The archaeological and historical evidence indicates that no flood occurred and that the human species is older than 6,000 years.

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) 7 min Eagle 12 - 32,252
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 min Science 854
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Science 77,044
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Dogen 222,011
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 7 hr Dogen 4,321
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Mon The FACTory 101
A musical evolution lesson. Mon Willy 8
More from around the web