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

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

There are 163074 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

Wilson, NC

#123702 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously no nothing about molecular biology to even ask a stupid question like this.
It's also possible I want to know if you know one thing in particular about molecular biology.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123703 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also possible I want to know if you know one thing in particular about molecular biology.
It may be possible, but since you don't know molecular biology, the odds are in favor of my prediction.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123704 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have previously provided that information. Why don't you tell us what you think the values mean.
You are just groping for answers from us. I would like you to provide your own answers and support them with REAL data please. That would be a refreshing change.
The values and the raw data from which they arise are the important thing, They are what they were calculated to be. Assigning meaning to them is the first step in opening the door to error.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123705 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical of your side, an entire paper was provided from which your side drew the incorrect conclusion that the cheetah bottleneck was 10,000 years ago. I highlighted specific material from that reference confirming that your conclusion was incorrect. No dichotomy. No irony.
You provided data. You did not provide data confirming your conclusion. I provided data confirming my conclusion. BTW, based on the data provided from your side, the bottleneck could have been 10,000 ybp.
You may note that the paper concluded the bottleneck was 10,000 years ago and provided the evidence that we agreed with. It was you that mistook data from the paper to mean something else. When this was pointed out you started your usual dodge and desperate grope for further data from us.

Now you are saying we didn't provide confirming data when even you admitted earlier that we provided this paper in support of an ancient bottleneck for the cheetah. Thus refuting yet again your claim of a global flood. You seem to have skipped all the parts that show you to be wrong.

The Reverend Moon would be so proud of you.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123706 Dec 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you will learn not to rely on KAB for data or even sanity.
I wouldn't rely on KAB for an adequate insult, but you are right, it is fun to play "whack a mole" with him.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123707 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The values and the raw data from which they arise are the important thing, They are what they were calculated to be. Assigning meaning to them is the first step in opening the door to error.
The values are not upper and lower boundaries, but estimates and based on them, there was no bottle neck associated with the flood. Unless you are going to claim that the flood did not occur when the Bible claims it did.

You are screwed no matter which way your turn rat.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123708 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Again, this was data provided by us. Since you never provide data, someone has to.
This is not the first time I have addressed the data. It is a lie for you to say so. Why do you lie all the time. Don't you get that it is WEAKNESS to lie. Your position is WEAK or NONEXISTENT if you have to LIE. So I conclude that you LIE because you can't support your position. Considering the evidence against a global flood, the weakness of your position is self evident.
1 Corinthians 10:12

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123709 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
1 Corinthians 10:12
Do not be arrogant, but tremble.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123710 Dec 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is a dodge. You claim some sort of up welling flood that wouldn't leave evidence behind or the evidence would be ambiguous because it wouldn't be turbulent according to your view. You offer no data to support this speculation. Even the Bible speaks against the idea.
Your assertion is a desperate act of one trying to cover the fact that no evidence exists to support your original claim of a global flood.
Consider that I can count myself among those that repeatedly show you to be ignorant of technical knowledge, it is amusing to see you take these little swipes at me. The cherry on top is that you claim to know something, but don't reveal it.
I have done and revealed the calculations previously and will probably do it again. I was hoping to get you involved directly in objective data handling.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123711 Dec 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom DOES provid buoyancy. Read the reference and go through the math the best you can.
The side that provides the buoyancy is all of them, of course.
We are all lock step proving you wrong. Don't exactly need drill lessons for that.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I thought it would be understood I was addressing the bottom of the container to which you most recently had drawn attention.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123712 Dec 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided the complete list of known human bottlenecks back 100,000 years.
There is none within a factor of 10 of your needed date.
You should examine the data before pretending it is not there.
A list of times is not the data. The data is what was used to produce the list.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123713 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have done and revealed the calculations previously and will probably do it again. I was hoping to get you involved directly in objective data handling.
Lies.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123714 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A list of times is not the data. The data is what was used to produce the list.
A list of times is data.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123715 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this again. Is it your understanding that the DNA STRUCTURE is consistent throughout the entire mtDNA region? If not, how do you understand it to vary? This time I emphasized the key word since your response indicates you are confused about what's being asked.
mtDNA is not a "region". Its a separate ringlet of DNA that exists within the mitochondrion, entirely separate from the main body of nuclear DNA within the nucleus of the cell. This is one reason mitochondria are proposed to have originally existed as free living bacteria that "colonised" the cell and formed a symbiotic relationship within it.

On the mtDNA ring, some parts are highly conserved (low rate of change), some moderately conserved, and some are "hypervariable" with very high mutation rates.

When looking for the hierarchy of ancestral relationships, we are looking for the specific patterns of change that was discussed at length a long time back with you. Then when callibrating the "clock", the timescale of these changes, you must use the SAME part of the mtDNA. You cannot use the time changes of the hypervariable regions and then apply them to the change patterns of a non-hypervariable region, it would make no sense. The reasons are obvious.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123716 Dec 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't the more accurate statement that no 4,500 ybp bottleneck has been detected in the lifeforms you mention. Didn't you recently show great concern for clearly distinguishing between "no" and "none found"?
Its not the "lack of bottleneck, unfound" that confounds your position. Its the PRESENCE of too much diversity to account for in the required timescale. So this is NOT a case of "absence of evidence" but actual positive evidence - the presence of too much diversity - that falsifies the Flood.

Too much diversity to occur within 4500 years makes the bottleneck impossible. Simple as that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123717 Dec 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also possible I want to know if you know one thing in particular about molecular biology.

Perhaps if you were technically savvy enough to convey your intended meaning.....

But with your history of scientific ignorance you will pardon us for being skeptical and assuming, as is your character, that you are just trying to cover up your ignorance while mining us for prose you can distort for imperfect verbiage.

You are too cowardly to come onto the field to play the game, but will gladly stick a foot out while we are running down the sideline.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123718 Dec 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The values and the raw data from which they arise are the important thing, They are what they were calculated to be. Assigning meaning to them is the first step in opening the door to error.

So you flunked scientific method 001 (remedial). Played mental hooky the entire term is more likely.

Theory is meaning. Meaning founded upon data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123719 Dec 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
1 Corinthians 10:12

Funny you would quote a verse that is obviously a problem for you. I count projection.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123720 Dec 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have done and revealed the calculations previously and will probably do it again. I was hoping to get you involved directly in objective data handling.

To teach, one must first know.

You are a scientific buffoon. You have nothing to add to a scientific discussion but distraction and deflection. The father of lies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123721 Dec 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I thought it would be understood I was addressing the bottom of the container to which you most recently had drawn attention.

Then you failed to comprehend the meaning of my first sentence.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Frindly 1,428
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Agents of Corruption 222,271
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr u196533dm 32,462
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web