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

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

There are 151344 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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#124863 Dec 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for saving me from the cackling.
Do you admit that your Pingualuit assertions were not based on any reference? I hope you realize that you get my reference after you confirm this or provide the reference you used.
Then I will have to assume that you are lying. If you are lying, nothing you say is meaningful. A fault doesn't exist and there no where for water in the crater to go but up. It overflows before the outside floodwaters can reach the top of the crater.

You are the one making claims. It is your responsibility to provide data. This is just your long drawn out method of getting us to provide data since you have none.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#124864 Dec 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief is not involved. I know I provide data, as I just did again today.
It was data not relevant to the topic of discussion. Anyone can provide random data, as you just showed. It isn't honest, but then you haven't shown yourself to be honest.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124865 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Change (mutation) is not rare in the strongly conserved regions. Rather, as you note, change doesn't survive well in those regions. Thus, the mutation rate in the hypervariable regions is closer to the actual mutation rate, isn't it?
Mutations only count if the organism can survive them. Thus its not the raw mutation rate that matters, but the raw neutral rate (that does not affect future survival).

The mitochondrion is an engine that converts fatty acids and glucose to energy (ATP) through at least 4 highly specific reaction sequences. Check out the Kreb's Cycle some time. In the governing enzymes, even small changes can wreck the process if they occur at the highly specific parts.

These enzymes are highly preserved across humans, apes, primates, in fact most animals. I could take the cytochrome C from a yeast and it would work in one of your cells.

Cyt-C is a 100 base protein. About 30% of it is highly specific and small changes there can wreck its function. The other 70% is of low specificity and we could change large chunks with no effect. In the yeast, the 30% that matters is still close enough to ours to do the same job.

In fact the Cyt-C in a Chimp is identical to ours, and there are small changes as we go from there to gorilla then monkeys etc...

Now, lets go back to Noah's day. If the NOW highly specific bits were then LESS specific (and so could survivably mutate faster)? Then we would expect human and chimp Cyt-C to be different, not the same. What are the chances that a rapidly mutating sequence in two separate species would magically stay the same, and similar to gorilla's etc?

What we have in reality is a gradation from hypervariable to almost perfect preservation of sequences, in a continuum. Different change rates "come into focus" - provide useful information - over different timescales. As you see, the Cyt-C (and its DNA sequence), changes so slowly that its useless for establishing a human ancestral tree within H. Sapiens (though good for showing our ancestral relationships with other mammals). Hypervariable regions are good for showing only recent ancestry, such as whether your great grandma came from Ireland.

But the sequences used to establish the whole human tree change at an intermediate rate and its consistent with 150K, not 4500 or 6000 years.
Also, the control region mutations are included in roughly equal proportion in the mtDNA hierarchy, aren't they?
For our purposes, I do not see that it matters whether the region is a control one or a coding one. All that matters is the measured rate of (survivable) mutation in the region and its application to the pattern of change for that region, in calibrating the nested hierachy timescale.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124866 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The design realm is awash with nested hierarchies. The 4500 year diversity generation timeframe is calculable from a measured and quite survivable mutation rate. Hey, it's only 10 times the one you favor.
Well, that is plain wrong, based on the work we did together. No scenario you offered enabled this amount of change in your timescale. The only way any creationist could pretend to make it work was by applying the known change rates in hypervariable regions to the actual pattern of change observed in the non-hypervariable regions.

As has been explained, this is stupid at best and dishonest at worst. Based on the pattern of fraud and distortion employed by these clowns across the board, I will go with the latter option.

They are deliberate liars. And you cling to their coattails as your only way out.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124867 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The reasons given could be wrong or at least shortsighted. It's not like they've been given by an expert scientist. It's only you. In addition, even expert scientists can be and have been wrong at times.
Scientists can be wrong. Not a meaningful objection.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124868 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
Also, I have provided possible explanations for the genetic diversity and ice core data, and "better explained" is a judgment call to which you are entitled, as am I.
No, you have provided impossible explanations.

Assuming that the mutation change rate in the relevant sequences could have been hypervariable a few thousand years ago violates everything else we know about genetics, some of which I point out in the post above.

Assuming that the entire ice cap could be inundated and not either be ripped out of the bedrock or show massive, unmistakable melt-off dwarfing any other melt-off since the last ice age, are equally impossible scenarios that you offer.

The "possible" you refer to is the one that belongs in philosophical musings. Its "possible" that we were all created last Thursday too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124869 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Mechanized transportation
Are you considering raw mutation rate or surviving mutation rate?

Duh.\

You can't go a day without putting your lack of technical savvy on display for all to see.

You talk about this stuff so how can you not know the answer to that question?


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one. I bet it does not qualify.
<quoted text>
Sorry, 10x would be 1500 mutations per generation. That is more than survivable by a good long shot.
Why do you prefer dataless pretend play to reality?
Oh, the cult. Always the cult.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124870 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the most recent lie from the "science" side,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Oh, it's you!, asserting I have lied but won't provide even one post like I do to confim.

??? Dan's post was right on the mark.

You lie nearly every post. It would take 50 posts filled with links to document all your lies.

They are there for anyone to see. Just go back through this forum.

That, my friend, is documentation.
That, my friend, is data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124871 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not describe a cube with the exact properties of ice, and we know whose responsibility it is to prove otherwise.
Yes I did. I hereby document your above post as a lie.

Less dense than water.
Solid
cube in shape.
Have a nice lying day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124872 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A word to the so not mathematically savvy. You (well not YOU) CAN solve for two variables when neither is known.

In the manor I have given. We do not have the data for a 'unique solution' so all we can get is the slope. To have a unique solution algebraically you need to have the variables defined by two sets of possibilities.

And you suggest I am the non mathematically savvy one. Hysterical.

I call this lie #2 for you.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124873 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone on your side states that I don't provide data.

That is lie #3. We state you rarely provide data. we have stated your data does not support your conclusions.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Since you seem to be their leader maybe now that lie will stop, if of course, you take the lead.

I am their leader? Do THEY know that? I don't claim to lead anyone but the people under my supervision at work.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> My reference was a toe-hold on confirming that there have been numerous measurements attempting to determine human mutation rates. In that context date is immaterial to the exercise.

Then you need to learn to communicate better. Perhaps making statements and providing the evidence up front. Yes, that would be a nice change from asking misleading questions that are indicative of your ignorance.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124874 Dec 31, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Re: "Pingualuit Crater" and seismic activity...
Two seperate maps:
http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hist...
(location of "New Quebec Crater" - aka "Pingualuit Crater")
http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hist...
(map of historic quebec earthquakes)
Please note the close proximity of one to the other.
Just sayin'.

I don't know what KAB is trying to pull with his implicit lie that earthquakes don't occur in Canada.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124875 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Are you sure it isn't too technical for him?

He is not technically savvy enough to know that he is not technically savvy enough to understand.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124876 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No, I know he lies about lying, I just want to see what lie he comes up with.

That is a standing fascination for many of us. How will he try to lie his way out of a lie?

Great sport!


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124877 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If the rate were the same, the water would rise faster in the crater, as there is less area to fill and there is no place for the water to runoff.

The crater is a red herring.

There are many craters on Earth that are older than 4,500 years. If we give him that one then he needs to explain why all other craters don't show evidence for a global flood.

He is in the same trap no matter what. He wants to focus on minutia and ignore the big picture.

The big picture is that a global flood would have left multiple lines of geological evidence all over the globe.

For example evidence from river deltas show the earth was having a bit of a dry spell for hundreds of years before and after his proposed flood time.

Multiple civilizations were in full swing and showed not the slightest slowing or altering of culture at that time.

Global population was consistently but slowly rising at that time.

Gathering animals from all over the world would not be possible.

the Ark would not be sea worthy.

Few to no genetic bottlenecks for that time (should be 100% of land animals for flood to be true).

There are more animals in the fossil record than could be accommodated on 100 arks.

Why are fossils sorted by taxonomic age (flood cannot explain this).

Why are there trees alive today that are older than the flood?

Not enough genetic diversity......


Of course there are thousands more reasons. This is just a sample.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#124878 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for what I accept as a sincere effort and the resulting post references, but in none of them do I assert that Lev. 14 does not mention doves. Now you can acknowledge you were wrong about that, and we can continue with the rest of the points.
If it makes you happy, I did not find where you specifically stated that "Leviticus 14 does not mention doves." As for the rest, I'm really not interested in watching you spin and weave.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#124879 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the most recent lie from the "science" side,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Oh, it's you!, asserting I have lied but won't provide even one post like I do to confim.
It seemed a well thought out, constructed and demonstrated reliable statement - it even encourages the reader to verify the evidence (which is ample).
We already know that your criteria for truth vs. speculation vs. word games vs. "Truth" vs. complete bald faced lying through your teeth BS is by your arbitrary convenience.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#124880 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It took me right to posts of yours. Not the science side, but definitely a lie.
Now that you have one identified so you don't have to search for it (your standard excuse), please cite it. Your failure to do so will be all the answer anyone interested in the truth (I know that doesn't include most of those here) will need to know the truth about who's lying.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#124881 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If the rate were the same, the water would rise faster in the crater, as there is less area to fill and there is no place for the water to runoff.
What does smaller area have to do with a situation with uniform rainfall inside and out? Don't you know how/why a rain gauge works and why people use them? Also, in a global flood the water outside is rising uniformly as well. Bottom line here is that even if we get all the factors involved identified and correctly understood, there are so many variables and unknowns that you can't know which way the overtopping had to be, so why are you trying to force something to harnonize with your belief?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#124882 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Then I will have to assume that you are lying. If you are lying, nothing you say is meaningful. A fault doesn't exist and there no where for water in the crater to go but up. It overflows before the outside floodwaters can reach the top of the crater.
You are the one making claims. It is your responsibility to provide data. This is just your long drawn out method of getting us to provide data since you have none.
It seems you just made a claim, so I am not the only one.
P.S.
You can have my reference when you pay the price which will cost you nothing but your pride.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min THE LONE WORKER 199,431
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min ChristineM 35,277
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr ChristineM 14,944
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... Tue DanFromSmithville 36
Ribose can be produced in space Mon JanusBifrons 6
A Simple Simulation Mon JanusBifrons 1
My Story Part 2 Mon JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web