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

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

There are 143949 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 can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#125768 Jan 14, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If KAB didn't make things up, what would he be left with?
Nothing. And a dimwitted grin.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#125769 Jan 14, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the specific reference (data). Here's some food for thought.
In context (vss. 1-4) in what respect was the light divided from the darkness?
Also, in context what and where was the firmament, so in what respect were the sun, moon, and stars placed in it? Additionally, in the interest of full disclosure, the Hebrew word translated "create" in vs. 1 is different from that translated "made" in the other vss. Do you think that could be significant and intentional?
Do you see how all the info necessary for correct understanding is provided for those who are discerning and, of course, objective?
Maybe you should give discerning and objective a whirl. You present strategy hasn't served you very well.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#125770 Jan 14, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is "dictating". I am merely applying logic, and you are not. Or your lack of understanding is showing, about how enzymes and other specialist proteins work.
The driver is not the raw mutation rate, its the survivable mutation rate. Logic, not me, dictates that regions of high specificity such as the active portion of a specialised enzyme, cannot change freely. Mutations are far more likely to result in death (or non birth - even the fetus would not survive).
And not only logic, but evidence. Cytochrome-C is a protein found in all eukaryotes, part of the basic metabolic machinery. The functional portion of Cyt-C acts as an enzyme that is essential to the electron transport chain in mitochondria and enables them to make ATP, the basic source of cellular energy. You cannot change the functional portion of Cyt-C much, or it wont work and the cell will not survive. It is only a precise arrangement of the amino acids in the enzyme that give it its catalytic effect.
If there had been a time, 4500 years ago, when the sequence for Cyt-C could change in the way only hyper-variable portions change today, and the offspring could survive, then different human populations would have very different Cyt-C proteins (just as they have very different hyper-variable regions). But they don't. For the reasons given above.
So your hypothesis does not work.
In reality, the rate of change in highly specified portions of the genome are low, because changes in these parts usually result in death, and no offspring to carry the new variant.
Now that I have explained this about 7 times, I hope you stop and think about it instead of simply repeating nonsense. Its absurd to consider that the highly conserved regions of today were survivably hyper-variable 4000 years ago. Impossible.
Now that you've explained about 7 times something irrelevant to my hypothesis, as I've told you about every time that my hypothesis doesn't depend on the highly specified portions of the genome having high mutation survival rates in the past, perhaps you'll turn to addressing things which are included in my hypothesis.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#125771 Jan 14, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you meant to say was, the Bible is not even internally consistent.
If you would gather ALL the pertinent data prior to drawing conclusions you could recognize that the assertion of internal inconsistency is an incorrect perception stemming from ignorance.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#125772 Jan 14, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that you've explained about 7 times something irrelevant to my hypothesis, as I've told you about every time that my hypothesis doesn't depend on the highly specified portions of the genome having high mutation survival rates in the past, perhaps you'll turn to addressing things which are included in my hypothesis.
Still refusing to learn and still lying. It is a shame. There are so many technologically savvy people that have been trying to help you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125773 Jan 14, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that you've explained about 7 times something irrelevant to my hypothesis, as I've told you about every time that my hypothesis doesn't depend on the highly specified portions of the genome having high mutation survival rates in the past, perhaps you'll turn to addressing things which are included in my hypothesis.
In that case, you have not even presented a hypothesis. So I take it you accept, finally, that the amount of diversity we see in the mtDNA (and the nuclear genome, for that matter), is too high for n=3 4500 years ago.

Or, you have decided that its best to keep this hypothesis of yours secret.

sound of crickets chirping...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125774 Jan 14, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would gather ALL the pertinent data prior to drawing conclusions you could recognize that the assertion of internal inconsistency is an incorrect perception stemming from ignorance.
God made the earth and vegetation before he made the sun and moon - Genesis.

Wrong.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#125775 Jan 15, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, studier, do tell us how the Bible would then explain why biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry has got everything so wrong.
Perhaps rather than designing a post that is so vague it requires a full book to explain, perhaps you can make it simple and give me an example from just one of these fields and how the bible has it wrong, and make sure your example is observable, testable, and replicatable,or it isn't science, and I'll be glad to show where your ignorance lies.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#125776 Jan 15, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps rather than designing a post that is so vague it requires a full book to explain, perhaps you can make it simple and give me an example from just one of these fields and how the bible has it wrong, and make sure your example is observable, testable, and replicatable,or it isn't science, and I'll be glad to show where your ignorance lies.
The ignorance lies somewhere in North Carolina.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125777 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the specific reference (data). Here's some food for thought.
In context (vss. 1-4) in what respect was the light divided from the darkness?
Also, in context what and where was the firmament, so in what respect were the sun, moon, and stars placed in it? Additionally, in the interest of full disclosure, the Hebrew word translated "create" in vs. 1 is different from that translated "made" in the other vss. Do you think that could be significant and intentional?
Do you see how all the info necessary for correct understanding is provided for those who are discerning and, of course, objective?
Objective??? Use used the word objective? LMAO!
KAB

Cary, NC

#125778 Jan 15, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
*MY* losing position? Funny coming from a confirmed loser. You haven't done anything but lose. You are an absolute master of loserism.
<quoted text>
That's not what it says, Word Weasel. It says he *MADE* them on the 4th day. It doesn't say a damn thing about letting them "shine".
Here are the pertinent verses as provided by Kong,

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:[he made] the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.

What does it say he made the Sun, Moon, and stars to do?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125779 Jan 15, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps rather than designing a post that is so vague it requires a full book to explain, perhaps you can make it simple and give me an example from just one of these fields and how the bible has it wrong, and make sure your example is observable, testable, and replicatable,or it isn't science, and I'll be glad to show where your ignorance lies.
I won't bother thanks Markie, as you will merely trot out your discredited arguments yet again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125780 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would gather ALL the pertinent data prior to drawing conclusions you could recognize that the assertion of internal inconsistency is an incorrect perception stemming from ignorance.
Still no hypothesis from you regarding how current genetic diversity in mtDNA can originate from n=3 4500 years ago.

Genesis starts out very clearly, and gets the order wrong. End of that story.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125781 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the pertinent verses as provided by Kong,
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:[he made] the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
What does it say he made the Sun, Moon, and stars to do?
The funny part is that He supposedly made them the day after He made vegetation.

Wrong.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125782 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that you've explained about 7 times something irrelevant to my hypothesis, as I've told you about every time that my hypothesis doesn't depend on the highly specified portions of the genome having high mutation survival rates in the past, perhaps you'll turn to addressing things which are included in my hypothesis.
You have presented no hypothesis.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#125783 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the pertinent verses as provided by Kong,
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:[he made] the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
What does it say he made the Sun, Moon, and stars to do?
14 And God said,“Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

"What does it say he made the Sun, Moon, and stars to do?"
Nothing of any real importance.(According to Gen 1:3 there was already light without them.) It's a safe bet that Hanukkah and Passover.have a negligible impact on climate, weather, photosynthesis, tides, orbits,....
Besides again demonstrating that you have no point to speak of, what was your point, KAB?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125784 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the specific reference (data). Here's some food for thought.
In context (vss. 1-4) in what respect was the light divided from the darkness?
Also, in context what and where was the firmament, so in what respect were the sun, moon, and stars placed in it? Additionally, in the interest of full disclosure, the Hebrew word translated "create" in vs. 1 is different from that translated "made" in the other vss. Do you think that could be significant and intentional?
Do you see how all the info necessary for correct understanding is provided for those who are discerning and, of course, objective?

Actually, in this case "info" is a synonym for 'Diversion'. The text is quite clear about what happened on day 4. As a poetic story it passes. As literal documentation of events it does not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125785 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is.

I stand uncorrected.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#125786 Jan 15, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps rather than designing a post that is so vague it requires a full book to explain, perhaps you can make it simple and give me an example from just one of these fields and how the bible has it wrong, and make sure your example is observable, testable, and replicatable,or it isn't science, and I'll be glad to show where your ignorance lies.
Last I recall, you were one who denied that "the Bible is a demonstrated reliable source," Marky. Have you moved into the camp that claims the fossils inside of the yellow band of Mt. Everest were put there 4,250+/- years ago?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125787 Jan 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that you've explained about 7 times something irrelevant to my hypothesis, as I've told you about every time that my hypothesis doesn't depend on the highly specified portions of the genome having high mutation survival rates in the past, perhaps you'll turn to addressing things which are included in my hypothesis.

You need that to make it work. Otherwise you are back to 70,000 years to explain seen diversity and that is just in humans, A VERY HOMOGENEOUS SPECIES.

Other species are much more diverse (genetically) and must have been around for a lot longer. Most tortoises (exception being theGalápagos Islands giant tortoises which had a bottleneck only 88,000 years ago) are much more diverse than humans.

Some plant species have not faced a near extinction event in MILLIONS of years.

Further, there are plants (trees) alive today that would have been alive at the time of the mythical flood.

That should go on the refutation list. I will allow for discussion before I bump the total # of fully vetted refutations up to 11.

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 hr NoahLikesPi 174,046
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr Eagle 12 20,901
News Intelligent design 12 hr MikeF 24
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Thu Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Sep 2 macumazahn 1,248
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Sep 2 karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sep 2 dollarsbill 14
More from around the web