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

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 ... Full Story

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#126022 Jan 25, 2014
Post three: I am going to post his on several threads for I want the opinion of many. How would science describe this accident of where a child gets ran over at not only at mid body but also at neck level and then bounces up as if nothing ever happened. Give your 'scientific explanation" of how this happened.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#126023 Jan 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis was not written by God. You are judging God by the philosophy of man.
Look around you at all the Bible worshippers who insist that Genesis is literally true.

They are the ones who have a problem with evolution.

So, on the contrary, I am refusing to judge God by the standards of Genesis.

There may or may not be a God, but literal belief in Genesis is idiotic.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126024 Jan 26, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are abysmally devoid of any data to support your claim.
Let's go with the meaning "not real" and you can pretend it's a Freudian slip.
Regarding data, did you read Isaiah 14?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126025 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have agreed that the raw mutation rate may be the same throughout the genome, yes.
Mutations which have survived have occurred in all regions (possibly), but that is not what matters. If 95% of mutations can survive in the low-specificity regions and only 1% can survive in the high specificity regions, then this is the rate of change that matters, not the raw mutation rate.
<quoted text>
Wrong. The "driving mechanism" is the survivable mutation rate, not the raw mutation rate and it not a question of OFF/ON, YES/NO. Its a question of survival RATE.
We know WHY some regions are highly conserved too. They specify very particular parts of proteins or control regions that cannot alter much and continue to work. We know why other regions are less conserved too. They do not need to be highly specific - many different sequences of amino acids will do the job OK. So changing a few will not matter.
We also know that the highly conserved regions show similarity right across our species and even to other species. This as already explained shows that the relative integrity of these regions has been preserved for much longer than 4500 years.
If God had created those species separate and distinct AND the currently highly conserved regions had NOT been highly conserved in the last 4500 years, then they would have randomly gone in different directions and not all still be extremely similar.
So, no, the "raw driving rate" does NOT matter. Only the survivable rate does.
n=3 4500 years ago is a dead hypothesis.
The Flood is a dead hypothesis.
The "raw driving rate" matters MOST! Without it the amount of observed variation is impossible in 4500 years. With it the change is possible, and yet as expected, the amount of observed variation per unit of genome is less in the highly conserved than in the non-highly conserved regions due to the lower survivability.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126026 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull.
Evolution predicted the existence of ape/hominid intermediates..
These intermediates have been found. Now hundreds of them. And they form a measurable continuum in terms of brain size, jaw and dentition, brow ridge, spine attachment, and other skeletal features, in the right time progression, to support the theory that man evolved from ape.
Nothing you can say can call these facts of biology and paleontology into question. There is a progression, and it was predicted and explained by evolution.
But neither predicted nor explained by Creation. You guys had NO IDEA that these fossils might be out there. But because evolution predicted them, scientists went looking. And found them.
Therefore its simply FALSE to say that these facts are explained better by creation. They are not explained at all by creation, not anticipated by creation, do not fit into the creation framework at all.
Which why some scientists still believe in God, but none of them still believe in the literal Genesis creation story. Well, its not JUST those skulls, its also the massive other fossil evidence and the geological record and the cosmological record and radiometry and sedimentation science and the heat output of carbonate and a thousand other facts that all point to a consistent understanding that is NOT consistent with Genesis.
God may or may not exist, but Genesis is proven to be a fable of primitives on the same level as the Hindu or Mayan or Roman creation myths. Poetic but factually incorrect.
Your line of reasoning could lead one to conclude that you do not think it possible for more than one hypothesis to explain a given set of data. Is that indeed what you think?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#126027 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I provide confirming data for my assertions.
You don't provide confirming data. Nothing you have ever provided, and it isn't much, has ever supported your assertions.

What you have provided is a false statement that you provide confirming data. It is the core of your entire argument. Anyone reading back through this thread can see that for themselves.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#126028 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The "raw driving rate" matters MOST! Without it the amount of observed variation is impossible in 4500 years. With it the change is possible, and yet as expected, the amount of observed variation per unit of genome is less in the highly conserved than in the non-highly conserved regions due to the lower survivability.
Here is an example of how you operate. You fix on a portion of data provided by others that supports your view and you disregard the remaining important data that does not. Not only do you fix on it, you misinterpret it.

The observed variation in the human genome is not possible given a starting point of three breeding pairs and 4500 years of time.

Going back to the cheetah, it is clear that 10,000 years has not been long enough for it to develop even a portion of the variation seen in humans.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#126029 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your line of reasoning could lead one to conclude that you do not think it possible for more than one hypothesis to explain a given set of data. Is that indeed what you think?
One hypothesis would be better supported by the data. If both are equally supported then essentially they are the same hypothesis.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126030 Jan 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Here is an example of how you operate. You fix on a portion of data provided by others that supports your view and you disregard the remaining important data that does not. Not only do you fix on it, you misinterpret it.
The observed variation in the human genome is not possible given a starting point of three breeding pairs and 4500 years of time.
Going back to the cheetah, it is clear that 10,000 years has not been long enough for it to develop even a portion of the variation seen in humans.
Thanks for the confirming data ... NOT!

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#126031 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the confirming data ... NOT!
There was confirming data. Hence the phrase "here is an example". Thank you for confirming that you don't even know what data is.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126032 Jan 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>One hypothesis would be better supported by the data. If both are equally supported then essentially they are the same hypothesis.
You are so not technically savvy.
Let's test your hypothesis with data.

Suppose we have a scenario providing one and only one data point.
Two distinctly different hypotheses (e.g., evolution and design) are offered, and each is an equally valid potential explanation for that single data point. They are equally supported yet not the same. Do you agree such is possible?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126033 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding data, did you read Isaiah 14?

Regarding SCIENTIFIC data, did you realize that the Bible is not a source of SCIENTIFIC data?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126034 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The "raw driving rate" matters MOST!

Factually incorrect.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Without it the amount of observed variation is impossible in 4500 years.

Factually incorrect.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> With it the change is possible, and yet as expected, the amount of observed variation per unit of genome is less in the highly conserved than in the non-highly conserved regions due to the lower survivability.

Also factually incorrect.

Do we need to debate obviously wrong answers?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126035 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your line of reasoning could lead one to conclude that you do not think it possible for more than one hypothesis to explain a given set of data. Is that indeed what you think?

You are entitled to your dataless opinion.

Why not focus on what he actually said rather than making shit up?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#126036 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding data, did you read Isaiah 14?
I have... I've also seen Muppet Treasure Island and listened to Ravel's Bolero. Do you have a point, besides being pointedly oblivious?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126037 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the confirming data ... NOT!

LOL. Thanks for showing that you don't even know what data is, much less confirming data.





DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Here is an example of how you operate. You fix on a portion of data provided by others that supports your view and you disregard the remaining important data that does not. Not only do you fix on it, you misinterpret it.
The observed variation in the human genome is not possible given a starting point of three breeding pairs and 4500 years of time.
Going back to the cheetah, it is clear that 10,000 years has not been long enough for it to develop even a portion of the variation seen in humans.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#126038 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The "raw driving rate" matters MOST! Without it the amount of observed variation is impossible in 4500 years. With it the change is possible, and yet as expected, the amount of observed variation per unit of genome is less in the highly conserved than in the non-highly conserved regions due to the lower survivability.
False. The raw driving rate is irrelevant. As OBVIOUSLY, only the survivable rate matters. Duh. Only variations that survive pass their mutations on.

Its already been explained to you why tje variation in the highly conserved regions is lowwr and explained to you why the same conditions would apply 4500 yearzs ago.

So you lose again. You are reduced to asking dumb questions that have already been answered. Oh well. No Flood.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#126039 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so not technically savvy.
Let's test your hypothesis with data.
Suppose we have a scenario providing one and only one data point.
Two distinctly different hypotheses (e.g., evolution and design) are offered, and each is an equally valid potential explanation for that single data point. They are equally supported yet not the same. Do you agree such is possible?
Seriously. You call others not technically savvy and you provide this meaningless test to show it. It does confirm your paradigm of working backwards to make the data fit your view. A single data point tells you nothing. No one would design an experiment or make any conclusions based on such a ridiculous premise. Any attempt to use this to support any hypothesis is meaningless and has no statistical value.

7.315 supports both evolution and design.

red supports both evolution and design.

2:30 supports both evolution and design.

All meaningless. Each of these data points tells you nothing.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126040 Jan 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>There was confirming data. Hence the phrase "here is an example". Thank you for confirming that you don't even know what data is.
You didn't give an example. You made an assertion, and called it an example. An example would be a specific instance of what you assert.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126041 Jan 26, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding SCIENTIFIC data, did you realize that the Bible is not a source of SCIENTIFIC data?
I know the Bible's not a science book.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Tuco Blondie 116,439
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 27 min Chimney1 173,417
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Chimney1 1,343
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 2 hr Chimney1 463
Opinion on theistic company slogans 10 hr The Dude 2
Science News (Sep '13) 14 hr Sublime1 2,887
Here's a present for you atheists (Jan '14) Sun Chimney1 251
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••