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

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

There are 163801 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#130866 May 11, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The combinatin of the Bible flood record, and the Pingualuit and Berringer craters data are a good start.
So a book known to be a confirmed, unreliable source and your forced misunderstanding of the facts regarding two meteor craters. It is essentially the same thing as saying you have nothing.

I can dismiss the Bible as a source of scientific data because it has not only not been confirmed as one, but the opposite has been shown. You have not shown that there is any evidence from the craters that confirms that they contain evidence of a global flood.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#130867 May 11, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already responded to one of your specific questions and haven't had any follow-up from you toward resolving that item.
I think he gets that you are dodging, but thanks for confirming that. Did you tell him that you confessed to not meaning what you write in your posts? Did you tell him that you intentionally write posts with ambiguous meanings in order to confuse people and because you are a lying coward, princess?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#130868 May 11, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As with virtually everything else you assert, your afraid-to-die assertion also goes unconfirmed.
I bet you can set up an experiment that can show he is wrong and finally provide us with actual data. Just leave the data in a note.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#130869 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How much of mtDNA diversity is represented by sites which can't tolerate change? Think about it.
There will be no diversity at sites that cannot change at all. But how can you claim site cannot change at all? The best we can do is identify sites i.e. sequences that are invariant right across species. For example, the actual interface, in a protein, that catalyses a specific reaction, may only be a tiny portion of the whole protein. That binding site may be very specific. But around it, some change may be possible. And some parts of that same protein may admit of high amounts of change. I told you already that the degree of possible change is a gradient, not a simple yes/no. So if a piece of the cytochrome-c sequence is found to be invariant, then we can assume that there is no possible change. And it will be invariant in humans too of course and therefore not a sequence that can be used to establish the ancestral tree. But as I am pointing out, the choice is not a simple one between "can't tolerate change" and "hypervariable". Its a question of the degree of change that can be tolerated.

We did actually go through all this before, in some detail.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#130870 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy for me to dismiss what hasn't been confirmed. As I explained, the fossil record doesn't confirm macroevolution because it includes difference chasms which can't be bridged in one generation. Such chasms exist even between reptiles and mammals. Several even exist in the jaw-to-ear bone sequence, don't they?
The fossil record confirms change by small degree all the way from reptilian jaw to mammal jaw + middle ear bones derived from the original jaw. It starts with the expansion of the dentary bone while the other bones of the jaw are crowded gradually to the rear. We then see the emergence of a new attachment point direct to the dentary and in some intermediates both the old reptile attachment and the new mammalian one are present in the same species. Then we see the detachment of the small bones from the jaw assemblage and their gradual enfolding into the skull/ear assembly. Analysis has shown that during the intermediate phase, these bones would be effective at amplifying noise vibrations collected through the ground, with the creature laying there picking up this source of sound.

So no, there are no "chasms" in this sequence. They would interpolate with no issues. Just as the ape/hominid sequence interpolates so well that there are arguments about some fossils belonging to the earlier or later taxa...the intermediate of the intermediate...

We see the same at any given scale. So whether its merely genera level or whole class level (reptiles to mammals), the pattern of convergence going back through the record holds and your claims that there are unbridged or unbridgeable chasms just falls apart. Nobody can agree whether Aurornis is a bird or a dinosaur. That is because its a bit of both.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#130871 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As with virtually everything else you assert, your afraid-to-die assertion also goes unconfirmed.
That you would deny even this shows an incapacity for self honesty.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130872 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already responded to one of your specific questions and haven't had any follow-up from you toward resolving that item.

This would be an outright lie.

Samatter duck dodgers? You got nothing and you know it?

That would be insight.

You can't allow THAT!


TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
What data precisely then, of (21th reminder or so):
1) for the flood
2) for creation
3) for the creator as the creating agent
4) of the mechanisms by which the creator created
5) against whale evolution
6) against the validity of the molecular clock
7) against bird evolution
8) against the geological column
9) against the chronological order of the fossil stratification.
Your answer has been discarded due to a lack of any substantiated arguments through empirical evidence (either field observations or experiments.
F*cking answer the questions.
20th reminder.
Dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck .... ad finitum.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130873 May 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I think he gets that you are dodging, but thanks for confirming that. Did you tell him that you confessed to not meaning what you write in your posts? Did you tell him that you intentionally write posts with ambiguous meanings in order to confuse people and because you are a lying coward, princess?

KAB's philosophy is that in any data set there is always going to be something he can twist into meaning what it does not mean. The rest of the data he then discounts.

Of course you can do this about literally anything. Like the whole gravity thing. Obviously gravity does not work because there is no gravity at nodes.

Obviously that is mining for a grain of sand.

Sand is said to be brown (white, black...)
I find a clear bit of sand and the color of sand is thus refuted.

That is all KAB is even TRYING to do. So, even when he is right (which is almost never) he is STILL wrong because he discounts the mass of data.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#130874 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already responded to one of your specific questions and haven't had any follow-up from you toward resolving that item.
You didn't respond the way I requested.

Where are your substantial answers through empirical evidence either by experiments or field observations done by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references.

27th reminder.

Say after me:
"I don't have such empirical evidence while there is no such empirical evidence." (say it 27 times).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#130875 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
It's actually the Bible's data. I just provided it.
It doesn't have data. It just claims it rained. What your claim needs is data supporting a worldwide minimum of rainfall at 8cm a minute for 40 days.
KAB wrote:
Please explain.
Data. You lacked it.
KAB wrote:
Please explain.
A 6,000 year old Earth might usually be a problem for evolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130876 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The combinatin of the Bible flood record, and the Pingualuit and Berringer craters data are a good start.
Stillborn is more like it.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#130877 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy for me to dismiss what hasn't been confirmed. As I explained, the fossil record doesn't confirm macroevolution because it includes difference chasms which can't be bridged in one generation. Such chasms exist even between reptiles and mammals. Several even exist in the jaw-to-ear bone sequence, don't they?
Yes let add this one to the dodged questions section too.
Lesson 101 in very basic geology, high school level.

1) in the fossil record BEFORE the late Triassic epoch, we find no mammals. We do find vertebrates though, but these are archosaurs and a bunch of amniotes. But no mammals. The evidence comes from the fossil record. By very logic we may deduce that rock layer A that lays below layer B is older than B. In the layers below those that are called late Triassic, we do not find any mammal fossil.
1a) do you agree with this particular observation or do you have any other OBSERVATIONS that would place the onset of mammals to be in another time frame? MIND: if you have an alternative time frame to offer, I shall demand empirical evidence for it to be presented (either by field observations or by experiments by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references);
1b) explain this to us, why were no mammals present before late Triassic and why do they appear somewhere in the late Triassic? WHAT HAPPENED? Evolution theory perfectly explains this. MIND: if you have an alternative theory, I shall demand empirical evidence for it to be presented (either by field observations or by experiments by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references).

2) we also observe that those early mammals resemble the archosaurs profoundly.
2a) do you have any other data that refutes this resemblance? MIND: if you have an alternative idea about this, I shall demand empirical evidence for it to be presented (either by field observations or by experiments by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references).

3) we have a perfect line of fossils, in the correct chronological order, that demonstrates a clear evolution form reptiles to mammals, neatly summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal_evolution . The chronological sequence of fossils can de found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti... .
BTW in the latter source, also check the other lineages. Mind that the list is only a VERY BRIEF summary due to short of place. What do creationists tattle all the time: "there are no intermediates". Notorious LIARS as they are.
Here we see a very gradual development of all relevant mammals traits, perfectly in a chronological line (because: the layer below is older than the layer on top). Taxonomists have determined some 280 fossil mammal genera (a genera includes one but mostly more species).
3a) do you have any observations that refutes this general picture? MIND: if you have an alternative idea about this, I shall demand empirical evidence for it to be presented (either by field observations or by experiments by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references).
3b) the gradual change involves a little few than 1,000 traits assessed. Over 260 genera and millions of years span, this includes millions of gradual adaptations directly deduced from the OBSERVATIONS. This is EXACTLY what evolution theory predicts. Do you have an alternative theory for this? MIND!

4) ALL placental mammals, incl. humans have yolk sacks in pregnancy. Yolk sacks are features of egg laying animals. The yolk sack in placental mammals have no single function: they are filled with fluid and just laying useless. Placental mammals also have the complete gene set for yolk sacks.
4a) any explanation for this? It fits perfectly in evolution theory. And fo course: MIND!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#130878 May 12, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB's philosophy is that in any data set there is always going to be something he can twist into meaning what it does not mean. The rest of the data he then discounts.
Of course you can do this about literally anything. Like the whole gravity thing. Obviously gravity does not work because there is no gravity at nodes.
Obviously that is mining for a grain of sand.
Sand is said to be brown (white, black...)
I find a clear bit of sand and the color of sand is thus refuted.
That is all KAB is even TRYING to do. So, even when he is right (which is almost never) he is STILL wrong because he discounts the mass of data.
Not very original, but he is very consistent in his efforts to make taffy of the facts.

Interesting that you use sand as an example. I was out yesterday hiking around these exposed sandstone bluffs. In a few places near the base, small sections of the face had sheared off and collapsed exposing sandstone that was brilliant, milky white. It was very pretty. I don't know the age of the formation, but I suppose that it was created by the flood out of colorless sand.

Dogen. KAB, Shubee/Zog, HTS and others share a level of arrogance that seems out of proportion to quality of what they present here. Out of curiosity, is this arrogance a result of the delusional condition or is a related but separate part? Is it a common component of delusional people or just certain types of delusional people?
KAB

United States

#130879 May 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I never said it overwhelmed the upwelling. Can't you read? Because the flood is supposed to have been higher than the highest mountain and you said something about a depth of a few thousand feet at most, when Mt Everest is 29,000 feet and some change. The rain is mentioned more often than the fountains of the deep whatever that is. Provide evidence that the fountains contributed more water than the rain. Provide evidence that the flood was only a few thousand feet deep. Provide evidence that the water rose gently instead of like "throwing open the floodgates of heaven".
It is sufficient that it's possible the fountains contributed more water than the rain and that the mountains weren't nearly as high pre-flood. I'm rather certain you will take immediate exception to the latter, but please do so with data. BTW, the Bible account is clear that it took 40 days for the waters to rise. That's rather gradual in gully-washer terms.

Again, my position is satisfied with what is possible. Yours apparently is that your way is the only way.
KAB

United States

#130880 May 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Claim: "the elevation and depth data were 4,500 years ago, when the flood started, different than those today".
WHERE can we find the empirical evidence for this claim, either by field observations or experiments, done by acknowledged, scientifically trained experts on the matter (=geologists) and backed by source references.
I shall add this to my ever growing list of decent and sound questions where I constantly request you for substantiated answers.
Likewise, where can we find the evidence that it wasn't so? I'll match you evidence-for-evidence.
KAB

United States

#130881 May 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Science is firmly in the position of strength of evidence. Why don't you fire out the data points kiddo. Try to lose your bowels doing it. We know how you get excited.
In support of your assertion, I couldn't help but note you fired out NO data points.
KAB

United States

#130882 May 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't need to shit for brains. If the surface was undisturbed by water before the alleged time of the flood and it is undisturbed after that time, then no flood. If there was a presence and erosional action of water it would show up. You can't accept reality and you haven't got anything to refute the data.
Suck on that.
Maybe there was no erosional action. Try raising water at the Biblical 40 day rate in a "gravelly" mix until overwhelmingly covered. Then cause the water to recede at the roughly one year rate, and let me know how disturbed the gravel gets.

Remember, just the possibility is sufficient ... for me that is, not apparently for you.
KAB

United States

#130883 May 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, you failed the technical savvy test again. Remember if at first you don't succeed, you must be KAB.
Does this mean that cosmic ray exposure measurements CAN detect a one year exposure hiatus?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130884 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is sufficient that it's possible the fountains contributed more water than the rain...
INSUFFICIENT! Possible doesn't count for squat. Where the friggin data???
KAB wrote:
...and that the mountains weren't nearly as high pre-flood.
DATA??? Data from geologists indicate this is mental masturbation.
KAB wrote:
I'm rather certain you will take immediate exception to the latter, but please do so with data.
Not a chance. You blow bullshit and then want everyone else to provide data. The balls in YOUR court, Weasel.
KAB wrote:
BTW, the Bible account is clear that it took 40 days for the waters to rise. That's rather gradual in gully-washer terms.
Where's your DATA???
KAB wrote:
Again, my position is satisfied with what is possible.
Because you're content to believe in fairy tales.
KAB wrote:
Yours apparently is that your way is the only way.
You mean those with data and not wet dreams like yourself? I suppose you right on this one point.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130885 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Likewise, where can we find the evidence that it wasn't so? I'll match you evidence-for-evidence.
LOL. Sure you can, dweeb.

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) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 32,607
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 80,071
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sep 23 ChromiuMan 222,780
What's your religion? Sep 22 Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web