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

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

There are 151419 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.

MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133268 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
I have biblical data which supports my understanding of Noah's flood.
Seems like I have something.
Yes you do. A personal interpretation that a fable is real.
KAB wrote:
Provide data confirming each transition in the fossil sequence could have been accomplished in one generation of evolution.
Provide data that it wasn't.
KAB wrote:
What I know about LTEE is that they still have only bacteria.
You didn't answer the question. Regarding the LTEE, have any experiments on the E. coli involved symbiogenesis? Google "Geosiphon pyriforme" to understand the significance of this question.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#133269 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What specific case do you have in mind where I assessed data as being flawed?
Why don't you answer his questions first and provide the empirical evidence to back up those answers before we move on to your claims of flawed data. If you don't really have anything to support your claims then just say so. Hint: Try being honest for a change.
MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133270 Jun 8, 2014
MikeF wrote:
No one in their right mind would design a blind spot in a optical system. Except, perhaps, for the non technically savvy and the non true engineer. You know who you are.
You might note, fruitloop, that the objective (yes, an optical pun) of an optical sensor is to sense light. Any blind spot is counter to that purpose and therefor suboptimal. Good designers would know that.
Perhaps jehovah mistook cephalopods for vertebrates when he wired the cephalopod optic nerve so there would be no blind spot. Or maybe he likes squid and octopus better?
MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133271 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
I see a problem emerging. You draw conclusions phrase-by-phrase, thus losing the benefit of context.
I see a dodge. I lose no context as I include a portion of the context in my posts as needed. For example, in a recent post I wrote: "When there is enough "incremental data," discontinuities don't prevent a lineage anymore than they would prevent evolution."
KAB wrote:
Also in this post, you presume you know better than the designer what he intended
And what did your designer intend? Rather hypocritical of someone who claims "intelligent design," and then makes decisions as to what is intelligent.
MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133272 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
The design process being intelligence driven can in one iteration make combiniations of changes necessary to ensure viability of something significantly different.
How do you know this? Did jehovah reveal his "iterations" to you? Sounds like you can make your design process do whatever you want. All you have done here is to dress up the good ol' fashioned creationism phrase......"God did it."

Ironically however, I do believe that God did it, but not in the hands-on way you describe, but more in the Darwinian way:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
KAB wrote:
Given its randomness and escruciatingly slow pace, it's not mathematically possible for evolution to get the job done in 3.5 billion years.
The evolution of hominins in ~6 million years, says otherwise.

Anyway, aren't you advocating for excessive evolutionary rates over the last 4500 years?
MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133273 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
Since I don't know the designer's objective/intent
Not according to your other posts where you tell us what jehovah's "iterations" do. Also when "you presume you know better than the designer what he intended" with regards intelligence, design and evolution.
KAB wrote:
I could only pass judgment on his designs from my perspective, and I'm not inclined to do that.
You're fibbing again. You're inclined to do it all the time.

Your perspective is anti-evolution, and your inclination is to co-opt evolutionary outcomes for your transcendent design program.
KAB wrote:
All I know of God's thinking is what he reveals. Perhaps you know more.
I believe what God reveals in Genesis where he is recorded as saying, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature." Sounds pretty evolutionary to me.

I didn't think anyone knew more than you.
MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133274 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
Evolution has not been confirmed capable of bridging the discontinuities. Your are entitled to your belief that it can.
Just as there are enough data increments to substantiate your lineage, there are enough data increments to substantiate evolution. The fossil record confirms that evolution is capable of bridging discontinuities. Your entitled to your belief that it can't.
KAB wrote:
Do you even remember that you questioned whether the appropriate DNA had been used in the rabbit work?
You're fibbing again. Perhaps you can find the post to confirm your claim.
What I questioned was your criticizing my use of the Barringer experts when you did exactly the same with your rabbit study experts.
KAB wrote:
No such question has been raised in the case of the Barringer work.
Since you deferred to expert methodology in your rabbit study, I did the same regards barringer. What is the old hebrew word for hypocrite?

"The 11,000 year old post-Pleistocene alluvium at Barringer debunks your claim of a 4500 year old washout at meteor crater lake."
MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133275 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
Since there's obviously conflicting understandings here, data is probably needed to resolve the matter of the primary meaning of the Hebrew word. Let's see what you have.
My understanding is fine. Unlike yours, my post contained data. if you want to see it again, just re-read my previous post on this topic.
KAB wrote:
Regarding the blessings, we already have the data. Malachi 3:10 and surrounding verses are the context. The emphasis is on abundance ("until there is nothing lacking") not intensity. 40 days of rain would be an abundance even at a very moderate rate.
From YOUR bible:
Malachi:
10 " Bring the entire tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house; and test me out, please, in this regard,” Jehovah of armies says,“to see whether I will not open to you the floodgates of the heavens and pour out on you a blessing until there is nothing lacking.”

"Opening floodgates" "Pouring out until nothing is lacking" It all sounds so intense !!

Genesis:
11".....on that day all the springs of the vast watery deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And the rain poured down on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights."

"Flood gates opened." "Springs of the deep burst open." "The rain poured down." It all sounds so intense!!
MMLandJ

Charlotte, NC

#133276 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
You won't be providing any data to confirm that will you?
I've provided as much data as you did with your rabbit study.

The only rock grouse bottleneck reported was for the last tenth of the holocene. Not the beginning of the holocene. Not the middle of the holocene. But the last tenth of the holocene (1200 years ago).
KAB wrote:
Not all craters are created equal.
And not all craters show evidence of a "sediment/rock slide" 4500 years ago. They should if there were a world-wide flood, especially since you established the Pingualuit slide as a "global flood gauge."
KAB wrote:
Regarding what ancient Jews including Job knew, all we have is evidence of what they did know. From that we can only make judgments about what they didn't know.
Are you privy to all the knowledge known in Job's time? If not, then your thoughts on Job 26:7 can not be confirmed and therefore remain speculative.
KAB wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the term transcendental design.
It's a better description of your design program than "intelligent" design. Deeming something intelligent requires a human judgement and you have already declared that human judgement is inadequate to describe God's motives. It has also been shown that not all things designed require intelligence. For example, the Grand Canyon, which was designed by the physical forces of wind and water.

Transcendent design does not require nested hierarchies, but evolution does. Transcendent design can explain any of an infinite number of patterns, whereas evoluton is restricted to the one specific pattern of nested hierarchy, which just so happens to be the pattern we see in nature. Why is that do you suppose?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#133277 Jun 8, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a methodological study assessing dating of ice cores by visual stratification methods.
Its conclusion: "Visible stratigraphy has proven to be a useful dating tool for the GISP2 deep ice core, to roughly 50 kyr B.P., and agrees with independent age assessments within their level of accuracy prior to historical record".
It furthers describes the measurement conditions to be fulfilled, the precautionary measures to be taken before starting and the different methods to be applied in given circumstances.
Entirely regular science, concluding that visual stratification methods are valid in specimen unto 50,000 years old.
Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and high pressure and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished.
For specimen older, one should apply another method: chemical analysis, isotope analysis, high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow. Basically: when the stratification method estimates a layer of, let's say, 300 feet to be 35,000 years, you can estimate the total ice core of 3,200 metres by extrapolating, though correcting for increasing pressure downwards.
Now let's take an example: the Antarctic Vostok core record. Its entire dating yields an age of max. 420,000 years. Normally validity of measurement techniques are acquired by studies like the one mentioned by you or by calibrating. Calibrating is when you apply different techniques on the very same specimen. If they are invalid, they should yield the same result within normal error range. When concordance occurs, they represent valid methods because the odds of different techniques yielding the same results by accident is very low.
Now what do this calibration yields? On the Vostok ice core specimen 5 different techniques have been applied. As a logical consequence, the deeper you go, the more bias. And indeed this happened. The MAXIMUM difference between any of the 5 techniques was 6,000 years. This represents an error margin of 1,43%. Which is methodologically very sound.
The oldest ice core layer, thus established, is the Antarctic Dome C specimen, 800,000 years old +/- 6,000 years error margin.
Now, I only elaborated a bit on this to TEACH you empirical science.
You do not exhibit ANY signs of mastering it WHATSOEVER.
But, above all, why were you brought up this reference?
I entirely do not see ANY connections to the claims you have to give empirical evidence for.
PROBABLY you thought the article was to debunk stratification methods of dating.
It didn't. On the CONTRARY.
IF you happen manage to actually debunk stratification methods (GOOD LUCK), there are still another 70 ones awaiting to be debunked, ONE by ONE. Because ALL of these refute an earth age of just 6,500 years old.
You ALSO need to debunk the MANY calibration tests carried out, where different techniques are applied to the very same specimens, continually yielding perfect concordance.
If you happen to succeed in debunking all of this (VERY VERY GOOD LUCK), you STILL have to produce your own dating technique (REVOLUTIONARY!). Which means:
1) empirical establishment of the validity of the method (see the JGR article)
2) actual appliance on very different specimen of all kinds of rocks and samples, indifferently yielding age results of less than 6,500 years.
While you didn't match the requirements WHATSOEVER:
NOW where do we find the empirical evidence for your claims through either experiments or field observations by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references?
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH reminder (113th).
I provided my reference in response to this from you,

"I didn't see ONE SPECK of data until now.
NOT A SINGLE SPECK.
NIENTE. NADA. NICHTS. NIETS. NIC. RIEN. NUL. NIL"

showing you to be incorrect.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#133278 Jun 8, 2014
MMLandJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps jehovah mistook cephalopods for vertebrates when he wired the cephalopod optic nerve so there would be no blind spot. Or maybe he likes squid and octopus better?
Perhaps cephalopods were made in his image.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133279 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Turky asked for data from empirical experiments or field observations by experts and with referenced sources.
REPRISE.

t is a methodological study assessing dating of ice cores by visual stratification methods.
Its conclusion: "Visible stratigraphy has proven to be a useful dating tool for the GISP2 deep ice core, to roughly 50 kyr B.P., and agrees with independent age assessments within their level of accuracy prior to historical record".

It furthers describes the measurement conditions to be fulfilled, the precautionary measures to be taken before starting and the different methods to be applied in given circumstances.

Entirely regular science, concluding that visual stratification methods are valid in specimen unto 50,000 years old.

Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and high pressure and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished.

For specimen older, one should apply another method: chemical analysis, isotope analysis, high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow. Basically: when the stratification method estimates a layer of, let's say, 300 feet to be 35,000 years, you can estimate the total ice core of 3,200 metres by extrapolating, though correcting for increasing pressure downwards.

Now let's take an example: the Antarctic Vostok core record. Its entire dating yields an age of max. 420,000 years. Normally validity of measurement techniques are acquired by studies like the one mentioned by you or by calibrating. Calibrating is when you apply different techniques on the very same specimen. If they are invalid, they should yield the same result within normal error range. When concordance occurs, they represent valid methods because the odds of different techniques yielding the same results by accident is very low.

Now what do this calibration yields? On the Vostok ice core specimen 5 different techniques have been applied. As a logical consequence, the deeper you go, the more bias. And indeed this happened. The MAXIMUM difference between any of the 5 techniques was 6,000 years. This represents an error margin of 1,43%. Which is methodologically very sound.

The oldest ice core layer, thus established, is the Antarctic Dome C specimen, 800,000 years old +/- 6,000 years error margin.

Now, I only elaborated a bit on this to TEACH you empirical science.
You do not exhibit ANY signs of mastering it WHATSOEVER.

But, above all, why were you brought up this reference?
I entirely do not see ANY connections to the claims you have to give empirical evidence for.

PROBABLY you thought the article was to debunk stratification methods of dating.
It didn't. On the CONTRARY.
IF you happen manage to actually debunk stratification methods (GOOD LUCK), there are still another 70 ones awaiting to be debunked, ONE by ONE. Because ALL of these refute an earth age of just 6,500 years old.

You ALSO need to debunk the MANY calibration tests carried out, where different techniques are applied to the very same specimens, continually yielding perfect concordance.
If you happen to succeed in debunking all of this (VERY VERY GOOD LUCK), you STILL have to produce your own dating technique (REVOLUTIONARY!). Which means:
1) empirical establishment of the validity of the method (see the JGR article)
2) actual appliance on very different specimen of all kinds of rocks and samples, indifferently yielding age results of less than 6,500 years.

While you didn't match the requirements WHATSOEVER:
NOW where do we find the empirical evidence for your claims through either experiments or field observations by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references?
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH reminder (116th).
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133280 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently missed this,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
No I didn't miss it, YOU missed it, SECOND REPRISE:

t is a methodological study assessing dating of ice cores by visual stratification methods.
Its conclusion: "Visible stratigraphy has proven to be a useful dating tool for the GISP2 deep ice core, to roughly 50 kyr B.P., and agrees with independent age assessments within their level of accuracy prior to historical record".

It furthers describes the measurement conditions to be fulfilled, the precautionary measures to be taken before starting and the different methods to be applied in given circumstances.

Entirely regular science, concluding that visual stratification methods are valid in specimen unto 50,000 years old.

Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and high pressure and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished.

For specimen older, one should apply another method: chemical analysis, isotope analysis, high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow. Basically: when the stratification method estimates a layer of, let's say, 300 feet to be 35,000 years, you can estimate the total ice core of 3,200 metres by extrapolating, though correcting for increasing pressure downwards.

Now let's take an example: the Antarctic Vostok core record. Its entire dating yields an age of max. 420,000 years. Normally validity of measurement techniques are acquired by studies like the one mentioned by you or by calibrating. Calibrating is when you apply different techniques on the very same specimen. If they are invalid, they should yield the same result within normal error range. When concordance occurs, they represent valid methods because the odds of different techniques yielding the same results by accident is very low.

Now what do this calibration yields? On the Vostok ice core specimen 5 different techniques have been applied. As a logical consequence, the deeper you go, the more bias. And indeed this happened. The MAXIMUM difference between any of the 5 techniques was 6,000 years. This represents an error margin of 1,43%. Which is methodologically very sound.

The oldest ice core layer, thus established, is the Antarctic Dome C specimen, 800,000 years old +/- 6,000 years error margin.

Now, I only elaborated a bit on this to TEACH you empirical science.
You do not exhibit ANY signs of mastering it WHATSOEVER.

But, above all, why were you brought up this reference?
I entirely do not see ANY connections to the claims you have to give empirical evidence for.

PROBABLY you thought the article was to debunk stratification methods of dating.
It didn't. On the CONTRARY.
IF you happen manage to actually debunk stratification methods (GOOD LUCK), there are still another 70 ones awaiting to be debunked, ONE by ONE. Because ALL of these refute an earth age of just 6,500 years old.

You ALSO need to debunk the MANY calibration tests carried out, where different techniques are applied to the very same specimens, continually yielding perfect concordance.
If you happen to succeed in debunking all of this (VERY VERY GOOD LUCK), you STILL have to produce your own dating technique (REVOLUTIONARY!). Which means:
1) empirical establishment of the validity of the method (see the JGR article)
2) actual appliance on very different specimen of all kinds of rocks and samples, indifferently yielding age results of less than 6,500 years.

While you didn't match the requirements WHATSOEVER:
NOW where do we find the empirical evidence for your claims through either experiments or field observations by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references?
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH reminder (117th).
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133281 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What specific case do you have in mind where I assessed data as being flawed?
You tried this one several times before.
Are you running out of dodging and ducking tricks?

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH reminder (118th).
WHERE is the empirical evidence for your claims:
1) through either experiments or field observations
2) by scientifically acknowledged and trained experts on the matter
3) backed by source references.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133282 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided my reference in response to this from you,
"I didn't see ONE SPECK of data until now.
NOT A SINGLE SPECK.
NIENTE. NADA. NICHTS. NIETS. NIC. RIEN. NUL. NIL"
showing you to be incorrect.
Show me WHERE to be found then.
Mind my special, previous "reprise" posts on the ONLY reference you managed to produce until now. Which was not addressing the ongoing topics to any degree and not related to one of your claims whatsoever, which happens to be the request.

ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH reminder (119th).
WHERE is the empirical evidence for your claims:
1) through either experiments or field observations
2) by scientifically acknowledged and trained experts on the matter
3) backed by source references.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133283 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Given its randomness and excruciatingly slow pace, it's not mathematically possible for evolution to get the job done in 3.5 billion years.
Evolution is NOT a random process. Straw man fallacy. AKA "deceit" and "lying".
AND evolution is NOT in an excruciatingly slow pace, it is a GRADUAL process. Sometimes evolution can even take a VERY FAST and RAPID pace.

A very plain and obvious example are dogs. DNA analysis revealed that all dogs descend from the grey wolf. Yet they radiated into the very different breeds they are today, varying from tiny chihuahua to human-sized Great Danes. The oldest evidence for dog domestication is about 33,000 years max. But, actually, MOST dog breeds are much more recent, from the last few hundred years. So in a few thousands of years one species radiated into 400 very different breeds in all respects: body size, body appearance, anatomy, behavior etc.

In this case the selection is done by humans (artificial selection) instead of nature (natural selection). Anyway, is demonstrates HOW FAST evolution can act under selective (=NON-RANDOM) pressures.

NEXT time when you address evolution, address EVOLUTION, don't you, instead of your own devises.

I am fed up with the constant deceit, lying, distortions and misinterpretations by creationists.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#133284 Jun 8, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That presumes that it was intended to be something. The human eye has a known flaw and we know why it is flawed. You can dance around, shaking your rattles and bones, but it will not mean that it was designed. It is evidence against design.
Why is the human eye flawed?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#133285 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the human eye flawed?
The argument is as follows:

1. Misplacement of the photoreceptor cells; The photoreceptor cells of the human eye point away from the light source, putting all the cabling in front. Only a small fraction of the light entering the eye is effectively captured by the receptors.

2. Each eye has a blind spot; Because the nerve fibers route before the receptor cells (the retina), they have to pass through the retina in order to leave the eye to the brain. At this spot, there can’t be any receptors, causing a blind spot in each eye (click here for a little demo). At the website of Online Psychology Laboratory you can try a program to map your blind spots.

3. Deviation from perfection; At several places in the eye, the structures are less than perfect. The lens has not a constant refraction index, the visual axis is not identical to the optical axis, the curvature of the eye is not symmetrical,…

4. Blood vessels block the entering light; The blood vessels that feed the receptor cells sit on top of the retina – between the light source and the receptive layer. The estimated prevalence rate for retinopathy, e.g. severe loss of sight, for US adults 40 years and older is about 50%. It is caused by proliferated blood vessels obstructing the light.

5. The price for the transparency of the lens; Because the lens has to be transparent, the nutrition of it has to be done by means of the fluid, surrounding it. The inner cells of the lens thus have a hard time to get the necessary nutrients and the lens becomes gradually less flexible with age.

6. The retina varies considerably in its sensitivity; There is only one, rather little, spot (the fovea) with high resolution. In order to see accurately, we have to move our eyes constantly.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#133286 Jun 8, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that not many, if any glaciers are anchored to one place.
A glacier (US /&#712;&#609;le&#6 18;&#643;&#601;r/ or UK /&#712;&#609;læsi& #601;/) is a persistent body of dense ice that is constantly moving under its own weight.
Glaciers move, or flow, downhill due to gravity and the internal deformation of ice.[17] Ice behaves like a brittle solid until its thickness exceeds about 50 m (160 ft). The pressure on ice deeper than 50 m causes plastic flow. At the molecular level, ice consists of stacked layers of molecules with relatively weak bonds between layers. When the stress on the layer above exceeds the inter-layer binding strength, it moves faster than the layer below.[18]
Glaciers also move through basal sliding. In this process, a glacier slides over the terrain on which it sits, lubricated by the presence of liquid water. The water is created from ice that melts under high pressure from frictional heating. Basal sliding is dominant in temperate, or warm-based glaciers.(notice it said the presence of liquid water under the glaciers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
Read more at;
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyintern...
What did you learn from the glacier reference quote you posted?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#133287 Jun 8, 2014

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) 4 min DanFromSmithville 201,654
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min It aint necessari... 16,281
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 59 min DanFromSmithville 40,793
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 1 hr One way or another 19
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 2 hr THE LONE WORKER 55
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 4 hr Reno Hoock 241
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Wed ChristineM 96
More from around the web