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 ... Read more
KAB

Oxford, NC

#133233 Jun 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Now isn't this a stupid question. You have no explanation for the flaws in living things and are desperate to come up with any lame reason not to accept reality. Very scientific of you. Very unbiased of you. You better find another line to attack. This one is too hard for you. You can't come up with any reasonable response that explains anything unless you start pitching evolution.
I don't call something a flaw w/o knowing what it is supposed to be.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#133234 Jun 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Give us something new that hasn't been refuted by most 6th grade science classes. The randomness is only in the mutations. Selection is not random and very effective at producing what we see in nature. You should pretend to read about and understand the fossil record.
He does know more. I know more. Dogen knows more. The Dude knows more. Mike F knows more. TurkanaBoy knows more. Chimney knows more. Kong knows more. And on and on and on. Hell, I think Jimbo might know more, but it would be a close call. Evolutionisstupid doesn't know more. I'll give you that one.
Please provide data confirming that all of those you listed as such do know more of God's thinking than what God reveals.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#133235 Jun 7, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Still waiting for your answer!
Hold the flapper from below if you prefer.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#133236 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not advocating for a vacuum under an ice cap. I'm asking if an object buoyant in water and used to cover a hole in the bottom of a container stays in position over the hole and under water, does it also stay in position when the hole is sealed from below such that no air remains between the object and the now sealed bottom?
You are just chasing your tail. In the end your view has been shown to be wrong. Based on the evidence the ice caps would have been destroyed by a global flood. Trying to turn that fact into a circus with your toilet humor has changed that.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#133237 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide data confirming that all of those you listed as such do know more of God's thinking than what God reveals.
Please provide evidence that you claim to being God is true.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#133238 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't call something a flaw w/o knowing what it is supposed to be.
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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#133240 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It dispels the notion that a lot of evidence for one side wins over a little evidence for another.
But when one side is the only side with evidence, it doesn't mean anything.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#133241 Jun 7, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying in the name of Jesus is always allowed, isn't it?
It hasn't been driven to resolution because it even didn't START in the first place.
The answers you gave didn't match the requirements even to the slightest degree:
1) substantial arguments by EMPIRICAL evidence
2) either through EXPERIMENTS or FIELD observations
3) by SCIENTIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS on the matter
4) backed by SOURCE REFERENCES.
That's why I immediately elided it, I don't want to waste my time on endless caboodle.
For once I shall make you a deal and give 2 examples how YOU may perform that task.
Just to help you in your Tantalic struggle in quest for "data".
Provide us empirical evidence that the geological column, as observed in the Grand Canyon, consisting of thousands of different layers of very different composition and origin, like:
- coal layers, known to originate form old forests
- former sea beds, recognizable by their sea fossils
- former desert, recognizable by its composition (pure quartz sand), the absence of fossils of animals that cannot live in deserts but yet numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows and the sand complete with raindrop impressions still on it
- layers of limestone with fresh water fish fossils (lakes, rivers)
- sandstone layers with trilobite fossils
- layers of dark brown basaltic rocks, originated from lava eruptions
- etc. etc. etc., find more on www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm (5 pages)....
can be formed in just 6,500 years, through:
1) experiments that demonstrate that 16,000 feet of very different layers pertaining origin and composition can be produced by a flood. Especially and explicitly ALSO an empirical rebuttal of the many experiments and field observation done by numerous geologists on flooding. Because your claim contradicts 300 years of geological research and in science this obligates you to explicitly disprove all of that research BY EMPIRICAL evidence.
2) experiments or field observations that demonstrate that 16,000 feet of very different layers pertaining origin and composition can be produced in just 6,500 years. Especially and explicitly ALSO empirical rebuttal of the many experiments and field observation done by numerous geologists on establishing the earth's age. That also implies that you have to rebut the 70 different dating techniques, ONE by ONE because they all point to an old earth.
3) experiments or field observations that demonstrate how a worldwide flood can explain the observed stratification of the fossil record (see www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm ).
4) experiments or field observations that demonstrate a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago.
I shall repeat the requirements:
1) substantial arguments by EMPIRICAL evidence
2) either through EXPERIMENTS or FIELD observations
3) by SCIENTIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS on the matter
4) backed by SOURCE REFERENCES.
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH reminder (112th).
I can't provide answers for your first unnumbered challenge or for numbers 1, 2, 3 following it.
Do you require confirming or just supporting data for number 4?
Finally, I don't accept your requirement 3). It makes no difference who provides data.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#133242 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold the flapper from below if you prefer.
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;lęsi& #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...

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#133243 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't provide answers for your first unnumbered challenge or for numbers 1, 2, 3 following it.
Do you require confirming or just supporting data for number 4?
Finally, I don't accept your requirement 3). It makes no difference who provides data.
KAB Dodgers of the 3rd and half Century. You never provide data that supports your position. You only carry on that farce to convince yourself that you do.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#133244 Jun 7, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you still haven't successfully reconciled biblical myth with reality. None of them, in fact. That's why they are called myths. Even Sancho's donkey knew a windmill when he saw one.
Why would I specifically separate the consideration of fissures, crevasses, subglacial lakes and streams, irregular faces, fractures, caves, moulins, shelves,.. even the very structure and stratification of glacial ice itself - in favor of the "generic buoyancy considerations" of a small rubber suction cup or a solid little ice cube temporarily stuck to the bottom of a tea glass explicitly to artificially validate an old story from arid temperate/tropical dwelling primitives who never heard of an ice cap and only mentioned ice 3 times in their entire set of codices? You can't honestly ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hon... ) propose I'M the one consistently being either a dullard or conniving and duplicitous.
It's been apparent from the start that you are not a demonstrated reliable source.
If you wanted to demonstrate mastery of buoyancy I wouldn't expect ice caps to be the medium of choice.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#133245 Jun 7, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
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.


You're entitled to your opinion from ignorance.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#133246 Jun 7, 2014
Lets break the tension. Joke time!

Three old men were talking about how much their hands shook and jerked.

The first old guy said, "My hands shake and jerk so bad that when I shaved this morning, I cut my face several times."

The second old man said, "My hands shake and jerk so bad, that when I trimmed my garden yesterday, I sliced all my flowers."

The third old man laughed and said, "That's nothing. My hands shake and jerk so bad that when I took a pee yesterday, I came three times!"

lol

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#133247 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All that's needed for n=3 4500 years ago to generate the ancestral tree is for sufficient mutations to fix in the 4500 years. Assessing that begins with the rate at which mutations fix. Hasn't that rate been assessed at about 1/300 transmission events?
All that is needed for a man to jump to the moon is for gravity to be suspended temporarily.

Sorry KAB, no longer interested in your flopping about attempts to change the rules so that you can pretend that the data is consistent with your pet theory. You can do that for the rest of your life for all I care, and probably will.

But the situation has been explored and explained to exhaustion, you are merely going back over old ground ruled out nearly a year ago, and you are getting nowhere.

The mtDNA data along with everything we know about mutation rates, mutation fixing rates, especially in the highly specific regions, completely rules out a 4500 year old tree. Even the tips of the haplogroup trees you were looking at are documented at several thousand years old and in man cases this is corroborated by known migration patterns etc.

There is no way out if you are objective. The Flood never happened.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#133248 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All that's needed for n=3 4500 years ago to generate the ancestral tree is for sufficient mutations to fix in the 4500 years. Assessing that begins with the rate at which mutations fix. Hasn't that rate been assessed at about 1/300 transmission events?
Here kab. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.ful...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#133249 Jun 7, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a force analysis. It's a summary derived from a force analysis.
Have you ever seen a buoyancy force vector graphic in which the buoyant object is not depicted with fluid ALL the way around it? Do the appropriate force vector analysis with the object sitting on the bottom with no fluid under it. It will help if you don't treat the solid bottom like a fluid. Force differentials get absorbed/distributed in the bonds of the solid.
Not interested in your attempts to obfuscate by unnecessary complication. But if YOU are interested in thinking through the point you have raised, then remember that as the water increases pressure on one side of the column, this has to be match by an increase on the other side, from the ice behind, compressing until there is an equalisation of forces. That is, if you insist on wanting to pointlessly complicate things.

That is the beauty of science - it finds simpler, unifying, elegant answers based on underlying principles. One such discovery was the irrelevance of shape to buoyancy - all that mattered was the weight of the displaced liquid versus the weight of the submerged object. The only additional complication that matters here is the bond strength of the anchorage to the rock floor. And its simply not enough to overcome the net buoyancy force.

As far as I am concerned, the question is answered. Faced with inundation by sea water up above the level of the ice cap, the ice cap will be ripped apart from the edges inward, and the fractured chunks will float. End of story.

Another independent line of evidence against the Flood confirmed, as if we needed another one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#133250 Jun 8, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design also predicted the intermediate, based on the existing record of the pattern of life.
\What does evolution predict for the rate of change of life?
No, it did not. Design does not predict anything - since anything at all is consistent with Design, its not a theory that makes any specific predictions.

Evolution is, and predicts the convergence of different lineages as we go back in time. Based on the known ages of existing early tetrapod fossils and lobe finned fish fossils, whose linkage was already implied by structural similarities, a creature like tiktaalik was predicted and found in just the place and time it should have been. There is absolutely no need for convergent lineages in a Design scenario. It can accommodate them, because it can accommodate ANYTHING, meaning of course that it explains nothing.

You claim that if evolution did not make these successful predictions, scientists would just come up with another naturalistic explanation for life....but there is no such hypothesis out there, and your Design friends continually try to debunk evolution because they know its the only naturalistic theory out there and they know they will win by default if they succeed...so you lose on this one. Design did not predict tiktaalik, nor any prehuman hominid (an outrageous idea when Darwin proposed it, PREDICTING they would be found before any such creatures were).

Now, if YOU want to constrain design to some sort of theistic evolutionary scenario, where God steps in and tweaks things every now and then, you are welcome...but its merely an unnecessary addition to a theory that already works without it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#133251 Jun 8, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Here kab. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.ful...
Thanks for the input, but its old old ground that I went through with KAB nearly a year ago, and provided him with laborious calculations.

One point of note, though, is that mtDNA is a special case and the rate of mutation is different (higher) in mtDNA than in nuclear DNA. mtDNA is a tiny, bacterial style loop of separate DNA that is found in the mitochondria and codes for 13 specific proteins essential to the metabolic cycle. Another special thing about it is that it only passes from the female (egg) side in reproduction. This gives us a clean line of female to female descent without any sexual mixing per generation.

Another point is that there are hypervariable regions where the mtDNA can mutate with little effect, so far more mutations take hold, whereas mutations in the conserved (highly specific, gene coding areas mostly), are far more likely to cause deleterious effects and so the effective (fixing, propagating) rate of mutation in these parts is much lower.

The rate of mutation is so high in the hypervariable regions that after several thousand years the whole sequence is too scrambled to trace lineages ("saturated") eg by double and triple mutations on the same spot, by reversals, and so on.

Deep ancestral patterns are therefore revealed by the slower changing conserved regions, with a much lower rate of change. According to those rates, the last common female ancestor lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, and probably about 160,000 years ago according to scientists. This is not even within the ballpark of a Flood 4500 years ago which gave a maximum number of female lines at that time of 3 females.

I have been with this for a year with KAB and for all his meanderings he is no closer to disproving this line of evidence than when he started. But, being KAB, he will of course refuse ever to accept the conclusion because it goes against his "confirmed reliable source", which apparently is magic enough never to be dis-confirmed by any amount of evidence.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#133252 Jun 8, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the input, but its old old ground that I went through with KAB nearly a year ago, and provided him with laborious calculations.
One point of note, though, is that mtDNA is a special case and the rate of mutation is different (higher) in mtDNA than in nuclear DNA. mtDNA is a tiny, bacterial style loop of separate DNA that is found in the mitochondria and codes for 13 specific proteins essential to the metabolic cycle. Another special thing about it is that it only passes from the female (egg) side in reproduction. This gives us a clean line of female to female descent without any sexual mixing per generation.
Another point is that there are hypervariable regions where the mtDNA can mutate with little effect, so far more mutations take hold, whereas mutations in the conserved (highly specific, gene coding areas mostly), are far more likely to cause deleterious effects and so the effective (fixing, propagating) rate of mutation in these parts is much lower.
The rate of mutation is so high in the hypervariable regions that after several thousand years the whole sequence is too scrambled to trace lineages ("saturated") eg by double and triple mutations on the same spot, by reversals, and so on.
Deep ancestral patterns are therefore revealed by the slower changing conserved regions, with a much lower rate of change. According to those rates, the last common female ancestor lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, and probably about 160,000 years ago according to scientists. This is not even within the ballpark of a Flood 4500 years ago which gave a maximum number of female lines at that time of 3 females.
I have been with this for a year with KAB and for all his meanderings he is no closer to disproving this line of evidence than when he started. But, being KAB, he will of course refuse ever to accept the conclusion because it goes against his "confirmed reliable source", which apparently is magic enough never to be dis-confirmed by any amount of evidence.
Try this one.The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region. Click on the full text PDF link right below the abstract.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

I will admit I got somewhat lost om this one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#133253 Jun 8, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this one.The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region. Click on the full text PDF link right below the abstract.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
I will admit I got somewhat lost om this one.
The control region is the fast changing bit. Its useful for tracking recent ancestral groupings but not for the deep ancestry whose linkages are almost all traced through the slow changing coding region.

One of the bullshit ploys of the creationists was to try applying the rate of change applicable in the control (hypervariable) region, knowing full well that the deep ancestral links were determined in the coding (conserved, slow changing) region.

Didn't fool anyone - except their target audience of course.

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 Dogen 155,317
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 19 min Paul Porter1 18,059
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 51 min Paul Porter1 955
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 3,397
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 16 hr Kong_ 178,178
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
More from around the web