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

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

There are 164681 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.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137991 Aug 21, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You have no science. All you have is a faith based philosophy. Human from non-human evolution has never adhered to the scientific methods demands of observability, testability, and replication. Science is not about faith. Science is about adhering to the scientific method. No wonder you are so screwed up.
Don't come back with this crap after having been completely eaten out and debunked on this like some months ago. We made mince meat of your terrible crap and rubbish. And you had no answers. Nada, Nothing. Nichts.

You were not even addressing evolution theory but your own devises, based on ignorance and sticking your head all day in some flut prut bronze age mythology book.

You have NOTHING to tell us here. NOTHING.
Now, you may now stick your head back into the bronze age mythology book.
Sleep tight.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137992 Aug 21, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You have no science. All you have is a faith based philosophy. Human from non-human evolution has never adhered to the scientific methods demands of observability, testability, and replication. Science is not about faith. Science is about adhering to the scientific method. No wonder you are so screwed up.
BTW, the ones that decide whether or not something is science or not, are the actual experts on the matter, AKA "scientists". Those scientists have decided that evolution is affirmed science. As always, they base this on endless empirical observations and experiments and according to the standards of scientific methodology.

There is almost no opposition within the relevant scientific disciplines against evolution theory.

Your opinion about it has no relevance. Because laymen do not decide and generally miss the framework to assess it. ESPECIALLY the laymen have a religious agenda. And even more when such a layman does not possess any relevant understanding of the matter and just doesn't know what he is tattling about.

We don't need your opinion, we just shrug our shoulders and continue our science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137993 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your beliefs. Such is the stuff from which religions are made. If you want to substantively take issue with something, provide specific data on specific items. Perhaps you can start with a point from Genesis. It isn't required that God tampered with the evidence. You don't know what the rates of variation acqusition and attrition were in the past. You always rely on that when you need to speed up evolution, and slow it down when needed to argue against God's involvement.
If you want to examine Hinduism, provide a specific point, and we can consider it.
There is no assumed change in the underlying mutation rate when periods of more rapid evolutionary change occur. The rate of change is explained by the fact that in an unstable environment, the current genome is no longer optimal.

When in periods of environmental stability, the organism will move to an optimum and likely stay there, and outliers are likely to be selected against. New variation is generated by mutations, but the better the current fit to the current environment, the less likely that an outlier will offer any advantage.

When there is instability, the genome is no longer optimal in the new environment. Outliers (variants) appear just as before, but are more likely to be selected for as some of them may provide an advantage in the new environment.

In short, the rate of adaptive change is determined by distance from the optimum, not by changes in the rate of mutations.
----------

In any case, the above situation applies to selective change.

The majority of the mitochondrial variation we observe is not selective but neutral drift. Mitochondria have not functionally changed much in eukaryotes. Its a basic, working, functional unit and you can take just about any mammal and see very little variation.

The variation we see is concentrated much more in the control region, as discussed at length in the past. Control region mutation has little effect on function and is therefore more likely to be neutral, and this is why the observed rate in the hypervariable regions is up to 25 times greater than for the coding region (which actually makes functional proteins with relatively high specificity).

To remind you, its the SLOWER rate of change in the coding region that has enabled scientists to determine the deep ancestral connections. Watch as creationists ignore this fundamental point and try to misrepresent the science. A laugh a minute KAB.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137994 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What question did you ask in the post to which I responded?
NOT MY TASK.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137995 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a recent confirmation,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Conformation of WHAT of YOUR claims.
MISERABLE.

Trying to deceive, KAB?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137996 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I generally respond just to the post to which I'm responding.
BTW, enjoy your thoughts. I'll stick with specific data regarding specific individual items, a sound basis from which real progress can be made.
If you don't have answers, F*CK someone else.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137997 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The foundation issue is not what something is supposed to mean, but rather what it can mean. Once that is determined, one shouldn't be dogmatic beyond that.
YES!
Pay attention to this yourself.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137999 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your question,
"Isn't it clear that Genesis (talking snake) tales were meant literally?"
The author is nowhere referenced. Your question is content based.
Unlike Aesop, the author is not in the picture.
Word weasels again > GO FIGURE!

Answer the question Dogen has posed you on my original post on this.
I am fed up with this crap.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#138000 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know of any physical data confirming the global flood.
AGAIN evading the point made.
AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN
and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.

The point made was: DON'T demand confirming data when you are not able to provide them yourself. That is measuring with double standards.

And I posed this as a question in my previous post. no answer on it.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#138001 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your question,
"Isn't it clear that Genesis (talking snake) tales were meant literally?"
The author is nowhere referenced. Your question is content based.
Unlike Aesop, the author is not in the picture.
Author this author that, prut, flut, dada, prattle, flop, prop, boe, prxzwl, etc.

And now the question again: "Isn't it clear that Genesis (talking snake) tales were meant literally?"
Just a simple question with a simple answer: "yes" or "no". Preferably with some explanation.
Watch how he dances around dodging and ducking.

Because either of the answers will directly blow back into your face again.
"Yes?" > then we know the bible tries to sell ridiculous things as for real.
"Ne?" > then we know the bible used allegories or just symbols and in that case could be applied to the flood story.

YOU choose.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#138002 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know of any physical data confirming the global flood.
Neither does anyone else. Yet you insist it DID happen.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#138003 Aug 21, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Hey you old flaming liberal you!:-) Congrats on the Ham License! I'm to poor for HAM....I'm just a poor ole CB guy, but did have a cool sign off....
10-4 from malfunction Junction
The state of confusion
Bad luck City
and do not eat chicken on suday
from the back of the shack where it's all at
your number 1 fun in the sun
getting down to the nitty gritty in the big city
The KFM9259...the Carolina banjer man
Lookin mighty pretty
From the upside
the down side
the mountain side
the country side
in the air
in the grass
hit the pedal and hit the gas
on the flip side of the flop
We'll be seein ya, or CBing ya, which ever comes first,
The KFM9259
the one and only
the lover of laughter
slicker and quicker
the pro of the puns
The KFM9259 is East bound and down........
hahahaha.....boy, that was back in the Smokey and the Bandit days.....lol.
Glad you are still kickin!!!
Heh. Reminds me of my days on the road for Wang Labs.

How you been, you old goofball?
KAB

United States

#138004 Aug 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that most former cult dwellers leave their cults because they are fed up with constant indoctrination and the poignant dissonance between their doctrines and the reality around them.
Like this guy: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3198-w...
And WE know this because we hear of their witnesses.
YOU will never hear of them again because you are forbidden to talk with them again.
You are even to abandon your own family.
You will expel them and from that moment on this person will be abandoned as a piece of dirt.
Do you think hypocrisy recognition is a major factor in cult abandonment?
KAB

United States

#138005 Aug 21, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You brought up rabbits and one of the key differences between the nuclear and the mt-DNA is that there is no recombination in mt-DNA. Furthermore the bottleneck in the rabbits was nowhere near as tight as your Flood, and even furthermore your own article still said that a bottleneck of less than 50 individuals and certainly fewer than 10 would still be highly visible in the nuclear DNA despite recombination.
The reality is, there is no reason to suppose that variation occurred 20 or 30 x faster for some unspecified period following your hypothetical Flood, no precedent for it, no reason for it, and given that massive rate of mutation for neutral changes (which is what concerns us), the rate of deleterious mutations would have been through the roof and its doubtful that any offspring would have survived at all. This is especially true in the coding area with its lower mutation rate due to the rather tight functional specifications of the proteins of metabolism. The vast majority of changes would be deleterious so with a 20-30x higher general mutation rate, there would be an error catastrophe.
You still conveniently ignore the data. Such as Otzi and co, which predate the alleged Flood, not to mention variation that can still be assessed in isolated populations with known histories stretching back an appreciable proportion of 4500 years. Such as the 1000 year record of the Icelanders or the much longer isolation of the Aboriginals, the Amazons, or the San. Nothing in any combination of haplotype data combined with historical and archeological records remotely suggest a period of fast sudden change. Just more grasping at straws.
You are using a form of magical Last Thursdayism to try and explain away the obvious conclusion.
You are using largely dataless argumentation/reasoning. Let's continue with our step-by-step data-confirmed approach to arriving at a common conclusion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#138006 Aug 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are using largely dataless argumentation/reasoning. Let's continue with our step-by-step data-confirmed approach to arriving at a common conclusion.
You're an optimist, I'll give you that. Like we're ever going to arrive at a common conclusion.
KAB

United States

#138007 Aug 21, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Close. Her mother's line terminates if she has no daughters. If she has a daughter with an additional mutation, then her type is altered and potentially a new subclade of her type forms.(However, the statistical likelihood is far greater that eventually the mutation will disappear).
Furthermore her mother's type may still be represented in other daughters who do not have the second mutation you gave to one of the daughters. This is even more likely in the rapid growth scenario where each mother will have on average more than one daughter.
Note that you have already just described a very unlikely scenario where a mother passes a mutation to her daughter (1/67) then her daughter immediately passes another one to her (1/67). That will happen in 1/67x67 cases.
Is what I stated correct and possible without requiring God to make anything look like something it isn't? I understand the observed probabilities, but we don't have confirmation they have remained the same. Genesis seems to indicate God has taken an active roll in human genetics.
KAB

United States

#138008 Aug 21, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No KAB. You have argued every point and in many cases argued silly and irrelevant points. I have provided data and in some cases arguments that are just standard genetics. The experts in the field have reached a consensus of 150K with much research, paper writing, and critical argument far more sophisticated than anything you can muster. Creationists have tried their darndest for years and gotten nowhere on this.
I see no scientific agenda apart from genuine curiosity about out past, and the scientists would be indifferent to a result whether it was 5,000 years or 500,000 years, and are just drawing a conclusion from the data that they have found. You don't like the result, so you will fight on and on forever trying to overturn their conclusions. You just feel free to conjure up massive mutation rates and ignore the dating data, while in the meanwhile you arbitrarily change the height of the Himalayas, ignore the absence of flood evidence in the Ice Caps, and so on. The absurdity of your position against a coherent and consistent record of what REALLY happened or did not happen in the past just becomes more evident with every bit of special pleading you employ as you do battle with physics, geology, biology, archeology, and even history.
Its clear that for some reason you are pinning your entire faith in God on some obscure Flood myth that arose in the middle east a few thousand years ago, written by people who thought a talking snake was a reasonable proposition. I am not sure why, but that is what you are doing.
Thanks for another round of reasoning lacking confirming data..
Bob Johnson

Staten Island, NY

#138009 Aug 21, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Fence sitters sit on the fence because they know nothing. It is a good place for you to stay.
No, see I am no longer on the fence, go back and read my post. As far as making broad generalizations about an anonymous person on the inter webs.. what a pathetic tactic made out of obvious desperation. You've been at this thread for five years! FIVE YEARS! I just love people who use COMPUTERS on the INTERNET to talk shit about Science. Pathetic!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#138010 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The one getting the correct answer may not be technically savvy. Have you by chance never been correct?

Not a problem for you since you have never been correct and are not technically savvy.

Your record is worse than that of a broken clock.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#138011 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for another round of reasoning lacking confirming data..

Thanks for another round of reasoning lacking confirming data.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min MADRONE 83,094
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 2 hr Eagle 12 - 83
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 25
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 hr Science 2,565
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 11 hr Science 120
Evolution is boring as Hell 11 hr Science 4
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... 11 hr Science 22
More from around the web