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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138077 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What good is Chim's reasoning if he doesn't bring his target audience along with him.
BTW, a journey of a thousand points is achieved one step at a time.

Some are smart enough to make more than one at a time.

Just saying. Your limitations are showing.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138078 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>I have a demonstrated reliable source containing a report of a global flood which coincides with the basin-scale slide in Pingualuit.

Please bring forth this reliable source. So far you only have the allegorical (and stolen) Biblical story.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Your summary referred to material that isn't in the Pingualuit paper. Therefore, it wasn't a summary but a misrepresentation. You'll need quotes to prove otherwise.

Scientific extrapliation based on the data is allowed in science. funny how you never seem to know what science is. If you were technically savvy would could have a discussion about science. Sadly, you are not.


“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138079 Aug 22, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>My post needs no translation. I shouldn't be responding to you because I said I don't debate delusionals. Seek help!
This post is dripping with irony. You actually are delusional and you accuse someone who is steeped in reality of being delusional.

Being a fan of irony I am enjoying your delusions. Pray continue.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#138080 Aug 22, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I know, and you would appear more intelligent...or better said....less ignorant....had you stayed there.<quoted text>I don't belittle science. I love science....I Belittle people like you who can't see the difference between pseudo science and the real thing.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A NEW IRONY WORLD RECORD.

Congrats marksman. And I never thought you would amount to anything except an accomplished psychopath.

You know I am a fan of your antics.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#138081 Aug 22, 2014
MMLandJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think God incapable of enabling chemical and biological forces to produce the entire variety of life on earth?
<quoted text>
Let me answer in your own words:
"It's good to know that your approach to logic includes reasoning that if something isn't mentioned then it is refuted. I am elated that I am not so afflicted!"
<quoted text>
Aren't amniotes a kind?
<quoted text>
But we did evolve. This is why our freedom to act as independent beings is preserved.
I think God is capable of enabling chemical and biological forces to produce the entire variety of life on earth.

Also, I simply stated that you didn't mention something. That has no connection to refuting anything.

Further, I don't know if amniotes are a kind, but I doubt it.

Finally, we have freedom to act as independent beings whether we evolved or not.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#138082 Aug 22, 2014
MMLandJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Salinity proxy data is available and the references are cited in the Pingualuit paper. One would think that since you made the assertion of salinity changes in Pingualuit over the last 4200 years, you would have accessed these references. On the other hand, perhaps you did access them, but came to realize what they revealed.
<quoted text>
There are no salinity values to quote since it's a fresh water lake and nothing has been found to indicate it was ever anything else.
You have an interesting way of admitting there are no salinity statements or data in the Pingualuit paper.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#138083 Aug 22, 2014
MMLandJ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Our side" (along with the Pingualuit experts) says there was no marine transgression into Pingualuit. So please confirm we are incorrect by providing physical data for the salinity changes you claim took place in Pingualuit and Laflamme lakes over the last 4200 years.
You know what they say. If you don't have your data, you don't have anything.
I don't know of any such data.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#138084 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What good is Chim's reasoning if he doesn't bring his target audience along with him.
BTW, a journey of a thousand points is achieved one step at a time.
But the only point you have is the one on your head.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#138085 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have an interesting way of admitting there are no salinity statements or data in the Pingualuit paper.
You have a very common, unimaginative and mundane way of ignoring data.

I couldn't live like that.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#138086 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think God is capable of enabling chemical and biological forces to produce the entire variety of life on earth.
Also, I simply stated that you didn't mention something. That has no connection to refuting anything.
Further, I don't know if amniotes are a kind, but I doubt it.
Finally, we have freedom to act as independent beings whether we evolved or not.
So in other words, your lack of technical ability, gross misunderstanding of science and the plethora of evidence presented that falsifies everything you claim is best dealt with "God done it with magic". You sure are a funny little delusional.

I couldn't live like that.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#138087 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know of any such data.
that supports anything you claim.

I couldn't live a lie like that.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#138088 Aug 22, 2014
MMLandJ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, because the confirmation is that there is no data confirming the freshwater lakes Pingualuit and Laflamme were ever salty. Just provide confirming data for whatever you want to assert. Otherwise, it will be considered incorrect.
<quoted text>
Exercise your technical savvy by providing data confirming the salinity changes you assert took place in Pingualuit and Laflamme lakes. You know what they say. If you don't have your data, you don't have anything.
The "considered incorrect" part applies to those who have established a confirmed record of being incorrect.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#138089 Aug 22, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This post is dripping with irony. You actually are delusional and you accuse someone who is steeped in reality of being delusional.
Being a fan of irony I am enjoying your delusions. Pray continue.
It is like watching reality television. His version of Lost.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#138090 Aug 22, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. And what form of non-physical data do you propose to use to support your stealth flood?
I propose using documentary data to support the Biblical global flood.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#138091 Aug 22, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't comply to your endless tricks to avoid and duck questions.
My debating style is perfectly normal.
nobody I debate has any trouble with answering more than one question in one post but you.
I don't care if you comply to anything.
I don't have trouble answering more that one question in one post. I choose not to in the interest of step-by-step progress thru disciplined order instead of endless scattered debate.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#138092 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I propose using documentary data to support the Biblical global flood.
Yes, the circular argument. You are a master of that as it stands without benefit of any documentation.

Do you think the Bible is not a physical thing? When did you last have scans done on your brain, I think it is time to go back?

I couldn't live like that.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#138093 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if you comply to anything.
I don't have trouble answering more that one question in one post. I choose not to in the interest of step-by-step progress thru disciplined order instead of endless scattered debate.
An obvious lie. You choose to do it because you can avoid answering questions, you can drag out a dead argument as long as you care to and you often don't have a valid answer to the questions.

You could easily pick one question at a time and address them thusly. You can't show your restriction to be any more than a blatant attempt to perpetuate your big LIE.

I couldn't live like that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138094 Aug 22, 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.
Piffle.

The Haplogroup tree is data.

The most parsimonious tree calculations used to generate the earlier hap levels from existing data is not only data, its data with a known bias towards a shorter outcome, because it calculates the most efficient, shortest possible route, when we know the real route was almost certainly longer.

The geographical distribution and archeology and history of peoples, which can be mapped to their haplotypes, is data.

The different change rates observed between coding and control regions of the mt-DNA is data.

The effects of a highly elevated mutation rate is data too, and its been worked on for decades by population geneticists. Not something I am going to go into in detail HERE.

You don't have data. You have the vague hope that some unevidenced rapid burst of massively increased mutations shortly after your alleged Flood can rescue your hypothesis. Already special pleading against an absolute dearth of supporting data, and as above, likely to result in extinction, not the generation of a rapid Hap tree. I suspect - and here I AM assuming, since I have not looked into it, that the pattern would reflect that if it were true.

i have step by stepped with you for the last year. Stop wasting my time. If you have any other specific alternatives to offer, provide them. Otherwise its obvious that you just cannot deal with the conclusion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138095 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the explanation for the apparent contradiction in the statement, "Control region mutation has little effect on function and is therefore more likely to be neutral,"? "Control" has the connotation of needed. "Neutral" has just the opposite.
Whatever its common English "connotation" is, the fact is its known that the control region can vary with much greater freedom without affecting function, allowing mutations to accumulate up to 25 x faster with neutral effect. Remember that in scientific/statistical terms "control" can also have connotations of null or no effect. Not only that, but like the haplotree naming convention, naming of things often precedes detailed knowledge of them, so you look at the data not the name to learn behavior.

That is what confused you about the "L" groups 0-6, named as major regional splits before hap tree analysis showed that the The "L"s 2-6 formed a series of nested subclades, and were not on the same level. As the haptree root page shows.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138096 Aug 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Every case where there is likely to be data confirming your Flood, but none is found, cannot be viewed in isolation. We don't just make up an ad hoc reason without data for the himalayas, and the pre-Food mummies having mt-DNA derived from post n=3 ancestors, or the "pristine" ice sheets, and so on and so on, making excuses in each case to prove its "not impossible". Not when we have a logically coherent and consistent picture that excludes a Flood. Geologists 200 years ago already came to that conclusion from the data they had, and the data in favour of exclusion has been piling up ever since. Note that "pro-Flood" geologists etc have been trying over the same period of time to provide any evidence for this Flood, and even you agree they have found nothing.

A coordinated pattern over many disciplines definitely would require God to "cover his tracks" rather than all being human error. Take just this case. There is no particular advantage to creating an 18-22 level hap tree in human genetics, nor in systematically eliminating the earlier levels of the tree. With a few tiny exceptions, changes to the mitochondrial machinery make little difference to differentiation of humans in ways that affect function. Remember - that the vast majority of the deep structure mt-DNA survives because its NEUTRAL i.e. has no effect. For example, a point mutation that substitutes one base for another with no change to the protein coded. So Why would God take an active role in manipulating this? And without God doing that, there is no way it could randomly change and propagate in multiple subclades within your timeline.

The only sensible answer from the Flood perspective is God wanted to fool scientists into refuting the Flood. The only sensible answer ignoring this supposition is that n=3 4500 years ago did not happen.

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) 30 min Eagle 12 - 32,607
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 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