Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[Dynamo]

Evolution is a myth. An unprovable theory. A man-made religion.

Creation is the Truth. A proven fact. God's one Religion.

[gore3000]

You said there was no trace of archaic Homo sapiens

Archaic is a generic word which can be used for anything so your statement is just your usual attempt at confusionism.

You posted skulls that were irrelevant to the discussion, they have all been long extinct. None of them could have been ancestors of homo sapiens because they were long extinct by the time that homo sapiens appeared. As I have said, the dead do not reproduce. Let's see you refute that.

[gore3000]

You have been extensively answered upon this and every point you've ever raised.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES

STOP ATTACKING THE MESSENGER

POST THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ALREADY

Your bleatings and excuses only serve to confirm my statement: evolution is not science, evolution is not even a theory, it is just a mish-mash of contradictory statements of know-nothing atheists.

[VadeRetro]

I gave you the table here. There is no gap where you are screeching about gaps.

Please source the following claims which you have made recently:

1) There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya.
2) Hippos have been eliminated by DNA evidence as a nearest-relative of cetaceans.
3) Gould actually meant to say that creationists quote him correctly.
4) Evolutionists believe that humans descended from one of the modern primate species (all those apes and monkeys are really the same thing anyway) and simultaneously have known for thirty years that this is false.

[longshadow]

Do you remember?

Watching G3K plow the same ground all over again is hilarious.

I think he's doing it to avoid responding to you for nailing him on the Hippo DNA and for exposing his bogus, out-of-context Gould quote.

[gore3000]

Funny that you sit there, wave your hands, and say there's no proof.

I have been asking since post#85 or thereabouts for proof of macro evolution. Lexcorp posted one which was thoroughly shown not to be so. You just posted another which I destroyed. Try again and stop making excuses.

By the way, I asked the evolutionists here to stop wasting bandwith and refer to the excuses by number. The above was #2 - the proof has been given but I will not tell you where or when.

[VadeRetro]

My point in asking you if you've seen this before is that you've filled up whole threads with this demand, while waving hands at the replies.

Your silly tactics are the reason that Junior's The Ultimate Resource begins with Physicist's definition:

At some finite time in the past, life began somehow. (How it began is beyond the scope of the theory, but the observational evidence strongly suggests that only one such beginning on Earth has left descendants to the present day.) As life reproduces and multiplies, mutations occur with small but finite probabilities, causing new genes to be added, and creating new alleles of existing genes. The different alleles confer different traits upon their owners, rendering them more or less successful in coping with their environments. The organisms that are more successful in coping with their environments consequently have a slightly greater probability of passing their genes to the next generation of organisms than do the less successful organisms. This causes allele frequencies to change over time.

Because mutations are random according to their probabilities, there is essentially a zero probability that two non-interbreeding populations will get the same set of mutations. (Even if they somehow do, there is essentially a zero probability that the frequencies of the alleles will end up the same in both populations.) The alleles and new genes available in each population will therefore diverge, with the result that the populations become genetically more distant from each other over time. Eventually, the two populations will become genetically so distant that they lose the ability to produce viable hybrids between them. This is the cause of the origin of species.

I generally accept the above. I'd have worked gene duplication into it to anticipate a few objections from the C crowd, but it's a good overall statement.

Your game is all smoke, noise, distraction, deliberate misconstruction, lies, and evasion.

I'm going to go pay some bills. Keep spewing and I'll pick apart what needs picking apart in a few hours.

[VadeRetro]

I think he's doing it to avoid responding to you for nailing him on the Hippo DNA and for exposing his bogus, out-of-context Gould quote.

That's the most hilarious feature of arguing with these guys. Even when they're nailed, they can't admit it, ever. G3K's the most spectacular example, but he's far from alone.

I'll be chomping at the bit to get back to this.

[gore3000]

Please source the following claims which you have made recently:

No vade, you will not put words in my mouth. If you want me to answer something I said, quote me.

You have been given a chance to respond to my statements when they were made. Why did you not refute them then? If you disagree with something I said, quote what you disagree with and respond to the post in which it was made so everyone can see the context of the statements being discussed.

In addition Vade, I am not the subject of this discussion. Evolution is the subject of this discussion. Your attempt to make it into a personal discussion of the messenger that opposes your views shows your utter desperation. Like Clinton and his commie bunch, when you cannot deny the facts you attack the messenger.

[PatrickHenry]

Watching G3K plow the same ground all over again is hilarious. I think he's doing it to avoid responding to you for nailing him on the Hippo DNA and for exposing his bogus, out-of-context Gould quote.

Ah, but in a thread or two, he'll be back again with those discredited arguments, as if the "nailing" had never happened.

[VadeRetro]

No vade, you will not put words in my mouth. If you want me to answer something I said, quote me.

Tell me you aren't trying to run away from your irresponsible spewing! Quote you? Certainly!

Claim 1, paraphrased by me as

There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya.

is based upon

You posted skulls that were irrelevant to the discussion, they have all been long extinct. None of them could have been ancestors of homo sapiens because they were long extinct by the time that homo sapiens appeared. As I have said, the dead do not reproduce. Let's see you refute that.

You seem to be claiming a gap between the archaic Homo sapiens skulls I posted and modern H. sapiens. I see no other interpretation. But you have not documented this claim.

Claim 2, my paraphrase

Hippos have been eliminated by DNA evidence as a nearest-relative of cetaceans.

is based upon

BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.

Your post 615.

Here I document your one feeble attempt at evasion, the refutation, and your subsequent silence. Again, you need to substantiate this claim (but it's just dead wrong) or admit you messed up.

Claim 3, my paraphrase

Gould actually meant to say that creationists quote him correctly.

Is based upon your post 1067 in which you said

Your quote is a complete misrepresentation of Gould's position.

I've challenged you repeatedly to explain yourself, as summarized some time ago here.

Which brings us to

Evolutionists believe that humans descended from one of the modern primate species (all those apes and monkeys are really the same thing anyway) and simultaneously have known for thirty years that this is false.

I mention this because you believe that citing evolutionists--presumably, you do this for credibility--as knowing that "man did not descend from monkeys" trumps any other line of evidence for common descent.

What a brilliant proof! However, there is one little problem with your whole "proof" of macro-evolution in this post. The problem is that regardless of your "proof", scientists, even evolutionists have for more than 30-40 years all agreed that man did not descend from monkeys - whether they be orangutangs, chimps or whatever. Therefore for you to cite this as a proof of macro-evolution is highly deceitful. For the authors of that famous article you keep referring to "the 29 proofs of macro-evolution" to say that this is a proof of macro-evolution is a deliberate lie, because long before they wrote it, they knew that man did not descend from monkeys.

That's not the only example I could cite, of course. Did you really mean to pretend you didn't say this? It wasn't that long ago, was it?

But what does the above spew trump, what does it mean, if nobody thinks humans are the direct, linear descendants of modern chimpanzees? The cytochrome c and other evidence shows common descent of humans and chimps. The chimp is your brother, not your father.

So, your claims are documented. Explain yourself.

[VadeRetro]

In addition Vade, I am not the subject of this discussion. Evolution is the subject of this discussion.

I'm not claiming to know anything about your non-FR life. Your behavior on these threads is relevant because this is where we try to discuss evidence. Your brazenly dishonest approach to these discussions, your eyes-closed Sergeant Schulz "I SEE NOSSINK!" act, your feigned amnesia, your unresponsiveness when challenged on the hopelessly unsupportable stuff you spew -- all completely preclude a normal, intelligent discussion.

But at least you make it obvious that something very wrong is going on with you. Which is to say you're even easier and more fun than medved with his hopelessly looney stuff about instantaneous light and the earth orbiting Saturn.

[gore3000]

"I generally accept the above."

Ok, do you accept the theory of evolution as you posted it or not?

If you do not, then put it in your own words. But let's not have a "shifting" interpretation of the theory when (note I say when, not if) I show it to be totally wrong.

In the same vein, it seems that you are going for the gradualistic Darwinian explanation presently espoused by Dawkings rather than the jumping jelly bean hypothesis espoused by Gould. Is that correct?

I think once we hash out the above, we can engage in an intelligent discussion of evolution. Thanks for taking the important first step.

[gore3000]

Ah, but in a thread or two, he'll be back again with those discredited arguments, as if the "nailing" had never happened.

You and your fellow evos always keep saying that I lost the point, yet you are never able to point out on what post I was refuted. How come Patrick? How come you cannot substantiate your attacks on me? How come you cannot refute my statements to my face and are always attacking me indirectly? Is that what you call honest discussion? Or is perhaps character assassination the only way you can win a discussion?

[VadeRetro]

Ok, do you accept the theory of evolution as you posted it or not?

I accept it.

If you do not, then put it in your own words. But let's not have a "shifting" interpretation of the theory when (note I say when, not if) I show it to be totally wrong.

I don't know how I'm going to break this to Physicist.

In the same vein, it seems that you are going for the gradualistic Darwinian explanation presently espoused by Dawkings rather than the jumping jelly bean hypothesis espoused by Gould. Is that correct?

No.

I think once we hash out the above, we can engage in an intelligent discussion of evolution.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Thanks for taking the important first step.

Thank Physicist, who posted this to you a long time ago.

[VadeRetro]

I see you've replied to 1310. It's certainly taking you a long time to read 1311.

[Nebullis]

I, very loosely, accept the definition above. It's not general enough. The first part, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, is fine. It's the definition of population genetics.

The second part doesn't hold for plants, doesn't hold for sympatric speciation, doesn't hold for...well, it's too specific.

Speciation, very simply, is the divergence of a single reproductive breeding population into two isolated reproductive breeding populations. The divergence is due to reproductive barriers that are either genetic, behavioral, or geographic.

[Nebullis]

I, very loosely, accept the definition above. It's not general enough. The first part, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, is fine. It's the definition of population genetics.

The second part doesn't hold for plants, doesn't hold for sympatric speciation, doesn't hold for...well, it's too specific.

Speciation, very simply, is the divergence of a single reproductive breeding population into two isolated reproductive breeding populations. The divergence is due to reproductive barriers that are either genetic, behavioral, or geographic.

[Nebullis]

I don't know if this warrants saying twice.

[VadeRetro]

There are some mechanisms in plants like polyploidy that produce essentially instant speciation. I didn't think of that and perhaps Phys was unaware. Generally, I'm OK with defending the given statements against whatever terrors G3K can muster.