Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 210149 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105788 Nov 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, your continued inability to properly link anything but links from creatard sites is more than highly suspicious.
How does a moron continually screw up the links to scientific sites and yet always gets creatard sites linked correctly. I do believe you are doing it on purpose.
Maz, until you link properly all it takes to debunk you is hand waving. I have been waiting for you to post actual links to actual articles that support you. You have not done so yet.
And once again as the great Hitch pointed out, "Claims made without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence". Your claims are dismissed until you learn how to link properly.
You should have already read the links you boofhead. Others have posted them. Stop being a dork, Subby.

I have already taken the point, anyway. You cannot present one shred of research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt/evolve without limits while there is plenty of reseach to demonstrate it cannot. All you lot will do is chase your tails, links or no links.

Seeing as you've lost that point, what would you like to talk about next?

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#105789 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have already read the links you boofhead. Others have posted them. Stop being a dork, Subby.
I have already taken the point, anyway. You cannot present one shred of research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt/evolve without limits while there is plenty of reseach to demonstrate it cannot. All you lot will do is chase your tails, links or no links.
Seeing as you've lost that point, what would you like to talk about next?
Let's talk about how you are wrong about this one ?
Of course everything has limits within a perspective, but there is no limit to how far a genome can evolve over time.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105790 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have already read the links you boofhead. Others have posted them. Stop being a dork, Subby.
I have already taken the point, anyway. You cannot present one shred of research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt/evolve without limits while there is plenty of reseach to demonstrate it cannot. All you lot will do is chase your tails, links or no links.
Seeing as you've lost that point, what would you like to talk about next?
I'm a boofhead?

Who is the one that cannot perform the simple task of making a link? Seriously, kids that can barely read can create links.

I do not want to be accused of addressing the wrong article. All I request is that if YOU want to use an article to base your claims upon then it is up to YOU to provide the link.

If I use an article in a debate you can bet that I will present a link. And yes, I have occasionally screwed up a link in the past, but it has been quite a while since I did so. When you have linked correctly in the past I have had no problem debunking your nonsense why do you think I would have any problem today?

So bring on your claims. Bring on your proper links and we can debate. If you need a hint on how to link I am sure I or others can help you here.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105791 Nov 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Let's talk about how you are wrong about this one ?
Of course everything has limits within a perspective, but there is no limit to how far a genome can evolve over time.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...
That link is a great flop Aura. This is the sort of rubbish you evos like to misrepresent and shove down creos throats, adnauseum.

You need to go back and do BIO101 again.

Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...

The lab and nature demonstrates adaptation within species level, NOT ABOVE. That remains a fact regardless of scientists need to give a name to every variation.

I have taken the point Aura.

Evolutionists do not have any research that suggests the genome can adapt endlessly for billions of years. All you can do is post this sort of misrepresentation and hope every one here is too stupid and uneducated to realize it.

Now what would you like to talk about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105792 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That link is a great flop Aura. This is the sort of rubbish you evos like to misrepresent and shove down creos throats, adnauseum.
You need to go back and do BIO101 again.
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
The lab and nature demonstrates adaptation within species level, NOT ABOVE. That remains a fact regardless of scientists need to give a name to every variation.
I have taken the point Aura.
Evolutionists do not have any research that suggests the genome can adapt endlessly for billions of years. All you can do is post this sort of misrepresentation and hope every one here is too stupid and uneducated to realize it.
Now what would you like to talk about.
Hey!! Maz finally created a link. Too bad it does not support her claims. The abstract only states the obvious that religious beliefs disagree with scientific beliefs. Of course there is no or at the very best very poor evidence for religious beliefs while scientific beliefs have all sorts of supporting evidence.

Now Maz, except for incorrectly claiming a victory do you have a point here? Yes, it is hard to document the actual evolution of a major organ, such as an eye. We can model some of their evolution with the aid of computers. All that is needed is to know the general mutation rate, a measurable quantity, the time for a generation, and a rough estimate of the population and we can estimate the time for an organ to evolve.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105793 Nov 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a boofhead?
Who is the one that cannot perform the simple task of making a link? Seriously, kids that can barely read can create links.
I do not want to be accused of addressing the wrong article. All I request is that if YOU want to use an article to base your claims upon then it is up to YOU to provide the link.
If I use an article in a debate you can bet that I will present a link. And yes, I have occasionally screwed up a link in the past, but it has been quite a while since I did so. When you have linked correctly in the past I have had no problem debunking your nonsense why do you think I would have any problem today?
So bring on your claims. Bring on your proper links and we can debate. If you need a hint on how to link I am sure I or others can help you here.
Yes you are the boof Subby. The correct links have been posted for you too read and if I bother to redo them I would only get hubris from you again anyway.

Every single bit of recent research Evos come up with gives every indication the genome is NOT designed to adapt endlessley. You lot should have realized it as soon as you stumbled on mutations being mostly deleterious. But OH NO, that would disprove TOE, so off they go with their stupid models full of guess work for insertion values and viola, suddenly the odd benificial mutation is majorly swept. Rubbish. You now have research that suggests even beneficial mutations come together to produce negative epistasis.

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

I'll say it again, I have taken the point. I am not going to dribble on with you, adnauseum, forever over one point.

Would you like to talk about something else?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105794 Nov 13, 2013
Zamarra wrote:
<quoted text>
My other points I will defend later if I get to it, but I think on this one you may have misunderstood me. What I mean about insulting people you disagree with was NOT only aimed at evolutionists. I recognize that all types of people do it, whether "recipient" or whatever else. I apologize if I phrased that part poorly.
It's okay, creationists insult us, we insult them, they threaten us with eternal damnation. Ya know, the usual. Pretty soon you develop a thick skin around here.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#105795 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That link is a great flop Aura. This is the sort of rubbish you evos like to misrepresent and shove down creos throats, adnauseum.
You need to go back and do BIO101 again.
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
The lab and nature demonstrates adaptation within species level, NOT ABOVE. That remains a fact regardless of scientists need to give a name to every variation.
I have taken the point Aura.
Evolutionists do not have any research that suggests the genome can adapt endlessly for billions of years. All you can do is post this sort of misrepresentation and hope every one here is too stupid and uneducated to realize it.
Now what would you like to talk about.
Yes and you have said very little more than you protest evolution, and shown us absolutely nothing. Fact remains evolution is a strong theory is backed up by a hundred fifty years of research confirming it.
It has also stood up to 150 years of whining by people like you who cannot show it is wrong despite your best efforts.
Which btw if this is your best effort ...it's pathetic.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105796 Nov 13, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, I show documented evidence of a massive fossil deposit like the Karoo, then you make the comment- "only one in a million or billion", are found? and "Very few bones become fossils"? We need to take you back in front of an audience. There are other pics of the Karoo, you are ignoring direct evidence that falsifies your comments weather you like the links or not. That's why they have juries.
Uh, yeah. And out of all the times evolution and creationism battled in court, when was the last time you guys won again?

Oh yeah - 1925.

You guys just keep "forgetting" to bring all this evidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105797 Nov 13, 2013
SBT wrote:
Via the mechanism we can now see working.
Which is?
SBT wrote:
The same where we see no possibility of accidents to explain cell operation and DNA origin, simply because evolution says we should.
Except that's not evolution's claim is it? But no matter how many times you are corrected on this you still argue against the same old straw-men instead of dealing with reality. That's WHY you keep losing.
SBT wrote:
You folks act like we are still in the 19th century attached to the notion spontaneous generation. We are not, we are in the 21st century and the microscopes have proved the old all wrong.
But you ARE still in the 19th century, believing in spontaneous generation. That's the DEFINITION of creationism.

As a matter of fact 19th century is still a few centuries (at least) ahead of you.
SBT wrote:
You contrive more and more elaborate stories, deny complexity and design to the point where you have lost all touch with reality.
On the contrary, despite the fact I have asked you numerous times over to demonstrate these claims, you have refused.
SBT wrote:
As for the fossil you mention, feathers, perching feet and hollow bones come from birds, now found in soft tissue.
That's nice. Of course this doesn't address the hypothesis of common ancestry. Coming at it separately using the Earth's age as an issue only undercuts your own arguments against evolution, because the very same objections you level at US apply EQUALLY to YOU.

But as you fundies are massive hypocrites literally every position you take requires you to be allowed special exceptions.

I agree. And that's WHY your position ain't science. Evidence is irrelevant to your position.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#105798 Nov 13, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That again i know, but that does not makes English French or even German. Still many French men or women, are dying to understand the English language, the same with the Germans. English is a universal language that many of those nations mentioned by you, are dying to learn. So, stop the shit and learn.
In the NWO, English will be the universal language, it is the most widely spoken second language in the world. "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent". Zephaniah 3:9. This common language will unite the inhabitants of the earth.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105799 Nov 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a boofhead?
Who is the one that cannot perform the simple task of making a link? Seriously, kids that can barely read can create links.
I do not want to be accused of addressing the wrong article. All I request is that if YOU want to use an article to base your claims upon then it is up to YOU to provide the link.
If I use an article in a debate you can bet that I will present a link. And yes, I have occasionally screwed up a link in the past, but it has been quite a while since I did so. When you have linked correctly in the past I have had no problem debunking your nonsense why do you think I would have any problem today?
So bring on your claims. Bring on your proper links and we can debate. If you need a hint on how to link I am sure I or others can help you here.
I can't see my reply to you so I'll do a quick repost.

This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

I am taking the point, because like Aura all you will do is chase your tail instead of presenting this golden research you lot reckon you have so much of to support your dogma.

None of your research supports the genomes ability to adapt without limits. Indeed all your research demonstrates the opposite of this claim.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105800 Nov 13, 2013
SBT wrote:
So you would be quite happy with a half done clotting system? Tell God to take yours back or thank Him for it is my point.
You don't HAVE a point.

If you did you will have made it by now. Now you dropped your faux science in favour of preaching. Preaching is spam.

This is why you're not taken seriously.
SBT wrote:
God made us
First of all you have zero scientific evidence that such an entity exists.

Despite this I am quite open to such a possibility. The only problem is that you are NOT open to the possibility it did things totally different to how you think it did.

In the meantime I point out that it's irrelevant to the validity of science anyway.
SBT wrote:
and said it was all "Very Good", and that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made". I don't see any biblical contradiction.
That's because you're a hypocrite. God made a mess in the Garden, blamed it on the kids, and more junk followed. This inevitably leads you to postulating two separate arguments which cannot co-exist simultaneously with evidence. Like many other things this has been pointed out to you for many weeks, and to many other creationists for many years. As usual you ignore it and repeat arguments we've already debunked.
SBT wrote:
Half the posters on this site think they came from nothing
Only if YOU make up bullshit. Try addressing people's posts for once.
SBT wrote:
yet enjoy the health and protections God incorporated into our bodies, the design of senses and emotions, ability to laugh and love yet mock their maker yet fail to make a single hair on their heads - brilliant.
We cannot mock something that you can't show exists. Make no mistake bub, it's creationists who are being mocked all the way. If such a thing as the Almighty exists, it is WAY beyond all that.

Hence nothing for anyone to worry about.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105801 Nov 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes and you have said very little more than you protest evolution, and shown us absolutely nothing. Fact remains evolution is a strong theory is backed up by a hundred fifty years of research confirming it.
It has also stood up to 150 years of whining by people like you who cannot show it is wrong despite your best efforts.
Which btw if this is your best effort ...it's pathetic.
Your link was a flop. Go stick your head back in the sand.

You have 150 years of falsifications and change to offer eg human knuckle walking ancestry and junk DNA. Get back in your box.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105802 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have already read the links you boofhead. Others have posted them. Stop being a dork, Subby.
I have already taken the point, anyway. You cannot present one shred of research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt/evolve without limits while there is plenty of reseach to demonstrate it cannot. All you lot will do is chase your tails, links or no links.
Seeing as you've lost that point, what would you like to talk about next?
Considering that you were unable to demonstrate the point, and in fact never addressed any of the evidence *we* have posted for evolution in the past, AND couple that with the fact the very premise of your position undermines EVERY single post you ever make, I really do not see how we have lost at all.(shrug)

Just throw us an appeal to Pascal and be done with it. God already knows you're lying.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105803 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That link is a great flop Aura. This is the sort of rubbish you evos like to misrepresent and shove down creos throats, adnauseum.
You need to go back and do BIO101 again.
Back to the store for more irony meters.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105804 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Every single bit of recent research Evos come up with gives every indication the genome is NOT designed
Correct.

Wow! You actually got something right!
MazHere wrote:
You lot should have realized it as soon as you stumbled on mutations being mostly deleterious.
Oh nay hosay, mutations do not exist. The genome is 100% functional, remember?

No?

Oh darn. In that case it totally wipes out all evidence of your Garden of Eden claims.
MazHere wrote:
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
Which not only does not address the whole picture, but also ignores that this does NOT falsify evolution, as the evolutionary biologists who did all the work that you didn't bother using methods you reject for theological reasons anyway indicate. Not to mention the fact that we have not yet hit this mythical creationist critical mass point where evolution no longer occurs, which of course is irrelevant to the fact that 3.5 billion years of evolution already HAS occurred.
MazHere wrote:
I'll say it again, I have taken the point. I am not going to dribble on with you, adnauseum, forever over one point.
Would you like to talk about something else?
Dribbling is all you have ever done. This thread is nothing more than your bib. Most grown-ups kinda grow out of the need past the age of three.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105805 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't see my reply to you so I'll do a quick repost.
Unnecessary. None of your spam, lies and misrepresentations matter anymore since you already let slip the pseudo-scientific nature of your position. Give a fundie a shotgun and they will ALWAYS shoot themselves in the foot. You did that to yourself ages ago.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105806 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link was a flop.
Your entire position was a flop. Creationists have been overtaken by reality for centuries and they are obsessed with returning to the Dark Ages. You ever get around to figuring out how invisible Jew-wizards pass the scientific method yet? Thought so.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105807 Nov 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't see my reply to you so I'll do a quick repost.
This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
I am taking the point, because like Aura all you will do is chase your tail instead of presenting this golden research you lot reckon you have so much of to support your dogma.
None of your research supports the genomes ability to adapt without limits. Indeed all your research demonstrates the opposite of this claim.
It is hand holding time where we have to guide Maz through the articles that she misunderstands.

Okay, the first article is not a critique of human evolution. It points out the difference between hominid evolution and evolution of mice and rats. The population of mice and rats is very large. Just go out in nature and try to count the number in an area and you will find a natural population of hundreds if not thousands or more per square mile where the population of humans before modern agriculture was less than one per square mile even in the densest populations. There are two results of these population differences. Humans evolved much quicker, and they kept more bad mutations. Large populations eliminate bad mutations before they can become "fixed" in the genome. That is all that first article was about.

Okay, on to the next article.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 152,313
Science News (Sep '13) 7 hr Voyeur 3,629
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 hr River Tam 20,327
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Thu SoE 45,560
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web