Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106755 Nov 23, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
But subzone and danfromsmithville say he is a transitional/intermediate species of modern humans. And yes I agree. Lack of evidence of the specimen they don't know where Java man fits in or how to classify him.

They are guessing based on the erectus classification, but that is not decisive in this case. It's like a body identification, you cant hardly prove identity with so few body parts, so it is basically like an unsolved and open case.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106756 Nov 23, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just lying. You said the first vertebrae fossil is 500myo and the first vertebrae fossil would be considered a transitional fossil to my question of vertebrae fossils are a transitional fossil to modern man.
You and danfromsmithville are playing a game and being dishonest. I don't have time for that silliness. Good night.
The only games being played are by you. You were given solid answers by everyone on here. You just obsessed on your own view as being the right one without defending that view properly.

I don't know why you obsessed on this point. I asked several times to explain how this impacts human evolution. I asked several times why a transitional form can't be consider so. I asked why a transitional form has to directly ancestral. I asked what you didn't understand about scientific classification. I didn't see any of that addressed.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106757 Nov 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
WE have been more than patient with you.
No one has played any games with you. You have constantly misunderstood extremely simple ideas. And then misquoted and claimed that we said things that we clearly did not say. Is it any wonder that we point out what an idiot you have been?
Go to bed and think. Maybe the lesson will have sunk in by the morning.
I doubt it. I think his next appearance will be a replay of this time.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106758 Nov 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>He has been classified as Homo erectus. Kong just gave you a link. Another link.
I guess I will have to replay this time and time again, Java man, Peking man, Homo erectus are all transitional forms between man and last common ancestor shared with apes, chimapanzee and bonobos. Since Peking man and Java man are classified as Homo erectus they are transitional forms even if the African population of Homo erectus lead directly to modern humans. Is that so hard to understand that you would need to beat your head on a wall for hours?
One very important thing was determined that virtually proves modern man evolved from an older species, even if we don't know exactly what that species was. it's clear it did happen when it was found some of us are indeed from ancestral lines older than modern humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...

This was linked to me not long ago showing me we aren't all related to the same Adam, a fact I didn't know. But what it does say clearly to me is that we are indeed a product of evolution , without a doubt.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106759 Nov 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
They are guessing based on the erectus classification, but that is not decisive in this case. It's like a body identification, you cant hardly prove identity with so few body parts, so it is basically like an unsolved and open case.
Well, it is more than a guess. As this chart shows Homo erectus was the only hominid fossil that has been found from roughly 0.75 mya to 1.5 mya ago a span of roughly 750,000 years:

http://www.google.com/imgres...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106760 Nov 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> One very important thing was determined that virtually proves modern man evolved from an older species, even if we don't know exactly what that species was. it's clear it did happen when it was found some of us are indeed from ancestral lines older than modern humans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...
This was linked to me not long ago showing me we aren't all related to the same Adam, a fact I didn't know. But what it does say clearly to me is that we are indeed a product of evolution , without a doubt.
I believe I have seen something about this recently. Maybe something Maat linked. I haven't read all of the article you linked yet, but I recall what I had read previously indicated a link between this y-chromosome and cancer. I will have to try and find that.

I agree that it shows evolution of our species. I see also that it mentions Neandrthals which have been a species of contention that apparently recent molecular evidence places it as a subspecies and not a valid species of human.

Thanks for the link Aura. I will have something to read more completely in the morning.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106761 Nov 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it is more than a guess. As this chart shows Homo erectus was the only hominid fossil that has been found from roughly 0.75 mya to 1.5 mya ago a span of roughly 750,000 years:
http://www.google.com/imgres...

I agree I was just answering the question why it wasn't classified scientifically and precisely. It's because there wasn't enough of it to do so, but the very best answer is given, it's a variation of some kind of erectus.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#106762 Nov 23, 2013
Sometimes a snake is just a snake.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you are going to get these guys to talk about this talking snake. Too Freudian for them.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106764 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have had enough of your sick and demented evos fluffing on forum. You are the one quote mining to detract from the substance of the article. You lying piece of excrement.
I can read as well as you can and the article states 80% functionality. A function is any function, be in regulatory or encoding.
You evos used to shove this rubbish about non functional junk down creos throats. Now you can suck eggs about it.
"The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."
So you would care to take your foot out of your mouth and tell us what prediction TOE makes around non coding DNA? Ha ha! The answer is you lot thought TOE predicted left over useless junk, but now you are back tracking into buffoonery. Can TOE make a predition or not??????
2. The genome will be found to be fully functional. A creator has no need to put junk in the genome as evos predicted. So far we are up to a definite 80% and well credentialled researchers eg Gingeras from ENCODE, fully expect that to rise to 100%.
Here is what the researcher said...
And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Just keep sucking eggs Chimney, and holding onto your faith, because all your struggling, accusations and tantrums are not going to change anything just because you know how to lie.
You can throw excrement out of you cage all you like.

The FACTS remain that:

Most of the "function" carried out be the DNA is useless coding of RNA and only 8% has been identified as having any necessary function.

Junk DNA is neither a core or necessary prediction of evolution. It is compatible with evolution though not with design, and that is what gets your knickers in a twist. If there was no junk DNA it would not be falsification though. You want falsification, start digging in real lfossil sites instead of quote mining the work of real scientists.

Maybe you will get lucky and find a mammal in the Permian.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106765 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Another page about to be spammed by evos that want to keep as far away from science as they can until they can when their rhetoric is exposed.
Every time evos look deeper into the genome they find restrictions to an orgaisms ability to adapt. Your wish list was to find beneficial mutations helping others along and more beneficial mutations than deleterious ones. Evos did not want to find a deteriorating genome. Evos did want to find evolutionary refuse. Where is your good news?
Despite all your biased and flawed research your data does nothing to bolster your claims but does bolster mine. Boo Hoo for you, like it or not. Your spamming won't change anything.
If humans and gorillas are 98% similar by some comparison, how can a credible chimp and gorilla comparison score less than this?
Comparative genomics is rubbish and based on false algorithmic magic that is only evidence of a prevailing bias, not reality.
So lets' get this straight, Dan & Swamp, the above claims are made, that has been backed by empirical research and the best you clowns can do is say BS.

I have news for you, pretenders extraordinaire, what you are now offering is a reflection of the scientific credibility behind TOE.

You have zilch to offer that actually reflects your evolutionary expectations and claims the genomes mirculous ability to servive billions of years of mutations that are deleterious, present negative epistasis and result in a deteriorating genome. What you can do is quack like a duck, flugg your feathers like a duck and make about as much scientific sense as a duck quacking on forum.

You have zilch to offer to make your comparative genomics worth any more than a comic book.

Gob smacked are you all? Good to see that smart butt replies are the best you sad and sorry evos have to offer.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106766 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
BS, is not an appropriate reply.
In this case, it is.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106767 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>DaaaAAaaamn!!!! And you accuse others of spamming
Funny that, huh?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106769 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that article is written by evolutionists as is the one relating to different molecular machinery. If you want to call evolutionary researchers work and claims spam, you are more than welcome to do so, oh bright one! LOL!
Not at all. It is your repeated posting of the same information over and over that is spam. Sorry that went over your pointy little head.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106770 Nov 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can throw excrement out of you cage all you like.
The FACTS remain that:
Most of the "function" carried out be the DNA is useless coding of RNA and only 8% has been identified as having any necessary function.
Junk DNA is neither a core or necessary prediction of evolution. It is compatible with evolution though not with design, and that is what gets your knickers in a twist. If there was no junk DNA it would not be falsification though. You want falsification, start digging in real lfossil sites instead of quote mining the work of real scientists.
Maybe you will get lucky and find a mammal in the Permian.
It appears that you are the excrement, pal, and unable to read as well.

So despite my presenting published research that claim function for 80% of the genome and quoting a researcher stating his expectation is that 100% of the genome will likely prove to have some function, you just want to quote your neanderthal science and keep blustering on. Good for you! However, I don't take morons like you seriously.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Despite your smart butt comments what you are saying is that TOE can make no prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality but creationists have made a prediction that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!

How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE, you simpleton?.

How can a chimp have more percentage dna in common with man than a gorilla or orang in comparative genomics?

Why is a whale genetically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic?

No answers? Go pull your head in.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106771 Nov 24, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. It is your repeated posting of the same information over and over that is spam. Sorry that went over your pointy little head.
..and I will keep posting it until you handwavers and denialists come up with some reply more intelligent than spam.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106772 Nov 24, 2013
I thought that Homo erectus was a gay man in a bath house

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106773 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..and I will keep posting it until you handwavers and denialists come up with some reply more intelligent than spam.
So you agree that you're a spammer. We already knew that.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106774 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
I thought that Homo erectus was a gay man in a bath house
More spam from these great evolutionary intellectuals..LOL!

Erectus/Turkana Boy are in the midst of a make over and may go to the bath house after that for some self soothing. You seem to be doing a good job of self soothing right where you are.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/g...

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106775 Nov 24, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
Homo erectus is a species.
I want a complete scientific classification of java man with links to support it.
Kingdom:
Phylum:
Class:
Order:
Family:
Tribe:
Genus:
Species
The only reason creation magicians are focusing on Java Man is because Dubois himself had doubts whether his discovery was of human lineage or in fact merely a large gibbon. Of course they over look the fact that if two species are that hard to tell apart they are probably closely related hence having a common distant heritage.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106776 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
More spam from these great evolutionary intellectuals..LOL!
Erectus/Turkana Boy are in the midst of a make over and may go to the bath house after that for some self soothing. You seem to be doing a good job of self soothing right where you are.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/g...
You are like the defense attorney who with no evidence of his clients innocence can only hope to focus on distorting and confusing the over whelming evidence against him. Maybe you should offer some proof of your magic wand theory other than some people several thousand years ago with almost no scientific knowledge believed it to be true

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) 43 min Aura Mytha 81,488
Did humans come from Sturgeons? 7 hr Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee 7 hr Science 1
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr Dogen 32,891
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 11 hr Dogen 2,187
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 hr Science 164,261
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web