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

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 ... Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105625 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
"KittenKoder" and her list of questions: Note again a ....
Somatic change and adapatation that is limited as all data supports.
What mathematical laws are derived from creationism that help benefit us?
About as many as TOE. None.
.....
Cropped your list of junk for space, not just because it's junk.

First, I asked what technology CREATIONISM has created, not what was invented by a creationist. Do you not get the difference?

Secondly, to the bit I left in:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1038
http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/CA/GA/GACirc...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...

There's a lot more where those came from. You should be careful making blind assertions, especially to someone who has dealt with using these algorithms in person.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105626 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the silly ones really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Funny how that "prediction" only came to be AFTER real scientists figured it out. Before then, there was no such prediction. Weird coincidence, eh?
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE is about to be thrown into that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Oh, wait, are these the "peer-reviewed articles" you promised? I though you were going to present PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES, not "peer-reviewed articles." Maybe you don't know the difference. ACTUAL SCIENCE appears in peer-reviewed articles. Apologetics, reality denial, and NUH UH! appear in "peer-reviewed articles." Any "peer-reviewed article" that doesn't follow the format of a REAL peer-reviewed article, and doesn't contain actual scientific experimentation, is NOT a real peer-reviewed article, but is rather sciency-sounding nonsense for the gullible to read so they can feel like science isn't leaving their Bronze Age superstitions in the dust.
MazHere wrote:
2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...
Misunderstanding of "vestigial" doesn't disprove evolutionary theory.
MazHere wrote:
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
How does birds appearing AFTER land-based tetrapods in the fossil record support the Bible's claim that they came BEFORE land-based tetrapods? Run that one by us again, please.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105627 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
What technology has been developed with the assistance of the creation theory?
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor
I'm just going to address this. Not a single thing you mentioned had to do with "creation theory." You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105628 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herring continued.
Really? Are you really this unable to support your world view? Why do you even hold it?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105629 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

Oh that's right! Deteriorating, become more compelex, less complex, no different, less choices, more choices, junk, not junk. It doesn't matter does it? It will all prove evolution, won't it.
TOE is a load of polly waffle.
What kills me is no matter what the evidence shows....it supports human from non-human evolution and they make things up as they go and slap the label "Scientific evidence on it" The scientific method be damned!!

"Evolution takes millions and millions of years to occur"....."What? The Cambrian explosion??"....Well, PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIUM!!!! Even though PE has never been observed or tested.......The origin of life?.......Life is much to complex to have evolved naturally?.....PANSPERMIA!!!!! Which has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up!!!!

Welcome to the group!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105630 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
What you fail to realize through those evogoggles is that if everything can be accommodated, no matter what surprises, anomalies and contradictions ones finds, then sweety, I hate to tell you the bad news, what you have is a philosophy, not a science. You have an 'anything goes' psuedo science at best.
I quite agree - a theory where everything is permissible is not a valid scientific theory.

Evolution is very specific in its predictions on the fossil record - nothing can appear before its possible antecedents, as that would violate the nested hierarchy.

Likewise the nested hierarchy of variation found within the genome must be consistent internally from test to test, AND consistent with the fossil record.

And in these tests, we find conformity with nature.

Junk/no junk is not a core prediction of evolution. Therefore its not a valid test. This does not mean there are no tests - it means you are basing your garbage on the wrong one!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105631 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Are you really this unable to support your world view? Why do you even hold it?
Her evading and ignoring my original topic, and posting red herrings, is actually her being unable to support her world view, that is the purpose of the red herring fallacy. So, you have that backwards, again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105632 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
“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...
And Birney himself admitted that "function" as he had reckoned it simply meant doing "something" even if that was coding useless RNA sequences. He also admitted that the necessary functional DNA - coding and control sequences for that coding, were probably going to end up at around 20%.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105633 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere Number 1:

If I understand MazHere correctly, she is arguing that humans carry more functional DNA than previously believed.
Therefore, the trend can be expected to continue to the point that junk DNA will be dismissed altogether.

I don't know how much of the cited study is true discovery and how much is mere deceptive word play, but let's give MazHere the benefit of the doubt and say that the research team has truly found important functions for DNA which had hitherto been dismissed as junk.
That still won't prove that junk DNA doesn't exist at all.
It would take more than that one study to prove that.
There is a biologist who claims to have bred birds with teeth by awakening DNA inherited from their reptilian ancestors.
If junk DNA doesn't explain this biologist's findings, I would like to know what does.

The extrapolation fallacy--I just love it.
On another forum in which I used to participate, there was a Creationist who gleefully reported to us any finding that a species was older than previously believed.
Apparently, if enough of these reports accumulated, that would prove that mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds all date from pre-Cambrian times.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105634 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What kills me is no matter what the evidence shows....it supports human from non-human evolution and they make things up as they go and slap the label "Scientific evidence on it" The scientific method be damned!!
"Evolution takes millions and millions of years to occur"....."What? The Cambrian explosion??"....Well, PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIUM!!!! Even though PE has never been observed or tested.......The origin of life?.......Life is much to complex to have evolved naturally?.....PANSPERMIA!!!!! Which has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up!!!!
Welcome to the group!
As you have been told many times, the Cambrian Period was around 50 million years long AND we find soft bodied multicellullar forms in the preceding Ediacaran.

Punctuated equilibrium merely means the rate of change is not steady. It does not mean "sudden". And it has been observed. Creatures introduced to new environments in historical periods have shown significant change in several generations as they adapted to a different environments. That is exactly what PE means. As they become re-optimised to the new environment, the rate of change will slow...until a new environmental change affects the equilibrium and the creatures adapt again (or go extinct).
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105635 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to tell you the bad news, what you have is a philosophy, not a science. You have an 'anything goes' psuedo science at best.
Very true! I've been saying that very same thing for years!!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105636 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do ou even know what youa re talking about, you dope.
On what planet are you getting your biology lessons on?
You haven't made a rebuttal yet. All you have done is fallen on your ass.
What went before? What the heck are you dribbling about?
Do you know what it is to articulate a response, dopey?
Hilarious. I made one crack about your pedophiliac parasitism on real science and get accused of all kinds of things for doing so.

And what do you call this empty load of verbiage?

Fitness is restored by natural selection, in direct contradiction of your claim that deterioration is inevitable. Muller's ratchet fails, Sanford fails, and you fail. As per the experimental evidence I provided a link to above.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105637 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have been told many times, the Cambrian Period was around 50 million years long AND we find soft bodied multicellullar forms in the preceding Ediacaran.
Punctuated equilibrium merely means the rate of change is not steady. It does not mean "sudden". And it has been observed. Creatures introduced to new environments in historical periods have shown significant change in several generations as they adapted to a different environments. That is exactly what PE means. As they become re-optimised to the new environment, the rate of change will slow...until a new environmental change affects the equilibrium and the creatures adapt again (or go extinct).
In your dreams. When the fossil evidence in the Cambrian displayed fully formed creatures with no evidence of a previous ancestor, suddenly PE was born to explain it!! No evidence to support that PE ever occurred, just a "made up" wild guess, and an unearned smug responce unbacked by the scientific method.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105638 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious. I made one crack about your pedophiliac parasitism on real science and get accused of all kinds of things for doing so.
And what do you call this empty load of verbiage?
Fitness is restored by natural selection, in direct contradiction of your claim that deterioration is inevitable. Muller's ratchet fails, Sanford fails, and you fail. As per the experimental evidence I provided a link to above.
You must be careful, they will even twist jokes or quips to their own vile needs if you give them room. It's the nature of the delusion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105639 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand that deterioration of the genome, eg accumulation of deleterious mutations, has NOTHING to do with non coding DNA being functional?
That shows how much you know. In fact the two items are strongly linked. IN the question of whether deleterious mutations must build up faster than they can be removed by natural selection, the specificity of the genome and how much of the genome is highly specific is critical.

If say 1% of the genome is highly specific, then 99 out of 100 point mutations will not matter at all. If 10% is highly specific, 9 out of 10 won't matter (and 1 in 10 will).

Getting closer to the point. 1.5% of the genome is actively coding. Does that mean all of that 1.5% is highly specific? Not at all. For example, 70% of cytochrome-c, a short ubiquitous protein, is hardly functional, to the point where wild variations in structure don't matter. It that is a proxy for proteins in general, then we can say that only 0.5% of the genome contains highly specific coding sequences.

Now onto the support/control structures. Lets say they are 10% highly specific and 90% low or non-specific. Then mutations affecting only the 10% that is highly specific will matter.

And of course, most will be neutral or deleterious, and only a few beneficial.

So the question in population genetics is, at the known rates of mutation accumulation, is the amount accumulated on the highly specific portions of the genome low enough for natural selection to prevent deterioration. Its not a question we can answer theoretically until we know exactly how much specificity is in the genome and what proportion of changes are really deleterious, neutral, or beneficial.

However, as posted, experimental results short cut that effort and show that fitness recovery occurs meaning the answer is - at least for the nematode and fruit fly, yes...natural selection works to clean up deterioration in the genome successfully.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105640 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere number 2:

So the appendix aids in digestion.
That I don't doubt.
But I still doubt that the appendix is exactly the same as the appendix bestowed upon Adam and Eve.

The original appendix was supposed to aid in the digestion of tree bark. We lost our taste for tree bark, so our appendices dwindled down to their present size.

This isn't the first time we've heard a Creationist argue that an alleged vestigial organ has been put to good use, and therefore could not be a vestigial organ.
When the topic of whale evolution comes up,
an Evolutionist sometimes announces that the whale carries a mammalian pelvis.
A Creationist usually replies that it couldn't be a mammalian pelvis, because whales use that organ for X-rated entertainment.

Either Creationist don't realize that a population cannot find a new use for a vestigial organ or they hope that we don't.
But you don't have to be an eminent scientist to know that wings on birds and arms on bipedal animals are modified forelimbs.

Look at how we use our body parts today, and then assume the Creationist premise.
The people of Genesis must have used their noses and ears to wear sunglasses.
They must have used their feet to press the gas pedal.
They must have used their fingers to type nasty notes on the Internet.

If you've had your appendix removed, then for goodness sake be sure not to eat any more tree bark.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105641 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In your dreams. When the fossil evidence in the Cambrian displayed fully formed creatures with no evidence of a previous ancestor, suddenly PE was born to explain it!! No evidence to support that PE ever occurred, just a "made up" wild guess, and an unearned smug responce unbacked by the scientific method.
Two points.

1. The Cambrian was revealed, for a long time, through the exclusive window of the Burgess Shale. Just because that is the only window, does not mean that all the creatures revealed there suddenly appeared at once.

2. PE was alluded to even by Darwin in his first book (though not by that name). So you can cut the crap. The first time I told you this over a year ago, I bothered to find the actual quotation supporting it. But since you repeat the lie, I cannot be bothered again. Gould made a lot of the point and brought it to the attention of evolutionary theorists, but it was already embodied in the theory.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105643 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere number 3, second reference:

Regarding bird evolution, MazHere gleefully claims that Evolutionists "have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet."

To support her claim, she links us to an article on the subject. Sure enough, the abstract for the article begins with a discussion of this problem. But MazHere must not have read as far as the end of the abstract, because it is there that the authors announce the finding of footprints in Argentina which shed light on this problem.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105644 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere numbers 4 and 5:

So epistasis (that's interaction of genes which do not arise by mutation), genome reduction (process whereby the set of genetic material shrinks relative to its ancestor), and environmental threats work to counteract Evolution!

That proves that Evolution doesn't exist?

All it takes is one little bitty magnet to lift a nail off a table. Yet gravity tries to pull everything toward the center of the earth.
So here we see magnetism counteracting gravity.
Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105645 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere number 6:

Here we see that the molecular clock has been reset slower than it had been set the first time.
I can't see what MazHere's point is here, unless it's that the Evolutionists were wrong the first time, so they must be dumb dodobirds for being wrong in the first place.
In fact, if we read this article for its implications for Creationism, we will have to say that it hurts Young Earth Creationism.
After all, the farther back we push the dates, the farther we get from Bishop Ussher's dates.

If MazHere is saying that scientists don't have the last word, I'm sure every scientist in the world will agree with her.
If scientists had the last word, there would be no reason for them to keep their labs open.
Nor would there be reason for the science journals to keep publishing findings that will take place next month, and the month after that, and the month after that.

If MazHere clings to a book which hasn't changed in two thousand years, she probably doesn't understand that.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min FREE SERVANT 142,970
Have you read the comments of avid evolutionist... (May '12) 2 hr Gillette 7
Question on complexity Common Sense says..... (May '12) 2 hr Gillette 18
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr macumazahn 14,717
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 5 hr ChromiuMan 966
Why natural selection can't work 21 hr shaun2000 29
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) Fri dirtclod 801
More from around the web