Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216597 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 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60748 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
timm17..my reply
removed for space
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but you are stupid.

Your "introduction" is babble, and I don't even know what you're talking about.

1) Junk dna does not matter. Find a source that claims it actually negates the theory of evolution. It was a bad prediction, that's it. It means nothing.

2) Are you kidding me? You think the hallmark of a good theory is that it never changes? Yes, the overall "theory" of evolution itself (common descent) should not, and will not change - but it's ludacris to expect for the details of the theory to remain exactly the same, forever. Do you know how much has changed since Darwin's time? It's practically a different theory, and that's a good thing. It's a robust theory that can stand up to scrutiny. I'm done with this stupid back and forth about junk dna and evolution - either present an alternate theory that stands on it's own, or stop poking holes. It doesn't help your case.

3)Now to the crux of the matter. I am astounded that you still haven't realized your error. Re read what you posted. The sequence - 5'-CCCTAA-3 - was what they expected to find on the fusion site. It was the opposite of what they would have expected on a *normal* chromosome - but since this is a fusion with back to back vestigal telomeres and two centromeres - it was the opposite - which supports the "fusion hypothesis." How can you not understand that? The site that you quoted agrees with me! The fact that the sequence is different from what you would find on a non fused chromosome supports the fact that 22 is a fusion.

Whether or not the dna contained in the chromosomes matches up exactly does not matter - we would not expect it to be an exact match since we have been evolving for a long time after the fusion event. It is very similar though, and the fusion corresponds nicely with the two hominid chromosomes that produced the fusion.

And you are completely ignoring the other piece of major evidence - the presence of an extra set of telomeres and centromeres. No other chromosome has vestigal telomeres and centromeres - only 22. There are two telomeres in the middle where the centromeres should be - suggesting an end to end fusion, and there are two centromeres in between each set of telomeres. How else could that have happened? How could such an anomalous thing occur without a fusion?

Why do you think telomere length matters with respect to whether or not a fusion occurred? It doesn't.

Finally, please, before you make a fool of yourself again - go back and read the quote you posted about sequence 5'-CCCTAA-3. You will see, hopefully, that it supports my argument. That sequence is the reverse of what they would have found on a non fused, normal chromosome - and the fact that it's reversed is proof for fusion. Stop posting things you don't understand. It makes you look really dumb.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60749 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I never heard about junk DNA before seeing this forum. It couldn't have been that big of a deal.
2. The abstractions behind the theory of Evolution don't change. The understanding of the actual mechanisms has changed. There's a lot to account for!
3. I'm pretty sure you don't understand what telomeres are and how they would manifest themselves in the case of two chromosomes combining. What was stated was NOT "the reverse of what would be expected". It was that you normally see a code string of "ABC" at the telomere. What you see in the middle of chromosome 2 is "ABCCBA". You're reading it wrong.
Stick to layman publications for a change!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
Exactly. You did a better job of explaining it than I did.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#60750 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Let's also not forget that 80% of genomic expression separates chimp from man?
80% of genomic expression or 80% of the genome? 100% function or 80%?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60751 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
if you have never heard about junk dna I am done talking to you. I am not interested in a discussion with an uneducated fool that suggests I am the incompetent one.
Human telomeres, with the exception of those in human sperm, are much shorter than telomeres in non-human primates. While human telomeres are shorter overall, there are gene families within telomeric regions, such as the KIR family, that have undergone human lineage specific duplication, have unique locations in telomeres in humans, and have undergone recombination and conversion events.
http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/tel...
Well above is a published article that Wiki has not caught up with yet. That is why Wiki is a good place for fools like you to start.

So you actually know nothing about DNA. Classic. Being able to quote an off topic journal article is not evidence that you know anything. In fact, it is good evidence to the contrary.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#60752 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice.
From your link:
"human-specific large-scale duplication events since the Homo-Pan split."
I don't suppose you know what Homo-Pan refers to? Pan is the scientific equivalent of Chimpanzee.
Do you like stepping on landmines?
It all supports creationism even when it doesn't support creationism so when it supports creationism the evolutionary biologists are right and when it doesn't support creationism the evolutionary biologists are just wrong. And yes, he can refer to evidence that shouldn't even exist before the Earth's creation 6-10,000 years ago!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#60753 Nov 24, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I like to see. Point by point refutations. Very well done.
Taken from over a number of posts I'll admit, no-one has time to go point for point on an entire Gish-gallop spamming fest. But it goes to show he does have a habit of dancing around all over the place and skipping the inconvenient.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60754 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I quacker I am? Nuff said.
Good night.
http://www.icr.org/article/6089/372/

The fusion of 2 ape chromosmes into one is speculative, is not the same at all as chimp 2a & 2b, and not evidence for mans ape ancestry at all.

How do you suppose these mathematical algorithms 'see' the remnants of telomeres?

The reverse complement telomere sequence (CCCTAA) should be present in near-perfect tandem to the right of the fusion site. Like the TTAGGG motif, one would expect approximately 1667 to 2500 CCCTAA motifs if an end-to-end fusion occurred. However, only 136 intact motifs exist to the right of the fusion site, with the last CCCTAA on the BAC clone terminating at 64,221 bases to the right of the fusion (table 1). Again, this very generous stretch of sequence is much longer than a normal human telomere, and contains a paucity of motifs. In similar fashion to the TTAGGG forward motif, the CCCTAA motif was also located on both sides of the fusion site. Our analysis located a total of 18 occurrences of the CCCTAA motif (12% of the total) scattered throughout the opposite side of the fusion site, where it would not be expected to be found. In other words, both the forward and reverse complement of the telomere motif populate both sides of the fusion site. As a side note, the GC content of the 177 kb region encompassing the putative fusion site is significantly higher (45%) than the average (40%) for chromosome 2 (table 2).

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2

Well respected John Sanford evo turned YEC, with over 40 published papers, assisted in the research above. Feel free to critique the work with more than your opinion.

It appears that this algorithmic magic can find whatever one needs to find!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#60755 Nov 24, 2012
Hey Maz! What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?

When will you finally grasp that this one very simple point completely obliterates anything you can come up with?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60756 Nov 24, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but you are stupid.
Your "introduction" is babble, and I don't even know what you're talking about.
1) Junk dna does not matter. Find a source that claims it actually negates the theory of evolution. It was a bad prediction, that's it. It means nothing.
2) Are you kidding me? You think the hallmark of a good theory is that it never changes? Yes, the overall "theory" of evolution itself (common descent) should not, and will not change - but it's ludacris to expect for the details of the theory to remain exactly the same, forever. Do you know how much has changed since Darwin's time? It's practically a different theory, and that's a good thing. It's a robust theory that can stand up to scrutiny. I'm done with this stupid back and forth about junk dna and evolution - either present an alternate theory that stands on it's own, or stop poking holes. It doesn't help your case.
3)Now to the crux of the matter. I am astounded that you still haven't realized your error. Re read what you posted. The sequence - 5'-CCCTAA-3 - was what they expected to find on the fusion site. It was the opposite of what they would have expected on a *normal* chromosome - but since this is a fusion with back to back vestigal telomeres and two centromeres - it was the opposite - which supports the "fusion hypothesis." How can you not understand that? The site that you quoted agrees with me! The fact that the sequence is different from what you would find on a non fused chromosome supports the fact that 22 is a fusion.
Whether or not the dna contained in the chromosomes matches up exactly does not matter - we would not expect it to be an exact match since we have been evolving for a long time after the fusion event. It is very similar though, and the fusion corresponds nicely with the two hominid chromosomes that produced the fusion.
And you are completely ignoring the other piece of major evidence - the presence of an extra set of telomeres and centromeres. No other chromosome has vestigal telomeres and centromeres - only 22. There are two telomeres in the middle where the centromeres should be - suggesting an end to end fusion, and there are two centromeres in between each set of telomeres. How else could that have happened? How could such an anomalous thing occur without a fusion?
Why do you think telomere length matters with respect to whether or not a fusion occurred? It doesn't.
Finally, please, before you make a fool of yourself again - go back and read the quote you posted about sequence 5'-CCCTAA-3. You will see, hopefully, that it supports my argument. That sequence is the reverse of what they would have found on a non fused, normal chromosome - and the fact that it's reversed is proof for fusion. Stop posting things you don't understand. It makes you look really dumb.

Yep, the jig is up. Mazhere does not have a clue as to what she is talking about. Better keep it on the down-low as she is also clueless about being clueless.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60757 Nov 24, 2012
Sorry, accidentally typing "22" instead of "2"

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60758 Nov 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It all supports creationism even when it doesn't support creationism so when it supports creationism the evolutionary biologists are right and when it doesn't support creationism the evolutionary biologists are just wrong. And yes, he can refer to evidence that shouldn't even exist before the Earth's creation 6-10,000 years ago!
Yeah, just like junk dna supports evolution up until it doesn't. The same as single celled LUCA was supposed to and the same as human knuckle walking wrist bones also told a story up until it didn't.

This is gobble science. You may argue my supports are not better, but you present as an inculcated fool to suggest that evos can present better and more stable supports for their changing views.

The point being as I have always maintained that what creos have on offer to support their paradigm could not be worse than the dribble and instability evos have on offer.

The problem with evos and likely the reason they strutt around like they belong in a biology lab while suggesting creos don't, is because they are all too stupid to understand that really their libraries of woffle amount to not much at all.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60759 Nov 24, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, the jig is up. Mazhere does not have a clue as to what she is talking about. Better keep it on the down-low as she is also clueless about being clueless.
Look fu,k head. How about you try to refute Sanfords work on ch2?

You crapped out on junk dna and now you are going to try to goose your way out of the latest challenge.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60760 Nov 24, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I like to see. Point by point refutations. Very well done.
Oh piss off. These fools are always talking about their great posts and can never requote them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60761 Nov 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
Hey Maz! What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
When will you finally grasp that this one very simple point completely obliterates anything you can come up with?
And of course the lack of a scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, or even a scientific model of creationism means that there can be by definition, no scientific evidence for creationism. That is not the fault of people who believe the theory of evolution. The fact that creationists are too afraid to come up with a testable and therefore refutable model is their own.

It seems that you would be hard pressed to find anything that irritates a creationist more than that simple fact: All scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution. None of it supports creationism.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60762 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.icr.org/article/6089/372/
The fusion of 2 ape chromosmes into one is speculative, is not the same at all as chimp 2a & 2b, and not evidence for mans ape ancestry at all.
How do you suppose these mathematical algorithms 'see' the remnants of telomeres?
The reverse complement telomere sequence (CCCTAA) should be present in near-perfect tandem to the right of the fusion site. Like the TTAGGG motif, one would expect approximately 1667 to 2500 CCCTAA motifs if an end-to-end fusion occurred. However, only 136 intact motifs exist to the right of the fusion site, with the last CCCTAA on the BAC clone terminating at 64,221 bases to the right of the fusion (table 1). Again, this very generous stretch of sequence is much longer than a normal human telomere, and contains a paucity of motifs. In similar fashion to the TTAGGG forward motif, the CCCTAA motif was also located on both sides of the fusion site. Our analysis located a total of 18 occurrences of the CCCTAA motif (12% of the total) scattered throughout the opposite side of the fusion site, where it would not be expected to be found. In other words, both the forward and reverse complement of the telomere motif populate both sides of the fusion site. As a side note, the GC content of the 177 kb region encompassing the putative fusion site is significantly higher (45%) than the average (40%) for chromosome 2 (table 2).
http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2
Well respected John Sanford evo turned YEC, with over 40 published papers, assisted in the research above. Feel free to critique the work with more than your opinion.
It appears that this algorithmic magic can find whatever one needs to find!
And do you have anything from a non apologist site? No, you don't.

Do you really think that they just "guess" that the vestigal telomeres and centromeres are there? Our genome has been sequenced for a long time - it's easy to tell where centromeres and telomeres are located.

You should move on from this line of argument. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper and you are clearly out of your element. You don't have a clue what you're talking about - which is how you ended up posting evidence for me. Hilarious.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60763 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.icr.org/article/6089/372/
The fusion of 2 ape chromosmes into one is speculative, is not the same at all as chimp 2a & 2b, and not evidence for mans ape ancestry at all.
How do you suppose these mathematical algorithms 'see' the remnants of telomeres?
The reverse complement telomere sequence (CCCTAA) should be present in near-perfect tandem to the right of the fusion site. Like the TTAGGG motif, one would expect approximately 1667 to 2500 CCCTAA motifs if an end-to-end fusion occurred. However, only 136 intact motifs exist to the right of the fusion site, with the last CCCTAA on the BAC clone terminating at 64,221 bases to the right of the fusion (table 1). Again, this very generous stretch of sequence is much longer than a normal human telomere, and contains a paucity of motifs. In similar fashion to the TTAGGG forward motif, the CCCTAA motif was also located on both sides of the fusion site. Our analysis located a total of 18 occurrences of the CCCTAA motif (12% of the total) scattered throughout the opposite side of the fusion site, where it would not be expected to be found. In other words, both the forward and reverse complement of the telomere motif populate both sides of the fusion site. As a side note, the GC content of the 177 kb region encompassing the putative fusion site is significantly higher (45%) than the average (40%) for chromosome 2 (table 2).
http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2
Well respected John Sanford evo turned YEC, with over 40 published papers, assisted in the research above. Feel free to critique the work with more than your opinion.
It appears that this algorithmic magic can find whatever one needs to find!
Come on loud mouths.. refute this above with your own algorithmic magic.

One fool admitted to being about as educated as a bat in not even having heard of junk dna. Are there any other pretenders that would like to take this on or would you all just rather quack amongst yourselves as usual.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60764 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Look fu,k head. How about you try to refute Sanfords work on ch2?
You crapped out on junk dna and now you are going to try to goose your way out of the latest challenge.
Do you think that his "work" is even worthy of mention? He is a creationist. By definition, he is biased. He starts with a conclusion, and he tweaks the data and the observations until he gets the results that he wants. Any claim he makes is automatically dismissed because he has an agenda.

Find something from a non biased source that claims that chromosome 2 is not a fusion. You won't.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60765 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course the lack of a scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, or even a scientific model of creationism means that there can be by definition, no scientific evidence for creationism. That is not the fault of people who believe the theory of evolution. The fact that creationists are too afraid to come up with a testable and therefore refutable model is their own.
It seems that you would be hard pressed to find anything that irritates a creationist more than that simple fact: All scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution. None of it supports creationism.
The fact appears to be that evos shove their irrefuteable evidence at creos, and it always turns to shit. Those are the facts, and that is what you are so proud of.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60766 Nov 24, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, the jig is up. Mazhere does not have a clue as to what she is talking about. Better keep it on the down-low as she is also clueless about being clueless.
Yep. That is quite clear now. She's basically a sentient spam bot. She has one agenda, and no matter what, she cherry picks data she doesn't understand, spams it over and over again, and makes unfounded, ridiculous claims about it. She has so little clue she often times posts things that damage her argument without realizing it, even after it's pointed out to her. She's either stubborn or really, really stupid.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60767 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on loud mouths.. refute this above with your own algorithmic magic.
One fool admitted to being about as educated as a bat in not even having heard of junk dna. Are there any other pretenders that would like to take this on or would you all just rather quack amongst yourselves as usual.
"Take" what on? NO ONE CARES about junk dna. God you are obstinate. Dunning Krueger effect.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 min Princess Hey 148,372
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 11 min Sam 66,968
News Weird substance discovered in new A 5 notes - a... 11 min Knock off purse s... 21
Words "with more than one meaning" (Sep '12) 14 min Old Sam 504
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 14 min Princess Hey 1,544
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 22 min liam cul8r 1,446
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 25 min Crazy Beautiful 6,007
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 40 min T Bone 206,689
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 1 hr John Schanahan 945
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 2 hr Suezanne 10,552
More from around the web