Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60703 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>...
The evidence is what the evidence is.
Sadly I already tried to explain to Mav and company what scientific evidence is. They agree with the concept until it is applied to evolution. Then suddenly the blinders go up.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

That all looks and seems fine to them until you use the evidence to support the theory of evolution. Then strangely it becomes no evidence at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60704 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok Suds, you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like. The fact is that only evomorons try to maintain that no creationist has appropriate qualifications to have made an informed choice to leave their TOE faith for another.
No Mav, you again did not get the point. The number of creationists is comparable at best to the number of scientists named "Steve". That is used to illustrate how foolishly stupid the claim that "many scientists have left the theory of evolution". Actually very few have. Let's switch it around to see if you understand:

Many scientists have the name "Steve". Actually no, the vast majority of scientists have some other name. The number of scientists with the name "Steve" is probably less than 1% of the total number of scientists.

No disrespect is meant for any scientist with the name of Steve in this post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60705 Nov 24, 2012
There will always be some deluded people in any subject. There are people who can actually do science that deny that man went to the Moon in 1969. Does that mean we never went to the Moon? Hardly. And so yes, if you grew up with fairy tales that had been pounded into your brain since birth, and there were supposed severe penalties for not believing those fairy tales, even some scientists who grew up under those conditions would continue to believe the fairy tales.

It is not unreasonable that you can find some scientists that support your silly superstition Mav. Does that make them believable or even competent to discuss your superstition, not in the least.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60706 Nov 24, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>What are your qualifications? If they are so great, you won't mind relating them to us.
She seems to like to go to scientific publication sites and misinterpret what is being published. I guess she figures that nobody will read her links so the bluff works.

For the most part, I just don't know how she gets from A to B with her links and since she talks like a trailer court citizen, I don't even ask.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60707 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't know about you but I walk on two legs.
2. I don't see anything about the "Gona Pelvis" that turns Evolution upside down.
3. I STILL don't know if "woffley" or whatever is a real word!
4. Lucy does show a link between humans and our common ancestors by virtue of the fact that she did walk bipedaly.
5. Ardipithicus did not POOF into having modern human feet. 700,000 years is a really long time. Homo Heidelbergensis was still the new kid on the block 700,000 years ago. Besides, those kinds of physiological changes can happen quickly as long as the motivational factors are there. For now, it's thought that Africa was going through some dramatic climate changes that reduced the forestland, compelling the species to adapt to life on the plains.
Everyone on this board has already dismissed incredulity as an argument. The evidence is what the evidence is.
You have 5 points above NONE of which are supported by anything more than "maz is wrong". You simply are disagreeing with me out of ignorance based on your most humble opinion. No links to suportive research to challenge a word I say means you loose by default again.

You lot absolutley have no idea how to support yourselves and you continue to provide proof of that claim.

Here and again, is what support looks like. You keep saying I am wrong but only offer some woffly opinion that could have originated in a comic strip for all I know.

An important finding in this study is that asymptomatic flat-footedness did not characterize the species Au. afarensis, and instead may just describe the foot of one specific female, Lucy. Two other distal tibiae from Hadar, Ethiopia, A.L. 333-6 and A.L. 333-7 (Figure 6), have distinctly human-like anteriorly directed sets to the distal tibia, implying the presence of rearfoot arching. These two individuals are more like the makers of the 3.6 Myr-old Laetoli footprints, argued to have been made by hominins possessing a well-developed longitudinal arch [11] but see [14].

As in humans today, Australopithecus exhibited variation in foot morphology and arch development. Despite having only preserved the talus and two phalanges, we suggest that it is the distal tibia that provides evidence for foot structure in the “Lucy” skeleton. Our findings suggest that this female Au. afarensis possessed an asymptomatic physiologic flatfoot, though two other tibiae from Hadar, Ethiopia suggest the presence of a rearfoot arch in this species. Whether flat-footedness was more common in early hominins will require additional fossil material, and identification of additional skeletal correlates of the longitudinal arch.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10....

Above is a link to published research that again suggest these researchers are grappling in the dark.

All the woffle above suggests that Lucy is not the maker of the Laetolli footprints and some other ape was. Just look at all the convolutions and conundrums these have had to consider and they all have to consider when speculating. All the woffle above and not one bit of it is actually speaking to any fossil toes. It is based on a couple of sets of footprints and Ardis toes and maybe one metatarsel.

700,000 years is not a long time at all from some ape like a gorilla in Ardi to morph into the human like sketches of Lucy offered to the public today with her human feet and overtly human hairless form? All based on 40% non colocated fossil pieces that were never found with feet.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60708 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
She seems to like to go to scientific publication sites and misinterpret what is being published. I guess she figures that nobody will read her links so the bluff works.
For the most part, I just don't know how she gets from A to B with her links and since she talks like a trailer court citizen, I don't even ask.
You do not understand my links and are still at the Wiki stage of basic and general knowledge.

I can prove it because all you ever have to offer is unsupported twoddle and ridicule what I bother to provide without any substance.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60709 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
There will always be some deluded people in any subject. There are people who can actually do science that deny that man went to the Moon in 1969. Does that mean we never went to the Moon? Hardly. And so yes, if you grew up with fairy tales that had been pounded into your brain since birth, and there were supposed severe penalties for not believing those fairy tales, even some scientists who grew up under those conditions would continue to believe the fairy tales.
It is not unreasonable that you can find some scientists that support your silly superstition Mav. Does that make them believable or even competent to discuss your superstition, not in the least.
Oh shut up and stop wasting space.

Defend this stupid little ape of yours that you want to talk about or has that become to burdensome for you as well.

You prefer to hear yourself twoddle on than look at the research I provide.

You lot have no intension of discussin the debate. All you wnat to do is hear yourselves prattle on.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60710 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being of course that I can supply links that you can ridicule without any more than your woffly opinion.
I understand perfectly well what I am talking about.
After our discussions in relation to junk dna I would say that absolutely none of you evos here know what you are talking about. That point has been well established.
You lot of idiots also whine when support is not supplied and then whine when research is supplied under the guise of quote mining.
The whole lot of you are nothing more than confused morons that have absolutely no idea what a considered debate should look like.
If you challenge what I say, then articulate an appropriate response with research that states otherwise, as opposed to the above vague woffle that means nothing other than in your opinion you disagree.
This is not hard in the evolutionary world because one can find conflicting and contradictory findings on the same thing, such is the beauty of evolutionary science. eg junk dna or no junk dna, Lucy is an obligate biped or no she isn't, bipedalism is solely a human trait or it isn't, Neanderthsal interbred with homo sapiens and no they didn't, erectus could talk or no they couldn't. You lot certianly know how to keep your eggs in more than one basket!
Are you a troll? That's the only explanation at this point that would explain how inexplicably oblivious you are to, well, everything. You still have yet to understand anything that has been said to you. A few questions:

1) Why do you keep going on about "junk" dna? It does not affect the TOE. Find one reputable source that claims that the fact that more of our genome is functional than previously thought invalidates, or even casts doubt on the TOE.

2) Why do you keep pointing out that the TOE changes over time to accommodate new observations? How is that a bad thing? It's *good* that scientists alter their conclusions based on the evidence, instead of cherry picking evidence to support their conclusions, which is the definition of "creation science."

3) How have you still not realized what a big mistake you made about chromosome 2? I told you to educate yourself before attempting to respond to me, but you stuck with your tired old strategy of copy/pasting everything without actually understanding what you're talking about. Let me explain it to you again, since you still haven't gotten it.

This is one of the passages you copy/pasted:

"Such sequences are also present In the human centromere (the middle of the chromosome), but at one point the order changes abruptly to 5'-CCCTAA-3', the reverse complement of the standard pattern, as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of ancestral ape-like chromosomes."

You claimed this as "proof" for your assertion that chromosome 2 is not a fusion. You said that this shows that "sequences... run counter to predicted in the fusion model." Now, if you had followed my advice and learned a little bit about this subject, you wouldn't have made such a grievous error. This supports *my* assertion, not yours, and the fact that you even posted it shows how little you understand what you're talking about.

The reason is supports fusion is really quite simple, and I thank you for providing such a compelling piece of evidence for fusion. This sequence (5'-CCCTAA-3) is the reverse complement of the standard pattern - which is what you would expect to find in a fusion. Get it? Probably not, or you wouldn't have posted evidence for me.

Other things you would expect to find in a fusion are vestigal telomeres - and there are 2 middle of chromosome 2,(they are usually on the ends) and a vestigal centromere (there is an extra centromere, 2 total, and both are in between each set of telomeres).

Additionally, chromosome 2 shares nearly identical dna with the two corresponding chimpanzee chromosomes that would eventually combine to form it.

Are you gonna actually respond, or spam some more?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#60711 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have evidence to prove God exists.
You're either hallucinating, on drugs, or seriously crazy...there is no God to prove the existence of.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60712 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have 5 points above NONE of which are supported by anything more than "maz is wrong". You simply are disagreeing with me out of ignorance based on your most humble opinion. No links to suportive research to challenge a word I say means you loose by default again.
You lot absolutley have no idea how to support yourselves and you continue to provide proof of that claim.
Here and again, is what support looks like. You keep saying I am wrong but only offer some woffly opinion that could have originated in a comic strip for all I know.
An important finding in this study is that asymptomatic flat-footedness did not characterize the species Au. afarensis, and instead may just describe the foot of one specific female, Lucy. Two other distal tibiae from Hadar, Ethiopia, A.L. 333-6 and A.L. 333-7 (Figure 6), have distinctly human-like anteriorly directed sets to the distal tibia, implying the presence of rearfoot arching. These two individuals are more like the makers of the 3.6 Myr-old Laetoli footprints, argued to have been made by hominins possessing a well-developed longitudinal arch [11] but see [14].
As in humans today, Australopithecus exhibited variation in foot morphology and arch development. Despite having only preserved the talus and two phalanges, we suggest that it is the distal tibia that provides evidence for foot structure in the “Lucy” skeleton. Our findings suggest that this female Au. afarensis possessed an asymptomatic physiologic flatfoot, though two other tibiae from Hadar, Ethiopia suggest the presence of a rearfoot arch in this species. Whether flat-footedness was more common in early hominins will require additional fossil material, and identification of additional skeletal correlates of the longitudinal arch.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10....
Above is a link to published research that again suggest these researchers are grappling in the dark.
All the woffle above suggests that Lucy is not the maker of the Laetolli footprints and some other ape was. Just look at all the convolutions and conundrums these have had to consider and they all have to consider when speculating. All the woffle above and not one bit of it is actually speaking to any fossil toes. It is based on a couple of sets of footprints and Ardis toes and maybe one metatarsel.
700,000 years is not a long time at all from some ape like a gorilla in Ardi to morph into the human like sketches of Lucy offered to the public today with her human feet and overtly human hairless form? All based on 40% non colocated fossil pieces that were never found with feet.
Forget about the sketches!

If examples of Afarensis statistically display a trait consistently, go with it! The Lucy find assumes bipedalism based on the pelvic and knee qualities. I don't think they even have foot bones for her.

The sketchers tend to fill in the gaps with what they do know. If they have evidence of a modern foot in Africanus, they'll take some artistic license and render Afarensis in a similar fashion. It's not the end of science. It's a pop culture presentation.
Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60713 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you keeping it a secret?
LOL, no, it is from the bibles historical accuracy and proof of Christs resurrection.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60714 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

You keep saying I have limited ability, yet I am the only one here that is able to post direct support for my assertions
You mean like when you post sources that directly contradict your arguments? Cause I like that, it's always good for a laugh.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60715 Nov 24, 2012
Mav, you must consider your sources. That last post came from an open access journal. Now in an ideal world all journals would be open access. Open access journals have much lower stringency requirements for publishing than true peer reviewed journals.

The reason for this is money.

Journals must make their money too and how they make their money affect the quality of their articles.

The best articles are found in peer reviewed scientific journals. The person submitting the article is not paid for their work. It is either a work of love, or very often today it can be from the publish or perish goad that professors and other professional scientists work under.

The source you linked was an Open Access journal. They get their money from the people publishing their articles in it. They claim to be peer reviewed, but when the author is footing the bill the peer review is not very deep.

Next are journals like Scientific American and others. They get their money from advertisers so they need to print articles that catch the public interest, are readable by the public, and don't piss off the advertisers.

Science that first appears in either of the latter two out of three that I listed is always looked at with skepticism until it goes through true peer review.

Your methodology here is to scan for any article anywhere that gives you some small hope that you are right. You tend to either misinterpret the articles that you link or find articles in very iffy sources.

That is just a friendly warning on what you are doing wrong.

There is a way to see how well respected a scientific journal is. A well respected journal has its articles quote by other journal writers. If a journal is heavily quoted from it is seen as a well respected journal. Usually independent articles are too hard to track, but if one is well quoted from that is an extremely well respected article. You can check out a journal's respectability before posting here.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60716 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not understand my links and are still at the Wiki stage of basic and general knowledge.
I can prove it because all you ever have to offer is unsupported twoddle and ridicule what I bother to provide without any substance.
You've got something to prove, don't you? We get a lot of people here who obviously lack scientific credentials but try to pose as scientists anyway.

I'm not too eager to coddle your fantasy nor do I derive pleasure in destroying it, but I won't indulge your belligerence.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60717 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, no, it is from the bibles historical accuracy and proof of Christs resurrection.
You're still not giving it up. I won't deny a small portion of the bible's historical accuracy but I've yet to hear of any proof of Christ's existence.
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#60718 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not understand my links and are still at the Wiki stage of basic and general knowledge.
.
LMAO
kristains say the darnest things!
Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60719 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still not giving it up. I won't deny a small portion of the bible's historical accuracy but I've yet to hear of any proof of Christ's existence.
Psychologically historical evidence exists as well as many other historical evidence pointing towards his resurrection.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60720 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh shut up and stop wasting space.
Defend this stupid little ape of yours that you want to talk about or has that become to burdensome for you as well.
You prefer to hear yourself twoddle on than look at the research I provide.
You lot have no intension of discussin the debate. All you wnat to do is hear yourselves prattle on.
You were the one who went off topic, not us. And then when your stupidity is illustrated fully you attack those who showed how your side trip was completely in error. Nice.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60721 Nov 24, 2012
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO
kristains say the darnest things!
It's kind of depressing. She's probably a college dropout who still thinks she can hang with the pros.

I don't make any great scholarly claims but I'm fairly sure that I can usually pick out the fakes. Real academics don't often hang out on Topix for one. They don't ever talk like they're in a sailor hangout. Most importantly, they don't go off half-cocked and criticize someone's work unless they are VERY sure that they have a good grasp on the subject.

Maz is all over the place. The poor scientists probably attract a lot of loonies. I imagine they miss out on some good ideas by closing the door on the weirdos with messianic complexes.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60722 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Psychologically historical evidence exists as well as many other historical evidence pointing towards his resurrection.
Psychologically historical evidence? Whatever that is, I doubt it's close enough to empirical evidence to be considered valid.

Now, if you were interested in that kind of interpretation of the bible, instead of a literal one, there may be something to discuss.

Generally though, I dismiss the Bible as being Caucasian-centric. It really doesn't have buzz in cultures that aren't centered around the Mediterranean and shaped by the Romans. The whole resurrection thing puts off outsiders.

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
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 3 min Hitesrunprincess 46,050
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 6 min whatimeisit 29,854
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 15 min whatimeisit 7,263
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 17 min Vector aka Victor... 3,947
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 34 min Grace Nerissa 36,922
30,000 post wins (May '13) 1 hr 40ish 1,968
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr Wolftracks 22,506
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Wolftracks 149,527
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 4 hr -Lea- 7,012
True or False Game 8 hr Old Sam 610

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE