Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164195 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

Everton, Australia

#60724 Nov 24, 2012
timm17..my reply

Nearly being the operative word like 'similar' that evos have no idea what it means. Nearly the same to evos means the same as long as one ignores all the vast differences. What does nearly mean? Yiu have forgotten to mention that not that long ago the fucion site was meant to be 'the same'. So now it is not the same, is that what you are clarifying for us?

1. Because evos can make no prediction around junk dna yet saw fit to shove the crap you call science down creationists throats, adnauseum. Now the table have turned and I am loving it so.

2. Because good theories do not need to be contantly adjusted and any science is meant to be appropriately able to be falsified, which TOE can't. eg Junk dna proves evolution then a year later no junk dna says nothing for evolution. Hypocrites!

3. I have not made any mistake in relation to human ch2 at all. If you think you posted an adequate reply that I have missed then please requote it or shut up. You lot always like to pretend great replies

You are such a dork!.

Your stupid words are...

"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."

Opposite in this case means exactly what it says, the reverse of what would be expected, and is an anomoly that flies in the face of the expected patterning you boofhead, just like it reads.

Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.

Listed are the extra genes not found in the chimp..PGML. FOXD. CBWD. etc there are a stack of them listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genom...

So the fusion site is the same or similar or nearly the same, as long as you ignore all the differences and are a good story teller and can come up with rhemes of evowoffle to explain why the obvious differences are not really there. Blind fools is what these desperados are!

Let's also not forget that 80% of genomic expression separates chimp from man? How does this reflect in these simplistic results that ignore all differences in a effort to derive the results one seeks?

How are the differences in telomere length calculated into the equation to produce anything that remotely should be desribed as similar.

So what does 'THE SAME' or "nearly the same" now mean to evolutionists? It means they will ignore all evidence to the contrary and zone in on what will support their view. It is however, misrepresentation, as usual!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60725 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are still standing there with your huge mouth open on the back of just learning that all our dna is likely functional effectively meaning that for the past decade evolutionists have pratted on about shit. Yu are the fu.kwits.
Drink the hiVe

New York, NY

#60726 Nov 24, 2012
Given The Fact That There Has Always Been UFO Discussion' On This Forum - I Don't See Why NOW All Of A Sudden It Wouldn't Be 'Allowed'...

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/7949/goolag0...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60727 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
timm17..my reply

1. Because evos can make no prediction around junk dna yet saw fit to shove the crap you call science down creationists throats, adnauseum. Now the table have turned and I am loving it so.
You have turned no tables. Merely made straw man arguments,arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and misinterpreted the few valid peer reviewed journals that you have linked. So far you have nothing.
2. Because good theories do not need to be contantly adjusted and any science is meant to be appropriately able to be falsified, which TOE can't. eg Junk dna proves evolution then a year later no junk dna says nothing for evolution. Hypocrites!
And who told you this? Newtons's Law of Gravitation was "wrong" by your standards. It had to be corrected by Einstein. And we know that Einstein is not right since he never could work in a quantum theory of gravitation. And gravity is extraordinarily simple. Why wouldn't a much more complex issue like life need a theory that had to be tweaked many times? And though tweaked often it is still essentially the same as it originally was. The theory of evolution is perhpas the most tested and most successful theory that man has ever made.
3. I have not made any mistake in relation to human ch2 at all. If you think you posted an adequate reply that I have missed then please requote it or shut up. You lot always like to pretend great replies
You are such a dork!.
Your stupid words are...
"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."
Opposite in this case means exactly what it says, the reverse of what would be expected, and is an anomoly that flies in the face of the expected patterning you boofhead, just like it reads.
Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.
Listed are the extra genes not found in the chimp..PGML. FOXD. CBWD. etc there are a stack of them listed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genom...
So the fusion site is the same or similar or nearly the same, as long as you ignore all the differences and are a good story teller and can come up with rhemes of evowoffle to explain why the obvious differences are not really there. Blind fools is what these desperados are!
Let's also not forget that 80% of genomic expression separates chimp from man? How does this reflect in these simplistic results that ignore all differences in a effort to derive the results one seeks?
How are the differences in telomere length calculated into the equation to produce anything that remotely should be desribed as similar.
So what does 'THE SAME' or "nearly the same" now mean to evolutionists? It means they will ignore all evidence to the contrary and zone in on what will support their view. It is however, misrepresentation, as usual!
From what I have seen you have failed on this issue. You have a huge lack of peer reviewed articles that support your claim. That sort of science is outside of my comfort zone and I know it is well out of yours. Again, all you brought to the argument was a whole stinking pile of nothing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60728 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still standing there with your huge mouth open on the back of just learning that all our dna is likely functional effectively meaning that for the past decade evolutionists have pratted on about shit. Yu are the fu.kwits.
You still have not shown that at all. You have at best shown that some of the non-coding DNA has a similarity to vestigial organs.

Get back to us when you show that ALL of the noncoding DNA has a function. And that has to include ERV's.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60729 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
timm17..my reply
Nearly being the operative word like 'similar' that evos have no idea what it means. Nearly the same to evos means the same as long as one ignores all the vast differences. What does nearly mean? Yiu have forgotten to mention that not that long ago the fucion site was meant to be 'the same'. So now it is not the same, is that what you are clarifying for us?
1. Because evos can make no prediction around junk dna yet saw fit to shove the crap you call science down creationists throats, adnauseum. Now the table have turned and I am loving it so.
2. Because good theories do not need to be contantly adjusted and any science is meant to be appropriately able to be falsified, which TOE can't. eg Junk dna proves evolution then a year later no junk dna says nothing for evolution. Hypocrites!
3. I have not made any mistake in relation to human ch2 at all. If you think you posted an adequate reply that I have missed then please requote it or shut up. You lot always like to pretend great replies
You are such a dork!.
Your stupid words are...
"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."
Opposite in this case means exactly what it says, the reverse of what would be expected, and is an anomoly that flies in the face of the expected patterning you boofhead, just like it reads.
Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.
Listed are the extra genes not found in the chimp..PGML. FOXD. CBWD. etc there are a stack of them listed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genom...
So the fusion site is the same or similar or nearly the same, as long as you ignore all the differences and are a good story teller and can come up with rhemes of evowoffle to explain why the obvious differences are not really there. Blind fools is what these desperados are!
Let's also not forget that 80% of genomic expression separates chimp from man? How does this reflect in these simplistic results that ignore all differences in a effort to derive the results one seeks?
How are the differences in telomere length calculated into the equation to produce anything that remotely should be desribed as similar.
So what does 'THE SAME' or "nearly the same" now mean to evolutionists? It means they will ignore all evidence to the contrary and zone in on what will support their view. It is however, misrepresentation, as usual!
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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60730 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Evos have had to eat humble pie over junk dna. Evos are also able to meet the criteria of fools because for the past 150 years up until relatively recently, all the evidence they had for human knucklewalking ancestry was also shoved down creos throats only to turn to crap as well.

You quacker you are. The published research on Lucys flat foot highlights and references all the competing idea on just that one topic and all the garble that they point to in support of opposing ideas.

It is you lot of boofheads that go from one topic to the next in desperation and never take any discussion to completion because you are clueless sheep that need to be spoon fed your replies from the available literature.

So on the back of your history no creo has anything to worry about as far as looking like a clown is concerned.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#60731 Nov 24, 2012
Jim wrote:
So what you are saying is God F-ed him self to become the one God. What did he do look in a mirrow and say I am the one God. Even thow God is an English word. So there must have not been a God till the English created the word so the English created God.
Seriously Jim, you need to pay attention to your spellchecker.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#60732 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, no, it is from the bibles historical accuracy and proof of Christs resurrection.
There is NO proof of Christs resurrection.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60733 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evos have had to eat humble pie over junk dna. Evos are also able to meet the criteria of fools because for the past 150 years up until relatively recently, all the evidence they had for human knucklewalking ancestry was also shoved down creos throats only to turn to crap as well.
You quacker you are. The published research on Lucys flat foot highlights and references all the competing idea on just that one topic and all the garble that they point to in support of opposing ideas.
It is you lot of boofheads that go from one topic to the next in desperation and never take any discussion to completion because you are clueless sheep that need to be spoon fed your replies from the available literature.
So on the back of your history no creo has anything to worry about as far as looking like a clown is concerned.
I quacker I am? Nuff said.

Good night.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60734 Nov 24, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Jim, you need to pay attention to your spellchecker.
Or put down the TokeMaster!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60735 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
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60736 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
and some joker wanting to take me on over ervs, and none of you can do anything more than prattle on and have provided nothing of substance.
I responded. You avoided it. Just as you've avoided so many.
MazHere wrote:
Try providing links to research instead of postulating yourself to be a baboon.
I did. You ignored it.
MazHere wrote:
Good then I do not have to say anything more!
TOE is falsified. I agree. Is that what has been the bee in your bonnet all along?
I provided *potential* falsifications. You provided none that I postulated. Ergo *both* your claims that evolution was non-falsifiable and therefore not scientific, and that you had falsified evolution are erroneous.

Also not that your first claim contradicts your second. Because hypocrisy is a necessary requirement for creationists when they pretend to talk science.
MazHere wrote:
You can also suck up the fact that some evo researchers are now suggesting that it is very likely that 100% of the genome is functional. Yippeeeee!!!!
Munched it. Your problem is that you can't predict what those functions are. We can. And you still can't address the fact that it's not function of DNA that was the issue here but rather the hierarchial DNA pattern which is predicted by evolution, not creationism.
MazHere wrote:
So in summation to you Proffessor where ever you are
'Prof X' lied in the very first sentences of his very first post. Because like you he prefers to attack caricatures instead of deal with reality.
MazHere wrote:
The theory I prefer does not need the mystery of dark energy. It doesn't need God either, but it does challege the Copernican principle if ever validated.
I see once again you are repeating refuted arguments instead of dealing with rebuttals. If you keep spamming you may just convince the stupid such as AWI.
MazHere wrote:
Even your evo researchers cannot explain these whale bones and the carbon dating ended up being inconsistent, so dah!
You just contradicted yourself again. This time all in one sentence.
MazHere wrote:
The point being that I can make a prediction on non coding dna and it is being supported even by biased and convoluted evolutionary research, and I love it.
Then why do chickens have DNA coding for teeth?
MazHere wrote:
You however are too stupid to understand that in fact modern bird footprints dated to 212mya, whale bones in Michagan in strata 290myo
You are too stupid to understand that you cannot use such evidence as a reality-denying YEC without demonstrating you're dishonest.
MazHere wrote:
I actually think God has
Been scientifically demonstrated? Not yet. But thanks for telling everyone your "scientific alternative" is Jewmagic. Unless you have a "scientific theory" of creationism that doesn't rest solely on anti-evolution arguments?
MazHere wrote:
Well if there is so much of evidence to suport TOE how come you lot can never come up with any of it?
Creationists ignore reality.
MazHere wrote:
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scar r/Human_Ape_chromosomes.htm
So there are many inserted genes, sequences that run counter to predicted in the fusion model and telomeres in mankind that are shorter than any other non human ape.
Had you checked the diagram and the writing they are not disputing fusion and the differences are still consistent with genetic drift. Hence again you are dishonestly misrepresenting others work.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism again?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60737 Nov 24, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Many keep saying there is massive evidence, but they can never produce any but refer you to others for a defense.
It usually happens around the time you go suddenly quiet.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#60738 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Or put down the TokeMaster!
...:-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60739 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh pull your head in.
They have found pieces of Mark dated to the first century. That refutes a stack of all the woffle the intelligencia have to offer, who are no more than a bunch of chooks that have no idea what they are talking about anyway.
Moses, the composer of Genesis was the first to propose that the universe had a beginning, the water in the universe, plant life first, then the creatures of the sea, then land ending in mankind.
Yes, plants came before the sun if I recall. Or maybe it depends on which version of Genesis you're reading. And which part does it mention dinosaurs and the fact that Jesus never ever rode on the back of a velociraptor?
MazHere wrote:
Do you really think evos were the first to think of that? They stole it fromn the bible and twisted it a little it to suit TOE. They have been having problems with the nested heirarchies of whales and birds ever since, including the fossil misrepresentation offered in support.
Genesis was the first to note that the moon was created after the earth.
There have been many biblical scriptures and sites discovered.
Quite frankly you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about.
In terms of archaeological sites alone the Egyptians have you beat. A whole bunch of cities, burial sites (civilian and non-civilian), temples, and last count 116 pyramids. All hail Ra.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60740 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.
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?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60741 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
I don't use Gish.
You've been Gishing ever since you turned up.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60742 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The is no fossil evidence to support evolution.
The fact that you can quack about it does not make it so.
Which misrepresentation would you like to discuss first.
Shrinking erectus and Turkana Boy,or the single bones and skulls given an entire life story on the back of nothing, perhaps.
Maybe the new sediba with her long thumb. Maybe Ardi or Lucy that nmany evos suggest are chimp or gorilla ancestors.
Maybe you would like to present the erectus that are really apes and bear no resemblance to humanity at all in reality.
Perhaps rudolfensis that the Leakeys stuffed up and had to be redated.
"Don't get me wrong, these are all important finds," said co-author Bernard Wood, University Professor of Human Origins and professor of Human Evolution Anatomy at GW and director of its Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology. "But to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is na´ve."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/...
You choose, which line of fossil evidence suggests an ape evolved into a man.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60743 Nov 24, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
They are only interested in mockery and ridicule, not in the honest exchange of ideas.
We have shown Maz's unavoidable tendency to be dishonest, so how come you fundies always give it a free pass?

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
Photo recovery software to recover deleted SD Card 2 min shuiguobaobei 1
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min Manuel 162,980
Word Association (Jun '10) 6 min wichita-rick 27,686
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 23 min Whiny1 8,100
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 24 min Whiny1 18,778
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 25 min Whiny1 9,842
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 25 min Whiny1 1,692
REAL motorcycle traveling stories. 38 min Cash 28
DILF Sets 30 minute record 57 min andet1987 11
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 1 hr Crazy Jae 31,963
More from around the web