Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201124 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 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60768 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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.

Sorry, but you are just spouting creotard/IDotard nonsense.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-v...

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/encodeju...

That is real information against your unsupported assertions.
MazHere wrote:
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!

Really? Can you name a successful scientific theory that has not been improved over time? Big Bang theory? Atomic theory? Germ theory? Gravitation theory? Nope. All of them undergo revisions based on new information. That is not the same as saying they are not falsifiable. Any one with an understanding of science understands the difference.

Further, nothing has changed vis-a-vis between evolution and non-coding DNA.
MazHere wrote:
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.
.....
"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."

Wrong. Period

http://tinyurl.com/cpdlk2x
[extended nonsense deleted from this point]


You lot always like to pretend great replies
You are such a dork!.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60769 Nov 24, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So I take it you two are having a love affair. Sorry to butt in but you idiots cannot refute the the work about at all.

Instead you are going to play games of evasion and think you look smart because of it.

Creos have their own algorithmic magic to present. So suck it up evotard!
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60770 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!
As timn17 posted, there's been a couple million years since that mutation occurred. I certainly don't have the math, but you can reasonably derive how many mutations were likely to have occurred since then. It doesn't seem like too many people are asking about John Sanford so perhaps his assumptions aren't valid. Maybe if your link wasn't from " creation.com ".

I don't feel like chasing that one.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60771 Nov 24, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Yes this is not from a creationist site you dorkweek.

http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/tel...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60772 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh is that so? It is too bad that bipedalism is not a human trait. If you would ever bother to open the links I provide you would know that.
Indeed you have no idea if apes evolved from a biped, after all knuckle walking is now suggested to have evolved independently twice. There is no point my posting links because I don't believe any of you ever read them. You prefer to remain ignorant because then you can chase your tails all day.
Such a simplistic answer is yet again a demonstration that you have no idea.
Don't forget the Gonna pelvis has thrown the entire wofflely scenario to the rubbish bin again on the back of another single fossil find.
Before erectus supposedly had small brained babes that grew into small brained adults. That supports TOE. Now they have large brained babes grow into small brained adults. There is also another woffly scenraio to speculate as to how that MAY have occured. If this does not demonstrate they actually have no idea what they are saying nothing ever will.
Lucy is not evidence for mankinds evolution from an ape. Lucy has all the hallmarks of a non human ape regardless of bipedalism. Long curved fingers, small brained, 3.5ft tall, no speech, Are you evos now trying to suggest Lucy was an obligate biped with curved fingers or not?
It also means that over 700,000 thousand years Ardi's bipedal ape feet poofed into perfectly human feet with a human gait? Is that what you are suggesting?

You don't even seem to understand the basics of evolution. For example homo sapiens is an ape. For another example Lucy was early after the split from the lineage that led up to chimps SO... You would EXPECT them to have much more classic ape features. So your entire "argument" is in describing EXACTLY what evolution would predict at that stage of our lineage.

Get your head out of the creotard antiscience sites and learn real science. If nothing else you will be able to argue creotardism better and actually sound like you know what you are talking about.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60773 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes this is not from a creationist site you dorkweek.
http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/tel...

Your "argument" is entirely from creationist sites. Your misuse of real research (actually only the abstract so you really have no clue as to what the full paper says) only reinforces that.

You seem to think you are making good arguments, but you come off as angry and pseudo-intellectual.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60774 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you two are having a love affair. Sorry to butt in but you idiots cannot refute the the work about at all.
Instead you are going to play games of evasion and think you look smart because of it.
Creos have their own algorithmic magic to present. So suck it up evotard!

You have offered little to refute. You quote articles that you clearly don't understand. When you have to post your own words you just sound like an ignorant little bioch.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60775 Nov 24, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are just spouting creotard/IDotard nonsense.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-v...
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/encodeju...
That is real information against your unsupported assertions.
<quoted text>
Really? Can you name a successful scientific theory that has not been improved over time? Big Bang theory? Atomic theory? Germ theory? Gravitation theory? Nope. All of them undergo revisions based on new information. That is not the same as saying they are not falsifiable. Any one with an understanding of science understands the difference.
Further, nothing has changed vis-a-vis between evolution and non-coding DNA.
<quoted text>
Wrong. Period
http://tinyurl.com/cpdlk2x
[extended nonsense deleted from this point]
You lot always like to pretend great replies
You are such a dork!.
Either you can refute Sanfords work with more of your algorithmic magic or shut the heck up.

To simply say wrong without suportive evidence puts you in the same fool basket as the other loosers here.

All this algorithmic crap is assumptive and Sanfords work is not any more assumptive than yours.

So basically, all your sprooking around junk dna has turned to crap, your fossil line ups are a mess, you chase ghosts and call them ervs, and now you have all your hopes pinned to a ch2 fusion event.

The telomeres are SHORTER in humans except for sperm. How do these idiots even get close to 'they are similar' at the fusion site from here? I tell you how, with as much twoddle as they need to dream up.

What is found is that indeed the telomeres in mankind are not the same as any other non human ape. Ours are shorter. One would think that would be the end of the story, but no. Evos will continue to keep clutching at straws and building straw men on weak foundations. That is why your theory is so unstable.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60776 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you two are having a love affair. Sorry to butt in but you idiots cannot refute the the work about at all.
Instead you are going to play games of evasion and think you look smart because of it.
Creos have their own algorithmic magic to present. So suck it up evotard!
I've decided that you truly cannot see evidence that contradicts you. I think your visual cortex shuts off or something. So, it's not your fault.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60777 Nov 24, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>"Take" what on? NO ONE CARES about junk dna. God you are obstinate. Dunning Krueger effect.

Ah yes, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Actually I think she is more of a brain washed creotard, but she certainly evidences some D-K symptoms.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60778 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes this is not from a creationist site you dorkweek.
http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/tel...
And you think that our having shorter telomeres means anything? WTF? You truly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

From your link:

The source of subtelomeric duplication sequences is primarily from other subtelomeric regions, and in contrast to telomere shortening, subtelomeric sequences have undergone human-specific large-scale duplication events since the Homo-Pan split.

Looks like they don't think it means anything about whether we evolved from primates either.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60779 Nov 24, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

I vote for both.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60780 Nov 24, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes, the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Actually I think she is more of a brain washed creotard, but she certainly evidences some D-K symptoms.
Yeah. She has this inexplicable confidence in the strength of her arguments (which are always bad), along with a total disrespect of anyone who doesn't agree with her. She thinks she is a genius among idiots, somehow.

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
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... 8 min Cordwainer Trout 21
News Cops: 81-year-old veteran held hostage in motel... 12 min Knock off purse s... 9
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 17 min Knock off purse s... 32,649
20,000th Post Wins - 2d Edition (Jan '13) 19 min Knock off purse s... 2,591
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 20 min Knock off purse s... 7,798
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 35 min Enzo49 58,057
News Another 'man in tree' arrested in Seattle 35 min Marco R s Secret ... 1
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 194,195
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 3 hr Enzo49 8,479
More from around the web