Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 159,225
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
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 naïve."
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?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60744 Nov 24, 2012
PROFESSOR X wrote:
<quoted text>
The only myth is Darwinism.
O hai there Prof, ya big liar! What's the "scientific theory" of creationism? And when are you gonna get around to rescinding all those lies you spewed eh? Lemme guess, when Jesus comes back?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60745 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.

Lets distill your "argument" down to the essence.

P1. Real scientists do research, collect evidence and draw conclusions from that evidence.
P2. You disagree with that evidence for no actual scientific reasons, just your biased assertions.
Conclusion: I am right (with no evidence) and PhD's with published research are wrong.

See, when you spell it out, the horseshit becomes even more obvious.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60746 Nov 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I responded. You avoided it. Just as you've avoided so many.
<quoted text>
I did. You ignored it.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
'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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
You just contradicted yourself again. This time all in one sentence.
<quoted text>
Then why do chickens have DNA coding for teeth?
<quoted text>
You are too stupid to understand that you cannot use such evidence as a reality-denying YEC without demonstrating you're dishonest.
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
Creationists ignore reality.
<quoted text>
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?

This is what I like to see. Point by point refutations. Very well done.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60747 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
You lot of idiots also whine when support is not supplied and then whine when research is supplied under the guise of quote mining.
Ah, so you finally admit to quote-mining and misrepresenting the work of biologists. God would be proud.

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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Everton, 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

Birkenhead, 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?

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
motorcycle traveling stories 8 min BarBexMollyBlackOk 252
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 22 min _FLATLINE-------- 7,879
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 26 min Tomb Raider 8,276
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 34 min Cyan in CA 25,951
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 44 min Good-Evil 707
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 46 min Crazy Jae 789
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 47 min OB Historical Soc... 40,133
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Good-Evil 161,012
News Watch adorable video of clever dog faking injur... 4 hr TALLYHO 8541 4
More from around the web