Evolution vs. Creation

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

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

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

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

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

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

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

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

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

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

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

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

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

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

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

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, 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.

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
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 7 min Grace Nerissa 24,103
What's your tip for the day? 8 min SLY WEST 1,029
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 9 min Grace Nerissa 36,440
IS IT Better to Give Than Receive ? (Feb '14) 26 min JailBroke 31
10-Year-Old Goldfish Undergoes Brain Surgery 37 min pak yuda 35
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 57 min wichita-rick 147,023
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr SLY WEST 5,592
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 hr -Kevin- 20,051
I Like..... (Mar '14) 4 hr Petal Power 280
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••