Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
56,761 - 56,780 of 112,842 Comments Last updated 27 min ago

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

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

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

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

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

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

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

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

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

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

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

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

This is one of the passages you copy/pasted:

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

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

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

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

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

Are you gonna actually respond, or spam some more?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

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

Franklin, PA

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

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

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

Chester, UK

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

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60714
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

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

The reason for this is money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franklin, PA

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

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

Franklin, PA

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

Halifax, Canada

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

Chester, UK

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

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

Franklin, PA

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

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

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

Franklin, PA

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

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

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

110 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 11 min eleanorigby 34,951
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 12 min Spirit67_ 14,970
The N-word: 28 min Denny CranesPlace 10
Which O/B lady would you want to be stranded on... (Dec '13) 33 min The Martyr 49
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 40 min Denny CranesPlace 23,730
A six word game (Dec '08) 44 min Junket 17,232
What Makes You Turn Your Head When You're Driving? (Nov '10) 46 min Marley 19
How did you get over a broken heart? (Oct '09) 4 hr wichita-rick 264
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 hr wichita-rick 141,322
Car Dealer Gives Woman Refund - in Pennies 5 hr Marcavage s Emission 7
•••
•••