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 (Page 2,842)

Showing posts 56,821 - 56,840 of111,611
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60757
Nov 24, 2012
 
Sorry, accidentally typing "22" instead of "2"

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 56,821 - 56,840 of111,611
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

227 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
In honor of ms Sweeter 2 min CJ Rocker 79
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 min Poppa bear 14,106
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 4 min Parden Pard 53,692
What are you wearing today? (Nov '09) 4 min switching gears 11,618
rip spirit girl 15 min Poppa bear 38
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 36 min Jeffrey 136,992
What is the meaning of life? 41 min Husker D 13
How to become Unbannable 58 min Chilli J 59
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 140,313
Bizarre Angelina Jolie video emerges online 6 hr Phyllis Schlafly s Stain 2
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••