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
56,821 - 56,840 of 112,833 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“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...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

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

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

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

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

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

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

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

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

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

Ah yes, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

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

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

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

From your link:

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

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60779
Nov 24, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. That is quite clear now. She's basically a sentient spam bot. She has one agenda, and no matter what, she cherry picks data she doesn't understand, spams it over and over again, and makes unfounded, ridiculous claims about it. She has so little clue she often times posts things that damage her argument without realizing it, even after it's pointed out to her. She's either stubborn or really, really stupid.

I vote for both.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60781
Nov 24, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even seem to understand the basics of evolution. For example homo sapiens is an ape. For another example Lucy was early after the split from the lineage that led up to chimps SO... You would EXPECT them to have much more classic ape features. So your entire "argument" is in describing EXACTLY what evolution would predict at that stage of our lineage.
Get your head out of the creotard antiscience sites and learn real science. If nothing else you will be able to argue creotardism better and actually sound like you know what you are talking about.
You ae a fuckwit dog on. I suppose you think I have never heard of man classed as an ape before.

Mankind is only an ape because you lot have poofed us into one.

In actual fact a child can pick the human out of a bunch of apes yet adult evolutionists have great difficulty.

Mankind is a furless primate that is also an obligate biped capable of making meaning of the world. No other organism fits this criteria, which demonstrates that evos are totally blind as well as desperate.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60782
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

The telomeres are SHORTER in humans except for sperm. How do these idiots even get close to 'they are similar' at the fusion site from here? I tell you how, with as much twoddle as they need to dream up.
What is found is that indeed the telomeres in mankind are not the same as any other non human ape. Ours are shorter. One would think that would be the end of the story, but no. Evos will continue to keep clutching at straws and building straw men on weak foundations. That is why your theory is so unstable.
Wow. You keep proving how little you understand about this. Their length does not matter. Their arrangement on the chromosome matters. Where there should be two telomeres and one centromere, we have four vestigal telomeres, two vestigal centromeres, two normal telomeres, and one normal centromere.

Stop being stupid. I did tell you to read up on the subject.
Anonymous

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60783
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why do you creos feel the need to try and oppose a the most successfull and complete theory ever made by man, its as if you think that evolution is anti god, which makes no sence, Christianity and evolution are totally compatible, only someone who believes in the literal words of the bible would object to evolution, but in all honesty, if you believe in the literal word of the bible, you are allready to stupid to argue with

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60785
Nov 24, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>And you think that our having shorter telomeres means anything? WTF? You truly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
From your link:
The source of subtelomeric duplication sequences is primarily from other subtelomeric regions, and in contrast to telomere shortening, subtelomeric sequences have undergone human-specific large-scale duplication events since the Homo-Pan split.
Looks like they don't think it means anything about whether we evolved from primates either.
Look are you capable of addressing Sanford work or are you just up for nit picking gobble today.

Shortening, large scale duplication, what do you suppose those are fancy words for?

DIFFERENCE! Like I said evolutionists have no idea what the same means at all. You invent these term that imply an evolutionary event when really you should be saying the comparison demonstrates huge differences that we evos can address with gobble.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60786
Nov 24, 2012
 
Come on you have failed every challenge so far you evos with your huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past that you have shoved down creos throats for decades.

Try hanging on at least to your ch2 evidence as pitiful as it is.

Refute this work with your own algorithmic magic.

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60787
Nov 24, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah. She has this inexplicable confidence in the strength of her arguments (which are always bad), along with a total disrespect of anyone who doesn't agree with her. She thinks she is a genius among idiots, somehow.
Just like Answersingenesis, conseverapedia, william dembski, venomfangx, kent hovind, ken ham and quite a few others.

Too bad their arguments don't withstand scrutiny of more than 5 minutes.
Anonymous

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60788
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You ae a fuckwit dog on. I suppose you think I have never heard of man classed as an ape before.
Mankind is only an ape because you lot have poofed us into one.
In actual fact a child can pick the human out of a bunch of apes yet adult evolutionists have great difficulty.
Mankind is a furless primate that is also an obligate biped capable of making meaning of the world. No other organism fits this criteria, which demonstrates that evos are totally blind as well as desperate.
Wrong, there is nothing special about humans at all, I know you creotards have difficulty excepting that, because of your ego, first it was said that the earth is flat, then that the sun revolves around us, because we are so special, surely god would have everything revolve round us, right,, then when that was proven incorrect, you moved to we must be the only life with consiousness, and now that's not true, you creotards are saying earth is the only planet with life, and when that is disproven, what will you say then, you always have to think that you are special, that everything revolves around you, it is the thought process of a delusional mind with egomania, and an afflication all creotards suffer from it seems, they don't like the fact that we are just one species out of millions of others, and not special in any way, we are just a very small planet in a galaxy of trillions of planets, and that is just one galaxy of trillions of galaxies in the universe, which itself is just one of an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. Get this, there is nothing special about the human race, the fact that many other mammals, in particular, and certainly primates are proof enough of the non uniqueness of humans or conciousness, let your ego go, and embrace the truth, enlightenment will set you free

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.

109 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min CJ Rocker 141,304
I Like..... 39 min Petal Power 53
do not.................. (Nov '13) 42 min Petal Power 181
The N-word: 44 min Petal Power 6
What Just Happened??? 46 min Petal Power 11
The long list of thing I'll never do (Jul '13) 50 min Petal Power 240
*The No Nookie Club* (Dec '13) 53 min Petal Power 17
Car Dealer Gives Woman Refund - in Pennies 56 min Stuart Varney 5
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr TenderTink 34,946
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr Petal Power 14,967
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 2 hr Old Sam 13,027
•••
•••