Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61291 Nov 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Demonstrate the limit, scientifically, using evidence and not assertions. So far no one has done that, let's see if you can.
Well the ONLY thing that can bring evolution to a grinding halt would be is if the Earth is young, say, only about 6,000 years?

Oh sorry, you said SCIENTIFIC.

Forget it then. Never mind.

:-/
Hello

Utica, NY

#61292 Nov 27, 2012
Why does it metter. Let people believ what they want. If you gruel care what someone else thinks,han you have much bigger problems in your life. I believe in a mix of creationism and evolution. You believe what you want
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61293 Nov 27, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright I see what you're saying now follow me here this might sound dumb but I'm trying to be real here. If man is 200 million years old give or take some than why aren't we digging up groups of missing link fossils all over the earth wouldn't those remains turn to fossil just as dinosaur bones did? Also would it not stand to reason their would be millions of them?
Since fossilization is rare, no. However we DO have them:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61294 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can demonstrate an evolutionist that requires more substantiation from a creationist than they have ever been able to supply themselves and possible a hypocrite. Let's see!.
Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.
Evos demonstrated this with all their woffle around junk dna and non coding dna and the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions that have been falsified.
Then they cop out by saying creos hit on their process of scientific progress all the while meaning evos presentd hog wash as evidence in the first place.
In case you have not picked it up yet limits are found in Sanfords work on genetic entropy that you have evaded, results from research into epitasis and a fossil record of species that indeed did not adapt. There's a boot load of research into some species ability to somatically adjust to climate change and a truck load that suggests they migrate to their limit and then go extinct. That is what some of the fuss is about.
There appears to be more data that supports an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt than supports an unlimited ability to adapt.
Now you can show everyone how clever you are by speaking to all that mythical and misrepresented evidence you can offer for an organisms ability to adapt limitlessly.
Hence evos are often hypocrites in demanding a higher level of substantiation from creos than they ever can supply.
My bet is you'll side wind, evade, ignore, go quack at what I have presented and basically do anything except provide any support at all for an organisms limitless adaptability.
Wow, can one say massive amount of projection and big fat straw-man? Your "scientific alternative" is JEWMAGIC. And wildly inconsistent with itself, much less reality. Nevertheless, you are unable to address rebuttals or any of your own problems.

In short bub, you're the LAST person who should be accusing anyone of hypocrisy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61295 Nov 27, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo Christine
MazHere is an obvious spambot.
Ya think?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61296 Nov 27, 2012
Hello wrote:
Why does it metter. Let people believ what they want. If you gruel care what someone else thinks,han you have much bigger problems in your life. I believe in a mix of creationism and evolution. You believe what you want
People CAN believe whatever they want.

HOWEVER. In your country you currently have a sizable amount of religious fundamentalists (mostly Christian derivatives) who are attempting to teach religious superstition in public school science classes. This is MAJOR LEAGUE dumb. It is also illegal. But they don't care because they want to be just like the nutjobs you find in certain parts of the Middle East all wanting to blow each other up over which God has the bigger dangly bits.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#61297 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.
Evos demonstrated this with all their woffle around junk dna and non coding dna and the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions that have been falsified.
More tha 80% of our DNA does not contribute to the development of our phenotype and much is recognized as leftover bits and pieces from earlier forms. "Junk" would be a suitable descriptive term. You keep repeateing that something else is the case, but are apparently not bright enough to discuss it.
MazHere wrote:
Then they cop out by saying creos hit on their process of scientific progress all the while meaning evos presentd hog wash as evidence in the first place.
Explain and support,
MazHere wrote:
There appears to be more data that supports an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt than supports an unlimited ability to adapt.
There is none to support a limit if you mean, by "organism", a population or lineage. If you're referring to individuals, then you just have your head up your ass.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#61298 Nov 27, 2012
The Constitution***I READ IT FOR THE ARTICLES****;)
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#61299 Nov 27, 2012
The Constitution***I READ IT FOR THE ARTICLES**** ;-).
bohart

Newport, TN

#61300 Nov 27, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Temple & Smoller has has been refuted and dark energy reaffirmed earlier this year with the SMC data.
Not that this matters. Nothing in Temple & Smoller's research indicated creationism is supportable.
Space.com has an article out about dark matter and how they HOPE to discover it in about three or four years. So if science hasn't discovered it yet how has Temple Smoller been refuted?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#61302 Nov 27, 2012
*DON'T try SO HARD to FIT IN when you were BORN to STAND OUT* Steve Jobs said a lot at his Stanford Commencement Address when he said "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma- which is living with the results of other peoples thinking. Don't let the noise of others opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61303 Nov 27, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Space.com has an article out about dark matter and how they HOPE to discover it in about three or four years. So if science hasn't discovered it yet how has Temple Smoller been refuted?
Dark matter has been discovered, indirectly observed and can be measured

http://www.space.com/16412-dark-matter-filame...
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#61305 Nov 27, 2012
Why focus on dark matter? Look at the Hubble Telescopes pictures of our amazing universe. We are a part of workmanship from the hand of an artist.
Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#61306 Nov 27, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
More tha 80% of our DNA does not contribute to the development of our phenotype and much is recognized as leftover bits and pieces from earlier forms. "Junk" would be a suitable descriptive term. You keep repeateing that something else is the case, but are apparently not bright enough to discuss it.


:p

What was previously referred to as junk dna has been found to be very important for gene regulation (expression and suppression). For many years it was thought that the underlying genes were primarily responsible for differences between species, but we have come to realize that two species can have the same exact underlying genes that control skeletal structure, for example, but by simply turning them on at different times during development and for different durations and at different locations you can have two species with skeletal structures that look completely different. Itís not that the underlying genes that control skeletal structure code for different proteins that explains these differences, but how these genes are regulated that does so. What was previously referred to as junk DNA is responsible for controlling this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61307 Nov 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I said you demonstrate the limits, don't quote something that is unsubstantiated or unverified. If you cannot come up with something that has passed peer review and been tested and verified by multiple, independent, sources then give your answer. Without a limit then there is no "macro" or "micro" divide, there is no end to the possible changes of a population, there is no need to invoke magic at all. Without the limits no god is required to produce the amount of diversity we see today, only time, and we know there was plenty of time.
Listen you silly evolutionist, you have replied exactly as predicted. TOE has not credible predictive ability but evolutionists are very predictable.

Your lot sprooke off about requiring peer reviewed research and then have your own end up in the garbage bin and never present your own.

The papers on the overwhelmingly negative effects of epitasis was published and peer reviewed in 2011.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

The work on drosophila is also published and peer reviewed, you quacker.

http://f1000.com/prime/5457956

Sandfords work on genetic entropy was also peer reviewed and that is why the work was ridiculed at the time only to now again be supported by work that speaks to other limits.

What I hate most is really stupid evolutionists that like to pretend they have something to say but in actual fact it is all hubris and save face positioning.

You are either an idiot that has no idea what peer reviewed research is and you just like to quack on about it or you are intentionally sacrificed your integrity and credibility just to save face on the forum. I actually can't believe you are that uneducated.

As I predicted Kitten has woffled on with hubris instead of presenting her own supports for an organisms ability to adapt limitlessly. Rather she has demonstrated that she has no idea what published research is and likely thinks Nature and Discovery are creationist sites.

Creos, this once again provides solid evidence that evolutionists are hypocrites of the highest order. They can present nothing themselves, will whine and stuggle over anything a creo presents, yet will continue to demand a higher level of substantiation from an creationist than they are able to supply themselves. Kitten has proven it yet again.

I have supplied peer reviewed research you fool

Now how about presenting your own? Not likely.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61308 Nov 27, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =fNhh0IjcroAXX
:p
What was previously referred to as junk dna has been found to be very important for gene regulation (expression and suppression). For many years it was thought that the underlying genes were primarily responsible for differences between species, but we have come to realize that two species can have the same exact underlying genes that control skeletal structure, for example, but by simply turning them on at different times during development and for different durations and at different locations you can have two species with skeletal structures that look completely different. Itís not that the underlying genes that control skeletal structure code for different proteins that explains these differences, but how these genes are regulated that does so. What was previously referred to as junk DNA is responsible for controlling this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05...
We have actually had this conversation here and evos are scurrying away and don't want to talk about it anymore. They are now avoiding this by every means because they can see that creos have actually been validated and they have had their empirical evidence exposed for what it is, rubbish.

It has been demonstrated that indeed junk dna is not junk at all, as you say. 80% of the genome is now known to be functional and researchers suggest that it is very likely that 100% of the genome will be found to be functional.

Creationists predicted that no junk would be found in the genome and research is validating same. Evos can't make a prediction, everything, junk or no junk, they wil make it all support TOE with their handwaving..

The decade of evos shoving junk dna down evos support for evolution and their scathing attacks on creos based on the empirical evidence of junk dna has demonstrated these researchers are severely lacking.

But thanks for bringing it up again, I just love it and I know evos hate this conversation so much.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61309 Nov 27, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Space.com has an article out about dark matter and how they HOPE to discover it in about three or four years. So if science hasn't discovered it yet how has Temple Smoller been refuted?
Temple-Smoller was about Dark Energy, not Dark Matter. Temple-Smoller did not get rid of Dark Matter, the two are totally different except for both being dark.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61310 Nov 27, 2012
Maz, Sanford's book was not peer reviewed. Books practically never are. They usually encompass too many concepts and even the best authors make mistakes that would fail peer review if they did so. I am unaware of any peer reviewed articles by Sanford either.

Meanwhile here is a nice critique of Sanford's book:

"Sanfordís Genetic Entropy, on the other hand, is simply wrong from beginning to end. It misrepresents everything it touches: beneficial and deleterious mutations, gene duplication, natural selection, and (most crucially) synergistic epistasis. In all these areas, Sanford avoids engaging the large body of work which directly refutes his viewpoint, and instead cherry-picks a few references that seem to point his way, usually misinterpreting them in the process."

http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...

You might want to go to that site and read all four of his critiques of Sanford. Sanford was never peer reviewed, he spewed a bunch of nonsense that was laughed at by people who knew better.

So what else you got? Or more properly: What other arguments do you have?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61311 Nov 27, 2012
It is amazing. Maz still does not know the difference between a rate and a distance.

It would be like not knowing the difference between miles per hour and miles like this lady who may be Maz' U.S. counterpart:



Actually Maz is even worse in some ways than the blonde bimbo. And that takes some doing.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61312 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankyou for your reply. You have now demonstrated without doubt that you don't know a heck of a lot about this stuff. For a start it is fairly common knowledge that most,70%, of mutations are deleterious. That is not knew info at all.
Here is an article from 2002 speaking to it. It hasn't changed. The remainder, 30%, are meant to be a mix of neutral and beneficial. That's if you actually knew what beneficial refers to outside of immunity.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/12/2...
How am I meant to decypher this nonsense below of yours? It does not even show a basic understanding of common knowledge.
"First, this is clearly not true. You have on the order of 150 mutations in your genome. The vast majority are benign. And no, a mutation is not necessarily a loss of information. In fact calling the genome "information" is a rather poor analogy. A better analogy is that the genome is a cookbook and a mutation is a change in directions"
The vast majority are not benign, we are meant to have had millions of mutations in the genome since we were fury apes, and a mutation quite often results in a loss of information; A gene actually does hold dna that is information/code, just in case you are not clear on that either.
We observed a strong correlation between the position of the nonsense or FS mutations and the loss of information they cause (Additional file 1, Figure S1).
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/299
Of the nonsense SNPs, 581 were predicted to cause nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) of transcripts that would prevent translation.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...
The other obvious flaw to your reply is that the work on epitasis suggests overwhelmingly negative effects in relation to the small percentage of beneficial mutations that fix, that accumulatively don't really apear to be all that beneficial at all.
So you have 70% deleterious mutations, mutations that don't do anything and a small percentage of so called beneficial mutations that don't appear to be doing so good either.
Also, you do realize don't you, that all this is based on computer modelling, algorithmic magic and many assumptions, and yet you are still incorrect and have not refuted even point one, let alone point 3 which is the one the epitasis research more refers to.
In summation, you got everything wrong; so you're welcome to try again.
Where is Subduction Zone? I am still out to demonstate earns his points with woffle.

Finally he has actually had a go at providing more than his opinion.

The sad fact is that if Subby actually researched his claims prior to posting he would have very quickly learned that his assumption in relation to 'neutral' mutations being the more numerous was very incorrect and has never been a scientific assertion, ever.

So not only is Subby outdated, he actually makes up his own science as he goes along, and likely thinks every one here is too stupid to notice.

Evolutionists have not presented evidence to support the hypothesis that adaptation can carry on for billions of years without limit, let alone not succuming to the costs. Recent data is more suggestive of limits rather than anything else.

You evos have bombed out on so much, junk dna, vestigial organs, ervs, chromosome 2, fossil evidence that better aligns with creationism, creos having no evidence to present etc. Now you lot are going to have a fantastic time with me demonstrating that this adaptation you insist is evolution in motion is limitless and can be supported. Surely you have some algorithmic magic to support your view here. There is algorithmic magic to support just about anything including contradictory views. That is the beauty of evolutionary science.

For now I am still waiting for Subby to show us all how evo algorithmic magic is better than Sanfords.

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
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 5 min CJ Rocker 7,908
News Naked Couple Busted For Sex In Library Loo 7 min Dr Wu 19
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 9 min CJ Rocker 8,118
News Elderly man punches bear in face to save dog 10 min Dr Wu 5
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min Crazy Beautiful 161,790
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 11 min CJ Rocker 8,137
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 11 min Dr Wu 5,434
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 25 min Enzo49 28,990
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 46 min Papa Smurfaletto 10,897
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 6 hr Glory Be 40,265
News Baltimore Mom Catches Her Son Rioting, Beats Hi... 7 hr Reality 177
More from around the web