Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61313 Nov 27, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Qhm7-LEBznkXX
Actually Maz is even worse in some ways than the blonde bimbo. And that takes some doing.
You're a proven boofhead Subduction zone. Answer to the above post where your foot is still stuck in your mouth.

Keep using ridicule because you'll never out debate me using science. I am sure you have no idea what science is.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61314 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is Subduction Zone? I am still out to demonstate earns his points with woffle.
That's alright, you can keep your blue "woffle" to yourself. By the way the correct spelling is "Waffle".

Sanford as I said has been debunked, even though there was no need to debunk him. He does not have a peer reviewed publication, as you claimed. I posted a link where he gets debunked in 4 parts. I suggest that you read it. No one in the genetics world pays any attention to Sanford at all, that is unless they are watching Sanford and Son:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61315 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a proven boofhead Subduction zone. Answer to the above post where your foot is still stuck in your mouth.
Keep using ridicule because you'll never out debate me using science. I am sure you have no idea what science is.
Not until you admit you were wrong about Sanford. You posted that bullshit many times more than my possible error.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61316 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you fail to address my point. Okay, next creatard, this one's TSTL.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#61317 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I am an evo, and I do not hate this conversation in the least bit. I've never once had to rely on junk DNA to mop the floor with creationists. So, I do not need to rely on junk dna to shoot down every reason you feel your god does exist and every reason you feel that you need a god for life to exist.

Iíve done this dance many times, and I have grown tired of it, but since itís been awhile, if you would like, letís do do this exercise one last time, just for kicks:

Please explain why you feel your god must exist. What proof or logic do you use to support your belief? Is there any? Or is it just faith?

Also are you Christian? If not, what are you? What do you think of the gods of other religions? Are they false?

Please explain why you feel god must have created life.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61318 Nov 27, 2012
Subduction Zone
Sanfords work has been peer reviewed.
Sanford and colleagues developed the quantitative forward genetic modeling program Mendel's Accountant. Sanford et al. published two peer reviewed papers dealing with genetic entropy in computing journals concerned with modeling methodology.[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Here is one clip from your link.

So Behe may be right about the probability of chloroquine resistance. However, that says nothing about an ďedgeĒ to evolution. Although for chloroquine resistance in malaria there may be only one, narrow target (the two specific proteins in PfCRT), there are many, many other possible pairs of mutations in any living being. For organisms with say 10**9 base pairs, there are 10**18 possible two-point simultaneous mutations. Behe is implicitly assuming that only a single, pre-specified one of all these 10**18 pairs of mutations could possibly be useful in developing any new protein binding site.That is nonsense. Granted, most of these 10**18 pairwise mutations will be neutral or deleterious to fitness, and perhaps (as in the case of chloroquine resistance in malaria) there is only one pairwise mutation will achieve one specified result, but this in no way implies that some other pairwise mutation cannot achieve some other beneficial effect. As one reviewer noted, this is a ďpainfully basicĒ error on Beheís part.

Here the author knocks Behe by saying that Behe has made an assumption, an assumption that may be right. That is what algorithmic magic is all about.
Unless you can supply evidence that some other pair wise mutation has occured then Behe can assume what he likes just like evos do. That is what TOE in its' entirety is built on. That is why they make huge mistakes like saying non coding dna is junk and their assumptions were incorrect.

There is no fundamental error, there is a fundamental assumption and you lot do exactly the same thing. I don't see this work refuted at all here.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61319 Nov 27, 2012
Subby the rest

Here is another bit "However, it gets even worse: Behe limits his consideration to single point mutations, and ignores the whole realm of frameshifts and duplications and insertions of large chunks of genetic material."

Don't evolutionists also limit their studies and ignore differences all the time.

Another bit
"As is usual for major mutations, most frameshift mutations are very deleterious to the organism. This is not a problem for evolution, since the highly deleterious mutations will be removed from the population by natural selection, whereas the rare beneficial frameshift mutation can give its bearer a selective advantage."

Where is the evidence for this claim? Indeed new research suggests the accumulating effects of epitasis and beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly NEGATIVE. Hence this using ones own assumptions to suggest anothers assumption is not a refute at all. Hence evos rarely refute creationist work in reality.

This is the point that I made at the very beginning. Evos refute creo work on the basis of their own assumptions. That is also why I request the research for any points, so I can pull apart the assumptions it is based on.

Hence Sanfords work is as good as any you can present. Even if I did not have Sanfords work the accumulating data is more suggestive of limits to adaptation than anything else.

The other point evos try to make, that creationists cannot present support for their view is also falsified because creos have predictions that have been validated, fossils that align more with a creationist paradigm then TOE, biased evo research that still suggests that adaptation should actually have ground to a halt, evidence that 70% of mutations are deleterious and only evo handwaving to suggest evolutions proceeds limitlessly.

So that initial claim is incorrect because indeed there is support for creationist paradigms. It is just that evos are too ignorant, egocentric and self righteous to admit to it.

Over all creos have had their predictions validated in relation to junk dna and vestigial organs where as evos could make no prediction at all in their fun fare of psuedo science. Nested hierarchies are arbitrary and depend on assumptions and pick a box homology. Overall the fossil evidence better aligns with Genesis than with TOE.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61320 Nov 27, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an evo, and I do not hate this conversation in the least bit. I've never once had to rely on junk DNA to mop the floor with creationists. So, I do not need to rely on junk dna to shoot down every reason you feel your god does exist and every reason you feel that you need a god for life to exist.
Iíve done this dance many times, and I have grown tired of it, but since itís been awhile, if you would like, letís do do this exercise one last time, just for kicks:
Please explain why you feel your god must exist. What proof or logic do you use to support your belief? Is there any? Or is it just faith?
Also are you Christian? If not, what are you? What do you think of the gods of other religions? Are they false?
Please explain why you feel god must have created life.
I don't care what conversations you have had, you have yet to deal with me.

Nor do I have to be sucked into talking to philosophy seeing as evos can't mange the rubbish they call their science.

The bible is the only spiritual writing where the composers do not take glory for themselves and did not live in shameless luxury. As far as humanity is concerned, that is a miracle itself.

I believe in God because I want to. I also believe in God because as observed earth is at the centre of the universe. I can present a theory that supports that claim, and depite all the rhetoric on alien life we have not found any.

So with all the available data, and disregarding all the woffley speculation it dsure does look to me that Copernicus was a fool and we certainly are special.

Belief in God does not inform this debate as there are theist evolutionists. I suggest they have been sucked in and mesmerized by evolutionary misrepresentation and empirical evidence that is not empirical at all.

As usual you evos run for phisosophy when the reality of your psudo science is highlighted.

TOE needs to be taken out of he science streams and put in with philosophy. It is there that assumptive reasonings should be dealt with until they come up with something stable that actually looks like a science.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Grace Nerissa 37,726
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 11 min Grace Nerissa 1,759
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min Roy 152,505
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 26 min Yupp111 1,084
Tell Us Who or What You Really Are,...? (Apr '13) 52 min wichita-rick 1,644
Federal Disability Insurance Program 1 hr Roy 12
tellmealie (Dec '12) 1 hr Independent1 335
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 1 hr wichita-rick 318
Is it possible to....... 1 hr CJ Rocker 578
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr Sarah 25,711
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 3 hr Dr Wu 236
More from around the web