Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61724 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I have seen little more than rhetoric from evolutionists so far.
I suggest we will progress the discussion further if we consider what Sanford was suggesting and what the results of both older and recent evolutionary research indicates in the majority. Can evolutionists defend themselves at all?
http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impo...
What is genetic entropy? Geneticist John Sanford made a proposal which included the accumulation of mutations will always ultimately decrease fitness in a process he called “genetic entropy”. This data (1) supports young earth creationism and less importantly (2) effectively falsifies the current theory of evolution. That is the general theme.
Both evolutionary and creationist algorithms are based on assumptions. Let’s see who can present the most robust case for their view.
This below is a study from Science.
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
“Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.“
Experiments have shown beneficial mutations working against each other which is known as antagonistic epistasis while other experiments have shown loss in fitness if they worked together rather than alone. Richard Lenski, Michigan State, known for the longest-running experiment on evolution of E. coli, discovered a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Near the end the authors did notice a type of genetic entropy,“tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness“.
I can offer several examples of evolutionary research that identify degradation and deterioration within the genome of varying organisms.
Genome Degradation in Brucella ovis Corresponds with Narrowing of Its Host Range and Tissue Tropism
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...
Genomic degradation of a young Y chromosome in Drosophila miranda
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/2/R30
Comparison of genome degradation in Paratyphi A and Typhi, human-restricted serovars of Salmonella enterica that cause typhoid
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n12/abs/...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/...
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
The above information is not new. Sanford knew this information when he spoke to genetic entropy and published his papers.
Here is a link from 1999.
Insights into the evolutionary process of genome degradation
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
I can present a plethora of such papers from published articles that speak to the deteriorating genome and overwhelmingly negative effects.
Evolutionists can argue and nit pick just as creationists can with evolutionary theory. However, I suggest that the overwhelming majority of research results from your evolutionary researchers supports Sanfords general theme, mutations lead to degradation/entropy/deteriorat ion.
I suggest there is ample data to suggest the genome is deteriorating as Sanford suggesdted and evolutionists have merely hand waved their own data away.
Run evos, run!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61725 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The above post suggests that evos have not got a clue. This mess above doesn't even know what peer reviewed science is because most of the research on deterioration of the genome I provided is peer reviewed research from your very own evo researchers, you idiot!
No, you misinterpreted some peer reviewed articles on research. They clearly did not state what you thought they did. In fact you tried to use them for the long ago debunked Sanford. And you did claim that Sanford's work was peer reviewed, it wasn't.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61726 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The above post suggests that evos have not got a clue. This mess above doesn't even know what peer reviewed science is because most of the research on deterioration of the genome I provided is peer reviewed research from your very own evo researchers, you idiot!
Another LYING creationist – as expected

As I previously stated (and you ignored) what your 2 links suggest is that inbreeding is flawed. It is no ones fault but you own that you do not understand this

It can also be postulated from such research that the adam and eve story and the noah story are total cr/\p

Given that you posted 2 links that prove you ideas as rubbish because you did not understand them that still does not explain you lack of any other evidence that you said you could provide

I see from you post count that you are still pretty new at this lark. May I offer some advice? I will anyway, we are not all as stupid as you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61727 Nov 29, 2012
Maz, the genetic biology in those various articles is beyond my comfort zone. I am not sure of implications of their research. One thing I am sure of is that your conclusions of what their research means is clearly wrong. Too bad we don't have an active biologist with the know how to translate those articles into everyday speech.

Clearly if they limited evolution in any way they would be major block buster articles. We would have heard about it from the scientific community. The fact that we didn't is pretty good proof that the meaning is close to what I said it is, that it is merely an observation of the rates of evolution not the limits of evolution.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61728 Nov 29, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Lyingbitch – I and several others have explained and posted links to peer reviewed evidence from renowned sites belonging to educational establishments (universities etc), the worlds leading scientific establishments, governments and religious organisations and you have done sweet foockall but ignore those evidences
What have you done to bolster you own opinion? Lied, misdirected, mistakenly posted to links that contradict and disprove your view and posted links to creation com who openly admit that they are not a scientific establishment and facts in no way temper their opinion as well as other similar non scientific mumbo jumbo.
Another example of an evotard trying their best to save face on this forum and making a boofhead of herself at every opportunity.

If you actually had some idea of what you are taliking about you would specify instead of offering you vague BS in place of research.

As I said evos can quack, but they cannot provide any evidence to counter my post.

The genome is deteriorating in line with Sanfords general claim.

Come one evos, are you going to give up so soon?

I have supplied what you lot call empirical peer reviewed research to support my calims. Evos have posted nothing more than evasion.

That means that evolutionists really are the loosers on this thread. They can rant, ridicule, evade and demand peer reviewed research, but they cannot supply a shred of empirical research to defend themselves. That is why I refer to many evolutionists like Christine, Subduction Zone and Dude etc as 'Quackers" and "Wofflers".

My research links speaking to the genome deterioration of a variety of species is from evo researcher and is not misquoted, you sorry example of an evolutionist.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61729 Nov 29, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you misinterpreted some peer reviewed articles on research. They clearly did not state what you thought they did. In fact you tried to use them for the long ago debunked Sanford. And you did claim that Sanford's work was peer reviewed, it wasn't.
The stop demonstrating you are a bafoon and come up with more than your opinion and demonstrate how research that plainly provided dayta that the genome is deteriorating does not align with Sanford and is a misrepresentation.

You still have no clue how to support your opinion.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61731 Nov 29, 2012
BTW I replied to Subby re Sanford having peer reviewed research on genetic entropy but his ignorance outweighs any hope of reality.

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

AND, the majority of links I provided are peer reviewed research from evolutionary researchers.

Are you another boofhead like Christing that doesn't know what your own research looks like?

Subduction zone, you have not got a clue!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61732 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I have seen little more than rhetoric from evolutionists so far.
I suggest we will progress the discussion further if we consider what Sanford was suggesting and what the results of both older and recent evolutionary research indicates in the majority. Can evolutionists defend themselves at all?
http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impo...
What is genetic entropy? Geneticist John Sanford made a proposal which included the accumulation of mutations will always ultimately decrease fitness in a process he called “genetic entropy”. This data (1) supports young earth creationism and less importantly (2) effectively falsifies the current theory of evolution. That is the general theme.
Both evolutionary and creationist algorithms are based on assumptions. Let’s see who can present the most robust case for their view.
This below is a study from Science.
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
“Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.“
Experiments have shown beneficial mutations working against each other which is known as antagonistic epistasis while other experiments have shown loss in fitness if they worked together rather than alone. Richard Lenski, Michigan State, known for the longest-running experiment on evolution of E. coli, discovered a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Near the end the authors did notice a type of genetic entropy,“tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness“.
I can offer several examples of evolutionary research that identify degradation and deterioration within the genome of varying organisms.
Genome Degradation in Brucella ovis Corresponds with Narrowing of Its Host Range and Tissue Tropism
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...
Genomic degradation of a young Y chromosome in Drosophila miranda
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/2/R30
Comparison of genome degradation in Paratyphi A and Typhi, human-restricted serovars of Salmonella enterica that cause typhoid
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n12/abs/...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/...
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
The above information is not new. Sanford knew this information when he spoke to genetic entropy and published his papers.
Here is a link from 1999.
Insights into the evolutionary process of genome degradation
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
I can present a plethora of such papers from published articles that speak to the deteriorating genome and overwhelmingly negative effects.
Evolutionists can argue and nit pick just as creationists can with evolutionary theory. However, I suggest that the overwhelming majority of research results from your evolutionary researchers supports Sanfords general theme, mutations lead to degradation/entropy/deteriorat ion.
I suggest there is ample data to suggest the genome is deteriorating as Sanford suggesdted and evolutionists have merely hand waved their own data away.
Come on evotards, put your research where your mouth is!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61733 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The stop demonstrating you are a bafoon and come up with more than your opinion and demonstrate how research that plainly provided dayta that the genome is deteriorating does not align with Sanford and is a misrepresentation.
You still have no clue how to support your opinion.
Nope, the burden of proof is upon you for this particular claim. You are the one making a positive claim, it is up to you to prove your claim. That is how the rules of debate go.

And you have yet to admit that you were wrong about Sanford being peer reviewed. I am still waiting.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61734 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Run evos, run!
I see you are still trying and failing

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61735 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
BTW I replied to Subby re Sanford having peer reviewed research on genetic entropy but his ignorance outweighs any hope of reality.
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
AND, the majority of links I provided are peer reviewed research from evolutionary researchers.
Are you another boofhead like Christing that doesn't know what your own research looks like?
Subduction zone, you have not got a clue!
Liar.

You claimed his work on genetic entropy was peer reviewed. It wasn't. Now Sanford may have had some peer reviewed work. Having peer review materials published once does not create an umbrella that covers all of your work. Many people get mentally ill and their later work while ill cannot be compared to their work while sane.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61736 Nov 29, 2012
Jim wrote:
What I read dinosaurs never existed, there was never an ice age, meteors never hit earth there was never but one flood. These thing have nothing to do with science it is thing that have proof making them facts.
I have provided many proofs over the last week. Creos predictions around non conding dna and vestigial organs is being validated as opposed to evolutionary predictions. I have discussed fossil evidence that better aligns with creationism, I have demonstrated the actual twoddle behind anyone algorithmic magic and now I will demonstrate that evolutionary research can offer support for just about anything.

For instance, the slowest proposed mutation rate puts the common ancestor of humans and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he says: more than 20 million years before dates derived from abundant fossil evidence. This very slow clock has the common ancestor of monkeys and humans co-existing with the last dinosaurs.“It gets very complicated,” deadpans Reich.

http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

If you have something to say then demonstrate with peer reviewed research that the genome is not deteriorating and that despite epistasis and a degenerating genome evolution has gone on for 4 billion years.

I can and have suported my view very well, and with peer reviewed research. I predict evolutionists can't.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61737 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Another example of an evotard trying their best to save face on this forum and making a boofhead of herself at every opportunity.
If you actually had some idea of what you are taliking about you would specify instead of offering you vague BS in place of research.
As I said evos can quack, but they cannot provide any evidence to counter my post.
The genome is deteriorating in line with Sanfords general claim.
Come one evos, are you going to give up so soon?
I have supplied what you lot call empirical peer reviewed research to support my calims. Evos have posted nothing more than evasion.
That means that evolutionists really are the loosers on this thread. They can rant, ridicule, evade and demand peer reviewed research, but they cannot supply a shred of empirical research to defend themselves. That is why I refer to many evolutionists like Christine, Subduction Zone and Dude etc as 'Quackers" and "Wofflers".
My research links speaking to the genome deterioration of a variety of species is from evo researcher and is not misquoted, you sorry example of an evolutionist.
Specified and you ignored it – you think I am here to wipe you a$$ because you can’t do it yourself – tough you’ll juts have to stink the place out

No you have supplied what disproved creationist theories and claimed otherwise – you lied.

What that means is you are a liar for you god and what is that crustards say about satan, that he is the father of lies, it follows therefore that you worship your god satan when you lie.

You links were to work in 2 species in isolation, not a variety so stop lying, do you realise ho is damages what little credibility you have left?

No it is not misquoted, it was not quoted at all, you simply took the titles as the content and lied about the actual content

You are a sad example of a godbot, you are a godbot that lies for her god

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61738 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
BTW I replied to Subby re Sanford having peer reviewed research on genetic entropy but his ignorance outweighs any hope of reality.
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
AND, the majority of links I provided are peer reviewed research from evolutionary researchers.
Are you another boofhead like Christing that doesn't know what your own research looks like?
Subduction zone, you have not got a clue!
More lies

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61739 Nov 29, 2012
Jim wrote:
What I read dinosaurs never existed, there was never an ice age, meteors never hit earth there was never but one flood. These thing have nothing to do with science it is thing that have proof making them facts.
Damned nuisance those facts eh?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61740 Nov 29, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
You claimed his work on genetic entropy was peer reviewed. It wasn't. Now Sanford may have had some peer reviewed work. Having peer review materials published once does not create an umbrella that covers all of your work. Many people get mentally ill and their later work while ill cannot be compared to their work while sane.
The go tell Wiki they have supplied rubbish. At the moment I have supplied evidence that Sanfords work was peer reviewed and you just want to save face here.

Only morons do that.

It is not about Sanford being peer reviewed, you moron. It is about my providing research from your own researchersdd that support his work, regardless.

If you weren't such a baffoon you would be able to demonstrae how empirical evience that speaks to the deteriorating genome doesn really mean what it says.

Yopu evos should be good at that because the entirety of evolutionary research is more supportive of a creationist paradigm and evos always have to come up with convoluted woffle to demonstrate why the data isn't really saying what it appears to say.

I can support my view. You cannot support yours. That much, after so many replies, is evident.

Here is your big chance, big mouth. Provide peer reviewed research that demonstrates the genome is NOT deteriorating as I suggest.

Bet you can't? More woffle is my prediction again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61741 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The stop demonstrating you are a bafoon and come up with more than your opinion and demonstrate how research that plainly provided dayta that the genome is deteriorating does not align with Sanford and is a misrepresentation.
You still have no clue how to support your opinion.
Wait, you want me to prove a negative? Who is the buffoon now?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61742 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided many proofs over the last week. Creos predictions around non conding dna and vestigial organs is being validated as opposed to evolutionary predictions. I have discussed fossil evidence that better aligns with creationism, I have demonstrated the actual twoddle behind anyone algorithmic magic and now I will demonstrate that evolutionary research can offer support for just about anything.
For instance, the slowest proposed mutation rate puts the common ancestor of humans and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he says: more than 20 million years before dates derived from abundant fossil evidence. This very slow clock has the common ancestor of monkeys and humans co-existing with the last dinosaurs.“It gets very complicated,” deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
If you have something to say then demonstrate with peer reviewed research that the genome is not deteriorating and that despite epistasis and a degenerating genome evolution has gone on for 4 billion years.
I can and have suported my view very well, and with peer reviewed research. I predict evolutionists can't.
What a surprise. If you slow the clock that is used to make estimates of ages by too much you get wrong answers.

Who woulda thunk it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61743 Nov 29, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Specified and you ignored it – you think I am here to wipe you a$$ because you can’t do it yourself – tough you’ll juts have to stink the place out
No you have supplied what disproved creationist theories and claimed otherwise – you lied.
What that means is you are a liar for you god and what is that crustards say about satan, that he is the father of lies, it follows therefore that you worship your god satan when you lie.
You links were to work in 2 species in isolation, not a variety so stop lying, do you realise ho is damages what little credibility you have left?
No it is not misquoted, it was not quoted at all, you simply took the titles as the content and lied about the actual content
You are a sad example of a godbot, you are a godbot that lies for her god
You have suplied nothing you face saving little weed.

The idea is that you look at the links, read and learn and address some of that ignorance. The heading reflect the work withina nd if you weren't such a fool you'd be able to easily paste up the misrepresentation.

I have never even seen younpost a link.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61744 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The go tell Wiki they have supplied rubbish. At the moment I have supplied evidence that Sanfords work was peer reviewed and you just want to save face here.
Only morons do that.
It is not about Sanford being peer reviewed, you moron. It is about my providing research from your own researchersdd that support his work, regardless.
If you weren't such a baffoon you would be able to demonstrae how empirical evience that speaks to the deteriorating genome doesn really mean what it says.
Yopu evos should be good at that because the entirety of evolutionary research is more supportive of a creationist paradigm and evos always have to come up with convoluted woffle to demonstrate why the data isn't really saying what it appears to say.
I can support my view. You cannot support yours. That much, after so many replies, is evident.
Here is your big chance, big mouth. Provide peer reviewed research that demonstrates the genome is NOT deteriorating as I suggest.
Bet you can't? More woffle is my prediction again.
Wiki does not say that he published any peer reviewed work on genetic entropy. Show me one quote from that article that says he ever did any work on genetic entropy that was peer reviewed. Yes, he was a brilliant man at one point. Unfortunately something snapped in his head. Since he went on this creationist kick he has published nothing of note.

And yes, we are all getting rather tired of your Blue Waffle.

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
The 13 Most Evil US Government Human Experiments 4 min Elise Gingerich 11
Should a Husband Help His Wife With the Dishes? (Dec '12) 6 min dragoon70056 479
Bill Cosby 8 min FTW Forever 169
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 12 min Princess Hey 1,499
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 16 min Spirit67_ 23,953
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 20 min Analog man 1,784
Spirit's Good Bye Thread 21 min Spirit67_ 85
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr -Lea- 8,020

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE