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
57,681 - 57,700 of 112,983 Comments Last updated 15 min ago

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61732
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61734
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61738
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61739
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61745
Nov 29, 2012
 
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.

The above is peer reviewed research that says the genome is deteriorating, you evotards!

“Licensed to Ill”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61746
Nov 29, 2012
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I suggested you look outside a single newspaper article. Blogs are good sources of opinion and generally link to more substantial sources.
What got me suspicious about the hyperbole released by the ENCODE project was a knowledge of what sort of odds and ends make up our genome and the unlikelyhood that most of it could have been repurposed for useful function.
Most of our DNA has some sort of function, but it doesn't contribute to the development of our phenotype.
If it has a purpose, then it is not junk or useless, which previously had been the understanding.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61747
Nov 29, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So now you want to digress. The fake that you are.

My post above does address the burden of proof that the genome could not possibly have evolved over billions of years.

Creation is supported. TOE is falsified.

The burden is now on you to supply some shred of evidence to the contrary instead of chasing your tail.

We creos already know you can't support your view. Prove me wrong.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61748
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.
So you report invalid results from invalid sources. Good for you. I would say you have cinched your credibility.

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.

•••
•••