Evolution vs. Creation

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

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63823 Dec 7, 2012
Lactase persistence and the ability to digest lactose is a recent positive change in the human genome. Previously seen as a disease (Simoons, F. J. 1969), research has shown it to be a heritable trait (Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, et al). This recent genetic change that is found in populations in Europe the West fits the bill as an example of new information added recently to our genome. While we may not understand all the details surrounding this new trait (Swallow, DM 2003) it still represents an evolution of the human genome.

Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, C.J. Ingram, D.M. Swallow & M.G. Thomas. 2010. A worldwide correlation of lactase persistence phenotype and genotypes. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10: 36.

Simoons, F.J. 1969. Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biological and cultural interrelations. I. Review of the medical research. Digestive Diseases & Sciences. 14(12): 819–836.

Swallow, D.M. 2003. Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annu. Rev. Genetics. 37: 197–219.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63824 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you disagree then you will start posting more than you opinion and articulate why I am wrong.
It has taken weeks to get you evo idiots to start talking science instead of hubris and now after a quick and failed jolst you are back to your hubris with nothing not a link to be seen.
The deteriorating genome supports 2 claims, 1. the fall of man and 2. that life could not have been 'evolving' for billions of years due to the cost. That I have supported with data that DOES say the genome is deteriorating and then goes on to evoke hubris based on nothing more than algorithmic magical hand waving to explain it.
If you disagree then get that lazy ass and head working and come up with something more than 'quack quack'.
I've told you why you are wrong, Subduction Zone has told you, many, many others have told you. It won't matter how much actual, factual information you are provided, shown, hand held while taken to it, you are going to continue spreading your lies and mental filth on here.

I can't imagine you are someone right with the Lord when you are so willing to lie, and misslead others. Your must have the weakest faith to believe this is the way to go.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63825 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you disagree then you will start posting more than you opinion and articulate why I am wrong.
It has taken weeks to get you evo idiots to start talking science instead of hubris and now after a quick and failed jolst you are back to your hubris with nothing not a link to be seen.
The deteriorating genome supports 2 claims, 1. the fall of man and 2. that life could not have been 'evolving' for billions of years due to the cost. That I have supported with data that DOES say the genome is deteriorating and then goes on to evoke hubris based on nothing more than algorithmic magical hand waving to explain it.
If you disagree then get that lazy ass and head working and come up with something more than 'quack quack'.
Wow, a new twist from a twisted mind.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63826 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU learn to read and comprehend together like a human being is supposed to be able to do. This is what the article says...
"Modern birds—or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."
IOW.. Modern birds HAVE a DIFFERENT set of traits, including hollow bones than their predecessors, eg Arch. In my other article ARCH HAS A DIFFERENT GROWTH RATE TO BIRDS and LIKE DINOSAURS.
ARCH DID NOT HAVE HOLLOW BONES, you and the rest of the gaggle of geese! Nor did it have a furcula that looked anything like a modern bird, nor are feathers solely an avian trait, nor are dino beaks, and the entirely of evolutionary theory is based on ROT, yet my 6 points stand strong.
Come on Kitten, I have had enough of your rot and Subby's. You say dinos have hollow bones and the article also says so. You are both mistaken.

I seriously get tired of responses from empty vessels that can chase tails with philosophy, bomb out everytime they try to talk science and want to reinforce their scientific ignorance. You keep talking about your la de da stuff and vagueary because are much better at that. Evo philosophers!

Now Kitten are you and that other goose Subby going to fess up to being unable to engage reading and comprehension skills both at the same time and were WRONG? Birds have hollow bones.

My six point stand as evidence for creation and you evos simply cannot refute them. Due to the fact that my assertions are based on raw data, stripped of evo excuses, you will not be able to refute me, struggle as you may. It is all a hypothesis but I do not have to complicate the data, even as biased as it is, by adding assumptions and stories that these evos have to come up with.

However, I can better refute you, because your hypothesis/excuses are your evo supports and are challengeable exactly because they are hypothesis, and not the data.

So instead I reckon you evos should post and articulate what you see as some scientific points, data and links (not philosophy), that you feel is convincing support for TOE and let's look at them, because so far none I have spoken to appear to be credible and robust.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63827 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, a new twist from a twisted mind.
I'll add you to the mob of geese above that can ridicule and prattle but are lost when it comes to using science to support their view. Evo philosophers the lot of you here.

After a month or so, a few days on science, and you are back to babble.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63828 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Lactase persistence and the ability to digest lactose is a recent positive change in the human genome. Previously seen as a disease (Simoons, F. J. 1969), research has shown it to be a heritable trait (Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, et al). This recent genetic change that is found in populations in Europe the West fits the bill as an example of new information added recently to our genome. While we may not understand all the details surrounding this new trait (Swallow, DM 2003) it still represents an evolution of the human genome.
Itan, Y., B.L. Jones, C.J. Ingram, D.M. Swallow & M.G. Thomas. 2010. A worldwide correlation of lactase persistence phenotype and genotypes. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10: 36.
Simoons, F.J. 1969. Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biological and cultural interrelations. I. Review of the medical research. Digestive Diseases & Sciences. 14(12): 819–836.
Swallow, D.M. 2003. Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annu. Rev. Genetics. 37: 197–219.
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?

I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.

My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.

Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!

So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63829 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
You still don't answer my questions and you never will because everything you say would fall apart if you tried to answer them honestly.

Yes, I do becasue it shows that the genome is not deteriorating. That is just your mind.

If you can post these then do so. You won't because you cannot.

Go on Maz, show some balls. Put up or shut up.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63830 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
It is an alteration of the genome that is expressed as an ability to digest lactose. Do you not understand anything you are railing on about?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63831 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
A plethora? No not a plethora. My God, why didn't someone tell me she had a plethora.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63832 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think posting a link that speaks to somatic change is a refute to the deteriorating genome, is that how it is?
I can post dozens of them. None of then demonstrates a limitless ablity to adapt, let alone have anything to say in relation to the research I have posted on the deteriorating genome. Creos accept limited adaptation, not unlimited.
My 6 point list contains a few of a plethora around a variety of organisms with a deteriorating genome.
Dan, go back to the kindy forum!!!!!!!!!!
So basically you have just wasted space, demonstrated you have no idea how to defend anything and just want to post because you hate the idea that I can actually support myself, and want to justify your existence on a debating thread.
Talk about wind in the channels as a defense. Now we are seeing what you do when you come up against real scientific evidence. You fizzle out like a fart in hurricane.

See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63833 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not.
It is teachers jobs to teach the SECULAR subjects. It is parents jobs to teach WHATEVER FAITH they choose to instill in ther children, and there is nothing WRONG with that (as long as it is NOT harming OTHERS)!!!!!!!!!
So we agree, it is the teachers' job to teach about evolution, a secular subject.

You are wrong when you say parent's are doing no harm to their children when they instill a faith in them. Is it wrong, or bad for a child to be taught by their parents to be a suicide bomber? Is it wrong for parents to tell their dying children that blood transplants are evil? If you cannot say these are bad then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63834 Dec 7, 2012
Oh and Dan, Don't forget the accumulating effects of beneficial mutations were overwhelmingly negative. That is on top of the research on the deteriorating genome. Do I need to repost the articles again?

I have not misrepresented the research either. Indeed I suugest the researchers did not explain how the genome has survived the costs and have left that question up in the air with maybe's and perhaps's.

Let me point you in the right direction... What have you got in the way of explaing the above? If you can't then there is no use babbling on with asides like somatic change, and misrepresented fossils, that make you appear all the more ignorant of your own science.

“Swimming With Ignorant Snarks”

Since: Nov 10

Great White Snark

#63835 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but this brand of insult slinging is how you evos get out of answering questions. If you're so informed why not answer?
If you have a question that is truly bothering you about evolution...there's a deal called goggle....intellectual laziness isn't a valid argument for creationism.

Einstein was right when he said, "two things are infinite. The Universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."

Science has pretty much nailed down that human morality increases with evolution but with religion fighting evolution every step of the way, can we evolve in time?

Crea
tionism is dangerous. It like a continuing education making various myths legitimate. Where do we draw the line when it comes to our children's education? Do we continue the Santa myth or leprechauns into secondary education, with their only evidence of fact is a book filled with talking snakes and animals, fiery serpents and vipers, giants, magic and witches, death, destruction, vengeance and bronze age gossip.

Creationist (as a cult) tend to be right-wing white supremacists, they fear equality, sex, change, women and have abnormal sexual perversion tendencies....they develop a patriarchal mentality that has failed mankind miserably. Scientific savvy in the US is disgraceful when compared other developed nations...and that can be laid at the Pearly Gates of creationism.

While I think a Leprechaun riding a Glitter Farting Unicorn would be cute and interesting, would it be healthy for children to be brainwashed into believing it is real or factual?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63837 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Oh and Dan, Don't forget the accumulating effects of beneficial mutations were overwhelmingly negative. That is on top of the research on the deteriorating genome. Do I need to repost the articles again?
I have not misrepresented the research either. Indeed I suugest the researchers did not explain how the genome has survived the costs and have left that question up in the air with maybe's and perhaps's.
Let me point you in the right direction... What have you got in the way of explaing the above? If you can't then there is no use babbling on with asides like somatic change, and misrepresented fossils, that make you appear all the more ignorant of your own science.
No, you misread the article. And you know that you did. If you had read it correctly and your claim was true you could have quoted from the article to support your bogus claim.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63838 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be because despite all the rhetoric and similarity many non closely related species share, only mankind, a furless, obligate bipedal primate, can make meaning of the world and conceive the concept of a God and afterlife. Despite sign language a fur laiden ape will never conceive of a God, no matter how many generations of signing you evoke.
The mind of God is where we refect the likeness of God, not in the limbs tetrapods and whales are supposed to share which is ridiculous, nor the neural spindles primates share with whales and nothing in between.
This is because man made god in his image, not in apes image and I suppose most apes (except some homo sapiens) don’t give a sh|t

The mind of god is where you think, your imagination

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63839 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So we are going to start again are we? That is your strategy?
How does a deteriorating genome support TOE again??????????
Oh that's right, YOU have NO idea!
Maz, you listed a series of papers that support the theory of evolution, without any quotes that support your bogus claim. All that it takes to debunk your claim is a hand wave since all you had less than a handwave argument in the first place.

I have still to see you were wrong about the whale bones. Where is your apology for that bullshit that you insisted was legit.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63840 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Oh and Dan, Don't forget the accumulating effects of beneficial mutations were overwhelmingly negative. That is on top of the research on the deteriorating genome. Do I need to repost the articles again?
I have not misrepresented the research either. Indeed I suugest the researchers did not explain how the genome has survived the costs and have left that question up in the air with maybe's and perhaps's.
Let me point you in the right direction... What have you got in the way of explaing the above? If you can't then there is no use babbling on with asides like somatic change, and misrepresented fossils, that make you appear all the more ignorant of your own science.
If you would spend less time babbling on about subjects you obviously no nothing about and get straight to the point, it would save us a lot of garbage to read through.

Why don't you post what I asked for? You said you could do it. Were you just lying and misrepresenting again? Come on gutless, lets see it.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63841 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, you listed a series of papers that support the theory of evolution, without any quotes that support your bogus claim. All that it takes to debunk your claim is a hand wave since all you had less than a handwave argument in the first place.
I have still to see you were wrong about the whale bones. Where is your apology for that bullshit that you insisted was legit.
Maz is using a propaganda technique that saw it's golden days in 1930' and 1940's Germany and is experiencing a massive revitalization in discussions of modern politics and religion. Tell a lie. Repeat that lie as often as possible. When the lie has been repeated often enough, it will begin to be accepted as truth. What is sadly amusing is that avowed Christians are using that tactic to support and drive their beliefs like "Thous shall not lie."
Ms Moo

Plymouth, MN

#63842 Dec 7, 2012
Religion is belief. One either believes or not. As such, the subject of the belief is not subject to veracity (independent proof). Rather, what can be questioned is whether the individual actually believes or not. E.g., a belief in God. God can't be proven except by relying on more beliefs. What can be proven is whether the individual actually believes in God.

Science is the direct opposite. It's about facts. Facts are, by definition, subject to veracity. Beliefs of facts is nonsense; the facts exists whether you believe in them or not. E.g., fire is hot. It can be proven that fire is hot. Try it.

Ergo, a belief in God is akin to a belief in unicorns.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63843 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is an alteration of the genome that is expressed as an ability to digest lactose. Do you not understand anything you are railing on about?
And it is somatic change and there are dozens of them... The ability to digest lactose is somatic change and no more of a big deal!

It is no different that the somatic change Darwin noticed in his finches that was somatic change being below germ line level.

http://testifyingtotruth.wordpress.com/2012/0...

It has nothing to do with anything I have spoken to at all.

Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature (NOT a creationist publisher)2009.

David N. Reznick1 & Robert E. Ricklefs2

Abstract:
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...

Hence, by the evolutionary researchers words above, these lab style experiments reflect adaptation and DO NOT demonstrate an unlimited ability to adapt as evos often like to misrepresent and chase their tails/tales around about. These experiments neither demonstrate an organisms limletless ability to adapt nor negative epistasis not the deteriorating genome. Get it?????

"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

"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. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

The above suggests the results of accumulating so called beneficial mutations (eg ability to digest lactose in your case) are negative.

How can life have gone on for billions of years due to the epistatic cost, as well as the deteriorating genome that has deteriorated despite, what evos call beneficial mutations? The data suggests negative results and on top there is plenty to support the deteriorating genome.

Your jabber and reference to adaptation does not address this AND you would have to be ignorant to suggest that such a simplistic reply does. Back to BIO101 for you!.

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
Is it possible to....... 3 min Enzo49 589
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 9 min Hatti_Hollerand 138,415
True or False Game 11 min mr goodwrench 1,304
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min wichita-rick 152,844
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 23 min beatlesinafog 1,806
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 29 min beatlesinafog 7,630
Woman Switches Seats on Plane, Spends 3 Days in... 36 min TALLYHO 8541 28
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 49 min Enzo49 25,965
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr TALLYHO 8541 37,777
More from around the web