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
59,741 - 59,760 of 112,828 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63848
Dec 7, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical creotard feelings about women...why the hell would any women want to reproduce with creatures like this?
Hah! a typical defense reponse from the sidekick of the Stygian witch, the slut of Beelzebub.As you sit stewing in the bubbling pool of Satans semen carefully lift the Devils nutsack out of your eyes and commence your fornicaton with the evolutionist whore of Babylon that your offspring may populate the bowels of Satan to prepare for the apocalypse.
Hail the Goo!

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63849
Dec 7, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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!.
It is different. It is new information and it is heritable. In fact, it is appears to be polygenic. You are talking about natural variation within a population to refute discussion of a real trait with a genetic basis, that was selected for and entered the human population less than 10,000 years ago.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63850
Dec 7, 2012
 
Snark Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>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?
If right wing people tend to be racist sexist perverts.
Than liberal lefties are tree hugging baby killing socialists.
This isn't about politics and as NO ONE has said anything about unicorns leprechauns accept the evo atheists. So really who believes what?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63851
Dec 7, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
"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.
“decelerating fitness gains” means the rate at which fitness increases slows down not that it becomes negative. The beneficial mutations are still improving the bacterias adaption to its environment.

And beneficial mutations are evolution!

The full abstract.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
“Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation. We generated combinations of beneficial mutations that arose in a lineage during rapid adaptation of a bacterium whose growth depended on a newly introduced metabolic pathway.”

So beneficial mutations can and do happen.

“The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto more fit backgrounds.”

When the bacteria were moved onto a more fit background the mutations were less needed and so selection slowed down (It didn't stop).

“These three alleles all reduced morphological defects caused by expression of the foreign pathway.”

Three of the mutations reduced defects so increasing fitness of the bacteria.

“A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs effectively predicted the interactions between them. 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.”

All was as predicted by evolutionary models.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63852
Dec 7, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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!.
Folks here is an example of misuse and misrepresentation of references to real scientific work. Maz is citing an article about the link between micro- and macroevolution to refute my comment about the deteriorating genome. This is just slight of hand. Chicanery. She goes on to parrot comments about epistasis and other concepts she has no real notion of.

The point is that lactose digestion entered the human genome sometime in the last 10,000 years. It is a mutation not just of one gene, but more than one. It cast doubt on this so called "deteriorating genome." You can read the sources she has posted, they are very interesting, but don't refute my point.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63853
Dec 7, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or it could be a natural use of His power. God created the trees, right? They reproduce naturally. Now if you wanna say that it's the "Will of God" or whatever, then be my guest. But there's no great mystery behind it. Ya know, seeds, water, sunlight, yadda yadda. Once there was a time we did not know that and "Godmagic" was enough. Hence, abio, like plant reproduction, would merely be a *natural* extension of His power.
It's just a shame that whether a God did anything at all (or even exists for that matter) can't ever be determined because it's a non-scientific concept.
There. I dared. Whaddya gonna do about it?
Jack. That's what.
Oh, maybe you'll make a few lame puddle goo jokes before running away again. That'll sure up your credibility.
<quoted text>
Bub, I've said that from the beginning. I know you prefer to paint me as a fundamentalist atheist who is "close-minded" on the possibility of a God, but that's simply not the case. 2,000 posts later and you're finally realizing I don't fall under the category of the typical fundie-caricature atheist?
Well you never were very observant.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Yeah, you keep saying that but always resort to ad-hom instead of addressing the content of my posts. So you'll excuse me if you're not taken very seriously. Except maybe by your fellow dumb people.
<quoted text>
(yawn)
Yeah, you have nothing of substance to say, but you just gotta get it off your chest that you don't like "puddle-goo atheists!" Big whoop. Have fun with your lame limericks.
Ahh the Dude! further proof that all fools do not die young

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63854
Dec 7, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the historical writings of early civilizations, transcribed and passed along thousands of years, from antiquity?
World Civ History is a cool subject too.
Yes, but why stop learning at the point thousands of years ago, and ignore what more has been figured out since?

If Grimms fairy tales were 3,000 years old. Would you take them as gospel too?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63855
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
So do you want to debate or is nonsense all you have?
Of course it is impossible for a creationist to win a scientific debate about evolution.
No one "wins" if no one gains new insight.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63856
Dec 7, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. And you think everything in our history books are true?
As soon as words like "every"thing start showing up in a debate, you know someone is trying to jam the discussion into the "absolutist" corner, and the value of the conversation is being sacrificed for purposes of scoring empty rhetoric points.

The point is not the absence of all errors, but rather which book contains more errors, and how frequent and important they are, and if there is a major difference in that overall respect.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63857
Dec 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you implying that Einstein believed in a god at all like yours?
He definitely did not.
At the most he believed in a god that set the universe going and that is all.
I would never be so ignorant (as you have just shown to be, because you have NO IDEA, WHAT I believe in) to imply ANY such thing for I did not personally KNOW the man, and therefore, can only base MY OPINION on what I've READ of the mans writings.

SOME of interviews WITH Eistien however, can be read BELOW--
----------

The following comes from "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,"The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17. The questions are posed by Viereck; the reply to each is by Einstein.

On Jesus-

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

"Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets."

"No man," Einstein replied, "can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he."
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63858
Dec 7, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
No one "wins" if no one gains new insight.
Footnote: They don't pay me anything for dealing with these DUHMMies.

lol.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63859
Dec 7, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but why stop learning at the point thousands of years ago, and ignore what more has been figured out since?
If Grimms fairy tales were 3,000 years old. Would you take them as gospel too?
They're not though, or they would be called Grimms Gospels.

Stop trying to distort the archivial reference subjectors.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63860
Dec 7, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but why stop learning at the point thousands of years ago, and ignore what more has been figured out since?
If Grimms fairy tales were 3,000 years old. Would you take them as gospel too?
Do you thik abiogenesis should be classified as PHYSICS?

I do.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63861
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)!!!!!!!!!
Well it probably does harm the kids to teach that evolution is false, but there is a limit to what we should expect government to intervene in. These are the kind of things that government has to treat delicately, and let general opinion and discussion sort out later. We don't want the government to crusade (!) against religious fallacies, because that creates too much strife. If the majority in society want to believe in the tooth fairy, it's not the government's job to set them straight. There are other ways that common sense will eventually prevail. Allowing government to assume the parental role, or to be the nanny, is counter-productive and leads to other social dangers of it's meddling.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63862
Dec 7, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between mere animalistic behavior, and civilized society.
Civilized people can control themselves by litening to a little thing called conscience. Animals often can't.
You come back home and the dog hangs his head, and kind of hides, you start looking for what broke or where the mess is. I wouldn't conclude that no animals can have a conscience.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63863
Dec 7, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
So, who the heck is Eisntien???
He is a different guy from the real Einstein only for those who can't see through a typo or two....:-)

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63864
Dec 7, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you thik abiogenesis should be classified as PHYSICS?
I do.
I would think it was chemistry.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63865
Dec 7, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
He is a different guy from the real Einstein only for those who can't see through a typo or two....:-)
When they have nowhere to go, they jump on to the typing police bandwagon.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63866
Dec 7, 2012
 
Ms Moo wrote:
Religion is belief. One either believes or not.
Not so. There is a lot of half believing that goes on.
Ms Moo wrote:
As such, the subject of the belief is not subject to veracity (independent proof).
Not so. That's the whole point of doing experiments, which often are just to either confirm or to disprove beliefs. Happens all the time. Also, one can do psychological experiments to pretty reliably determine if someone believes in something or not, even when one tries to falsify one's own beliefs. Not 100% reliable, but usually good enough.
Ms Moo wrote:
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.
Not so, anything can be questioned.
Ms Moo wrote:
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.
Operationally speaking, beliefs of facts is incredibly useful. Disbelief of them usually leads to disaster.
Ms Moo wrote:
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.
Might be true. I suspect it is, but it still doesn't necessarily follow from any of the above.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63867
Dec 7, 2012
 
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why it's an intermediary between dinos and birds.
For a dino to evolve into a bird it has to loose some features and gain others. In between we will find animals with a mix of both and that's what the article is describing.
Arch has not gained any bird traits nor loose any dino traits, that appears to be what you refuse to suck up.

Arch has a wishbone just like a theropod, feathers like a theropod, three digits like a theropod, has a moveable thighbone like a dinosaur and a beak like a dino and a plethora of other species.

Arch does not have a reversed hallux like a bird, hollow bones like a bird, a moveable thighbone like a bird, a wishbone like a modern bird, nor a beak like a modern bird.

So I will ask again seeing as you evos have bombed out with every try,eg hollow bones what traits are intermedicate or a mix that suggests arch is anything more than a variety of dinosaur?
Evos are you still wiping egg off their faces around their hollow boned dinosaurs?

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.

•••
•••