Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64103 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
All great points that should end in "we think" no matter what you think you know you maybe able to remove most uncertainty but you will never know it all. In the quest for certainty only an idiot claims to know it all and has history has shown us even the "small stuff" can change I'm positive to I'm not sure.
KittenKoder has a great answer to you on comment #64050

Consider this: Archaeologists have been telling us for decades that they had worked out the sequence of hominids from monkey to human, and that sequence did not have room for a Adam and Eve scenario like in the Bible. Creationists just ignored the evidence.

Then the paleoanthropologists and archaeologists found evidence that modern humans (Homo-sapiens...us) were roaming the African savannas around 200,000 years ago. This apparently also leaves no room for the Adam and Eve story as the Bible relates. Creationists just ignored this news.

Now, most recently, DNA science has not only backed up the 200,000 year old date, but has also shown that we are connected by blood to earlier Hominids and that most humans alive today (except sub-Saharan Africans) carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood. I think this definitively kills the Adam and Eve story as related in the Bible.

So we pretty much can delete them from the truth column and demote them to just allegory.

This creates a REAL problem for Jesus (well actually a lot more stuff also) courtesy of Paul's meddling with what he thought was REAL history, but turned out to not be so.

You see as time goes on and scientists do their thing without regard to what happens to some perceived truth as they report their findings...things ARE changing. A lot of different sciences have converged to make Genesis and Exodus toast...except as allegory.

Now, whatever will we do about Jesus??
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#64104 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother talking anymore you appear to be hearing enough noise for the both of us. Not even your well credentialed creotards can answer questions like that with more thn likely, perhaps and maybe. That is why they like to play with models and invent speculative excuses that often contradict each other.
The only thing I can draw from this response is that you are yourself unsure how it works.

Hrm, I'll have to go find someone else who can explain how this isn't a contradiction in the hypothesis..........

I mean, because, if it is a contradiction, then obviously something isn't right, right?

Idek I'll let you know my results if I can find a creationist biologist to dumb this down for me.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64105 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, we'll stick to one, the falsification of junk dna being the validation of a creationist prediction made before your recent findings.
Here is an evo biochemist quacker that refers to the IDers speaking to their creo prediction in a book.
"Sorry Michael, it is true. The genomes of many complex multicellular organisms have vast quantities of DNA that serves no purpose. It's junk. The whole argument of your book just collapsed, as did any argument for intelligent design."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2006/12/junk-...
Here he is again making a fool out of himself.
"I have consistently maintained that there's plenty of evidence for junk DNA and those scientists who dismiss the concept are wrong. In my review of The Myth of Junk DNA I specifically addressed the claims of the ENCODE project based on their 2007 pilot study"
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/encod...
I wonder what he'll have to say about the more recent research. Ignore it, I suppose.
John Sanford in 2005 Next, in chapeter 5 of Genetic Entropy debunks the junk-DNA and pseudo-gene myth and suggests that all dna will be found to be functional.
And best of all..from 1998
"Debating this physical anthropologist, Bob Enyart was just a Christian fundamentalist talk show host who spoke from his biblical worldview. Bob argued that our knowledge of genetics was in its infancy, and that it was too early to make the determination that all those non-coding segments of DNA had no function. After this 1998 debate, the next decade of explosive genetic discoveries overwhelmingly validated this creationist perspective, so much so that aside from coding for 20,500 proteins, it is estimated that the remainder of the genome has approximately four million other functional regulatory segments of DNA. So much for junk"
http://kgov.com/journal-nature-junk-not-junk
Creationists have ALWAYS maintained that non coding dna will be found to be functional in time and that has been validated no matter how ignorant you are. We had to make that prediction because evolutionary non functional left overs were great evidence against creationism and good support for TOE. Now it's..Too bad for evos!
Don't you evos thrive on junk and evolutionary left overs? Doesn't evolution even need functionless left overs?
Why did TOE love functionless left overs before but now the opposite means zilch to them? Hmmm!
So I have dug up an example of a creationist speaking to creationists prediction that junk dna will eventually be found to be functional. Hence a creo prediction has been validated.
Now what have you as an evolutionist got to say about non coding dna? Oh let me guess. Nothing, it will be easier to be ignorant and struggle.
In case you chose not to notice Subby, the above has a loud mouth evo, like you, going his hardest and obviously making a fool of himself, in light of more recent research.

TOE said that junk dna was evidence for evolution only a few years ago. I suggest the opposite should now be evidence against evolution unless evos are pretenders in their claims of using credible scientific method.

The many Darwinists who strongly pushed (and many still do) the Junk DNA claim predicted that nearly 99% of the entire human genome, the portion that was non-coding, was mostly just left-over junk DNA. They as good as predicted this based on TOE as they shoved it down creos mouths like the big mouth above.

So what now you evos? Have you got anything better than 'evovacant, woops and who cares', to offer.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#64106 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science hasn't always had super ideas either. It just seems history forgets those as time moves on. Nobody likes cocky science just like nobody likes cocky religion.
No, as time moves on, science self corrects. That is one of the reasons why science is such an effective tool for gaining knowledge - it allows for modification in light of new evidence. Now, scientists are humans too, and are therefore subject to human flaws, so sometimes they mess up just like everyone else - but that's why science itself has built in mechanisms for eliminating bias, confirming results, and changing in light of new data. A major difference between science and religion is that science starts from a hypothesis, checks to see if the observations support it, and then it comes to a conclusion; religion works the other way in that it starts from a conclusion (god did it) and looks for evidence to support it's preconceived notions.

That being said, it shouldn't matter. Science and religion are two different things. It's the fundamentalists who want to pretend that science and religion are diametrically opposed - when in reality they serve two different purposes. Science is a tool for learning about our universe, and religion (for those who want/need it) is a tool for gaining spiritual satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a competition, and there isn't one except in the minds of a few extremists. Religion, for some people, has it's place, but to act as if it can even come close to explaining our universe as well as science does is absurd.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64107 Dec 8, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing I can draw from this response is that you are yourself unsure how it works.
Hrm, I'll have to go find someone else who can explain how this isn't a contradiction in the hypothesis..........
I mean, because, if it is a contradiction, then obviously something isn't right, right?
Idek I'll let you know my results if I can find a creationist biologist to dumb this down for me.
When you learn to post appropriate replies instead of hot air I will engage with you. For now, your research says what it says and your algorithmic magic does not change that and neither does your diversions.

eg, limits to adaptation via negative epistasis and genome deterioration, creos ability to make predictions while evos are still wondering what went wrong!.

Sorry your evo babble did not lead me down the garden path into the land of evo confusion. I know better! You should too!

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#64108 Dec 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, as time moves on, science self corrects. That is one of the reasons why science is such an effective tool for gaining knowledge - it allows for modification in light of new evidence. Now, scientists are humans too, and are therefore subject to human flaws, so sometimes they mess up just like everyone else - but that's why science itself has built in mechanisms for eliminating bias, confirming results, and changing in light of new data. A major difference between science and religion is that science starts from a hypothesis, checks to see if the observations support it, and then it comes to a conclusion; religion works the other way in that it starts from a conclusion (god did it) and looks for evidence to support it's preconceived notions.

That being said, it shouldn't matter. Science and religion are two different things. It's the fundamentalists who want to pretend that science and religion are diametrically opposed - when in reality they serve two different purposes. Science is a tool for learning about our universe, and religion (for those who want/need it) is a tool for gaining spiritual satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a competition, and there isn't one except in the minds of a few extremists. Religion, for some people, has it's place, but to act as if it can even come close to explaining our universe as well as science does is absurd.
I would argue science and religion are very close.
Science can recognize when it makes a mistake and changes.
Religion does the same this is proven by we no longer go on crusades to Jerusalem. We no longer own slaves. No more purification through pain (fire torture) we don't hunt witches. I think you get the point. Most modern Christians find these acts as they were done to be wicked.
So science and religion are growing and always changing.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#64109 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
When you learn to post appropriate replies instead of hot air I will engage with you. For now, your research says what it says and your algorithmic magic does not change that and neither does your diversions.
eg, limits to adaptation via negative epistasis and genome deterioration, creos ability to make predictions while evos are still wondering what went wrong!.
Sorry your evo babble did not lead me down the garden path into the land of evo confusion. I know better! You should too!
If you don't know you can just say you don't know, there's no need to get all uptight about it. Gosh. I will just go get an explanation from someone else that is familiar with the subject. It's not exactly third grade algebra, after all; I'm not expecting you to be an expert on creationist biology.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64110 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you chose not to notice Subby, the above has a loud mouth evo, like you, going his hardest and obviously making a fool of himself, in light of more recent research.
TOE said that junk dna was evidence for evolution only a few years ago. I suggest the opposite should now be evidence against evolution unless evos are pretenders in their claims of using credible scientific method.
The many Darwinists who strongly pushed (and many still do) the Junk DNA claim predicted that nearly 99% of the entire human genome, the portion that was non-coding, was mostly just left-over junk DNA. They as good as predicted this based on TOE as they shoved it down creos mouths like the big mouth above.
So what now you evos? Have you got anything better than 'evovacant, woops and who cares', to offer.
No, not necessarily. There are facts that will sink one idea and yet are neutral to another. The idea of junk DNA was deadly to creationism, but really made no difference either way for evolution. In fact quite a few evolutionary biologists were bothered by the idea. That is one reason why I keep wondering why you keep getting your panties in a knot over this topic.

All that it would mean if all DNA served a present day purpose, and there is evidence that that will never be the case. Then you could say that that particular aspect of DNA has not ruled out creationism yet. Not a lot to crow about if you ask me.

So before you start to crow in victory you should be more aware of what you are crowing about.

And now on to how "junk DNA" still shows creationism to be bunk. Some of the identified genes, therefore no longer junk, used to code for features of the animals ancestors and reflect its evolutionary path. You are still ducking about genes found in chickens that are currently "turned off" that cause it to grow teeth, scales, a "dinosaur" tale, and "hands". All features of its dinosaur ancestors.

Nor have you answered the question of ERV's that were never considered to be "junk".
LOL

Europe

#64111 Dec 8, 2012
LOL:-D

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64112 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Maz, what of ERV's? Those were never counted as "junk DNA" since they were recognized very early for what they are. Do you have an explanation for them that will not leave us rolling in the aisles?
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.

ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.

I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.

So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.

The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64113 Dec 8, 2012
Maz, part of your problem is that you work with the false dichotomy that if evolution is false then creationism is true. That is not necessarily the case. There could be many other possibilities.

Another major problem for creationism is that no one on your side has the guts nor brains to make a real creationism hypothesis. The guts aren't there because they know that hypotheses are testable and they are afraid of tests, having failed all of them to date. There are no current active creationism hypotheses. And you don't have to know everything to create a working hypotheses. Darwin definitely did not know anything and evolution started, like all modern day science does, as a hypothesis. He tested his idea and found that it worked. It as been tested for the entire 150 years since it became a theory by many others and it has always been found to work.

Back to my point that I was making. Scientific evidence, by definition, is evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists are too afraid to construct a scientific hypothesis there can be no scientific evidence for creationism. Of course to be fair there is any against it either. But then no scientist considers anything real when even the followers of the idea are afraid to test it. So you cannot have found any scientific evidence that supports creation at all. No one is willing to write a working hypothesis that the evidence can weigh against.

This is not some cute game that scientists play at. Scientists are very contentious people and would be just as likely to go into denial as anyone else. What cannot be denied is when evidence fits a theory. For example all fossil evidence fits into the evolutionary paradigm. None found so far does not. Since there is not creation hypothesis you cannot make the same claim. Do you see why the creation of hypotheses and theories is so important to scientists. This method is time tested and it produces results. All of modern science, not just evolution is based upon this approach.

So if you want to be a denying luddite, go ahead. You will get laughed at. If you want to call anything as scientific evidence for, or against creationism, then you or your pals need to come up with a hypothesis ASAP.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64114 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, not necessarily. There are facts that will sink one idea and yet are neutral to another. The idea of junk DNA was deadly to creationism, but really made no difference either way for evolution. In fact quite a few evolutionary biologists were bothered by the idea. That is one reason why I keep wondering why you keep getting your panties in a knot over this topic.
All that it would mean if all DNA served a present day purpose, and there is evidence that that will never be the case. Then you could say that that particular aspect of DNA has not ruled out creationism yet. Not a lot to crow about if you ask me.
So before you start to crow in victory you should be more aware of what you are crowing about.
And now on to how "junk DNA" still shows creationism to be bunk. Some of the identified genes, therefore no longer junk, used to code for features of the animals ancestors and reflect its evolutionary path. You are still ducking about genes found in chickens that are currently "turned off" that cause it to grow teeth, scales, a "dinosaur" tale, and "hands". All features of its dinosaur ancestors.
Nor have you answered the question of ERV's that were never considered to be "junk".
I don't care about your waffle around what is turned on and off. It has function. So non functional genomic material demonstrated an evolutionary path and now functional non coding dna also demonstrates an evolutionary path. That is twoddle. You can't get any deep ancestries right and you reckon you can get these ghost ervs into some order.

Admit that I have demonstrated that creos claimed there to be no junk dna many years before it was found to have function and have been validated.

Admit that some evos have shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution and now should suck eggs.

Admit that evos would rather hang themselves than admit to being wrong about anything.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64115 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, part of your problem is that you work with the false dichotomy that if evolution is false then creationism is true. That is not necessarily the case. There could be many other possibilities.
Another major problem for creationism is that no one on your side has the guts nor brains to make a real creationism hypothesis. The guts aren't there because they know that hypotheses are testable and they are afraid of tests, having failed all of them to date. There are no current active creationism hypotheses. And you don't have to know everything to create a working hypotheses. Darwin definitely did not know anything and evolution started, like all modern day science does, as a hypothesis. He tested his idea and found that it worked. It as been tested for the entire 150 years since it became a theory by many others and it has always been found to work.
Back to my point that I was making. Scientific evidence, by definition, is evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists are too afraid to construct a scientific hypothesis there can be no scientific evidence for creationism. Of course to be fair there is any against it either. But then no scientist considers anything real when even the followers of the idea are afraid to test it. So you cannot have found any scientific evidence that supports creation at all. No one is willing to write a working hypothesis that the evidence can weigh against.
This is not some cute game that scientists play at. Scientists are very contentious people and would be just as likely to go into denial as anyone else. What cannot be denied is when evidence fits a theory. For example all fossil evidence fits into the evolutionary paradigm. None found so far does not. Since there is not creation hypothesis you cannot make the same claim. Do you see why the creation of hypotheses and theories is so important to scientists. This method is time tested and it produces results. All of modern science, not just evolution is based upon this approach.
So if you want to be a denying luddite, go ahead. You will get laughed at. If you want to call anything as scientific evidence for, or against creationism, then you or your pals need to come up with a hypothesis ASAP.
No more of your farting Subby. I am not dealing with the theory of everything. I am backing my one point on junk dna, 1/6, and you will either suck it up or shut up.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64116 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.
ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.
I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.
So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.
The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.
No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.

1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.

2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.

3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.

4. Definitely not the case. See above.

5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.

6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64117 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No more of your farting Subby. I am not dealing with the theory of everything. I am backing my one point on junk dna, 1/6, and you will either suck it up or shut up.
And you lost on that. Sorry Maz, you will have to find some other topic to rant about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64118 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care about your waffle around what is turned on and off. It has function. So non functional genomic material demonstrated an evolutionary path and now functional non coding dna also demonstrates an evolutionary path. That is twoddle. You can't get any deep ancestries right and you reckon you can get these ghost ervs into some order.
Admit that I have demonstrated that creos claimed there to be no junk dna many years before it was found to have function and have been validated.
Admit that some evos have shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution and now should suck eggs.
Admit that evos would rather hang themselves than admit to being wrong about anything.
No, no no, guys can't waffle, that blue waffle is an affliction that only you girls can get and we wish you would take your blue one elsewhere.

One more time, we can show that ancient genes are still in an animal. It has been tested and found true in the laboratory. You can deny as much as you want, but it is an accomplished fact.

So it does not matter if you call those ancient genes junk DNA or not. It is a losing point for your side on the junk DNA question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64119 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.
ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.
I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.
So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.
The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.
I am supposed to believe the "expertise" of Maz and her blue waffle? I don't think so. ERV's are recognized as viruses by experts in the field virologists. Until you can find something serious, that means peer reviewed, I will stick with the experts. And of course there are many peer reviewed papers on ERV's would you like to see some, or will you take me at my word?

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#64120 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.

1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.

2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.

3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.

4. Definitely not the case. See above.

5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.

6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.
Not maz but I did find this talking about junk DNA http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-05...
I hope it helps.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64121 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no no, guys can't waffle, that blue waffle is an affliction that only you girls can get and we wish you would take your blue one elsewhere.
One more time, we can show that ancient genes are still in an animal. It has been tested and found true in the laboratory. You can deny as much as you want, but it is an accomplished fact.
So it does not matter if you call those ancient genes junk DNA or not. It is a losing point for your side on the junk DNA question.
No you can't show any such thing. Prove it, and let's see what misrepresentation ensues. Junk dna is not a losing point because no dna demonsrates to a chimp or anything else.

You have lost the point on junk dna because I can provide evidence that creos were claiming there would be no junk and their claim and prediction has been validated, regardless of any dribble you want to hand wave around or hubris you offer. My point 1 is supported and unless you are now suggesting evos never mentioned junk dna you need to suck it up!

You are trying to impose your own point in place of mine. You gobbled that creos did not make claims or predictions round junk dna in advance and were WRONG.

Now you want to polywaffle on about ervs.....

How the retroviral env gene has these effects is not clear. But what is more curious is this: the retrovirus is closely related to a free-living virus called Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus, which causes lung cancer in sheep and goats, but not other species. That is not surprising in itself, but it means that the virus must have become endogenous fairly recently, otherwise it would not look so similar to its free-living counterpart. However, circumstantial evidence suggests that rodents (in the form of mice) and primates (in the form of both monkeys and humans) have also acquired endogenous retroviruses that help placenta formation, and have done so independently of what happened in sheep. Clearly, this retroviral gene fills an important niche in mammalian biology, but, on the other hand, mammals were able to reproduce perfectly well before they were first infected. That, too, is weird. Nevertheless, without the retrovirus's presence now, you might not have been born.

http://www.economist.com/node/7905388...

So on what basis do you suggest this reasoning above demonstrates ancestry? And please provide more than your opinion so I have the opportunity to bag out your links as well.

All the way back to monkeys an erv, that resulted from an infection and likely a usual drop in fitness, supposedly endogenized and continued to evolve and mutate and leave a remnant of a tiny sequence that evos suggest is supposed to show ancestry but was once thought to be a dead remnant? Rubbish!

I suggest that all these assertions are evolutionary hubris and in actual fact these areas of the genome bear little resemblance to human, chimps or other primates and straw grabbing is your evidence for ancestry or even that ervs are the result of HGT of a virus.

That this tiny remnant of sequence could be worked up to demonstrate anything is a work of magic in itself.

Now, with evidence, support your claims, please. Let's see this algorithmic magic of yours.

Another supposed infection also resulted in providing the same function independently. Rubbish!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64122 Dec 9, 2012
Maz, you ignorant twit. You do not get to debunk your claims with articles that oppose you. I never said that ERV's never have a function.
And you still have not provided any evidence of creationists making predictions of DNA all being used before "junk DNA" was discovered.
And lastly there have been cases where ancient genes were reactivated in the laboratory. It has been done and several times over.
You have lost on all of your points and made none of them.
So are you going to keep blue waffling up this site? Probably.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 161,756
Write cities alfabetically (tell the country/st... (Sep '11) 1 hr wichita-rick 2,518
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 1 hr Wolftracks 1,532
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr eleanorigby 40,261
Word Association (Mar '10) 2 hr Mega Monster 17,088
Carnivals need to be sued for discrimination vi... 2 hr Not-so-proud Amer... 12
GMGMike's Bar And Grill (Jan '10) 2 hr Holmes 20,405
News Baltimore Mom Catches Her Son Rioting, Beats Hi... 3 hr Enzo49 165
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 hr Nobody 2 Special 10,874
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 6 hr Duh 28,972
Things that make life eaiser... 7 hr Old Sam 251
More from around the web