Evolution vs. Creation

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

Somerset, KY

#64144 Dec 9, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>

My son would often start a conversation with, "Do you want to know something..." and I always reply with, "I want to know everything!"
There's your problem.

There's NO such thing.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64145 Dec 9, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Britain, like most of Europe and America is Christian, celebrates Christmas and Easter, but people don't pray or go to church like they used to, and we don't have the fundamentalists who preach hate about homosexuals or abortion, we don't have many creationists, but Britain is still culturally a Christian country, even if most people dont believe these days
Ok.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64146 Dec 9, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Britain, like most of Europe and America is Christian, celebrates Christmas and Easter, but people don't pray or go to church like they used to, and we don't have the fundamentalists who preach hate about homosexuals or abortion, we don't have many creationists, but Britain is still culturally a Christian country, even if most people dont believe these days
They don't believe these days?
Interesting!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64147 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops, I responded to the wrong rant. I was rudely awoken and had not had my coffee yet, but in my defense all of Maz's waffle flapping sounds the same after a while. Let's see how wrong she is this time.
No, 20% nonfunctionality in DNA is still enough to sink any creationist claims. And evolutionists never put great stock in the claim of "junk DNA". Why should they?

(BECAUSE EVOS WANKED OVER IT FOR OVER A DECADE SAYING IT WAS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION) SAYS MAZ.

In fact I have never seen anyone make this claim except for creatards claiming that evolutionists have. Perhaps that one lone voice that Maz linked. And she claims of creationist predictions and she has yet to link any.

Even if there was pure 100% functionality, no ERV's no ancient genomes, which are of course not Junk DNA, that would not do any harm to the theory of evolution. As I said, the Junk DNA claim was not even accepted by all evolutionists,especially not genetic evolutionists that understand the subject. This was an idea that sunk and buried, and still does sink and bury cretinism.
No evolutionists are scurrying away in shame. We are merely pointing out how incredibly wrong idiots like Maz are.
Let's see if I can explain this in logic terms that even our creatard "friend" can understand. Let's call evolution E and creationism C. And the latest kerfuffle we will call G for genome.
Now in its original form it was always a case of:
If G then not C.
It was never:
If not G then not E.
Right now it is still in a form of:
If G then Not C
Since there is far too much non-coding DNA for creationists to account for.
And even if that remaining 20% is found to be functional they still need to explain ancient genes in the genome and ERV's. Two topics that we see Maz running from with her nasty blue waffle flapping away.
At best Maz can only hope for is a Not G situation. And of course Not G does not imply C in anyway.
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003

The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...

Miller...

From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...

Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64148 Dec 9, 2012
This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...

And from an evo scientist with more qualifications than Subby.
If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

You likewise look pathetically stupid like Miller. I can visualize you there clinging to your straw of the remaining 20% and quivering and holding strong in faith and hope that your researchers will not be made total fools instead of just 80% fools..

So creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on and that is exactly what predictability is supposed to look like as opposed to TOEs knee jerk science of anything goes that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.

Evos would be the ones wiping egg off their face, now clutching and straw grabbing at that last 20%, of 98%.

Hence my claim is exactly correct, creo predictions and claims are continuing to be validated, just like I said.

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

Hence the claim a creationist prediction continues to be validated is correct. You evos are now on notice. My point 1 is established.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64149 Dec 9, 2012
Subby..

Indeed I have presented a Nature publication that demonstrates creos claiming junk dna would be found to be functional. I have proven creos made their claims aforetime in 1998 and again in 2003 in the paper submitted to Nature.

I have presented evidence that evos rebuked creos predictions in Miller and that idiot, proffessor Moran, on Sandwalk.

I have presented evidence that the proposed evolutionary claim of 98% non functionality that supported TOE has gone to 80% functionality with credentialled evos suggesting it will likely go to 100%.

Therefore my claim is correct. Creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on like any prediction that has any merit should. Unlike TOE that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

Point 1 is established.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64150 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003
The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...
Miller...
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...
Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.
It appears that rather than me being the stinky one, Subduction Zone smells of ignorance and evasion and needs to suck eggs with the rest of the gaggle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64151 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003
The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...
Miller...
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...
Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.
Nope, another Maz failure. You claimed that BEFORE the first news of "junk DNA" came out that creationists had predicted that the entire genome would be functional. This is not even a a prediction after "junk DNA" was first discovered. This is an article of a discredited creatard grasping at straws after the discovery that gave them a glimmer of hope was made.

You still have no answer for ancestral genes and ERV's. I will keep reminding you of that failure of yours.

As I have said, so far you have nothing. There is still not "there" there in your arguments.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64152 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Subby..
Indeed I have presented a Nature publication that demonstrates creos claiming junk dna would be found to be functional. I have proven creos made their claims aforetime in 1998 and again in 2003 in the paper submitted to Nature.
I have presented evidence that evos rebuked creos predictions in Miller and that idiot, proffessor Moran, on Sandwalk.
I have presented evidence that the proposed evolutionary claim of 98% non functionality that supported TOE has gone to 80% functionality with credentialled evos suggesting it will likely go to 100%.
Therefore my claim is correct. Creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on like any prediction that has any merit should. Unlike TOE that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Point 1 is established.
I have not seen any Nature publications where creationists made such predictions. Remember, predictions have to be made BEFORE the event, otherwise they are not predictions but either explanations or rationalizations.

And no, Moran showed why your claims are still wrong.

And lastly the so called claim of 80% functionality is largely due to loosening of the definition. Place keepers are hardly functional and it is more likely a new use for old DNA.

And you have steadfastly ignored the enormous problem of ancestoral DNA and ERV's. When you can answer those huge problems with arguments that are better than mere handwaving you might have something.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64153 Dec 9, 2012
And Mav, this is from the Discover article:
Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function,
Yes, like ERV's, and ancestral genes. Those were never considered to be junk.
Please try to understand the articles that you link.

As I have said time after time, "junk DNA" is a term similar to "UFO" when the DNA is identified it is no longer "junk".

In other words: Wrong Maz, try again.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64155 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now you are quibbling over 20%, despite your own researchers saying that likely 100% will be found to be functional.
If it turns out there is still 20% non-functional DNA, would that discredit creation science entirely?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64156 Dec 9, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
If it turns out there is still 20% non-functional DNA, would that discredit creation science entirely?
And not to mention the ERV's and ancestral genes that Maz wants to ignore.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64157 Dec 9, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Above aka also Why SOME of us have Always prefered to read, research, question and Always, Always--think for ourselves!! Because it'd be pretty boring to live in such a limited "self know it all world" and have to miss interesting stuff like below!
Underground Tunnels Found in Israel Used In Ancient Jewish Revolt
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
March 15, 2006
A series of underground chambers and tunnels recently found in Israel were likely used as refuges during the First Jewish Revolt, archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority announced.
Storage jars found in one pit were an apparent stockpile of foodstuffs for the uprising against Roman rule that began in A.D. 66.
"The pits are connected to each other by short tunnels, and it seems that they were used as hiding refuges—a kind of concealed subterranean home—that were built prior to the Great Revolt against the Romans," Alexandre said in a statement.
I don't believe I wrote the little blurb you quoted in this reply.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64158 Dec 9, 2012
From the BBC:
"Science shows that the Biblical creation story is not literally true, and demonstrates that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are myths and not historical figures.
This destroys the idea of original sin as being caused by the misbehaviour of the first man and woman, and the idea of inheriting guilt or punishment for that misbehaviour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/chris...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64159 Dec 9, 2012
Does genetics support a single couple (Adam and Eve)?

NO...

http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-...
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64160 Dec 9, 2012
In quiet moments like this, I usually like to compose a dirty limerick or two to get the drama going. Maybe a bit of Wagner parody will suffice!

"I killed the wabbit!!

.....I killed the wabbit!!!"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64161 Dec 9, 2012
O HAI MAZ! I see you're still trotting out the "junk DNA findings debunk evolution!" lie again.
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
Yup. Some include functioning chicken teeth! But as we keep pointing out, it's not so much function as the pattern of heredity we see in DNA which demonstrates evolution.
MazHere wrote:
This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer
Evolution makes no such theological claims as to whether or not a God was involved.
MazHere wrote:
and creos were idiots.
And they still are.
MazHere wrote:
Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Hence the claim a creationist prediction continues to be validated is correct. You evos are now on notice. My point 1 is established.
Except it hasn't, since we've already demonstrated you wrong. Multiple times. Chicken teeth? Evolution prediction baby. Can creationism predict ANY kind of functions at all? Well uh, no, not really. Just some vague promise that it all must do something because it all must have a purpose we just don't know what it is yet therefore EVILUSHUN IZ RONG AND GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC! In the meantime biologists are using evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism again?

.

Uhuh. Thought so.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#64162 Dec 9, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
There's your problem.
There's NO such thing.
My son? Yes there is, I see him sitting there in front of me.

A want to know everything? Yes there is a want to know everything and I have it.

What thing are you talking about?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64163 Dec 9, 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.
Then creationists by said definition must be animals for having no conscience. Or maybe Maz has it but just isn't listening.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64164 Dec 9, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Always did say/think that the proverbial missing link lies somewhere in the "water ages" of this earth...and everything else just followed.
Derwin, like many others before--and STILL, just did NOT have the whole big picture.
No he didn't.

He correctly predicted part of that picture though. And that's why evolution is the only game in town in biological circles.

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
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 4 min Glory Be 8,230
Word Association (Mar '10) 9 min Mega Monster 16,812
Still arguing with Billy R (Oct '09) 9 min Proud To Be Trina 520
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 11 min Cyan in CA 25,716
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 13 min modhippie1 7,239
Word Association (Jun '10) 15 min Mega Monster 27,008
motorcycle traveling stories 22 min Sublime1 28
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 1 hr please explain 245
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Grace Nerissa 40,015
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Roxie Darling 159,933
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 4 hr Denny CranesPlace 46,469
More from around the web