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
60,201 - 60,220 of 112,852 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64317
Dec 10, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why we have PHYSICS too :-)
Yeppers.

:-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64318
Dec 10, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're stupid is showing. I claimed creos made their claims around junk dna being functional before it was found otherwise. Neither creos or evos could make any claims on junk dna until the stuff was found initially,..Stupid!
ERVs were classified as junk dna and we will look at that specifically when we are done with this. I am not evading anything, I have said this to you before, and don't want this discussion going down the usual tail chasing circle of evasion evos employ when they have lost a point. We are now specifically talking about creos and evos general claims around junk dna.
No, you are. We dealt with it ages back and all you can do is keep lying about it.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
We will talk about ervs specifically, next.
Sure, probably in the same dishonest manner that you approach junk DNA.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64319
Dec 10, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
I'll modify to make it sound not so nasty..
1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be
... debunked, uselessly repeated, then spammed some more.

(yawn)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64320
Dec 10, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
Big Bang Evidence for God
— By Frank Turek {PART 1}
Um, didn't you once copy-paste some creo BS about BB's alleged falseness was evidence of God?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64321
Dec 10, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't understand...ask...
I do understand. And I watched enough of that video to know that he is just another liar for Jesus. Of course that makes him a hypocryte as far as being a Christian goes.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64322
Dec 10, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I do understand. And I watched enough of that video to know that he is just another liar for Jesus. Of course that makes him a hypocryte as far as being a Christian goes.
Which means you didn't watch all of it...and rather than actually just dismissing someone as saying they're a liar...which does nothing for your position...why don't you address what he says? What is incorrect or correct in your view?

Of course if you're not up to the task...okay...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64323
Dec 10, 2012
 
reality

Germantown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64324
Dec 10, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
When they are totally at a loss for how irreducibly complex, information-rich biological systems came into existence, they simply cover their gap in knowledge by claiming that natural selection, time, and chance did it.
Wow! Are you legitimately ignorant, or are you maybe some kind of nutcase? This has got to be among the top 100 of the 'nets most idiotic posts of 2012.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64325
Dec 10, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Here is the warm up for the erv challenge.
I predict ervs will be found to have function. This is based on the philosophical assertion that if the genome was designed God has no need to make useless dna.
That's nice Maz. But what does philosophy/theology have to do with science?

I'll make it simple for ya - It DOESN'T.
MazHere wrote:
I assert that ERVs are not remnants of ancient viral infections but are functional genetic elements that are a part of a designed genome.
In which case you should be able to provide a mechanism and evidence of it. In fact come to think of it you should also provide scientific evidence that this magic Jew wizard of yours even exists.

I predict you won't.
MazHere wrote:
This genomic material evos refer to as ERVs appears to be part of other regulatory networks in organisms that are involved in an organisms well being.
What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?
Where in the paper does it claim immediacy? It doesn't.
MazHere wrote:
“We also present evidence that the functional TF binding sites of the human b3GAL-T5 LTR promoter were present in the original consensus sequence for this class of LTRs. Upon similar analysis of other ERV sequences, we have concluded that this evolutionary history is shared by certain other LTR gene promoters, and may be a general phenomenon.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science... -
4GXVG6Y-1&_user=10&_rd oc=1&fmt=&_orig=search &_sort=d&view=
c&_acct=C000050221&_ve rsion=1&_urlVersion=0& _userid=10&md5=
19c2ea074bec5e7313b36ce1630e38 a8
Now when, and if ever, you decide to 'man up' a little, we will move on to the ERV myth.
And as we can see the paper you linked to demonstrates how ERV's support evolution. Your claim is that if they have function then they "must" have been designed. However without a mechanism and evidence of it your claim is baseless. You will also attempt to portray the idea that if they have function then therefore evolution could not have made use of them. However this ignores the successful prediction made by evolution that the addition of new genetic material will lead to new function. It's just in this case the source of the new material was a retrovirus rather than normal mutations.

A number of ERV's are known to have function and this is not a problem for evolution. However it's the orthology that's important, especially due to their quite random insertion. We also know these to be ancient retroviral remnants due to their specific protein makeup - they look like retroviruses (right down to the protein sequence caps which are specifically used for retroviral insertion), and they have been mimicked artificially by acquiring the same proteins and putting them together, the result acting just like a retrovirus does. This leaves creationists with a number of problems:

1 - An explanation (and evidence) of the mechanism that produced them.

2 - Reason for orthology consistent with nested hierarchies.

3 - Reason why they look like ERVs.

4 - Why they act like retroviruses when put together artificially.

5 - Why ortholog markers show differences consistent with nested hierarchies and genetic drift.

6 - Why they are even referred to as ERVs in the first place if they are not actually ERVs.

7 - Why they are using evolutionary evidence they claim doesn't even work because the Earth wasn't even around then.

8 - Why they are claiming their BS is scientific when their alternative is Godmagic.

9 - Why bother talking about evidence as it's irrelevant to magic.

10 - Why they keep lying.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64326
Dec 10, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Bad link Maz.
Please, you are the only one who waffles here. You don't want me to post a link to your waffle, trust me.
Genetics is not my specialty by any means. So I am at a bit of a disadvantage here. Of course it is not your specialty either and you have made many obvious mistakes and they have been pointed out to you.
As I said, not only does the entire genome have to be functional for the creationists to have even half of a leg to stand on, it has to be functional in a way consistent with creationism. Geneticists have already shown that chickens have ancestral genes, and these would have been among the "junk DNA" for teeth, claws on their wings (think Archaeopteryx) scales and dinosaur type tails (think Archy, again). That right there is a killer for creation.
Back to the topic of ERV's. ERV's mirror the nested hierarchy found in nature. Creationists not only have to show that ERV's are functional, since there is nothing that says the genetic code cannot co-opt ERV's in fact it has in spots, they have to show why they are in the exact same place in all of the species that share the same ERV's. A rather tall order too.
And that is just genetics. Creationism is shot down in just about every branch of science that there is. That is why unless you can come up with a scientific explanation for why things are the way we observe them using a creationist paradigm your idea is toast.
The link worked for me. Of course the paper in no way supported his baseless assertions so once again his was another example of his willingness to dishonestly misrepresent scientific research creationists were not even involved in so Maz can promote a religious agenda.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64327
Dec 10, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
First, when we conclude that intelligence created the first cell or the human brain, it's not simply because we lack evidence of a natural explanation; it's also because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause. A message (specified complexity) is empirically detectable. When we detect a message, like "Take out the garbage, Mom" or 1,000 encyclopedias, we know that it must come from an intelligent being because all of our observational experience tells us that messages come only from intelligent beings. Every time we observe a message, it comes from an intelligent being. We couple this data with the fact that we never observe natural laws creating messages, and we know an intelligent being must be the cause. That's a valid scientific conclusion based on observation and repetition. It's not an argument from ignorance, nor is it based on any "gap" in our knowledge.
And only if he had a working definition of "specified complexity" then he'd have a point. Instead he relies on pure analogy.(shrug)
Knightmare wrote:
Second, Intelligent Design scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes.
Intelligent causes are natural causes. Birds (for example) are intelligent. They build nests. And we know nests are incapable of self-replication.

Life on the other hand is. And also does not require intelligence to do so.
Knightmare wrote:
William Dembski, who has published extensive research on Intelligent Design
I didn't know he did any at all.(shrug)
Knightmare wrote:
Third, the Intelligent Design conclusion is falsifiable. In other words, ID could be disproven if natural laws were some day discovered to create specified complexity.
But since he can't define what CSI actually IS then ID is currently unfalsifiable. Hence not scientific.
Knightmare wrote:
However, the same cannot be said about the Darwinist position. Darwinists don't allow falsification of their "creation story" because, as we have described, they don't allow any other creation story to be considered. Their "science" is not tentative or open to correction; it's more closed-minded than the most dogmatic church doctrine the Darwinists are so apt to criticize.
Actually we allow any other idea to be considered.

It's just that you have nothing scientific for consideration.

Oh, and evolution is in fact falsifiable. And hence scientific.

It's just not been falsified yet.

Darn.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64328
Dec 10, 2012
 
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Are you legitimately ignorant, or are you maybe some kind of nutcase? This has got to be among the top 100 of the 'nets most idiotic posts of 2012.
Except it's years old.

He's not even a genuine nutcase, he just copy-pastes from real creo nutcases.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64329
Dec 10, 2012
 
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Are you legitimately ignorant, or are you maybe some kind of nutcase? This has got to be among the top 100 of the 'nets most idiotic posts of 2012.
Yours? Agreed...
60s chic

Allentown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64330
Dec 10, 2012
 
The Cuckoo bird is clever, but other species of birds are evolving their own tricks:

http://io9.com/5785233/nest-stealing-cuckoo-b...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64331
Dec 10, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
Finally, it's actually the Darwinists who are committing a kind of God-of the-Gaps fallacy. Darwin himself was once accused of considering natural selection "an active power or Deity" (see chapter 4 of Origin of Species). But it seems that natural selection actually is the deity or "God of the Gaps"for the Darwinists of today. When they are totally at a loss for how irreducibly complex, information-rich biological systems came into existence, they simply cover their gap in knowledge by claiming that natural selection, time, and chance did it.
The ability of such a mechanism to create information-rich biological systems runs counter to the observational evidence. Mutations that aren’t neutral are nearly always harmful, and time and chance do the Darwinists no good, as we explained in chapter 5. At best, natural selection may be responsible for minor changes in living species, but it cannot explain the origin of the basic forms of life. You need a living thing to start with for any natural selection to take place.Yet, despite the obvious problems with their mechanism, Darwinists insist that Natural Selection covers any gap in their knowledge.Moreover, they willfully ignore the positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent being. This is not science but the dogma of a secular religion. One could say that Darwinists, like the opponents of Galileo, are letting their religion (or at least their philosophy) overrule scientific observations.
http://www.crossexamined.org/articles-detail.... Really Commits the "God of the Gaps" Fallacy?
Absolute crap.

BIOLOGISTS...not "Darwinists", do NOT "insist that Natural Selection covers any gap in their knowledge."

Please show us where that is stated ANYWHERE in the science literature.

Also, the line: "Moreover, they willfully ignore the positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent being. This is not science but the dogma of a secular religion."
...is an outright LIE.

There is NO evidence whatsoever for an intelligent (supernatural) being. NONE.

If it is your contention that there IS such evidence, I invite you to present it.

You would be the first.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64332
Dec 10, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
Finally, it's actually the Darwinists who are committing a kind of God-of the-Gaps fallacy. Darwin himself was once accused of considering natural selection "an active power or Deity" (see chapter 4 of Origin of Species). But it seems that natural selection actually is the deity or "God of the Gaps"for the Darwinists of today. When they are totally at a loss for how irreducibly complex, information-rich biological systems came into existence, they simply cover their gap in knowledge by claiming that natural selection, time, and chance did it.
The ability of such a mechanism to create information-rich biological systems runs counter to the observational evidence. Mutations that aren’t neutral are nearly always harmful, and time and chance do the Darwinists no good, as we explained in chapter 5. At best, natural selection may be responsible for minor changes in living species, but it cannot explain the origin of the basic forms of life. You need a living thing to start with for any natural selection to take place.Yet, despite the obvious problems with their mechanism, Darwinists insist that Natural Selection covers any gap in their knowledge.Moreover, they willfully ignore the positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent being. This is not science but the dogma of a secular religion. One could say that Darwinists, like the opponents of Galileo, are letting their religion (or at least their philosophy) overrule scientific observations.
http://www.crossexamined.org/articles-detail.... Really Commits the "God of the Gaps" Fallacy?
Do you not know what "god of the gaps" means?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64333
Dec 10, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you not know what "god of the gaps" means?
Filling places where we don't know something and saying god didit...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64334
Dec 10, 2012
 
God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

{Yet the scientific community does the same...}

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64335
Dec 10, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I believe everytthing in the universe and on earth originated with suddenness through a miracle of creation in the beginning.
When all this happened, do you figure that all the "history" was faked to make it look like it all has been around longer? Like otherwise, how did the light from stars that are a billions of light years away start reaching us already?

If that all happened, say 6,000 years ago, how do we know that it didn't happen 5 minutes ago, or hasn't even happened yet at the time I am posting this, but my post here is part of the fake history that you are encountering from a universe the was created one second before you started to read this. With sufficient detail of faking the history, the result would be indistinguishable from having evolved through it all, right?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64336
Dec 10, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The root word for the word THEORY means contemplation of divine things or organization (cosmos) of nature, and devine is pertaining to God and the hypothetical law and explanation of how the cosmos works in a systematic way.
Wow, hard science is all wrapped up in the etymology of words? So scientists can lay down their microscopes and test tubes and graduate school could be replaced with going bact to grammar school, right?

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.

•••
•••