Evolution vs. Creation

[Cybele]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Achaeopteryx is a FAKE? Really? Which one of the TEN specimins found is fake?(hint....Archy is evidence of a REAL organism).

The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...

[MazHere]

Subby...Here is an example of a hand waving excuse from evos.....

One particularly remarkable incidence of functionality with regards these sequences is the involvement of the highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (the syncytins) which are known to be crucially involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion. These proteins are absolutely critical for placental development in humans and mice. The different kinds of Syncytin protein are called "syncytin-A" and "syncytin-B" (found in mice); "syncytin-1" and "syncytin-2" (found in humans). But here's the remarkable thing: Although serving exactly the same function, syncytin-A and syncytin-B are not related to syncytin-1 and syncytin-2. Syncytin protein also plays the same function in rabbits (syncytin-ory1). But rabbit syncytin is not related to either the mouse or the human form. These ERVs are not even on the same chromosome. Syncytin-1 is on chromosome 7; syncytin-2 is on chromosome 6; syncytin-A is on chromosome 5; and syncytin-B is on chromosome 14.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/725.abstrac...

This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.

I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.

Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?

If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.

I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.

[Jesus Diablo]

Let's be practical for a moment. Our education system attempts to prepare individuals for the real world. To get jobs, to be good citizens, to be contributors. A college education takes it one-step farther and tries to make one think, analyze, and draw valid conclusions.

So, if creationism is correct, then how come you'd end up with an "F" in your high school/college science/history/geography/geol ogy/etc. classes? Remember, the folks who established our education system and continue to run it, are, for the most part, religious.

Thus, in terms of practicality, creationism is worthless.

"What about spiritually! Spiritually it is not!!" Yeah, right; as if God is on the side of individuals like you.

[Kong_]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...

Unfortunately, "evolutionwiki" is reporting incomplete information (psst....THEY LIED!).

"Over the years, eleven body fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx and a feather that may belong to it have been found. All of the fossils come from the upper Jurassic lithographic limestone deposits, quarried for centuries, near Solnhofen, Germany."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Arc...

At the above website, you will be given a short description, and a picture of the ELEVEN different Archaeopteryx fossil specimens found.

[Subduction Zone]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Einstiens energy equation is ICOMPLETE as well.
It does NOT validate BLACK HOLES.

Wrong, Einstein's (please note spelling) predicted black holes. Perhaps if you spelled correctly you would have been able to Google search that for yourself.

[MazHere]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...

We have already been all over arch with Subby.

Feathers were found on TRex and are not solely an avian trait. Feathers sprouting on arch, with no dino connection, would be intermediate, however they are not.

The beak is not a beak at all and is shared amongst many different species.

That is on top of having perfectly modern bird footprints dated to 212mya whilst arch did not have a reversed hallux.

And Yes, there have been forgeries, indeed, but not all are thought to be forgeries at this time. Maybe the forgers got better at it.

It is obvious that all the so called 'bird' traits arch had are now dino traits and not exclusively aves. The reversed hallux, was around before arch so evos can struggle as much as they like but their explanation of the footprints is an unknown and undiscovered mythical theropod because evos can't have modern birds flapping around 212mya. IOW you have invented a myth as a handwave.

[Knightkore]

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/X6qZ_ufwmjY/mqdefault....

What caused life to begin where there had never been life before? Science has repeatedly demonstrated that life comes only from life. This is a law of science called the "Law of Biogenesis." The opposite of this law would be spontaneous generation - life beginning spontaneously from non-living matter. But science has repeatedly proved this cannot happen.

So every living thing must come from a previous living thing. You received life from your parents, who in turn received it from their parents, etc. The same is true for all living things.

But evolution requires that, when you go back far enough, non-living matter somehow came to life by chance where there was no life before. Evolution requires spontaneous generation in complete violation of scientific evidence. So evolution cannot explain even the origin of the very first form of life.

http://www.gospelway.com/man/meaning-life.php

[thewordofme]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
WRONG...as many REAL SCIENTIST can and DO-DISPROVE...because APES did NOT just FALL out the SKY---anymore than DINOSAURS did!!!!!!!
DOUBLE DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H.

Of course apes or dinosaurs did not fall out of the sky. I never said anything like that.

Apes and dinosaurs evolved on earth...just like everything else.

And of course we evolved from the great apes as has been proven recently.

Whats up with the screaming??

[thewordofme]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell it to the dark age, barbaric, illiterate masses of the UNeducated, narrow/close minded hate and vengence filled, twisted and distorted anarchial sectors--because The MANY PEACE lovers of the world ALREADY realize that!!
Maybe you could start in AFRICA, or LIBYA.

You are coming off incoherent and a bit crazy here bud. You might want to set down and chill for awhile

[MazHere]

Jesus Diablo wrote:

Let's be practical for a moment. Our education system attempts to prepare individuals for the real world. To get jobs, to be good citizens, to be contributors. A college education takes it one-step farther and tries to make one think, analyze, and draw valid conclusions.
So, if creationism is correct, then how come you'd end up with an "F" in your high school/college science/history/geography/geol ogy/etc. classes? Remember, the folks who established our education system and continue to run it, are, for the most part, religious.
Thus, in terms of practicality, creationism is worthless.
"What about spiritually! Spiritually it is not!!" Yeah, right; as if God is on the side of individuals like you.

Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.

All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.

TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.

TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.

If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

Subby...Here is an example of a hand waving excuse from evos.....
<snip>
This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.
I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.
I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.

Nowhere do they say that the change was instantaneous. So it seems your problem is that you continually misinterpret the articles that you read. We cannot help that.

And you still have therefore not answered my question about ERV's. Do you want to have see some articles about ancestral genes? You seem to have been ducking and hiding whenever that topic arises.

[Kong_]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.
All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.
TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.
TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.
If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.

So Maz...

In the PERFECT educational system of Mazland, what would your alternative to the Theory of Evolution be, and how would you teach it?

[thewordofme]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a FREE Speech WORLD, here in Americ- dud(e)
You could "show" your spew until eternity-gues what-it doesn't matter one IOTA to me. What part of "I have my OWN beliefs" (as well as other My OWN type of interactions etc) do you NOT comprehend?
YOU don't like THAT--TOO BAD. DON'T post anyting directly to me.
And I will post to whom ever I WANT to...because I!! DO NOT have a problem w/RATIONAL, SANE, decent, MORALLY Ethical atheists--UNLIKE YOU-who seems to have a problem with anyone that disclaims athiesm!!
GET OVER IT ALREADY-it's NOT going to change-the world is NOT made for or to suit just YOUR agenda OR beliefs--and THAT is REALITY.
Now YOU can DEAL with THAT.

You're coming off a little incoherent and crazy here bud, you might want to chill out some.

[MazHere]

MazHere wrote:

Subby...Here is an example of a hand waving excuse from evos.....
One particularly remarkable incidence of functionality with regards these sequences is the involvement of the highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (the syncytins) which are known to be crucially involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion. These proteins are absolutely critical for placental development in humans and mice. The different kinds of Syncytin protein are called "syncytin-A" and "syncytin-B" (found in mice); "syncytin-1" and "syncytin-2" (found in humans). But here's the remarkable thing: Although serving exactly the same function, syncytin-A and syncytin-B are not related to syncytin-1 and syncytin-2. Syncytin protein also plays the same function in rabbits (syncytin-ory1). But rabbit syncytin is not related to either the mouse or the human form. These ERVs are not even on the same chromosome. Syncytin-1 is on chromosome 7; syncytin-2 is on chromosome 6; syncytin-A is on chromosome 5; and syncytin-B is on chromosome 14.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/725.abstrac...
This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.
I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.
I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.

Come on you evos with big attitudes and not much more....

Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?

This is the sort of nonssense you lot believe. Why? Is it because you are sheep that follow without understanding, or are you geese that just like to quack for the heck of it.

I have given my answer, now you lot egocentrics tell me your own, or can't you, or are you too embarassed to.

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
We have already been all over arch with Subby.
Feathers were found on TRex and are not solely an avian trait. Feathers sprouting on arch, with no dino connection, would be intermediate, however they are not.
The beak is not a beak at all and is shared amongst many different species.
That is on top of having perfectly modern bird footprints dated to 212mya whilst arch did not have a reversed hallux.
And Yes, there have been forgeries, indeed, but not all are thought to be forgeries at this time. Maybe the forgers got better at it.
It is obvious that all the so called 'bird' traits arch had are now dino traits and not exclusively aves. The reversed hallux, was around before arch so evos can struggle as much as they like but their explanation of the footprints is an unknown and undiscovered mythical theropod because evos can't have modern birds flapping around 212mya. IOW you have invented a myth as a handwave.

Flappy, you don't understand what avian traits are. If a bird has a trait that by definition is an avian trait. It does not matter if it shares that trait with other animals. You have a spinal chord, that is a mammalian trait, it is also a reptile, amphibian, bird, and fish trait. And your so called "perfectly formed" bird feet have never been called that. They have always been called "bird like".

And of course you have continued to ignore the fact that Archy had hollow bones, even though I linked several articles that stated that fact.

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Nowhere do they say that the change was instantaneous. So it seems your problem is that you continually misinterpret the articles that you read. We cannot help that.
And you still have therefore not answered my question about ERV's. Do you want to have see some articles about ancestral genes? You seem to have been ducking and hiding whenever that topic arises.

In case you did not pick it up, I am saying these are NOT ancestral genes and I am presenting an argument as to why they are not, one point at a time starting here.

The reason they are not ancestral is because evos can't tell the difference between an ancestral or independently acquired ervs and they basically handwave away inconsistency with a plethora of terminology.

Now answer the question, how do they tell the differrence?

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Flappy, you don't understand what avian traits are. If a bird has a trait that by definition is an avian trait. It does not matter if it shares that trait with other animals. You have a spinal chord, that is a mammalian trait, it is also a reptile, amphibian, bird, and fish trait. And your so called "perfectly formed" bird feet have never been called that. They have always been called "bird like".
And of course you have continued to ignore the fact that Archy had hollow bones, even though I linked several articles that stated that fact.

You have already lost this debate Subby. Arch does not have a reversed hallux which was around 212mya and before arch.

Hence, as I said, you can wiggle and struggle and present anything you like and it will not be and cannot be an intermediate because modern birds were already here before arch and I have the dated footprints to support that claim. You have a mythical theropod. It is really that simple.

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't even know what you are talking about do you? My question is the start of the argument I am presenting but you are too silly to see it.
You are too uneducated to even see any argument Subby. We get 4000 words in a post, not the space to write a book. It is going to be one point at a time, just like our discussion on junk dna.
Your prediction that data will continue to align is not a scientific prediction. Does TOE predict functionality, no functionality, it doesn't matter because anything will be shown to support TOE. IOW TOE has little to NO predictive ability. TOE is not a science.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
The answer is your own philosophical asumptions of common ancestry. The ervs that do not align are automatically determined to be inserted after separation and the ones that pop up where they shouldn't be is hand waved away as a matter of convergent evolution.
The problem with believing we share a common ancestor with a chimp can also be an issue of time. It is one thing to have millions of different base pairs separating chimps and humans, but if we both came from a common ancestor, that means our differences would have been caused by mutations in our genetic material after we split away from our ancestors.
The problem: Per evolutionary models humans and chimps split off about 300,000 generations ago. In order to account for the vast amount of genetic differences between us, we would have to have had experienced about 133 genetic mutations in each generation. That many mutations in such a short amount of time is absurd, and is commonly known as Haldane’s Dilemma.

"Haldane's Dilemma" is a creationist falsehood. It is a result of creationists mischaracterizing how evolution occurs. Yes, those limited, number "mutations per generation" could be a problem, if there were only two individuals involved per generation. Luckily for us populations evolve and not individuals. In other words in a population of one million there would only have to be roughly one positive mutation per ten thousandth of a generation. Considering that there are over 100 mutations per generation Haldane's limit is clearly not a limit at all.

And your failure to see how the TOE can and does make predictions is not the theories fault, that is clearly your fault. How do you think that they found Tiktaalik? It was done using the predictive power of the TOE along with a knowledge of geology. Other people who have specialties in other areas could surely show how once again you are wrong in their fields.

Lastly, just because you can write up to 4,000 characters does not mean you need to. Most points can be made in a much shorter space.

[Jesus Diablo]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.
All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.
TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.
TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.
If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.

Thus, you admit by implication that creationism is impractical. And since creationism and TOE are diametrically opposed, then TOE must be practical.

And that which is practical is useful. So creationism is useless.

And that which is useless can be discarded.

See? That's the scientific method. Pretty cool, huh?(It has always been and it will always be easy to put you folks back under the rock from which you crawled.)

[The Dude]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Well that's fine, so long as it's not twisted into that garbage of DENYING or belittling OTHER peoples CONSTITUTIONAL rights to worship (or not) how they please (so long as it's NOT hurting anyone else in any shape, fashion or form).
BECAUSE...not everyone likes PEAS, and that's just REALITY.

Oh absolutely, I agree. It's a pity that it's creationists that are the ones who are attempting to do just that by promoting their religious beliefs in public school science classes, and have been attempting to do so for nearly a hundred years. But then they don't care that what they're doing is illegal, un-Constitutional, and unscientific.