Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221445 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65194 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome
Then how come it's possible to add genes and it's been scientifically observed?

And how come creationism needs impossible stuff to happen but sez it's okay because magic didit?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65195 Dec 14, 2012
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>From now on all arguments for and against evolution must be backed up with no less authority than the chorus from a pop music song..........
Hmmm. The hills are alive:

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65196 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
The Mathematics of DNA
Oh, him again. Guy's a crank.

And not for his acceptance of evolution.
ItsObvious

Moline, IL

#65197 Dec 14, 2012
Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
actually in a laboratory experiment using a completely sterile vacuum and elements that are abundant in space and adding pressure and storm conditions such as the kind found in space, amino acids and proteins were formed, which are the basic building blocks of life and led to the first cells and there ya go much more likely than ,poof, god did it. Although I agree it is much easier and far less intellectually challenging to just accept theology!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65198 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes.
Actually...

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65199 Dec 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, no. Remember the ERV that was resurrected? Most ERV's are past resurrection. They have been in the genome too long. The one that the French team found was a very recent ERV. Other ERV's that are found in the human genome only, and therefore are relatively recent already have fatal mutations so that they cannot exist as viruses on their own anymore:
http://119.93.223.179/ScienceD irect/Current%20Biology/11-19/ sdarticle_019.pdf
And it seems no one has done the particular research I suggested. That is of comparing known ERV's that were originally the same between say mice, chimps, and men. If I am right there should be a small genetic difference between man and chimp and a much larger one between either man and mouse or chimps and mouse.
Maz, you have already claimed twice that there would be no difference in ERV's.
Prepare for a moving of the goal posts.
What is it with you Subby? I have already said that Phoenix was a major con job. To add to their fraud they took an erv that is 'new' and only found in humans. Here look below!

"Researchers could not isolate a functioning, infectious HERV-K virus from human samples to study its possible function, though.

Thierry Heidmann at France's Institute Gustave-Roussy in Villejuif and his colleagues made an end run around this obstacle by comparing 30 different HERV-K sequences. For each position in their final sequence they assigned the nucleotide base that was most common among the 30 originals at that position, according to a paper published online October 31 in Genome Research. They called the final virus product "Phoenix."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

This is the kind of fraudulent misrepresentation creationists have come to expect from evolutionists. They did nor resurrect anything. What they did was build a virus themselves from sequences based on what they thought it should look like, and then used this circular reasoning as evidence for resurrection and infective capacity of a Human ERV that is 'recent'.

What is more likely is that reverse transcribe has no way of incorporating an entire genomic sequence across the germ line, let alone into population fixation, without fatality.

What is more likely is that these sequence were present in the initially created Adam and Eve as some immunity of other function. This resulted in the formation of retrovirus and a drop in mankinds inability to defer old age and disease as per the fall.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15237223

Although this genetic material, you call ervs, remains functional they do not impart the same protection and longevity that they once did.

If evolutionary researchers started to conduct their research based on more accurate assumptions they would do heaps better and they might actually find cures and genetic therapies that work.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#65200 Dec 14, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
That's way I hang..and I LIKE it like that!!!
(and that's all that actually matters in this instance!)
Ok, you like loosing and lying, thatís fine, you tell us a lot about your sick personality
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65201 Dec 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I have forgotten more than Maz has ever thought he has known about science and I'm here to tell you that there are no arguments against evolution in science. None. Not a single scientific theory has been presented in the last one hundred and sixty years that calls into question evolutionary theory. Not a single scientific hypothesis has proposed an alternative theory to evolution that unifies all biological phenomena under one explanatory umbrella.
There are no competing scientific theories to evolution. None. Evolution has never been disproved, not once.
And I've been asking the fundies for a scientific alternative for 7 years. The scientific community has been waiting for nearly 150 years.

Or a few thousand, depending on how you look at it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65202 Dec 14, 2012
Additional reply to Subby..

Listen, here stop misquoting me. I have not said anything about comparisons other than evos ignorantly look to similarity and ignore differences.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...

I said ervs will prove to be FUNCTIONAL and that is the way it is going as opposed to evos that initially claimed they were functionless remnants.

Will you answer my question as to how you know what is a 'new' erv that has recently inserted in mankind after the split or 'old' meaning ancestral? Do you know or do you just believe these jokers for the heck of it?

These 'old' ervs are scrambled. In fact they bear no homologue in any known retrovirus here today. All the gobble is based on what is speculated. It is algorithmic straw grabbing. It is all gibberish. Do you get that?

The 'new/recent' ervs actually have some similarity to current retrovirus in that there are tiny remnants of sequence that APPEAR to look a little like these retrovirus. They are 'distantly related' meaning the tiny left over remnant they found are NOT the 'same' as any current retrovirus. So here again is an extrapolation based on an existing priori of common decent.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65203 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
And how does evolution explain the patterns in nature such as fibonacci series and golden ratio?
Their appearance is often exaggerated in nature by cranks. Especially the golden ratio.

So uh, you said you were educated in science then? I mean you don't believe in biology (or in fact any science at all as we quickly found out), you see golden ratios where there are none, you think Perry Marshall understands science...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65204 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Music theorists sometimes use mathematics to understand music. Mathematics is "the basis of sound" and sound itself "in its musical aspects... exhibits a remarkable array of number properties", simply because nature itself "is amazingly mathematical"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathem...
Trying to turn the complexity of the genome into numbers is very much like singing in the breeze. I agree.

It is also like making music that soothes ones ears based on the tune one likes to hear.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65205 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case, nothing exists by random chance. Nothing is random, not even the stock market.
OF COURSE! Cuz all evolution really is is just RANDOM CHANCE and nothing else!!!

Except that it isn't.

:-/

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#65206 Dec 14, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the only thing worse is a stinking, ignorantpsychoTic type hypocrite-full of nothing but their only maniacal freakishness, that trolls around on random virtual message boards, doing nohting but calling dead people, their interviewers and others, "liars".
Might be a clue there for ya--something else fer you to keep busy at in researching-- for some of your seemingly favored "vent n hate" on others stuh-aisle.(twelve year old-phat crayons on sale now-whilsyt supplies last)
Have a nice day all the same!
All I asked was for you to prove what you claimed, simple enough request that you have not managed, end of story. If you are not man enough to admit it then fine, itís your life.

And if this means you go into gibbering mode when you are caught out, then thatís fine too, you gibber to your hearts content. It makes no difference to the facts that Einstein believed the concept of god was childish

I have offered my proof, you havenít. I have not lied for my god, you have, sleep well with that knowledge
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65207 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually have read books on evolution. It had more info than wikipedia. LOL.
Creationist books don't count. Just because they said the word "evolution" a lot doesn't mean they're talking about evolution.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65208 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Additional reply to Subby..
Listen, here stop misquoting me. I have not said anything about comparisons other than evos ignorantly look to similarity and ignore differences.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...
I said ervs will prove to be FUNCTIONAL and that is the way it is going as opposed to evos that initially claimed they were functionless remnants.
Will you answer my question as to how you know what is a 'new' erv that has recently inserted in mankind after the split or 'old' meaning ancestral? Do you know or do you just believe these jokers for the heck of it?
These 'old' ervs are scrambled. In fact they bear no homologue in any known retrovirus here today. All the gobble is based on what is speculated. It is algorithmic straw grabbing. It is all gibberish. Do you get that?
The 'new/recent' ervs actually have some similarity to current retrovirus in that there are tiny remnants of sequence that APPEAR to look a little like these retrovirus. They are 'distantly related' meaning the tiny left over remnant they found are NOT the 'same' as any current retrovirus. So here again is an extrapolation based on an existing priori of common decent.
Still saying a lot while saying nothing at all. Now you have apparently certified yourself to be qualified to review scientific research without benefit of actually understanding what that research says. Well done.

Oh, I forget you use references. That means everything you say is true. You can declare victory and move on.

“happy to be horny”

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#65209 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
http://darwinconspiracy.com/
I'd be interested in hearing these "experts" explain the science behind turning people into pillars of salt, virgin births and thousand year old men ect. ect.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65210 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
If that's the case then which other non-human species on Earth has the most similar genome to that of humans?

Lemme guess is the answer perchance...

CHIMPS?!?!?!??!?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65211 Dec 14, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Interested? Not so much. It's just that Charles have been ranting on for a year or two about how the English *own* the English language. I guess he thinks the rest of us have to pay licensing fees.
And I still haven't received my cheque from Chuck.

(shrug)

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#65212 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Trying to turn the complexity of the genome into numbers is very much like singing in the breeze. I agree.
It is also like making music that soothes ones ears based on the tune one likes to hear.
Are we turning this thread into "who can post similes that make no sense." You win!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65213 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Their appearance is often exaggerated in nature by cranks. Especially the golden ratio.
So uh, you said you were educated in science then? I mean you don't believe in biology (or in fact any science at all as we quickly found out), you see golden ratios where there are none, you think Perry Marshall understands science...
Are you that dense? If I don't accept science, I wouldn't have studied pharmacology in the first place. Have you been taking narcotics?

What your problem is, you just want to repeat what atheist evilutionists choirs are saying and don't want to accept other facts that is shown to you.

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
The one item I don't want to be without....... 4 min Interesting 226
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 11 min Gaystalker Finny ... 75,214
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Boink face 217,048
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 16 min Boink face 7,088
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 18 min Boink face 17,188
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 20 min Boink face 4,053
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 22 min Boink face 2,539
News Sea lion grabs girl, pulls her into water 13 hr Beautiful Black M... 26
More from around the web