Evolution vs. Creation

[bohart]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
I see, so you're still claiming that abio was falsified even though the linky you provided did NOT support that claim?
Good stuff. I see you're continuing in the creationist tradition of lying for Jesus just like many others here.
Either way, still after all this time, it STILL has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
<quoted text>
Actually since they are actually conducting RESEARCH, no, they are not incredulous. And if abio ever DOES get falsified, which is no biggie for me by the way, your boys could never take the credit. It would still be the credit of all the scientists who you like to fling poo at for giving you all your modern comforts.
<quoted text>
When did I ever claim that? Post and page number please. Or were you just lying?
Again.
Sorry, just demonstrating a point that you can never ever ever ever ever address.
That evolution remains unaffected.
By all means invoke magical poof for the origin of life away. It has no bearing on the theory of evolution.
I've been pointing that out to you for a year.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Really? Isn't that supposed to be a sin or something?

When did I ever claim that? what! alzhiemers got you boy.Be sure to edit.

[Russell]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
So let's see, how many contradictions are there in this single post:
1 - Earth is young but still talking about bottlenecks.
2 - Noah was real despite no evidence, and certainly no evidence of 900 year old people.
3 - MtDNA "proves" people who didn't exist were the progenitors of the whole human race, who promptly died of cancer.
4 - Evolution happened but evolution definitely didn't happen.
5 - There was "lots" of genetic variance in just 8 people, some of whom were related. Larger populations of big cats have problems but Noah's crew were "special".
6 - The last major human bottleneck matches the flood even though it was before the Earth was created, and no other animal bottlenecks line up with the flood.
7 - The Earth was a sun but all life survived.
8 - There's no evidence of a global flood but a global flood happened.
9 - Russ is still talking about science he rejects for theological reasons falsifying science he rejects for theological reasons.
10 - Therefore Goddidit with magic.

Go on
Admit it...
You are a Christian

You previously have said words to the effect..
Life begat life...

YOU"RE RIGHT!

Now you say and have been saying..
God dunnit with magic...

YOU"RE RIGHT!
He did

What is your explanation for there being 3 mtDNA lineages????
Only only one Y chromosome?

And HOW ON EARTH DID THE COMPLEMENT MAC EVOLVE?

[Jesus Diablo]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
No you are wrong!
If you understand the science correctly....
And science will catch up
The difference in the bottlenecks is because on the Ark there was only ONE Y chromosome...Noah's
Whereas there were 3 (or 4, if Noah's wife had more children after the Flood) lineages of mitochondrial DNA...
And that is precisely what 'science' has discovered...three main lineages of mtDNA
“So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.” Gen 7:7
“Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth… These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” Gen 9:18–19
How many X chromosome lineages were on the Ark? That depends. If you count it all up, you get eight. If, by chance, Noah’s wife passed on the same X chromosome to each of her three sons (25% probability), then there were seven. If Noah had a daughter after the Flood (not expected, but possible), there could be as many as nine X chromosome lineages. Either way, this is a considerable amount of genetic material. And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.
Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient”(i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found.
This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.
For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.
The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines “M”,“N”, and “R”.
It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood.
Jobling, M.A., Tyler-Smith, C., The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary marker comes of age, Nature Reviews 4:598–612, 2003
Garrigan, D. and Hammer, M.F., Reconstructing human origins in the genomic era, Nature Reviews 7:669–680, 2006.

Noah?!? And quoting the bible?!? Are you freak'n serious? Holy crap. Now I'm scared!

[The Dude]

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Attention ,attention! all puddle gooists chime in on this poll:
1. DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE
2. DID THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE CREATE ITSELF
3. DID KLINGONS PROCREATE WITH MONKEYS AND FORM PUDDLE GOOISTS.

1 - Maybe.

2 - Maybe.

3 - In fundie's pron fantasies.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
That seems to be mostly what we get on this forum.
Are you out to disprove science??
Do you accept the evidence that science has found that relates to the Bible??

I don't even put them in the "same category for comparison". Only the ignorant would, in my opinion.

[The Dude]

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
When did I ever claim that? what! alzhiemers got you boy.Be sure to edit.

I don't edit, unless it's for space. So make up your mind. Did the linky you gave falsify abiogenesis? Or not? If you say it did then you're lying. If you say it didn't then it means you made no point other than scientists are still conducting research which you don't give a shite about because you've already convinced yourself that abio is wrong because Goddidit with magic.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

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.

Did you realize the rabbits can also be carriers of a specific genetic viral disease, that when propogated correctly, is on the CDC top five list of BIOlogical warfare agents?

[The Dude]

Russell wrote:

Go on
Admit it...
You are a Christian
You previously have said words to the effect..
Life begat life...
YOU"RE RIGHT!

You're still misquoting me.

Russell wrote:

Now you say and have been saying..
God dunnit with magic...
YOU"RE RIGHT!
He did

Then you have no scientific case and all your posts are superfluous.

Russell wrote:

What is your explanation for there being 3 mtDNA lineages????
Only only one Y chromosome?

What are you even asking for this when you're not interested in science? It's how DNA works. Can't give you an answer now, maybe tomorrow I'll look it up. But for now I'm happy that you got caught lying again and that you've admitted again that you have no scientific case to speak of, ergo your posts for the past few months here are worthless as always.

Russell wrote:

And HOW ON EARTH DID THE COMPLEMENT MAC EVOLVE?

Microsoft let 'em.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>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.

The mathematical equation falls short-but you KNOW that.

(and why would I use Google--when I can BING)

[Russell]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Bo, but evolution doesn't have to worry about abio. Simples.

Oh yes it does
Sorry mate
Please
Refer to the GTE.....again....and again...and again

[The Dude]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you realize the rabbits can also be carriers of a specific genetic viral disease, that when propogated correctly, is on the CDC top five list of BIOlogical warfare agents?

Another reason why Noah didn't stand a chance.

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2007/noah-ra...

[Russell]

Jesus Diablo wrote:

<quoted text>
Noah?!? And quoting the bible?!? Are you freak'n serious? Holy crap. Now I'm scared!

Don't be scared
Be smart...

What wrong with quoting the Bible?

[TheIndependentMa jority]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
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??

What did the apes "evolve from"?

Darwin's INCOMPLETE theory is VERY passe now--as are the 2nd grade pictographs of it.
Science has moved WAY beyond, by leaps and bounds.

What did those "apes" evolve from?

YOU (emphasis) might want to catch up a little!!

The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809. Lamarck described a mechanism by which he believed evolution could occur. This mechanism was known as "the inheritance of acquired characteristics."

Lamarck started his scientific career as a botanist, but in 1793 he became one of the founding professors of the Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle as an expert on invertebrates. His work on classifying worms, spiders, molluscs, and other boneless creatures was far ahead of his time.

Assume that there were salamanders living in some grasslands. Suppose, Lamarck argued, that these salamanders had a hard time walking because their short legs couldn't trample the tall grasses or reach the ground. Suppose that these salamanders began to slither on their bellies to move from place to place. Because they didn't use their legs, the leg muscles wasted away from disuse and the legs thus became small. Lamarck's theory said that the salamanders passed this acquired trait to their offspring. In time the salamander's legs were used so rarely that they disappeared. Thus, Lamarck argued, legless salamanders evolved from salamanders by inheriting the acquired characteristic of having no legs. Lamarck presented no experimental evidence or observation and his theory fell out of scientific favor. The next significant idea came from the British scientist Charles Darwin.

In 1837 Darwin began his first notebook on evolution.

So, As we see from some gathered FACTS-- Darwin's theory was NOT only NOT wholly original to him, but NOT very recent, at all.

Capish?

[The Dude]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yes it does
Sorry mate
Please
Refer to the GTE.....again....and again...and again

Nope. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. It does not care if life developed naturally or if it was magically poofed into being by an invisible magical wizard. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.

Or do you also reject the theory of gravity? That doesn't explain the origin of mass, but it still works.

Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? That doesn't explain the origin of germs, but it still works.

Likewise evolution.

[The Dude]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be scared
Be smart...
What wrong with quoting the Bible?

Nothing. It's when you pretend it's relevant to science there becomes a problem.

Yeah the Romans were mean to early Christians. Yeah there was a guy called Herod.

No there were no talking donkeys and lizards. No there was no global flood.

No the Earth is not a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe.

Goddidit with magic? Well maybe, but can't be scientifically substantiated. We COULD all be trapped in the Matrix.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. It does not care if life developed naturally or if it was magically poofed into being by an invisible magical wizard. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.
Or do you also reject the theory of gravity? That doesn't explain the origin of mass, but it still works.
Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? That doesn't explain the origin of germs, but it still works.
Likewise evolution.

Do we havta repeat the black hole mass inequality in equation remedial stuff AGAIN?

[Russell]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
You're still misquoting me.
<quoted text>
Then you have no scientific case and all your posts are superfluous.
<quoted text>
What are you even asking for this when you're not interested in science? It's how DNA works. Can't give you an answer now, maybe tomorrow I'll look it up. But for now I'm happy that you got caught lying again and that you've admitted again that you have no scientific case to speak of, ergo your posts for the past few months here are worthless as always.
<quoted text>
Microsoft let 'em.

I am not misquoting you Bud
Its all in writing

Or were you being your usual sarcastic self?

It scarcely matters, tho'...

Does life beget life?

There is NO evidence for the evolution of any biological cascade requiring enzymatic regulation

Check tomorrow, Bud

I thought you had said you had a background in immunology?

The complement cascade needs to be very finely regulated to prevent damage to self-cells by antibody-directed complement-mediated lysis. Further, the complement cascade needs to be controlled because degradation products of the complement proteins can diffuse (and thereby cause damage) to adjacent cells. The complement cascade is thus very tightly regulated by several circulating and membrane-bound proteins.

ALL HAVE TO BE PRESENT SIMULTANEOUSLY TO WORK!
No allowance for millions of years of evo-god magic....

Yet another hopeless FAIL for evolutionary paradigms

[The Dude]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
What did the apes "evolve from"?
Darwin's INCOMPLETE theory is VERY passe now--as are the 2nd grade pictographs of it.
Science has moved WAY beyond, by leaps and bounds.
What did those "apes" evolve from?
YOU (emphasis) might want to catch up a little!!

Old world monkeys IIRC. You've never looked at the biological classification system, have you?

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809. Lamarck described a mechanism by which he believed evolution could occur. This mechanism was known as "the inheritance of acquired characteristics."
Lamarck started his scientific career as a botanist, but in 1793 he became one of the founding professors of the Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle as an expert on invertebrates. His work on classifying worms, spiders, molluscs, and other boneless creatures was far ahead of his time.
Assume that there were salamanders living in some grasslands. Suppose, Lamarck argued, that these salamanders had a hard time walking because their short legs couldn't trample the tall grasses or reach the ground. Suppose that these salamanders began to slither on their bellies to move from place to place. Because they didn't use their legs, the leg muscles wasted away from disuse and the legs thus became small. Lamarck's theory said that the salamanders passed this acquired trait to their offspring. In time the salamander's legs were used so rarely that they disappeared. Thus, Lamarck argued, legless salamanders evolved from salamanders by inheriting the acquired characteristic of having no legs. Lamarck presented no experimental evidence or observation and his theory fell out of scientific favor. The next significant idea came from the British scientist Charles Darwin.
In 1837 Darwin began his first notebook on evolution.
So, As we see from some gathered FACTS-- Darwin's theory was NOT only NOT wholly original to him, but NOT very recent, at all.
Capish?

No it wasn't. Darwin's contribution was proposing the mechanism of natural selection. He built his work of earlier people, just as all scientists do. It was Linnaeus for example who came up with our biological classification system, which the basic idea is still in use today. And he was by all accounts a creationist. It was him who pointed out that humans were apes. Ironically this creationist helped lay down the basis of evolution.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
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??

But yew might like this book--

3. Alexander Mebane's "Darwin's Creation Myth", available from:

The SourceBook Project
P.O. Box 107
Glen Arm, Md. 21057

[TheIndependentMa jority]

thewordofme wrote:

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

and WASTE time in life?

No thanks....but you have fun "setting there" imagining!!