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
61,081 - 61,100 of 113,145 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65214
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

http://darwinconspiracy.com/

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65215
Dec 14, 2012
 
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>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.
what kind of English don't you understand?

metaphor
[ mtt&#601; fwr ]

implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake
figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things
symbol: one thing used or considered to represent another

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65216
Dec 14, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Let's keep this short and sweet Maz. How were the steps taken to resurrect Phoenix in any way?

First, of course they used a new or recent ERV. Don't you understand that the longer an ERV is in a genome the more it will have evolved? That is one of the ways to judge how old an ERV is. something that you claimed was impossible. Old ancestral ERV's would not be revivible. They revived it using the TOE, or is that cheating.

From my viewpoint it is a lose lose for you and yours. Either they made life in the lab or they revived a virus. You can't have it both ways unless you are a hypocr... Oh, never mind. I now see why you think you can have it both ways.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65217
Dec 14, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Whereas Rowling is obsessed with class and education, Tolkien has more of a Karma approach to who fulfills what roles in his story. Granted, there is a royalty aspect in Tolkien that Rowling does not include, but that is just another part of the absolutely stereotypical male and female roles of leadership that separate matriarchies and patriarchies.
Generally, I think he just accepts the natural roles that go along with sexual dimorphism.
Just my opinion.
The point is many people read fiction without being influenced by the 'hidden agenda' as it were...and are simply entertained. Many people are inspired by the escape from slavery type of stories even in a prejudiced world. Ms. Stowe knew that. Some entertainment does not seem edifying. Have you heard so many people explain how wrong violent games and movies are because that's where violence on the streets is birthed practically...but you might argue that just as violent movies make people violent...romantic movies make people romantic...and all entertainment should cease because we need to create a world without feeling so no one hates or loves to dangerous levels.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65218
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with you. DNA itself is mathematical.
What kind of music exists without mathematics? Music has beat, tempo, rhythm, etc. Sound is like a number. You put those numbers together you have math. 1 + 2 = 3. Thus, you have music.
Actually this is completely and utterly and totally wrongily wrong wrongness.

To have music one must have vibrations transmitted through a medium, usually in our case that would be our atmosphere. Sound is not a number because numbers are arbitrary.

Now, music CAN be measured by math. But it is not required. In fact there are quite likely a lot of great musicians who TOTALLY SUCK at math.

Math is a language. It is an abstract concept. It is not a real physical thing, except for the brain states that exist within our head. Like English does not refer to a real thing, as it is also an abstract form of communication. Without math, DNA would still exist. Rocks still existed before we had words to describe them.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65219
Dec 14, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
OF COURSE! Cuz all evolution really is is just RANDOM CHANCE and nothing else!!!
Except that it isn't.
:-/
Oh it's not, so what is it about if not about random mutations?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65220
Dec 14, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. The hills are alive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Oh look. Spider-Man!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65221
Dec 14, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Without math, DNA would still exist. Rocks still existed before we had words to describe them.
Now you are just downright lying! You can't be any more wrong!
ItsObvious

Savage, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65222
Dec 14, 2012
 
Prove this wrong. An advanced species known as humans developed technology to leave their own planet and go to life sustaining planets in other solar systems. They went to planets most like their own and to their surprise, found primitive ape like creatures on that planet. They decided to use these apes to help retrieve resources from this planet for their own agenda, as well as wage war against other human colonies settling on the same planet(explaining gods with fire breathing birds, powers capable of mass destruction, wars between "angels" in theology). Using technology much like invitro fertilization, they combined their own DNA with these apes to give them enough intelligence to take orders and help but not enough to fully comprehend existence. Through genetic cloning(genetic cloning explaining why humans have over 4000 genetic disorders while all other animals on earth have less than 500, except dolly the cloned sheep who was predisposed to an abnormally high number of genetic disorders), more and more of these slaves were created but they unexpectedly "evolved and suddenly had more awareness. Undoubtedly better hybrids could be produced by further hybridizing with this higher ape species(explaining the suddenly rapid development in human evolution towards the modern age I.e. the jump from Neanderthal cave dwellers inexplicably forming mass societies, building pyramids across the globe etc.) producing even higher intelligent humanoids. Then these humans left the planets after losing the wars or getting all they needed from the planet, promising their creations a return, possibly to check up on their progress and see how their "experiment" has gone. Besides how hard it is to accept this theory and however implausible this is, what if it happened here on earth already? Barring how absolutely absurd it sounds, the only way to disprove this type of theory would be for extraterrestrials to come down and literally say we had no part in it. Just for the crazy factor I'm gonna throw in the possibility that the first ape hybrids resembled something of a Sasquatch or a yeti and when new hybrids were made, these obsoletes were set free or banished explaining the possible(however unlikely) existence of yetis and sasquatches that are reported being seen. They hide from us because we so closely resemble the original "alien ancestors" that first enslaved them and waged war with them. Trust me it sounds crazy to me too but it explains any(if any exists) arguments against the speed and practicality of a human brain developing as it did(making birth extremely dangerous and a lot harder anatomically, not to mention the absolute lack of necessity of so much brain capacity for such primitive humanoids. Before you dismiss this remember that Darwinism states that a species will only evolve or adapt to the extent in which is necessary to survive. Our ancestors seem to make an unnecessary jump to a huge brain capacity at a large risk to the birthing process due to the size of the infants head) and also explains all of these religious stories or more accurately, flawed resellings of people who saw what they could not explain. Also if this is just too out there for people on this forum I can discuss how the same brain in primitive humanoids that we have today still could have evolved in the short time period to modern man and how we are still evolving. Sorry for the novel lol ;)

“happy to be horny”

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65223
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So it's not about science then, it's just about you wanting to to hang on to your big, fluffy, christian security blanket??

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65224
Dec 14, 2012
 
Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.

Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".

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

And Dude, you think you have the answers? LOL!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65225
Dec 14, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's keep this short and sweet Maz. How were the steps taken to resurrect Phoenix in any way?
First, of course they used a new or recent ERV. Don't you understand that the longer an ERV is in a genome the more it will have evolved? That is one of the ways to judge how old an ERV is. something that you claimed was impossible. Old ancestral ERV's would not be revivible. They revived it using the TOE, or is that cheating.
From my viewpoint it is a lose lose for you and yours. Either they made life in the lab or they revived a virus. You can't have it both ways unless you are a hypocr... Oh, never mind. I now see why you think you can have it both ways.
Sort and sweet means you want to evade and are not prepared to defend ervs against my claim that your algorithmic magic is all gibberish.

What part of this are you totally ignoring?

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

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".

It is a frudulent misrepresentation, indeed, and there is no denying it.

I see you have zilch to say about your 'old' and 'new/recent' ervs.

That my man, is the end of this topic you chose on ervs. If one cannot speak to a topic they should shut up or avoid it as you are now doing, or at least not be so stupid as to choose it.

If you refuse to defend the reasoning behind presumed ancient ervs then you loose by default, as this is the entire basis of the ERV myth.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65226
Dec 14, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
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'.
No, they used this as reasoning that your "control clusters" or whatever the heck you wanna call them just so happen to act EXACTLY like retroviruses when the same proteins were put together artificially, thus supporting the hypothesis that ERV markers ARE in fact ERV markers.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Well fatality IS possible, which is what makes these things rare. But consider those who contract AIDS. Do they die straight away before they have time to have kids?
MazHere wrote:
What is more likely is that these sequence were present in the initially created Adam and Eve as some immunity of other function.
How is it "more likely" when Adam and Eve weren't even around when much of the genetics you're talking about didn't even exist back then? Especially when an Adam and Eve scenario not only destroys humanity before it gets started but also REQUIRES EVOLUTION TO OCCUR?

Oh wait - forgot you were a hypocrite by invoking GODMAGIC.

But thanks for admitting you have no evidence.
MazHere wrote:
This resulted in the formation of retrovirus and a drop in mankinds inability to defer old age and disease as per the fall.
TEH FALL?!? Jolly good!

Then you admit that creationism CAN'T predict "100% function" because we have (allegedly) been LOSING genetic information due to TEH FALL (which has no mechanisms or evidence yet by the way), and hence creationism can't make valid predictions on functionality either way. That's why evolution is still predicting protein function with an accuracy of 96% and creationism has an accuracy of 0%.

And that's why evolution is SUCCESSFULLY predicting that ERV markers put together artificially would end up with a retrovirus. Thank you for pointing that out.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Uh, so you're saying that they AREN'T 100% functional? Haven't you been saying that creationism predicts ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FUNCTION???

HELLOOOOOOOOOO??!!?!???

Or are you saying that some DNA is...

... wait for it...

.

...

.

... JUNK?!?

.

We accept your resignation and admission of defeat.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65227
Dec 14, 2012
 
ItsObvious wrote:
Prove this wrong. An advanced species known as humans developed technology to leave their own planet and go to life sustaining planets in other solar systems. They went to planets most like their own and to their surprise, found primitive ape like creatures on that planet. They decided to use these apes to help retrieve resources from this planet for their own agenda, as well as wage war against other human colonies settling on the same planet(explaining gods with fire breathing birds, powers capable of mass destruction, wars between "angels" in theology). Using technology much like invitro fertilization, they combined their own DNA with these apes to give them enough intelligence to take orders and help but not enough to fully comprehend existence. Through genetic cloning(genetic cloning explaining why humans have over 4000 genetic disorders while all other animals on earth have less than 500, except dolly the cloned sheep who was predisposed to an abnormally high number of genetic disorders), more and more of these slaves were created but they unexpectedly "evolved and suddenly had more awareness. Undoubtedly better hybrids could be produced by further hybridizing with this higher ape species(explaining the suddenly rapid development in human evolution towards the modern age I.e. the jump from Neanderthal cave dwellers inexplicably forming mass societies, building pyramids across the globe etc.) producing even higher intelligent humanoids. Then these humans left the planets after losing the wars or getting all they needed from the planet, promising their creations a return, possibly to check up on their progress and see how their "experiment" has gone. Besides how hard it is to accept this theory and however implausible this is, what if it happened here on earth already? Barring how absolutely absurd it sounds, the only way to disprove this type of theory would be for extraterrestrials to come down and literally say we had no part in it. Just for the crazy factor I'm gonna throw in the possibility that the first ape hybrids resembled something of a Sasquatch or a yeti and when new hybrids were made, these obsoletes were set free or banished explaining the possible(however unlikely) existence of yetis and sasquatches that are reported being seen. They hide from us because we so closely resemble the original "alien ancestors" that first enslaved them and waged war with them. Trust me it sounds crazy to me too but it explains any(if any exists) arguments against the speed and practicality of a human brain developing as it did(making birth extremely dangerous and a lot harder anatomically, not to mention the absolute lack of necessity of so much brain capacity for such primitive humanoids. Before you dismiss this remember that Darwinism states that a species will only evolve or adapt to the extent in which is necessary to survive. Our ancestors seem to make an unnecessary jump to a huge brain capacity at a large risk to the birthing process due to the size of the infants head) and also explains all of these religious stories or more accurately, flawed resellings of people who saw what they could not explain. Also if this is just too out there for people on this forum I can discuss how the same brain in primitive humanoids that we have today still could have evolved in the short time period to modern man and how we are still evolving. Sorry for the novel lol ;)
....Wow.

...I mean....what an imagination.

I'd be amused -- I mean "interested" to hear your evidence for the above.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65228
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.
The fact that we have many wafflers and ridiculers here like Subby and Dan like to gobble on but cannot refute a word I said about your gibberish.

I predict that evos will babble on and evade with every aside. Evidence...Subbies short and sweet and incomplete response based on evasion.

Do please tell all us creos just how all the gibberish around 'old' scrambled ervs that are linked to mythical extinct retrovirus has any basis in reality as opposed to mythical speculation?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65229
Dec 14, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Additional reply to Subby..
Listen, here stop misquoting me.
Right. So it's okay for YOU to misquote evolutionary biologists and their research but not okay for someone to do it to you.

Hypocrisy thy name is Maz the fundie.
MazHere wrote:
I have not said anything about comparisons other than evos ignorantly look to similarity and ignore differences.
We know there are differences, which is why we are not using those differences as evidence for evolution. For example we are not using non-orthologous ERV's as evidence for common ancestry, we are only using orthologous ones.
MazHere wrote:
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.
We actually claimed them to be FUNCTIONAL retroviruses. And that any addition of genetic material CAN and DOES eventually lead to new function if it does not completely incapacitate the organism.
MazHere wrote:
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?
Apparently YOU believe them when quoting cherry-picked parts of their papers.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
These 'old' ervs are scrambled.
Gee, YA THINK?!? The older they are, the more genetic drift they will demonstrate.

AS PREDICTED by evolution.

Sub even told you this a few days ago.

Duh.
MazHere wrote:
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?
Yes, we get it - you deny science in favour of magic.
MazHere wrote:
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.
So why do these "functional" whateveryouwannacallits just so happen to look like retroviruses?

That and all those other questions I asked you still have no answer for.

So much for creationism being able to EXPLAIN anything.
MazHere wrote:
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.
So you're saying the viruses from back then are not the same as we have today?

People get flu jabs every year.

So why the heck is this supposed to be surprising?

.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism, Maz?

(sound of crickets chirping)
ItsObvious

Savage, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65230
Dec 14, 2012
 
Chimps will be speaking in the next century and creationists will see first hand. However I believe this study greatly exaggerates the part about them evolving faster(physiologically I don't doubt they are however I doubt the human study involved the evolution in human intelligence and behavior due to cultural pressures which would raise our evolution rates)

http://www.avantnews.com/news/25668-the-race-...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65231
Dec 14, 2012
 
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>So it's not about science then, it's just about you wanting to to hang on to your big, fluffy, christian security blanket??
Did I say anything about Christianity? I don't belong to any religious faction but at least I learned and understand the religion. I see you don't know much about the hidden esoteric wisdom of the bible.

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.

•••
•••