Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173449 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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#65330 Dec 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
No, Maz, you are a fraud.
You have not shown one thing wrong with their method of assembling Phoenix. They did not take genes willy nilly from anywhere. The genes they took came from the HERV's. Their location in Phoenix was the same as they were in the original HERV's. They merely selected the most common gene present. Since many of the genes HAD evolved, not all please note, the common genes were the most likely ones not to have mutated.
What part of that don't you understand?
The built Phoenix only with genes from the HERV's in the order they were found from the HERV's. There was no prejudice to put in special "working" genes since in the body of the HERV they really could not tell if they would be working or not.
Flying Spaghetti Monster you are dense.
The term is reconstructed, not resurrected.

They would not have to reconstruct Phoenix from anything if a HERV could be lifted from a human genome alive and infectious.

Regardless, HERV-K is a 'recent' so called ERV, that has already aquired function in under 6my. You are focussing on this to detract from the substance of my point.

The point being.....That any deduction or speculation an evolutionist makes on 'ancient' ervs, as they relate to common ancestry, is based on mutations away from an extinct retrovirus that evos have never observed, the existence and construction of which evos can only speculate about.

So you have already given me what I wanted, which is that all this hype about ervs is based on priori deductions and speculations of extinct retrovirus evos have never observed.

Thanks Subby!

Hence, data re junk dna is supporting creationist predictions and falsifying evos initial claims; ervs are proving to be functional as part of the evo junk dna myth; ervs are an example of falacious speculative claims made by evos that are based purely on speculation no more robust than anything I can come with.

Next......How about my point 2.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#65331 Dec 14, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
You are helping to point out how perfect things are when humans have nothing to do with them. Seasons are great. The issue is whether they evolved or were designed by God. why doesn't it take forty years for corn to grow? How long have birds beeen flying south for the winter? Why isn't the sun closer to the earth? Why do people sleep in the dark? Do humans really need rest...or was it invented?
Does my mirror image date? What kind of a job does my shadow have?

Nothing I said indicates that things are perfect without humans. What I said is that humans are not required gravity to work, life to evolve or stars to form. Seasons are great. The point is that we can show through experiment and observation that evolution has occurred and is occurring. You cannot do that for God.

I would say that birds have been flying since they developed wings and powered flight. Corn grows for the period which it grows because of its genetics and selective breeding by humans. But just because humans have bred plants and animals, created clocks and mountanous sculptures and developed language and writing, it does not logically follow that there must be a creator/designer. There may well be and I believe that there is, but I can't design an experiment to show that. I can hypothesize that there are selective pressures that led to the development of sleeping when it is dark. These pressures may be very old and predate our oldest sapient ancestory. You are aware that many animals and plants become quiescent at night. Others have taken this opportunity as an opening for their own benefit. Insects, bats, many predators to name a few. It is harder to work at night, the temperatures are often cooler. We need to rest sometime. Why not then. I would say that based on the studies I am aware of, humans need rest. Many animals do.

You take care Rose Tyler.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#65332 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The term is reconstructed, not resurrected.
They would not have to reconstruct Phoenix from anything if a HERV could be lifted from a human genome alive and infectious.
Regardless, HERV-K is a 'recent' so called ERV, that has already aquired function in under 6my. You are focussing on this to detract from the substance of my point.
The point being.....That any deduction or speculation an evolutionist makes on 'ancient' ervs, as they relate to common ancestry, is based on mutations away from an extinct retrovirus that evos have never observed, the existence and construction of which evos can only speculate about.
So you have already given me what I wanted, which is that all this hype about ervs is based on priori deductions and speculations of extinct retrovirus evos have never observed.
Thanks Subby!
Hence, data re junk dna is supporting creationist predictions and falsifying evos initial claims; ervs are proving to be functional as part of the evo junk dna myth; ervs are an example of falacious speculative claims made by evos that are based purely on speculation no more robust than anything I can come with.
Next......How about my point 2.
Besides your gross ability to misunderstand, what creation predictions are you claiming are supported by this research?

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#65333 Dec 14, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Does my mirror image date? What kind of a job does my shadow have?
Nothing I said indicates that things are perfect without humans. What I said is that humans are not required gravity to work, life to evolve or stars to form. Seasons are great. The point is that we can show through experiment and observation that evolution has occurred and is occurring. You cannot do that for God.
I would say that birds have been flying since they developed wings and powered flight. Corn grows for the period which it grows because of its genetics and selective breeding by humans. But just because humans have bred plants and animals, created clocks and mountanous sculptures and developed language and writing, it does not logically follow that there must be a creator/designer. There may well be and I believe that there is, but I can't design an experiment to show that. I can hypothesize that there are selective pressures that led to the development of sleeping when it is dark. These pressures may be very old and predate our oldest sapient ancestory. You are aware that many animals and plants become quiescent at night. Others have taken this opportunity as an opening for their own benefit. Insects, bats, many predators to name a few. It is harder to work at night, the temperatures are often cooler. We need to rest sometime. Why not then. I would say that based on the studies I am aware of, humans need rest. Many animals do.
You take care Rose Tyler.
Genetics...can't be God. They were created by God. wrong answer. The enemy doesn't have the power to create ...he can only use what already exists to deceive people. C.S. Lewis said that.(sort of)
you take care too.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65334 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."
No, they don't, since you were unable to respond to the questions I asked.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65335 Dec 14, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."
Nonetheless, they found that:
•The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.
•The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.
Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.
On the contrary, the paper in Nature identified the genetic mechanisms that would account for the differences.

And of course, the same paper points out that the *remainder* of the human and chimp genomes differs less than 1%.

Funny how your website omitted those two facts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65336 Dec 14, 2012
ItsObvious wrote:
<quoted text>
"Problematic" to quote the great Lloyd Christmas "so your saying there's a chance!" ;) lol haha
Absolutely!

:-P
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65337 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what the hell is ERV? Earth Re-Visited? LMAO!
So we've been discussing this for WEEKS now and you still don't know?

Yep, you sure had a great biology education!

You were the "pharmacologist" and you accused ME of being on drugs...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65338 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with Star Wars? I thought we all once looked like Chewbacas in a distant past?
Hey, nothing wrong with Star Wars. Well, I suppose there's all that fuss over the prequels but I don't wanna start ANOTHER geek fight on this thread so we'll leave it at that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65339 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Evidence please.'ARTIFICIALLY' is the operative word here. IOW they put together according to their speculation and use that as evidence. It is actually gibberish based on maths that cannot possibly take the entire complexity of the genome into account.
It is the fact of it all being gibberish that leads to the ever changing evo flavours of the month.
It's not speculation since they just copied the ERV. Take a look at the protein make up of the ERV. Grab yourself some of those proteins. Put 'em together. Bingo. Microwave retrovirus. And what does the ENTIRE genome have to do with anything? It's ONE ERV. ONE base. Do ERV's take up the ENTIRE genome? No. Why would you say something so stupid?
MazHere wrote:
That is not an appropriate reply.
Reality is not an appropriate reply, I'm talking to a creationist FFS.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Mutations across the germ line are majorly deleterious.
Again, you're a fundie. All mutations are deleterous to you because that's what you require for theological reasons. And I don't doubt they CAN be, but death of that lineage is NOT a guarantee, much as you would like it to be.

Besides, mutations CAN'T be deleterous, as ALL ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the genome is "functional". According to you. Or are you now saying that the genome has junk?

Uh-oh.
MazHere wrote:
You evos now rely on some computer model to speculate that an entire viral sequence crossed the germ line and fixed over time, got scrambled further by mutation and then is supposed to look like some retrovirus that is extinct and unknown. That is the basis of your pseudo science. It is not rare if evos are also trying to suggest it happended 200,000 times, or is that also a misrepresentation?
It only needs to happen once. We have more than one. Or do you deny that we share ANY ERV's in orthologous positions with other species at all?

I see you're still skipping a whole lot. What's the "scientific theory" of creationism, Maz?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#65340 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, nothing wrong with Star Wars. Well, I suppose there's all that fuss over the prequels but I don't wanna start ANOTHER geek fight on this thread so we'll leave it at that.
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/what-have-i-done
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65341 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
The Dude said
<quoted text>
The rest of your post is gibberish and you are an ignorant evo.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
The point being that evos are having their initial claims, 98% junk, falsified whilst creos are having their claims, 100% functional, validiated in time as any predcition that has any merit should.
Nice complete and total utter LACK of rebuttal there, Maz.

100% functional? Or are mutations deleterous?

Can't have both Maz. Because that would totally F up your "predictive ability".

Yup, this is the sound of you FINALLY realizing you've already shot off both your own feet.

What's an ERV, Maz?

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

Why are you an intellectually dishonest hypocrite, Maz?

Remember, God is watching...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65342 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Language is the interpretation of reality. If you think something can exist without math, please explain. Almost all sciences rely on math.
Almost all sciences rely on language. But reality can exist without math. Reality can exist without language. Reality can exist without science (as science is also just our interpretation of reality). Reality simply IS. Without an intelligent agent to observe reality and come up with abstract concepts like language and math (which is also a language) reality would still exist. It would simply have no-one to describe it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65343 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
The entirety of this gobble about ervs and ancestry to chimps or anything else is just gibberish.
Then in that case you should have no problem in forming a rebuttal.
MazHere wrote:
The fall is as much a philosophical assertion as your evolutionary one that suggests an entire sequence of any kind can cross the germ line, remain similar enough to be identified and despite being scrambled still resembles some retrovirus you have never seen.
Except we made the successful prediction that mimicking the protein makeup of an ERV marker would result in a retrovirus. You didn't. You still can't even tell us what an ERV IS.

Also if you WERE correct about us merely disagreeing over different philosophies then you coming here to argue is UTTERLY pointless. As the best you could reach would be a stalemate. You may as well go home.
MazHere wrote:
It is gibberish and is not evidence for common ancestry to chimps at all, let alone the rest.
You just keep telling yourself that.
MazHere wrote:
As for no evidence for Adam and Eve, you have got to be joking. There is numerous evidence for an Adam and Eve, it is just that evos are too ignorant to see it. Instead they get their algorithmic magic going, come up with data that supports creation and then say there must have been other human cohorts because evos say so based on a priori assumption.
Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago — everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00...
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...
You have found Adam and Eve but have used algorithmic magic full of unknown insertion values to get dates that suit your paradigm.
Except that you misrepresented the evidence. Again. Here, lemme give you a clue:

"Had you entered any village on Earth in around 3,000 B.C., the first person you would have met would probably be your ancestor," Hein marveled.

In other words there were still large populations and the genetics does NOT support going back to two people and two people only with no other contemporaries at all, period.

Otherwise we would not be here.

Cue JEWMAGIC.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#65344 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost all sciences rely on language. But reality can exist without math. Reality can exist without language. Reality can exist without science (as science is also just our interpretation of reality). Reality simply IS. Without an intelligent agent to observe reality and come up with abstract concepts like language and math (which is also a language) reality would still exist. It would simply have no-one to describe it.
Conversations like this are what make people crave the society of two-year olds.
You sound as though you're dreaming of a world without description...and two-yr-olds thrive on descriptions.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#65345 Dec 14, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah...not in my genetics to "jump on typos" out of hateful ignorance, just for some weak validation of denial of ones own ineptness :-). If and when I do so, I do so in good natured preference, and for the mere "funning" of it :-). Unless of course it would be a situation where such would matter an iota, but that is another whole realm.
Diametrically, I wouldn't consider Yalies as noveua anything-most especially "rich". FAR, far from it lol. Liberals are generally to "liberal" to be such lol. I would have to entitle THAt type of brainlessnes to the "Harvard" up-turned squeak and squeal pig snouters types lol. You know, the ones that fathom themselves to be some sort of dieties on earth, with nary a flaw, or never an incorrect bone-oh my-oh heavens no!:-)
I prefer paths of REALITY, and finding ways of crossing o'er the many stumbling stones that litter it.
I find it's much just easier, and much kinder on the whole existential being then...because running into boulders all the times is NOT anyway to exist harmoniously, thank you :-).
Loved your description of the blending of the Hienz 57 world in which we live though lol.
I think Harvard alumni are stereotypically the Ivy League Republicans whereas Yale grads are solid Democrats. My sister got her PhD out of Yale so I've heard a bit of insider scuttlebutt. Me, I'm the youngest of the family. I was brought up to be the nursemaid of the elders of my semi-riche family. I've rejected it and just about everyone else in the old-school order of class. I whiz on them all with equal-opportunity! When I use the term "scuttlebutt", it's because I've payed some dues as a sailor!

I have no problem with challenging academia but only on an unconventional level. Fortunately, Topix allows us class equality, which I respect! If the accolade chasers want some action on Topix, I'll give it, but only if they provide real meat, not bogus credentials.

Right now, this crowd of Evolution supporters is fairly legit. They aren't the liberal slime who just belittle religion because of conservative politics. They mostly provide good, logical responses. I'll read their links. They have meaning.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65346 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Creos, at least, could make a prediction on ervs.
Like what? They had some sort of function but you have no idea what? Yes they did. They were retroviruses. You can't even tell us what they ARE. You can't tell us what function ANYTHING has, just some vague problem that EVERYTHING WILL HAVE FUNCTION 100%!!!

THEN you go around telling us pretty much ALL mutations are deleterous because of "TEH FALL!", which the inevitable consequence of which will leave us with only ONE thing:

"JUNK" DNA!

Most people I would suggest NOT slamming themselves as hard as they can over the head with a baseball bat, but in your case I don't think it would make any difference.
MazHere wrote:
The rest is entorely speculative on both sides, hence the terms likely, maybe and perhaps that riddles evo papers. Evos said functionless ervs 'prove' evolution and that TOE predicts functionless non coding dna, including ervs and shoved them all down creos throats. It is evos that are being proven to have been wrong. Now the backtracking and stories begins all over again.
How were we wrong?

What explanation do you have (with evidence) of the mechanism that produced them?

Why is there orthology consistent with nested hierarchies?

Why do they look like ERV's?

Why do they act like retroviruses when put together artificially?

Why do ortholog markers show differences consistent with nested hierarchies and genetic drift?

Why are they even referred to as ERVs in the first place if they are not actually ERVs?

Why are you using evolutionary evidence you claim doesn't even work if the Earth wasn't even around then?

Why are you claiming your BS is scientific when your alternative is Godmagic?

Why bother talking about evidence as it's irrelevant to magic?

Why are you a hypocrite?

Why do you keep lying?
MazHere wrote:
If you want to call this gobble evidence, then it is an evidence based on faith, and you are welcome to it.
And we ARE welcome to it. That's because it's not creationists doing successful science in this area.
MazHere wrote:
I'd rather believe in the power of a God
Your beliefs are irrelevant. "God" is scientifically undemonstrable. Maybe it exists?

If so, it used evolution. Or God is a liar. Or God is not God.
MazHere wrote:
than these evos that can't make up their mind about anything and handwave away evidence for creation with any ridiculous scenario evos can make up. eg ancient ervs.
Translation - you still can't provide a coherent rebuttal and are therefore required to engage in some SERIOUS projection.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65347 Dec 14, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
Conversations like this are what make people crave the society of two-year olds.
You sound as though you're dreaming of a world without description...and two-yr-olds thrive on descriptions.


Not dreaming, imagining.

It even existed once. At one time Earth existed with no humans. It even existed once with no life.

And I am not criticizing descriptions, to the contrary.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#65348 Dec 14, 2012
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>don't worry about us women guys, we're a little too busy to be dissecting kid lit....
Well, I'm sure we all would love to be reading Faulkner and Joyce all the time, but when it comes down to it, they tend to deny the politics of the working class, even as they bathe their egos in it.

I didn't bring up Tolkien, I just found a reasonable parallel.:D

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#65349 Dec 14, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Besides your gross ability to misunderstand, what creation predictions are you claiming are supported by this research?
The creationist predictions, that Subby danced around for days in ignorance, that the genome will be functional and not have functionless left over junk in it, as proposed by evolutionists.

"The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered?" http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...

And now, and over 10 years later, data has gone from 98% non functional well prior to 2003, to 80% functional in 2012. I'd say on the creos have the upper hand in relation to claims around 'junk dna' over evos in relation to stable predictions and claims that are being validated in time.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

Evos can't even make up their mind if they ever had a prediction, could make any prediction around non coding dna, think it was impossible that evolutionists could have possibly rammed this rubbish down creos throats for over a decade as evidence for TOE.

I just love repeating it all for the ignorant, again, and again, and again until the next Johnny come lately pops in, where some goose will again ask "What creo predictions are supported by this research?".

Now you can come back with the same ignorant, tail chasing evasion Subby went on with for days.

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
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 22 min anguish 1,179
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 24 min Brother Larry 141,493
This or That (Jul '10) 28 min Brother Larry 8,160
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 35 min Brother Larry 2,434
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 47 min Wolftracks 43,435
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 59 min anguish 169,317
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr Krypteia 29,697
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 6 hr natasfonos 18,644
Coffee with Pie! (Sep '08) 7 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 35,219
More from around the web