Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83749 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Quotes from your paper. Support OUR postion, not yours, right?
Conclusion
Nine families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses have been transpositionally active since chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor. Seven of these transpositionally active families have orthologs in humans, one of which has also been transpositionally active in humans since the human-chimpanzee divergence about six million years ago. Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes have revealed that a significant portion of INDEL variation between chimpanzees and humans is attributable to endogenous retroviruses and may be of evolutionary significance.
Of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses identified in this study, 40 were found to have orthologues in the human genome, including 9 that were identified in this study for the first time [14]
A member of only one class II family, CERV 30 (HERV K10), has been transpositionally active since the divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor.
I won't argue that at all. It really doesn't concern me that much in the first place...but it gave you a board from which to sound...and made you want to show the effort to actually "prove" your point. What do you suppose the added numbers are caused by in human to human?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83750 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even know what a species is and neither does the theory of evolution when it comes to the origin of species.
You can't go by appearence alone and classify different species.
EXAMPLE: The grizzly bear and the polar bear is deemed as a different species, while they are able to produce fertile off-spring of both species called the polar-grizzly bear hybrid.
Look up the Genus species for the polar and grizzly bear and you will see they are classified as different species.
You see the equivocation problem with your species terrm?
It's not an equivocation problem, it's a label problem. And given the entire premise of evolution it's not at all surprising. The problem is that reality does not fit into nice neat little pigeon holes as labels require. Like with ring species. Population B can reproduce with group A and C, but A cannot reproduce with C. If we were unaware of group B we would call A and C separate species. But since we know of B do we say B is the same species as A or C? Or do we call A, B and C all the same species even though A and C (which aren't sterile) can't interbreed?

This helps explain things somewhat:

http://www.quietatheist.com/wp-content/upload...

Note there is no "new colour" born all of a sudden, just as there are no new species born all of a sudden. If this colour gradient represents many many species, remember that any sections we label as "different species" it's going to be arbitrary. But that does not invalidate the observed biological fact that life changes over time and those changes accumulate. This would logically lead to evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83751 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Then it should be quite easy to show and give example.
Where is it?
Where is the undeniable proof of the genetic progression of the human chromosome and the following physical evidence that verifies that posit?
When that is presented--THEN we will"know"...and only then.
Crick discovered this in 1950.

Just because you are ignorant of scientific concepts doesn't mean they are invalid.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83752 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans have not diverged enough yet to cause speciation. However their genetic variance *is* observed.
So you think we may reach that point of non-reproductability?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83753 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think about this if it was true?
Ten years after the Arizona UFO incident known as the "Phoenix Lights," former Arizona Republican Governor Fife Symington, III, now says that he himself was a witness to one of the strange unidentified flying objects, even though he originally did not say so publicly.
"It was enormous and inexplicable," he said in an exclusive interview from his home in Phoenix. "Who knows where it came from? A lot of people saw it, and I saw it too."
On March 13, 1997, during Symington's second term as Governor, thousands saw multiple triangular and V-shaped craft, gliding slowly and silently across the sky for half an hour beginning at approximately 8:15 pm. Awestruck witnesses, throughout the state, estimated that the eerie, lighted vehicles were bigger than many football fields, up to a mile long."
If it were true?

WOW!!!

:-O
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83754 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
"the dude" would like this article.
Indeed. Most humorous!

:-)

.

Addendum, I'm not sure who's taking the time to judge your post "disagree" on my behalf. Anyone who knows Dude knows I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83755 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> I won't argue that at all. It really doesn't concern me that much in the first place...but it gave you a board from which to sound...and made you want to show the effort to actually "prove" your point.
My, my, aren't YOU condescending?

Let's let those who are reading along decide for themselves which of us is making good solid points and which of us is posting arm-waving BS, OK?:)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83756 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Well, by all means show me a paper that addresses that.
What for?

Seriously.

For despite your objections, I'm sure that you are already aware that the scientific community has long accepted evolution as the prevailing theory of modern biology. Therefore you should expect to find quite a number of peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject. And there are, literally hundreds of thousands of them, from thousands and thousands of biologists from all over the world. A quick search on PubMed alone comes up with 300,000 articles on the subject.

Despite this, you still don't accept evolution. So can you tell us why the heck would posting scientific research in support of evolution make a lick of difference to your opinions in the first place?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83757 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Your failure to produce any proof...wiki is not proof of anything...scientific papers are even question until repeat experiment is shown to verify.
It's not tough anymore...science is rapidly improving in technique.
So it's your contention that scientific papers do not involve repeatable experimentation? How very curious.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83758 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
What I mean is who manufactured a ufo to be this large (mile long) that flies real slow with no sound.
Any theories or ideas you may have, I would like to hear them.
I'm not sure why you would want us to try to support your hypotheses which we don't necessarily agree with.

Oh wait - yes I do. You have no evidence so have to ask us to provide evidence for your position. Most other fundies do this too.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83759 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
4 million years? Well the lineages of humans and chimps diverged around 6-7 million years ago we DO have that evidence. As for the humans that are left today, it's also worth bearing in mind that geographical separation is less of a factor today due to the development of boats and planes. So the constant mixing of genes slows things down.
Of course. But what of the thousands of years of separation worldwide...before that travel had any effect?
.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83760 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that NONE of it can positively prove the progressive evolution of humans from any given origin...and yet it is posited as proof positive...It is what it is...spoof
Then a DNA test cannot demonstrate that you are related to either of your parents?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83761 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out many things to Hog a day or two ago which were pseudo-scientific yet people still believed them. The thing you're not grasping is that faith does not REQUIRE evidence. That's why people can still have faith in concepts which either have no evidence, or just plain wrong (like young Earth creationism).
Faith does not stay when one has evidence. Faith DISAPPEARS with evidence. Evidence makes faith superfluous.
This is neither child's play nor comedy, but this is reality. For we work by faith and not by sight.
Food for thought, Frodo.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83762 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
THose who happened to be born with the genetic makeup for a longer neck would tend, as a group, to eat better, live longer, reproduce more and thus pass that setup of genes throughout the population eventually.
It has nothing to do with "mutative cellular action within spermiation or zygote." LOL
Yeah, I thought he was making up new words too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83763 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Do show where and how those transitions are actuality.
You can not or you would be world renowned and instantly famous.
This "clear" record is anything but "clear".
Actually you are incorrect, as the linkys I have since provided demonstrate. In actual fact if you were able to falsify evolution it would be YOU who would be world renowned and instantly famous.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
That is where all the controversy is and has been for centuries.
Any real researcher or scientific researcher know this as common knowledge.
Sorry bub, but there hasn't been any "controversy" over the validity of evolution since the discovery of DNA at the very latest. The only GENUINE scientific controversies over evolutionary biology are the specifics of HOW it occurred (which is normal in any scientific field), not whether or not it DID occur.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83764 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. So like others noted we have established that the Bible is in error.
<quoted text>
No, but we don't have to be. We just have to be more accurate than the Bible. And its fundies.
Was there a flood or not?
The answer is, there was flood and the bible said so.
The issue is, whether it was global or regional.
To me, i believe the people then thought it was global, this does not mean that the bible is in error.
The magnitude of the flood led to that conclusion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83765 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> I have no doubt that evolution is a reality. I do have a problem with the chronological placement and resulting "story" of historical evolution concerning human existence as presented by anthropologists and historians....and the influences (terrestrial and extraterrestrial) upon that depiction...which is quite obviously flawed and unsubstantiated.
Um... what on Earth (no pun intended) does the "extra-terrestrial" have to do with any of this?

Don't tell me we have another Infinite-Force!

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83766 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Then it would not have been transferred to the generations, so none would have ever grown larger length necks(which is a ludicrous example anyway).
Actually if changes provide an advantage that's a darn good reason why those characteristics spread through populations.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83767 Mar 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The giraffe is an unusual animal that contains an interesting design mechanism. Did you know that a full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other such repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.
The creationist points out that this intricate design mechanism is, you guessed it, a design! The evolutionist will have you believe that this system evolved with time, that eventually a giraffe mutated merrily along until the valves properly formed in the neck and the elastic blood vessels sufficiently formed in the head (along with other details left out here).
If evolution is true, the struggle for the Giraffe to survive must have been one ugly sight!
So what you're saying is the "designer" messed up the design of the giraffe neck so it needed to put blood pumps that go up then down then back up again in order to prevent the giraffe from fainting whenever it lifts its head? Or instead it could have come up with something a little more direct and less convoluted, and while it was at it, add more neck vertibrae so that it doesn't have to do this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HTcPRZE_-eI/TqQfNwD...
sam

Australia

#83769 Mar 29, 2013
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
And
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.
and

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
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) 5 min Judy 123 314
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 5 min say it aint so 28,129
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 9 min Crystal_Clear722 9,590
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 10 min liam cul8r 8,107
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 10 min andet1987 31,529
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 10 min Judy 123 56,346
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 15 min Judy 123 41,383
News Giant alligator is back at Florida golf course,... 1 hr SLY WEST 8
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr The - Wizard 159,805
News Mystery of California hilltop piano solved 5 hr TALLYHO 8541 2
More from around the web