Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204729 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.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104281 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time. Here is the paper that is based upon peer reviewed journal articles that debunks your idiocy:
http://tinyurl.com/njdwh
What aspect of the evolution of the flagellum do you wish to discuss?
Please note that this paper refers to roughly 200 peer reviewed articles. It was not done lightly.
I read that one way back, summarized as follows, we have a substrate, then a diode, then a transistor, then an IC, then a computer with out intelligence then presto we obviously have a proton powered motor for our tiny little bacteria. Common decent evolutionary Nano-homology style at its worst. No reconciliation of the convergent and complex information required to make these jumps, and as all these part and party life forms live at the same time today, the notion of evo common decent theory falls again. Its a cut and tape job and a decade behind the times. I give you credit for an answer, better than the rest here. Try the Yale paper,he touches on origin's in his summary. I really doubt he and Berg at Harvard would debate this but I will see if they will say anything to me about it.. Thanks.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#104282 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like my post above, please give me refutation on physics, definitions, operating principals, electrical formulas, quotes from links about the evolutionary development of the axial proton flagella engine and I will look it over, anything but more lectures about how I am so in error. Thanks.
Agreeing with yourself does not prove anything either.

What we know about you is you will resort to any amount of dishonesty to try to make your opinion valid.

But you have failed.

And

You will fail every time, because you rely on fictitious and tainted reasoning.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104283 Nov 2, 2013
Firing those 11 stator coils in the HS flagella model to make 100,000 rpm in perfect timing order and pw, lets do the math here...that's 1.1mil pulses/sec. If anything goes south at that speed... Pretty sharp time God if you ask me...Must use synthetic Havoline..., STP just wouldn't do... And the clearances, must be pretty good! The French have an engine that spins @60,000, they tried a counter shaft for a relative rpm of over 120,000 and had to give up, 60K was it, the Lord schooled them too..
Geno

United States

#104284 Nov 2, 2013
This is easy. Evolution!
My parents were both knuckle draggers.
And I, well I prefer to stay on my knees.
Definitely with out doubt, Evolution!

PS. replaytime, your smile, that tongue. Woof!
You, me, make your move handsome! XO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104285 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that one way back, summarized as follows, we have a substrate, then a diode, then a transistor, then an IC, then a computer with out intelligence then presto we obviously have a proton powered motor for our tiny little bacteria. Common decent evolutionary Nano-homology style at its worst. No reconciliation of the convergent and complex information required to make these jumps, and as all these part and party life forms live at the same time today, the notion of evo common decent theory falls again. Its a cut and tape job and a decade behind the times. I give you credit for an answer, better than the rest here. Try the Yale paper,he touches on origin's in his summary. I really doubt he and Berg at Harvard would debate this but I will see if they will say anything to me about it.. Thanks.
Wrong, it takes you step by step through the evolution of the flagellum. Of course it was done in steps, there were only so many proteins needed.

So since you did not understand the article how can I help you to understand it?

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104286 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, it takes you step by step through the evolution of the flagellum. Of course it was done in steps, there were only so many proteins needed.
So since you did not understand the article how can I help you to understand it?
Anyone ever observe these steps you speak of? Like the whole of evolutionary biology, it either happens so fast we cant see it (Gould), or so slowly we can't detect it,(Darwin).

At least on Star Wars, Back to the Future or Star Trek, we have Luke, the Professor and Scotty, and you folks have the Time God. If Scotty told us his Warp Drive came from a God the series would have been over, kids expect better fiction than that! But if talkorigins says so that works for you? The papers I quoted use a pile of far more current references and the foundational one's also. Look up how a controller activates axial connected electric motors using pulse coil technology and how the needed 1.1 mil/pulses/sec to run this motor @ 100,000 rpm would entail all by and by accident's. Its a real motor. AC motors need a special transmission to vari speed and can't reverse! None of your talkorigins lit touches this. Even if they understood the principals,(which after a casual reading they don't, not even close) the perfectly ordered gene data required to build and run this thing must be explained, but no, just drop the word evolution here and there and all the DNA controlled design is automatically explained, how simple. Even the science fiction stories I quote are more plausable.
Drink the hivE

New York, NY

#104287 Nov 2, 2013
Maybe It Has Something 2 Do With The Bodies Ability 2 Sense Changing Electrical Field'...

http://31.media.tumblr.com/d248d8f38b3d2104d1...

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104288 Nov 2, 2013
SBT and Sub. About the two articles.

SBTs Yale article link - Authored by;

Robert M. Macnab
Yale University
Publications: 70 | Citations: 1820
Fields: Microbiology, Biochemistry,and Molecular Biology
Collaborated with 72 co-authors from 1981 to 2006 Cited by 2570 authors

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...

Subs talkorigins link - Authored by;

Nicholas J. Matzke
University of California Berkeley
Publications: 2 | Citations: 9
Fields: Education
Collaborated with 1 co-author from 2007 to 2010 | Cited by 18 authors

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...

The credentials of the authors speak for their selves. Plus if you look you will see both used many of the same people/publications for references in their article.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104289 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So I offered a technically accurate explanation relative to the complexity of the flagella proton powered motor, no one soul here has offered any rebuttal to counter my conclusions - that that tiny little device is unparraleled in design and complexity and so far all all have got is attacks, no science no technical refutation, no quotes, nothing just, "Oh that was solved long ago", "that doesnt matter" etc. etc.. Problem is with you folks is that you have no understantding at all about what the definition of terms are no more than the ability to refute a thing I stated. The unit is irrefutably complex and all mans efforts to figure out how it works fall short, God is laughing at you all over this. He put it there on purpose, it was there all along for this time, so I will put it on a simple platter for for you. Its an engine that run's on Protons, its organized like no engine on earth, it runs on energy we don't understand, it spins on bushings, it has a stator and a rotor that use magnetic energy fields to create thrust within the physics laws identified by Faraday, furthered by Tesla, but it mocks Tesla's AC motor, as it can vari in speed and reverse like a dc motor but runs on AC motor principals and parts, and uses an infinitely small control mechanism that schools the best PLC units (i work with them)in the world which we don't understand and synchronizes like multiple 747 engines in another layer we also don't understand. When you answer these questions come back, then please explain why the DNA and cell mechanism have not evolved in your 4 billion years and operated in mindless parallel to your notion of common decent and increasing complexity, changeless in all that time!
No one has said "Oh that was solved long ago". The flagellar motor is complex and you have done your best to regurgitate the creationist explanation for it. However, that explanation would fit any complex biological system. Arguments for incredulity are a dime a dozen and don't have a pennies worth of evidence to support them.

You babble on about looking in Google. Whether you have or not is uncertain, but if you had, you would have found reference to a number of studies showing what is known about the evolution of the bacterial flagellar motor. You either didn't look or more likely are lying about the existence of that research. You must be lying because I know I posted links on here to some of it already.

So is it a motor or is it an engine. There is a difference you know. You switch back and forth in your ramble while showing us you are aware of the names of a couple of famous physicists. That seems to make up at least a quarter of every post you make. Here are the famous people that SBT knows. Very information and fully supports you views. I can see why you use the evidence of name dropping. How can anyone stand against you?

So you are an electrical engineer now. I thought you were a geologist taught by rogue scientist that disavowed science. Where do you find the time to turn science department heads and university presidents to running from you cogent repartee?

You would stand a better chance if you trimmed your agruements down and made them more rational, but I think you write in your confusing manner to purposefully mislead.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104290 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that one way back, summarized as follows, we have a substrate, then a diode, then a transistor, then an IC, then a computer with out intelligence then presto we obviously have a proton powered motor for our tiny little bacteria. Common decent evolutionary Nano-homology style at its worst. No reconciliation of the convergent and complex information required to make these jumps, and as all these part and party life forms live at the same time today, the notion of evo common decent theory falls again. Its a cut and tape job and a decade behind the times. I give you credit for an answer, better than the rest here. Try the Yale paper,he touches on origin's in his summary. I really doubt he and Berg at Harvard would debate this but I will see if they will say anything to me about it.. Thanks.
You are churning on and on about how it functions. Function is important to evolution, but it is not a mechanism for evolution. You keep repeating the functional aspects over and over in a nearly neurotic chant as if that is meaningful to refuting the evolution of bacterial flagellar motor. It isn't. It is just the substance of your personal argument for incredulity. The extent of your knowledge of research on the evolution of this structure seems mainly to be that your claim of an increasing negative association between the terms "evolution" and "bacterial flagellar motor" in the scientific literature. A claim I may doesn't seem to hold up.

Demanding answers about the mechanisms of function doesn't address or refute the evolution of this structure.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104291 Nov 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
SBT and Sub. About the two articles.
SBTs Yale article link - Authored by;
Robert M. Macnab
Yale University
Publications: 70 | Citations: 1820
Fields: Microbiology, Biochemistry,and Molecular Biology
Collaborated with 72 co-authors from 1981 to 2006 Cited by 2570 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...
Subs talkorigins link - Authored by;
Nicholas J. Matzke
University of California Berkeley
Publications: 2 | Citations: 9
Fields: Education
Collaborated with 1 co-author from 2007 to 2010 | Cited by 18 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author...
The credentials of the authors speak for their selves. Plus if you look you will see both used many of the same people/publications for references in their article.
What a complete moron. You are comparing apples and grapes, not even apples and oranges. The articles are two totally different types of articles. One was written so that the average person, except for creatards would understand it. The article I supplied was an overview of many articles. It is based directly upon peer reviewed journal articles and is not meant to be the source for further peer reviewed journal articles. Yet, it was referred to at least twice. The Yale article was one peer reviewed journal article about a very specific bit of information on the rotator flagellum. It was meant for other authors to use.

Add how peer reviewed articles work to the vast repertoire of items that replaytime does not understand.

Second, that article in no way supports SBT. It says very little about how the flagellum evolved since it was not concerned with that obvious part of science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104292 Nov 2, 2013
Has anyone kept track of how many times that I have informed replaytime that the article I linked was based upon over 200 peer reviewed journal articles? You would think that he might finally understand that it was not a peer reviewed journal article itself, but it was clearly based upon peer reviewed science.

Does anyone besides me get sick and tired of explaining the obvious?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104293 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Has anyone kept track of how many times that I have informed replaytime that the article I linked was based upon over 200 peer reviewed journal articles? You would think that he might finally understand that it was not a peer reviewed journal article itself, but it was clearly based upon peer reviewed science.
Does anyone besides me get sick and tired of explaining the obvious?
It is a number too large to express in this forum.

Yes, but that doesn't stop the replay.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104294 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are churning on and on about how it functions. Function is important to evolution, but it is not a mechanism for evolution. You keep repeating the functional aspects over and over in a nearly neurotic chant as if that is meaningful to refuting the evolution of bacterial flagellar motor. It isn't. It is just the substance of your personal argument for incredulity. The extent of your knowledge of research on the evolution of this structure seems mainly to be that your claim of an increasing negative association between the terms "evolution" and "bacterial flagellar motor" in the scientific literature. A claim I may doesn't seem to hold up.
Demanding answers about the mechanisms of function doesn't address or refute the evolution of this structure.
The issue is that evolution must make sense, the proton motor proves evolution doesn't make any sense. To be scientific, the whole of the matter must fit;The DNA and it's source, the convergent design, the connections, the function, the masterly design that confounds us all technically. And yes, I have worked in several fields, of late electronics for things that actually work and are fairly complex to achieve things we needed in mining, so it turned into a company, a few patents, soon wondering back to another field from my youth in semi-retirement. I used the word "try" to contact, most don't want to touch the matter due to publicity. The motor researchers are crossing into electronic engineering, a thing I know and they don't really get when you read the lit, they have these complex chemical terms but don't get how hard we have to work to get things to work like this.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104295 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What a complete moron. You are comparing apples and grapes, not even apples and oranges. The articles are two totally different types of articles. One was written so that the average person, except for creatards would understand it. The article I supplied was an overview of many articles. It is based directly upon peer reviewed journal articles and is not meant to be the source for further peer reviewed journal articles. Yet, it was referred to at least twice. The Yale article was one peer reviewed journal article about a very specific bit of information on the rotator flagellum. It was meant for other authors to use.
Add how peer reviewed articles work to the vast repertoire of items that replaytime does not understand.
Second, that article in no way supports SBT. It says very little about how the flagellum evolved since it was not concerned with that obvious part of science.
I rest my talkorigins case..

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104296 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is that evolution must make sense, the proton motor proves evolution doesn't make any sense. To be scientific, the whole of the matter must fit;The DNA and it's source, the convergent design, the connections, the function, the masterly design that confounds us all technically. And yes, I have worked in several fields, of late electronics for things that actually work and are fairly complex to achieve things we needed in mining, so it turned into a company, a few patents, soon wondering back to another field from my youth in semi-retirement. I used the word "try" to contact, most don't want to touch the matter due to publicity. The motor researchers are crossing into electronic engineering, a thing I know and they don't really get when you read the lit, they have these complex chemical terms but don't get how hard we have to work to get things to work like this.
Dude, you aren't even smart enough to bullshit about that crap. you've been caught out in so many obvious lies already, why do you continue?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104297 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I rest my talkorigins case..
Good.

So you admit defeat.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104298 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is that evolution must make sense, the proton motor proves evolution doesn't make any sense. To be scientific, the whole of the matter must fit;The DNA and it's source, the convergent design, the connections, the function, the masterly design that confounds us all technically. And yes, I have worked in several fields, of late electronics for things that actually work and are fairly complex to achieve things we needed in mining, so it turned into a company, a few patents, soon wondering back to another field from my youth in semi-retirement. I used the word "try" to contact, most don't want to touch the matter due to publicity. The motor researchers are crossing into electronic engineering, a thing I know and they don't really get when you read the lit, they have these complex chemical terms but don't get how hard we have to work to get things to work like this.
No it doesn't prove that at all.

There you go with that sing song, style. You can't talk plainly and I think it is because deep down you feel guilty for lying.

Regardless of whatever knowledge of motors you may or may not have, it doesn't matter regarding the evolution of this structure. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104299 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Good.
So you admit defeat.
Talked me right into it, cept your jury disagrees

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104300 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No it doesn't prove that at all.
There you go with that sing song, style. You can't talk plainly and I think it is because deep down you feel guilty for lying.
Regardless of whatever knowledge of motors you may or may not have, it doesn't matter regarding the evolution of this structure. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.
Now you say it doesn't matter. OK.

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
One Word (Jan '09) 4 min Knock off purse s... 17,091
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 4 min Knock off purse s... 2,935
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 5 min Calisportsgirl 5,128
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min Calisportsgirl 19,705
Word Association (Mar '10) 7 min Calisportsgirl 21,089
A six word game (Dec '08) 14 min Parden Pard 19,655
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 15 min Judy 123 1,707
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 45 min wichita-rick 197,307
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 54 min Sam 59,690
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr Knock off purse s... 33,153
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 2 hr 8541 MARINE 8,804
More from around the web