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
99,921 - 99,940 of 114,458 Comments Last updated 24 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105516
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, this is a public site and educated open-minded people should act civilly responding to any who wish to post here.
That is true. But there is nothing wrong in calling you out and pointing out how you are not open minded.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105517
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, this last paragraph of yours is pure bullshit.
Oh so you don't know that decades of empirical evidence of human knuckle walking ancestry was overturned on the back of one single fosssil, hey? I am not surprised. Go look up Ardi and see for yourself. While you're at it you can look for how Erectus and Neanderthal our knuckle walking intermediates have now poofed into an upright intermediate that is shrinking and in need of a hip reconstruction. eg "Shrinking erectus"...and Turkana Boy.

Then you can explain why evos say man and chimp share a common ancestor, when they have different molecular machinery, regardless of a mess of stained fragments seen in petrie dish being able to be aligned and scaffolded to the human genome with a hammer.

In PNAS, the team reports cloning the human and chimpanzee hydroxylase cDNAs, and identifying a mutation in the coding region of the human cDNA that regulates hydroxylase activity. The same gene in apes codes for a hydroxylase enzyme which adds this atom to the sialic acid molecule, but due to a mutation at some point in human evolution, the human gene lacks this coding section, accounting for the structural difference in the molecule.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/ ...

It's all too hard for you, I know. It may be best for you to say BS again and offer your humble opinion, to demonstrate your credibility.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105518
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true. But there is nothing wrong in calling you out and pointing out how you are not open minded.
Here is something for you open minded ones to consider.

The data is more consistent with a creationist paradigm, than an evolutionary one. It is simply impossible for mankind to be 2 millions years old. Below is evidence that mankind cannot possibly have evolved but that the documented biblical creation account is being validated, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. I don't care what men of faith, like you, think.

“Haldane (1927) showed that an organism that suffers regular mutations with fixed deleterious effects evolves toward a stable mutation–selection balance. Wright and Dobzhansky (1946) introduced the study of nonfixed fitnesses and considered the effects of frequency-dependent fitness values, while Kimura and Ohta (1970) studied advantageous mutations (inversions) that gradually lose their fitness advantage. Here I present results for the population genetics of positive mutations that with time become truly deleterious.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado ...

"Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. His work and claims were ridiculed by opposing assumptions when published and now with recent research the previous ridicule has been turned to mud.

Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105519
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Maz, try again. The only valid link you posted was your creatard link. All of the rest of them are bad links.

Hmm, was Maz just totally incompetent or was she actively lying again?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105520
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, try again. The only valid link you posted was your creatard link. All of the rest of them are bad links.
Hmm, was Maz just totally incompetent or was she actively lying again?
Your Evotard handwaves are not accepted as anything more than a demo of your stupidity and ignorance of the science you profess to support.

Try again...

The data is more consistent with a creationist paradigm, than an evolutionary one. It is simply impossible for mankind to be 2 millions years old. Below is evidence that mankind cannot possibly have evolved but that the documented biblical creation account is being validated, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. I don't care what men of faith, like you, think.

“Haldane (1927) showed that an organism that suffers regular mutations with fixed deleterious effects evolves toward a stable mutation–selection balance. Wright and Dobzhansky (1946) introduced the study of nonfixed fitnesses and considered the effects of frequency-dependent fitness values, while Kimura and Ohta (1970) studied advantageous mutations (inversions) that gradually lose their fitness advantage. Here I present results for the population genetics of positive mutations that with time become truly deleterious.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado ...

"Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. His work and claims were ridiculed by opposing assumptions when published and now with recent research the previous ridicule has been turned to mud.

Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105521
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Maz, all it takes to debunk your claims is a handwave if the FREAKING LINKS THAT YOU SUPPLY do not work.

Creatards are infamous for being idiots and liars, that is why they must present valid links. Your links don't work your argument fails.

Try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105522
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

By the way Maz, these arguments of yours have been debunked in the past. Why did you repost them without the links?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105523
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Here you go you evotards. These links should work.

Can any of these philosophers here refute Sanfords work on genetic entropy, whom was dismissed on the back of evos flawed assumptions, and is now being validated?

“Haldane (1927) showed that an organism that suffers regular mutations with fixed deleterious effects evolves toward a stable mutation–selection balance. Wright and Dobzhansky (1946) introduced the study of nonfixed fitnesses and considered the effects of frequency-dependent fitness values, while Kimura and Ohta (1970) studied advantageous mutations (inversions) that gradually lose their fitness advantage. Here I present results for the population genetics of positive mutations that with time become truly deleterious.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado ...

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105524
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No the links still are not working. I'll find them again and repost links when I get back. Or you could be real clever and look them up yourself.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105525
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Here you go Subby. Hopefully these links work this time.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...

Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john-...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105526
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Try these links then;

“Haldane (1927) showed that an organism that suffers regular mutations with fixed deleterious effects evolves toward a stable mutation–selection balance.
http://www.genetics.org/content/191/4/1393.fu...

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod... #

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636772

"Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations.
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/~drokyta/pdf/Rokyta_Pl...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105527
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DarkBlue wrote:
Try these links then;
“Haldane (1927) showed that an organism that suffers regular mutations with fixed deleterious effects evolves toward a stable mutation–selection balance.
http://www.genetics.org/content/191/4/1393.fu...
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod... #
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636772
"Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations.
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/~drokyta/pdf/Rokyta_Pl...
Thanks heaps DarkBlue.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105528
Nov 10, 2013
 
So Maz, which one do you want to debate first? You know that you are wrong of course. I don't have too much to do right now so I should be able to give it some attention.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105529
Nov 10, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
Here you go Subby. Hopefully these links work this time.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john-...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
Garbage, most of this has nothing to do with what you are saying.
But then you are good at that...huh?

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105530
Nov 10, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage, most of this has nothing to do with what you are saying.
But then you are good at that...huh?
At least you took the time to read the links before coming to your conclusion. But wait! The links did not work in that post. So you show you don't read links, you just give opinions.

You know what the say about opinions - they are like @ssholes, everybody has one and they all stink.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105531
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
So Maz, which one do you want to debate first? You know that you are wrong of course. I don't have too much to do right now so I should be able to give it some attention.
You must gave scared Maz off with all your expertize in all fields of science.(note the sarcasm) lol

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105532
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MazHere wrote:
Here you go Subby. Hopefully these links work this time.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john-...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
Maz not saying you are an idiot but at least learn to post links that work. Most all of your links did not work.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105533
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks heaps DarkBlue.
Oops I spoke too soon. Didn't know you had a sidekick. lol

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105534
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you took the time to read the links before coming to your conclusion. But wait! The links did not work in that post. So you show you don't read links, you just give opinions.
You know what the say about opinions - they are like @ssholes, everybody has one and they all stink.
Actually read them after a working link was posted .

The first one is...

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

That would tend to hurt or damage the credibility of anymore links but we will go on anyway.

The next one isn't about humans, it doesn't even fit the description..

Asexuals, Polyploids, Evolutionary Opportunists.

The next one is a magazine article opinion piece, hardly qualify as science though it is sciency.

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Last the link is to an religious fundy opinion piece.
So bad went to worse. So you have one scientific paper that is unrelated to what she is saying. What do you want? A Pulitzer Prize for irrelevancy?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105535
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You must gave scared Maz off with all your expertize in all fields of science.(note the sarcasm) lol
HeaDS pop right out the sock drawer...lol

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••