Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163757 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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105608 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you pronounce it? When ever I see "Pyjamas" my brain reads it "Pie-jamas". Hmm, time to check the original pronunciation.
Hehehe.

It's pronouced the same way, only with an English (or Irish) accent.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105609 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, one of the earliest pronunciations very well may have been "pie-jamas":
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...
"1800, pai jamahs "loose trousers tied at the waist," worn by Muslims in India and adopted by Europeans there, especially for nightwear, from Hindi pajama, probably from Persian paejamah, literally "leg clothing," from pae "leg" (from PIE *ped- "foot," see foot (n.))+ jamah "clothing." Modern spelling (U.S.) is from 1845. British spelling tends toward pyjamas."
Why, so it was.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105610 Nov 11, 2013
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.

Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.

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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105611 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
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.
oh dear...ancient myths are not documentation at all.

if it were, there would be thousands of documented creation accounts, each one different.

the fact that you actually believe proven false myths really makes all your subsequent postings worthless.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105612 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
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.
And yet, and yet - it's demonstrably and observably not doing anything of the sort.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105613 Nov 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>oh dear...ancient myths are not documentation at all.
if it were, there would be thousands of documented creation accounts, each one different.
the fact that you actually believe proven false myths really makes all your subsequent postings worthless.
Another philosophical handwaver here above.

It apppears that the best penchant evolutionists can come up with is to hide behind creationist philosophy instead of scientifically demonstrating the genome can adapt without limits for billions of years. So you and your biologist pretenders can all revel in your spam and yet I know you are gobsmacked and will be taking the point as made, regardless of your handwaving.

The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.

Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.

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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105614 Nov 11, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, and yet - it's demonstrably and observably not doing anything of the sort.
I'll ditto my post above.

Penchants are not an acceptable scientific reply.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105615 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Another philosophical handwaver here above.
It apppears that the best penchant evolutionists can come up with is to hide behind creationist philosophy instead of scientifically demonstrating the genome can adapt without limits for billions of years. So you and your biologist pretenders can all revel in your spam and yet I know you are gobsmacked and will be taking the point as made, regardless of your handwaving.
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
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.
and what does any of that have to do with you spouting about some documented creation account that isn't there?

why is it you can never respond rationally when i show your posts to be pure bullshit?

i think it is time for you to run away, don't you think?

show me this credible creation account, please... and why it is more credible than any of the other proven false creation myths, which is what you have, a proven false creation myth, nothing more.

yeah, pretty sure it is time for you to run away, again...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105616 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
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.

Sanford was refuted 28 days before his book was officially released to the public. The first ever incident of a
"scientific" thesis being refuted before it was proposed.

I see you are still spamming pseudoscientific crap culled from creotard sites.

Worthless.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105617 Nov 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and what does any of that have to do with you spouting about some documented creation account that isn't there?
why is it you can never respond rationally when i show your posts to be pure bullshit?
i think it is time for you to run away, don't you think?
show me this credible creation account, please... and why it is more credible than any of the other proven false creation myths, which is what you have, a proven false creation myth, nothing more.
yeah, pretty sure it is time for you to run away, again...
Look creos, another penchant above. Where are the scientists? Don't worry, they haven't done any better.

You may notice the thread topic. If the best you evos can do is come up with penchants then you are showing that it is YOU evos that are being irrational and have myths you cannot scientifically support.

Get your head out of the sand and show us empirical evidence that the genome can 'evolve' and adapt for billions of years without extinction. You can't. That's why evos quickly turn into spam artists with nothing left in their pocket than ridicule, NOT science.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105618 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Look creos, another penchant above. Where are the scientists? Don't worry, they haven't done any better.
You may notice the thread topic. If the best you evos can do is come up with penchants then you are showing that it is YOU evos that are being irrational and have myths you cannot scientifically support.
Get your head out of the sand and show us empirical evidence that the genome can 'evolve' and adapt for billions of years without extinction. You can't. That's why evos quickly turn into spam artists with nothing left in their pocket than ridicule, NOT science.
so that would be a big fat ZERO for your even attempting to back up your proven false concept of a documented creation account, huh?

that must really suck to have the ENTIRE BASIS of your argument proven to be false.

is there really anywhere you can go from here?(well you could provide some credibility to your claim, but that is impossible...)

let me guess...time for you to run away again?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105619 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Look creos, another penchant above. Where are the scientists? Don't worry, they haven't done any better.
You may notice the thread topic. If the best you evos can do is come up with penchants then you are showing that it is YOU evos that are being irrational and have myths you cannot scientifically support.
Get your head out of the sand and show us empirical evidence that the genome can 'evolve' and adapt for billions of years without extinction. You can't. That's why evos quickly turn into spam artists with nothing left in their pocket than ridicule, NOT science.
Yet the vast majority of scientists think your full of crap. I'll go with them before some twit who can't even describe a Neanderthal correctly.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105620 Nov 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so that would be a big fat ZERO for your even attempting to back up your proven false concept of a documented creation account, huh?
that must really suck to have the ENTIRE BASIS of your argument proven to be false.
is there really anywhere you can go from here?(well you could provide some credibility to your claim, but that is impossible...)
let me guess...time for you to run away again?
Yeah, some of us work, you unemployed no hoper.....

I'd say you are the big suck tryng to get your jollies for the day by demonstrating you're an idiot. That proves you, for sure, have no hope of refuting me scientifically, you spam bot. Keep fluffing your feathers because creos can see the spam dance you evos put on when defeated.

The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.

Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.

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. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. 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

#105621 Nov 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the vast majority of scientists think your full of crap. I'll go with them before some twit who can't even describe a Neanderthal correctly.
Ain't evo science great! The same fossil line up proves human knuckle walking ancestry and ancestry to a non knuckle walker. YIKES!!!! Great scientific credibility...LOL!

No wonder this has happened.....

"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/...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105622 Nov 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so that would be a big fat ZERO for your even attempting to back up your proven false concept of a documented creation account, huh?
that must really suck to have the ENTIRE BASIS of your argument proven to be false.
is there really anywhere you can go from here?(well you could provide some credibility to your claim, but that is impossible...)
let me guess...time for you to run away again?
You can't prove abiogeneis so I guess by your reasoning TOE has been falsified. Go back to bed idiot. These lame old penchants only show how stupid, ignorant and hypocritical you evos are.

When you reckon you have grown a brain big enough to find some empirical research that shows how on earth a genome can evolve for billions of years without extinction then you may get some of your credibility back.

The same old lame crap always comes from evos in the end.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105623 Nov 11, 2013
Maz, I cannot debunk your articles if you keep submitting bad links. Why is it that you are the only one who cannot link here?

You call it hand waving, but that is all that is needed to debunk your claims. Claims made without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.

And you should not take offense when somebody correctly describes what you do. I wanted to get replaytime up to speed on how you work here. You read articles and misinterpret them to try to support your superstitious beliefs.

There is no support for creationism to be found anywhere in science and you know it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105624 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't evo science great! The same fossil line up proves human knuckle walking ancestry and ancestry to a non knuckle walker. YIKES!!!! Great scientific credibility...LOL!
No wonder this has happened.....
You still got it wrong. No mistaking that.
MazHere wrote:
"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/...
As noted before, it is downright hysterical that you would use a peer-reviewed paper to show that peer-reviewed papers are mostly wrong.

Has it ever crossed your tiny, little mind that this paper is likely wrong as well?

No. I didn't think so.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105625 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't evo science great! The same fossil line up proves human knuckle walking ancestry and ancestry to a non knuckle walker. YIKES!!!! Great scientific credibility...LOL!
No wonder this has happened.....
"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/...
And you do it once again. It has already been pointed out to you that it does not matter if more ORIGINAL science is wrong than is right. Peer reviewed publishing is only the first real step in getting an idea accepted. If it is a new idea it will be tested by others to see if it is correct or not. Usually by the time we, the lay people, come across an idea it has been tested several times and whether or not it is correct is known.

Science has this self correcting mechanism. Something totally lacking in your book of myth. And you have just shown that I was correct. You repeated posting an article that has been explained to you. It does not support your claims in any way at all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105626 Nov 11, 2013

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105627 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, some of us work, you unemployed no hoper.....
I'd say you are the big suck tryng to get your jollies for the day by demonstrating you're an idiot. That proves you, for sure, have no hope of refuting me scientifically, you spam bot. Keep fluffing your feathers because creos can see the spam dance you evos put on when defeated.
The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
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. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
yeah sure...toss in the hominem attack when proved you cannot back up your own posts...and an untrue one at that.

so, again,...and yet again...you can't seem to come up with this documented creation account that is the entire basis of your argument, can you? why is that?

there is no documented creation account.

your entire thesis is based on a proven lie.

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
Poll Middle East Solutions 10 min analyst 18
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 20 min beatlesinafog 11,377
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 23 min Princess Hey 8,287
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 33 min Princess Hey 683
News Mom, I need a ride home: Bus driver arrested at... 34 min Pope Out To Pasture 1
News Woman uses obituary to say Brady innocent in 'D... 41 min Pope Out To Pasture 1
News 'It feels weird asking everybody for permission... 48 min Pope Out To Pasture 78
*Sad music/sad themes Thread* 58 min beatlesinafog 138
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr eleanorigby 40,653
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Wolftracks 162,790
Things that make life eaiser... 10 hr wichita-rick 587
More from around the web