Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197344 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.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#105879 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't read. Even researchers admit lab experiments and nature are not evidence of an organisms ability to endlessly adapt per se ie macroevolution. Will you please start being sensible at least?
An organisms ability to interact with the environment, like immunity, is a created system now only being seen in epigentics that has now been found to inheritable. God gets it right every time.
You don't have any evidence of an organisms ability to adapt endlessly. Researchers can only come up with assumptions as to why all that they find hasn't sent all life into extinction. LOL!
I have already taken to point as made. Suck it up Subby.
I have a testable hyopthesis that being the genome is limited in its ability to adapt and that hypothesis is supported even with your crappy flawed research. That hypothesis not only supports a creationist paradigm it also coincidently falsifes TOE. Isn't that just wonderful, Subby?
What are you talking about moving goal posts? Listen Subby, an old scroll didn't have to bluster on about organic soup and clearly stated life began in the sea.
Those silly scientists should listed to the bible now and again. It would save them heaps of blustering about and wasting grant money.
Here is a lesson for today that I have posted before that obviously you have forgotten...
Man and ape have different molecular machinery. All your comparative genomics is a hammered sham.
"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/...
Different machinery pal. No ancestral connection unless one assumes "once upon a time", somewhere, somehow, humans 'evolved' new genomic machinery. LOL!
You're so damn silly. You're a real giggle box.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#105880 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The other thing you forgot, oh smart one, is that an old scroll written thousands of years before TOE was even thought of, got the fossil record right before evoclowns had to steal it and glorify themselves with their great work. For example, with all your bluster about organic soups and rubbish, you lot ended up agreeing with that old scroll account of life starting in the sea. Amazing isn't it!. LOL!.
Evidence please.
-Dan El

Hamilton, Canada

#105881 Nov 14, 2013
Interesting Topic.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105883 Nov 14, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence please.
I fear he means the ANE generally mentioned in several cultures, sevenheaded leviathan and the behemoth.

Any fossils sofar with seven heads? Given that they were considered to be many.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105884 Nov 14, 2013
I take it MO1 was not about the alloy.

MOI
http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v20/n2/fig_t...

injections with MO1
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v18/n6/fig_t...

Of mouse and man conserving function in zebrafish.

Which gives the clue that mice are a good place to look for MO1. Determining the exact Function usually means establishing also the first time it occurred in evolution.
110 million y.a. if i recall correctly.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105885 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Irony is you thinking you look smart by demonstrating your ignorance and incompetence. Evo waffler!
Yes, I agree that you are only capable of ignoring the facts presented in our posts in favour of quotemining or misrepresenting real scientists doing real science using scientific methods you reject for religious reasons. Hey man, the evolutionists are all wrong all the time and unreliable but they just proved creationism right for ya reliably too! Hypocrisy, thy name is fundie.
MazHere wrote:
There is NO NO NO research that demonstrates the genomes ability to endlessly adapt. ALL lab experiments and nature show adaptation at species level, not above.
Since speciation has been observed you merely deny reality. But then you have no other choice.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Breeders have known for centuries we can't breed a dog to be as big as an elephant
That's not surprising considering their bodies are adapted more for running.
MazHere wrote:
yet a microbe was meant to evolve into a dinosaur.
Not really a problem, since that happened all the time when dinos were around. Same way a microbe can develop into a fully-grown human in just over 20 years, but apparently evolution can't do it in millions and billions.

Oh wait - it can.
MazHere wrote:
Evo scientists are too intoxicated with their dogma to see reality even when it is smacking them in the face.
Yet they outnumber you. Like I said, must suck to be you.
MazHere wrote:
Indeed, all recent research demonstrates the genome is not designed
Correct, there is no evidence of design.
MazHere wrote:
to evolve/adapt without limit.
Nor does biology claim this. Heck, I even just agreed that it has limits - modern dogs can't grow as big as elephants. Insects can't grow big like in the movies. Humans can never be Superman. However we CAN have:

1+1
1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1+1

Yet you claim we CAN'T have:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1

This is irrational, and the evidence indicates contrary to your claims.
MazHere wrote:
Your simplisitc reply only suggests you're another waste of time like most of the evos here.
Told ya, keep away from those irony meters. Simple fact is you're a liar for Jesus arguing that reality isn't real because Jews are magic. No amount of flailing on your part will change that fact, nor the inevitable outcome - your verbal evisceration which mimics the scientific evisceration of creationism over the past few centuries.

And since you boys are STILL too busy lying for Jesus, that trend does not look likely to reverse itself any time soon.

Unless Jesus comes back. Keep praying.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105886 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The only position you have demonstrated is that you are an evo puppet and a waste of thread space.
Yes, if you're the type of person who loves lies and hates facts, I suppose people who promote science are a waste of space - to you. Kinda makes you wonder why you pretend to discuss science in the first place.

Oh that's right - you're on a mission from God. To look stupid for Jesus.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105887 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The other thing you forgot, oh smart one, is that an old scroll written thousands of years before TOE was even thought of, got the fossil record right before evoclowns had to steal it and glorify themselves with their great work. For example, with all your bluster about organic soups and rubbish, you lot ended up agreeing with that old scroll account of life starting in the sea. Amazing isn't it!. LOL!.
Sure they got it right. Man came first. Then the animals. No wait, the animals came first, then man. No wait, that's not it either. Man walked with dinos! No wait, that's not it either.

Shit Maz, it couldn't even get the shape of the Earth right, or even a consistent shape within the same book.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105888 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And here above the circus starts again. When an evo can't win a point they refer to the entirety of their misrepresentation and rubbish. LOL..Happens every time....
No, unlimited adaptation is NOT seen in the fossil record. What is seen in the fossil record is punctuated equilibrium. IOW, very different organisms assumed to be ancestral because they breathe.
No, unlimited adaptation is NOT seen in genomics, What is found is that apes and mankind have different molecular machinery despite a hand full of dyed enzymes being able to be hammered into a sequence bootstrapped to the human genome.
No, unlimited adaptation is not seen in the lab and I have already posted a link to assist your confusion about what is actually seen in the lab. What you have found is every system in place to limit adaptation. eg inbuilt systems to clear out mutations, majority deleterious mutations and negative epistasis.
What you evos have found is every evidence of the genomes inability to adapt, from inbuilt systems all the way to deleterious mutations and negative epistasis. Then, after evos have the hide to steal the idea from an old scroll that got it right first, they try to glorify yourselves with it all. LOL!
You're already sunk pal. TOE is in a state of zombification with evo researchers having to get the rescusso machine out and pant life back into it on the back of non plausible scenarios and assumptions.
Wow. What a crock of shit you talk. Henceforth you are now the thread's most foremost expert at talking a crock of shit. Also known as creationist apologetics.

You uh, are gonna get that invisible wizard to pass the scientific method for you any day now, right? I know he can be a stubborn beggar at times.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105889 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:
That hypothesis not only supports a creationist paradigm it also coincidently falsifes TOE. Isn't that just wonderful, Subby?
So science supports a pseudo-scientific concept (involving magic) which is not amenable to the scientific method, and you have falsified evolution despite numerous repeated claims by you that evolution is not falsifiable?
MazHere wrote:
Different machinery pal. No ancestral connection unless one assumes "once upon a time", somewhere, somehow, humans 'evolved' new genomic machinery. LOL!
"The two predominant forms of sialic acid in animals are N-acetyl-neuraminic acid, or Neu5Ac, and N-glycolyl-neuraminic acid, or Neu5Gc. Because of the missing enzyme, humans only express Neu5Ac, which is different from Neu5Gc only by a single oxygen atom."

Well someone's getting desperate. And quite obviously it ain't us. So what you're saying is that somehow, somewhere, sometime, in Africa approximately 6-7 million years ago humans and chimps diverged from each other at a rate consistent with genetic drift which is supported by DNA and the fossil record leading to an approximate genetic difference of 2% between them:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Gotta love it when fundies chop off their own feet, especially when they link to evolution articles which support our position and not theirs.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105890 Nov 14, 2013
pg 5023

Mazhere wrote:
SBT wrote:

How about Kenyon? I remember him from H.S., our scientist microbiologist evo-theologian now turned to ID. Also predicted that you would have no scientific come back on MO-1. Then accuse me of not responding!

end quote

H.T.S. was on about cloning, as in humans not able to create.
Kenyon was a co-author on mono-clonal antibodies MO1 and MO2.(grin used in MOI)
And referred to in the bloodflow list.

So beats me what the discussion should have been about. HTS wasn't all that clear.
MO1 seemes to have been dragged in by the hairs.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105891 Nov 14, 2013
Hey Maz, have you decided to apologise for lying about that science article supporting you yet? Or you taking the SBT route and repenting on your deathbed? Ya know, do a Darwin.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105892 Nov 14, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Still nothing on the Forman Ovale SZ? thought we were talking origin's here? Find the evo explanation how a mutation created a valve that must work in perfect sequence or the next generation dies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foramen_ovale_%2...
All you want to talk about is the opinion's of people, a publicly paid full-time lawyer in cases that have nothing to do with justice or law, wants to keep his big job and sip cool one's with Uni. Presidents, Cops and PhD profs at fund raisers, in a matter outside of law and all about dogma. I know those guys.. They are they are biased because public opinion is so strong on this one so they play politics. People like me just get tired of paying for evo education in the public systems. So we pay extra and put our kids where truth is taught rather than some sci-fi religion. Look at where our youth are today, we say you need to live by moral codes, they say who's moral codes, we say Gods. They say there is no God, so why should I obey rules that come from nothingness, that's old fashioned, get with the times Dad. God says one man one women for life and no hanky-panky in between and they say why not?, those are your rules not mine. Billions of years, we are star-stuff so get an abortion, have your "freedom", man is the cancer of the earth yanno. And that is exactly what is going on, so our prisons and divorce courts are full and hearts that God made are broken.
Explain the valve please.
Open the link. READ the link
click on PCD
READ all about programmed cell death.
As in how we got fingers f.i.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105893 Nov 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Hey Maz, have you decided to apologise for lying about that science article supporting you yet? Or you taking the SBT route and repenting on your deathbed? Ya know, do a Darwin.
It is hard to keep them apart.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105894 Nov 14, 2013
MazHere wrote:

Indeed, all recent research demonstrates the genome is not designed
Dude:Correct, there is no evidence of design.)

MazHere wrote:

to evolve/adapt without limit.
Dude: Nor does biology claim this.

How does one find time to read all recent research!
I would not dare to make that claim, someone is bound to complain about not being included.
In articles it usually means that some general rules are gleened from many papers.
But there are Always exceptions to the rules.
So someone stating the genome having the ability to keep adapting would not be wrong either.
Maybe it means just by one gene per generation, multiple changes not being viable even though they can be generated naturally.
So a slower process to consilidate changes to add on later.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105895 Nov 14, 2013
Maybe it means just by one gene per generation...
is just an example , not to be taken literary.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#105896 Nov 14, 2013
MAAT wrote:
MazHere wrote:
Indeed, all recent research demonstrates the genome is not designed
Dude:Correct, there is no evidence of design.)
MazHere wrote:
to evolve/adapt without limit.
Dude: Nor does biology claim this.
How does one find time to read all recent research!
I would not dare to make that claim, someone is bound to complain about not being included.
In articles it usually means that some general rules are gleened from many papers.
But there are Always exceptions to the rules.
So someone stating the genome having the ability to keep adapting would not be wrong either.
Maybe it means just by one gene per generation, multiple changes not being viable even though they can be generated naturally.
So a slower process to consilidate changes to add on later.
An interesting thing was discovered, from breeding tigers and lions.
Apparently the genome has growth inhibitors in it.
That's why we don't get gigantic animals like the elephant sized rats and such, but there has been gigantism observed in animals, though we did not know why this happened.
But cross breeding lions and tigers produces ligers who do not inherit the growth inhibitor gene. They can become twice as large and heavy as normal tigers. 1,000-1,200 lb range. Pretty freaky, but not sure why we would want to breed them?
Here is a picture of a little boy liger.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.pawnation.com/medi...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105897 Nov 14, 2013
Impressive.
So how much does this kitten eat!
And what will they do when it gets out of control.

Why indeed.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#105898 Nov 14, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Impressive.
So how much does this kitten eat!
And what will they do when it gets out of control.
Why indeed.
60-80 lbs at a time.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105899 Nov 14, 2013
MAAT wrote:
MAAT: Just quoting an excerpt of a response to the actual article will not do to disproof.
Your understanding has been questioned before.
Taking one example from the above:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
full text also provided.
Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.
Do read carefully
Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect.
In E. coli
Why is thAT RELEVANT:
An organism's mutation rates can be measured by a number of techniques.

Substitution Rates[edit]

Many sites in an organism's genome may not admit mutations with large fitness effects. These sites are typically called neutral sites. Theoretically mutations under no selection become fixed between organisms at precisely the mutation rate. Fixed synonymous mutations, i.e. synonymous substitutions, are changes to the sequence of a gene that do not change the protein produced by that gene. They are often used as estimates of that mutation rate, despite the fact that some synonymous mutations have fitness effects. As an example, mutation rates have been directly inferred from the whole genome sequences of experimentally evolved replicate lines of Escherichia coli B.[2]
wiki mutation rate
re. The article above thus.

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
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 33 min CJ Rocker 2,538
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 34 min CJ Rocker 81,825
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 49 min honeymylove 15,936
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 54 min Bezeer 12,667
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 55 min Bezeer 17,569
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 1 hr LBS 6,096
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr streetglidehoney 32,110
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr streetglidehoney 56,071
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr _Drifter 190,782
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 4 hr Princess Hey 144,802
More from around the web