Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105864 Nov 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is observed to happen at both the micro and macro level.
It is observed in the fossil record
It is observed in the genomic record.
It is observed in field studies.
It is observed in the laboratory.
Arguments that the Titanic is unsinkable are moot when the boat is lying at the bottom of the N. Atlantic.
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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105865 Nov 14, 2013
page 2991

MazHere wrote:

Remember Subby
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc ...
2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu ...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68 ...
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1 ...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ ...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h ...
None of the above links are to creationist sites. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Hence challenging my interpretation of the data only requires evos to hand wave the data away and turn it into an evolutionary consundrum. I can accept the data above for what it is whist you invent hand waving scenarios.

Subduction zone: Actually all of those articles support the theory of evolution. They do not support creationism in any way.

cont.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105866 Nov 14, 2013
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

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105867 Nov 14, 2013
For some odd reason no post yet.
See mazhere refuted before page 2991 of this thread.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105868 Nov 14, 2013

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105869 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!.
*helpless laughter*

What thousands-of-years-old "scroll" was that?

ROFLOL

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105870 Nov 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all lab experiments show evolution at the species level. That is already not adaption. You are moving the goal posts again. You have been told countless times that to observe large scale evolution we use the fossil record. And large scale evolution is observable there. All observed evolution in the fossil record fits the evolutionary paradigm only. Creationists are unable to even come up with a testable hypothesis in regards to the fossil record. Let me clarify that, they have not been able to come up with a hypothesis that has not been totally debunked yet.
.
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 must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105871 Nov 14, 2013
It all depends upon interpretation.
Adaptation would be the failsafe mechanism.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/...

illustration. The third party effect?
Box 1: Empirical fitness landscapes reveal accessable evolutionary paths
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n71...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105872 Nov 14, 2013
Full text
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~gupy/Publications/Nat...
Darwin’s bridge between microevolution
and macroevolution
David N. Reznick1 & Robert E. Ricklefs2
2009
[...]
According to Darwin, this combination of replacement and divergence causes cladogenesis: the splitting of one ancestral species into
more than one descendant. Continued divergence of form and function between genetically isolated species causes the branches of the tree of
life to grow ever farther apart, separated from one another by what seem to be unbridgeable gaps. Darwin argued that the processes of
diversification and extinction can explain the gaps that are seen among living species. Divergence pushes lineages apart, and extinction
erases the bridge that once joined them, creating the appearance of discontinuity.

[...]

Gould Species selection treats species as the unit of selection in the same way that natural selection treats individuals as the unit of selection.
Megaevolution and adaptive radiation
George Gaylord Simpson’s proposed mechanism of ‘megaevolution’64 was a modern synthesis (1930s–1950s) proposal for how natural selection can combine with other processes to explain species sorting.
It stands in opposition to species selection because macroevolution emerges from microevolutionary processes. Simpson combined the
idea of key adaptations, or changes that would allow organisms to expand into previously underutilized environments, with Sewall Wright’s
theoretical models65 to explain the sudden appearance and expansion of successful lineages.
The key feature of Wright’s models is the adaptive landscape. Adaptive peaks are defined by a combination of characters that must appear
together to define a well-adapted phenotype. Peaks are separated from one another by ‘valleys’, or character combinations that result in reduced
fitness. Wright’s models invoked the combination of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and migration, in allowing shifts between peaks.
Simpson adapted these models to a logical scenario for how a new lineage could be the product of accelerated peak-to-peak evolution. The fact that
such evolution is accelerated and happens in a restricted geographical region means that it is unlikely to be seen in the fossil record.
[...]The adults of such a descendent species would not be readily identifiable as being closely related to the adult life stage of its ancestor.
Box 1 | A brief survey of macroevolution
838
INSIGHT REVIEW NATURE|Vol 457|12 February 2009
© 2009

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105873 Nov 14, 2013
All i see you doing is resorting to denial if not some 'thousands' y.o. scroll.(that for some reason is not clarified in detail.)

point in fact:
"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!
----
So science is gives you mutation, but does not agree with you.
Instead of rejecting and nervous laughter i would first figure out how it worked exactly.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105874 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.
And yet you could not quote anything from your own article that supports this belief of yours. Remember, that was the challenge to you. You failed. All you did was to repost your unsupported claim.
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?
Actually we do. We have the fossil record. It supports only evolution. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of scientific evidence. I would be happy to go over that concept with you. Did you know that idiots like you is the reason that scientific evidence has the definition that it has?
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.
DOH, what a fool. Yes, it just happened to get sea life right. So what? It was not spoken into existence, it evolved. The rest is of course messed up.
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...
ROFLMAO!!
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!
And again, ROFLMAO!!

Sorry, you quoting articles that you do not understand and trying to claim that it supports your claims is hilarious.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105875 Nov 14, 2013
Maz, here is a simple challenge for you:

See if you can find even a hypothesis by creationists that explains the fossil record.

I know it will be a futile search. It seems you know it is a futile search. Until you do I can claim that the scientific evidence of the fossil record supports evolution and evolution only.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105876 Nov 14, 2013
Apropos sweeps, they do happen. As does peer-review.

One could look up:
Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare
in Recent Human Evolution
Ryan D. Hernandez,1* Joanna L. Kelley,1 Eyal Elyashiv,2 S. Cord Melton,1 Adam Auton,3
Gilean McVean,3,4 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella,2† Molly Przeworski1,5,6†‡

Fall 2011 must be published somewhere by now.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105877 Nov 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, here is a simple challenge for you:
See if you can find even a hypothesis by creationists that explains the fossil record.
I know it will be a futile search. It seems you know it is a futile search. Until you do I can claim that the scientific evidence of the fossil record supports evolution and evolution only.
By all means let's keep it simple.

The meek have no idea how many issues they fuddle.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105878 Nov 14, 2013
SBT wrote:
... and we just need more time to find those pesky intermediates, but upon close inspection the major gaps like the reptile/turtle series challenge us
When we find intermediates, you simply deny that they are intermediates. Perhaps you just don't know what an intermediate is.

If I took a typical chimp skull and a typical human skull, and averaged every measurable difference to create a perfect intermediate form, it would look startlingly similar to a Georgicus, Erectus, or Ergaster skull.

But you seem to think that intermediates should be something different.

What then?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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.

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
Russian Propaganda 4 min Wolftracks 3
Things Not To Say In Bed (Oct '11) 6 min Alias 2,666
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 8 min Princess Hey 7,123
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 11 min Juju Beans 6,421
Ebola in America 15 min eleanorigby 43
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 24 min Wolftracks 147,753
Missing posters.. (Jan '14) 32 min Alias 35
Doctors Remove 9-Pound Hairball From Teen's Sto... 43 min Go Blue Forever 7
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr -Lea- 21,404
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 14 hr mr goodwrench 137,778

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE