Evolution vs. Creation

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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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 mutationsthe 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 mutationsthe 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105900 Nov 14, 2013
The term RNA World dates back to 1986 when Walter Gilbert proposed an RNA centered
perspective of the origin of life [Gilbert 1986]. He described how the universe of todays known
molecules might be originated from RNA. Particularly the idea that DNA, the universal
information storage, and even proteins, the functional translation of DNA, have arisen from
RNA raised a lot of discussions. The most prominent counterargument of the RNA World
hypothesis is that a spontaneous emergence of complicated molecules such as RNA is highly
unlikely. Hence, scientists struggle to show how ribonucleotides and from that RNA molecules
could be synthesized. Only recently John D. Sutherland showed how ribonucleotides could
have been assembled under plausible prebiotic conditions [Sutherland 2010]. Thus, a milestone
to proof the RNA World hypothesis has been achieved by biochemical investigations.

http://d-nb.info/102008880X/34

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105901 Nov 14, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yet AGAIN, no.
L'Acadmie Franaise, despite its "Immortals", serves as a purely advisory body.
In other words, despite Richelieu, it only makes suggestions.
Give it up, Chuck. You're just not good with languages.
Likewise.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105902 Nov 14, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a little-known fact that French continues to be the official second
language in the US. All official documents must be available in both
languages. US Passports are still written in English and French.
Coo- coo!
English still remains the dominant and official language in the US.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105904 Nov 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Full text
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~gupy/Publications/Nat...
Darwins 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 etc etc etc
more than one descendant. Box 1 | A brief survey of macroevolution
838
INSIGHT REVIEW NATURE|Vol 457|12 February 2009
2009
What was all that long post, mostly deleted, meant to mean to me in relation to any claim I made. Nothing.

Darwin was simplistic and Mendellian inheritance most certainly isn't the only form of inheritance. The article was only meant to demonstrate that your lab misrepresentations are not a demo of change above species level.

All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called benificial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.

Your researchers keep getting unexpected surprises and having to invent any story/maybe to handwave away clear evidence for a creative paradigm.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105905 Nov 15, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a little-known fact that French continues to be the official second language in the US. All official documents must be available in both languages. US Passports are still written in English and French.
I did not know that.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105906 Nov 15, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yah.
Charles doesn't even speak French, apparently, and his grasp on English is iffy, too.
As an aside, English is my second language.
My French is a lot iffy but it appears to be better than chuckes English

What is your first language? French? Irish (real Gaelic Irish, not the Irish accented English) or are you going to keep me guessing?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105907 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What was all that long post, mostly deleted, meant to mean to me in relation to any claim I made. Nothing.
Darwin was simplistic and Mendellian inheritance most certainly isn't the only form of inheritance. The article was only meant to demonstrate that your lab misrepresentations are not a demo of change above species level.
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called benificial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
Your researchers keep getting unexpected surprises and having to invent any story/maybe to handwave away clear evidence for a creative paradigm.
A organism does not change into another type organism.
Some of the offspring of an organism can possibly mutate into another species.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Bio...

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#105908 Nov 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My French is a lot iffy but it appears to be better than chuckes English
What is your first language? French? Irish (real Gaelic Irish, not the Irish accented English) or are you going to keep me guessing?
I f I tell ya..The ALIENS will have to leave their Cushy HOME SWEET HOME on the Dark Side of the Moon..Enough Said...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105909 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What was all that long post, mostly deleted, meant to mean to me in relation to any claim I made. Nothing.
Darwin was simplistic and Mendellian inheritance most certainly isn't the only form of inheritance. The article was only meant to demonstrate that your lab misrepresentations are not a demo of change above species level.
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called benificial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
Your researchers keep getting unexpected surprises and having to invent any story/maybe to handwave away clear evidence for a creative paradigm.
You know Maz, that is sort of strange. You would think that if that were the case there would the thousands of biologists that had some doubt about evolution. Or, at the very least, there should be a research article that agrees with you about the limits of evolution. Instead all we see is that all of the evidence agrees with evolution, even in the many articles that you link, but sadly do not understand.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105910 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
A organism does not change into another type organism.
Some of the offspring of an organism can possibly mutate into another species.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Bio...
I never said you evos suggest an organism changes into another organism. Is inventing your own hubris to argue with, the latest evo ploy? By evolutionists own stupidity the variation within the human population and dog breeds could meet the criteria for different species. They came up with 'breed' and 'race' so they don't look so stupid.

Stop trying to look as if you know what you are talking about. You post rubbish.

This is the point I have taken whilst you and other evos keep spewing rubbish back to me.

All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called beneficial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.

I told you I have taken the point. Your asiding with every bit of nonsense you can come up with is a further demonstration that evolutionists are unable to support their claims.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105911 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You know Maz, that is sort of strange. You would think that if that were the case there would the thousands of biologists that had some doubt about evolution. Or, at the very least, there should be a research article that agrees with you about the limits of evolution. Instead all we see is that all of the evidence agrees with evolution, even in the many articles that you link, but sadly do not understand.
What you see is scientists taking data and offering an assumption as a get out of a falsfication for free card.

That is why using your own evo research to slap you with is such fun. It is all flawed and biased rubbish and testimony to the prevailing bias. You lot throw tantrums when creationist research is posted. Evos continual begging the majority is like you burying your head in the sand. The only thing 'ALL' your scientists agree on is "IT ALL EVOLVED", which is no better than "GOD DID IT".

The 'majority' of scientists have been wrong many times. eg human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk dna.

The point being this...

All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called beneficial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.

I told you I have taken the point. Your asiding with every bit of nonsense you can come up with, like Aura, is a further demonstration that evolutionists are unable to support their zillions of claims that support the overarching theory of evolution, point by point.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105912 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said you evos suggest an organism changes into another organism. Is inventing your own hubris to argue with, the latest evo ploy? By evolutionists own stupidity the variation within the human population and dog breeds could meet the criteria for different species. They came up with 'breed' and 'race' so they don't look so stupid.
Stop trying to look as if you know what you are talking about. You post rubbish.
This is the point I have taken whilst you and other evos keep spewing rubbish back to me.
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called beneficial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
I told you I have taken the point. Your asiding with every bit of nonsense you can come up with is a further demonstration that evolutionists are unable to support their claims.
You're either a poe or a blithering idiot. A population has to be separated for a very long time for speciation to occur. This has happened with dogs , as they are a subspecies of the wolf. Races would have gone further if contact and interbreeding between them had not happened.

"All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits."

You are looking at a ruler, and not the tape measure.
You also seem to be incapable of the conception of the deep time
scales needed to understand evolution. Th isolation of a branch on the tree of life is necessary for total speciation to occur.
Now since you don't think massive mutation can take place, changing a species into another. Try to explain Homo floresiensis.

Your inability to understand something is well...your inability.
It isn't evolution that is wrong, it YOU that's wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deep...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105913 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What you see is scientists taking data and offering an assumption as a get out of a falsfication for free card.
That is why using your own evo research to slap you with is such fun. It is all flawed and biased rubbish and testimony to the prevailing bias. You lot throw tantrums when creationist research is posted. Evos continual begging the majority is like you burying your head in the sand. The only thing 'ALL' your scientists agree on is "IT ALL EVOLVED", which is no better than "GOD DID IT".
The 'majority' of scientists have been wrong many times. eg human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk dna.
The point being this...
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called beneficial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
I told you I have taken the point. Your asiding with every bit of nonsense you can come up with, like Aura, is a further demonstration that evolutionists are unable to support their zillions of claims that support the overarching theory of evolution, point by point.

You really are a self-licking ice cream cone ...aren't you?
You see it not just SZ and I...it's all the schools, all the educated people, half the Christians (the educated ones)
all of science, a large part of religion , all the data and SZ and I who realized evolution was a fact.

And then we have a splinter group of science denying
uneducated quasi-scientific, fruit loop fundytarded hillbilly, self licking ice-cream cone heads , that behave like a bunch of preschoolers throwing a tantrum because they no like the fact they're f-king apes. But proving they are by their idiotic responses to the fact.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uo6b31E2Rkc/UJNYf2d...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105914 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a self-licking ice cream cone ...aren't you?
You see it not just SZ and I...it's all the schools, all the educated people, half the Christians (the educated ones)
all of science, a large part of religion , all the data and SZ and I who realized evolution was a fact.
And then we have a splinter group of science denying
uneducated quasi-scientific, fruit loop fundytarded hillbilly, self licking ice-cream cone heads , that behave like a bunch of preschoolers throwing a tantrum because they no like the fact they're f-king apes. But proving they are by their idiotic responses to the fact.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uo6b31E2Rkc/UJNYf2d...
Oh so the great evolutionist is a clown that can post links to funnies and ridicule. The picture looks more like you sucking ice cream instead of talking science. Child! You say stupid things and when exposed then lean on spam. Top marks for revealing your credentials.

None of the results your research has presented aligns with evolutionary predictions. Both paradigms beg some predictions and expectations. Restictions within the genomes adaptive ability would be a self evident support from and creationist perspective, but not for an evolutionary paradigm. The very same data/results forces evolutionists to invent hypothesis/stories to explain the unexpected, DATA.

Self repair systems, majority deleterious mutations, huge odds against major sweeps with so called 'beneficial' mutations resulting in negative epistasis, differences in molecular machinery between man and ape, families of organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, is all very much what I would expect to find within the genome and fossil record, as science advances. Not so, for these evo scientists.

This data is all consistent with and supportive of a creationist paradigm and predictive capability and get evo researchers scratching around for excuses and stories to prop up TOE.

So keep sucking ice cream and posting spam because we creos understand that is pretty well all you have left to offer when all scientific data lets you down.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105915 Nov 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My French is a lot iffy but it appears to be better than chuckes English
What is your first language? French? Irish (real Gaelic Irish, not the Irish accented English) or are you going to keep me guessing?
Irish Gaelic. I grew up on one of the peninsulae in South-Western Ireland.

The language is still used for daily commerce down there.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105916 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What was all that long post, mostly deleted, meant to mean to me in relation to any claim I made. Nothing.
That's because no posts we make at all are relevant to you. Evidence is quite simply irrelevant to your position, period.
MazHere wrote:
Darwin was simplistic and Mendellian inheritance most certainly isn't the only form of inheritance. The article was only meant to demonstrate that your lab misrepresentations are not a demo of change above species level.
All research demonstrates the genome is not designed to adapt without limits. From majority deleterious mutations to so called benificial mutations coming together to cause negative epistasis. None of the data, even from flawed and biased assumptive modelling, supports an organisms ability to adapt for billions of years without extinction.
Your researchers keep getting unexpected surprises and having to invent any story/maybe to handwave away clear evidence for a creative paradigm.
Yeah, "clear" evidence that you can't even provide. But since evidence doesn't matter then that explains why. You can't accept that, but it is quite clear you already know this to be the case. Why else would you keep making the same stupid mistake over and over again for days on end?(shrug)

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
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 3 min Old Sam 8,759
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 4 min Old Sam 7,197
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 4 min Old Sam 13,730
"man" words 4 min Roy 235
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min Wolftracks 155,282
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 9 min Old Sam 18,134
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 11 min Old Sam 2,495
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 25 min Enzo49 7,662
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 36 min andet1987 405
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr Suezanne 28,585
More from around the web