Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105936 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.
The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.
Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.
You can't even pay attention to the articles that you link?

I have heard of stupid, but that takes the cake. Okay, since you are drawing a complete brainfart on this one I will explain it to you. I was referring to the article that said ironically that a fair proportion of peer reviewed articles turn out to be wrong. And I have explained to you more than once that that is not a big problem since scientists check peer reviewed articles all of the time by repeating experiments. False results are quickly found and corrected.

I love how you try to blame others for being ignorant when you can't even understand how you are the ignorant one. Not us. I have taken the time to try to explain your articles to you and it is still beyond the grasp of your tiny little brain to understand.

And lastly, please don't forget, you are the one with a blue waffle. Guys don't have waffles.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105937 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What dubious study? I have posted a plethora of evolutionary studies all of which demonstrate evolutionary researchers have no clue what they are talking about most of the time. Suck it up Subby. Being ignorant is not an appropriate scientific reply.
The data is unexpected and NOT predicted under the umbrella of TOE. However, the data, is expected, predicted and welcome by creationists.
Your waffle about TOE being a theory in evolution itself with no predictive ability backed by 150 years of falsifications doesn't change a thing I claimed and supported with your very own flawed and biased evolutionary research. Either you can support your claims with the rubbish and flavours of the month on offer at the moment or you can't. You, Dude, Aura and the rest of you evos obviously can't, but just want to post anyway.
And the stink from your blue waffle must be keeping your brain from working properly.

The theory of evolution does have predictive powers. Predictive powers are a separate item from testing. It has been tested countless times for over 150 years and has yet to fail a major test. It has made major predictions and they have come true. Some predictions have not come true. Predictions are not in the same class as tests so that is not a big problem at all.

Maz, what do you not understand about this?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105938 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Hmm? MazHere has been discussing the fact that there are limits to the change in a genome , that research has shown it does have limits, which you argue against. And what was your argument? she doesn't understand the deep time scales needed to understand evolution. Your words,....this is the God of the evolutionist ...Time, research shows there are limits!, No! just give it time, time can change a dinosaur into a bird, time can change an ape into a man, or even a puddle of goo into life, all you need is time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105939 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I like he language in the link,..paradoxical,
"these questions have ,as yet,only tentative answers"
and as you said,..possibly mutate.
those are honest descriptions
It is so nice when creatards admit that they did not understand an article.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105940 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? MazHere has been discussing the fact that there are limits to the change in a genome , that research has shown it does have limits, which you argue against. And what was your argument? she doesn't understand the deep time scales needed to understand evolution. Your words,....this is the God of the evolutionist ...Time, research shows there are limits!, No! just give it time, time can change a dinosaur into a bird, time can change an ape into a man, or even a puddle of goo into life, all you need is time.
To grasp the reality that small changes in fact do occur. Is an admission that a plethora of small changes can be monumental.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105941 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> To grasp the reality that small changes in fact do occur. Is an admission that a plethora of small changes can be monumental.
Only if there are no limits, research shows there are.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105942 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is so nice when creatards admit that they did not understand an article.
STFU fool, Oh! your trying to get your posting crown back. Continue with your evo fodder

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105943 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU fool, Oh! your trying to get your posting crown back. Continue with your evo fodder
What's the matter moron? Do you need to have the article explained to you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105944 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if there are no limits, research shows there are.
Really? Let's see the evidence please.

And you should remember that Maz does not understand the articles that she links. All of her articles have been by people who were explaining some of the details of how evolution works. None of them think that their work goes against the theory of evolution in any way at all.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105945 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.
---
See all the other comments on page 5026

I consider Mazhere to daft to discuss anyhting with.
Given that Mazhere is not even capable of opening and reading pertinent links, anyhing Mazhere has to report is baseles and not addressing any point.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105946 Nov 15, 2013
Correction.
Mazhere commented:

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.
---
MAAT: See all the other comments on page 5026

I consider Mazhere to daft to discuss anyhting with.
Given that Mazhere is not even capable of opening and reading pertinent links, anyhing Mazhere has to report is baseles and not addressing any point.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105947 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? MazHere has been discussing the fact that there are limits to the change in a genome , that research has shown it does have limits, which you argue against. And what was your argument? she doesn't understand the deep time scales needed to understand evolution. Your words,....this is the God of the evolutionist ...Time, research shows there are limits!, No! just give it time, time can change a dinosaur into a bird, time can change an ape into a man, or even a puddle of goo into life, all you need is time.
Thank you, bohart. I am trying to have patience with these evos but some here don't make it easy. I'd rather respond to you than Aura, the pretender turned troll spammer.

Evos will continue to post to save face on forum or defer to the bluster of the 'majority' when they loose a point. It happens every time. I don't care. They've had ages to give an appropriate reply. I have taken the point and am just messing around with them now.

As I have previously stated, additional to the research I can present, breeders have known there are limits to adaptation for centuries relating to artificial selection. A dog will never be bred as large as a dinosaur. How much less is limitless adaptation possible in the wild? The genome simply does not have that amount of variability.

Evo scientists wouldn't let a little thing like observational evidence get in the way of their belief system.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105948 Nov 15, 2013
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.

MAAT: the point would be that if you found an organism to be billins of years old you would have measured that by the continuous neutral mutatians added to the neutral part of the genome.

Normally neutral mutations are stable, negative ones weeded out and positive ones become part and package.(fixed)
The cell-wall is an excellent example of positiv mutation fixing. A very old structure.

You argue from over the top unrealistic phrasing.
The rest of the comments would require you to do such a horrible thing as opening and reading links.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105949 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is so nice when creatards admit that they did not understand an article.
I comes down again to understand the language used when the scientific method is applied.
No absolutes are stated, since the option of repetion and finding different result (refining usually) is left open.

But on the whole they never read articles but keep asking for them.

Nor do they get experimental method versus natural population.
In nature the chances of blind handicapped critters would be zero.
In a lab as research population you can breed them regardlessly.
Positive traits as 20/20 vision would however be embraced and show longivity.

Mutation rates go through a natural process.(plus various other factors)
Which is what we consider when looking at evolution in general.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105950 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, bohart. I am trying to have patience with these evos but some here don't make it easy. I'd rather respond to you than Aura, the pretender turned troll spammer.
Evos will continue to post to save face on forum or defer to the bluster of the 'majority' when they loose a point. It happens every time. I don't care. They've had ages to give an appropriate reply. I have taken the point and am just messing around with them now.
As I have previously stated, additional to the research I can present, breeders have known there are limits to adaptation for centuries relating to artificial selection. A dog will never be bred as large as a dinosaur. How much less is limitless adaptation possible in the wild? The genome simply does not have that amount of variability.
Evo scientists wouldn't let a little thing like observational evidence get in the way of their belief system.
Maz, we keep trying to explain to you why you are losing on every front.

Why don't you try to bring your claims up one at a time so that we can explain why your sources do not support your claims. What you have been posting is purely delusional.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105951 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, bohart. I am trying to have patience with these evos but some here don't make it easy. I'd rather respond to you than Aura, the pretender turned troll spammer.
Evos will continue to post to save face on forum or defer to the bluster of the 'majority' when they loose a point. It happens every time. I don't care. They've had ages to give an appropriate reply. I have taken the point and am just messing around with them now.
As I have previously stated, additional to the research I can present, breeders have known there are limits to adaptation for centuries relating to artificial selection. A dog will never be bred as large as a dinosaur. How much less is limitless adaptation possible in the wild? The genome simply does not have that amount of variability.
Evo scientists wouldn't let a little thing like observational evidence get in the way of their belief system.
Trying to safe face.

It's just wiki, as in nothing to complicated, since the rest was over your head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
[...] for brevity leaving more than one word out.

The essence:
Mutation rates differ between species and even between different regions of the genome of a single species. These different rates of nucleotide substitution are measured in substitutions (fixed mutations) per base pair per generation. For example, mutations in intergenic, or non-coding, DNA tend to accumulate at a faster rate than mutations in DNA that is actively in use in the organism (gene expression). That is not necessarily due to a higher mutation rate, but to lower levels of purifying selection. A region which mutates at predictable rate is a candidate for use as a molecular clock.

GENE EXPRESSION LOWER LEVELS OF PURIFYING SELECTION

Theory on the evolution of mutation rates identifies three principal forces involved: the generation of more deleterious mutations with higher mutation, the generation of more advantageous mutations with higher mutation, and the metabolic costs and reduced replication rates that are required to prevent mutations. Different conclusions are reached based on the relative importance attributed to each force. The optimal mutation rate of organisms may be determined by a trade-off between costs of a high mutation rate,[9] such as deleterious mutations, and the metabolic costs of maintaining systems to reduce the mutation rate (such as increasing the expression of DNA repair enzymes.[10] or, as reviewed by Bernstein et al.[11] having increased energy use for repair, coding for additional gene products and/or having slower replication). Second, higher mutation rates increase the rate of beneficial mutations, and evolution may prevent a lowering of the mutation rate in order to maintain optimal rates of adaptation.[12] Finally, natural selection may fail to optimize the mutation rate because of the relatively minor benefits of lowering the mutation rate, and thus the observed mutation rate is the product of neutral processes.[13] Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material have rapid mutation rates,[14] which can be an advantage since these viruses will evolve constantly and rapidly, and thus evade the defensive responses of e.g. the human immune system.[15]

Studies have shown that treating RNA viruses such as poliovirus with ribavirin produce results consistent with the idea that the viruses mutated too frequently to maintain the integrity of the information in their genomes.[16] This is termed error catastrophe.

TREATED WITH RIBAVIRIN

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105952 Nov 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
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.
MAAT: the point would be that if you found an organism to be billins of years old you would have measured that by the continuous neutral mutatians added to the neutral part of the genome.
Normally neutral mutations are stable, negative ones weeded out and positive ones become part and package.(fixed)
The cell-wall is an excellent example of positiv mutation fixing. A very old structure.
You argue from over the top unrealistic phrasing.
The rest of the comments would require you to do such a horrible thing as opening and reading links.
Can you hear yourself? How do you suppose scientists come up with all this stuff and add up mutations when they keep changing their mind about the mutation rates of species alive now eg humans? LOL! They don't actually have dna billions of years old, you know. You're fluffing about, you silly looser, wanting to post for the heck of it.

Nothing you have said does a thing to address any claim I made. You are the one that does not understand or just likes to play the idiot to save face on forum.

These researchers have no idea what happens in life past bacteria and organisms outside the study. The DATA clearly says that when more than one so called beneficial mutation is in the presence of another in the genome the fitness landscape drops and there is less adaptive choice. Don't tell me I don't understand the research, you evo quacker!

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.....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.

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

Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation......These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

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

This above is exactly what creationists expect to find, with credible research and observation, limits to the genomes ability to adapt. It is a bonus when your flawed rubbish also supports us.

Limits is what we find in research data and breeding. It is NOT what evo researchers expected to find and the articles themselves say so. They have plenty of stories to try to hammer the data into an evolutionary paradigm, when clearly it supports a creo paradigm.

So you can dance and jump up and down as much as you like to maintain your ignorance, but I have taken this point. The same goes for your rubbich above that says nothing about anything I am claiming. All that's left is to mess around with you evos now.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105953 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, we keep trying to explain to you why you are losing on every front.
Why don't you try to bring your claims up one at a time so that we can explain why your sources do not support your claims. What you have been posting is purely delusional.
You may as well claim Alice in Wonderland is a real person for all the research you have offered to support your faith.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105954 Nov 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? MazHere has been discussing the fact that there are limits to the change in a genome , that research has shown it does have limits, which you argue against. And what was your argument? she doesn't understand the deep time scales needed to understand evolution. Your words,....this is the God of the evolutionist ...Time, research shows there are limits!, No! just give it time, time can change a dinosaur into a bird, time can change an ape into a man, or even a puddle of goo into life, all you need is time.
Mazhere is only showing what a laboratory population OF ALLREADY A DISTINCT SPECIES, thus culture (protected, not exposed to nature) will develop in.
As in the often misquoted study on the result of breeding E Coli B.

Wiki mutation rate again to put it in perspective:

The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations is an important parameter in population genetics and has been the subject of extensive investigation [1] Although measurements of this distribution have been inconsistent in the past, it is now generally thought that the majority of mutations are mildly deleterious, that many have little effect on an organism's fitness, and that a few can be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable changes are quickly fixed, and neutral changes accumulate at the rate they are created by mutations.

Measurement[edit]

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]

So introducing god stating : though shalt not kill.
Then she might be right.(except for getting everything else wrong and the timeframe.)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105955 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You may as well claim Alice in Wonderland is a real person for all the research you have offered to support your faith.
When all of the articles that you supply, except for the ones from creatard sites, support my side why would I need to give any research?

It is not like the theory of evolution is cutting edge science. It has been well settled. There really is no need for me to supply any new research. Surprisingly enough Wikipedia is more than an adequate source to explain the basics of evolution. On settled science Wikipedia is a very good source. On cutting edge, not so much.

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
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 min -Lea- 25,482
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 3 min Old Sam 2,925
New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 7 min Crazy Jae 425
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 10 min Old Sam 4,220
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min Crazy Beautiful 152,347
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 16 min Old Sam 29,972
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 16 min Nuhor Lir Gurenna 1,047
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 1 hr -Lea- 70
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr dragoon70056 37,715
True or False Game 4 hr Princess Hey 1,241
More from around the web