Evolution vs. Creation

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

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105960 Nov 15, 2013
Furthermore there is a difference between an ancient allready weeded population as in species and adaptations occuring before we speak of a species and while being a species.

The study (on E Coli B) showed that even within the constraints (f.i. only two species out of five) species will still be able to mutate.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#105961 Nov 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
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.
Hi Maat. Maz isn't known for rational and reasonable interpretations of scientific research. Her major talents seem to be in her ability to repeat, repeat, repeat and to claim victory no matter the actual outcome.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105962 Nov 15, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Maat. Maz isn't known for rational and reasonable interpretations of scientific research. Her major talents seem to be in her ability to repeat, repeat, repeat and to claim victory no matter the actual outcome.
I noticed.
Almost lost my cool there.
A nasty specimen.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105963 Nov 15, 2013
You are so smart, please post links to scientific research about a talking snake. Maybe research about a talking donkey.
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.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#105964 Nov 15, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed.
Almost lost my cool there.
A nasty specimen.
I look at her like a lot of them. The provide the impetus for me to dig deeper and find better answers to their comments.

I don't think I can recall you ever losing your cool on here. Leave it to Maz to be the one that can break the air conditioning.
ddd

Chicago, IL

#105965 Nov 15, 2013
Creation clearly makes more sense because you can't disprove it. Evolution - it only takes one instance to prove it isn't true. But creationism is a much more viable and flexible theory because it's virtually un-disprovable.

Also:

https://twitter.com/boxofdildos

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105966 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Above I post substantial research that demonstrates the decline in the fitness landscape due to epistasis, which supports a creo paradigm and makes evos come up with mumbo jumbo to explain it, and after 2 hours I come back to opinionated spam from multiple evo posters.

Go pull your heads in, the lot of you. The lot of you here are evotard flip outs, including Aura the great biologist.

Here is something else for you to ignore..Clowns!

Your blustering theory is likely interfering with medical progress, and turning medical research into biased spam in exchange for research dollars for billion dollar drug companies.

"Association studies independent of causal theories, along with multiple testing errors, too often drive health care and public policy decisions.......We advocate for reinterpretation of the scientific method in the context of large-scale data analysis opportunities and for renewed appreciation of falsifiable hypotheses, so that we can learn more from our best mistakes."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

A word to creos..YIKES, what a load of sad and sorry evospam you have had to put up with here. Mention science to these evolutionists and they go running for the hills.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105967 Nov 15, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Above I post substantial research that demonstrates the decline in the fitness landscape due to epistasis, which supports a creo paradigm and makes evos come up with mumbo jumbo to explain it, and after 2 hours I come back to opinionated spam from multiple evo posters.

Go pull your heads in, the lot of you. The lot of you here are evotard flip outs, including Aura the great biologist.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105968 Nov 15, 2013
You are a coward, a fake and a charlatan. Religion kills brains dead. Please show us scientific evidence for a talking snake or shut your greasy piehole. What makes religitards so sleazy? Why do they consistently bear false witness?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Above I post substantial research that demonstrates the decline in the fitness landscape due to epistasis, which supports a creo paradigm and makes evos come up with mumbo jumbo to explain it, and after 2 hours I come back to opinionated spam from multiple evo posters.
Go pull your heads in, the lot of you. The lot of you here are evotard flip outs, including Aura the great biologist.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105969 Nov 15, 2013
Alice in Wonderland is more reality based than the bible religitard. Religion kills brains dead. Tell us about the science of the talking snake you deluded coward.
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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105970 Nov 15, 2013
ddd wrote:
Creation clearly makes more sense because you can't disprove it. Evolution - it only takes one instance to prove it isn't true. But creationism is a much more viable and flexible theory because it's virtually un-disprovable.
Also:
https://twitter.com/boxofdildos
It is not about just disproving TOE. Of course I can't disprove it, TOE is unfalsifiable. Creation can certainly draw predictions and I have been talking about them, you evo puppet. Remember junk dna and functioning non coding dna all support/prove evolution and so does decendants that predate their ancestors. Remember the same fossils support both human knuckle walking and non human knuckle walking ancestry. Straw men!!! TOE is unfalsifiable and has the predictive capability of a crystal ball. Hit and miss, but mostly miss. LOL!

All data supports the claim there are limits to adaptation, and is the validation of one of many creationist predictions. You don't have to like it and I most certainly don't need your/evo acceptance.

When one of you grows the brains to take up any one point from any of these links your reckon make you heroes, go for it! LOL!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105971 Nov 15, 2013
davy wrote:
Alice in Wonderland is more reality based than the bible religitard. Religion kills brains dead. Tell us about the science of the talking snake you deluded coward.
<quoted text>
Listen you fool, we creos can all see how well you can defend your science by needing to talk about snakes. Idiot!
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105972 Nov 15, 2013
That's what i thought, another religitard who can't step up to the idiocies listed in the bible. Religion kills brains dead. So you keep on bearing false witness. According to your silly book you will burn in hell. Your silly book says snakes can talk. Care to give us scientific evidence that this is possible? I didn't think so. Suck it religitard!
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen you fool, we creos can all see how well you can defend your science by needing to talk about snakes. Idiot!
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105973 Nov 15, 2013
How about I hit you in the head with a fossil dummy.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not about just disproving TOE. Of course I can't disprove it, TOE is unfalsifiable. Creation can certainly draw predictions and I have been talking about them, you evo puppet. Remember junk dna and functioning non coding dna all support/prove evolution and so does decendants that predate their ancestors. Remember the same fossils support both human knuckle walking and non human knuckle walking ancestry. Straw men!!! TOE is unfalsifiable and has the predictive capability of a crystal ball. Hit and miss, but mostly miss. LOL!
All data supports the claim there are limits to adaptation, and is the validation of one of many creationist predictions. You don't have to like it and I most certainly don't need your/evo acceptance.
When one of you grows the brains to take up any one point from any of these links your reckon make you heroes, go for it! LOL!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105974 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.
Agreed, no animal has been the recipient of more selective breeding than the race horse, guess what, it has hit a wall. They simply won't get any faster. There are limits! Of course the evo religionists will say , wait you need a million years to get faster! Time being their God and all.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105975 Nov 15, 2013
davy wrote:
That's what i thought, another religitard who can't step up to the idiocies listed in the bible. Religion kills brains dead. So you keep on bearing false witness. According to your silly book you will burn in hell. Your silly book says snakes can talk. Care to give us scientific evidence that this is possible? I didn't think so. Suck it religitard!
<quoted text>
Actually oh bible expert, scientists are always waffling on about the possibility of alien life and here we are trying to give them evidence of it but they are too stupid to realize it.

God walked with man as did other spirits that could transpose into other forms, in this case a snake. The physics behind it is supported by the fact that energy/light, which spirit forms are as is God, are able to form matter.

Now after you pick your dummy up off the floor maybe you evotards can actually present some postive research, you know SCIENCE, that supports an organisms ability to adapt without limit, instead of demonstrating yourselves to be evotards heading for the hills.

The data supports a creationist paradigm in that adaptation is limited and organisms will never adapt out of their familial group.

Until then you can keep fluffing in the wind and begging your philosophical hubris.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105976 Nov 15, 2013
davy wrote:
How about I hit you in the head with a fossil dummy.
<quoted text>
How about I hit you in the head with modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and more than halfway back to the Devonian, being created after sea life.

How about I demonstrate evo scientists with some 'poofing' ability themselves?

These scientists have invented out of thin air, theropods with a reversed hallux instead of admitting they have no clue what they are talking about.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...

How about a variety of tetrapods that suddenly appear on the heel of the Devonian, 395mya, throwing Tiktaalic out to that great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past and falsified?

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/n...

I reckon it will be me hitting you over the head with your stupid fossils.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105977 Nov 16, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, no animal has been the recipient of more selective breeding than the race horse, guess what, it has hit a wall. They simply won't get any faster. There are limits! Of course the evo religionists will say , wait you need a million years to get faster! Time being their God and all.
Hey there, funny you should mention horses. They are just another nested hierarchical mess.

It appears, algorithmic magic and not enough time is suddenly meant to handwave away observation.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105978 Nov 16, 2013
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.
---
Agreed, no animal has been the recipient of more selective breeding than the race horse, guess what, it has hit a wall. They simply won't get any faster. There are limits!
----
The data supports a creationist paradigm in that adaptation is limited and organisms will never adapt out of their familial group.
---
Hey there, funny you should mention horses. They are just another nested hierarchical mess.

No comment necessary.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#105979 Nov 16, 2013
5025 Well this discussion had drifted far from creatard inbreeding/evolution. To proof that apes and humans had no common descent. Because the book says we have fish.

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?

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.

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!.

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 3 min Hoosier Hillbilly 31,279
Things of Interest: 7 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 11 min Sublime1 7,198
Tehran Times 15 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 17 min Sublime1 2,562
la sunshine and her friends (Oct '06) 17 min La Sunshine 1,352
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 19 min razz58 8,105
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 1 hr DILF 847
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 1 hr DILF 27,605
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 39,449
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Good-Evil 158,135
Rest in Peace, Spock 1 hr DILF 342
More from around the web