Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
100,341 - 100,360 of 114,511 Comments Last updated 19 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105956
Nov 15, 2013
 
Maz, you clearly did not understand the articles that you linked in your response to MAAT.

Once again I am offering to help you to understand them. Let's discuss them one at a time.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105957
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.
I'm sorry but you are muddling everything, and not getting the gist of the quotes.
Apart from the context.
This is going to cause confusion again.
None of us denies that extinctions happen.
What the research is all about is to find break-of points in specific allready specified populations actually species in specially selected conditions.
So no natural imput of normally polymorph variations.
---
Every creation arguement sofar relies on evolution.
You are telling me that after adam and eve no evolution occurred.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105958
Nov 15, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, you clearly did not understand the articles that you linked in your response to MAAT.
Once again I am offering to help you to understand them. Let's discuss them one at a time.
Go ahead.
And while at it also add what she is stating about any MAAT or Aura Mythra posted that seem now to have become part of her arguement. Adding to the errors.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105959
Nov 15, 2013
 
Darwin and the (sse BOX1) peaks ond valleys between reciprocal sign epistatis points address:

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.

The results you quote limit themselves to the lab to weed out inconsistencies:
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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105965
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105966
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105968
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••