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 114,800 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105971
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105972
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105974
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105975
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105977
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105980
Nov 16, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What (besides your playing in perceptions) is the evidence for your religious mind game?
For one the Bible. I read it through before I started really considering the reality of God acting in human events. I knew something unexplainable had acted in my behalf a number of times also. I was perplexed how people of faith, especially couples and their children, were stable and happy Vs others I knew (including my family), and I didn't want to fail in marriage and couldn't figure out the formula to make it work. So after another crash I walked away from (I working in heli aviation in Alaska) I felt this strong force telling me to decide now, so on the trip out I prayed and something very unique happened, they call it "born again", pretty good description I will say. Found out later alot of folks were praying for me that week,(they told me later). So there was reason and logic involved in part but in the end there was a greater force involved I didn't understand then. That's when my eyes were opened and I had real peace. So I then questioned how I had got so deep in my faith in evolution, went back mentally and let the two fly at each other. Creation won handily on the facts.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105981
Nov 16, 2013
 
Dude needing another ironymeter is normal.

So this post is not the start:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

However i found the reference on pg 5018:
(The problem is that she keeps changing the heading)

Where is the data that supports the paradigm of the talking snake?

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.
Well Subby that's just great Subby because despite your ridicule of our documented account, as far as SCIENCE goes you cannot scientifically refute my claim. The best you can do is beg your disbelief in the first documented account of life arising in the sea because you cannot refute the claim that the genomes ability to adapt is limited. That's great and you don't realize how great that is for us, like it or not.
The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that can be supported and falsified, and you evos cannot speak to it. GREAT! That's what I like to see, Subby. However as far as science goes, you're excuses are not acceptable.
This below is the testable claim using genomics that suggests life on earth cannot possibly be billions of years old.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutationselection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

--
Oh and another of jewel of sharp deduction: all evo's work in the pharmaceutical industry.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105982
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if there are no limits, research shows there are.
You researched the ruler, not the tape measure.
Of course there is a limitation on small scale mutations, though catastrophic changes can force a new set of rules. This has been observed in the fossil record. Mutation, genetic drift, environmental pressure, radiation, natural selection is composed of many variables. It's restraints are viable to a single generation.
But it is realized that humans are evolving and we are in fact more genetically different from the humans that lived over 10,000 years ago, than they were from the Neandertal species.

This discovery shows your premise to be not only short sighted but completely wrong with all research. It os your personal beliefs driving your and Maz's thinking processes, and blinding you to the reality that evolutionary change is the driving force of life on Earth through the above mentioned avenues. It is of zero impact of reality that you protest the cold hard truth. Blinding yourself is all you achieve, so go ahead bury your head in the sand, and protest all you desire, but don't expect to have a thrall audience
that actually believes your nonsense.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.shor...

Selection directly causing evolution , by human hands.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variat...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105983
Nov 16, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<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.
Not this old dead horse again.

Please note that the actual article on the footprints says "bird-like". Even the best print does not quite have a reversed halux. It is close but not quite there. And without a skeleton there is not reason that it could not be a land based dinosaur that has developed a walk very close to that of birds, perhaps because the prints come from an arboreal dinosaur.

It is simply a question that is not quite answered yet, it is not evidence against evolution.

Maz, why don't you drop the articles that really don't support you? Oh yeah, because you have nothing except for grasping at straw.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105984
Nov 16, 2013
 
Simple as in biologists did not claim this, at least not without some failsafe mechanism at play that would occur in a natural environment.

MH:
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.

Mazhere also gave a site of nature that did not show the article nor did she gave the first article that the one in nature was to be a continuance of. So she was essentially reasoning out of the blue, without any back-up.
And what might have it been about, since her claims about Darwin had no back-up one has to start doubting even the intellectual integrity.

Well one could show allsorts of mechanisms and Darwin and many others indeed allready having found the solution in natural selection and be done with it by ignoring ever dafter posts. That would have been the other option.

So what is the twit actually on about, why so inconsistent all the time. Almost like comparing apes and humans with inbred crea-horses and talking snakes?

Aha, the crazy women was all the time talking about apes and humans!

Why the hell can't she present her arguement accordingly?
Because it would sound very daft to state that inbred apes can't have caused inbred humans?
Well it does.
Ask Bohart for more advise.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 2 min David0407 4,807
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 3 min Bill 129
What do Latino girls like about black guys? (Aug '07) 12 min Heroine 219
I Like..... 12 min Crazy Jae 141
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 14 min Doug77 5,881
Fergson Police Dept. 15 min Mister_ E 236
The ALPHABET Game (May '11) 16 min Doug77 10,745
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 28 min Mister_ E 144,842
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 32 min Spirit67_ 18,241
What's your tip for the day? 1 hr cudzu bandit 758
Man Declared Dead in 1986 Found Alive 4 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••