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 (Page 5,029)

Showing posts 100,561 - 100,580 of105,858
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106029
Nov 16, 2013
 
And Maz is still playing pigeon chess.

Maz, bring up any of your articles one at a time and I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

You are not making a point by listing articles that you did not understand and seem unable to understand.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106030
Nov 16, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Hows my little self licking ice cream cone head doing today?
still posting irrelevant links to try to support your fantasy of quasi-scientific intellectualism? You should find yourself a nice street corner and bring ya soapbox and flyers from creation.tard
so you can preach your plethora of idiom psychotic gobbledygook
to the first grade special ed class, with a little luck and if you pay them ...they might believe your hilarious arboreal christian
pseudo-scientific stand up act of tragic comedy.
I know we will tie a pork chop around you neck and get you to lecture the dogs with incantations and heel clicking magic skydaddy creation , you're sure to be a big hit with them you and your pork chop. And speaking of hand waving, you sure look like a do do bird trying to get airborne over there, but don't let this "what's wrong with this picture" picture of yourself get in the way of your magical persona you got going in your "own mind".
But we can tell you from over here you're about the funniest creationist clown we ever seen!
...and I suppose you talking about your disbelief in skydaddys and enjoyment of licking ice cream is the reflection of your scientific credibility and a demonstration of you being a frustrated evotard looser. LOL! I love it! Ridicule on!!! ROLF!

A confirmation of a hypothesis can be generated on any basis from abiogenesis to the fall of Rome, and is testable and falsifiable, regardless of your ignorance and ability to be an evo parrot puppet.

Adaption is not what results in common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales.

Creation is true if the genome is designed to maintain organisms within their familial group/kind. The fact that TOE is challenged by the validation of such a prediction is an added plus.

For now I am the one that has presented research that speaks to restrictions and limits to the genomes inability to adapt. Evos have presented their opinion and every side wind they can think of, and therefore have no more credibility than a squarking parrot that can repeat "they said so".

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

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

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

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

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to it ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106031
Nov 16, 2013
 
Once again Maz, let's see you defend your beliefs of what your articles say.

I don't know for sure what you think they mean, but they do not support an argument against evolution.

“Happy New Year”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106032
Nov 16, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is not evidence something like a deer can become something like a whale.
Adaptation is evidence that bacteria can become fitter bacteria and a deer can become a fitter deer and may even learn to swim and submerge, eg chevrotain, but will never adapt into a whale. That is your great leap of faith.
You are probably right. Deer will probably never evolve into whales. We can't know for certain what developments in evolution a particular species will take. At least you understand that much evolution.

But just because you don't understand how whales evolved and don't want to accept the evidence that describes that evolution doesn't change the reality of it.

It also does not say anything positive or negative about the existence of God, no matter how you slink in fear that it does.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106033
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

Adaption is not what results in common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales.
Documented cases of speciation have been recorded , effectively rendering all your ranting to...well ranting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/470...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.ht...

One of many...

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106034
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Maz, I suggest that you read up on the concept of clades. Yes, deer and whales do have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. We do have a fairly good string of fossil life from pakicetus to the modern whale. With the blowhole we can see it when it has migrated half way back to its current position. Would you like to see them?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106035
Nov 16, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, I suggest that you read up on the concept of clades. Yes, deer and whales do have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. We do have a fairly good string of fossil life from pakicetus to the modern whale. With the blowhole we can see it when it has migrated half way back to its current position. Would you like to see them?

More wolf like than deer though, another was like a big rodent.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106036
Nov 16, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz with her stinking blue waffle.
I don't need any empirical evidence to debunk any of your nonsense. All I have to do is to point out that you did not understand the articles that you linked, again.
For example your article on the limits of adaptation is an article that says if you push a species too hard it will go extinct. It is not an article about the limits of evolution, except for perhaps the obvious fact that a species cannot evolve overnight.
If you want to discuss how you don't understand any of your articles I am more than happy to do that. But I do not need any evidence to debunk the nonevidence that you have been supplying here.
Again for the umpteenth time I will state that the research demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to adapt. As this data was NOT predicted by evos, the data found requires guesswork to resolve. Their assumption is not data. Hence the data does support my claim, even though it does not say adaptation stopped. The evo hypothesis made of the data is what you are claiming to support TOE and to be unquestionable. You are seriously mind scrambled and deluded by your inculcation into the evo fold on the basis of no more than faith, greater than mine.

Too bad your researchers keep finding the opposite of what they expect. If they actually found what they expected you would have a point. However you are just ranting to save face on forum.

Given no one can 'prove' much of anything, the onus is on you to present more than scientists handwaving their hands as to why research into a few organisms demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to mutate away from its familial group. eg in breeding, in natures response to climate change, to the deteriorating genome, to the negative effects of epistasis, to an organisms inability to get rid of deleterious mutations quicker than they can accumulate and have done so for billions of years without extinction.

Creation is true if the genome is designed to maintain organisms within their familial group/kind. The fact that TOE is challenged by the validation of such a prediction is an added plus.

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability. The fact that evos can generate hypothesis by using algorithmic magic about why this occurs and how the genome MAY keep adapting is no more than hyperbole and spin doctoring of data in support of a prevailing bias, as research previously posted has spoken to.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

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

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

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

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to its ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106037
Nov 16, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
More wolf like than deer though, another was like a big rodent.
Please note my qualifier, I said if you go back far enough. Pakicetus clearly was not deer like. Somewhere between pakicetus and therapsids there was a common ancestor for the two, and for us as well. Many creationists could accept animal evolution if human evolution was not part of it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106038
Nov 16, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Again for the umpteenth time I will state that the research demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to adapt. As this data was NOT predicted by evos, the data found requires guesswork to resolve. Their assumption is not data. Hence the data does support my claim, even though it does not say adaptation stopped. The evo hypothesis made of the data is what you are claiming to support TOE and to be unquestionable. You are seriously mind scrambled and deluded by your inculcation into the evo fold on the basis of no more than faith, greater than mine.
Too bad your researchers keep finding the opposite of what they expect. If they actually found what they expected you would have a point. However you are just ranting to save face on forum.
Given no one can 'prove' much of anything, the onus is on you to present more than scientists handwaving their hands as to why research into a few organisms demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to mutate away from its familial group. eg in breeding, in natures response to climate change, to the deteriorating genome, to the negative effects of epistasis, to an organisms inability to get rid of deleterious mutations quicker than they can accumulate and have done so for billions of years without extinction.
Creation is true if the genome is designed to maintain organisms within their familial group/kind. The fact that TOE is challenged by the validation of such a prediction is an added plus.
There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability. The fact that evos can generate hypothesis by using algorithmic magic about why this occurs and how the genome MAY keep adapting is no more than hyperbole and spin doctoring of data in support of a prevailing bias, as research previously posted has spoken to.
In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.
Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
All data demonstrates an organism has limits to its ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.
And for the umpteenth time you are misinterpreting your own sources.

That is why I offered to discuss them one at a time. No Gish Gallops allowed. You find articles that say there are limits to how fast evolution can occur.

In other words species cannot evolve overnight and you articles give some of the reasons why. They all support evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106039
Nov 16, 2013
 
And here is an excellent article on whale evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

Look at where the nostrils are starting with pakicetus, like we are used to they are at the front of the head. You can see them move back further and further as the species evolve.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106040
Nov 16, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, I suggest that you read up on the concept of clades. Yes, deer and whales do have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. We do have a fairly good string of fossil life from pakicetus to the modern whale. With the blowhole we can see it when it has migrated half way back to its current position. Would you like to see them?
Seeing as you can't win the point on limited adaptability, would you like to talk specifically about what evos have on whale evolution and exactly what it demonstrates? It's a favourite of mine.

Let's start with my demonstrating your current knowledge of this great mythical macroevolutionary change.

Did you know that the line up presented in every single biology book in the world is a misrepresentation of the actual tetrapod to whale line? They are representations of the ancestors of the direct line.

Did you know that a modern chevrotain/mouse deer skeleton is basically the same as Indohyus? Did you know a mouse deer dives to escape prey and shows no sign of changing nostrils?

Best of all do you know that basilosaurus has now been dated to 49mya and therefore the fossil evidence actually presents as basilosaurus having 'evolved' before a couple of its ancestors?

That is your fossil evidence for the transition from something like a deer to a modern whale.

Alternatively, Basilosaurus has nothing to do with whales. Whale bones have been found in the Michagan desert in land formation dated to 400my old.

Before I bother to find and post anything I'd like to see if I am going to be talking to another evo that has faith in the prevailing bias to offer and nothing else in his pocket.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106041
Nov 16, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And for the umpteenth time you are misinterpreting your own sources.
That is why I offered to discuss them one at a time. No Gish Gallops allowed. You find articles that say there are limits to how fast evolution can occur.
In other words species cannot evolve overnight and you articles give some of the reasons why. They all support evolution.
For the first time, you might like to demonstrate why the research better supports an evo paradigm than a creo one instead of flapping your feathers.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106042
Nov 16, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
For the first time, you might like to demonstrate why the research better supports an evo paradigm than a creo one instead of flapping your feathers.
Sure I would be happy to discuss with you how all scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. What do you want to start with? How about the fossil record? Every fossil to date fits the evolution paradigm. The creationists do not even have one because they know that it would fail. And yet if evolution was wrong we could find fossils "out of sequence". Do you want to bring up your theorpod fossil footprints that look like they might be bird fossil footprints? That seems pretty weak to me.

Go ahead pick your subject. One at a time since I don't want to have to deal with multiple lies of yours simultaneously.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106043
Nov 16, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
And here is an excellent article on whale evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
Look at where the nostrils are starting with pakicetus, like we are used to they are at the front of the head. You can see them move back further and further as the species evolve.
Yes, and guess what? They all breathe as well.

The discovery of fossil whale bones in Michigan has been a source of some embarrassment for the conventional geologic story of the history of the Great Lakes region, and the notion that the area has remained above sea level for 290 million years since the end of the Pennsylvanian period, as whale fossils are obviously evidence that the land was submerged beneath the sea.

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

Now you evos have got something like a deer 'poofing' into something like a whale in 4 million years, instead of 15 million years.

http://www.dna.gov.ar/INGLES/DIVULGAC/ARQUEO....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/20...

All that adaptation, so non plausibly fast, despite majority deleterious mutations and negative epistasis of the few so called beneficial mutations that managed to cross the germ line and be selected for in a major sweep; and dated prior to its ancestors. LOL!. Great evidence!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106044
Nov 16, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing as you can't win the point on limited adaptability, would you like to talk specifically about what evos have on whale evolution and exactly what it demonstrates? It's a favourite of mine.
Let's start with my demonstrating your current knowledge of this great mythical macroevolutionary change.
Did you know that the line up presented in every single biology book in the world is a misrepresentation of the actual tetrapod to whale line? They are representations of the ancestors of the direct line.
Did you know that a modern chevrotain/mouse deer skeleton is basically the same as Indohyus? Did you know a mouse deer dives to escape prey and shows no sign of changing nostrils?
Best of all do you know that basilosaurus has now been dated to 49mya and therefore the fossil evidence actually presents as basilosaurus having 'evolved' before a couple of its ancestors?
That is your fossil evidence for the transition from something like a deer to a modern whale.
Alternatively, Basilosaurus has nothing to do with whales. Whale bones have been found in the Michagan desert in land formation dated to 400my old.
Before I bother to find and post anything I'd like to see if I am going to be talking to another evo that has faith in the prevailing bias to offer and nothing else in his pocket.
How can I not win?

You have to remember that you keep misinterpreting articles. I would like to know what you think they say. Then I will be able to show you what they do say.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106045
Nov 16, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and guess what? They all breathe as well.
The discovery of fossil whale bones in Michigan has been a source of some embarrassment for the conventional geologic story of the history of the Great Lakes region, and the notion that the area has remained above sea level for 290 million years since the end of the Pennsylvanian period, as whale fossils are obviously evidence that the land was submerged beneath the sea.
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html
Now you evos have got something like a deer 'poofing' into something like a whale in 4 million years, instead of 15 million years.
http://www.dna.gov.ar/INGLES/DIVULGAC/ARQUEO....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/20...
All that adaptation, so non plausibly fast, despite majority deleterious mutations and negative epistasis of the few so called beneficial mutations that managed to cross the germ line and be selected for in a major sweep; and dated prior to its ancestors. LOL!. Great evidence!
Maz, how did you forget what was perhaps your worst defeat here?

Don't you remember the link that Kong found? The one where they carbon dated the whale bone, not a fossil, that had been found? It was a recent bone that had been placed in the loose sand of that quarry. I wish that I had book marked it.

Faked evidence from a creatard does not hurt the theory of evolution at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106046
Nov 16, 2013
 
And Maz, I will only pay any attention to your fist link. I told you only one per post. You misunderstand almost every link that you make so I do not want to have to try to simultaneously correct multiple errors on your part.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106047
Nov 16, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Accepting and denying research according to the Bible is tantamount to sticking your nose where the sun doesn't shine.
For what is sure to be the thousandth time, Homo Sapiens ARE apes, not WERE apes, and no one can or has stated as a certainty precisely where life came from - except your lot, who takes mythology as real and pounces to condemn thoughtful pondering as scientific statements and declarations.
Bear false witness, much? Yep - you surely do.
no we are not apes, well, I'm not. you....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106048
Nov 16, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
no we are not apes, well, I'm not. you....
Repeating a lie does not make it true. You are an ape, whether you like it or not.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 100,561 - 100,580 of105,858
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••