Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61238 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If I link articles that show Sanford is full of it will you shut up about him?
And yes, it is easy to show that those articles did not support Sanford's work. His work said there was a limit on evolution. Those articles were only about limiting the rate of evolution. Two totally different subjects.
If a vehicle is tethered to a post the distance it can go is determined by the tether. The vehicle may be able to go many different speeds, but it can only go to the end of its tether. The articles you linked were about the speed of evolution and how that speed, not the distance was limited. It said nothing about the limit of that speed so it supported Sanford in no way at all.
A limit to the rate of evolution IS a limit on evolution. The research has found another indirect way to support Sanfords general theme.

In your example I'd say it is more like saying evos expect the car to get going but have found that the car is tethered and actually limited in its ability to get going as it should and as expected.
Evolutinary researchers expected to find an increase in fitness from the accumulation of beneficial mutations. However they found was...“The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,” and that was one of the “surprising” results. Surprise! Surprise for evos, but not for creos.

So.....No I won't shut up just because you demonstrate you can post links and get someone else to do your dirty work for you.
One load of baseless rhetoric was about the mutation rate John used being adjusted way too low. Sandfords used a mutation rate of 100 per geration and this value has been found to align with more recent findings perfectly well.

The refutes you will find are from many years ago. Indeed NOW, after all the wofflers ridiculed Sanford low and behold recent research that supports Sanford.

This article speaks to Sanfords theory in brief.

http://advindicate.com/...

You'll note number 3....

3. Selection can’t stave off deterioration—there are a number of reasons for this:

What this work into epitasis has done is provide further research into the beneficial mutations, the evobuzz word, resulting in overwhelmingly negative results and a DROP in fitness, NOT an increase in fitness.

Although evolutionary researchers are not suggesting this research falsifies evolution, what it does do is support number 3 further by finding that an accumulation of even beneficial mutations will result in a drop in fitness and negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. In other words, even beneficial mutations do not stave off a deterioration in rates of adaptation over time. It is a deterioration even it does not directly relate.

Yet this declining rate of adaptation has continued for over 4 billion years without grinding to a halt? That is what a creo can extrapolated from that data.

Here is another creationist speak to the epitasis research and the implications it has for Johns work.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...

Here is the published research into epitasis. Note it is from 2011.

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

Mutation rate lower that thought in support of Sanfords value.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33...

The assertion has been made that creos are unable to provide any support for a creationist paradigm. Not only have creos had two predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs supported they also have fossils that are out of alignment with TOE and more supportive of a creationist paradigm.

Now do please mount an appropriate refute to Sanfords work and present your evidence as I have bothered to do.

Thanx

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61239 Nov 26, 2012
In answer to your fist statement Maz, no a rate is not a limit. There is no limit to how far you can travel at 5 mph. In other words: Wrong try again.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61240 Nov 26, 2012
Your link to the article about Sanford's work takes no time to get into a scientifically proven fallacy:

"1. Random mutations are bad—this point is generally agreed upon and is entirely logical if one acknowledges the fact that genes contain information. A mutation is a loss of information."

First, this is clearly not true. You have on the order of 150 mutations in your genome. The vast majority are benign. And no, a mutation is not necessarily a loss of information. In fact calling the genome "information" is a rather poor analogy. A better analogy is that the genome is a cookbook and a mutation is a change in directions.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61242 Nov 26, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>You are free to threaten whomever you wish with your superstitious mumbo jumbo.
No people should be free to voice their ideas with out us Christians saying our God is going to cast you into the fires of hell. Those kind of threats are just ridiculous as even those of us who follow the bible cant say who is and is not hell bound. Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Grrrrr that hell fire and damnation fear tactic religion makes me mad.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61243 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>A limit to the rate of evolution IS a limit on evolution. The research has found another indirect way to support Sanfords general theme.

In your example I'd say it is more like saying evos expect the car to get going but have found that the car is tethered and actually limited in its ability to get going as it should and as expected.
Evolutinary researchers expected to find an increase in fitness from the accumulation of beneficial mutations. However they found was...“The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,” and that was one of the “surprising” results. Surprise! Surprise for evos, but not for creos.

So.....No I won't shut up just because you demonstrate you can post links and get someone else to do your dirty work for you.
One load of baseless rhetoric was about the mutation rate John used being adjusted way too low. Sandfords used a mutation rate of 100 per geration and this value has been found to align with more recent findings perfectly well.

The refutes you will find are from many years ago. Indeed NOW, after all the wofflers ridiculed Sanford low and behold recent research that supports Sanford.

This article speaks to Sanfords theory in brief.

http://advindicate.com/...

You'll note number 3....

3. Selection can’t stave off deterioration—there are a number of reasons for this:

What this work into epitasis has done is provide further research into the beneficial mutations, the evobuzz word, resulting in overwhelmingly negative results and a DROP in fitness, NOT an increase in fitness.

Although evolutionary researchers are not suggesting this research falsifies evolution, what it does do is support number 3 further by finding that an accumulation of even beneficial mutations will result in a drop in fitness and negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. In other words, even beneficial mutations do not stave off a deterioration in rates of adaptation over time. It is a deterioration even it does not directly relate.

Yet this declining rate of adaptation has continued for over 4 billion years without grinding to a halt? That is what a creo can extrapolated from that data.

Here is another creationist speak to the epitasis research and the implications it has for Johns work.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...

Here is the published research into epitasis. Note it is from 2011.

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

Mutation rate lower that thought in support of Sanfords value.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33...

The assertion has been made that creos are unable to provide any support for a creationist paradigm. Not only have creos had two predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs supported they also have fossils that are out of alignment with TOE and more supportive of a creationist paradigm.

Now do please mount an appropriate refute to Sanfords work and present your evidence as I have bothered to do.

Thanx
Ok not to sound to much like a noob here but what you're talking about is species A evolving into species B C and D up to some 100- 150 different species?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61244 Nov 26, 2012
I love it how Maz links articles that she thinks support her uneducated position. I wonder if she thinks that if you cannot fly from one city to another that you cannot drive from one of those cities to the other since the rate of travel would be too low.

Her last article is slightly interesting in that it claims that the average mutation per human generation is 30 to 50 mutations and not the 150 claimed by others earlier. It may be true, it may not be true. The author clearly did not think that this lower rate made human evolution impossible in any way.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61245 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
I love it how Maz links articles that she thinks support her uneducated position. I wonder if she thinks that if you cannot fly from one city to another that you cannot drive from one of those cities to the other since the rate of travel would be too low.

Her last article is slightly interesting in that it claims that the average mutation per human generation is 30 to 50 mutations and not the 150 claimed by others earlier. It may be true, it may not be true. The author clearly did not think that this lower rate made human evolution impossible in any way.
Ok so at that rate how long until we get our super x men powers?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61246 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so at that rate how long until we get our super x men powers?
Umm.... never. That sort of thing would only occur in a universe where ID was a reality.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61247 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Umm.... never. That sort of thing would only occur in a universe where ID was a reality.
What I mean is how long until what we are not recognized as what we are now?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61248 Nov 26, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Alchemy was the precursor of chemistry and metallurgy. Minus the weird stuff, it gave us a bumbling start on some pretty good science.
Um, you don't know much about alchemy. It's a bit more than just mixing things, there was magic involved, incantations even, it was close to being a complete religion. Not to mention it's concepts were exceptionally basic in dealing with chemicals, the small bit that did. It's like herbalism, but without a grounding in reality.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61249 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
I love it how Maz links articles that she thinks support her uneducated position. I wonder if she thinks that if you cannot fly from one city to another that you cannot drive from one of those cities to the other since the rate of travel would be too low.
Her last article is slightly interesting in that it claims that the average mutation per human generation is 30 to 50 mutations and not the 150 claimed by others earlier. It may be true, it may not be true. The author clearly did not think that this lower rate made human evolution impossible in any way.
Even if each offspring only had one mutation on the genome, life would still be evolving, that's what they don't comprehend.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61250 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
What I mean is how long until what we are not recognized as what we are now?
Have you taken a look at the old photos? I mean REALLY old, from when photography was first developed. The skull structures at that time were ... odd, compared to today. We appear almost completely different. The point is, you don't know, and since it's so gradual, you wouldn't notice if you observed it in real time. It would be like watching red fade to green over two miles and having to pin point the exact point it stops being red.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61251 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Your link to the article about Sanford's work takes no time to get into a scientifically proven fallacy:
"1. Random mutations are bad—this point is generally agreed upon and is entirely logical if one acknowledges the fact that genes contain information. A mutation is a loss of information."
First, this is clearly not true. You have on the order of 150 mutations in your genome. The vast majority are benign. And no, a mutation is not necessarily a loss of information. In fact calling the genome "information" is a rather poor analogy. A better analogy is that the genome is a cookbook and a mutation is a change in directions.
Thankyou for your reply. You have now demonstrated without doubt that you don't know a heck of a lot about this stuff. For a start it is fairly common knowledge that most,70%, of mutations are deleterious. That is not knew info at all.

Here is an article from 2002 speaking to it. It hasn't changed. The remainder, 30%, are meant to be a mix of neutral and beneficial. That's if you actually knew what beneficial refers to outside of immunity.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/12/2...

How am I meant to decypher this nonsense below of yours? It does not even show a basic understanding of common knowledge.

"First, this is clearly not true. You have on the order of 150 mutations in your genome. The vast majority are benign. And no, a mutation is not necessarily a loss of information. In fact calling the genome "information" is a rather poor analogy. A better analogy is that the genome is a cookbook and a mutation is a change in directions"

The vast majority are not benign, we are meant to have had millions of mutations in the genome since we were fury apes, and a mutation quite often results in a loss of information; A gene actually does hold dna that is information/code, just in case you are not clear on that either.

We observed a strong correlation between the position of the nonsense or FS mutations and the loss of information they cause (Additional file 1, Figure S1).

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/299

Of the nonsense SNPs, 581 were predicted to cause nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) of transcripts that would prevent translation.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...

The other obvious flaw to your reply is that the work on epitasis suggests overwhelmingly negative effects in relation to the small percentage of beneficial mutations that fix, that accumulatively don't really apear to be all that beneficial at all.

So you have 70% deleterious mutations, mutations that don't do anything and a small percentage of so called beneficial mutations that don't appear to be doing so good either.

Also, you do realize don't you, that all this is based on computer modelling, algorithmic magic and many assumptions, and yet you are still incorrect and have not refuted even point one, let alone point 3 which is the one the epitasis research more refers to.

In summation, you got everything wrong; so you're welcome to try again.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#61252 Nov 26, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the guy who won't admit that he is wrong when it is pointed out to him.
You are just too weak to challenge my facts.
I gave you an authority to go through, but fear did'nt allow you. Loser.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61253 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankyou for your reply. You have now demonstrated without doubt that you don't know a heck of a lot about this stuff. For a start it is fairly common knowledge that most,70%, of mutations are deleterious. That is not knew info at all.
You just provided solid evidence that you are completely ignorant about genetics. Do you even know what a mutation is? Go ahead, list the ones you know, all of them.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61254 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if each offspring only had one mutation on the genome, life would still be evolving, that's what they don't comprehend.
If by they, you mean creos, adaptation is not of any concern. The point is that adaptation is limited and not limitless as I have been arguing all day, just in case you have picked that obvious fact up yet.

You also have a fossil record of species that were unable to adapt, not to speak of the data on climate change.

Immunity and an ability to adapt to a changing environment is adaptation that evolutionists call evolution because they need it to be and they need it to be limitless.

However, during ones lifetime one accumulates mutations, immunity, epigentic somatic changes that are inheritable, can acclimatize relatively easily to different climates an diets, and yet evolutionists do not suggest those changes refers to an individual adapting or evolving.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61255 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Have you taken a look at the old photos? I mean REALLY old, from when photography was first developed. The skull structures at that time were ... odd, compared to today. We appear almost completely different. The point is, you don't know, and since it's so gradual, you wouldn't notice if you observed it in real time. It would be like watching red fade to green over two miles and having to pin point the exact point it stops being red.
Ok so Adam and Eve may have been smurfs. Just kidding. I have never seen that as evolution but as adaptation does the DNA change. Also if man comes from ape than would our natural instinct to live in groups have been the same than as it is today? Please phrase your answers for novice level.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61256 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You just provided solid evidence that you are completely ignorant about genetics. Do you even know what a mutation is? Go ahead, list the ones you know, all of them.
So you want to demonstrate your ignorance by asking me a ridiculously simple question instead of addressing the substance of my post.

A mutation is a change in sequence.

What do you think they are?

How about you stop wasting thread space with you vague woffle and evasion just to justify your existence here and actually demonstrate you're not empty by responding with substance. Now there's a novel idea!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61257 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If by they, you mean creos, adaptation is not of any concern. The point is that adaptation is limited and not limitless as I have been arguing all day, just in case you have picked that obvious fact up yet.
You also have a fossil record of species that were unable to adapt, not to speak of the data on climate change.
Immunity and an ability to adapt to a changing environment is adaptation that evolutionists call evolution because they need it to be and they need it to be limitless.
However, during ones lifetime one accumulates mutations, immunity, epigentic somatic changes that are inheritable, can acclimatize relatively easily to different climates an diets, and yet evolutionists do not suggest those changes refers to an individual adapting or evolving.
Demonstrate the limit, scientifically, using evidence and not assertions. So far no one has done that, let's see if you can.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61258 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to demonstrate your ignorance by asking me a ridiculously simple question instead of addressing the substance of my post.
A mutation is a change in sequence.
What do you think they are?
How about you stop wasting thread space with you vague woffle and evasion just to justify your existence here and actually demonstrate you're not empty by responding with substance. Now there's a novel idea!
You just provided more solid evidence that you are completely ignorant about genetics. Do you even know what a mutation is? Go ahead, list the ones you know, all of them.

Go on, meet one challenge, demonstrate that you actually know something. List all the mutations you know. It's not vague, you claimed that 70% of all mutations are bad, list the ones you know, I highly doubt you even know many, probably less than 0.0001% of all mutations in the human population we know of.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Fred Flintstone 305,243
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 13 min Elton Johns alter... 57,226
State of the Union spoilers: Obama's proposal f... 15 min WelbyMD 191
VMware VCPC550 Questions and Answers 23 min vmwareexams 1
U.S. Army Officer Calls Obama an "Impostor" (Feb '09) 30 min WelbyMD 18,734
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 38 min WelbyMD 183,890
Pentagon: Bergdahl detainee returned to fight 39 min Who 4
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 41 min John Galt 1,173,839
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 1 hr Son of Man 11,325
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr sooo 168,452
Netanyahu visit continues to stir emotion 4 hr Your Ex 89
More from around the web