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 3,047)

Showing posts 60,921 - 60,940 of112,800
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65032
Dec 13, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Never seen a flying fish or heard a talking one, but I did see a walking catfish....:)
Many are familiar with the Chalk-browed Mockingbird as well.

It has been classified as Least concern by the IUCN.(BLI 2004)

[edit] References Thank you Wikipedia. sigh. Everyone knows it's a sin to kill a mocking bird #%$$& it
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65033
Dec 13, 2012
 
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
Many are familiar with the Chalk-browed Mockingbird as well.
It has been classified as Least concern by the IUCN.(BLI 2004)
[edit] References Thank you Wikipedia. sigh. Everyone knows it's a sin to kill a mocking bird #%$$& it
Darwin was listening for the Mockingbird to sing and they appropriate the calls of others, now why is that?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65034
Dec 13, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Darwin was listening for the Mockingbird to sing and they appropriate the calls of others, now why is that?
Without researching the scientific literature on the subject, I couldn't say. But I bet you'll be able to tie it into "Systems, Cycles and Patterns" somehow, right?
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65035
Dec 13, 2012
 
While science and religion are not incompatible, using religion as a substitute for science is. You only fool yourself, MazHere (and other creationists), by believing that you can punch holes in scientific theories with religious beliefs masquerading as science. Those of us who follow science entertain ourselves by engaging and provoking you and others who share your views. And yet, there is some value in kicking the wasp's nest: by drawing you out, we can more readily pinpoint your weaknesses and collectively shake our heads over your fallacious arguments. And with this information strengthen our positions and sharpen our arguments.

In short, MazHere, you are the worse possible spokesperson for your views.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65036
Dec 13, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The European word "man" means thinker or "men" means to think.
According to whom?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65037
Dec 13, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
So, not anyone else's problem, till such becomes a problem. A lot of people don't like blond haired people either. Should they all be castrated and dehumanized because of it?
No, and neither should the ones that prefer it, unless of course any of them become willfull ignorance problems, willfully hating on others, for having their OWN likes and dislikes, and of course, thier OWN opinions and beliefs.
I never said anything derogatory but I did quote facts, you don’t like facts? That’s just tough

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65038
Dec 13, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU seem to be one of those example species with a willfull ignorance problem.
I referenced what Einstien said DIRECTLY (as in from the source of, not from a chain of ignorant, grade school tin can he said she said garbage), based on DIRECT interviews and LETTERS, as spoken and written by the man himself.
Emphasis on "DIRECT", as in out of the mans mouth, and penned from his hands himself.
And it's not nice to ATTACK people, that aren't around to defend themselves especially! So in a right spirit, I shall uphold the original author and interviewer of the articles I quoted, and say, I enjoyed reading them immensely, and found them quite enlightening.
MUCH more so than from a rewritten, not even restated factually, often UNcredible source as wikistoopedia.
Back to the dunce chair for you, and tighten your tin foil caplet, it seems to be somewhat askew, and loosely hanging.
And I quoted directly from his letters, written by himself.

Not misinterpretations of his writing but actual, factual quotes, once again, if you don’t get on well with facts than tough

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9583...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/eins...
http://uctaa.net/articles/meds2/med35/med684....

But hey if you want to make a mockery out of a clever mans life that entirely up to you to rationalise. If you want to lie for you belief and your god than I hope you sleep well on that dies of lies

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65039
Dec 13, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
Footnote: and to say ANYthing else beyond whathas already been posted on the verbage of Eistien, would not only be "willfully ignorant" it would be utterly "abjectly" ignorant as well, because, the written words of the history of such stated, is all the evidence we have, and beyond that evidence, the truly honest with even HALF a non-dysfunctional brain, could ONLY say, "we DON'T know".
And we don't, because we Weren't there!!
End of PSA.
###
Footnote

To lie in the presence of you god and to make a mockery of a dead mans beliefs is a pathetic way to promote you belief

Einstein Wrote

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Einstein Wrote

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65040
Dec 13, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Darwin was listening for the Mockingbird to sing and they appropriate the calls of others, now why is that?
My thought is that a camper is being annoyed by a genuine hoot owl...and God in his foreknowledge provides the mockingbird to pipe up and pretend to be a hoot owl or whatever annoying bird is out there...and the camper starts laughing and being cheered up somehow because the mockingbird is an example of a person saying 'ignore it...it's only noise...watch I can do that'. It's a message in nature of how to deal with evolutionists such aas yourself...but you can use the lesson on the annoying people in your life if you would like.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65041
Dec 13, 2012
 
Does anyone know anything about Evolutionary Psychology (EP)?

Is it possible that maybe what I'm experiencing is an evolutionary thing?
newsReports

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65042
Dec 13, 2012
 
.

ISRAEL --- VATICAN meetings RE: MIDEAST

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

.

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65043
Dec 13, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh yeah sure, the correctly predicted fish-phibian fossil has been "discredited" by footprints found a mere 4-17MYA earlier tops. By footprints made by uh... another fish-phibian.
Duh.
Stop playing with yourself, Dude. Do you lot of boofheads really think your ignorance and gobble outweights the supported claims?
But it is their age that makes these tracks so special: 18 million years older than the earliest known tetrapod body fossils, and 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegids — Tiktaalik , Panderichthys and their relatives, seen as transitional forms between fishes and tetrapods. The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...
Already addressed Maz. Get around to it any time ya like. You answer those questions yet?
Here is another evo idiot that sporookes about past famous posts that can never repost them or ask these wonderful questions ever again.

Suck it up Dude. I have to repeat myself again for every looser that drops by. Repost questions Dude child. The answer this one.
How can you tell the difference between a recently inserted erv and not? The answer is you can't.
Retroviruses insert themselves randomly. All we need is just one showing orthology. As it happens we don't just have one.
You may try something called evidence one day. Don't be a dork. If evos can hand wave away anything that does not suit, effectively your erv evidence is a raught and unfalsifiable.
Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes. This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/12...

But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing [37], practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified `hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
You can't tell. We can. And we've tested it.
Quack quack. Evidence please. Make it peer reviewed seeing as you lot like to quack about it so much yet NEVER present any. Anything you provide, if you bothered, has a base of maybe and perhaps.
No they don't. It is in fact the very PREMISE of evolution, validated by genetic evidence and experiment.
Quack quack. Evidence please. Make it peer reviewed seeing as you lot like to quack about it so much yet NEVER present any. Anything you provide, if you bothered, has a base of maybe and perhaps.

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65044
Dec 13, 2012
 
Reply to Dudes waffle
Translation: Boo hoo, their science works!
Quack quack. Evidence please. Make it peer reviewed seeing as you lot like to quack about it so much yet NEVER present any. Anything you provide, if you bothered, has a base of maybe and perhaps.
Projection again. Got anything substantial for once Maz? Or you prefer to keep lying for Jesus?
Quack quack. Evidence please. Make it peer reviewed seeing as you lot like to quack about it so much yet NEVER present any. Anything you provide, if you bothered, has a base of maybe and perhaps.
Yes actually I do. Evos have never observed reverse transcribe in action endogenizing into any genome. It is theoretical modelling and is likely screwing up any possibility of medical advancement on genetic therapies.

It seems strange that there are NO examples of gene transduction by retrovirus into the germline of new hosts. Why is it that DNA viruses that have the theroized capacity to integrate into the host DNA not been detected in the germ line.

But most importantly there are many examples of missing ervs in mankind and those that nest gorilla with chimp to the exclusion of man. These are hand waved away on nothing more than a preconceived assumption all of it being dependent on boot strapping to an already preconcluded assumption.

Your theory that ervs MAY be the result of past retroviral infection is not substantiated in any way. Indeed you cannot tell if these functional remnants caused retorvirus, which is more likely. Evo assumptions are purely theoretical from top to bottom and is going exactly the same way all the evo gobble went around junk dna in general, falsification with more stories to follow.

Evos needed junk, refuse and vestigiallity. Creos need functionality with no refuse to support a created genome. Evos junk is being taken from their quivering hands to demonstrate that TOE has the predictive capacity of a crystal ball and rests on the psuedo science of being unfalsifiable and unstable. Evos will eventually align themselves with creationists, and invent a plethora of ridiculous myths to back peddle and will still look all scientifically retarded. Ha ha!

BTW...I see the evotards are back discussing BS philosophies again

I see Subby has disappeared after stomping his feet so much over ervs that they have ended up in his mouth.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65045
Dec 13, 2012
 
Maz, do you understand that the frequency of ERV's ever attaching themselves successfully to genome is a very very rare event? You might as well try to dispute the lottery since no lottery winner has ever come from a laboratory experiment.

I believe that I can count the number of different ERV's between chimp and man with the fingers of one hand (of course I am smarter than the average bear so that number may be higher than you would first think). That makes it a very rare event since there were millions of years since the separation.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65046
Dec 13, 2012
 
Maz, here is an article that describes how they know that ERV's are viruses. Not only do they look exactly like viruses, but when a ERV was separated from its genome it was able to infect the species:

"We know ERVs are actual remnants of viruses—and not just because they look exactly like viruses, although that should be evidence enough. In 2006, a team of French scientists actually revived an ERV from the human genome, which they dubbed "Phoenix." When introduced to a cluster of human cells, Phoenix was able to infect them—which would of course be impossible if Phoenix wasn't a real virus that actually infected one of our distant ancestors."

http://othersidereflections.blogspot.com/2011...

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65047
Dec 13, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, do you understand that the frequency of ERV's ever attaching themselves successfully to genome is a very very rare event? You might as well try to dispute the lottery since no lottery winner has ever come from a laboratory experiment.
I believe that I can count the number of different ERV's between chimp and man with the fingers of one hand (of course I am smarter than the average bear so that number may be higher than you would first think). That makes it a very rare event since there were millions of years since the separation.
You may be smarter than the average bear but you are not smarter than the average human, that being me.

When you finally decide to actually address my post and the points and questions I present then you can reply to me.

For the moment this waffle, with NO research means you are a lazy quacker and will never win any point on a properly moderated one to one debate.

I can provide numerous examples of non shared and missing ervs. Why should I bother? I support each and every claim I make usually with peer reviewed researh and I have to put up with the likes of quackers like you and Dude providing nothing more than hot air that is usually outdated.

Here Dude is some support for a creationist paradigm.

Recent evaluation of the human genome sequencing data revealed that about 9% of the human genome is comprised of elements with long terminal repeats (LTRs)(LTR retrotransposons)(36, 43, 84) comprising over 200 families (30). The majority of these LTR elements, however, lack sequence similarity to retroviral genes within their internal region or constitute solitary LTRs.

Furthermore, there is evidence that transcription of at least some HERV families may be differentially regulated depending on the cell type. Characterization of promoter activities of HERV-K, HERV-H, HERV-E, ERV9, and HERV-W families, the most intensively studied HERVs, revealed specific cell type preferences for each HERV family, and even individual elements of one family showed significant variation in transcription pattern. In some cases, transcription factor binding sites that interact with cell type-specific nuclear factors could be identified, demonstrating that the expression of HERVs is regulated in a complex and diverse manner comparable to cellular genes.”

http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/341

http://jvi.asm.org/content/79/1/341.full

What Made the Same ERV Transcribe Differently Among Different Cell Types Within the Same Organism? Design explains it, not evolution.

Why are there NO Examples of an ERV that Has Been Recently "Endogenized" or Examples of ERVS that Have A Direct Exogenous Counterpart?

Because ervs are not the remnants of past retroviral infections. If they were and if so many had endogenized so much evos should be observing numerous examples now and the fact is they are not.

Above is just one line of evidence that evos are grabbing at sraws using a crytal ball and in actual fact there is no evidence that retrovirus can or do endogenize at all.

Rather the data demonstrates functionality and genomic material being positioned right where it needs to be to perform the function evolutionists spent over a decade telling us they did not have.

Hence, again, creationist claims and predictions are being validated in time whilst evolutionary claims and predictions are gradually being falsified and reinvented.

Go get a life Subby. Your point score demonstrates you actually do not have one!

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65048
Dec 13, 2012
 
Your theory that ervs MAY be the result of past retroviral infection is not substantiated in any way. Indeed you cannot tell if these functional remnants caused retorvirus, which is more likely. Evo assumptions are purely theoretical from top to bottom and is going exactly the same way all the evo gobble went around junk dna in general, falsification with more stories to follow.
Umm, no. Remember the ERV that was resurrected? Most ERV's are past resurrection. They have been in the genome too long. The one that the French team found was a very recent ERV. Other ERV's that are found in the human genome only, and therefore are relatively recent already have fatal mutations so that they cannot exist as viruses on their own anymore:

http://119.93.223.179/ScienceD irect/Current%20Biology/11-19/ sdarticle_019.pdf

And it seems no one has done the particular research I suggested. That is of comparing known ERV's that were originally the same between say mice, chimps, and men. If I am right there should be a small genetic difference between man and chimp and a much larger one between either man and mouse or chimps and mouse.

Maz, you have already claimed twice that there would be no difference in ERV's.

Prepare for a moving of the goal posts.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65049
Dec 13, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be smarter than the average bear but you are not smarter than the average human, that being me.
When you finally decide to actually address my post and the points and questions I present then you can reply to me.
For the moment this waffle, with NO research means you are a lazy quacker and will never win any point on a properly moderated one to one debate.
I can provide numerous examples of non shared and missing ervs. Why should I bother? I support each and every claim I make usually with peer reviewed researh and I have to put up with the likes of quackers like you and Dude providing nothing more than hot air that is usually outdated.
Here Dude is some support for a creationist paradigm.
Recent evaluation of the human genome sequencing data revealed that about 9% of the human genome is comprised of elements with long terminal repeats (LTRs)(LTR retrotransposons)(36, 43, 84) comprising over 200 families (30). The majority of these LTR elements, however, lack sequence similarity to retroviral genes within their internal region or constitute solitary LTRs.
Furthermore, there is evidence that transcription of at least some HERV families may be differentially regulated depending on the cell type. Characterization of promoter activities of HERV-K, HERV-H, HERV-E, ERV9, and HERV-W families, the most intensively studied HERVs, revealed specific cell type preferences for each HERV family, and even individual elements of one family showed significant variation in transcription pattern. In some cases, transcription factor binding sites that interact with cell type-specific nuclear factors could be identified, demonstrating that the expression of HERVs is regulated in a complex and diverse manner comparable to cellular genes.”
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/341
http://jvi.asm.org/content/79/1/341.full
What Made the Same ERV Transcribe Differently Among Different Cell Types Within the Same Organism? Design explains it, not evolution.
Why are there NO Examples of an ERV that Has Been Recently "Endogenized" or Examples of ERVS that Have A Direct Exogenous Counterpart?
Because ervs are not the remnants of past retroviral infections. If they were and if so many had endogenized so much evos should be observing numerous examples now and the fact is they are not.
Above is just one line of evidence that evos are grabbing at sraws using a crytal ball and in actual fact there is no evidence that retrovirus can or do endogenize at all.
Rather the data demonstrates functionality and genomic material being positioned right where it needs to be to perform the function evolutionists spent over a decade telling us they did not have.
Hence, again, creationist claims and predictions are being validated in time whilst evolutionary claims and predictions are gradually being falsified and reinvented.
Go get a life Subby. Your point score demonstrates you actually do not have one!
More noxious fumes from your blue waffle.

You greatly over estimate your own intelligence. An intelligent person would not misinterpret article after article that actually oppose what you claim. Non-shared ERV's are not an issue for the theory of evolution. Missing ones may be, depending upon how you define "missing". Knowing you and your extremely poor reading comprehension it is more likely that you saw an article that said humans are missing some of the ERV's that other apes have. Now if chimps and gorillas have these missing ERV's that is a problem, if they are held by gorillas and orangutans that is not a problem. Do you know why? Probably not.

And I don't really need research to point out the obvious. With up to hundreds of thousands of generations between ERV's being affixed in nature is it any wonder that they are never seen to fix themselves in the lab? Common sense should have explained to you why this is a nonisssue Maz.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65050
Dec 13, 2012
 
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean to say that during the dark ages God's will was being done on earth as it was being done in heaven?
A couple caveats to that. One is that there is no heaven. two is that there is no God. Therefore there was no 'God's will' being done on earth or in heaven.

But, during the 'Dark Ages' the Universal Church was interpreting the scripture it had...to mean whatever they wanted it to mean. They killed people indiscriminately and in general terrorized the whole population of Europe and parts of Asia. Millions were killed in the name of the Christian God.

Religion, no matter what the brand, is terribly corrosive to human life.
Some Random Dude

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65051
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

"Jesus Loves You". A nice thing to hear in church... A horrific thing to hear if you are in a Mexican prison.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 60,921 - 60,940 of112,800
|
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.

•••
•••