Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209847 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83726 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the bird ring species was not observed diversifying from one to two are more species which formed your so called ring species... YOU ASSUME DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION AND ORIGIN OF DIFFERENT ring species. Once again, the creation of a ring species has not been observed by the biological species concept.
Ring species are *evidence* of descent with modification. This is reality. It is observed. What you are doing is moving back the goalposts to allow a "little bit" of evolution, but not too much that it violates your philosophical/theological beefs with reality.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83727 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction and my apologies for the mis-explanation. I mean when it comes to a biological reproductive species the laws of nature governs all of them the same with no exceptions. This means if the biological species concept applies to one then it applies to all biological reproductive species with no exception. You saying that the ring species disprove my biological species concept and now I want the evidence of a reproductive species starting as one species diversing into your ring species using the biological species concept. I don't want your similarity assumption species term, I want this proved through the same species term I am using. You cannot use a species term that is based on pure assumption to disqaulify my specoes term that is built on pure observation.
We don't HAVE to stick to your definitions, because your opinions are irrelevant. Not that you've even explained exactly what your definition of species is.(shrug)
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#83728 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> From a paper 2 years more recent than yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
Quotes from your paper. Support OUR postion, not yours, right?

Conclusion
Nine families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses have been transpositionally active since chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor. Seven of these transpositionally active families have orthologs in humans, one of which has also been transpositionally active in humans since the human-chimpanzee divergence about six million years ago. Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes have revealed that a significant portion of INDEL variation between chimpanzees and humans is attributable to endogenous retroviruses and may be of evolutionary significance.

Of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses identified in this study, 40 were found to have orthologues in the human genome, including 9 that were identified in this study for the first time [14]

A member of only one class II family, CERV 30 (HERV K10), has been transpositionally active since the divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83729 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Where can you show that has happened as factual in human population?
Humans have not diverged enough yet to cause speciation. However their genetic variance *is* observed.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83730 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So how would the information from the outside world, such as leaves on a tree in relation to a giraffe growing a longer neck to reach a food source come about to mutate the genes?
It's been nearly two years and you fundies still argue against goal-directed evolution.

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83731 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
the implication was that a giraffe grows a longer neck by evolutionary means over a period of time to reach a food source.
I asked how the information is transferred from the physical world to the biological construct of giraffe.
do you know or not?
Yes, we know that intended goals are not what drives evolution. Giraffe developed longer necks. If they didn't they simply wouldn't be eating that food at the top of the tree.(shrug)

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83732 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually what he claimed was correct. Here it is for the hundredth time (or so):
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
I like that. Thanks.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83733 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>One would expect that if that hypothesis were correct, even 4 million years should have certainly produced a tangible proof in the human genetic evolution. If the scenario of birds you offer as example of geological separation, and producing(causing) the inability to procreate due to genetic deformation of evolution, then the very same scenario should have produced like results in humans as well, especially over even longer periods of time and history...and yet it (in fact) has not.
Why not?
4 million years? Well the lineages of humans and chimps diverged around 6-7 million years ago we DO have that evidence. As for the humans that are left today, it's also worth bearing in mind that geographical separation is less of a factor today due to the development of boats and planes. So the constant mixing of genes slows things down.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83734 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeap! No matter how many generations down, the first generation will be the same biological species as the millionth generation down. This is what I mean by fixed.
The fossil record and genetics does not support your position.

Oh wait - I forgot you proposed alien UFO's coming down once every 1 million years to drop off new species. Or something.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83735 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so in other words you don't know.
Yes, we know that your question itself betrays a misunderstanding of the concepts involved. You may as well have been asking why are there still monkeys.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83736 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>If not by the inference of genetic information being passed as mutative cellular action within spermiation or zygote, then how and why would one neck of a giraffe grow to different lengths than another in the same environment?
IOW- there had to have been a transfer of genetic information for the mutation to even have happened....
OR- it never happened.
Let me point out where your entire premise falls apart utterly:
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
IOW- there had to have been a transfer of genetic information for the mutation to even have happened
Mutations are NEW information. If you transfer EXISTING information that is NOT new information. Organism 1 does not "transfer" mutations to its offspring organism 2. Organism 1 transfers its existing genetic material to organism 2 and organism 2 undergoes mutations during development, thereby ending up with a small amount of genetic material which is NOT shared by either parent.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83737 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So Giraffes with longer necks eat better because they can reach higher for their food source.
And this is by no way implies any kind of information that was transferred from the physical world to the Giraffe.
Right.lol
Correct. They could have simply stayed short and competed with other short mammals. You continually claim that evolution claims that there was an intended goal, despite the fact that we have argued the opposite from the beginning.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83738 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What are these places in history...please be specific..
There are several. One would be Gobekli tepe.
!2'000 years ago, hunter gatherers built a 30 or more acre complex with elaborate carvings in stones weighing tons..then 1000 or so yrs later they carefully fill it all back in with sand and stone and completely disappear...
What were these "apemen" who were not considered far from treehangers with primitive spears etc. possibly thinking of? Fooling the world into thinking they possessed intelligence and abilities thousands of years beyond their capability and social structure?
How dare they screw with the future anthropologists like that!..knowing full well they were totally out of place in history and all.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83739 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the logic of evolution, yes. your theory mentioned favoring animals with light colored fur...(evolution) and ones that can molt or change their color s the seasons change would also support the fittest for survival passing on their genes...(evolution)
any questions?
Nope. I agree.
Any questions?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83740 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Fail.
With the thousands of years of (supposed)continental separation of humanoid species, there surely should have been differences in physical abilities and biological differences that your "circle species" argument infers.
I have yet to see you produce an example of that as the case ...therefore that argument is BS as it is presented.
Your argument concerning earlier species is purely hypothetical also...as you have NO tangible proof that any of it is valid and actuality.
Show us any skeletal and genetic matches for any humanoid mutation that can in any way "prove" the evolution of the humanoid line as it is proposed, and the reasons for the occurrences of change and/or mutation. The earliest known ancestor of man was 4.4 million years ago...so don't hand me that BS either.
Here it is again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

And:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

Not sure what you mean by the "reasons" for mutation. They simply happen. That's why you are born with around 125 to 175 mutations which are not shared by either of your parents. This is a normal part of human reproduction. So to me it sounds like you are thinking that evolution involves some kind of goal-direction. This is a common mistake made by creationists, which probably stems from their assumption that humans were always the intended goal since God made them that way.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#83741 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the humans that are left today, it's also worth bearing in mind that geographical separation is less of a factor today due to the development of boats and planes. So the constant mixing of genes slows things down.
Imagine in the not-distant future, if humanity sends a colony to Mars. They live there, gradually expanding their numbers as the years go by. And gradually, babies are born with longer, lighter limbs as natural selection favors thinner bodies in the lower gravity of Mars.

Say also that they begin to gradually have lung changes as they begin to acclimate to the different Martian atmosphere- say the way we know that some fish on earth developed into lungfish/mudskippers and then transitioned into full air-breathing land creatures.

After a long time, say some of these "Martians" come back to visit the earth, looking very different and having different lung setups -- perhaps they would need breathing tanks to walk around on earth.

Would earth people want to "breed" with them? Would offspring be sterile, or even possible?

Or would they be too different, because of the changes brought about by their situation of reproductive isolation?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83742 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>"mysterious transfer"?
hahahahahahah!
Is that what you call "science"?
Sounds more like the new developing "myth" to me.
So, again, I must ask ---why are there no humanoid species difference that can no longer interbreed??
Or is that another "mysterious" scientific process?
hahahahahah!
Hello?
Why there are PLENTY of humanoid species which can no longer interbreed.

They're called the great apes.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83743 Mar 29, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of crap.
What fundie site do you get your crappy error ridden data from??
You seem to be quite good at picking accusing points...so why don't you just pick one...one that suits your fancy of course there lightning.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83744 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Black Thunder's first fail was such a train wreck that I missed his second massive fail in his post.
Once again, the reason that there are no other hominids that can interbreed with man is that they went extinct. They all died off. They could not handle the pressure. Many animal species go extinct every year. Did you think that our relatives were immune to extinction?
Well if he's talking hominids, sure. That's why neanderthals aren't around anymore. But since humans are apes and there's plenty of other apes which we can't breed with then I don't understand why he thinks there's no evidence of other species similar to humans which we can't breed with anymore.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83745 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.
The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
LOL!

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min Kenedy njoroge 152,220
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min Into The Night 20,271
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min Into The Night 45,558
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web