Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220549 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.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#84120 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not a pharmacist. But it doesn't matter. The study of evolution in Biology is irrelevant in Pharmacology. All it needs to is deal with drugs and its effects in the mind and body. With your logic, every major that requires biology means all majors are dependent on evolutionary biology. I believe that's fallacy of division.
What is the use of computer science when dealing with evolution when there is no hard evidence for mutations in speciation? Do you have evidence?
"no hard evidence for mutations in speciation"

You have to be joking right?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#84121 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Aura Mytha, if you studied physics, how is evolution of species relevant in your study?
Did you quit learning? If you did how did you cut your brain off?
Because I have learned 3x as much as I learned in school , since school was out. In fact I have learned so much since school, school was only a point in my education. Much is because the internet, but I think mostly because I wanted to learn more.
So again I ask you , when did you stop learning, and how did you cut your brain off? I spend much time going over theory, watching lectures and visiting websites learning. As well as watching interesting videos relevant to biology, as life fascinates me it became a major curiosity.

I once doubted abiogenesis and evolution, but after careful study
and the above mentioned avenues of research. I'm positive of both and the evidence is there to make me so. Not faith nor hope , no will to be an advocate, in fact I wished it weren't true we are the descendants of primitive primates who were little more than savage animals.

But I reality hit hard and home with the realization, we are the evolutionary descendants of these savage animals. The proof is there ,all the evidence is there, there is no mistaking it, no covering it up or wishing it away. It's simply the truth.

Next question how did we get here? This is a bit more complex than tracing our genetic and fossil history, it involves going back into Earth's deep history , and the formation of this planet itself. This is my major, and the biggest mystery there ever was.
The clues are there though and we can see exactly what happened with what substances that were used. We do not know exactly how yet but are getting close to solving it.

Origin is a burning question that will absolutely not go away until we can conclusively answer how, and all options are on the table. So please don't say the old ones are rejected completely, but we must go where the evidence leads, And it leads to the Early Earth with shallow seas during the last of the heavy bombardment.
That is where it happened. The science is inspiring and is answering that burning question we all want to know.

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/the-shape-o...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84122 Mar 31, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"no hard evidence for mutations in speciation"
You have to be joking right?
I'm not joking.

Science websites states there is no direct evidence for speciation because the event happened in the distant past. Which leaves the theory with just conjectures.

The fruit fly experiment given a different food source for the flies denotes geographic isolation for many generations that led to speciation. With that experimental logic, I can say that an Asian man is a different species than a Caucasian man because of isolating population and they have different food source. Do you not see the flaw in that logic?

What is the true definition of species considering the fact that neanderthals were able to interbreed with homo sapiens?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#84123 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not joking.
Science websites states there is no direct evidence for speciation because the event happened in the distant past. Which leaves the theory with just conjectures.
The fruit fly experiment given a different food source for the flies denotes geographic isolation for many generations that led to speciation. With that experimental logic, I can say that an Asian man is a different species than a Caucasian man because of isolating population and they have different food source. Do you not see the flaw in that logic?
What is the true definition of species considering the fact that neanderthals were able to interbreed with homo sapiens?
There is no "true" definition of species. Many species that are close to each other can interbreed. As species separate at first they can breed together moderately well, ligers and tions come to mind, their offspring can still breed. As they separate more they have offspring that are generally infertile, such as mules.

Species is more a term of convenience rather than a specific term.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84124 Mar 31, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you quit learning? If you did how did you cut your brain off?
Because I have learned 3x as much as I learned in school , since school was out. In fact I have learned so much since school, school was only a point in my education. Much is because the internet, but I think mostly because I wanted to learn more.
So again I ask you , when did you stop learning, and how did you cut your brain off? I spend much time going over theory, watching lectures and visiting websites learning. As well as watching interesting videos relevant to biology, as life fascinates me it became a major curiosity.
I once doubted abiogenesis and evolution, but after careful study
and the above mentioned avenues of research. I'm positive of both and the evidence is there to make me so. Not faith nor hope , no will to be an advocate, in fact I wished it weren't true we are the descendants of primitive primates who were little more than savage animals.
But I reality hit hard and home with the realization, we are the evolutionary descendants of these savage animals. The proof is there ,all the evidence is there, there is no mistaking it, no covering it up or wishing it away. It's simply the truth.
Next question how did we get here? This is a bit more complex than tracing our genetic and fossil history, it involves going back into Earth's deep history , and the formation of this planet itself. This is my major, and the biggest mystery there ever was.
The clues are there though and we can see exactly what happened with what substances that were used. We do not know exactly how yet but are getting close to solving it.
Origin is a burning question that will absolutely not go away until we can conclusively answer how, and all options are on the table. So please don't say the old ones are rejected completely, but we must go where the evidence leads, And it leads to the Early Earth with shallow seas during the last of the heavy bombardment.
That is where it happened. The science is inspiring and is answering that burning question we all want to know.
http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/the-shape-o...
I haven't stopped learning.

With all that research you've done you have not spotted even one contradiction or inconsistencies in the theory of evolution?
Ranx

Naperville, IL

#84125 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not a pharmacist. But it doesn't matter. The study of evolution in Biology is irrelevant in Pharmacology. All it needs to is deal with drugs and its effects in the mind and body. With your logic, every major that requires biology means all majors are dependent on evolutionary biology. I believe that's fallacy of division.
What is the use of computer science when dealing with evolution when there is no hard evidence for mutations in speciation? Do you have evidence?
You're absolutely right. It's not beneficial at all to know how microbes might evolve to become more resistant to the drugs we have access to. It's not like there's drug-resistant TB or methicillin-proof staph or anything like th..

Oh, wait.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#84126 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not joking.
Science websites states there is no direct evidence for speciation because the event happened in the distant past. Which leaves the theory with just conjectures.
The fruit fly experiment given a different food source for the flies denotes geographic isolation for many generations that led to speciation. With that experimental logic, I can say that an Asian man is a different species than a Caucasian man because of isolating population and they have different food source. Do you not see the flaw in that logic?
What is the true definition of species considering the fact that neanderthals were able to interbreed with homo sapiens?
Okay there is only one species of primate that is human, all races fit within it, we are all the same species.
But the fact that Neandertal may have interbreed with humans is not surprising , as many species close on the tree in fact can.
It's not surprising and a welcome thought.
Because our cousins have all died out, and maybe one day we can bring them back. To me that would be the greatest thing. Such as
floresiensis dude would be so cool to see him goofing off at
Venice beach. The neandertal reconstructions show toward the end they were nearly indistinguishable from other humans.
As this 24,000 ya 4 year old boy shows us.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84127 Mar 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "true" definition of species. Many species that are close to each other can interbreed. As species separate at first they can breed together moderately well, ligers and tions come to mind, their offspring can still breed. As they separate more they have offspring that are generally infertile, such as mules.
Species is more a term of convenience rather than a specific term.
How many liligers are there in the wild? It is very rare even in captivity and ligers and tions usually produce sterile offspring. Imagine the odds of macro-evolution that would take massive amounts of mutations for many generations?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#84128 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't stopped learning.
With all that research you've done you have not spotted even one contradiction or inconsistencies in the theory of evolution?
The only contradiction is manufactured by those who oppose the idea, and within the scientific community, religious people included there is none. If there were it would falsify it and we would have to scrap it. So many scientists try and it is their job to do so, but are unable to because a convergence of the evidence make everything fit. From DNA, ERVs the fossil record , nestled hierarchy .
And the timeline itself support the evolution of life , through 5 major extinctions each time new species emerging. All this fits together in the fossil record.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#84129 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
How many liligers are there in the wild? It is very rare even in captivity and ligers and tions usually produce sterile offspring. Imagine the odds of macro-evolution that would take massive amounts of mutations for many generations?
There are no ligers in the wild since they don't live in the same environments. Part of speciezation is the separation of the animals into different environments.

And as to the second part of your post what was the point?

We have had over 3 billion years since life first showed up for it to evolve.

The amount of difference in species matches up very nicely with the rate of evolution.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84130 Mar 31, 2013
Ranx wrote:
<quoted text>
You're absolutely right. It's not beneficial at all to know how microbes might evolve to become more resistant to the drugs we have access to. It's not like there's drug-resistant TB or methicillin-proof staph or anything like th..
Oh, wait.
Oh wow, we now have evidence for evolution. Superbugs!

How do you explain the Lederberg experiment when the antibiotic-resistant bacteria have already existed before penicillin or sreptomycin treatment? How do you explain endospores in bacteria that contain resistance to antibiotics? It can even survive an ultraviolet radiation. The wiki article even says that resitome or resistant gene may have already been present in the bacteria. Can you demonstrate the mutation if that did occur?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#84131 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow, we now have evidence for evolution. Superbugs!
How do you explain the Lederberg experiment when the antibiotic-resistant bacteria have already existed before penicillin or sreptomycin treatment? How do you explain endospores in bacteria that contain resistance to antibiotics? It can even survive an ultraviolet radiation. The wiki article even says that resitome or resistant gene may have already been present in the bacteria. Can you demonstrate the mutation if that did occur?
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.1/1800....

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#84132 Mar 31, 2013
DUDES...GIVE IT A REST...it's EASTER!!!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84133 Mar 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no ligers in the wild since they don't live in the same environments. Part of speciezation is the separation of the animals into different environments.
So only humans can have different races due to geographic or population isolation, and when it comes to animals, they are different species?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And as to the second part of your post what was the point?
Macro-evolution has not been observed directly. Or have you?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We have had over 3 billion years since life first showed up for it to evolve.
The amount of difference in species matches up very nicely with the rate of evolution.
Were you alive 3 billion years ago?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#84134 Mar 31, 2013
Colorado Chick wrote:
DUDES...GIVE IT A REST...it's EASTER!!!
Actually that was yesterday , here...but what difference does that make? I mean if we stay up late will we catch the Easter bunny or something?
James Bond OO7

Los Angeles, CA

#84135 Mar 31, 2013
worthless debate, atleast after reading all the posts, i appreciate myself for not choosing biology, much tougher then physics and math.....
James Bond OO7

Los Angeles, CA

#84136 Mar 31, 2013
wht does music do to us, crazy tones make us frisky

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84137 Mar 31, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Seriously tell me why doctors need to know we evolved from fish?

Natural selection is fact, within a closed system. Mutation is fact, but not on a larger scale as in macro-evolution unless you have DNA evidence.

The rest it just junk.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#84138 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So only humans can have different races due to geographic or population isolation, and when it comes to animals, they are different species?
<quoted text>
Macro-evolution has not been observed directly. Or have you?
<quoted text>
Were you alive 3 billion years ago?
Please don't try to put words in my mouth.

The differences between human "races" is extremely small. Less than the difference between different dogs.

Specieization is not even considered to have started until there are some limitations of fertility either between two individuals or their offspring.

All observations are "indirect". Even if you see something with your eyes your are merely interpreting the light bouncing off of an object. So if you cannot find a flaw in the fossil record then I have observed evolution directly. It can also be observed via phylogentic trees quite a few different ways. The ways that evolution has been observed is much more reliable than mere eyewitness testimony.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#84139 Mar 31, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Oh...but they can be answered, this is the thing you deny and despise the most.
That answer is in -conclusive and un-truthful. A simple answer, you don't know. Guessing will not do the magic.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Subduction Zone 61,215
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 28 min Subduction Zone 2,675
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr River Tam 160,259
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Dogen 28,314
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Thu Regolith Based Li... 99
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mar 16 Dogen 180,394
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) Mar 15 fransherrell 227
More from around the web