Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197595 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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#89226 May 16, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>I speak Russian and Swedish in addition to Tennessean, English and some American.
I speak five languages, with varying degrees of fluency.

Six if you count Elvish.

English is not my first.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#89227 May 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in Tennessee :^D
And for an outsider to correctly pronounce "Louisville" (I know, it is Kentucky not Tennessee) you can put either a handful of marbles or gravel in your mouth and your pronunciation will be just like a native's.
I remain unconvinced that most Americans speak English at all...

SORRY!

Hehehe.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#89228 May 16, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Now please tell me again the number of years you served and to what rank you acquired,
All my life and , I am a Field Marshal and have never suffered defeat.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#89229 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, re" "Lacotose Intoerance": Have you heard about Ötzi, the 5300 year-old "Ice Mummy" they found in the Alps in 1991?
They *DID* extract some of his DNA, and guess what?
"Mutations to the iceman's MCM6 gene suggest he could not digest the lactose sugar in milk – unlike most modern Europeans. "Maybe at that time most people were still lactose-intolerant," says Zink. "The change to farming livestock [in Europe] only began between about 5000 and 10,000 years ago and so digesting milk became an advantage.""
He also had a better-than-average chance to develop heart disease.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21523-o...
So yes, we *DO* have DNA from ancient peoples (including Neanderthal -- who may also have been lactose intolerant).
The genetic mutations that cause lactose (in)tolerance is quite well known and documented, as well as the genes and mutations for a host of other benign and not-so-benign genetic conditions (see "Angelina Jolie"/brest cancer).
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#89230 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
You know, if I was as stupid as you, I'd never show my face in public for fear of being recognized. You have already been informed that carbon dating is not the only dating method utilized, and in ice samples, you don't even use carbon dating.
FREE SERVANT
#89231 May 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um ... the instinct to not die.
Some creatures who mate for life don't live long after their mate dies, why is that?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#89232 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence do you have that the capacity to digest lactose resulted from a mutation? Do you have access to human DNA from thousands of years ago?
For one thing it is isolated to discreet populations. For another, it was unnecessary until we started using milk as a food source. That didn't happen until very recent times. I believe that the center of origin of the mutation is Egypt. As a matter a fact, we do have access to DNA from humans of the recent past. As a matter of fact, science has put together a much of the Neanderthal genome. A small amount of that genome has been demonstrated to be in us modern humans. Do you not read anything but the Bible? You don't appear to read that with any comprehension either.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#89233 May 16, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Some creatures who mate for life don't live long after their mate dies, why is that?
Erm, evolutionary trait, why do you ask questions that are answered in textbooks?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#89234 May 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, if I was as stupid as you, I'd never show my face in public for fear of being recognized. You have already been informed that carbon dating is not the only dating method utilized, and in ice samples, you don't even use carbon dating.
What methology was used to date the mummy, and what is the proof that it is accurate and reproducible?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#89235 May 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>For one thing it is isolated to discreet populations. For another, it was unnecessary until we started using milk as a food source. That didn't happen until very recent times. I believe that the center of origin of the mutation is Egypt. As a matter a fact, we do have access to DNA from humans of the recent past. As a matter of fact, science has put together a much of the Neanderthal genome. A small amount of that genome has been demonstrated to be in us modern humans. Do you not read anything but the Bible? You don't appear to read that with any comprehension either.
Nice dodge, Dan.
You didn't explain how anyone has documented that the capacity to digest lactose is the result of a mutation. All you've presented is raw speculation.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#89236 May 16, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Some creatures who mate for life don't live long after their mate dies, why is that?
Perhaps because no-one is watching their back.

Never mind - some creatures who mate for life die young, too. Without losing a mate.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#89237 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
When you want to show your stupidity, you like to kick all the jams don't you. Radiocarbon dating can date materials up to 50,000 years old. The mutation that allows for lactose digestion by adults of certain populations occurred sometime in the last 10,000 years. I have seen one estimate that placed it at 3-5000 years ago, but I could be remembering wrong. It turns out that lactose digestion by populations in Africa is the result of a different and independent mutation than that found in Europeans. Finally something you are right about. Just because one individual shows lactose intolerance does not mean they all did, but even that small a sample does provide us with a window to peer into the genetics of that population and it is another piece of evidence that fits right in the story of the lactose digestion mutation.

You keep making the half-assed, inane claims and we keep shooting them down with real evidence. I think when you say you like science, what you are really saying is you like pretty plants and animals. But you know nothing beyond the aesthetics.

Here is the reference to the paper on the origin of lactose digestion in Africa for those actually interested in science.

Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A Reed, Alessia Ranciaro, et. al. 2007. Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe. Nature Genetics. 39(1): 31-40.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#89238 May 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>When you want to show your stupidity, you like to kick all the jams don't you. Radiocarbon dating can date materials up to 50,000 years old. The mutation that allows for lactose digestion by adults of certain populations occurred sometime in the last 10,000 years. I have seen one estimate that placed it at 3-5000 years ago, but I could be remembering wrong. It turns out that lactose digestion by populations in Africa is the result of a different and independent mutation than that found in Europeans. Finally something you are right about. Just because one individual shows lactose intolerance does not mean they all did, but even that small a sample does provide us with a window to peer into the genetics of that population and it is another piece of evidence that fits right in the story of the lactose digestion mutation.
You keep making the half-assed, inane claims and we keep shooting them down with real evidence. I think when you say you like science, what you are really saying is you like pretty plants and animals. But you know nothing beyond the aesthetics.
Here is the reference to the paper on the origin of lactose digestion in Africa for those actually interested in science.
Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A Reed, Alessia Ranciaro, et. al. 2007. Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe. Nature Genetics. 39(1): 31-40.
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89239 May 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, if I was as stupid as you, I'd never show my face in public for fear of being recognized. You have already been informed that carbon dating is not the only dating method utilized, and in ice samples, you don't even use carbon dating.
KK, I actually did check up on the dating method used on Ötzi, and they DID use C14 dating techniques on his mummy.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#89240 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
KK, I actually did check up on the dating method used on Ötzi, and they DID use C14 dating techniques on his mummy.

He was smoking...again. LOL

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89241 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
Damn, you're ignorant.

Here, check out **THIS** guy:

Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

Per Dr. Wiens: "Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old."
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.
Is the Mayo Clinic good enough for you?

(a surprise awaits at the end of the paragraph)

There are three types of lactose intolerance.

1. Normal result of aging for some people (primary lactose intolerance)
Normally, your body produces large amounts of lactase at birth and during early childhood, when milk is the primary source of nutrition. <<truncated>>

2. Result of illness or injury (secondary lactose intolerance)
This form of lactose intolerance occurs when your small intestine decreases lactase production after an illness, surgery or injury to your small intestine. <<truncated>>

3. Condition you're born with (congenital lactose intolerance)
It's possible, but rare, for babies to be born with lactose intolerance caused by a complete absence of lactase activity. This disorder is passed from generation to generation in a pattern of inheritance called autosomal recessive. This means that both the mother and the father must pass on the defective form of the gene for a child to be affected. Infants with congenital lactose intolerance are intolerant of the lactose in their mothers' breast milk and have diarrhea from birth. These babies require lactose-free infant formulas. Premature infants may also have lactose intolerance because of an insufficient lactase level. In babies who are otherwise healthy, this doesn't lead to malnutrition.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lactose-into...

To be honest, I was under the impression that lactose intolerance was ONLY caused by genetic mutation, so I guess I have you to thank for my education. You can now thank ME for YOUR edcuation.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#89242 May 16, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Some creatures who mate for life don't live long after their mate dies, why is that?
They heard you were going to be talking about them and couldn't go on with that knowledge.

What species would you offer as an example?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89243 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
No, all that means is that at worst the dates for times beyond 3,500 years are not as accurate as those from times before 3,500 years ago.. There is no reason to propose a massive change in the amount of C14 produced in the upper atmosphere.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89244 May 16, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Now please tell me again the number of years you served and to what rank you acquired,
7 billion, rank: Time Lord!

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#89245 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.
You simply claim that radiometric carbon dating is only good for a few thousand years. There is definitely no science behind that.
I haven't dodged anything and you are once again showing your dishonesty. Really, how are you going to be taken seriously at all when you throw away your ethics and credibility.
Would look up the word dogma for God's sake and read the definition. Do you need your hand held and walked to the truth. Read the article I sited. It will show you how.

Quick and dirty. If you want to know what a gene does, you knock it. You do understand that genes do something don't you? I ask because I already wonder what you know of science, biology and the like. Genes express themselves as traits. Traits are characters like height, weight, intelligence, number of legs, hair color, skin texture, etc., etc., etc. If you find a trait in a particular population that isn't in other populations, then maybe there is a new gene there too. What do you think sport? We can find those genes. Amazing isn't it. Where did this gene come from? Looking at the gene will tell you something about that. Stay with me now, I know this technical stuff really mires you down. Now read the paper and any others you find. They will tell you the rest. I am assuming you can read based on this forum, but I have doubts about the comprehension so take it slow.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr NightSerf 13,374
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 31,421
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Chimney1 151,051
This is how christians fumble up the evolution ... 21 hr zxx838557 1
Rome Viharo debunks evolution Sun Paul Porter1 2
Evolution in action May 27 MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
More from around the web