Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 159,270
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94082 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. No new genes can be created, as evolution requires.
As I said it makes copies , but the copies differ slightly.
So they change over time, this is how they can become completely different. This is also very old news and evolution is a fact.
Species change and evolution is real, quit whining about it.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94083 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you've never heard of gene duplication.
You keep saying it's been debunked but never provide any references or citations. Can you or are we to assume you're just blowing smoke?
Gene duplication... Such as Down's syndrome?
Gene duplication does not result in any novel traits.
No references or citations are needed to debunk evolution.
I have personally debunked evolution on this forum repeatedly.
My unanswered challenges are only met with derision against religion.
Falsification of a theory does not require formal concessions by those who are religiously committed to it.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94084 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. There are several different ways that mutations occur in DNA. By definition those are new genes.
And technically we are apes. We have been classified as apes long before Darwin's theory. In fact the person who first realized we were apes was Linnaeus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus
The blind parroting of evo-dogma is pointless, SZ.
Simply stating that "we are apes" doesn't make it so.
You should speak for yourself.
I know that your religion requires you to desperately want to be related to apes, but that is your problem.
Before you make such asinine statements, perhaps you should define "ape" and then I will immediately humiliate you.

Since: Jun 13

Franklin, KY

#94085 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Gene duplication... Such as Down's syndrome?
Gene duplication does not result in any novel traits.
No references or citations are needed to debunk evolution.
I have personally debunked evolution on this forum repeatedly.
My unanswered challenges are only met with derision against religion.
Falsification of a theory does not require formal concessions by those who are religiously committed to it.
Sad but true. Evolution has become a cult.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94086 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Fyi: Wikipedia is a poor source. Iv wouldn't trust it enough to formulate my own opinions.
We are apes? interesting. I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)


Now trolly define the key word here.

"divergent"

Note it say's remarkably divergent.

1. Drawing apart from a common point; diverging.
5. Biology The evolutionary tendency or process by which animals or plants that are descended from a common ancestor evolve into different forms when living under different conditions.

Genetic divergence

Genetic divergence is the process in which two or more populations of an ancestral species accumulate independent genetic changes (mutations) through time, often after the populations have become reproductively isolated for some period of time. In some cases, subpopulations living in ecologically distinct peripheral environments can exhibit genetic divergence from the remainder of a population, especially where the range of a population is very large (see parapatric speciation). The genetic differences among divergent populations can involve silent mutations (that have no effect on the phenotype) or give rise to significant morphological and/or physiological changes.

Genetic divergence will always accompany reproductive isolation, either due to novel adaptations via selection and/or due to genetic drift, and is the principal mechanism underlying speciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_divergen...

Since: Jun 13

Franklin, KY

#94087 Jun 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>As I said it makes copies , but the copies differ slightly.
So they change over time, this is how they can become completely different. This is also very old news and evolution is a fact.
Species change and evolution is real, quit whining about it.
Read the difference between adaptation and evolution. Genes cannot be made new. Look at what happens when genes to differ. It's a disaster.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94088 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The blind parroting of evo-dogma is pointless, SZ.
Simply stating that "we are apes" doesn't make it so.
You should speak for yourself.
I know that your religion requires you to desperately want to be related to apes, but that is your problem.
Before you make such asinine statements, perhaps you should define "ape" and then I will immediately humiliate you.
Hey tard!

Did you notice the link?

Linnaeus was even one of you and he still recognized that we are apes.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#94089 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. No new genes can be created, as evolution requires.
Evolution does not require genes to be created, however genes do evolve over time as necessary. Kind of a counter-point to Creation, don't you think?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94090 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Fyi: Wikipedia is a poor source. Iv wouldn't trust it enough to formulate my own opinions.
We are apes? interesting. I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
Wrong. Wikipedia is an excellent source these days. It has been found to be at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not so easily changed by a whim any more. And if someone makes a false entry it is quickly corrected.

Lastly most articles have links that you can follow making it an excellent starting point.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94091 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the difference between adaptation and evolution. Genes cannot be made new. Look at what happens when genes to differ. It's a disaster.
Why were your new genes too tight? BTW that's spelled jeans.
Yes too tight jeans can be a disaster.

Since: Jun 13

Franklin, KY

#94092 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. Wikipedia is an excellent source these days. It has been found to be at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not so easily changed by a whim any more. And if someone makes a false entry it is quickly corrected.

Lastly most articles have links that you can follow making it an excellent starting point.
You stick with the Wikipedia entries that you agree with, and I'll use scientific journals. Fine with me.

No ones seems eager to challenge my point. Once again, I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?

(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94093 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. No new genes can be created, as evolution requires.
Additional genes are additional genes. Like it or not.

Since: Jun 13

Franklin, KY

#94094 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Additional genes are additional genes. Like it or not.
Now you are claiming that genes can be created and reorganized? One of many reasons evolution has been debunked: there is there is no genetic mechanism that creates and reorganizes genes.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#94095 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
You stick with the Wikipedia entries that you agree with, and I'll use scientific journals. Fine with me.
No ones seems eager to challenge my point. Once again, I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
Yes, and the Nature article you reference seems to confirm the Theory of Evolution.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94096 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
No references or citations are needed to debunk evolution.
Uh, yeah they are, Dr Phony.
HTS wrote:
I have personally debunked evolution on this forum repeatedly.
Nope. Never happened. Only in your dreams.
HTS wrote:
My unanswered challenges are only met with derision against religion.
Another lie. Why do you have to lie so much.
HTS wrote:
Falsification of a theory does not require formal concessions by those who are religiously committed to it.
Why do you keep bringing up religion?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#94097 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
You stick with the Wikipedia entries that you agree with, and I'll use scientific journals. Fine with me.
No ones seems eager to challenge my point. Once again, I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
These changed after the split. In fact, we lost more DNA after the split than apes, but we still share around 95% of our genes with them. It is obvious that humans and apes come from the same fabric, but have evolved over time to suite our differing needs. Is this what you are trying to point out?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94098 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
You stick with the Wikipedia entries that you agree with, and I'll use scientific journals. Fine with me.
No ones seems eager to challenge my point. Once again, I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
This article is NOT saying what you think.
It also affirms the common ancestry between chimps and humans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94099 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the difference between adaptation and evolution. Genes cannot be made new. Look at what happens when genes to differ. It's a disaster.
Since your genes are not identical to those of your parents, are you telling us you are a disaster? No argument from me.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94100 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are claiming that genes can be created and reorganized? One of many reasons evolution has been debunked: there is there is no genetic mechanism that creates and reorganizes genes.
Now is that what I said? Are you doing to take the dishonest approach and rather than address what I did say and just make up shit?

By the way, you're wrong. You may want to research the reorganization of DNA in the floating bladderwort. I'd give you a Wiki link but you seem to think you're more knowledgeable so I won't waste my time.

Try this one:
http://www.the-scientist.com/...

Since: Jun 13

Franklin, KY

#94101 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Since your genes are not identical to those of your parents, are you telling us you are a disaster? No argument from me.
Everyone seems to be dodging my question and turning to adaptation or even conception to redirect away from my point. The "radical" differences cannot be explained by evolution.

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 Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 min Dogen 1,032
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,436
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Dogen 141,211
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr One way or another 178,494
Humans DID evolve from apes! (Oct '14) Fri Chimney1 68
Poll How Do You View The New Millerite Adventist Inv... Apr 13 Zog Has-fallen 1
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) Apr 13 Denisova 360
More from around the web