Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168613 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.

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?

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#94102 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sure it can be, your paper described it as "rapid evolution".
So are you now arguing against the paper YOU presented as evidence and YOU cited?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94103 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey tard!
Did you notice the link?
Linnaeus was even one of you and he still recognized that we are apes.
I notice that, as usual, you dodge all questions.
If you're going to go around blathering about humans being apes, then you should know what an ape is.
But, no.... All you know how to do is repeat dogma that has been hurled at you by the MSM.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94104 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.)
All scientific journals support evolution.

Wikipedia is just a nice shortcut. If the debate gets serious enough I go to journals myself. But well over 90% of all creationist bullshit can be debunked with Wii.

Since: Jun 13

Franklin, KY

#94105 Jun 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it can be, your paper described it as "rapid evolution".
So are you now arguing against the paper YOU presented as evidence and YOU cited?
I am getting tired of this silliness. This is my last post. I used a scientific journal as a source, others are using Wikipedia, and magazines. How can I argue facts with people who refuse to look at real scientific evidence and prefer magazine articles?

Again, there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. So keep avoiding my question. Although one comment used conception as a way to create new genes. Where would I even start with something like that? New species come from conception?! Silly stuff

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94106 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.
Repeating lies does not make them true. Here is on way that genes can evolve and be reorganized:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/bio5410/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94107 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice that, as usual, you dodge all questions.
If you're going to go around blathering about humans being apes, then you should know what an ape is.
But, no.... All you know how to do is repeat dogma that has been hurled at you by the MSM.
Idiot, I am not an expert in everything, though it may seem that way to a tard like me. There are times when it is correct to go to experts. This is one of them. Perhaps you should have read the Wiki article that I linked earlier:
Linnaeus classified humans among the primates (as they were later called) beginning with the first edition of Systema Naturae. During his time at Hartekamp, he had the opportunity to examine several monkeys and noted similarities between them and man.[82] He pointed out both species basically have the same anatomy; except for speech, he found no other differences.[134][note 5] Thus he placed man and monkeys under the same category, Anthropomorpha, meaning "manlike."[135] This classification received criticism from other biologists such as Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, Jacob Theodor Klein and Johann Georg Gmelin on the ground that it is illogical to describe a human as 'like a man'.[136] In a letter to Gmelin from 1747, Linnaeus replied:[137][note 6]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form',[note 7] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History.[note 8] I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94108 Jun 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> 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...
Molecular homology does nothing to prove an ancestral relationship between chimps and humans.
If you want to prove common descent, then take a chimp and selectively breed it into a human.
Absurd?... Well, that's what you believe in...

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#94110 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Molecular homology does nothing to prove an ancestral relationship between chimps and humans.
If you want to prove common descent, then take a chimp and selectively breed it into a human.
Absurd?... Well, that's what you believe in...
Common ancestry has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, you on the other hand have proven nothing except.....
A person can deny anything and everything they don't want to hear.
But it doesn't matter if you deny and tell me the same thing everyday in here. It isn't going to change the status that these are world-widely accepted scientific facts you deny.
So you aren't doing anything in here but making an ass out of yourself.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94111 Jun 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Common ancestry has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, you on the other hand have proven nothing except.....
A person can deny anything and everything they don't want to hear.
But it doesn't matter if you deny and tell me the same thing everyday in here. It isn't going to change the status that these are world-widely accepted scientific facts you deny.
So you aren't doing anything in here but making an ass out of yourself.
It doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate the same failed arguments, you cannot present one shred of scientific evidence that humans and apes [or any other species] are related by common descent. Molecular homology is a pointless argument, soundly debunked over and over again. Despite repeatedmchallenges, you have failed to provide any scientific evidence as to how molecular homology is inconsistent with intelligent design. The simple parroting of the same worthless argument only underscores the weakness of your religion in explaining the natural world.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94112 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
All scientific journals support evolution.
.
What a load of pure BS.

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) 3 hr Paul Porter1 141,801
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 4 hr NoahLovesU 6,174
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Brian_G 19,746
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 9 hr GTID62 192
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jun 29 Chimney1 560
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Jun 28 Chimney1 178,667
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web