Evolution vs. Creation

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

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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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/...

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Chimney1 531
How would creationists explain... 1 hr Chimney1 334
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... 1 hr nobody 7
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 12 hr Brian_G 13,618
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Fri Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web