Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173480 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#94175 Jun 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowardly dodge, huh? You cite a 40+ year old publication as if it were still germane today. If you knew what you were talking about and understood the modern definition of homology, you wouldn't make such a foolish mistake.
But continue to act like a jackass, Dr Phony.
If you think De Beer's research is irrelevant today, then state specifically what has been done to disprove it. Broadly stating that all research dating back to 1971 should be discounted is stupid. His research has withstood 40+ years of scrutiny, and he commands a great deal of respect as an embryologist.

All that has been done is re-defining terminology. Homologous structures produced by non-homologous genes are now designated "analogous". Inventing new words doesn't erase any obstacles to evolution.

This is yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. You can imagine that the flipper of a dolphin is homologous to the hand of a man. Genetic studies disprove your intuitions. Naive hunches must capitulate to science.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#94176 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, Mike...you're predicting that every journal published today will be garbage in 40 years.
The "modern definition of homology" is a carefully contrived rationalization tailored to fit evolution.
"Modern definition of homology" was coined by Owens in 1843.
"Origin of Species" was published in 1859.

According to your statement and your own biblical standards, the Theory of Evolution was prophesied and fulfilled.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94177 Jun 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Modern definition of homology" was coined by Owens in 1843.
"Origin of Species" was published in 1859.
According to your statement and your own biblical standards, the Theory of Evolution was prophesied and fulfilled.
Totally irrelevant comment.
Mike was referring to a revised definition homology made after 1971, because De Beer's research debunked Darwin's claims of relatedness by simplistically documenting homology.

And what's this nonsense about ToE fulfilling Biblical prophesy?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94178 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, evotard sources...like talkorigins, since they openly lie when necessary.
It really gets to you tards that that is not the case isn't it?

We have shown that the honesty of your site is extremely dubious. So much so that you are afraid to use it when that was your source for an idea, your latest DeBeer's claim for example.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#94179 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally irrelevant comment.
Mike was referring to a revised definition homology made after 1971, because De Beer's research debunked Darwin's claims of relatedness by simplistically documenting homology.
And what's this nonsense about ToE fulfilling Biblical prophesy?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I don't think you have the slightest idea what anyone is talking about, unless their sentence ends with "In Jesus' name, Amen."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94180 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally irrelevant comment.
Mike was referring to a revised definition homology made after 1971, because De Beer's research debunked Darwin's claims of relatedness by simplistically documenting homology.
And what's this nonsense about ToE fulfilling Biblical prophesy?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
From your description of the process he debunked nothing.

That is one of the reasons that we demand the sources. It is extremely doubtful that DeBeer was as stupid as you are. There always is the possibility. Your description of DeBeer only showed that someone, probably you, misunderstood the genome.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94181 Jun 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you have the slightest idea what anyone is talking about, unless their sentence ends with "In Jesus' name, Amen."
To HST the scientific world is one of continuous whooshing sounds as idea after idea shoots right over his head.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94182 Jun 27, 2013
And thanks for mentioning Talk Origins, HST:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.h...
Evolutionist Gavin de Beer (1971) has shown that homologous structures arise from different, nonhomologous genes, which means that they cannot be derived from common ancestors.
Source:

Kofahl, Robert E., 2003. Handy dandy evolution refuter, chpt. 10. < http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder... ;
Response:

It was 1971 when de Beer made his argument. That was before technology for manipulating DNA made it possible to examine genes directly, so de Beer's conclusions (and those of Hardy 1965, making essentially the same argument) were based on indirect evidence. Since then, many similar genes have been found to participate in the development of homologous structures (see, e.g., Carroll 2005).

Granted, some of the examples raised by de Beer have not yet been explained in detail. For example, some organs considered homologous arise from different layers of embryological tissues. But although such cases are not explained, that does not mean they are unexplainable. We now know that organs can be stimulated to grow in many parts of the body (such as eyes growing on a fly's wings) simply by ensuring that the proper signalling chemicals are present. Thus homologous organs arising from different areas may result simply from mutations in where signalling proteins are expressed.

The difference in finger development between birds and theropod dinosaurs shows an example of how a small difference in development can lead to a nonobvious difference in adult form.
References:

Carroll, Sean B. 2005. Endless Forms Most Beautiful. New York: W. W. Norton.
de Beer, Gavin. 1971. Homology, an unsolved problem. Oxford Biology Readers, J.J. Head and O.E. Lowenstein, eds., Oxford University Press. Reprinted (abridged) in Ridley, Mark, 1997. Evolution. Oxford University Press, 211-221.
Hardy, Alister. 1965. The Living Stream, New York: Harper & Row, pp. 209-219.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94183 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think De Beer's research is irrelevant today, then state specifically what has been done to disprove it. Broadly stating that all research dating back to 1971 should be discounted is stupid. His research has withstood 40+ years of scrutiny, and he commands a great deal of respect as an embryologist.
All that has been done is re-defining terminology. Homologous structures produced by non-homologous genes are now designated "analogous". Inventing new words doesn't erase any obstacles to evolution.
This is yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. You can imagine that the flipper of a dolphin is homologous to the hand of a man. Genetic studies disprove your intuitions. Naive hunches must capitulate to science.
Listen up, you stupid shit. I didn't say DeBeer's research was irrelevant.(You just can't resist lying about what others say, can you? Some sort of personality defect. I imagine). I said that his opinion on homology was out of date. A lot has happened since 1971. We were barely scratching the surface in DNA understanding back then. Science has since refined the definition.

That's what pisses you off, isn't it? That science gets closer and closer to understand everything around us. Pushing your god of genesis further and further into a corner. Tough cookies that you have to live with such fear.

And where is this genetic study you referred to? Or was that just one more of your lies?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#94184 Jun 27, 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.
No one is dodging your question, they are dodging your ignorance. YOU are dodging their answers.

You're comparable to a child who doesn't want to hear, with his fingers in his ears shouting "LALALALALALALALALALALALA LALALALA..."

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#94185 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
No you give a reach around that is why I said use your left hand for it is softer. I like it in the trunk but in your mouth you like it when I dunk. You should be glad with the gay win in court today. It means so much for you and I.
Dude, seriously - grow up. And please keep your personal preferences to yourself, no one want to hear this type of filth on this forum.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#94186 Jun 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The premier words in: Mandarin are Latin? Navajo are Latin? Swahili are Latin? Hindi are Latin?
Never ask a Christian anglophile for a correct answer, all you'll get is a "right and proper" one.
What are you driving at, Buddy?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#94187 Jun 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> What are you driving at, Buddy?
Not much really, just illustrating that when your thinking is imprecise your logic also becomes flawed.
English origin England = English belongs to England.
Christianity origin Judaism = Christianity belongs to Judaism.
Since I'm German/French/English/Irish/Sc ot/, I should "belong to" paganism, as my ORIGINal ancestors almost certainly practiced?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#94188 Jun 27, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Since no one could challenge my previous point, allow me to make another. Since a cell is the simplest of life forms, it may have been the first life. So a cell would have had to create itself, learn to breath, learn to reproduce, learn to evolve. Obviously this is impossible. Even a single cell is way to complex for this to be possible. Watch this video of how a cell actually works. It probably won't make sense to most people but it clearly demonstrates the complexity of even the simplest life form.
http://youtu.be/RrS2uROUjK4
Firstly, it's clear by your choice of avatar you think very highly of yourself and rank yourself above everyone around you. High Five, hope that works out for you.
No one is challenging your point because thereís nothing to challenge, you just keep repeating the same BS regardless of how anyone addresses your points. So it's not so much a case of challenging, itís more like ignoring.

The cell did not create itself, it EVOLVED through chemical processes into a cell over time. It did not learn to breath or reproduce, it evolved into more complex organisms. No one on this forum suggested any of this, this was a creation on your part. And you're using this nonsense as the base of your irrational argument. No, I will not watch a video of how a cell works, but thanks so much for the condescending suggestion.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#94189 Jun 27, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
I continue to use scientific journals to back up my opinions and other in this discussion use Wikipedia and magazines. I can't argue with you if you refuse to accept scientific evidence.
Fail. On so many levels.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94190 Jun 27, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Fail. On so many levels.
He would not even present a link to his chimpanzee article. It was obvious from his wording that he got his info from a creatard site. I had the original article. It was not that hard to find. As I said a possible explanation was included with the article. I am fairly sure that his source edited that out.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94191 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So you totally screwed up.
Thanks for admitting it.
Even How's That has admitted that he has nothing. I don't even have to try to dig up his DeBeers' link.
Quoting from Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" (1986, 10th printing) pg 151 -

De Beer is quoted;

"Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotype."

Denton continues;

"With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value for evidence for evolution is greatly diminished." He goes on to quote Alister Hardy who honestly admits;

"The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution - yet in truth we cannot explain it at ALL in terms of modern day evolution theory".

Denton shuts the door with this comment;

The evolutionary interpretation of homology is clouded even FURTHER by the uncomfortable FACT that there are many cases of 'homologous like' resemblance which cannot by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION be explained by decent from a common ancestor". In other words if God so chose to use a similar design salt and peppered across the natural world he did it so randomly it is explained better as "Common Creator" than common ancestor. Modern biochem supports the observation in the operational relationship of DNA and cell function.

Your evolutionary professors lied to you.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94192 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And thanks for mentioning Talk Origins, HST:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.h...
<quoted text>
Talk about a worthless special pleading argument...
This is why I denounced talkorigins...
It is nothing less than a propaganda machine.

All you can do is hope that some day in the future homologous structures arising from non-homologous genes will be explicable within the context of evolution.

Until then, you lose.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94193 Jun 27, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting from Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" (1986, 10th printing) pg 151 -
De Beer is quoted;
"Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotype."
Denton continues;
"With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value for evidence for evolution is greatly diminished." He goes on to quote Alister Hardy who honestly admits;
"The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution - yet in truth we cannot explain it at ALL in terms of modern day evolution theory".
Denton shuts the door with this comment;
The evolutionary interpretation of homology is clouded even FURTHER by the uncomfortable FACT that there are many cases of 'homologous like' resemblance which cannot by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION be explained by decent from a common ancestor". In other words if God so chose to use a similar design salt and peppered across the natural world he did it so randomly it is explained better as "Common Creator" than common ancestor. Modern biochem supports the observation in the operational relationship of DNA and cell function.
Your evolutionary professors lied to you.
It's no use, SBT...
SZ desperately wants to be the descendant of a worm.
He will go to unparalleled lengths to distort and pervert facts in the vain attempt to justify that worldview.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94195 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about a worthless special pleading argument...
This is why I denounced talkorigins...
It is nothing less than a propaganda machine.
All you can do is hope that some day in the future homologous structures arising from non-homologous genes will be explicable within the context of evolution.
Until then, you lose.
How is that a pleading argument tard?

It shows the errors in the assumptions of De Beer.

Homology is in no trouble at all. If it was some creatards would have an article that sites much more recent research.

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
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 12
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Dogen 143,911
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 5 hr Chimney1 583
News Intelligent design 6 hr Paul Porter1 22
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 6 hr Paul Porter1 421
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 6 hr Paul Porter1 56
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 6 hr Paul Porter1 98
More from around the web