Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108024 Jan 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
See? you already lied,...evolution is a process by which DNA can develop! that is utter lying bullshite!, or you simply don't know any better.
You might want to let the New York times in on your discovery about DNA development, you are the only one who knows about it
Quote mine.

I said "DNA can develop complexity".

That is not the same thing and you know it.

Therefore you lied.

Epic fail.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108025 Jan 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote mine.
I said "DNA can develop complexity".
That is not the same thing and you know it.
Therefore you lied.
Epic fail.
Where did the DNA code get it's information?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108026 Jan 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the DNA code get it's information?
I do not pretend to know how the first DNA molecule came to be. That is a problem that biochemists are working on, of course.

Now the question of where the information came from. Again, one assumes that the first DNA molecule or perhaps its RNA predecessor had little "information". However we do know that up to 10% of randomly produced RNA has enzyme capabilities (catalytic) and that would not be a difficult chance phenomenon to kick things off.

You guys love to talk about "information" but I prefer to speak of function. As function increases, then of course the information coding it has increased too.

Now, moving to real DNA. How is information created even now? Usually by gene duplication. Humans for starters have a varying number of copies for amylase, used to digest starches. When there are more copies, one of them can mutate without compromising total function, and may thereby develop new function. For example, a version of amylase that digests a slightly different starchy food better. there is nothing mysterious about this.

When there is duplication, that is new information. When there is duplication with some functional modification, that is undoubtedly new information.

And THAT is what I mean by "DNA complexity increasing" through an evolutionary process. Whole families of proteins (and their genetic sequence) have been shown to track back in a hierarchy to a few simpler starters, such as the globin group.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#108027 Jan 19, 2014
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text> Hey dear1
Normally i never respond to Bo, but it has become very still in this part of topix.
Nice warm bath of flattery and praise, just what i needed.
i just sharpened my teeth on a new thesis on hybrid gods being all the vogue in the orient in the bronze age leading up to the iron-age.
To sign a contract between kings a Thousand semitic gods had to be brought forward.
That's a choice between famine and getting creative.
And i learned that crescent moon feasts actually had to do with the menses of bands of goddesses.
And many other things. As in people of the Levant executing burials with addition of graves for donkeys and servants!
The main question riding the thesis was not sufficiently answered. Some more sources should have been scrutinized.
But is was sufficiently clear that the isolated god or isolated religion never existed.
And everybody traveled like mad.
.
I think the babble could supply some info, not sure of the verse but it was in exodus I think where the Hebrew god appeared and flipped his lid because the escaped slaves were having a party to other gods

Also the psalms

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#108028 Jan 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how DNA self assembled and where did that information come from
I am not here to give you 3 years of university education. You want to find out about chemistry 101+ then teach yourself.

Perhaps you could invest in a primer, I can recommend “DNA from the Beginning”, I have no financial motive but assure you that it’s pretty good.

http://www.dnalc.org/websites/dnaftb.html...

Or even more easily try cooking a good curry one evening, same principle, a bunch of chemicals and a process with a great result
tom

Romania

#108029 Jan 19, 2014
Hi

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#108030 Jan 19, 2014
tom wrote:
Hi
Good evening, welcome

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108031 Jan 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not here to give you 3 years of university education. You want to find out about chemistry 101+ then teach yourself.
Perhaps you could invest in a primer, I can recommend “DNA from the Beginning”, I have no financial motive but assure you that it’s pretty good.
http://www.dnalc.org/websites/dnaftb.html...
Or even more easily try cooking a good curry one evening, same principle, a bunch of chemicals and a process with a great result
what an idiotic response

information is information, neither matter nor energy.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108032 Jan 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not pretend to know how the first DNA molecule came to be. That is a problem that biochemists are working on, of course.
Now the question of where the information came from. Again, one assumes that the first DNA molecule or perhaps its RNA predecessor had little "information". However we do know that up to 10% of randomly produced RNA has enzyme capabilities (catalytic) and that would not be a difficult chance phenomenon to kick things off.
You guys love to talk about "information" but I prefer to speak of function. As function increases, then of course the information coding it has increased too.
Now, moving to real DNA. How is information created even now? Usually by gene duplication. Humans for starters have a varying number of copies for amylase, used to digest starches. When there are more copies, one of them can mutate without compromising total function, and may thereby develop new function. For example, a version of amylase that digests a slightly different starchy food better. there is nothing mysterious about this.
When there is duplication, that is new information. When there is duplication with some functional modification, that is undoubtedly new information.
And THAT is what I mean by "DNA complexity increasing" through an evolutionary process. Whole families of proteins (and their genetic sequence) have been shown to track back in a hierarchy to a few simpler starters, such as the globin group.
The only factual part of your statement was the first sentence, The rest of your statement was just grasping at straws. They are two problems of the first DNA, Where did the information come from, and how did it self assemble.
There is no none natural process that can do those.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108033 Jan 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not here to give you 3 years of university education. You want to find out about chemistry 101+ then teach yourself.
Perhaps you could invest in a primer, I can recommend “DNA from the Beginning”, I have no financial motive but assure you that it’s pretty good.
http://www.dnalc.org/websites/dnaftb.html...
Or even more easily try cooking a good curry one evening, same principle, a bunch of chemicals and a process with a great result
If you don't know, just say it! instead of bullsheete.
Explain the process of how your curry ingredients come together on their own and cook themselves to get your great result.

That's really how silly your reasoning is

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#108034 Jan 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The only factual part of your statement was the first sentence, The rest of your statement was just grasping at straws. They are two problems of the first DNA, Where did the information come from, and how did it self assemble.
There is no none natural process that can do those.
RNA can act as an enzyme to assemble itself.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108035 Jan 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>RNA can act as an enzyme to assemble itself.
Wow! RNA polymerase is an enzyme . It does not produce information for DNA . You are astonishing actually. Something assembles itself? The lengths you people go to defend your religion.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108037 Jan 19, 2014
The creationist beef stew:

Cut 1 lb chuck cut into chunks , add
carrots, potato's, celery ,poblano peppers, onions,
spices, and one shiner bock beer
put all into crock pot and cook on low for 6 hours until done.

The evolutionist beef stew:
Wait for a huge storm which washes cows into the river and sweeps them down stream, during their plunge their skins are removed by the river rocks and the bodies are shredded by the force of the flood waters into bite size chunks and deposited into ponds, there they mix with potato's , carrots, spices, beer and other vegetables collected by the water. Eventually the earths thermal heat cooks the stew into a luscious treat for all. All done by natural forces.

p.s.... science is still working on where the shiner bock came from but natural causes are presumed

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#108038 Jan 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please Timmy, try not to be an idiot.
The facts are that the area had been undergoing a spate of burglaries. The descriptions of the perpetrators was rather weak, but Martin fit the description, more in the age, and dress bracket than anything else.
At any rate, it does not really matter why Zimmerman thought that Martin was suspicious. Once Martin ran off he could no longer claim self defense, yet the evidence supports that he attacked Zimmerman first.
To put Zimmerman away the prosecution needed to show that Zimmerman somehow instigated the attack. Simply following a person at night is not a valid reason to attack him.
I do wonder if it would be considered a valid reason if it was a black guy following a nice white guy down a dark street. What do you think? Please, don't try to compare following someone in the dark to breaking up a car theft. Remember, we aren't being idiots.

Anyways, if martin truly did attack him, based on the law as written, I couldn't convict Zimmerman. There were conflicting statements to that effect though, and Zimmerman's injuries did not match his description of the event. Anyways, I don't agree with a system that basically allows you to bait someone into a fight, suffer barely a scratch, and kill them because of "mortal danger."

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#108039 Jan 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. Zimmerman's injuries supported his claims.
In what way didn't they? Did he attack Martin's fists, the only part of him injured by the fight, with his face. Was Zimmerman guilty because he did not relax his neck and allow Martin to beat him into unconsciousness and perhaps death?
A couple of scratches on the back of his head are consistent with a brutal beating? Absolutely not. First of all, martin's hands would be injured, potentially badly. He was not a trained fighter, his hands weren't wrapped - it's easy to mess your hands up while punching a face. Second of all, Zimmerman's face and head would have more than a scratch. Tensing his neck, as you speculate he did, would have done nothing to protect him and potentially made it worse.

And let's not forget all the delightful things Zimmerman has been getting up to lately. Beating up women, pulling guns on people... He sounds like a level headed guy.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#108040 Jan 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Are you kidding? Do you seriously think that Zimmerman would relax? Sorry, his injuries match is description.
There is no doubt about it. People resist when they are attacked. See what you do when someone tries to slam your head into the ground. It is easy to slow the motion down.
A chest, two arms, and body weight against a neck. Yeah, no.

Also, if it was so "easy" for him to resist his attack, then there goes his "mortal danger" nonsense. Of course, you are just making stuff up at this point and have no idea what happened. We only have his word to go off because he killed the other guy. A grown man with a gun says a tiny scratch proves he was attacked and put in mortal danger.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108044 Jan 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
How can I attack something which has not even been demonstrated to exist?
No Bo, what we attack are your uneducated assertions.
<quoted text>
Yep. Do all plants require an intelligent planter?
<quoted text>
Dunno yet.(shrug) Problem?
<quoted text>
Since life IS here then obviously life appeared somehow. Therefore no belief is required.
<quoted text>
Except there is nothing magic about chemistry. Unless you're claiming that all plants are magic.
<quoted text>
Your beliefs are irrelevant.
However, I will point out that I have never denied the possibility of such a being. But there are three points you need to remember:
1 - If it exists, it's responsible for abiogenesis. Which is why it's rather stupid for you to argue against it, as you are simultaneously arguing against your claim.
2 - If it exists, it's responsible for evolution. Which is why it's rather stupid for you to argue against it, as you are simultaneously arguing against your claim.
3 - If it exists, it doesn't appear to have made itself amenable to the scientific method - it's not as if God pops its arm down now and then so we can do a blood test. Which is why it's rather stupid for you to claim it has anything at all to do with science. UNLESS you can demonstrate how it DOES pass the scientific method. So far no one on the planet has ever been able to do so in the entirety of human history.
<quoted text>
I don't know, because I don't know what you're counting that gives one object a greater value than the other. I don't know how you're measuring complexity.
So go slow for me - obviously out of the space shuttle and the paper plane, one of them scores higher on your measuring scale. So how exactly is "complexity" being measured here? What precisely are you counting?
<quoted text>
Misquoting an appeal to authority has no bearing on this discussion. Unless Einstein was able to demonstrate the existence of invisble Jew wizards that he didn't even believe in anyway. Remember, he was not an atheist, but he was not a theist either. Not that it matters which he was since his philosophical or theological opinions don't matter.
You are funnier then Richard Pryor ever was

You never attack something that was never demonstrated to exist?

who coined the phrase Jew magic on this thread?

Who lies constantly about the definition of abiogenesis, which is life arising on it's on through natural processes.

What the hell do you and your ilk care about the scientific method! Life has only been demonstrated to come from existing life,...so ! obviously it self assembled in a prehistoric past ... you believe it happened , against all scientific evidence . The universe has a beginning , what caused it, why nothing! where did the matter and energy come from , why nothing! that's why an idiotic religionist professor wrote a book about how you can get a universe from nothing

Appeal to authority! God you are a hypocritical idiot .How many times have you ubber goobers talked about peer reviewed articles!....appeal to authorities!, appeal to authorities, you sound like Gomer Pyle

Your own words describe you

Since life is here it obviously appeared somehow, no belief is required:Dude

Since no one was here, and there is no evidence when and how it happened a belief IS REQUIRED

Your own words classifies you as an idiot

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#108045 Jan 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
what an idiotic response
information is information, neither matter nor energy.
You have just shown your bare butt in public by admitting that you are clueless about the advancement of modem genetics.

You also bared it again by claiming that information was neither matter nor energy. It can be both.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108046 Jan 20, 2014
The arguments continues. But the truth always prevails. Evolution is a sham and English started in England.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#108047 Jan 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't know, just say it! instead of bullsheete.
Explain the process of how your curry ingredients come together on their own and cook themselves to get your great result.
That's really how silly your reasoning is
Wrong answer...

Unlike you I have actually bothered to educate myself. Therefore like all the deliberately ignorant of your ilk you see the need to mock the education you shun from your lowly position of pure deliberate ignorance. A typical godbot stance if I may say so and you don’t even see the stupidity you portray.

You obviously do not understand the chemical processes of cookery either. Did you not take domestic science in your home school? Were you getting battered around the head with a babble when you really should have been learning stuff?

You appear to be saying that heating (for example) potatoes in water does not change the chemical consistency. Or adding sugar to coffee makes no difference to the flavour. Oh wait a moment these are everyday examples basic chemistry that you see an accept, what you can’t accept is anything identical in process that discredits your ignorant belief that a bronze age myth did it by magic.

WTF has “on there own” got to do with anything, Are you saying that the forces of nature/motion/gravity/energy/e nvironment/atmosphere/precipit ation/temperature etc, etc, etc did not exist to allow biogenesis but has and does existed for everything else on this planet? Go figure …

You are a godbot denying fact and making godbot excuses out of nothing but ignorance. You want the history of the universe (or at least this planet) reciting to you in words of one or two syllables using less than 4000 characters. You thick prat...How can people like you live with such stupidity to guide them?

Note that http://scholar.google.co.uk/ is cram packed with links that will help to educate you, if only you had the will to educate yourself, which I very much doubt

Here just to get you started, the scholar search for the term

“how was dna first formed”

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...

Yields over 2 million scholarly, often peer reviewed and falsifyably validated results

And

“origins of DNA”

returns over 850,000 such results

Sorry they tend to be a bit more than 4000 characters as allowed by topic and they probably use bigger and harder words than “and”,“but” and “god”

Example “dependent recognition of eukaryotic origins of DNA replication by a multiprotein complex”

And

“The HeLa Pur factor binds single-stranded DNA at a specific element conserved in gene flanking regions and origins of DNA replication.”

And here is one that may really interest you

“Origins of DNA replication in metazoan chromosomes.”

You want to learn then you will need to leant the big words too.

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 River Tam 33,031
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Endofdays 81,662
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Science 164,275
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 12 hr Eagle 12 - 2,191
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web