Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223358 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.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62700 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Here is a link to a simple video that shows where we were in abiogenesis about 7 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =U6QYDdgP9egXX
And this site goes into a bit more detail:
http://exploringorigins.org/
By the way, it looks like the article that Cybele took a picture from the second link I posted and did not give credit for that picture. I believe that that would be breaking the commandment against stealing. I am also sure that there is more than one outright lie in that article. So that is two commandments broken. Why do Christians think it is okay to break the commandments to attack evolution. Is it that much of a threat against your god that you get to break his biggest rules?
Commandments? WTF.

Let's talk about your source then if you want. The RNA World Hypothesis doesn't explain how the cell formed into an organism. It stops at RNA replication. Which is why I keep mentioning the (protein) chicken or the (DNA) egg dilemma. Care to explain?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62701 Dec 3, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
Subduction Zone:
You wrote:Evolution describes the change in existing life. And there may have been no "first cell". That is a false idea that creationists have from your Adam and Eve myth. If you keep going back you will find simpler and simpler cells until you would be hard pressed to call them cells anymore. There is no hard line. Is a ring of lipids a cell? If so then we have recreated the first cell by natural means only in the laboratory.
You are quite confused about the cell. Without a living cell there can be no living organism. Without replication of the cell there can be no natural selection for evolution to occur and perpetuate itself. Without DNA the cell cannot replicate and pass on it's 'evolution'!
The basic premace of evolution is the first cell formed on its own thru natural selection and continued to evolve. What you cannot explain is how DNA came about which is the basis of how the cell replicates
And your evidence that this is so?

Plus you ducked my question. Is a ring, actually a spheroid of lipids count as the first cell?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62702 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Commandments? WTF.
Let's talk about your source then if you want. The RNA World Hypothesis doesn't explain how the cell formed into an organism. It stops at RNA replication. Which is why I keep mentioning the (protein) chicken or the (DNA) egg dilemma. Care to explain?
Wait, I think you need to check out that site some more. It is not just one page. The RNA hypothesis describes how spheroids of lipids eventually developed RNA, from there it is not a major step to form DNA and have a self replicating cell. Once we have a self replicating cell it will grown in efficiency and complexity using the processes of mutation and natural selection

“I looked, and behold,”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62703 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a creationist. Don't give me that typical anti-creationist attack. I simply don't see real evidence for TOE.
There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record.

If you also understood meiosis and mitosis, you would see that DNA does change. All you need is the change for evolution. Natural selection will take care of the rest.

Also, if you are not a creationist and do not believe in evolution, how do you suppose all the species that exist arose, not to mention all the species that used to exist? Did they come from thin air?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#62704 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't. They don't even have an answer to which came first - the protein (chicken) or the DNA (egg). LOL.
"DNA holds the recipe for protein construction. Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins"
RNA holds the key. It can behave as both in iformation storage molecule and as an ezyme.

By they, I assume you mean scientists.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#62706 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
Anyone dare to tackle this?
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Yeah, I'll tackle it....it's creationist bullsh!t

Take that junkscience...
bohart

White Pine, TN

#62707 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, I think you need to check out that site some more. It is not just one page. The RNA hypothesis describes how spheroids of lipids eventually developed RNA, from there it is not a major step to form DNA and have a self replicating cell. Once we have a self replicating cell it will grown in efficiency and complexity using the processes of mutation and natural selection
I see your still spreading your faith as fact,..."oh it's not a major step to form DNA and have a self replicating cell" ha,ha,ha.
Prove it! and it must be observable, repeatable and testable or it's based on your faith, the puddle gooist faith that is.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62708 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, I think you need to check out that site some more. It is not just one page. The RNA hypothesis describes how spheroids of lipids eventually developed RNA, from there it is not a major step to form DNA and have a self replicating cell. Once we have a self replicating cell it will grown in efficiency and complexity using the processes of mutation and natural selection
Nope. Not there. Scientists haven't been able to achieve a working version of a protocell in a lab. I think their theories are based on the current life cycles of RNA in current conditions and assume it is what took place millions or billions of years ago. I think I give up searching for an answer. I don't want to beat my brains out!
Orriapa paquia

Lubbock, TX

#62709 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And your evidence that this is so?
Plus you ducked my question. Is a ring, actually a spheroid of lipids count as the first cell?
References from proevolution books:

Science, Evolution and creationism. by National Academy of sciences, Institute of medicine published by The National Academies press. 2008. Page 4.

Evolution the first four billion years. Michael Ruse and Joseph travis. 2009.

I am not telling anything new here, the cell replication and transference of information thru time that provides advantage in natural selection is the basis of evolution.

Heres the online definition of cell:

An autonomous self-replicating unit that may exist as functional independent unit of life (as in the case of unicellular organism), or as sub-unit in a multicellular organism (such as in plants and animals) that is specialized into carrying out particular functions towards the cause of the organism as a whole.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#62710 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a creationist. Don't give me that typical anti-creationist attack. I simply don't see real evidence for TOE.
Speciation of Lake Victoria cichlids is pretty good evidence. The way that our immune system operates to develop antibodies to all the antigens we encounter is another. The fossil record. The molecular evidence showing the fusion of two ancestoral chromosomes into what is now our chromosome two. The conservation of DNA and RNA amongst all living organisms. The ubiquity of Hox genes in animals. The list goes on and on.

What surprises me more than anything is those that don't accept evolution despite this paucity of evidence.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62711 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, no it isn't. It is a book of faith. What it is demonstratably not is a history book, truthful or not. Too much of it has been disproved for it to be that. Why post this when by pointing to both Jericho and Noah (to pick two well-known examples from many), it can be shown to be untrue. I have no desire to beliettle your faith, but posting this type of rubbish is not going to persuade on person on here that you have a clear perception of what the bible is.
Far from that. I am not ready to persuade any one on anything but to defend what i think is right. The bible is a book of historical truth, whether you like to hear that or not. Among the religious books archaeologically, the bible stands out.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62712 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no it didn't, it started in Germany and then went through mutations, adaptation and development.
Would you just shut up and learn for once. English(modern English) started in England, though, it had influences from several European and other languages, but modern English as a language developed and started in England.
Old English is akin to German.

“I looked, and behold,”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62713 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not there. Scientists haven't been able to achieve a working version of a protocell in a lab. I think their theories are based on the current life cycles of RNA in current conditions and assume it is what took place millions or billions of years ago. I think I give up searching for an answer. I don't want to beat my brains out!
I hardly consider a laboratory setting and the perhaps 10 to 20 years of research that any particular scientist would dedicate to attempting to create a primitive life form to the vastness of earth and millions and millions of years of random reactions that would have likely been required to give rise to the first primitive life forms.

That is like looking under a microscope for .00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000001 seconds, not seeing a diamond instantaneously, and therefore concluding they don't exist.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62714 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no it didn't, it started in Germany and then went through mutations, adaptation and development.
Sorry for telling you to shut up, but we all have eyes. Germans spoke and are still speaking German. English is not spoken in Germany but in England, the nations that speaks English as a native tongue had influence from England, the US, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, etc.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62715 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no it didn't, it started in Germany and then went through mutations, adaptation and development.
Lastly, the Saxons, Jutes, and the Angles, a Germanic tribes, can be said to be the originators of the English language. These tribes left Germany completely and finally settled in England, mixing up with locals to form the English race. These tribes, came with a language closer to German, known as the old English, but this language under went a series of developments from middle to modern English, these developments did not took place in Germany but in England.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62716 Dec 3, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Speciation of Lake Victoria cichlids is pretty good evidence. The way that our immune system operates to develop antibodies to all the antigens we encounter is another. The fossil record. The molecular evidence showing the fusion of two ancestoral chromosomes into what is now our chromosome two. The conservation of DNA and RNA amongst all living organisms. The ubiquity of Hox genes in animals. The list goes on and on.
What surprises me more than anything is those that don't accept evolution despite this paucity of evidence.
Perhaps those theories are now outdated. From my source:

[By 2010, real biologists had determined that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) build and operate all living things. There are gene regulatory networks for everything that happens in them, and some networks control other networks in a chain of command. Each species has a body plan, and it is encoded in the DNA. "Development of the body plan is caused by the operation of GRNs". "Embryonic development is an enormous informational transaction, in which DNA sequence data generate and guide the system-wide spatial deployment of specific cellular functions." That is, an embryo grows because GRNs tell other GRNs what to do at the right time and place and in the right order; it is tremendously complex. GRNs then guide the development of different types of cells, organs, and growth of the embryo into an adult. They also control each creature's abilities and the way it responds to changes around it. Among the most studied are sea urchins, which are low on the evolutionist's "tree of life".]

How does TOE explain how GRNs came to be?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62717 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I'll become an inventor. It's great to know it only takes faith. Whew, I was scared it would need a lot of time, luck, hard work, money, brilliant insight, education, study, or even (shudder) mathematics, patent lawyers, support from my starving wife and children, and things I am even too dumb to imagine. I'm a gonna start with inventing that I can fuel my car with dirty water and if there is the slightest problem with that, I'll just faith it into reality. Ta dahhh, faithless ones, I'll see you at the pump, as I wizz by in my mercury...
You are just giving a wrong definition of the word, faith.
Faith does not imply test, it implies positive thinking. It does not mean putting your strength to test, it means challenging what you believe to test in a positive way, and if God sees the intent of ones heart, he will answer that person positively, whether he is a Christian or not.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62718 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not there. Scientists haven't been able to achieve a working version of a protocell in a lab. I think their theories are based on the current life cycles of RNA in current conditions and assume it is what took place millions or billions of years ago. I think I give up searching for an answer. I don't want to beat my brains out!
What do you mean "Not there." What were you hoping to find?

As I said abiogenesis is a work in progress.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62719 Dec 3, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I hardly consider a laboratory setting and the perhaps 10 to 20 years of research that any particular scientist would dedicate to attempting to create a primitive life form to the vastness of earth and millions and millions of years of random reactions that would have likely been required to give rise to the first primitive life forms.
That is like looking under a microscope for .00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000001 seconds, not seeing a diamond instantaneously, and therefore concluding they don't exist.
We know diamonds come from carbon. We can even produce fake ones. But living cells, we can't create them in a lab.

Since: Nov 12

Raymond, Canada

#62720 Dec 3, 2012
Regards the newgeology.us site
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Total garbage.
Didn't seem to me to be total garbage. I only took a quick superficial look, but even if it were all just crafty misdirection, it sure would be a good test for anyone who thought they had understood evolutionary theory, to find out if they really understood it. Wish I had time for it.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 3 min Rose_NoHo 39,252
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 5 min Rose_NoHo 2,547
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 6 min Whitie 7,230
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 24 min andet1987 48,165
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 26 min andet1987 28,253
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 44 min andet1987 7,903
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 50 min andet1987 62,545
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 hr Louise Darling 228,551
More from around the web