Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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

#63183 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection by a frigid bitch.
Why don't you want serious answers to your questions? I know, it must suck to get all of those lies you have learned from lying creationist sites dashed to pieces. We live in the real world here. If you want to "feel good about yourself" go to a Christian site.
I can't help it. It sounds funny.

Well if you could explain why mutations that matter are in reproductive systm, then we can continue to discuss.
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#63184 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We are apes.
You're probably right. I've seen quite a few "missing links" roaming this planet; in every size, race and gender. I always thought the actor Ron Perlman looks similar to a Neanderthal or
caveman. He was awesome in Quest For Fire. Didn't seem to need a lot of make-up for the part, lol.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63185 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>I pointed out how you lied. Now you are pretending that it never happened.

You would really have to dig to find an idiot Bat Foy, you better go to an all Christian forum.

I would be more than happy to help you, but you have failed the honesty test too many times.

If you really want to learn about evolution I am more than happy to help. To deny evolution you have to be either a religious zealot who will rather lie than face the truth or a very rare person who is ignorant of almost all branches of science. When it comes to religions there are countless people who are more than willing to delude themselves. You can even convince most theist of this by using believers of other religions than they believe in as an example.

So before I go to far off on a tangent are you hear to learn or are you hear to try to cause trouble? It is clear you have no clue on how to debunk evolution.
Alright to put an end to this I had no intention of trying to lie. As this was not my intent please accept my apology for not only not being clear on what I wanted to know and for the unkind remarks I made about your parentage. I got angry as once again rather than getting an answer I got called stupid. I now understand that seems to be the only answer anyone who doesn't see things the evo way will get.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63186 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help it. It sounds funny.
Well if you could explain why mutations that matter are in reproductive systm, then we can continue to discuss.
Please don't quote out of context, it is too easy to change the meaning of the quote.

Remember when I corrected you on your claim that mutations are harmful? I said that we had on the average 150 mutations each. If mutations are harmful 150 harmful mutations would surely be deadly.

And hear you go, a peer reviewed article on the subject:

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.lon...
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#63187 Dec 4, 2012
Nature has her secrets. Not everything can be created or analyzed in a test tube or a petri dish. But someday, who knows.

Just for fun, an old Twilight Zone episode (part 5)- "The Sixth Finger!". Far-fetched, but than I remember when I thought that traveling to the moon was a science fiction tale. I wonder what man will really look like a million years from now, that is if the human race survives that long.
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#63188 Dec 4, 2012
Oops, forgot to post the link:

The Twilight Zone - "The Sixth Finger",(part 5).
You can see the other parts, except for 2, which seems to be missing. Quite amusing, weird and thought provoking. Hey, it was the 60s, lol.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63189 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright to put an end to this I had no intention of trying to lie. As this was not my intent please accept my apology for not only not being clear on what I wanted to know and for the unkind remarks I made about your parentage. I got angry as once again rather than getting an answer I got called stupid. I now understand that seems to be the only answer anyone who doesn't see things the evo way will get.
Alright, then I apologize for calling you stupid.

I am perhaps overly sensitive to various tricks that creationists try to pull. When you were honestly answered that random mutations is where new information came from I got angry at how you tried to change the question.

And to show I mean it I will give the complete answer. New information does come from random mutations. It gets filtered out by natural selection. It is a common creationist lie to mention only half of the evolutionary process. It is random mutation and natural selection working together that drive evolution. Neither one alone is enough to do it. So if someone says either "Mutations alone will not account for evolution" or "Natural selection does not explain evolution" they are correct, but they are also being dishonest since anyone who understands evolution knows it is both that drive evolution.
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#63190 Dec 4, 2012
60s chic wrote:
Nature has her secrets. Not everything can be created or analyzed in a test tube or a petri dish. But someday, who knows.
Just for fun, an old Twilight Zone episode (part 5)- "The Sixth Finger!". Far-fetched, but than I remember when I thought that traveling to the moon was a science fiction tale. I wonder what man will really look like a million years from now, that is if the human race survives that long.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63191 Dec 4, 2012
A little bit better wording on my last post:

New information comes from random mutations. That information gets filtered by natural selection. Not only are bad genes filtered out, if a mutation is beneficial for some and not others the people who do not react positively to that mutation eventually get filtered out. For example take the gene that causes sickle cell anemia. It is a "recessive" gene (but not really). Just having one copy of that gene increases your resistance to malaria. Having two of them may, and may is a very important word, give you sickle cell anemia. The people who are susceptible to sickle cell anemia have been largely filtered out. There are still a few who get the disease though the gene, and therefore the number of people who have a double shot of it, are widespread.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63192 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't quote out of context, it is too easy to change the meaning of the quote.
Remember when I corrected you on your claim that mutations are harmful? I said that we had on the average 150 mutations each. If mutations are harmful 150 harmful mutations would surely be deadly.
And hear you go, a peer reviewed article on the subject:
http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.lon...
So where in that article says 150 mutations in humans?

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63193 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Alright, then I apologize for calling you stupid.

I am perhaps overly sensitive to various tricks that creationists try to pull. When you were honestly answered that random mutations is where new information came from I got angry at how you tried to change the question.

And to show I mean it I will give the complete answer. New information does come from random mutations. It gets filtered out by natural selection. It is a common creationist lie to mention only half of the evolutionary process. It is random mutation and natural selection working together that drive evolution. Neither one alone is enough to do it. So if someone says either "Mutations alone will not account for evolution" or "Natural selection does not explain evolution" they are correct, but they are also being dishonest since anyone who understands evolution knows it is both that drive evolution.
It all started somewhere meaning following the rules of evolution a single called organism copied its self. Did this happen because of design, nature, or choice? Than it gives birth to billions of random sexually reproductive species? Than is there some transition from single cell to 2 than 3 cells and up to more complex stuff?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63194 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So where in that article says 150 mutations in humans?
This article claims a slightly higher rate, 175 per generation:

" The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 10&#8722;8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63195 Dec 4, 2012
Oh and why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?(Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63196 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
It all started somewhere meaning following the rules of evolution a single called organism copied its self. Did this happen because of design, nature, or choice? Than it gives birth to billions of random sexually reproductive species? Than is there some transition from single cell to 2 than 3 cells and up to more complex stuff?
Rational thinking would say that it was nature. Did you watch the video on the origin of sex? They showed only the where the very beginning of sexual reproduction may have come from. It seemed rather reasonable, but a lot of it is still untested hypothesis. I would estimate that 90% of what was hypothesized has been observed, scientists likes to be a little more sure than that because they know from experience that there is often more than one possible answer to a problem.

There are biologists who could answer better than I can. If you have a question like this you might want to go to Hiding From You. Of course the problem with asking a scientist is that they might give you a complete answer. Very often to understand a complete answer you need a year or two of schooling in the topic at least.

And one species did not directly give birth to billions of species. You could perhaps observe several species branching directly off of one species. Those new species could have new species branch off of them etc. and so on. Does a creationist believe that Eve had 7 billion babies or whatever the current world population is? Of course not. The same applies to species descended from the first two species that reproduced sexually. And sexual evolution may have happened several times. Plants don't do it the same as people.
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#63197 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
Oh and why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?(Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species)
Why do humans often have too many children they can't afford? Why are there so many cats that end up outdoors to brave the elements and over breed. Litter after litter, because of irresponsible pet owners. Nature isn't perfect either. Pro-creation doesn't cease. Sex is a powerful urge; population growth continues whether someone is fit for parenthood - or not fit to be a parent.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63198 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
Oh and why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?(Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species)
At that level it is not the animal that "wants" to reproduce, it is the gene. If a gene gets reproduced its odd of survival goes up.

And we should not anthropomorphize the wants of a cell or a gene too much. It is almost a tautology, but if a gene is successful at reproduction whether by fission or by sexual means then there will be more of that particular gene.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63199 Dec 4, 2012
60s chic wrote:
<quoted text>Why do humans often have too many children they can't afford? Why are there so many cats that end up outdoors to brave the elements and over breed. Litter after litter, because of irresponsible pet owners. Nature isn't perfect either. Pro-creation doesn't cease. Sex is a powerful urge; population growth continues whether someone is fit for parenthood - or not fit to be a parent.
I agree the urge to reproduce is a strong one. However humans can and do choose not to. Where as a cat and every other living thing in the world doesn't choose they just do what comes natural. What gives man that ability to say no to our base instinct if man is nothing special and no better than any other animal how is it we can choose against nature?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63200 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
This article claims a slightly higher rate, 175 per generation:
" The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 10&#8722;8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."
How is it calculated when there are millions of DNA to count?

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63201 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>At that level it is not the animal that "wants" to reproduce, it is the gene. If a gene gets reproduced its odd of survival goes up.

And we should not anthropomorphize the wants of a cell or a gene too much. It is almost a tautology, but if a gene is successful at reproduction whether by fission or by sexual means then there will be more of that particular gene.
Can they isolate the "gene" for reproduction? What gene makes man so far beyond all other species? I've read on here some kinds of bird were the first to evolve past dinosaur using just basic logic should birds not be superior to man?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63202 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree the urge to reproduce is a strong one. However humans can and do choose not to. Where as a cat and every other living thing in the world doesn't choose they just do what comes natural. What gives man that ability to say no to our base instinct if man is nothing special and no better than any other animal how is it we can choose against nature?
Animals, especially social animals do not breed freely in nature. There are "rules" to breeding. If you don't follow the "rules" you can be in big trouble. In some animals the male fights for a harem. Horses, deer, sheep, all fight for territory and females. Some more social animals such as wolves and meercats limit the reproduction of not only other males, but of females too. What you see as morals is man simply following the "rules" that gave us the best chance to survive as a species, not as an individual.

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
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 6 min Old Sam 4,192
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 7 min Old Sam 14,112
Word Association (Mar '10) 8 min Nobody 2 Special 17,017
motorcycle traveling stories 8 min Trapper John MD 565
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 8 min Nobody 2 Special 1,465
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 11 min Sublime1 161,461
Poll New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 12 min Crazy Jae 643
News The trooper fired at the motorcycle, and then d... 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 109
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr rosa 28,865
Things that make life eaiser... 3 hr rosa 114
More from around the web