Evolution vs. Creation

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

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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63203 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it calculated when there are millions of DNA to count?
Don't ask me. Read the article, talk to geneticists. I have always said my specialty is geology and I will only go so far into other sciences.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63204 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
What? No. That is a rather silly question. And according to most birds they are superior to man. Can you fly? Not by getting into a jet, let's see you flap your arms and fly.

And I seriously doubt if there is a single gene for reproduction. Nor is there a "gay" gene. A lot of behavior is a combination of nature and nurture. Take homosexuality. There is a genetic element to it, but there is also a definite "nurture" part. I do not think that it ever is a "choice". Observations that show it is genetic is from studies of twins. When one identical twin was gay the odds of the other was much greater than by average. There have also been studies that show that the youngest son of a series of boys was much more likely to be gay than his brothers. Indicating that it might be a reaction by the mother to the testosterone of her sons in the womb. Her bodies reaction against the hormone may result in her later sons having a higher chance of being gay. Behavior is not simple by the time we get to man. It is never all genetics or all nurture.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63205 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>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.
People choose to not reproduce. When animals do these things it is nature not choice. If it were choice the ritual would change as it has for humans.

Do you know what the first land animal was?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63206 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't ask me. Read the article, talk to geneticists. I have always said my specialty is geology and I will only go so far into other sciences.
So you believe their formulas and statistics without understanding how they do it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63207 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
People choose to not reproduce. When animals do these things it is nature not choice. If it were choice the ritual would change as it has for humans.
Do you know what the first land animal was?
We know one of the first land animals. And of course like anything else it was a gradual transition. Where sea life spent more and more time out of water. When do you decide if it is sea life or land life?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63208 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
How do you filter them out?

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63209 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>We know one of the first land animals. And of course like anything else it was a gradual transition. Where sea life spent more and more time out of water. When do you decide if it is sea life or land life?
I know we went over this but during the process it eventually had to come down to a male and a female of the same animal. How did evolution decide how this could happen. It seems to me that random evolution would miss the mark for millions of years before producing one good pair.
Caylee not forgotten

Bethlehem, PA

#63210 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?
Studies have been done on serial killers. It's possible this behavior or mutation, if it is one, goes back to man's primitive beginnings. There was also a study that man almost didn't make it to being the superior species. I can't give you links because I read about it in a library some time ago. I'm sure if you google for information, you may find it. I sometimes feel guilty about questioning my existence. Probably because my family practiced mainstream religion. I was raised a Lutheran-Evangelical; was on the children's choir for years. I loved going to church when I was growing up, but I still had questions about religion and God. I still do. I can't help it. I believe there are logical answers to many of life's difficult questions. I don't believe we should ever stop learning or exploring the mystery of who we are and how we came to be. To accept that an ancient book is the complete truth and the only truth to everything that happened since the beginning of time, is not being very realistic in my opinion. The Bible has many good rules to live by, but it also contradicts itself. I often had questions as a child, but my parents, Sunday school teachers and even the minister discouraged me from getting too inquisitive. All they would tell me is that the Bible says so, that no other explanation is necessary and that I shouldn't question such things because only God has the answers and we must not tempt the lord thy God. They made me feel bad for even wanting to know. That didn't seem right to me and I was just a child. I realize though that they were deeply set into their beliefs. I get the sense that many people who are religious are afraid of death being the final frontier. It's too great a reality to deal with, that when you're dead, that's it. Every living thing on this earth gets a chance at life, and if they're lucky or smart, they get to live a long time, but when it's over, it's over. I don't think many people can face that. I know I felt the same way.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Bournemouth, UK

#63211 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I paid 3 families rent and once a month I give out food at the mission to families in need. At Christmas I hand out gifts to kids my kids only get one gift from my wife and I so we can help poor kids. I've done this the last 3 years. What do you do to help your fellow man? Point an laugh and thank the whatever you believe in its not you?
As for religions that don't believe in satan or the Christian God I have no idea. However missionaries do some great work. I also don't think God punishes those who don't know of him. The Bible says where there is no law their is no sin. For those how have the chance to know and ignore him they're in trouble.
Like you, I volunteer using my skills with the disabled (teaching them to sail). Some are amputees returning from Afghanistan - I'm ex-military. One of the most rewarding areas of my life.

Have you ever thought of the ramifications if their religion, not yours is the "right" one?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63212 Dec 4, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what everyone keeps telling you is wrong.
The language referred to as "Old English" was a fully developed language brought over by those tribes. You can't say that it was defined by stepping onto the shores of the British Isles, nor is there any particular moment where the language suddenly fused with Celtic or Roman influences, or any other language. It was and is constantly changing, and you are way overdue to stop wasting everyone's time with absolutes that are NEVER absolute.
Charles, you can't function without your arbitrary word rituals, can you? Of course, you're an excellent driver too! Yeah!
The English people and some other truthful people, knows that i am right. The tribes became English, do your research. They left mainland Europe in mass. English is a language first spoken in England.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63213 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)
"Want" does not come into it.

If you do not reproduce and your neighbour has 10 kids, then the next generation is made of his offspring, not yours. Therefore his inclinations - such as the urge to reproduce - are the ones that spread, while yours disappear from the record.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min SLY WEST 157,802
Word Association (Jun '10) 10 min wichita-rick 26,630
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 12 min NinaRocks 4,391
Five Weird Signs You're Smarter Than Average 13 min Barry 60
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 23 min Jennifer Renee 9,761
Woman knocked out in Seattle "drive-by egging" 33 min SLY WEST 10
Rest in Peace, Spock 35 min L Craig s Hush Pu... 72
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 59 min NinaRocks 39,250
Obama takes control of Internet 3 hr Chuckles Hooverdamn 133
More from around the web