Evolution vs. Creation

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

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.

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 are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 min Radical Miracle 25,633
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 9 min Crystal_Clear722 7,547
Why Is Geno So PRISSY? 37 min David Morrison 0
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 44 min Analog man 152,440
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 1 hr wichita-rick 205
HOW LONG can you hold YOUR SEMEN ? For men only. (Mar '12) 1 hr Independent1 41
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 1 hr wichita-rick 601
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 3 hr mr goodwrench 125
More from around the web