Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 160,106
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63214 Dec 5, 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?
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Mammals evolved from another group of reptiles (therapsids), at about the same time as dinosaurs were first evolving (from archosaurs), but dinosaurs became dominant and stayed that way until 65 million years ago.

But you are missing the point. Everything has been evolving for as long as everything else - about 3.5 billion years, whether its a frog or an oak tree or a human. And "superior" is a meaningless word in the context you use it.

You might think you are superior to a rat or an E. coli because you have a big brain. You can certainly say your intelligence, as a characteristic, is superior to theirs. But survival is the whole package. Your brain carries a price...perhaps even the ability to form massive groups and develop weapons of mass destruction can be seen as indications that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end!

Every species alive today is "the winner" in superiority and luck...come back in 50 million years to see which species were the luckiest or most superior "today". Perhaps 50 million years from now, the majority of successful species on the planet might have evolved from today's bats! There is no way of knowing.
Sandy

Reading, PA

#63215 Dec 5, 2012
monkey ? NOT!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63216 Dec 5, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Yawn...if you say so.

The more important question is, could the sons of the Angle, Saxon, and Jute conquerors of Britain understand the language of their fathers? Or their grandsons?

There is a common logical fallacy that many fall prone to - which is the stamping of discrete categories onto phenomena that form a continuum. Arguing all day as to what miniscule gradation of grey should be called dark grey versus light grey.

The conquerors spoke whatever flavour of German and Norse their fathers did, and when, over generations, that language gradually differentiated on the Island of Britain to be first a recognisably different accent, then dialect, from the mainland varieties (which would have been changing independently too), then we can speak of Old English.

What is the big deal about where you draw a magic line between a "father" who spoke a German dialect and his son who spoke "the first true English". Its the fantasy of artificial categories.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63217 Dec 5, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
http://www.geekosystem.com/sci entists-are-liars/
Scientific papers being retracted after publication isn’t some kind of new phenomenon. The age of press releases might have made such snafus a more widely-known event, but it’s one of those things that happens from time to time. Common wisdom was that the majority of retractions were due to errors present in the work, but a new study has concluded that it’s actually misconduct like fraud or plagiarism that causes most retractions. In other words, scientists aren’t dumb; they’re just liars.
PhysOrg breaks down how the new study came to this conclusion:
The study reviewed 2,047 papers retracted from the biomedical literature through May 2012. To determine the reasons for the retractions, the researchers consulted several secondary sources, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research Integrity and Retractionwatch.com , which investigate scientific misconduct.
The researchers found that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributable to error, while 67 percent were due to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43 percent), duplicate publication (14 percent), and plagiarism (10 percent). Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the remaining 12 percent.
The studies that investigated this issue previously only took into account the official retractions by the scientific journals — which are written by the authors of the paper being retracted. It’s not like they’re going to come right out and say,“We totally copied this bit from someone else,” or anything like that.
And these errors, frauds, plagiarisms, duplicates etc were found out leaving only genuine scientific work. Thanks for pointing out the rigours of the scientific method

Tell me, has the bible ever been peer reviewed?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63218 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn...if you say so.
The more important question is, could the sons of the Angle, Saxon, and Jute conquerors of Britain understand the language of their fathers? Or their grandsons?
There is a common logical fallacy that many fall prone to - which is the stamping of discrete categories onto phenomena that form a continuum. Arguing all day as to what miniscule gradation of grey should be called dark grey versus light grey.
The conquerors spoke whatever flavour of German and Norse their fathers did, and when, over generations, that language gradually differentiated on the Island of Britain to be first a recognisably different accent, then dialect, from the mainland varieties (which would have been changing independently too), then we can speak of Old English.
What is the big deal about where you draw a magic line between a "father" who spoke a German dialect and his son who spoke "the first true English". Its the fantasy of artificial categories.
Interesting. That was why English language was first spoken in England.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63219 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you filter them out?
Failure to survive or reproduce. That is the whole point. Variations that don't work as well disappear, and those that work better come to predominate. Thus trait by trait, species change over time.

Where it gets interesting is if you take one population (species), and split it. Now any novel variation occurring in each one does not get passed to the other group, meaning the two groups diverge over time and often in very different directions, depending on the mutations that occur and the environment they are in. That is how you get new species, according to evolution. The fossil record and the evidence from the genome both back that hypothesis up beyond all reasonable doubt.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63220 Dec 5, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate kittens, Maz?
Also, sympathies with our cricket team DEMOLISHING YOURS IN THE THIRD TEST!!
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from Kitten on here I like kittens and hate girley games like cricket.
I do like evolutionists that evade science, like most here. That gives me joolies for the day.
A couple gave it a shot for a couple of posts, failed miserably, and now you want to talk about kittens.
For starters. Why don't you evos tell us how arch is not an intermediate anything. Arch is a variety of dinosaur and has theropod traits, like a thick and boomerang shaped wish bone that looks nothing like a bird wishbone, what so ever.
I think evolutionaruy researchers need to get new evogoggles.
How you get your sexual excitement is not our problem, however I can suggest you try a man for a change. I’m sure DF will oblige if you are attractive enough, or if you feed him enough alcohol

To be perfectly honest with you I cannot say that I know of any people who believe evolution happened who evade the science. I do now of several creatards like you who lie and fabricate and misrepresent science. You, yourself have been caught and proven to be lying, fabricating and misrepresenting science on several occasions in the few weeks in which you discovered this soapbox

For starters why don’t you tell us why you are still using the OLD, outdated and discredited idea that dinosaurs were cold blooded?

I think creatareds need to go sick a lemon and then go back to school

P.S. Still waiting for your “peer reviewed” confirmations or were you LYING?

P.S.S Still waiting for you apology for calling me a liar to which I offered PROOF with a direct link to my post that PROVED you wrong.

However like all creatards you are too deliberately ignorant and self centred to let a little thing like PROOF dissuade you from your lies so I wait in hope but with no expectation.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63221 Dec 5, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Interesting. That was why English language was first spoken in England.
An argument about nothing.

Is what you call Old English much different from what you would call Old Frisian and Old West German? They could understand each other easily, so it was more of an accent than a truly separate language at that point.

IN the same way, when speciation begins, there are accents (races), subspecies(dialects) and eventually new separate languages (species).

We could carry the analogy as far as language groups (slavis, germanic, romance)(classes) and language families such Indo European corresponding to phyla (vertebrates or chordates).

Very different things...built up over time by gradual almost infinitesimal change.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63222 Dec 5, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
How could random mutations create a male and female of the same species? Than if random mutation did create 2 of the same species how long would that take? Would be in the life time of the first one?
Completely wrong way of looking at it.

Bacteria often share genetic information by swapping plasmids, but there is not a male or female bacterium. It just illustrates the most primitive way we know of genetic recombination.

In many primitive species, male and female functions are not well differentiated. The same individual can be both in a lifetime.

As usual for creationists, you are looking at the finished product of a long succession of intermediate stages, and assume it all had to appear at once in something close to modern form. That is not how evolution works.

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
News Egypt court sentences belly dancer for 'insulti... 5 min Spotted Girl 1
News Man charged in fight over who's better: LeBron ... 7 min Spotted Girl 1
Say Something Nice. (Oct '09) 18 min wichita-rick 2,709
News School votes for communism-themed dance dubbed ... 26 min Rashanne 38
Things that make life eaiser... 28 min wichita-rick 16
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 35 min wichita-rick 161,123
motorcycle traveling stories 37 min Biker 495
News Snubbed Girl, 10, Gets Party of a Lifetime 38 min Spotted Girl 6
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 46 min Camilla 28,829
News Watch the bizarre moment when Scott Disick SHAV... 2 hr Christian Taliban 9
More from around the web