Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201243 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80745 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
"The only source of knowledge is experience."
-Albert Einstein
Ah, but knowledge is not the only source of experience.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80746 Mar 14, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to DEFINE, not DESCRIBE sentience, there is a subtle difference. You descibed it simply. Defining it is almost impossible.
And I just explained that to Bo. The reason for this is that definitions are arbitrary, and constantly change over time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80747 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Anyone want to explain why lizards switching birth from egg to live young as evolution?
Evolution IS the explanation.
Cybele wrote:
I'm talking about the skinks species, a type of Australian lizard, those that live in higher, colder mountains giving birth to live young. And that nourishment in the mother's young play a role in this. Scientists claim that this is evolution in action.
Let's say this could be the holy grail for evolution. Alright.
Or let's not. The closest thing to "holy grail" was DNA, which firmly established evolution WAY back in the fifties. But since fundies are still arguing from a couple of centuries behind they're a little out of date. Another could be called ERV's.
Cybele wrote:
But what about other species of lizards such as the desert night lizards that also give birth to live young?
Lizards are special animals. Take for example the Komodo dragon that was dubbed to have virgin birth or immaculate conception. That is, no male needed to fertilize the egg.
You see, just because a certain type of animal has the flexibility to adapt in so many ways doesn't necessarily mean they are evolving into another species. Unless anyone have evidence that this is a process of speciation.
We have evidence, in the form of monotremes. They are an evolutionary relic from the days when reptiles led to monotremes which led to mammals. That's why monotremes have characteristics of both.

The immaculate conception of certain species is not evidence of speciation since there is very little to instigate change in an organism which is essentially cloning itself. That's a limitation of genetic variation while sexual reproduction leads to genetic variation (unless you're into the whole Biblical in the family style). It's an adaptation to survive in single sex environments, but once they get to an area with both sexes evolution will continue again.
Cybele wrote:
That lizard that can regenerate its tail for instance, that's not evolution.
Bingo. Because individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If a lizard with no tail has kids those kids WILL have tails.
Cybele wrote:
They just have that unique trait. And perhaps all lizards have their own unique and special traits.
Of course they do. That's why they're called different species or subspecies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80748 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA. That's all it is. Lizards have a unique DNA.
All organisms have unique DNA. Even identical twins have a few mutations different. And DNA changes with each subsequent generation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80749 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Only one type of lizard's genome was sequenced completely as what they claim, the green anole lizard. Funny how scientists claim our junk DNA have these transposons of our DNA that happen to be found in this particular lizard. So now we have common history with green lizards. LOL!
Evolution never ceases to amuse me. ;-)
Yes, all organisms have a certain amount of shared genetic material. It's evolution which predicts the pattern. That's nested hierarchy. Which is consistent across homology, the fossil record AND DNA. You will also find that there will be a certain amount of genetic drift within those transposons which also match nested hierarchies.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#80750 Mar 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Was this realistic conversation?
Not once you joined it.

Now, you WILL serve your master!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80751 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not debunking evolution. I'm asking for evidence or explanation. Because when you put two and two together, the theory falls apart. But then you know there's a truth in everything. Read between the lines.
The theory hasn't fallen apart yet. Your idea of evolution may have fallen apart but that's because you have no idea what it is. Science is validated or invalidated by scientists, not ignorant people who have never learned anything about the subject. Reality does not care what you believe. It simply is.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#80752 Mar 14, 2013
Happy Pi Day everyone!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80753 Mar 14, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not once you joined it.
Now, you WILL serve your master!
i have no master. i am a free human.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80755 Mar 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution IS the explanation.
<quoted text>
Or let's not. The closest thing to "holy grail" was DNA, which firmly established evolution WAY back in the fifties. But since fundies are still arguing from a couple of centuries behind they're a little out of date. Another could be called ERV's.
So similarities in genetic code is evidence for evolution? That logic fails when you take into account the similarities in DNA of a plant and an organism such as bananas and the human DNA. You might be able to trace back your lineage from a species of tree, so you might be right. lol
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We have evidence, in the form of monotremes. They are an evolutionary relic from the days when reptiles led to monotremes which led to mammals. That's why monotremes have characteristics of both.
Monotreme? Are you insulting me? lol. How do you know that animal is a product of evolution as oppose to something that filled the niche in the order of nature like intercalation? Do you know the concept of permutation? Do you see how that would apply to genetics?
The Dude wrote:
The immaculate conception of certain species is not evidence of speciation since there is very little to instigate change in an organism which is essentially cloning itself. That's a limitation of genetic variation while sexual reproduction leads to genetic variation (unless you're into the whole Biblical in the family style). It's an adaptation to survive in single sex environments, but once they get to an area with both sexes evolution will continue again.
You are wrong about the komodo dragon that gave virgin birth. This self-cloning animal somehow had the ability to reproduce asexually and then only giving birth to male young and then mates with the young to reproduce again, as what they claim. It's a distinct trait as lizards have very unique genetic traits.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. Because individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If a lizard with no tail has kids those kids WILL have tails.
<quoted text>
When did I say that only one individual lizard had this ability to regenerate its tail?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80756 Mar 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all organisms have a certain amount of shared genetic material. It's evolution which predicts the pattern. That's nested hierarchy. Which is consistent across homology, the fossil record AND DNA. You will also find that there will be a certain amount of genetic drift within those transposons which also match nested hierarchies.
So homology is evidence for evolution? Do you know how animal camouflage works? You call that evolution? lol

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80757 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So similarities in genetic code is evidence for evolution? That logic fails when you take into account the similarities in DNA of a plant and an organism such as bananas and the human DNA. You might be able to trace back your lineage from a species of tree, so you might be right. lol
You are really thinking in a limited fashion. No, it's stronger evidence for the theory of evolution, even stronger evidence of speciation as a result of evolution. For one thing, it's exactly what we would see if everything was related in some way.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80758 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So homology is evidence for evolution? Do you know how animal camouflage works? You call that evolution? lol
Wht type of camouflage? there are many types. Some are as simple as looking like the habitat you inhabit and some are as complex as the cuttle fish and octopuses...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80759 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So homology is evidence for evolution? Do you know how animal camouflage works? You call that evolution? lol
You actually think that animals choose their coloring?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80760 Mar 14, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really thinking in a limited fashion. No, it's stronger evidence for the theory of evolution, even stronger evidence of speciation as a result of evolution. For one thing, it's exactly what we would see if everything was related in some way.
Cybele reminds me of my time grading research papers as a Ta at university. there were always those that found a thesis, and 'researched' facts that supported that hypothesis. an automatic "F", of course....

Cybele gets an "F" in her worldview.

when the student had enough time to re do their paper, however crudely and briefly, i helped them with that, as that was my job and they could receive partial credit for what they had learned about research, but most of those papers were turned in at the last moment.

do you still have time to earn partial credit for your life, Cybele?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80761 Mar 14, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You actually think that animals choose their coloring?
What makes you think that I think that?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80762 Mar 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Cybele reminds me of my time grading research papers as a Ta at university. there were always those that found a thesis, and 'researched' facts that supported that hypothesis. an automatic "F", of course....
Cybele gets an "F" in her worldview.
when the student had enough time to re do their paper, however crudely and briefly, i helped them with that, as that was my job and they could receive partial credit for what they had learned about research, but most of those papers were turned in at the last moment.
do you still have time to earn partial credit for your life, Cybele?
I have done research type of work and also helped college students do their paper, but not covered evolution. lol

You are as clueless as your consciousness.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80763 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think that I think that?
perhaps you should think that? are you confused now?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80764 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So homology is evidence for evolution? Do you know how animal camouflage works? You call that evolution? lol
Yes, it is predicted by the theory of evolution.


Convergent evolution shows that there is more than one way to make a structure. Convergent structures look similar but have different genetic makeup. The closer two species are related the more homologous structures and homologous genes they share. Convergence works as a result of environment and not genetics. They show a lack of homologous genes.

So if animals were created by an omniscient being we would expect to see many convergent structures and few if any homologous structures. We observe the opposite. That is very strong evidence for evolution.

Unless you believe in a God that could not come up with a design for each species and decided to go with "good enough" rather than "good".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80765 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think that I think that?
Because if they don't then the coloring would have to be the result of mutations in the DNA. Just like your hair color.

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) 1 min andet1987 8,008
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 4 min andet1987 31,727
News Man shoots himself in the face in a weird attem... 6 min Geno 13
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 7 min andet1987 2,628
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 9 min andet1987 25,449
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 12 min Hatti_Hollerand 13,781
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 13 min andet1987 35,554
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 16 min Barry Obama 19,873
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr avon5735 194,272
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 2 hr Teflon Hillary 161
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Denny CranesPlace 58,061
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 8 hr Northbound 8,521
More from around the web