Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216947 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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80817 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
The evolution of the snake( or serpent) is one of apparent devolution.
Why would you say that? they seem perfectly adapted to their environs...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80818 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay so here's an analogy. Let's pretend God was a computer programmer and he created the genetic code for all living things.
He writes a program 1 and produces an output 1
He writes a program 2 and produces an output 2
And so on...
If you know the genetic code, it is represented with codes A C T G arranged in different sequence, that's the idea of permutation.
Here's and example of Program:
#NoEnv
StringCaseSense On
o := str := "Hello"
Loop
{
str := perm_next(str)
If !str
{
MsgBox % clipboard := o
break
}
o.= "`n" . str
}
perm_Next(str){
p := 0, sLen := StrLen(str)
Loop % sLen
{
If A_Index=1
continue
t := SubStr(str, sLen+1-A_Index, 1)
n := SubStr(str, sLen+2-A_Index, 1)
If ( t < n )
{
p := sLen+1-A_Index, pC := SubStr(str, p, 1)
break
}
}
If !p
return false
Loop
{
t := SubStr(str, sLen+1-A_Index, 1)
If ( t > pC )
{
n := sLen+1-A_Index, nC := SubStr(str, n, 1)
break
}
}
return SubStr(str, 1, p-1). nC . Reverse(SubStr(str, p+1, n-p-1). pC . SubStr(str, n+1))
}
Reverse(s){
Loop Parse, s
o := A_LoopField o
return o
}
And this will be the output of that program:
Hello
Helol
Heoll
Hlelo
Hleol
Hlleo
Hlloe
Hloel
Hlole
Hoell
Holel
Holle
eHllo
eHlol
eHoll
elHlo
elHol
ellHo
elloH
eloHl
elolH
eoHll
eolHl
eollH
lHelo
lHeol
lHleo
lHloe
lHoel
lHole
leHlo
leHol
lelHo
leloH
leoHl
leolH
llHeo
llHoe
lleHo
lleoH
lloHe
lloeH
loHel
loHle
loeHl
loelH
lolHe
loleH
oHell
oHlel
oHlle
oeHll
oelHl
oellH
olHel
olHle
oleHl
olelH
ollHe
olleH
get it yet???


Yup. And there are a number of problems with this analogy. It's not an accurate model of evolution. For one thing it doesn't take natural selection into account. For another thing DNA is not limited by symbolic language factors but rather chemical interactions. Also there are currently 7 billion different ways to make a human, but only one way to spell "Hello" in English. Your "permutation" model simply does not apply to DNA.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80819 Mar 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you missed out the inconvenient bits, like: b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
As a promoter of ignorance and anti-science you are insincere. Therefore my original definition was correct.
like: b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance.

wow that sounds like JC.

well I know you character, and I know JCs.

Guess who I'm going with.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80820 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
whatever. I don't care. I bet you couldn't even write a simple HTML code to change your font. meh
Back at school at the end of the IT year they had us programming a 100+ line database program in BASIC from memory and from scratch. I couldn't do it now though. My bro on the other hand became an expert programmer.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80821 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there are snakes just as colorful, but are not poisonous at all.
Mimicking is an assumption with no proof.
I just said that.

Quick, is *that* a coral snake or not??

Took too long. You're dead.

See how that works?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80822 Mar 14, 2013
John777 wrote:
If evolution is true? Why did it stop. How come evolution is not happening today. How come there are still not apes turning into men and walking around with us now? Where are these half human half monkey species at today? I believe God created the world and created the "old" stuff in it, he did create time as we know it. Testing that says something is millions of years old can be true and God could have created it a s well to be old when he made it. Was not meant for our human minds to understand in this life.
Why do you hate kittens?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80823 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
if this is so true...why do lizards have evolutionary legs and the evolution of the snake had legs in the past but now has none?
"cos they don't need them.

BTW, some lizards don't have legs, either.

Nor do worms, nor many invertebrates.

It's whatever works given the evolutionary niche.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80824 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
if this is so true...why do lizards have evolutionary legs and the evolution of the snake had legs in the past but now has none?
God got pished with him and ripped his legs off?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80825 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
another assumption to support your evolutionary theory.
like I said, just an assumption with no actual proof.
An assumption that they look alike? no, not really... an assumption that predators for those animals avoid them because of their mimicry? no, not really....

we've actually seen such mimicry in evolutionary action. look at the story of the samurai crab....learn, then post...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80826 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
The evolution of the snake( or serpent) is one of apparent devolution.
Nope.

You're assuming that "legs" are somehow better than "no legs".

True for humans, but what would, say, a clam do with legs?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80827 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
another assumption to support your evolutionary theory.
like I said, just an assumption with no actual proof.
"Assumption"?

You do know that it works, right?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80828 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
The evolution of the snake( or serpent) is one of apparent devolution.
There is no such thing as "devolution". Snakes get along fine without legs. Just because something loses an attribute doesn't mean it's "devolving".

There are cave-locked organisms that have eye sockets or even complete eyes which are now covered with membranes that would prevent them to see, but they don't need sight anymore. So having those eyes is actually a disadvantage as they are ultimately wasting energy. Again, evolution explains this. Neither creationism nor "devolution" do.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80829 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
another assumption to support your evolutionary theory.
like I said, just an assumption with no actual proof.
Only assumptions here are tested:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

And pass.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80830 Mar 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it is happeneing today. apes didnot turn into men. hominids and apes branched off a common ancestor.
perhaps you should try to undertand at least the very basics of an idea before you attempt to debunk it, lest you look like a bigger fool.
Technically speaking apes did become men. Humans *are* apes.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80831 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
like: b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance.
wow that sounds like JC.
well I know you character, and I know JCs.
Guess who I'm going with.
Oh, you mean that guy who might not even have existed? Either way though since creationists tend to be big fat juicy liars I heard there was something about a 9 Commandment? Something about lying being a no-no. For some reason pretty much every creationist on here ignores that one.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80832 Mar 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "devolution". Snakes get along fine without legs. Just because something loses an attribute doesn't mean it's "devolving".
There are cave-locked organisms that have eye sockets or even complete eyes which are now covered with membranes that would prevent them to see, but they don't need sight anymore. So having those eyes is actually a disadvantage as they are ultimately wasting energy. Again, evolution explains this. Neither creationism nor "devolution" do.
...why must I continually keep you guys updated on your own science.

"Genetic Study of House Dust Mites Demonstrates Reversible Evolution"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80833 Mar 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically speaking apes did become men. Humans *are* apes.
gotcha...the apes he was refering to do not and never have 'turned into men'...

i shall be more clear in the future, thanx.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80834 Mar 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. And there are a number of problems with this analogy. It's not an accurate model of evolution. For one thing it doesn't take natural selection into account. For another thing DNA is not limited by symbolic language factors but rather chemical interactions. Also there are currently 7 billion different ways to make a human, but only one way to spell "Hello" in English. Your "permutation" model simply does not apply to DNA.
I wasn't trying to give an analogy to support evolution. Because I believe in permutation as oppose to mutation as it can be observed in genetics. That's how we can observe the similarities in DNA of every organism. My computer program is just an analogy not an actual code for DNA, duh. Whatever created the genetic code it would be a similar concept to a computer program. Simple as that. The theory of evolution has no mathematical evidence, just an invented board game.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80835 Mar 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "devolution". Snakes get along fine without legs. Just because something loses an attribute doesn't mean it's "devolving".
There are cave-locked organisms that have eye sockets or even complete eyes which are now covered with membranes that would prevent them to see, but they don't need sight anymore. So having those eyes is actually a disadvantage as they are ultimately wasting energy. Again, evolution explains this. Neither creationism nor "devolution" do.
you seem to have a problem with Reversible Evolution.

it's based on the law of gravity.oh...I think you said you didn't believe in gravity...my bad.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80836 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
you seem to have a problem with Reversible Evolution.
it's based on the law of gravity.oh...I think you said you didn't believe in gravity...my bad.
Evolution is not reversible. It is always a "forward" change.

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
Word Association. (Nov '10) 1 min Bezeer 19,920
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 1 min Bezeer 11,169
The Letter "C" (Aug '09) 3 min Bezeer 5,639
The letter E (Jun '13) 3 min Bezeer 1,284
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 4 min Bezeer 6,615
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 5 min Bezeer 9,258
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min Appreciate 207,258
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 18 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,532
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 24 min KNIGHT DeVINE 22,245
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 48 min Poppyann 10,656
A to Z songs by title or group! 1 hr Poppyann 34
More from around the web