Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222739 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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#83600 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So your claim is that all leaf eaters develop long necks.
No.

Some do.
Some learn to climb.
Some knock the trees down.
Some find something else to eat.

Some, of course, simply die.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#83601 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The human race, as homo sapiens has not existed for 4 million years. And during that time period there was more than one species of homo and though we can't tell for sure some of them probably could not interbreed.
Animals go extinct too and we are the only line that survived.
Seen this? http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/nea...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#83602 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what information meeds to be transfered from the physical world to the girrafe? why?
So Giraffes with longer necks eat better because they can reach higher for their food source.

And this is by no way implies any kind of information that was transferred from the physical world to the Giraffe.

Right.lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83603 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's come to a conclusion so we can make some progress.
If your species concept was correct evolution would be true when it comes to the origin of species.
If my species concept was true biological species would be fixed correct?
Let's start here and both come to conclusions on both of our ifs.
S0 we can take our argument in a different direction because I am working up this species ladder so I can prove the existence of creator(s) for the origin of species. Can we try this?
You can try, but you are wrong.

As I said that was already shown by the existence of ring species.

Did you ever answer about whether you believe that all species should be able to interbreed if they shared common ancestors.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83604 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>If not by the inference of genetic information being passed as mutative cellular action within spermiation or zygote, then how and why would one neck of a giraffe grow to different lengths than another in the same environment?
IOW- there had to have been a transfer of genetic information for the mutation to even have happened....
OR- it never happened.
OR- you need to read better... that has nothing to do with this mysterious transfer of information from the physical world to the genetic structure of the giraffe...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83605 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So Giraffes with longer necks eat better because they can reach higher for their food source.
And this is by no way implies any kind of information that was transferred from the physical world to the Giraffe.
Right.lol
yes, it doesn't imply it ata all. in any way! for you to think it does shows a real deranged kind of thinking..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83606 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So Giraffes with longer necks eat better because they can reach higher for their food source.
And this is by no way implies any kind of information that was transferred from the physical world to the Giraffe.
Right.lol
Wrong again. You continue your dishonesty. Information from the real world is transferred to the descendants of existing giraffes.

By continually miswording questions you show that you are not being honest. Your questions have assumptions built into them. Your assumptions are wrong. That is why your questions are both stupid and dishonest.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83607 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The human race, as homo sapiens has not existed for 4 million years. And during that time period there was more than one species of homo and though we can't tell for sure some of them probably could not interbreed.
Animals go extinct too and we are the only line that survived.
Fail.

With the thousands of years of (supposed)continental separation of humanoid species, there surely should have been differences in physical abilities and biological differences that your "circle species" argument infers.
I have yet to see you produce an example of that as the case ...therefore that argument is BS as it is presented.

Your argument concerning earlier species is purely hypothetical also...as you have NO tangible proof that any of it is valid and actuality.

Show us any skeletal and genetic matches for any humanoid mutation that can in any way "prove" the evolution of the humanoid line as it is proposed, and the reasons for the occurrences of change and/or mutation.

The earliest known ancestor of man was 4.4 million years ago...so don't hand me that BS either.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83608 Mar 29, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
No, but thanks. I already knew that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals could interbreed. Finding which hominids could NOT interbreed is a trickier problem.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83609 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Fail.
With the thousands of years of (supposed)continental separation of humanoid species, there surely should have been differences in physical abilities and biological differences that your "circle species" argument infers.
I have yet to see you produce an example of that as the case ...therefore that argument is BS as it is presented.
Your argument concerning earlier species is purely hypothetical also...as you have NO tangible proof that any of it is valid and actuality.
Show us any skeletal and genetic matches for any humanoid mutation that can in any way "prove" the evolution of the humanoid line as it is proposed, and the reasons for the occurrences of change and/or mutation.
The earliest known ancestor of man was 4.4 million years ago...so don't hand me that BS either.
Wrong, this is a fail on your part.

The theory of evolution does not say that creatures have to evolve. If they are well adapted to their environment there is little reason for them to evolve and evolution is slow. And as I said there were several hominids alive in the past but it is very difficult to know whether or not they can interbreed by simply looking at them.

For example we know that some of the great cats can interbreed and some can't. You can't really tell just by looking.

So were there hominid ring species in the past? Who knows? Right now we do not have enough information to say either way.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83610 Mar 29, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm.
Do you have any scientific evidence supporting this concept of "fixed", in the sense that you're using it?
If so, shoot me a link, please. I'd be fascinated.
Likewise, does evolution have the evidence in the sense that "I am using it" to support the origin of one species dividing into two or more species from generation one to the millionth generation?

Before I back up my claim, back up yours because I am holding you to this same standard and this means the biological species term is the only one you can refer to. SORRY, BI DON'T PLAY THAT DOUBLE STANDARD GAME!

Present your evidence using my standard and I will present mine.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83611 Mar 29, 2013
Thinking it over there were probably never hominid ring species. One of the requirements for ring species is that you have to have at least four identifiable species and I am unaware of four closely related hominid species existing at any one time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83612 Mar 29, 2013
Oops, not thinking clearly yet this morning. Only three species are needed for ring species.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83613 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Likewise, does evolution have the evidence in the sense that "I am using it" to support the origin of one species dividing into two or more species from generation one to the millionth generation?
Before I back up my claim, back up yours because I am holding you to this same standard and this means the biological species term is the only one you can refer to. SORRY, BI DON'T PLAY THAT DOUBLE STANDARD GAME!
Present your evidence using my standard and I will present mine.
It is clear that English is not your native tongue. Sometimes your posts are difficult to understand. But yes, there is tons of evidence for evolution. No honest scientist can or will deny it.

Do you know what evidence is? There is no scientific evidence that supports creation or whatever strange belief that you have.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83614 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>
OR- you need to read better... that has nothing to do with this mysterious transfer of information from the physical world to the genetic structure of the giraffe...
"mysterious transfer"?
hahahahahahah!
Is that what you call "science"?
Sounds more like the new developing "myth" to me.

So, again, I must ask ---why are there no humanoid species difference that can no longer interbreed??

Or is that another "mysterious" scientific process?
hahahahahah!

Hello?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83615 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>"mysterious transfer"?
hahahahahahah!
Is that what you call "science"?
Sounds more like the new developing "myth" to me.
So, again, I must ask ---why are there no humanoid species difference that can no longer interbreed??
Or is that another "mysterious" scientific process?
hahahahahah!
Hello?
As he said, you need to read better.

Massive fail, try again.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83616 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, this is a fail on your part.
The theory of evolution does not say that creatures have to evolve. If they are well adapted to their environment there is little reason for them to evolve and evolution is slow. And as I said there were several hominids alive in the past but it is very difficult to know whether or not they can interbreed by simply looking at them.
For example we know that some of the great cats can interbreed and some can't. You can't really tell just by looking.
So were there hominid ring species in the past? Who knows? Right now we do not have enough information to say either way.
Exactly!
All you have to work with is [speculation]--yet you try to present it as fact...therein lies the cause of your fail.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83617 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Thinking it over there were probably never hominid ring species. One of the requirements for ring species is that you have to have at least four identifiable species and I am unaware of four closely related hominid species existing at any one time.
Dead end!

To think that you and every biological species that ever existed on this planet started as one biological species and over 4.5 billon years of generations is the result of all the biological species both dead and alive we know of today!!!!!!???? YOU ARE INSANE!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83618 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder's first fail was such a train wreck that I missed his second massive fail in his post.

Once again, the reason that there are no other hominids that can interbreed with man is that they went extinct. They all died off. They could not handle the pressure. Many animal species go extinct every year. Did you think that our relatives were immune to extinction?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83619 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Exactly!
All you have to work with is [speculation]--yet you try to present it as fact...therein lies the cause of your fail.
No fail master. We have tons of evidence that supports our claims.

There is no scientific evidence for creation.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 min twowheelsforever 27,325
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 6 min Crazy Jae 876
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 18 min -TheExam- 38,456
weird association 33 min Weazy Street 27
News Neighbour tells of 'weird barbecue' smell in ga... 39 min Weazy Street 5
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 40 min Crazy Jae 17,635
News Halloween display prompts 911 call 47 min Weazy Street 2
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 50 min Crazy Jae 6,043
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Weazy Street 223,354
Phrases that you don't hear very often (Nov '11) 3 hr wichita-rick 764
More from around the web