Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163938 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.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83718 Mar 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
42? Where ARE you getting your information?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
From a paper 2 years more recent than yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83719 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
You're full of crap.

What fundie site do you get your crappy error ridden data from??
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83720 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You're delusinal by saying I have zero evidence. I did not assume design. The fixed biological species concepts is the evidence for the origin of species. It eliminates species giving birth to new species oover time thru natural processes. Now apply deductive logic to the ONLY two possible explanations for the origin of species. Hence, the name of this subject article (evolution vs creation) is the ONLY possible explanations to the origin of species.
You are incorrect. There is evolution, creationism, or an as yet unknown third option that no-one's thought of yet. So what we see is merely yourself setting creationism up as the default answer should evolution happen to be wrong.

THAT is why you have no evidence.
Infinite Force wrote:
Once again, fixed biological species logically deducts/elliminates the descent of a new species originating from the same species which evoution proposes. The conclusion based on scientific evidence (fixed biological species term) and deductive reasoning is creation for the origin of species. I doubt you will understand this because you don't even have a sound definition for species.
Neither do you. But what IS observed is that life changes over time. The ONLY thing that would prevent this would be if the Earth was say, oh, only 6,000 years old. And since it ISN'T...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83721 Mar 29, 2013
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.

The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83722 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction: three possible explanations to the origin of species in accordance to the stratta/fossil and biological species.
1. creation.
2. biological species given rise to new species (evolution).
3. spontaneous generation to ALL known different biologica species found on earth today and in the strata/fossil record.
Only possible answers to the origin of species!
Incorrect.

4.- Currently unknown.

However this post does not address mine, which is that common design has no evidence nor makes any testable predictions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83723 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You are observing a fixed biological species with variation over time and that's it. The biolical species will ALWAYS remain the same. This fixed species concept follows the constant principle found in the laws of nature. You do know the laws of nature is fixed and universal don't you? Proposing an un-fixed concept violates these principles found in the laws of nature. Thought you should know this.
The orbit of Mercury breaks the "law of gravity". Thought you should know this.

This is why I don't take your "principles found in the 'laws' of nature" claims very seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83724 Mar 29, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Well according to your previous posts on this thread, there are evidence for evolution that have been tested repeatedly, so what happens when a mutant species reproduce?
They grow up and reproduce themselves too.

You ARE born with over 100 mutations that neither of your parents have. Just because you posted a linky pointing to mutations that cause infertility does not mean ALL mutations cause infertility.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83725 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.
The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
Simply smashing job...ol' boy!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83726 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the bird ring species was not observed diversifying from one to two are more species which formed your so called ring species... YOU ASSUME DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION AND ORIGIN OF DIFFERENT ring species. Once again, the creation of a ring species has not been observed by the biological species concept.
Ring species are *evidence* of descent with modification. This is reality. It is observed. What you are doing is moving back the goalposts to allow a "little bit" of evolution, but not too much that it violates your philosophical/theological beefs with reality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83727 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction and my apologies for the mis-explanation. I mean when it comes to a biological reproductive species the laws of nature governs all of them the same with no exceptions. This means if the biological species concept applies to one then it applies to all biological reproductive species with no exception. You saying that the ring species disprove my biological species concept and now I want the evidence of a reproductive species starting as one species diversing into your ring species using the biological species concept. I don't want your similarity assumption species term, I want this proved through the same species term I am using. You cannot use a species term that is based on pure assumption to disqaulify my specoes term that is built on pure observation.
We don't HAVE to stick to your definitions, because your opinions are irrelevant. Not that you've even explained exactly what your definition of species is.(shrug)
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83728 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> From a paper 2 years more recent than yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
Quotes from your paper. Support OUR postion, not yours, right?

Conclusion
Nine families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses have been transpositionally active since chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor. Seven of these transpositionally active families have orthologs in humans, one of which has also been transpositionally active in humans since the human-chimpanzee divergence about six million years ago. Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes have revealed that a significant portion of INDEL variation between chimpanzees and humans is attributable to endogenous retroviruses and may be of evolutionary significance.

Of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses identified in this study, 40 were found to have orthologues in the human genome, including 9 that were identified in this study for the first time [14]

A member of only one class II family, CERV 30 (HERV K10), has been transpositionally active since the divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83729 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Where can you show that has happened as factual in human population?
Humans have not diverged enough yet to cause speciation. However their genetic variance *is* observed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83730 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So how would the information from the outside world, such as leaves on a tree in relation to a giraffe growing a longer neck to reach a food source come about to mutate the genes?
It's been nearly two years and you fundies still argue against goal-directed evolution.

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83731 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
the implication was that a giraffe grows a longer neck by evolutionary means over a period of time to reach a food source.
I asked how the information is transferred from the physical world to the biological construct of giraffe.
do you know or not?
Yes, we know that intended goals are not what drives evolution. Giraffe developed longer necks. If they didn't they simply wouldn't be eating that food at the top of the tree.(shrug)

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83732 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually what he claimed was correct. Here it is for the hundredth time (or so):
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
I like that. Thanks.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83733 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>One would expect that if that hypothesis were correct, even 4 million years should have certainly produced a tangible proof in the human genetic evolution. If the scenario of birds you offer as example of geological separation, and producing(causing) the inability to procreate due to genetic deformation of evolution, then the very same scenario should have produced like results in humans as well, especially over even longer periods of time and history...and yet it (in fact) has not.
Why not?
4 million years? Well the lineages of humans and chimps diverged around 6-7 million years ago we DO have that evidence. As for the humans that are left today, it's also worth bearing in mind that geographical separation is less of a factor today due to the development of boats and planes. So the constant mixing of genes slows things down.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83734 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeap! No matter how many generations down, the first generation will be the same biological species as the millionth generation down. This is what I mean by fixed.
The fossil record and genetics does not support your position.

Oh wait - I forgot you proposed alien UFO's coming down once every 1 million years to drop off new species. Or something.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83735 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so in other words you don't know.
Yes, we know that your question itself betrays a misunderstanding of the concepts involved. You may as well have been asking why are there still monkeys.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83736 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.
Let me point out where your entire premise falls apart utterly:
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
IOW- there had to have been a transfer of genetic information for the mutation to even have happened
Mutations are NEW information. If you transfer EXISTING information that is NOT new information. Organism 1 does not "transfer" mutations to its offspring organism 2. Organism 1 transfers its existing genetic material to organism 2 and organism 2 undergoes mutations during development, thereby ending up with a small amount of genetic material which is NOT shared by either parent.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83737 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
Correct. They could have simply stayed short and competed with other short mammals. You continually claim that evolution claims that there was an intended goal, despite the fact that we have argued the opposite from the beginning.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 13 min Wolftracks 40,720
News Cremains wash up on Scotland shoreline and you ... 14 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 7
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 17 min andet1987 29,110
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 27 min andet1987 687
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 29 min andet1987 28,861
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 32 min andet1987 4,533
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 33 min _FLATLINE-------- 79,140
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 11,405
REAL motorcycle traveling stories. 1 hr andet1987 17
60's Pics 2 hr Spirit67_ 14
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Wolftracks 162,884
More from around the web