Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83694 Mar 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The textbooks still say that the giraffe got his long neck because all the food had run out and he was trying to eat up there in the trees. And I am saying, "Okay, good, but what about Mrs. Giraffe? She is two feet shorter. What about baby giraffe? If all the food is gone and he's got to stretch up there to eat out of the top of the tree, what is baby giraffe going to eat after they are weaned from their mama?" It doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe Millions of years between meals?!
What we have here is irreducible complexity. It's like when we reduce fractions down and you can't reduce them down anymore. Complexity requires all the different parts that are needed working together perfectly, so they are irreducible. You can't take them down anymore. They need all these parts, and all the parts have to be fully functional. You can't have a partially formed heart, or a partially formed valve, or a partially formed sponge. They have to all be there. They have to all be fully functional, or you don't have a giraffe."
ummm...because they feed at all levels...

not a rocket scientist, are you?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#83695 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>That is due to bears coming out from hibernation. It is really not their fault, the white color confuses them.
It's due to them changing their coat from winter to summer. White to brown.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83696 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Answered earlier.
I gave a HYPOTHETICAL example of how evolution works SOMETIMES, i.e. a species trapped by nature in some sort of a situation of reproductive isolation.
I certainly did not mean or imply that that is the ONLY way evolution can work.
And I gave example that that actually did happen globally and still resulted in no problem in species reproduction when brought together from any one of the given points of those separations for thousands of years...and they were ALL in "stress" individually and globally to near extinction at times.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#83697 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Langoliers, have you had a chance to figure out why humid air rises yet?

It is a simple science question.

I am sure that you are not too DENSE to figure it out.
Have you figured out why evaporation is down over 20% over the last 50 years.
It's a simple science question.

I'm sure you'll google up the answer seeing as you don't know right now.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#83698 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>still need that very first teensy weensy shred of evidence for your creator or designer for your guess to be even considered...

and then there is all the evidence for evolution...

hmmmm...
You just read that "first teensy weensy shred of evidence for your creator or designer"

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83699 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a lame bullshit artist.
Our textbooks, museums and DNA labs are CHOCK FULL of evidence pointing to evolution, common descent, etc.
That's why none of you can show any type of progression from the beginning to the present with any defined accuracy whatsoever...because your textbooks are "full of it"...LOL! That is an understatement.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83700 Mar 29, 2013
42? Where ARE you getting your information?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83701 Mar 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You just read that "first teensy weensy shred of evidence for your creator or designer"
no that is not evidence. not at all.

why is there not even a scientific hypothesis for ID? no evidence to start one....

you lose...

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83702 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not only that you are using words you do not understand correctly.
And I don't name call. I use appropriate descriptive words.
Creatards are called creatards because of their actions, not because of their beliefs.
I am more than willing to help people out, but if they come on as rude ignorant bumpkins who have no idea how science is done or why it works then they get rudeness back tenfold.
So would you like to learn the scientific method, how it works, why it works, what is and is not evidence etc.?
It is clear right now that you are in no position to judge truth from lie. I will be running off soon, but this is not a task that can be accomplished in a few minutes anyway.
My offer to help is always genuine. When people play nice, I play nice, but lately I have had an overdose of creatards so my patience is a bit on the low side.
Exactly "what" words do you think I might not understand?

How is it that you are qualified to judge what my education or degree of intelligence is on any matters?

Yes, of course. You are going to "teach" ignorant me--correct?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83703 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> That's why none of you can show any type of progression from the beginning to the present with any defined accuracy whatsoever
"...an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome" (D. M. Taylor 2003).

A layman's explanation of orthologous (i.e. SAME POSITION in the genome) ERVs:

ERV's share orthologous positions with other species in a manner predicted by common ancestry.

If you get a virus in one of your cells, it copies its DNA into your DNA in order to make more copies of itself.

If that happens in a blood cell, then that one cell has the DNA insert.

If EVERY cell in your body has the DNA insert, it's part of your DNA.

That ONLY happens when a virus gets into a sperm or egg which goes on to produce a living being.

From then on, anyone born to that lineage will also have the same retroviral insert in their DNA.

So, if this happened to your grandfather's sperm, it caused you dad to have it. Your dad passes it on to you, you pass it on to your children.

That's a retroviral insert.

Any given virus COULD be an insert and COULD insert into any part of the gene sequence.

So, for you and I to have the same insert in the same place on our DNA, there are only two possibilities.

A) Someone a long way back had the virus and we both descend from that person.

B) The EXACT same virus infected two different people, and randomly inserted itself into the EXACT same spot on the INCREDIBLY LONG DNA sequence (3 BILLION pairs = 3 BILLION possible places to insert itself), and then that cell HAPPENED to be a sperm and HAPPENED to result in a kid.

The odds against B are very long, but not impossible.

However, you and I don't just have ONE retrovirus in common, we have many.(let's say 30 for the sake of the discussion).

So, either you and I descend from one individual who had the 30 virus inserts -or- B happened 30x in a row without ever having a single mistaken location or additional virus.

Odds against that? Too long to have ever occured in the entire history of the universe.

So, the fact that ALL humans have the same retroviral DNA inserts means that ALL humans share a common ancestor who had those same inserts.

Get it? Good.

Now, understand this. Of the 30 retroviral inserts we all share, chimps ALSO have 15 of them.

That means that at some point, a long time ago, when there were only 15 retroviral inserts, an individual existed who was both the forefather of all humans and the forefather of all chimps.

That's common descent.

if two people have the same retroviral insert in the same place in their DNA, they likely share a common ancestor.

And we've concluded that if two people have more than one of the same retroviral insert in the same place in their DNA, the odds against them not sharing a common ancestor go up exponentially with each additional insert.

Onto the next point:
Looking at one retrovirus (HERV-K) here's what we find:

# of retroviral insertion points in common between humans and...
New World Monkeys: 2
Old World Monkeys: 4
Gibbons: 7
Orangutans: 9
Gorillas & Chimps: 11
Other Humans: 14

So what does that tell us?
It tells us that we share a common ancestor with all of these.

It tells us the order in which the various groups split off.

The least # of viruses in common split first. The most # split last.

The odds against humans and chimps both aquiring 11 common inserts? 1:1 followed by 132 zeros.

That is why DNA researchers consider ERVs to be slam-the-door positive evidence for evolution.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83704 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what transitions? a clear record of beings being more ape-like to being more human like. that IS the transition.
tough to deny verifiable, viewable, touchable facts like that, yet somehow you still seem to do it...
what do you call it when someone denies the reality in front of them?...
You know...you have not once shown any examples of proof of actuality for anything you have made claim of.
You know what that says about you?

Hot air.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83705 Mar 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
If evolution is true, the struggle for the Giraffe to survive must have been one ugly sight!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.h...

Creationist Claim CB325:

A giraffe's heart must be quite large (it is over 24 lbs) to pump blood to the giraffe's head. A series of special one-way valves in the neck regulates blood flow, and there is a special net of elastic blood vessels at the base of the brain. Without these valves and elastic blood vessels, the blood pressure in the giraffe's head would be immense when it bends over, enough to cause brain damage. All of these features -- large heart, valves in the jugular vein, and wondernet of vessels -- must be in place simultaneously or the giraffe would die. They could not have evolved gradually.

Response:

Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.
References:

Darwin, Charles, 1868. Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, vol. 2, chpt. 20. London: John Murray. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwi...
Further Reading:

Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The tallest tale. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, 301-318.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83706 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> That's why none of you can show any type of progression from the beginning to the present with any defined accuracy whatsoever...because your textbooks are "full of it"...LOL! That is an understatement.
you have been shown that progression. we have the fossil record of it...

perhaps you should get into the field and then they might let you actually touch the fossils, would you believe it then?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83707 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Now, you have finally made a reasonable case. It is not a case of genetic mutation...it IS a case of the environment causing all except the very lightest of fur in the gene pool to be reduced toward extinction of the variant "darker" shades.
It is BOTH.

Evolution = genetic variation (by mutation, drift or sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of Natural Selection.

If the Arctic environment changes in the coming years form snowpack to more temperate green and brown, those rabbits that are born with the gene for brown or black or gray fur will EVENTUALLY be selected for by nature and will thrive.

It all depends on the environmental conditions whether a specific mutation is "good," "bad" or "neutral."

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83708 Mar 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll bite. How so?
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83709 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> You know...you have not once shown any examples of proof of actuality for anything you have made claim of.
You know what that says about you?
Hot air.
Actually what he claimed was correct. Here it is for the hundredth time (or so):

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

Birkenhead, UK

#83710 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea I know, and Columbus discovered America.lol
That would certainly surprise the Americans who had been living there for longer than the fundies say the universe has existed.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83711 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and the hares and other animals that change their fur color????
Follows the same logic...don't you think?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83712 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.
What are these places in history...please be specific..
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83713 Mar 29, 2013
Mark wrote:
At the core, I can see that the word "Design" doesn't work for you.
That's because it doesn't work. If it DID work you could explain exactly who or what did the designing, when it did it, where it did it and what the heck exactly it did.
Mark wrote:
When it's pointed out that basics like moon gravity, distance and mass are vital and you say it doesn’t matter because -"Size is irrelevant". A few more feet of tide and most of our crop bearing soil would be gone. That's simple geography but to you it's "irrelevant"!
Why yes, it IS irrelevant. Since life has been around FAR longer than harvesting.

Duh.
Mark wrote:
Have worked with a number of oil companies (still do) and never saw one worried about isotope dating. They use seismic equipment and well logs. Never heard of an archaeologist using long age nuc dating as they deal with the existence of man, which is way inside the usable range of isotope dating, they use C14. So you're not making any sense to me, other then showing me how little you know about the stuff you are posting about.
Of course, that's because all your personal anecdotes render literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed literature moot. Because you are THAT important.
Mark wrote:
You can blame Jesus all you want. The fact that you refer to scientists you have never met as "liars" is also telling. I know these guys personally and there are no "liars for Jesus" among them. They all have made a real living in the real world with their brains and hard work outside the creation effort, so you may want to spare me your unfounded comments. Thats harsh but true.
I don't care if you personally met Jesus Himself. The RATE group are liars for Jesus, period. That's why they have no scientific credibility. And that's WHY the ONE thing they got right was the part where they OPENLY ADMIT ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE that they couldn't give a frak about science.

In the meantime you're still here doing the exact same thing (lying for Jesus) and have yet to address the fact that evidence is utterly superfluous to your position. Or indeed been able to explain the "scientific theory" of creationism. In the meantime we'll surely look forward to yet another irrelevant personal anecdote as if it means a damm.

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
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 6 min DILF 9,220
True or False Game 7 min DILF 1,233
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 8 min DILF 30,283
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 10 min -Lea- 25,376
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 11 min DILF 5,144
White Trash Christmas 15 min DILF 2
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 16 min DILF 7,468
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 23 min Roxie Darling 67
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 24 min dragoon70056 37,713
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 36 min chortle 152,340