Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 205197 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.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84149 Mar 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is not just one phylogenetic tree. There are many of them. The only one answer that makes consistent sense is the evolutionary one.
ERV's alone are a slam dunk for evolution. Creationists have to lie about what ERV's are to even begin to argue against them.
ERV's. Bravo! There is now irrefutable evidence for evolution.

Wouldn't you think that organisms or species with similar DNA provide the same integration sites for these viruses?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#84150 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
ERV's. Bravo! There is now irrefutable evidence for evolution.
Wouldn't you think that organisms or species with similar DNA provide the same integration sites for these viruses?
No. And worse yet the integration sites are not similar, they are the same.

To be hones some sites are slightly more likely to pick up an ERV than others, but you still would not have exactly the same site chosen by exactly the same ERV's.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#84151 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
ERV's. Bravo! There is now irrefutable evidence for evolution.
Wouldn't you think that organisms or species with similar DNA provide the same integration sites for these viruses?
That's like saying 1000 - 500,000,000 page books are in a row, and you can open them all and insert a bookmark on the very same page on every single one, on the first try with zero error.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84152 Mar 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No. And worse yet the integration sites are not similar, they are the same.
are you playing semantics here?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
To be hones some sites are slightly more likely to pick up an ERV than others, but you still would not have exactly the same site chosen by exactly the same ERV's.
How do you know that? Do you understand how these viruses behave? Why do some people have ERV's that other people don't?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84153 Mar 31, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's like saying 1000 - 500,000,000 page books are in a row, and you can open them all and insert a bookmark on the very same page on every single one, on the first try with zero error.
false analogy fallacy. try again.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#84154 Mar 31, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not joking.
Science websites states there is no direct evidence for speciation because the event happened in the distant past. Which leaves the theory with just conjectures.
The fruit fly experiment given a different food source for the flies denotes geographic isolation for many generations that led to speciation. With that experimental logic, I can say that an Asian man is a different species than a Caucasian man because of isolating population and they have different food source. Do you not see the flaw in that logic?
What is the true definition of species considering the fact that neanderthals were able to interbreed with homo sapiens?
We are inline with the Homo species down thru the years. We ARE related to Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, etc.

We ARE in the great ape line and we were NOT created by some floaty thing 6,000 years ago

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#84155 Mar 31, 2013
Neither was our universe or world.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#84156 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
are you playing semantics here?
/

No.
<quoted text>
How do you know that? Do you understand how these viruses behave? Why do some people have ERV's that other people don't?
Because researchers have found the same EV's at the same sites. I am not able to do that, but others can. Do you need references?

As I said, ERV's are a slam dunk for evolution. Creationists hate them and tried to include them as "junk DNA" which they never really were since the term "junk DNA" referred to not only DNA that seemed to do nothing but also had no known purpose. The purpose of ERV's was known almost from the moment of their discovery.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84157 Apr 1, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
We are inline with the Homo species down thru the years. We ARE related to Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, etc.
We ARE in the great ape line and we were NOT created by some floaty thing 6,000 years ago
Did I mention anything about YEC?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84158 Apr 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>/
No.
<quoted text>
Because researchers have found the same EV's at the same sites. I am not able to do that, but others can. Do you need references?
As I said, ERV's are a slam dunk for evolution. Creationists hate them and tried to include them as "junk DNA" which they never really were since the term "junk DNA" referred to not only DNA that seemed to do nothing but also had no known purpose. The purpose of ERV's was known almost from the moment of their discovery.
All you can say is a slam dunk for evolution. Let me tell you something, perhaps the behavior of these viruses can possibly be very "specific" on their targets even if the insertions of these viruses are spread over all of the chromosomes randomly.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84159 Apr 1, 2013
SZ, don't you see the contradiction in ERV insertions? Are you saying the integration sites are the same for chimps and humans and yet there exists ERV's in some humans that doesn't exist in others?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#84160 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
All you can say is a slam dunk for evolution. Let me tell you something, perhaps the behavior of these viruses can possibly be very "specific" on their targets even if the insertions of these viruses are spread over all of the chromosomes randomly.
If you want to claim that they may be very specific in their finding sites then you have to come up with a mechanism for them to be specific. It is your idea you are the one who is obligated to find the evidence that supports your idea. For me it is good enough that the experts who understand this topic claim that the insertions are random.

As I said, creationists have not come up with any rational explanation yet.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84161 Apr 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to claim that they may be very specific in their finding sites then you have to come up with a mechanism for them to be specific. It is your idea you are the one who is obligated to find the evidence that supports your idea. For me it is good enough that the experts who understand this topic claim that the insertions are random.
As I said, creationists have not come up with any rational explanation yet.
Yes the mechanism is much like a computer virus. Each virus has its own target. A cold virus is the same as the worm virus where it's designed to spread. HIV virus are like flame virus where it destroys its target. So yes, viruses are very specific even if it is randomly spread.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#84162 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
All you can say is a slam dunk for evolution. Let me tell you something, perhaps the behavior of these viruses can possibly be very "specific" on their targets even if the insertions of these viruses are spread over all of the chromosomes randomly.
You are merely suggesting simple excuses rules out by researchers years ago.

But also, you have to consider all of the genomic evidence, not just ERVs.

Pseudogenes show the same nested hierarchy of variation pointing to common ancestry.

Ubiquitous proteins (those found widely in living organisms of all types) also show a nested hierarchy of variation.

For the ERV's, pseudogenes, and ubiquitous proteins, not to mention the fossil record, its essentially the SAME nested hierarchy. Each independently confirms the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution.

Now THAT is a Slam Dunk for common ancestry, and evolution is the only scientific theory that explains common, branching ancestry in a nested hierarchy. In fact evolution demands it.

I have watched as creationists first try to dismantle these independent lines of evidence one by one with special pleading and discredited alternatives, then in desperation try to trivialise the nested hierarchy itself hoping it will go away. They are on a hiding to nothing.

Slam Dunk.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#84163 Apr 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously are not a scientist, or even a scientifically minded person. Falsifiability is paramount in science, it is a goal of finding the truth, and why nothing is absolute.
The foundation to my method of reasoning is FLAWLESS. The foundation to your method of pseudo-scientific reasoning is flawed. You got it all backwards. You are a false (pseudo) truth seeker and all you are doing is speaking in illogical/foolish ways. Either you fail to realize this for unknown reasons or you are not capably willing to handling reality for what it is.
Science is the search for truth and if you are a true truth seeker you will realize the truth is an absolute. You fail to realize this and make absolute statements and fail to realize you’re violating you’re your own pseudo-scientific method of reasoning by stating this statement in your above quote,“NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE”.

Now may I ask you in your pseudo-scientific method of reasoning,“IS YOUR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT “NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE” FALSABILE?

When you make the statement NOTHING you excluded ALL things in this PHYSICAL universe. Nothing is an absolute because you concluded it’s impossible to prove because if I have nothing to make an argument with to prove my absolute then it’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove you wrong. HOW CAN I PROVE YOU WRONG IF I HAVE NOTHING TO CHALLENGE IT? You said nothing, how in the heck can you exclude this entire physical universe evidence so I cannot use any of its evidence to try and dis-prove it?

You’re doing nothing here but making yourself look foolish and you sir\mamn is the un-scientific one!
YOU JUST CONCLUDED USING YOUR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC METHOD THHAT REALITY DOES NOT EXIST!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#84164 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the mechanism is much like a computer virus. Each virus has its own target. A cold virus is the same as the worm virus where it's designed to spread. HIV virus are like flame virus where it destroys its target. So yes, viruses are very specific even if it is randomly spread.
ERV's are known to have preferences, but these refer to whole regions. Its analogous to saying that tourists love to see France and then finding every single tourist randomly decided only to go to Marseilles. "A preference for France" cannot explain that.

Preference still gives millions of "site options" so reducing the odds of randomly agreeing from batshit wildly astronomical to merely crazily improbable.

And then, multiple ERVs compound the improbability. And independently, pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins, and the fossil record itself finish the job.

Creationism did not expect and cannot explain all this. Evolution predicted it and explains it easily.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#84165 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
SZ, don't you see the contradiction in ERV insertions? Are you saying the integration sites are the same for chimps and humans and yet there exists ERV's in some humans that doesn't exist in others?
The whole point is that ERV's are fixing in the genome progressively, and that is why they provide a record of common branching ancestry in the first place.

Recent insertions could not be fixed in the whole population yet, and older insertions need not be either. But where they are, AND they are fixed in chimps, in exactly the same place, common ancestry is the best explanation. Especially given multiple instances and progressively fewer examples as evolutionary distance between two organisms increases.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#84166 Apr 1, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The foundation to my method of reasoning is FLAWLESS. The foundation to your method of pseudo-scientific reasoning is flawed. You got it all backwards. You are a false (pseudo) truth seeker and all you are doing is speaking in illogical/foolish ways. Either you fail to realize this for unknown reasons or you are not capably willing to handling reality for what it is.
Science is the search for truth and if you are a true truth seeker you will realize the truth is an absolute. You fail to realize this and make absolute statements and fail to realize you’re violating you’re your own pseudo-scientific method of reasoning by stating this statement in your above quote,“NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE”.
Now may I ask you in your pseudo-scientific method of reasoning,“IS YOUR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT “NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE” FALSABILE?
When you make the statement NOTHING you excluded ALL things in this PHYSICAL universe. Nothing is an absolute because you concluded it’s impossible to prove because if I have nothing to make an argument with to prove my absolute then it’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove you wrong. HOW CAN I PROVE YOU WRONG IF I HAVE NOTHING TO CHALLENGE IT? You said nothing, how in the heck can you exclude this entire physical universe evidence so I cannot use any of its evidence to try and dis-prove it?
You’re doing nothing here but making yourself look foolish and you sir\mamn is the un-scientific one!
YOU JUST CONCLUDED USING YOUR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC METHOD THHAT REALITY DOES NOT EXIST!
Well, all that is easily fixed.

Simply modify the statement slightly.

Its not that there is no absolute truth, but that we as humans have no easy way of knowing if/when we have found it.

We have to make do with applying increasing confidence that something is true based on the amount and quality of evidence we have supporting it, and the lack of evidence against it, always aware that future information may require us to modify our understanding.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#84167 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow, we now have evidence for evolution. Superbugs!
How do you explain the Lederberg experiment when the antibiotic-resistant bacteria have already existed before penicillin or sreptomycin treatment?
Funny, because that is exactly what Lederburg wanted to establish, in support of the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

There were variants in the original population that had mutations with no apparent benefit. We would call it Drift, and its what we expect when mutation is NOT as a response to the environment, but random. However, in the presence of novel stress factor, these mutations turned out to be beneficial. Dumb luck for the mutants.

Exactly.

Its not that bacteria "race to find a solution" to an antibiotic. Its that they like everything else is continually generating random changes, and some of these are fortunate enough to provide a selection advantage if the right circumstances arise. That has been the theory since Darwin, nothing new.

Hooray for Lederburg, providing yet more evidence for evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#84168 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So only humans can have different races due to geographic or population isolation, and when it comes to animals, they are different species?
Depends how long they have been separated.

Race is to subspecies is to species as

accent is to dialect is to language.

Check out ring species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

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
2words into 2new words (May '12) 2 min Sharlene45 3,864
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min 8541 MARINE 59,893
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 10 min KNIGHT DeVINE 2,978
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min grace f a l l e n 197,674
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 14 min Old Sam 146,544
Alphabetical ways to die (Jul '11) 18 min greymouser 10,892
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 37 min Jennifer Renee 19,844
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr Knock off purse s... 33,276
More from around the web