Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222783 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

#84296 Apr 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, physics technically speaking is the foundation to all sciences. However evolution IS biology, and biology IS a hard science, just like physics and chemistry. We know this because otherwise things like medicine that you mentioned would not exist. Oh, and we have PLENTY of evidence:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Now once you come up with an alternative plausible explanation for retroviral orthology in all the great apes then maybe you'd have a point.(shrug)
I do have a point and you're ignoring it. Not only do scientists claim viruses can be hereditary, but also it is a means of horizontal gene transfer, which has zero evidence in chimps, humans, and gorillas. Science says HIV is a an example of ERV when other sources claim it is not genetically transmitted. One article proves herpesvirus 6 hidden in chromosomes and is heritable but how many chimps and humans are affected by this that it serves as a proven evidence of ERV? Your math to back this up will be way off, I will you that.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84297 Apr 1, 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.
But we have evidence in the present. It's called DNA. You may have heard of it. We know how it works, we can observe it in action. Now the moment you discover a human born with the genome of a cactus, well then that's a prediction that evolution does NOT make. Then evolution will be falsified. YAY FUNDIES!!!
Cybele wrote:
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?
Yup, since caucasians and asians can still interbreed.
Cybele wrote:
What is the true definition of species considering the fact that neanderthals were able to interbreed with homo sapiens?
They are considered to be a subspecies.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84298 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't stopped learning.
With all that research you've done you have not spotted even one contradiction or inconsistencies in the theory of evolution?
Well most of the contradictions and inconsistencies tend to be in the mind of the ignorant who criticize the subject without even learning about it. Other inconsistencies are perfectly normal as they do not threaten the concept of common ancestry at all, and are therefore debated on within the framework of evolution - this kind of thing is normal in any scientific theory. It's scientists trying to figure out the specifics of exactly what happened. Complicated, sure. Then fundies come across something and say that biology as we know it is about to collapse.

They've been saying the same thing well over 100 years.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#84299 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have a point and you're ignoring it. Not only do scientists claim viruses can be hereditary, but also it is a means of horizontal gene transfer, which has zero evidence in chimps, humans, and gorillas. Science says HIV is a an example of ERV when other sources claim it is not genetically transmitted. One article proves herpesvirus 6 hidden in chromosomes and is heritable but how many chimps and humans are affected by this that it serves as a proven evidence of ERV? Your math to back this up will be way off, I will you that.
What scientists claim viruses are hereditary?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84300 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have a point and you're ignoring it. Not only do scientists claim viruses can be hereditary, but also it is a means of horizontal gene transfer, which has zero evidence in chimps, humans, and gorillas. Science says HIV is a an example of ERV when other sources claim it is not genetically transmitted. One article proves herpesvirus 6 hidden in chromosomes and is heritable but how many chimps and humans are affected by this that it serves as a proven evidence of ERV? Your math to back this up will be way off, I will you that.
Then post your linky. It will either not claim that common ancestry is in "serious doubt" as you do or it'll be a case of a crank site over-exaggerating its case.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84301 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously tell me why doctors need to know we evolved from fish?
Natural selection is fact, within a closed system. Mutation is fact, but not on a larger scale as in macro-evolution unless you have DNA evidence.
The rest it just junk.
Of course we have DNA evidence. Find us just one chimp with the DNA of an aardvark. Find this, and evolution is falsified. YAY FUNDIES!!!

Pity that the Earth being as old as it is can't prevent mutations from accumulating. You should have stuck with the YECers.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84302 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with the phylogenetic tree. It shows the variations and similarities in all life forms. But to infer that one evolved from another is an exaggeration. Hyperbole!
Not at all. That's why the pattern of DNA matches comparative anatomy. That's why Chimp DNA is closest to humans and so are the bones that make up their skeleton. If you have an alternative explanation the entire world would love to see it.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#84303 Apr 1, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, the scientific method works quite well thank you. Science has already falsified Genesis and Exodus and Joshua. We're working on the rest of it.
There is already a tool found in nature that falsifies data. We don’t need a flawed man made concept to do this.
The scientific evidence you present should be soundly judged with the “Law of non-contradiction” found in nature. Man/woman is prone to mistakes and biased and prejudice views.

Scientific laws are absolutes and validated by the “Law of non-contradictory” which means your answer must be constant. Hence, you cannot use one word with two opposite meanings. This is where the law of non-contradictory becomes the scientific method and not a man-made concept that permits you to define words anyway you want to.

Theory of evolution is a pseudo-science when it says the origin of biological species is not fixed.

A biological reproductive species is fixed (law of non-contradictory) and this means the humans on planet earth has always been this way since there origin on earth according to strata/fossil layers.

To say a human being which is now a fixed species and was not a fixed species 30 million year ago violates the Law of non-contradictory.

We can’t be a human being in existence now and a non-human being in existence in the distant past regardless of the time scale it took us to SO CALL CHANGE FROM ONE BIOLOGOCAL SPECIES TO AN OPPOSITE (CONTRADICTORY) BIOLOGICAL SPECIES! This violates the law of non-contradiction.

CASE CLOSED!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84304 Apr 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they DO have definitions, but the problem is BECAUSE of evolution. Because life changes over time, species are not static and do not stay in nice neat little pigeon holes that our labels prefer. It is not an evolution problem, merely a language problem.
What a liar you are! What's the use of having taxonomy in Biology then? And why do we have to learn them?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And physiology has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. Or can your pharmacological training tell us the likelihood of fossils with feathers and three middle-ear bones? Or homo-centric ERV's in cats?
Again another LIE! Do you know what human physiology is? The study of human anatomy. A doctor doesn't need to know that reptiles and amphibians have a heart with less chambers than humans, for instance, and how the heart evolved. All he needs to know is how the blood circulates in the the heart and what causes heart diseases, and whatnot. All the rest of your gibberish is red herring.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84305 Apr 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What scientists claim viruses are hereditary?
Wow. You are showing your level of ignorance on the subject.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84306 Apr 1, 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?
ERV's insert themselves essentially randomly, however they do tend to attach to some places more than others. We can call these 'comfort zones'. However they are still spread across half the 3 billion-base genome. Meaning the chances of us sharing just one ERV marker with another organism is approximately 1 in 1.5 billion. Therefore the chances of us sharing two would be 1 in 2.25 quintillion. And so on. Hence it is extremely unlikely that common ancestry ("macro"-evolution to all the science-denying fundies out there) is not responsible.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84307 Apr 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What scientists claim viruses are hereditary?
educate yourself.

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84308 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar you are! What's the use of having taxonomy in Biology then? And why do we have to learn them?
I didn't lie. I leave that to fundies. We learn them because we still find them to be useful.

Astronomers had a similar problem recently with the definition of the word 'planet', so now they modified it a bit (since like all labels, the original one was arbitrary anyway). That does not mean we know less than what we used to. But that doesn't mean that the definition won't change again in the future.
Cybele wrote:
Again another LIE! Do you know what human physiology is? The study of human anatomy. A doctor doesn't need to know that reptiles and amphibians have a heart with less chambers than humans, for instance, and how the heart evolved. All he needs to know is how the blood circulates in the the heart and what causes heart diseases, and whatnot. All the rest of your gibberish is red herring.
Not at all. Whether YOU think the similarities are relevant is irrelevant. For example, since we have an obvious shortage of heart donors, a chimp's heart would serve best as a temporary replacement as chimps are our closest relatives, thereby lengthening the time before biological rejection. And if evolution was incorrect you wouldn't need a new flu-shot every year or so. Problem with fundies is that in a fundie run school they teach stupid about evolution so they could never learn the basics of evolutionary adaptation of viruses to medicines anyway.

Just because YOU are personally unaware of the influence of evolution to medicine doesn't mean it's not there.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84309 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You are showing your level of ignorance on the subject.
Note they are viral remnants, not the virus itself. The virus comes along and inserts itself into the host genome, changing the DNA base. Now IF that happens to infect a germ-line cell (sperm or egg) then that same mutation will be passed on to the organism's offspring (assuming the organism survives to reproduce).
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84310 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
are you playing semantics here?
<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?
Um, quite easy.(shrug)

Why do some people catch a cold and other people don't?

Any retroviruses infecting anyone today have a choice of over 7 billion people to choose from. The chances of it getting every single one of them are slim.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84311 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.
They are spread randomly, except for those that show orthology (meaning they are in the same places in organisms that share common ancestry). We also know they attack randomly by testing them. Take an ERV and infect two different cells with identical genomes. Each cell will be infected at a different position. Not surprising when we consider they have a choice of billions of positions.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84312 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?
No, that is not a contradiction of the common ancestry hypothesis AT ALL. If ALL humans today were infected by CURRENT ERV's at the SAME positions that would FALSIFY the hypothesis of orthology demonstrating common ancestry. Yeesh!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84313 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.
Apparently they aren't.

Because they're not computer viruses for one thing.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84314 Apr 1, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The foundation to my method of reasoning is FLAWLESS.
Well, except for the whole "absolute" thing. It means you are arguing the exact opposite of science.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84315 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Unfortunately Curtis thinks he has found that absolute truth cuz of the aliens who abduct him periodically during his extended absences.

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
News Men rescued from mountain after smoking cannabis 1 min Magic Utah Uwear 1
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 3 min Princess Hey 2,935
News Trump's strange history with pro football 22 min VikingsPhartzz 2
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 26 min Princess Hey 17,666
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 33 min dessa 27,676
News World's second biggest diamond sells for $53 mi... 33 min Magic Utah Uwear 1
News The Latest: Before church shooting, bizarre Fac... 38 min Magic Utah Uwear 27
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 47 min david04 6,111
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Sublime1 223,437
Woman appreciate a man that.........? (Mar '15) 12 hr andet1987 249
More from around the web