Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223288 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84316 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as ERV's, pseudogenes, and ubiquitous proteins.
Not to mention the fossil record, biogeography, embryology, atavisms, rudimentary organs, laboratory experiments.
You say micro-evolution is closed - but you are the one making a claim you cannot defend. If micro-evolution continues for long enough we have...macro-evolution. Unless you can find the invisible barrier limiting micro-evolution, you have nothing.
THE EARTH IS YOUNG!!!

Oh, wait...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#84317 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You are showing your level of ignorance on the subject.
so that's a no on backing up that claim you made? when i ask for information, you can't provide it? why?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84318 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
While you prattle for months about this, you fail to see the interesting part.
Oh, must be a year by now, surely.

He stopped talking about it for a bit until I mentioned it again last week. Remember them pull-back cars we had as a kid? Rev 'em up and let 'em go!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84319 Apr 1, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
These people who have opposing ideas with you don’t believe in absolutes but yet make them by stating there are no absolutes. The truth you are trying to get them to understand does not exist in their mind.
The scientific method they use have a serious flaw in it because it states all evidence must be falsifiable and a discovered truth is not falsifiable because it’s an absolute observed in nature. This is when the scientific method that they use reject the discovered truth you are trying to prove. You know and I know the truth is flawless and because of this flawless the scientific method has to reject it.
You must first show them the scientific method is flawed by rejecting absolutes in nature. An absolute is simply saying that’s just the way nature works and you can’t disprove it. Reality is an absolute and it’s not falsifiable because we exist and that’s just the way it is.
There are no absolutes in nature, for what we might think is absolutely true today MIGHT be falsified tomorrow if we discover new evidence. This is the concept of falsifiability. This is what concepts require to be considered scientific. Ergo your concepts are not scientific. Period.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#84320 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
educate yourself.
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
Oh...viruses attached to our genetic code...yes, they do seem to be hereditary, don't they, as they are part of the genetic code...

so what is your problem with this idea?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84321 Apr 1, 2013
Bigfoot wrote:
Nothing can evolve without first being created.
But that doesn't necessarily mean the creator was intelligent.

Otherwise it wouldn't have made fundies.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84322 Apr 1, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Empirical evidence that proves genetic mutations is not beneficial in the laws of nature.
>>>> http://www.ibtimes.com/chilling-images-human-...
Laws of nature do not contradict its self and remains constant in the law of non-contradiction.
With this said mutations cannot be (mutations means beneficial and not beneficial) and is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction found in nature.
Nature never contradict itself and when it shows mutations is bad it is ALWAYS( constant principle) bad because if it changes from bad to good it would violate the law of non-contradiction and this is an absolute truth validated with empirical evidence in nature (non-invented by man). TIME IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CONSTANT PRINCIPLE!
But guess what the scientific method flawed rule invented by man says… We must reject the law of non-contradiction because it cannot be falsifiable because I just provided an absolute truth exist in nature called the genetic mutation.
NOW WATCH HOW THESE FOOLISH/ILLOGICAL PEOPLE USE THERE FLAWED MAN MADE CONCEPT FOUND IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO DISPROVE AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH WHICH IS VALIDTED BY THE LAW O F NON-CONTRADICTION! OBSERVE HOW FOOLISH/ILLOGICAL THESE PEOPLE TRYING TO DOSPROVE AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
HENCE, YOUR JESUS EITHER EXISTS OR DOESN’T. YOU CANNOT SAY JESUS EXISTS IN SOME CASES AND NOT OTHER CASES BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE “LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION”!
The fact is that mutations can be good, bad or neutral. We're all born with them. Even you. If they don't kill us before we can procreate then evolution continues. If they do, then evolution stops.

For that lineage at least.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84323 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, perhaps the closer the DNA between two species, the more likely there will have similarities in ERV insertions.
Yes, due to common ancestry. There is only a 1 in 1.5 billion chance of an ERV sharing the same spot and not being due to common ancestry.
Cybele wrote:
You have not provided what specific virus were found in chimps, gorillas, and humans that shows proof of nested hierarchy.
We have now.
Cybele wrote:
If these alleles in ERVs have become fixed in populations, then how come some humans have ERVs that other humans don't?
Because if that didn't happen then that would be evidence that ERV's attack specific places and the common ancestry hypothesis would be falsified.

This should be obvious.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84324 Apr 1, 2013
Eristotle wrote:
If some animals today are classified as endangered because of numbers too low to constitute a breeding population, who did a single ape-to-human mutation procreate with?
All their contemporaries.

We are all related to mitochondrial Eve. But that doesn't mean she didn't have her pick of males to mate with.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84325 Apr 1, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
REALITY (PHYSICAL UNIVERSE) IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH WHEN IT COMES TO EXISTENCE! According to your flawed man-made scientific method stating reality is disqualified since all with-in it is an absolute truth (does not qualify for evidence by your scientific evidence) BY YOUR MAN-MADE FLAWED SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS DIS-QUALIFIED AND CANNOT SPEAK ON ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOUND IN THIS UNIVERSE BECAUSE ALL WITHIN REALITY (UNIVERSE) IS AN ABSOLUTE!
“THE DUDE” IRONY MEATER GOES DROP, DROP KABOOM!!!!!!!
LIKE I SAID MY METHOD OF REASONING IS FLAWLESS BECAUSE IT IS FOUNDED ON AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH FOUND IN THE LAWS OF NATURE CALLED “THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION”!
You are violating the law of non-contradiction by claiming there are absolutes in science. This would make falsification impossible. This would make scientific predictions impossible. You have therefore refuted yourself. Game over.

So yes indeedy, irony meter go boom.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84326 Apr 1, 2013
I don't have time for this nonsense. I made my point and leave it at that.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84327 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
If common ancestry is the answer to the mystery of ERVs then what is the common ancestor to chimps, gorillas, and humans?

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

[QUOTE who="Cybele"]Scienti sts are just assuming viral DNA have to be passed on in order for chimps and humans to have exactly the same ERV insertions. But then they are not sure how far back it goes, does it date back to dinosaur period or what?
Don't you think homology could be a factor in similar species to provide the same integration sites to these viruses? Like I said, being exactly in the same loci for these ERVs could just mean the virus is very specific as it targets the same areas. This is not like winning the jackpot with the same lotto numbers twice. We just have a lack of understanding of how viruses behave.
No, you do. All we need to do is to infect two cells with identical genomes with the same ERV. The result is that they attack different areas of the genome:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

Building Phylogenetic Trees from ERV LTR Sequences

"Endogenous retrovirus loci provide no less than three sources of phylogenetic signal, which can be used in complementary fashion to obtain much more information than simple distance estimates of homologous sequences. First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). Furthermore, integrated proviruses are extremely stable: there is no mechanism for removing proviruses precisely from the genome, without leaving behind a solo LTR or deleting chromosomal DNA. The distribution of an ERV among related species also reflects the age of the provirus: older loci are found among widely divergent species, whereas younger proviruses are limited to more closely related species. In theory, the species distribution of a set of known integration sites can be used to construct phylogenetic trees in a manner similar to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis."

That paper answers everything you've asked for.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84328 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
I don't have time for this nonsense. I made my point and leave it at that.
And you failed.

If you don't take that as a positive thing then not learning is your problem.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84329 Apr 1, 2013
Eristotle wrote:
<quoted text>
One fact is true..."That, historically speaking, most scientists have been proved wrong".
More precisely, most scientists haven't gotten it exactly right because they lacked all of the facts.
Science by consensus is bad science.
Most people once believed the Earth was flat,and that the sun, the moon and the stars revovled around the Earth.
Nobody believed in Ice Ages until a geologist studying "erratics" (rocks found far from their origin) speculated they had been moved there by glaciers, then proved it.
Continental Drift theory was lauhged at until proven correct (now called Plate Techtonics).
Gene Shoemaker had to prove comets and asteroids really did impact Earth.
Yes, the scientific method does work...eventually.
Don't worry, science doesn't go on consensus for no reason. It tends to go with concepts because they work. Kinda like how we went with Newton's "law" of gravity even though it was inaccurate. In general our theories tend to get a little better over time.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84330 Apr 1, 2013
Eristotle wrote:
<quoted text>
Life (even human life) was seeded on earth by extraterrestrials so that, if they were ever stranded in this part of the universe, they would have someting to eat.
That's nice. It doesn't matter even if aliens did seed this planet. Once it had life, evolution took over.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#84331 Apr 1, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever!
English as a language originated from a country called, England, now in the UK.
No doubt about that.
Hey Chucky!

You might be interested in this:

http://www.themillions.com/2013/04/amazon-ann...

<<begin cut/paste>>

"Amazon Announces Purchase of English™

By Michael Bourne posted at 6:00 am on April 1, 2013 12

SEATTLE – Amazon announced today that it has acquired the English language and plans to fully privatize the world’s predominant mode of written communication. As of 6 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time April 1, anyone writing in Amazon’s proprietary language, now known as English™, will be obligated to pay a “licensing fee” to the Seattle-based online retailer.

The purchase of English™ for an undisclosed sum in cash and stock completes Amazon’s meteoric rise from an online bookseller to a global behemoth dominant in the spheres of online retailing, cloud computing, and digital publishing. It remains unclear who sold English™, though credible reports suggest that Apple and Google had earlier offered to buy the language, only to be outbid by Amazon at the eleventh hour.

“We are pleased to add English™ to our growing family of products,” said an exultant Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.“We just bought GoodReads last week, and we already own Audible.com along with numerous digital publishing platforms, so buying the language outright was an obvious next step. This way, we will be able to put the Amazon stamp on the creative process itself, rather than merely on the finished product.”

<<end cut/paste. truncated for brevity, more at link above>>
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84332 Apr 1, 2013
Bigfoot wrote:
<quoted text>
If something evolves, it has to evlove from something. You can only have something, if it was created. Without something, there would be no evolution.
But we have something. It's called LIFE. That's all evolution requires. Doesn't matter how it started. Life is here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

The theory of evolution need not explain abiogenesis, for the very same reason the theory of gravity need not explain the origin of mass.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84333 Apr 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And you failed.
If you don't take that as a positive thing then not learning is your problem.(shrug)
Do you know how harder it is to question Science than accept all the data given? Ever thought about that?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84334 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So if cell arose naturally, then how do you explain the existence of viruses when they are not cellular organisms? How did they evolve?
Dunno. I guess that means the germ theory of disease is wrong because we haven't explained the origin of germs.

Back to the four humours then I guess.

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84335 Apr 1, 2013
Eristotle wrote:
<quoted text>
No...just saying "don't bet the farm on unproven (probably unprovable) theories".
Theories do not get "proven". Proof is only for math and alcohol.

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
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. (Oct '16) 1 hr andet1987 4,352
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 1 hr andet1987 39,099
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Camilla 227,395
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 1 hr andet1987 1,410
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 1 hr wichita-rick 2,814
News POLL: Do you think Valentine's day is over-comm... (Feb '17) 2 hr Jack 7
The last word in the sentence must rhyme with t... (Aug '15) 2 hr andet1987 2,181
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr quilterqueen 7,001
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 4 hr Alain Vain 16,615
More from around the web