Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216601 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.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#94102 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone seems to be dodging my question and turning to adaptation or even conception to redirect away from my point. The "radical" differences cannot be explained by evolution.
Sure it can be, your paper described it as "rapid evolution".
So are you now arguing against the paper YOU presented as evidence and YOU cited?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94103 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey tard!
Did you notice the link?
Linnaeus was even one of you and he still recognized that we are apes.
I notice that, as usual, you dodge all questions.
If you're going to go around blathering about humans being apes, then you should know what an ape is.
But, no.... All you know how to do is repeat dogma that has been hurled at you by the MSM.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94104 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
You stick with the Wikipedia entries that you agree with, and I'll use scientific journals. Fine with me.
No ones seems eager to challenge my point. Once again, I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue?
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
All scientific journals support evolution.

Wikipedia is just a nice shortcut. If the debate gets serious enough I go to journals myself. But well over 90% of all creationist bullshit can be debunked with Wii.

Since: Jun 13

Carthage, TN

#94105 Jun 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it can be, your paper described it as "rapid evolution".
So are you now arguing against the paper YOU presented as evidence and YOU cited?
I am getting tired of this silliness. This is my last post. I used a scientific journal as a source, others are using Wikipedia, and magazines. How can I argue facts with people who refuse to look at real scientific evidence and prefer magazine articles?

Again, there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. So keep avoiding my question. Although one comment used conception as a way to create new genes. Where would I even start with something like that? New species come from conception?! Silly stuff

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94106 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are claiming that genes can be created and reorganized? One of many reasons evolution has been debunked: there is there is no genetic mechanism that creates and reorganizes genes.
Repeating lies does not make them true. Here is on way that genes can evolve and be reorganized:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/bio5410/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94107 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice that, as usual, you dodge all questions.
If you're going to go around blathering about humans being apes, then you should know what an ape is.
But, no.... All you know how to do is repeat dogma that has been hurled at you by the MSM.
Idiot, I am not an expert in everything, though it may seem that way to a tard like me. There are times when it is correct to go to experts. This is one of them. Perhaps you should have read the Wiki article that I linked earlier:
Linnaeus classified humans among the primates (as they were later called) beginning with the first edition of Systema Naturae. During his time at Hartekamp, he had the opportunity to examine several monkeys and noted similarities between them and man.[82] He pointed out both species basically have the same anatomy; except for speech, he found no other differences.[134][note 5] Thus he placed man and monkeys under the same category, Anthropomorpha, meaning "manlike."[135] This classification received criticism from other biologists such as Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, Jacob Theodor Klein and Johann Georg Gmelin on the ground that it is illogical to describe a human as 'like a man'.[136] In a letter to Gmelin from 1747, Linnaeus replied:[137][note 6]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form',[note 7] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History.[note 8] I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94108 Jun 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> This article is NOT saying what you think.
It also affirms the common ancestry between chimps and humans.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...
Molecular homology does nothing to prove an ancestral relationship between chimps and humans.
If you want to prove common descent, then take a chimp and selectively breed it into a human.
Absurd?... Well, that's what you believe in...

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#94110 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Molecular homology does nothing to prove an ancestral relationship between chimps and humans.
If you want to prove common descent, then take a chimp and selectively breed it into a human.
Absurd?... Well, that's what you believe in...
Common ancestry has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, you on the other hand have proven nothing except.....
A person can deny anything and everything they don't want to hear.
But it doesn't matter if you deny and tell me the same thing everyday in here. It isn't going to change the status that these are world-widely accepted scientific facts you deny.
So you aren't doing anything in here but making an ass out of yourself.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94111 Jun 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Common ancestry has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, you on the other hand have proven nothing except.....
A person can deny anything and everything they don't want to hear.
But it doesn't matter if you deny and tell me the same thing everyday in here. It isn't going to change the status that these are world-widely accepted scientific facts you deny.
So you aren't doing anything in here but making an ass out of yourself.
It doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate the same failed arguments, you cannot present one shred of scientific evidence that humans and apes [or any other species] are related by common descent. Molecular homology is a pointless argument, soundly debunked over and over again. Despite repeatedmchallenges, you have failed to provide any scientific evidence as to how molecular homology is inconsistent with intelligent design. The simple parroting of the same worthless argument only underscores the weakness of your religion in explaining the natural world.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94112 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
All scientific journals support evolution.
.
What a load of pure BS.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94113 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of pure BS.
Then name one that doesn't.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94114 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of pure BS.
If that were the case idiot you could have found an article from a a scientific journal that casts some doubt on evolution. You have not been able to do so yet.

You are lying and your lack of action shows it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94115 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate the same failed arguments, you cannot present one shred of scientific evidence that humans and apes [or any other species] are related by common descent. Molecular homology is a pointless argument, soundly debunked over and over again. Despite repeatedmchallenges, you have failed to provide any scientific evidence as to how molecular homology is inconsistent with intelligent design. The simple parroting of the same worthless argument only underscores the weakness of your religion in explaining the natural world.
You are getting in your lying for Jesus today aren't you?

None of your claims here are true. Homology still strongly supports evolution and evolution only. You keep conflating homology and convergent evolution. Convergent traits have never been shown to be homologous. That shows evolution is the driving force and not ID
Elohim

Branford, CT

#94116 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Then name one that doesn't.
The Creation Science Picayune Gazette & Fish Wrap, The ID Times & Bird Cage Liner, Chick Tracts.....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94117 Jun 26, 2013
And it is time to remind How's That for Stupid that he ran away from the evidence class that he agreed to take. He had failed when it came to scientific evidence long long ago in the past and I offered to help him. He started the class but ran away.

So, HST, until you prove that you understand scientific evidence I am going to remind you that you don't understand what scientific evidence is. You cannot demand it since it would do you no good at all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94118 Jun 26, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>The Creation Science Picayune Gazette & Fish Wrap, The ID Times & Bird Cage Liner, Chick Tracts.....
But let us not forget Urban Cowboy's excellent creationist journals.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#94119 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I am not an expert in everything, though it may seem that way to a tard like me. There are times when it is correct to go to experts. This is one of them. Perhaps you should have read the Wiki article that I linked earlier:
<quoted text>
This is the most honest thing I have seen you say, here when you call yourself a tard. LMFAO
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94120 Jun 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are getting in your lying for Jesus today aren't you?
None of your claims here are true. Homology still strongly supports evolution and evolution only. You keep conflating homology and convergent evolution. Convergent traits have never been shown to be homologous. That shows evolution is the driving force and not ID
Relabeling observations doesn't erase the problem. If you study deBeer's research, he proved that many homologous traits were produced by non-homologous genes. For example, the lenses of the eyes in two closely related species of frogs are proven to arise from two separate embryologic structures.* No one would argue that these two lenses are not homologous. Yet they are produced by different genes and therefore are not genetically related. Many other examples were cited through his research. He expressed his conclusions in his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem, as follows,
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."

*de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press,(1971).

So you see, SZ...your intuitions, however compelling they might be, have been scientifically proven to be FALSE. Hunches must capitulate to science. Homology is a failed argument. The fact that you DarwinBots still hang onto it clearly indicates that you are groping for evidence to validate your failed religion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94121 Jun 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the most honest thing I have seen you say, here when you call yourself a tard. LMFAO
My bitch is back!

And he is in a pitched battle for biggest idiot on the forum.

Jimbo is beyond stupid, he is not a contender.

So who will win today. You have to do a bit better than this post my bitch. All it shows so far is terrible reading comprehension on your part.s

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94122 Jun 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Relabeling observations doesn't erase the problem. If you study deBeer's research, he proved that many homologous traits were produced by non-homologous genes. For example, the lenses of the eyes in two closely related species of frogs are proven to arise from two separate embryologic structures.* No one would argue that these two lenses are not homologous. Yet they are produced by different genes and therefore are not genetically related. Many other examples were cited through his research. He expressed his conclusions in his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem, as follows,
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
*de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press,(1971).
So you see, SZ...your intuitions, however compelling they might be, have been scientifically proven to be FALSE. Hunches must capitulate to science. Homology is a failed argument. The fact that you DarwinBots still hang onto it clearly indicates that you are groping for evidence to validate your failed religion.
Name one idiot.

It is not relabeling when you show that convergent evolution does not make homologous structures. Compare a squid's eye to a human eye.

They are an example of convergent evolution. They are in no way homologous.

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 2 min Aussie Kev 37,054
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 5 min Aussie Kev 1,549
conversation using song lyrics (Aug '13) 16 min liam cul8r 2,514
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 26 min Denny CranesPlace 20,441
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 27 min Aussie Kev 15,199
Poll Do You Have A Topix Crush? (2014 Version) (Oct '14) 28 min Sublime1 104
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 31 min Denny CranesPlace 66,972
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Paris France 206,724
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 4 hr Poppyann 10,554
More from around the web