Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
92,701 - 92,720 of 113,224 Comments Last updated 44 min ago
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98086
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There has been only one study that I am aware of.
I would not bet that the whole genome deteriorates at the same rate from one study only. There is a reason that scientists repeat experiments and add variables to the original experiment. From the one experiment done they have a half life of 521 years which means there would be no DNA in a 65 million year old fossil. Now they have not found actual DNA in the fossil. What they have found is that chemicals that react with DNA in a specific fashion will react with the material from the T-Rex fossil. This is strongly indicative of DNA, but it is not finding actual DNA. Going back to the experiment they are from samples up to several thousand years old. I just looked it up again, I have read it before, anyway they had bones up to 7,000 years old. That means that in the oldest bones only 1/8000 of the original DNA was there. In a dinosaur fossil we should have none.
This is a bit out of my specialty too, but I do not see those who are experts in this science going "woe is me, we are undone" so I am not too worried.
Now this is what I am talking about. You like information and are willing to put in an effort to research. I also like to be armed with knowledge that is why I try to find out where they are getting the information they use.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98087
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Now this is what I am talking about. You like information and are willing to put in an effort to research. I also like to be armed with knowledge that is why I try to find out where they are getting the information they use.
I do like to learn. Rarely creationists do bring up interesting points. But I have never seen a serious challenge to the theory of evolution. When there are millions of data points that support the theory and then there is an actually interesting question, which I admit this is, it is really an opportunity to learn more. I don't panic and attack the scientists involved.

To say we have all of the answers would be insufferable arrogance. To say we have enough evidence to assume that evolution is true is almost a no brainer.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98088
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I...
That is a good question and honestly I do not know...
Seems every minute something different years days and then ????
Hopefully I will have myself enough together to recognize the feel of an all calm and still being able to enjoy the natural highs that always have been present...
I am awaiting the dead is what I think they are around the corner and soon will arrive...
How are you?
I'm doing great Tinka, thank you. You take care of yourself.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98089
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I do like to learn. Rarely creationists do bring up interesting points. But I have never seen a serious challenge to the theory of evolution. When there are millions of data points that support the theory and then there is an actually interesting question, which I admit this is, it is really an opportunity to learn more. I don't panic and attack the scientists involved.
To say we have all of the answers would be insufferable arrogance. To say we have enough evidence to assume that evolution is true is almost a no brainer.
So, take some time to do your own research and let me know what you come up with on the half-life of DNA. See if we come to the same position...is that fair?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98090
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So, take some time to do your own research and let me know what you come up with on the half-life of DNA. See if we come to the same position...is that fair?
I already told you what it is from one experiment.

One experiment is not good enough for science. It needs to be repeated in different environments with different sources.

The only result they have now is 521 years.

Also chemical half lives are not the same as nuclear half lives. There are many factors that can affect them. So until more data comes in we are stuck with one which seems to disagree with the findings of remnants of DNA in that T-Rex fossil.

Once again, it is only one data point against millions. Simple logic should tell you that either we do not know how DNA deteriorates or what was found was not really DNA. I am not panicking and I would advise creationists not to take any comfort from this one finding.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98091
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I already told you what it is from one experiment.
One experiment is not good enough for science. It needs to be repeated in different environments with different sources.
The only result they have now is 521 years.
Also chemical half lives are not the same as nuclear half lives. There are many factors that can affect them. So until more data comes in we are stuck with one which seems to disagree with the findings of remnants of DNA in that T-Rex fossil.
Once again, it is only one data point against millions. Simple logic should tell you that either we do not know how DNA deteriorates or what was found was not really DNA. I am not panicking and I would advise creationists not to take any comfort from this one finding.
Do you question other dating methods as well, or just this one?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98092
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you question other dating methods as well, or just this one?
Other dating methods have been tested thousands of times.

Once again, this is a one time test. Is that such a hard concept to understand?
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98093
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Other dating methods have been tested thousands of times.
Once again, this is a one time test. Is that such a hard concept to understand?
So unless a method has been tested/verified at a minimum of 1,000 times you will not accept it?

What is the standard minimum for you?

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98094
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dating with absolute knowledge to get a special someone, created just for self... that be the way to go.

I think I signed up for that a while back...

1,000 years wait... What kind of love would that be? 1,013 maybe...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98095
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So unless a method has been tested/verified at a minimum of 1,000 times you will not accept it?
What is the standard minimum for you?
Did I say that?

I don't know what the minimum is. If you get three consistent results you should start to pay serious attention. If you get ten it is pretty much confirmed.

But remember, this is not a nuclear half life that is very hard to change. This is a chemical half life that can be affected by quite a few different factors. I am very sure that you would not get the same results with 3 tests much less ten. Not only that, but as the DNA deteriorates it may do so at different rates.

Have some patience. When crazies jump on the first report of something different they are almost always wrong. Don't you remember the "faster than light neutrinos" from CERN? It turned out not to be the case. Even though they did the experiment a second time and got similar results.

As I said before there are very good reasons that experiments are repeated and repeated.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98096
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Life does not support creationism?
Wow. Talk about a moronic attempt at word twisting, or blank incomprehension. Take your pick. But thanks. Such evasions merely demonstrate that you could not answer the actual content of my post.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98097
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you question other dating methods as well, or just this one?
The half life of the DNA in question was not used for dating the sample! And half life in this context has nothing to do with nuclear half lives or with dating methods.

They imply found that in a sample of moa DNA found, about half had disintegrated and the sample was 500 years old. Unlike nuclear decay which is constant, chemical decay depends on a whole host of factors. Cooking can reduce the half life of DNA to an hour!

Temperature, humidity, oxygen, pressure, bacteria, acidity/alkalinity, will all directly affect the preservation of DNA.

Of course, when the biologists loosely employed the half life terminology to discuss the deterioration of their sample, they did not stop to think how gleefully creationists would leap upon it and misinterpret it wildly to suit their ends. Because of course, real scientists hardly think of creationists at all, any more than they think about astrologers or african shamans; they are too busy learning about how the world works.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98098
Aug 19, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The half life of the DNA in question was not used for dating the sample! And half life in this context has nothing to do with nuclear half lives or with dating methods.
They imply found that in a sample of moa DNA found, about half had disintegrated and the sample was 500 years old. Unlike nuclear decay which is constant, chemical decay depends on a whole host of factors. Cooking can reduce the half life of DNA to an hour!
Temperature, humidity, oxygen, pressure, bacteria, acidity/alkalinity, will all directly affect the preservation of DNA.
Of course, when the biologists loosely employed the half life terminology to discuss the deterioration of their sample, they did not stop to think how gleefully creationists would leap upon it and misinterpret it wildly to suit their ends. Because of course, real scientists hardly think of creationists at all, any more than they think about astrologers or african shamans; they are too busy learning about how the world works.
Isn't that the truth, I've seen story's and alot of them lately , where people have been forced to reiterate what they
actually DID SAY. Because creationists twisted their words into meaning what they wanted. Just as Mary Schweitzer said she was embarrassed to be a christian because of how silly they acted and that they gave Christianity a bad name.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98099
Aug 19, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The half life of the DNA in question was not used for dating the sample! And half life in this context has nothing to do with nuclear half lives or with dating methods.
They imply found that in a sample of moa DNA found, about half had disintegrated and the sample was 500 years old. Unlike nuclear decay which is constant, chemical decay depends on a whole host of factors. Cooking can reduce the half life of DNA to an hour!
Temperature, humidity, oxygen, pressure, bacteria, acidity/alkalinity, will all directly affect the preservation of DNA.
Of course, when the biologists loosely employed the half life terminology to discuss the deterioration of their sample, they did not stop to think how gleefully creationists would leap upon it and misinterpret it wildly to suit their ends. Because of course, real scientists hardly think of creationists at all, any more than they think about astrologers or african shamans; they are too busy learning about how the world works.
Actually I do have to modify this a little because what I said is inaccurate. They did tests on a number of moa samples of varying ages (determined by other methods of course)to determine the rate of breakdown of the DNA present, and came up with an average "half life" of 521 years.

However this refers to the number of intact bonds and even when these have broken, its still DNA fragments (nucleotides). That is the first point. The second is that they agreed that the rate of decay is highly variable dependent on conditions (unlike the decay of nuclear isotopes as per radiometric dating).

Finally, for all the hoopla, there is no evidence that Schweizer found any intact DNA fragments in the 68 million year old dinosaur bones. Even broken down nucleotides are impressive - but that is what is left after the DNA decay, not before. She also found evidence of some intact protein material...but again, that is not DNA.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98100
Aug 19, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Isn't that the truth, I've seen story's and alot of them lately , where people have been forced to reiterate what they
actually DID SAY. Because creationists twisted their words into meaning what they wanted. Just as Mary Schweitzer said she was embarrassed to be a christian because of how silly they acted and that they gave Christianity a bad name.
Quote mining and distortion of scientific findings: the stock in trade of creationists.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98101
Aug 19, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a paradox for the Big Bang.
God is no excuse, he is the answer.
First 3 words in the bible shows how important time is to the universe.
"we don't know" is not a paradox.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98102
Aug 19, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people consider that racist but I found that some on this thread don't believe that calling other races savages or stating they never conceived of something as simple as a sail as racist.
Whole races never conceived of a sail. Or a wheel, or metal, or agriculture. These are not value statements, they are simply facts.

Now, assuming that mental inferiority is the reason they did not conceive of these things would be racist. But we have better explanations. Degree of interconnectedness and the transmission of ideas, the fortune of where one happened to live, even a north south versus and east west constraint have been considered in this question. The reality is, humans of every race for almost the entirely of Homo Sapiens history lived as hunter gatherers without sails, wheels, metals, or agriculture.

Darwin lived in a racist, classist, and sexist world like everyone back then. He and his theory certainly did not invent racism which was also endemic in the Christian population of Europe (and most populations everywhere), for centuries. How about explaining all that before 1860, when biblical creationism was unquestionably the ruling philosophy of Europe?

But you carry on demonising Darwin if it makes you feel better. It makes not one iota difference to the validity of evolution today.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98103
Aug 19, 2013
 
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So what view point of time would you lean towards, Newton or Kant?
What was Kant's viewpoint of time?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98104
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Not what I said. I said Satan is fooling you. He created nothing. He whispers in the ear of science ridicules suggestions.
There is no Satan. Just nutjobs like you.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98105
Aug 19, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a paradox for the Big Bang.
God is no excuse, he is the answer.
First 3 words in the bible shows how important time is to the universe.
The first three words of the Bible are an assumption. The fourth is another.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••