Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216749 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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104354 Nov 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are quote mining, that sentence is being used out of context, you have to read the whole thing.
At any rate you're not only being dishonest, you're blowing hot air for nothing. None of those papers support your contention.
But that how you creationist operate, by quote mining and using peoples words out of context. Why would we expect a shred of honesty out of you? Either your reading comprehension is shot, you are ignoring what is really said, or you have deluded yourself onto believing what you want.
But this is the thing we hate in here, some of you we know are smart enough to know they are quote mining something out of context. So which is it with you?
I am not quote mining out of context, at all. Go make a complaint to the publishers.

How does any 'life' that arose independently share DNA horizontally/laterally, if they are not all genetically very similar?

Answer: They don't!

Indeed TOE is based on a blending to account for genetic similarity, therefore assuming other lines would be obviously genetically different.

TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has no predictive ability and is unfalsifiable. The how, when, where and why of TOE is still up for grabs. At least I have a documented account to support or falsify and make predictions from. Current data appears to be more supportive of a creationist paradigm.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#104355 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's replay this..
"The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption."
IOW
There is little to NO support that all life today shares the same basic molecular architecture.
Yes you are quote mining, the rest of the abstract explains itself.

Scientists know that life could have been at least modestly different at the

molecular level

and it is clear that alternative molecular
building blocks for life were available on the early Earth.

If the emergence of life is, like other natural phenomena, highly probable given the right chemical and physical conditions then it seems likely that the

early Earth hosted multiple origins of life,

some of which produced chemical variations on life as we know it.

While these points are often conceded, it is nevertheless maintained that any primitive alternatives to familiar life would have been eliminated long ago, either amalgamated into a single form of life through lateral gene transfer (LGT) or alternatively out-competed by our putatively more evolutionarily robust form of life.

Besides, the argument continues, if such life forms still existed, we surely would have encountered telling signs of them by now. These arguments do not hold up well under close scrutiny.

****They reflect a host of assumptions that are grounded in our experience with large multicellular organisms

******and, most importantly, do not apply to microbial forms of life,

which cannot be easily studied without the aid of sophisticated technologies.

You attempt to turn it into saying something completely different than what it is saying.
That's dishonest sorry, are you saying it's intentional or that you do not understand what you are reading?

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#104356 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not quote mining out of context, at all. Go make a complaint to the publishers.
How does any 'life' that arose independently share DNA horizontally/laterally, if they are not all genetically very similar?
Answer: They don't!
Indeed TOE is based on a blending to account for genetic similarity, therefore assuming other lines would be obviously genetically different.
TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has no predictive ability and is unfalsifiable. The how, when, where and why of TOE is still up for grabs. At least I have a documented account to support or falsify and make predictions from. Current data appears to be more supportive of a creationist paradigm.
Life in the microbes before multicellular life could have independent origins, but after multiple celled life sprang into being common descent and evolution became a fact.

He is saying that microbes could still exist that is not used in life we know of. A host of shadow microbes or alien to life, like life as we know it maybe out there undiscovered.

AKA:..

" A dedicated search for 'shadow microbes'(heretofore unrecognized 'alien' forms of terran microbial life) seems in order. The best place to start such a search is with puzzling (anomalous) phenomena, such as desert varnish, that resist classification as 'biological' or 'nonbiological'."

GET IT?



Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104357 Nov 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I am having trouble finding a paper on the axial proton motor that mentions evolution these days. Seems to be a trend.
That is a ridiculous request.

A Flat Earther could find many articles about ore deposits and not find one that mentions a spherical Earth.

I already told you that science does not need to reinvent the wheel with every article.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104358 Nov 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Life in the microbes before multicellular life could have independent origins, but after multiple celled life sprang into being common descent and evolution became a fact.
He is saying that microbes could still exist that is not used in life we know of. A host of shadow microbes or alien to life, like life as we know it maybe out there undiscovered.
AKA:..
" A dedicated search for 'shadow microbes'(heretofore unrecognized 'alien' forms of terran microbial life) seems in order. The best place to start such a search is with puzzling (anomalous) phenomena, such as desert varnish, that resist classification as 'biological' or 'nonbiological'."
GET IT?
It is YOU that don't GET IT!

Multiple cells that independently arose MUST have been genetically similar enough to share genetic material PRIOR to being ancestrally connected.

GET IT!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104359 Nov 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
A pleasant philosophic argument, but not a shred of evidence to refute what I presented from a science perspective, and the typical blame Behe wrap-up. So please elaborate on my "basic logical errors", you could even quote Berg from Harvard, who in one paper simply states the motor took "billions" of years to evolve, then skips the topic and gets into the science, that all? No mention how it evolved, its stages, not a thing, just this little disclaimer. I that enough? I think not, he doesn't want to go there, no way. Same from his Yale counterpart. So just follow that trail for a while and where does it lead? a talkorigins imposter. Like the cell, the more they research the more complicated these motors are found to be, then to the rescue commeth a cadre of laymen saying it evolved, with only words for evidence. To those of us on the technology side who have to apply intelligence to matter everyday too make a real living in the real world, the situation is obvious.
It's a proton powered motor that measures out protons by counts,(e.coli is 32) it has electromotive power we don't understand nor can replicate, it activates (11 coils in e.coli) each coil is in a azimuth sequence, may activate fwd and rev and varies speed at will, some types spin @ >1000, other's 100,000 rpm. To accomplish this a controller is involved to trigger the flow of protons in measured quantities to each coil. 11 X 100,000 = 1,100,000 pulses/min. Each coil seems to have a load sensor and then this controller(like any properly programmed PLC) applies more protons in STEP increments and can even switch between fwd/rev to get the creature unstuck, like rocking your car out of a ditch. It has a clutch. If you believe all that came about by mindless accidents and chance so be it. I tell you that's a "belief system based on faith", it's not scientific no matter how many biologists line up to say it is. So you have your chance, explain the load sensor and its evolution. Explain where each coil came from and got oriented, connected and decided it would be proton activated. Tell us how the controller got programmed, and on and on and on.
Even more evidence that SBT did not read nor could he understand the TalkOrigins article that I linked. Nor does he understand the difference between original research, which such as the various peer reviewed articles that he linked that did not support his case or a paper that ties together many different peer reviewed papers.

The TalkOrigins article was the latter. It did not even try to be or claim that it was original research. It was an article that showed how research had busted the claims of Behe.

One thing I have noticed is that creatards are lazy. They want their answers without doing any work. And when you give them the answers they are too lazy to see what the given response has to say. They are doomed to remain poor ignorant fools.

Worse yet, SBT does not even link the articles that he links. He has implied that we have no idea how the bacterial motors work and are not able to reproduce the results. Yet one of his articles was not about a bacterial flagellum, it was about a man made one that was of similar size and worked similarly to the bacterial flagellum.

Why did SBT link an article about a successful example of a man made motor that imitated nature? The answer is because he uses search terms but does not read or understand his articles:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104360 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is YOU that don't GET IT!
Multiple cells that independently arose MUST have been genetically similar enough to share genetic material PRIOR to being ancestrally connected.
GET IT!
Reading comprehension fail. Try again Maz.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104361 Nov 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes you are quote mining, the rest of the abstract explains itself.
Scientists know that life could have been at least modestly different at the
molecular level
and etc etc etc
Oh get over yourself. The aliens are on earth. You don't have to keep chasing your tail about it.

The point being as far as common ancestry is concerned.... Significantly, the most powerful molecular biology techniques available-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of rRNA genes augmented by metagenomic analysis-could not detect such microbes if they existed.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104362 Nov 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Has anyone kept track of how many times that I have informed replaytime that the article I linked was based upon over 200 peer reviewed journal articles? You would think that he might finally understand that it was not a peer reviewed journal article itself, but it was clearly based upon peer reviewed science.
Does anyone besides me get sick and tired of explaining the obvious?
You claim acceptable evidence has to "BE" peer reviewed.

At least you finally admit talkorigins articles are not peer reviewed, which is what I have always said. Someone writes an article from peer reviewed articles. So just about anyone can take many peer reviewed articles and write an article and it would be considered evidence huh?

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#104363 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is YOU that don't GET IT!
Multiple cells that independently arose MUST have been genetically similar enough to share genetic material PRIOR to being ancestrally connected.
GET IT!
Multiple celled organisms are and do, that much is undisputed.
You have just told me what the problem is.
You have no idea what you read means, and have made it into what you believe.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104364 Nov 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading comprehension fail. Try again Maz.
When you become my English teacher, you'll be excused from evading student questions with points of grammar.

Try again, Subby!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#104365 Nov 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Multiple celled organisms are and do, that much is undisputed.
You have just told me what the problem is.
You have no idea what you read means, and have made it into what you believe.
Very clearly you are evading the point I am making and doing a poor job at it. I'll make this as simple for you as I can.

If 'primitive cells' could transfer DNA (HGT) between themselves, then the genomic structures of all 'primitive cells' was compatable and similar?

Please refute the above claim with more than your opinion, evasion, ridicule and tail chasing.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104366 Nov 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a ridiculous request.
A Flat Earther could find many articles about ore deposits and not find one that mentions a spherical Earth.
I already told you that science does not need to reinvent the wheel with every article.
A flat earth! Please show me a Hebrew word for sphere that was around 2500 years ago. They had a word for circle/ball, I believe Mike F said the word "darw"(or something like that) meant circle or ball. So the translator messed up and went with circle instead of ball.
How long are you going to whip this dead horse hoping it gets up and runs?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104367 Nov 3, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim acceptable evidence has to "BE" peer reviewed.
At least you finally admit talkorigins articles are not peer reviewed, which is what I have always said. Someone writes an article from peer reviewed articles. So just about anyone can take many peer reviewed articles and write an article and it would be considered evidence huh?
Wrong you idiot. I have said it has to be based upon peer reviewed science. Go back and see if I ever said anything else.

Countless times I have explained to you that TalkOrigins is based upon peer reviewed science and includes the references in each and every article.

It seems that you are reading what you want to read again. That only makes it obvious how ignorant that you are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104368 Nov 3, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A flat earth! Please show me a Hebrew word for sphere that was around 2500 years ago. They had a word for circle/ball, I believe Mike F said the word "darw"(or something like that) meant circle or ball. So the translator messed up and went with circle instead of ball.
How long are you going to whip this dead horse hoping it gets up and runs?
One more time you show that you are a moron. They did not have a specific word for "sphere". They did have words for spherical objects. The word for circle and ball were different words. The word used in the Bible is that of an "inscribed circle" in other words one drawn with a compass.

I see that your intelligence is still in the sub 80's range today.

By the way, you have lost this debate many times over, you are the only one who keeps whipping the dead horse.

Do you want references again? I can provide them.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#104369 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Very clearly you are evading the point I am making and doing a poor job at it. I'll make this as simple for you as I can.
If 'primitive cells' could transfer DNA (HGT) between themselves, then the genomic structures of all 'primitive cells' was compatable and similar?
Please refute the above claim with more than your opinion, evasion, ridicule and tail chasing.
The point escapes you again.
Leave genome out of it, because that refutes you completely already.

The structures of "all" primitive cells need not be compatible.
The biospheres cooperation between a body of cells were compatible and shared information creating genes and the domains and phyla of all "known" microbes working together sharing DNA and common ancestry evolved together.

Were there bacteria or cells alien to this body of things, that were conglomerated into the biosphere in existence?

Possibly , but these would not chive with life as we know it, but could exist in microbial life forms not yet discovered.
Meaning there maybe life out there we have not recognized as being life , and he gives an example.

"The best place to start such a search is with puzzling (anomalous) phenomena, such as desert varnish, that resist classification as 'biological' or 'nonbiological'."

He is clearly saying that desert varnish could be a life form.
And there maybe others waiting to be discovered, that exist in a niche other than what we consider life in our biosphere.

There are other examples of life we didn't recognize or understand , but this is an attempt to expand our thinking to incorporate things not in our definitions , extremophiles are a classic example of what he is talking about. are there life forms out there we do not recognize as life?



Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104370 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
When you become my English teacher, you'll be excused from evading student questions with points of grammar.
Try again, Subby!
Another idiot chimes in. I was not correcting your grammar you simpleton. I was pointing out that you did not understand the article that you linked. Reading comprehension errors are not grammatical errors.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104371 Nov 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong you idiot. I have said it has to be based upon peer reviewed science. Go back and see if I ever said anything else.
Countless times I have explained to you that TalkOrigins is based upon peer reviewed science and includes the references in each and every article.
It seems that you are reading what you want to read again. That only makes it obvious how ignorant that you are.
And you will be held to that from now on. Even if a creationist links an article that was written from a peer reviewed article it will qualify as evidence then. So keep that in mind.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104372 Nov 3, 2013
Even if a creationist links an article that was written from peer reviewed articles"

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104373 Nov 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time you show that you are a moron. They did not have a specific word for "sphere". They did have words for spherical objects. The word for circle and ball were different words. The word used in the Bible is that of an "inscribed circle" in other words one drawn with a compass.
I see that your intelligence is still in the sub 80's range today.
By the way, you have lost this debate many times over, you are the only one who keeps whipping the dead horse.
Do you want references again? I can provide them.
At least you admit "You" take the bible literally. Helll even most creationist don't do that. Good job. lol

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.. 6 min Mustang GT Girl 1,632
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 7 min Suezanne 16,547
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 10 min Mustang GT Girl 37,098
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 13 min Mustang GT Girl 61,056
News Scientists say nuts to heart disease 15 min Suezanne 17
What Topics knows about you 18 min Suezanne 9
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 19 min SUG here 8,882
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Ferrerman 67,208
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Princess Hey 207,002
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 3 hr Poppyann 1,480
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 3 hr DMan 10,609
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 4 hr Beth Luckys Mom 20,498
More from around the web