Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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

Australia

#106113 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Read Lawrence Krauss's book or watch some of his videos. He will explain how the total energy of the universe is zero. In his opinion no energy was need to "start the universe". If you add up positive energy and negative energy it balances out. And he can do the math. Would you like a link to his video.
I'd prefer a link to his research or an article that speaks to his research, instead of someone blabbing on a video. What's Krauss got to say about mysterious dark energy and matter? Does he think it is rubbish also? Does he challenge Eienstiens theories of general relativity? etc etc. Sure I'd like to hear what he has to say.

I can present a theory that puts the earth at the centre of the universe and falsifies the philosophy the cosmic sciences are based on, the Copernican principle. Would you like me to post the link?

Unfortunately none of the above sweeps our little secrets around evolutionary inconsistencies and empirical evidence for limited adaptation, under the carpet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106114 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the secret is that we both know that a change from 15my to 4my and decendants that predate their ancestors is a hoot, but you think ignoring it and making fun of me will save your silly face on forum. Yours and Subbys credibility is seriously shot but let's sweep that under the carpet as well along with evolutionary inconsistencies.
BTW, This has nothing to do with caring for you, I should tell you so as not to get your hopes up, seeing as you have also lost all understanding of social cues.
When you lot reckon you can put something up that looks convincing and actually supports a microbe having the genetic variability to adapt into a dinosaur, against all odds, you are welcome to post it. Until then you can all join the long list of evo loosers in the 'dealt with' rubbish bin.
Here is something else for you to ignore and say I and no one else can understand...
Speed Limit To The Pace Of Evolution, Biologists Say
In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/...
..and the evolutionary juggerflop pants on....
Let's see what the next evo spam bot has to offer.
Just in case you still don't understand the article that you linked here is a quote from it that is very telling:

"In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue."

Do you understand that? It says some previous simple models the rate of evolution was supposed to continually increase. That was not found to be the case. Eventually the rate of evolution slows. It can even stop for some populations. What was overturned in this work was the concept of an ever increasing rate of evolution. And I don't think anyone has any problems with that. It does not say that evolution is too fast in nature. It does not say that evolution did not happen in nature. It says that there is a limit to how fast an organism can evolve. That is all.

So you should take at least some consolation from this. Your beta will not evolve overnight into a piranha and bite your fingers off next time you try to feed it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106115 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd prefer a link to his research or an article that speaks to his research, instead of someone blabbing on a video. What's Krauss got to say about mysterious dark energy and matter? Does he think it is rubbish also? Does he challenge Eienstiens theories of general relativity? etc etc. Sure I'd like to hear what he has to say.
I can present a theory that puts the earth at the centre of the universe and falsifies the philosophy the cosmic sciences are based on, the Copernican principle. Would you like me to post the link?
Unfortunately none of the above sweeps our little secrets around evolutionary inconsistencies and empirical evidence for limited adaptation, under the carpet.
Then you can buy his book online. He accepts Dark Matter and Dark Energy and does not challenge Einstein. Why would he think that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are rubbish? We have observed Dark Matter in several ways. A physicist could explain how we know Dark Energy exists.

If you are too cheap to buy his book here is a video of his. It is worth the watch:

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106116 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, I have no problem with this concept. In fact if you understood many of the articles that you linked you would have seen that many of them did not say that evolution cannot happen. It says that there is a limit to how fast evolution can happen.
In other words evolution takes time.
I am sure that that speed limit has not been broken as life evolved on this planet.
I wish in some ways that I had not immediately agreed with this article. I would like to see what your pointy little head thought of it.
I am not expecting you to disagree with any evo concept, nor agree with me. What I am expecting is that you present some good news for the genomes ability to adapt without limits.

You tried whales as some side line and failed. You though I couldn't define a human and you were wrong.

All data, including that last article, demonstrates evo claims about limitless beneficial mutations is rubbish. Not one piece of research I have presented gives the impression the genome is designed to mutate out of familial groups, but rather the opposite.

Listen champ, we all know what these researchers hoped to find. They would have loved to find beneficial mutations helping along other beneficial mutations. They would have loved to find majority beneficial mutations instead of majority deleterious mutations. They would have loved to not find genome deterioration.

Now you can play this tune of yours all you like Subby. You're not fooling those of us that can actually think.

You cannot present any research that does not imply limited adaptation, while I can present plenty that does. That is why I took the point long ago despite your refusal to admit defeat and your ability to keep posting.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106117 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

Unfortunately none of the above sweeps our little secrets around evolutionary inconsistencies and empirical evidence for limited adaptation, under the carpet.
What empirical evidence for limited adaptation? Surely you don't mean the various articles that you did not understand?

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106118 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another evo quacker out for his jollies for the day. Go get a life if you're too silly to participte!
Have you ever heard of this....
Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that a huge amount of energy will create matter in this way.
This is how these aliens your researchers keep looking for but refuse to see are able to create and take on form.
Given that energy is neither created nor destroyed you can feel free to explain where the initial energy came from. Until then, you can believe in your ghosts that hold the universe together and the multiple dimensions required.
We can play this game of you silly evos demanding more substantiation than you can ever present for any of your claims. However, you need to understand you still remain a confirmed looser.
Here is one to throw out there;

The oldest potential fossil evidence for life is fossil bacteria from the Apex Chert of Australia (3.46bya), though these fossils are currently embroiled controversy and may not represent traces of life. The next oldest fossils are well-accepted fossil bacteria and bacterial mats (stromatolites) from South Africa that date to 3.3bya. Thus, the oldest fossil prokaryotes date to 3.3 to 3.5bya.
Meaning it took roughly 1 billion years for any life to even form.

For nearly the next 1-2 billion years, rocks from the Archean have no multicellular life at all, just prokaryotes. The oldest eukaryote fossils are acritarchs dating to about 1.75byr. Then for another 1000 million years(1 billion), there is still no evidence of multicellular life.

So roughly we are down to 750mya and still no evidence of multicellular life. The first fossils resulting in multicellular life are only 580mya and I say “only” for it is a short time for the 4 billion years that had already passed. So we go through roughly 4 billion years with no multicellular life and then in only 550 million years it just all of a sudden ran amuck, exploded and went boom! Producing millions of species. Isn’t that the theory?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106119 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not expecting you to disagree with any evo concept, nor agree with me. What I am expecting is that you present some good news for the genomes ability to adapt without limits.
You tried whales as some side line and failed. You though I couldn't define a human and you were wrong.
All data, including that last article, demonstrates evo claims about limitless beneficial mutations is rubbish. Not one piece of research I have presented gives the impression the genome is designed to mutate out of familial groups, but rather the opposite.
Listen champ, we all know what these researchers hoped to find. They would have loved to find beneficial mutations helping along other beneficial mutations. They would have loved to find majority beneficial mutations instead of majority deleterious mutations. They would have loved to not find genome deterioration.
Now you can play this tune of yours all you like Subby. You're not fooling those of us that can actually think.
You cannot present any research that does not imply limited adaptation, while I can present plenty that does. That is why I took the point long ago despite your refusal to admit defeat and your ability to keep posting.
Maz, you moron, You should not lie. I did not fail with whales. You found one article that was not substantiated elsewhere that moved the date of basilosaurus back. You failed. Don't you remember? I told you to find at least one more article with that date.

In science if a date is troublesome, or even if it confirms a great idea, needs to be retested. You can't take a great positive or a great negative from only one experiment. Since I could not find anything that supported that Nat. Geo. claim I filed it under Nat. Geo. failures, and they have had a few of them.

By the one, not one of your articles has put a limit on to how far evolution can go. They have only limited how fast. Do you understand the difference between velocity and displacement?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106120 Nov 17, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one to throw out there;
The oldest potential fossil evidence for life is fossil bacteria from the Apex Chert of Australia (3.46bya), though these fossils are currently embroiled controversy and may not represent traces of life. The next oldest fossils are well-accepted fossil bacteria and bacterial mats (stromatolites) from South Africa that date to 3.3bya. Thus, the oldest fossil prokaryotes date to 3.3 to 3.5bya.
Meaning it took roughly 1 billion years for any life to even form.
For nearly the next 1-2 billion years, rocks from the Archean have no multicellular life at all, just prokaryotes. The oldest eukaryote fossils are acritarchs dating to about 1.75byr. Then for another 1000 million years(1 billion), there is still no evidence of multicellular life.
So roughly we are down to 750mya and still no evidence of multicellular life. The first fossils resulting in multicellular life are only 580mya and I say “only” for it is a short time for the 4 billion years that had already passed. So we go through roughly 4 billion years with no multicellular life and then in only 550 million years it just all of a sudden ran amuck, exploded and went boom! Producing millions of species. Isn’t that the theory?
Wrong, the first fossils with a hard shell appeared 580 million years ago. Body impressions, though understandably quite rare, go back much further than the Cambrian. The oldest is over 2 billion years old:

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlv...

The ability to develop a hard shell was probably due to either continued changes of the atmosphere from on of almost zero oxygen to one of roughly 20% oxygen. And the associated chemical changes that went with a different atmosphere.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106122 Nov 17, 2013
Come on sunken sub. I know you have to have a comment about my last post. Don't disappoint me now.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106123 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, the first fossils with a hard shell appeared 580 million years ago. Body impressions, though understandably quite rare, go back much further than the Cambrian. The oldest is over 2 billion years old:
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlv...
The ability to develop a hard shell was probably due to either continued changes of the atmosphere from on of almost zero oxygen to one of roughly 20% oxygen. And the associated chemical changes that went with a different atmosphere.
You want a link from peer reviewed science. I will be more than happy to give you one.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106124 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Just in case you still don't understand the article that you linked here is a quote from it that is very telling:
"In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue."
Do you understand that? It says some previous simple models the rate of evolution was supposed to continually increase. That was not found to be the case. Eventually the rate of evolution slows. It can even stop for some populations. What was overturned in this work was the concept of an ever increasing rate of evolution. And I don't think anyone has any problems with that. It does not say that evolution is too fast in nature. It does not say that evolution did not happen in nature. It says that there is a limit to how fast an organism can evolve. That is all.
So you should take at least some consolation from this. Your beta will not evolve overnight into a piranha and bite your fingers off next time you try to feed it.
I didn't say evolution was too fast in nature. Is inventing your own statements to argue with the latest evo ploy. It is your researchers that have invented the term 'accelerated genomic regions'.

What was overturned was also the claim of continually available beneficial mutations. If adaptation stops, so does morphological change. Do you disagree?

What do you suppose sub-linear fitness growth refers to? Do you suppose that is what sent something like a deer, after billions of years evolving from a microbe, to water with selection and major sweeps of intermediate systems.

So regardless of your restating the research I post, would you care to post any of your own that demonstrates an organisms ability to adapt without limit? None has been posted so far.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106125 Nov 17, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Come on sunken sub. I know you have to have a comment about my last post. Don't disappoint me now.
You are new here and may not know that this forum is one of the slowest to post replies. When you make a post you see it instantly. It can take several minutes before it shows up for the public to see.
That is why you look like a fool because my was posted 4 minutes before you wrote your latest post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106126 Nov 17, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
You want a link from peer reviewed science. I will be more than happy to give you one.
Sure, it probably does not say what you think it says. In other words you mistranslated it. My source was the Smithsonian, a fairly valid source when it comes to fossils.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106127 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, the first fossils with a hard shell appeared 580 million years ago. Body impressions, though understandably quite rare, go back much further than the Cambrian. The oldest is over 2 billion years old:
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlv...
The ability to develop a hard shell was probably due to either continued changes of the atmosphere from on of almost zero oxygen to one of roughly 20% oxygen. And the associated chemical changes that went with a different atmosphere.
After reading your link again, it says exactly what I said. So how am I wrong??

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106128 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, it probably does not say what you think it says. In other words you mistranslated it. My source was the Smithsonian, a fairly valid source when it comes to fossils.
If you deny this link and think is not science. Then you only show your true ignorance.

Confirmation:

The oldest rocks we find on the earth are about 4 Bya (billion years ago), and they are devoid of any life. The oldest potential fossil evidence for life are fossil bacteria from the Apex Chert of Australia (3.46 Bya), though these fossils are currently embroiled controversy and may not represent traces of life. The next oldest fossils are well-accepted fossil bacteria and bacterial mats (stromatolites) from South Africa that date to 3.4 Bya. Thus, the oldest fossil prokaryotes date to 3.4 to 3.5 Byr. For nearly the next billion years, rocks from the Archean have no multicellular life at all, just prokaryotes. The oldest eukaryote fossils are acritarchs dating to about 1.75 Byr. For another 1000 million years, there is still no evidence of multicellular life.

Near the Precambrian/Cambrian transition, only 580 Mya, in the Ediacaran and Burgess shale faunas we finally find the first fossils of multicellular animals. However, they are very unusual, mostly small, soft-bodied metazoans, and most are superficially unlike anything found today. Precisely as we would expect from the standard phylogenetic tree, the earliest fossils of multi-cellular life are very simple sponges and sea anemone-like organisms (sea anemones and jellyfish are both cnidarians). Around 20 million years later, we find the first evidence of simple mollusks, worms, and echinoderms (organisms similar to starfish and sea cucumbers). Another ~15 million years later, the very first vertebrates appear, though most people would strain to recognize them as such. They are small worm-like and primitive fish-like organisms, without bones, jaws, or fins (excepting a single dorsal fin).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/secti...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106129 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say evolution was too fast in nature. Is inventing your own statements to argue with the latest evo ploy. It is your researchers that have invented the term 'accelerated genomic regions'.
What was overturned was also the claim of continually available beneficial mutations. If adaptation stops, so does morphological change. Do you disagree?
Yes, but that was not what was proven. It said, at best for you, that some populations stopped adapting. Your research does not say that populations WILL stop adapting. Do you understand the difference?
What do you suppose sub-linear fitness growth refers to? Do you suppose that is what sent something like a deer, after billions of years evolving from a microbe, to water with selection and major sweeps of intermediate systems.
So regardless of your restating the research I post, would you care to post any of your own that demonstrates an organisms ability to adapt without limit? None has been posted so far.
Why would I need to? Your links did not prove that adaptation stops. Remember that these are not natural rates of change that are being applied in the lab. They always have a stressed environment. At best they have shown if you stress a population too hard it will not be able to evolve out of that stress. Your experiments do not put a limit to evolution. Not even close. If it did don't you think that the researchers would be the first to know?

If your beliefs are different from the experts that ran the test you can almost always win by betting your beliefs are wrong. This is regardless of what science is involved. The experts of a science usually understand it much better than a lay person. You are seeing only what you want to see and not what is actually happening.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106130 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No empirical evidence demonstrates an organisms ability to adapt without limits and you have a world of breeders and climate change to give you idiots first hand observational data.
As for nested hierarchies, how the heck do you root anything in tetrapod when you have only just dicovered tetrapods were here 400mya prior to any of your stupid transitionals used to root with. What you have is algorithmic magic, not science.
You have been flapping on with your ridiculous strawman for days now.

Evolution does not predict adaptation without limits. Adaptation is constrained immediately by what is already in place and change must occurred through small steps that are viable at every point. Not only that but any mutation cannot alter the genome in a way or to an extent that precludes reproductive compatibility with the existing gene pool.

Within these constraints, cumulative change does not have any programmed end point. Nobody jas ever demonstrated the magic set of genes that keep a rabbit a rabbit forevermore yet this is what yoi claim.

Species unfortunate limits on the rate and extent of adaptation within a timeframe is amply demonstrated by the fact that 99% of species that have existed on earth are extinct.

As for learning from the Bible, your fable predicts that all species are there from week one and so any prediction of the fossil record should show an enormous number of species including the modern ones all existing together near the start and the range of species gradually declining through the strata to the present. Nothing like what we see which instead matches the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution and seconded by analysis of pseudogenes, ERVs, and ubiquitous proteins.

You can BS all you like by selectively quote mining the real work of honest scientists but don't expect us or for that matter Jesus to respect you for it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106131 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, you moron, You should not lie. I did not fail with whales. You found one article that was not substantiated elsewhere that moved the date of basilosaurus back. You failed. Don't you remember? I told you to find at least one more article with that date.
In science if a date is troublesome, or even if it confirms a great idea, needs to be retested. You can't take a great positive or a great negative from only one experiment. Since I could not find anything that supported that Nat. Geo. claim I filed it under Nat. Geo. failures, and they have had a few of them.
By the one, not one of your articles has put a limit on to how far evolution can go. They have only limited how fast. Do you understand the difference between velocity and displacement?
Oh pull your head in, you drop kick.

Now this evo is challenging a publication in National Geographic.

First you loosers quack about creos not using evidence and when they do you come up with hubris to save face on forum. Clown!

Here is another source that obviously doesn't think it is a fake.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technol...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106132 Nov 17, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
After reading your link again, it says exactly what I said. So how am I wrong??
Subby only ever pretends he knows what he is talking about.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106133 Nov 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been flapping on with your ridiculous strawman for days now.
Evolution does not predict adaptation without limits. Adaptation is constrained immediately by what is already in place and change must occurred through small steps that are viable at every point. Not only that but any mutation cannot alter the genome in a way or to an extent that precludes reproductive compatibility with the existing gene pool.
bla bla bla.
However Creation does predict a limit to adaptation and that is exactly what the data confirms with none presented to support an organisms ability to adapt without such limits.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 12 min I Am No One_ 161,828
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 16 min Mr_FX 8,268
10,000th Post WINS 4.0 (Apr '12) 18 min Truths 5,859
A-Z of people's names.. 19 min bjames_37921 9
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 19 min Truths 8,397
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 20 min Truths 8,126
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 21 min Truths 31,672
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 34 min Cyan in CA 197
Things that make life eaiser... 35 min Glory Be 278
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Papa Smurfaletto 10,923
News Naked Couple Busted For Sex In Library Loo 1 hr DILF 28
More from around the web