Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171950 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.

“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.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106134 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Subby only ever pretends he knows what he is talking about.
Oh I know. I have been dealing with his sunken sub on a few other threads.

Here are some of his best so far;

1. He says “type of dog” instead of breed.
2. He says “laws of entropy” instead of laws of thermodynamics, which entropy falls under.
3. He said E. coli is not a species. When E. coli is the species name. He even provided the link then still denied it.
4. He says E. coli comes in different nationalities,, as in American E. coli and Mexican E. coli

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106135 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??
You made the mistake of adding this:

"Then for another 1000 million years(1 billion), there is still no evidence of multicellular life. " and then went on to say that there was no more evidence before 580 million years ago of ancient life. As I said, there are others out there. There are a fair number of imprints in the Vendian which goes back to about 650 million years ago:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian....

So we need to push your numbers back a little bit, but not a lot.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106136 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
9

Yes, I am. It would not be the first time that Nat. Geo. was horribly wrong. In fact any claim that is not supported in retesting is always questionable. Why couldn't you find some support for that date outside of your one source?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106137 Nov 17, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I know. I have been dealing with his sunken sub on a few other threads.
Here are some of his best so far;
1. He says “type of dog” instead of breed.
Slappy's favorite lie. I was pointing out how his use of the word "type" was wrong. He still does not know how he was being a moron.
2. He says “laws of entropy” instead of laws of thermodynamics, which entropy falls under.
That was a very very minor mistake that I did make and even polymath pointed out that pinhead boy was being a pinhead.
3. He said E. coli is not a species. When E. coli is the species name. He even provided the link then still denied it.
And here the lying moron is wrong again. Twice I have quoted the part of that article that showed that I was write. This poor pinhead cannot read past the first sentence he comes to.
4. He says E. coli comes in different nationalities,, as in American E. coli and Mexican E. coli
And moron boy lies again. I pointed out that E. coli would be different in Mexico. Perhaps moron boy has never heard of Montezuma's revenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveler 's_diarrhea

Perhaps you might want to read up on what is the number one cause of it.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106138 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You made the mistake of adding this:
"Then for another 1000 million years(1 billion), there is still no evidence of multicellular life. " and then went on to say that there was no more evidence before 580 million years ago of ancient life. As I said, there are others out there. There are a fair number of imprints in the Vendian which goes back to about 650 million years ago:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian....
So we need to push your numbers back a little bit, but not a lot.
Again I say;

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.

I separated this since you tell me that was my mistake to add this in there. Read the link and you can se I did not add it.
"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

#106139 Nov 17, 2013
Good night dumb and dumberer.

Maz, remember I am not the only one who says that you are not reading your articles correctly. Every evolutionist is saying that. I am one of the few that tries to help you.
Ben

Missouri City, TX

#106140 Nov 17, 2013

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#106141 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Slappy's favorite lie. I was pointing out how his use of the word "type" was wrong. He still does not know how he was being a moron.
<quoted text>
That was a very very minor mistake that I did make and even polymath pointed out that pinhead boy was being a pinhead.
<quoted text>
And here the lying moron is wrong again. Twice I have quoted the part of that article that showed that I was write. This poor pinhead cannot read past the first sentence he comes to.
<quoted text>
And moron boy lies again. I pointed out that E. coli would be different in Mexico. Perhaps moron boy has never heard of Montezuma's revenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveler 's_diarrhea
Perhaps you might want to read up on what is the number one cause of it.
I must have you shook up. You can't even post a good link. "Traveler"! What does that show me?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106142 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Wait a second. You said basilosaurus. That article says Archaeocetus. Big difference. Big big difference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoceti

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
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 6 min Grace Nerissa 2,577
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 6 min TALLYHO 8541 42,115
News Man shot in head after bullet he fired at 'tres... 10 min TALLYHO 8541 3
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Mister_ E 167,262
News Yum or yuck? Japanese chain's new burger uses t... 17 min TALLYHO 8541 3
Coffee with Pie! (Sep '08) 32 min Jane Dahlinger 35,028
Word Association (Mar '10) 37 min beatlesinafog 17,677
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 56 min Trunketeer 176
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Trunketeer 12,728
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 2 hr beatlesinafog 9,338
More from around the web