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
100,561 - 100,580 of 112,790 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106140
Nov 17, 2013
 

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106143
Nov 17, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
Address my link sunken sub. It backs what I said. Don't run away with your feelings hurt, Just run away.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106144
Nov 17, 2013
 
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Yes, and my article pushed it back a little bit further.

Otherwise we are not that far off from each other, for once.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106145
Nov 17, 2013
 
Sunken sub you are saved by the cattle. For is now time for me go feed them. Reflect back, look at your mistakes and admit them. Look at my link and you will see it says exactly what I said for that is where I got it. If you deny that link, then you deny science. Until later but for you I would suggest a doughnut since you got kicked so hard in the azzzz tonight for the 3rd night in a row. I am not your creationists that you usually intimidate.

You cried that I have not stated what I believe,,, I did not see that rule on the door when I came in. So that is my business and not yours.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106146
Nov 17, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and my article pushed it back a little bit further.
Otherwise we are not that far off from each other, for once.
We are not far off! You told me I was wrong when I quoted from my link! Now you say we are not far off! Get a grip man and come to reality. You are way off on everything. debunk my link if you think you can. You don't have a chance.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106147
Nov 17, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and my article pushed it back a little bit further.
Otherwise we are not that far off from each other, for once.
Was your article based off peer reviewed science. I don't think so. Again do you ever bark little doggie or is all you do is whimper?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106148
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?
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.
Morphology does not require a beneficial mutation.
But it also doesn't require many mutations.
For instance , a single mutation allowed humans brains to become twice as large as the were. Interestingly enough this in its day was not a beneficial mutation. A defect in the MYH16 gene allowed us to become smarter. So your beneficial mutation theory is wrong.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/...
davy

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106149
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

It sounds like you admit that the bible is bullshit.
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106150
Nov 17, 2013
 
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
I must have you shook up. You can't even post a good link. "Traveler"! What does that show me?
I forgot, you can't read past the first sentence of your links.

You should have read it moron, you would find that it is usually caused by E. coli. In other words if you go down to Mexico and get a tasted of their E.coli you might be sorry.

You know I have to blame myself a bit. I was dealing with moron boy and he has no clue as to when someone is making colloquial use of language and when someone is being scientific, he is an idiot after all. Still, his lack of education and not knowing that E. coli is the cause of Montezuma's revenge is amazing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106151
Nov 17, 2013
 
Maz, remember my earlier statement that species can overlap? That the evolution of a new species does not require the end of an old species? Here is a link to a chart that shows the times that various whale predecessors lived. You can see there is quite a bit of overlap. In some cases a later species does not even exist as long as the one that gave rise to it does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeoceti...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106152
Nov 17, 2013
 
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Was your article based off peer reviewed science. I don't think so. Again do you ever bark little doggie or is all you do is whimper?
Yes, it was you poor little moron. You still do not understand what that phrase means do you?

It must really suck to be you.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106153
Nov 17, 2013
 
Pg 5032 Started at about pg 5015
106033 Aura Mytha cases of speciation and
106034 Subduction Zone learn the terminology 'Clades'.

Thanks DFS.
Given i was away for a longer time, i had to figure out what this is actually about.

Tracking it back to chromosome 2, as in the difference between Gorilla and later pan and humans.
One of the distinctions was bloodclothing.(SBT and his longwinded apropos of nothing repetition on bloodcirculation and foramen ovale)

Shrill Shreeking Mazhere keeps quote-mining and not getting the irrelevance, contradiction and in general actual meaning of what she dumps (the only appropriate term.)For some reason she thinks being hatefull and endless iteration proofs her point and will get everybody on there knees for Jesus.
But that likewise goes back to apes and humans and chromososme 2.

Or even how infection can cause a benificial effect, giving us a womb as is.

Dude a.o. has been here since day one, so is simply the most consistent. A kind of indicator species. ;]
Which helps in figuring out what the heck is going on.

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/201...
(Christine M. and Aura Mytha, missing Hyf's comments here on some subset of research on Homo erectus)
No knuckle draggers in H.Erectus and Neanderthals.
By the way finger/hand dexteriry and fine motorics developed first before bipedal locomotion.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
p5014 105658
See Chimneys comment and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106154
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.
It seems you are thinking that textbooks are unrelated from the peer-reviewed science method.
If you just want to continue the slightly blighted conversation(you appear fascinated with said poster) with Subduction Zone i suggest you take it to a seperate thread.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106155
Nov 17, 2013
 
Subductione zone is refining the data.
Revisiting. Nothing is overthrowing the theory in talkorigins, but just updated. If anything if proofs that no creation occurred from the cambrian.
We see pre-cambrian and much earlier developments.
(Y.E.C. have to contort the hebrew grammar and content of 'genesis to give their theory even the semblance of relevance to science.)

K:

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. Isnt that the theory?

S.Z.:
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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106156
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MAAT wrote:
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.
The ability to develop a hard shell is attributed to the calcification of dead organisms, when so many had created a supply of this life started recycling the waste products of itself and incorporated the calcium to build the hard parts.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106157
Nov 17, 2013
 
K.'s representation goes entirely on his conto.

Link provided:
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 ...

Note:
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 PHYLOGENIC TREE,

SO TO FIND THE THEORY LOOK AT THE THEORY OF THE STANDARD PHYLOGENIC TREE.
SZ points out that your interpretation is wrong and that we van push the dates even further back to precambrian development. As in the Cambrian a bottleneck, with later adaptation into a great variety.(The socalled Cambrain explosion, which never meant creatio ex nihilio)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/...
Ernst Mayr Evolutionary Synsthesis 1942.

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.

177 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The Night Owl Saloon (Jun '11) 10 min razz58 15,591
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 12 min -Lea- 14,855
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 13 min Old Sam 53,928
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 15 min Nfreebird 76,862
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 15 min Old Sam 28,751
Word Association (Jun '10) 16 min Nfreebird 25,979
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 16 min Old Sam 25,562
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 43 min Old Sam 13,013
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 56 min CJ Rocker 141,209
Marine Biologist: 6th-Grader Stole My Idea 2 hr Instigator 1
•••
•••