Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223384 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.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#111148 Apr 12, 2014
Nick wrote:
The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system.(A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
Let me stop you right there. A mouse trap has been shown to not be irreducibly complex. If you remove some of the parts it can still perform a useful function. IC has not been supported by any evidence.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#111150 Apr 12, 2014
Nick wrote:
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
Well done Nick. You are copy and pasting all the usual propaganda.

Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. Cuts those pesky odds down a lot. All those examples of IC you mentioned have been refuted with evidence. This is old news. It just keeps coming back up because it is all that the ID proponents have to run with.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#111151 Apr 12, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in evolution does not mean that i don't believe in anything science related it just means that i dont believe in that preticular theory
So you pick and choose what science you accept and what you don't based on belief. Not very scientific of you.
Nick

Canada

#111152 Apr 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Well done Nick. You are copy and pasting all the usual propaganda.
Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. Cuts those pesky odds down a lot. All those examples of IC you mentioned have been refuted with evidence. This is old news. It just keeps coming back up because it is all that the ID proponents have to run with.
Creationists believe in natural selection but natural selection isnt creating new info for an animal and i dont care if some of its copy and pasted i know what it all means and im willing to stand by it you know my step dad was a teacher so i already have a pretty clear idea of what is an isnt able to be backed up just like your evolutional theory

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#111153 Apr 12, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists believe in natural selection but natural selection isnt creating new info for an animal and i dont care if some of its copy and pasted i know what it all means and im willing to stand by it you know my step dad was a teacher so i already have a pretty clear idea of what is an isnt able to be backed up just like your evolutional theory
Really Nick? You just posted a bunch of well refuted claims and nothing more. Just based on those posts it is obvious you do not know what is and isn't supported or the evidence involved If you want to stand by refuted claims that is your business. It is unfortunate you choose to turn a blind eye to reality just to satisfy how you feel.

You didn't say what your stepfather teaches, so I am speculating that it might not be science.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111154 Apr 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Really Nick? You just posted a bunch of well refuted claims and nothing more..
You kidding?

I doubt he's mastered the concept of punctuation.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111155 Apr 13, 2014
Nick wrote:
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
Your analogy mischaracterises the way chance works in evolution, because you ignore the non random factor of selection. What if, instead of flipping fair coins, I was actually out to find biased ones? Lets say Heads represent survival and Tails represents death.

THIS IS A CLOSER ANALOGY:

I have 100 coins of varying characteristics and I toss each one 10 times. I keep only the 25 coins with the most heads achieved. Some will get through on pure chance but others are likely to get through because they have unfair weightings or deformations on the surfaces that influence their chances.

I measure their characteristics, and mint a new set of coins based on those characteristics, but once again varying the dimensions slightly, at random, based on the averages of the successful ones.

Then I toss 100 of these new ones 10 times each, and select the 25 showing the most heads.

I keep doing this over and over again, always basing my new minting specifications on the average of the "winners", and adding in a bit of random variation around the new average.

What do you think the final shape of the "evolved" coins will be after say 100 iterations of this process? I would guess heavily weighted to the tails side and probably with an extreme deformation on the heads side, the tails side remaining flat and the heads side coming to a central point.

That is how evolution works. Random small variations operating iteratively (repeated cycles) with non-random selection. By the end of the above process, a sequence of 10 heads in a row would be far more likely than it was at the beginning.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111156 Apr 13, 2014
Nick wrote:
The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system.(A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
You realise that these particular examples cited by Behe have been discredited years ago by scientists, right? That Behe stood there in court red faced as piles of evidence showing that blood clotting and immune systems and the bacterial flagellum were not only reducible, but there were living creatures today with simpler versions of both?

The fact is, his argument fails even in principle. You cannot know every possible pathway to a currently complex system unless you are God so you cannot even in principle rule them all out.
The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender.
In all these cases, the information is an abstract symbolic code. DNA is not that - its "merely" a template providings a base by base match to a particular protein. When you change a letter in a computer program, it crashes. When you change a base in a protein, it may crash or it may simply differ slightly. There are many variations of known proteins in humans and other creatures that work perfectly well.
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
False. Insertion and gene duplication events are common and increase information.
There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
Multiple copies of existing information IS new information. Is this the same recipe for scones:

add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins.

versus

add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins., add 1 teaspoon raisins

And when one of the copies mutates again, there is no denying that its new information:

add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins., add 1 teaspoon black currants.

As for antibiotic resistance, its another common falsehood among ID proponents that this always results in reduced total fitness but this has also been demonstrated to be untrue. Some antibiotic resistant strains are still stronger than the original even in the absence of the antibiotic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111157 Apr 13, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists believe in natural selection but natural selection isnt creating new info for an animal and i dont care if some of its copy and pasted i know what it all means and im willing to stand by it you know my step dad was a teacher so i already have a pretty clear idea of what is an isnt able to be backed up just like your evolutional theory
The fat that you represent evolution in the following way:

"What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine?"

...as well as reel off the usual discredited arguments against evolution, tell me that you know far less about the subject than you think. In fact you know less than nothing, because you are merely attacking straw-man distortions of the science.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#111158 Apr 13, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You've hardly paid any attention to what I've actually stated and I'm
over the repetition. Your sexist vulgarity and abusive demeanor is
uncalled for. If it will assuage your hurts for me to cop out and admit
defeat then fine, men are swine, women are saints, France owns almost
half of the English language and Germany owns the rest. Happy?
And that again, does not change the position of English language in the world over French and German. lol

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#111159 Apr 13, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in evolution does not mean that i don't believe in anything science related it just means that i dont believe in that preticular theory
So you would be OK if Evolution was replaced by a different scientific, mechanistic, naturalistic theory that explained the diversity of life on Earth?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#111160 Apr 13, 2014
Nick wrote:
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
Now, cite from any actual text or book on Evolution an explanation of what Evolution is that is analogous to what you just described. Cite your source.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111161 Apr 13, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in evolution does not mean that i don't believe in anything science related it just means that i dont believe in that preticular theory
Its not the job or the mental attitude of science to "believe in" anything.

Its the job of science to observe phenomena closely, look for logically consistent explanations that explain what they see, and find ways to test those explanations. All of which has been done, repeatedly and thoroughly, for virtually every aspect of evolution over 150 years.

ALL you require to debunk the theory is one verifiable disproof, something that evolution's large opposition has tried, and failed, to do in all this time. Saying the giraffe's neck could not evolve is not disproof, its merely a confession of your ignorance and incredulity. We see evidence of far greater changes occurring step by step in the fossil record, so the giraffe's neck is nothing special.

Scientists do not "believe in" evolution or the big bang or electromagnetic theory or relativity. They ACCEPT these as the best explanations we have for observable phenomena, compounded by their success in not only explaining what was observed but successfully predicting what would be observed, in each case. Evolution's track record there is stellar.

So by all we have observed and all we could predict, evolution is true, in the scientific sense of the word.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111162 Apr 13, 2014
Nick wrote:
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

There is a number of problems with your logic here. First of all your analogy is not a proper one. There is much confusion among creationists as to what is random about abiogenesis and evolution.

Abiogenesis is 100% energy and chemistry. period.

Evolution has an element of randomness in mutation, but that does not work in the additive way you suggest.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111163 Apr 13, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that again, does not change the position of English language in the world over French and German. lol

OMG, are you STILL demonstrating your ignorance of language.

The Chinese own English.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#111164 Apr 13, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your analogy mischaracterises the way chance works in evolution, because you ignore the non random factor of selection. What if, instead of flipping fair coins, I was actually out to find biased ones? Lets say Heads represent survival and Tails represents death.
THIS IS A CLOSER ANALOGY:
I have 100 coins of varying characteristics and I toss each one 10 times. I keep only the 25 coins with the most heads achieved. Some will get through on pure chance but others are likely to get through because they have unfair weightings or deformations on the surfaces that influence their chances.
I measure their characteristics, and mint a new set of coins based on those characteristics, but once again varying the dimensions slightly, at random, based on the averages of the successful ones.
Then I toss 100 of these new ones 10 times each, and select the 25 showing the most heads.
I keep doing this over and over again, always basing my new minting specifications on the average of the "winners", and adding in a bit of random variation around the new average.
What do you think the final shape of the "evolved" coins will be after say 100 iterations of this process? I would guess heavily weighted to the tails side and probably with an extreme deformation on the heads side, the tails side remaining flat and the heads side coming to a central point.
That is how evolution works. Random small variations operating iteratively (repeated cycles) with non-random selection. By the end of the above process, a sequence of 10 heads in a row would be far more likely than it was at the beginning.
Very good analogy Chimney, but I fear it's all for naught. I think you lost him after the first sentence.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#111165 Apr 13, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

The Chinese own English.
Maybe not yet, but give them time...
He te

Canada

#111166 Apr 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't say what your stepfather teaches, so I am speculating that it might not be science.
He teaches biology and advance physics along with math
Nick

Canada

#111167 Apr 13, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your analogy mischaracterises the way chance works in evolution, because you ignore the non random factor of selection. What if, instead of flipping fair coins, I was actually out to find biased ones? Lets say Heads represent survival and Tails represents death.
THIS IS A CLOSER ANALOGY:
I have 100 coins of varying characteristics and I toss each one 10 times. I keep only the 25 coins with the most heads achieved. Some will get through on pure chance but others are likely to get through because they have unfair weightings or deformations on the surfaces that influence their chances.
I measure their characteristics, and mint a new set of coins based on those characteristics, but once again varying the dimensions slightly, at random, based on the averages of the successful ones.
Then I toss 100 of these new ones 10 times each, and select the 25 showing the most heads.
I keep doing this over and over again, always basing my new minting specifications on the average of the "winners", and adding in a bit of random variation around the new average.
What do you think the final shape of the "evolved" coins will be after say 100 iterations of this process? I would guess heavily weighted to the tails side and probably with an extreme deformation on the heads side, the tails side remaining flat and the heads side coming to a central point.
That is how evolution works. Random small variations operating iteratively (repeated cycles) with non-random selection. By the end of the above process, a sequence of 10 heads in a row would be far more likely than it was at the beginning.
You just said that you mint the coins so you would have to design them they didnt just mutate into life
Nick

Canada

#111168 Apr 13, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
Multiple copies of existing information IS new information. Is this the same recipe for scones:
add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins.
versus
add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins., add 1 teaspoon raisins
And when one of the copies mutates again, there is no denying that its new information:
add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins., add 1 teaspoon black currants.
As for antibiotic resistance, its another common falsehood among ID proponents that this always results in reduced total fitness but this has also been demonstrated to be untrue. Some antibiotic resistant strains are still stronger than the original even in the absence of the antibiotic.


No its not you just said that existing information creates new info with Darwin's finches for example the beaks changed a little but they were still just beaks they didn't change into fins or wings.

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
Type the word Cat 9 min North Mountain 316
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 10 min Crazy Jae 8,080
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 11 min Crazy Jae 6,740
A Five Letter Word (Jan '12) 12 min Crazy Jae 3,801
Is Time Travel actually Possible? (Feb '13) 13 min Crazy Jae 171
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 14 min Crazy Jae 21,812
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 32 min Crazy Jae 19,242
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 231,388
The Human Evolution 2 hr andet1987 41
#Things You DON'T Want To Hear# (Aug '17) 2 hr JenniferLoogie 959