Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221490 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114292 Jun 15, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what I am saying. If 10 people have the same said mutation but the changes/variation it causes is different for them, then it is not a random mutation, it is a random effect of the mutation.
You are starting with a mutation, considering the phenotype and any differences and attributing that as evidence of non-random mutation. The phenotype is a result of the genotype and the environment. This is true of any phenotype whether arising from mutation or the wild type. A random change in a gene does not have to result in an alteration of the phenotype. What you are saying is that the 10 people with the mutation are being subjected to different selection pressure which would be true if they were in 10 different environments. Do you see what I am saying? There is no reason to think that 10 people with the same mutation would not express a phenotype that was pretty much the same and subject to the same selective forces or not if it is neutral. Differences could occur based on the dominance of the mutation or in heterzygosity/homozygosity. We see this in sickle cell disease. The heterozygous condition in the presence of the selection pressure conveys resistance to a disease. The homozygous condition or the absence of selection pressure on the heterozygous condition is a disease.

What you seem to want is an environmental factor that causes a specific mutation, at a specific point resulting in a specific phenotype. There may be some natural mechanisms that exist that can do this, but I don't know of any and certainly they are not the dominant mechanisms. Science can select a specific gene and move it into a new genome, but there is still a large random component. There are "site directed mutatagensis" methods for instigating artificial mutations at specific points, but these don't occur outside the lab.

The mutations remain the totally random component of the two step process.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114293 Jun 15, 2014
I seem to have made a bad choice of words here.

The idea I was intending to capture would be better communicated if "iniquity" was replaced with "inequality".
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Of all those points you suggest the first is the only meaningful one. The appeal to ignorance is valid etc etc...
But as for the others, submission or conformity to iniquity will not save you nor anyone from it.
The effect of INEQUALITY is discontinuity (and it is characterized by discontinuity), hence INEQUALITY is the essence of destruction, evil etc.
As such you are more likely to survive oppression and injustice, if you fight against it at the risk of losing your life.
Even in cases of individual assault one is more likely to survive if one places the assailant in a position where they must fight for their own life.
Because the fact is if an individual is cruel enough to threaten your life when you have not threatened his, he probably will be willing to do it even if you comply.
<quoted text>
Yes.
That is what I am suggesting, as a matter of fact.
There is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114294 Jun 15, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I want to add more than one can have the mutation but does that mean the effects from that mutation will produce the same trait/variation on them all?
I covered most of what this question asks in my two other responses.

However, that is a good question. For the most part the answer is that the mutation should produce the same phenotype in the different individuals, but it can vary and greatly due to gene interactions within different individuals and just the action of existing genes of a particular individual. A person with cystic fibrosis will not accrue the same benefit of lactose tolerance that a person without cystic fibrosis would. But that person with CF would still possess the lactose tolerance trait. This goes back to the differences in the environment impacting expression of the trait. The individual environment of the person with CF interferes with the benefit conveyed by lactose tolerance. In a continuous trait like height, a mutated gene that confers greater height in 10 different individuals will not produce 10 people with the exact same height, but they will all probably be tall. The mutation is still random, the phenotype is only partially random, and the selection pressure is non-random.

There can be differences in phenotypes due to epigenetic differences as well, but I don't have the expertise yet, to elaborate beyond the general.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#114295 Jun 15, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are starting with a mutation, considering the phenotype and any differences and attributing that as evidence of non-random mutation. The phenotype is a result of the genotype and the environment. This is true of any phenotype whether arising from mutation or the wild type. A random change in a gene does not have to result in an alteration of the phenotype. What you are saying is that the 10 people with the mutation are being subjected to different selection pressure which would be true if they were in 10 different environments. Do you see what I am saying? There is no reason to think that 10 people with the same mutation would not express a phenotype that was pretty much the same and subject to the same selective forces or not if it is neutral. Differences could occur based on the dominance of the mutation or in heterzygosity/homozygosity. We see this in sickle cell disease. The heterozygous condition in the presence of the selection pressure conveys resistance to a disease. The homozygous condition or the absence of selection pressure on the heterozygous condition is a disease.
What you seem to want is an environmental factor that causes a specific mutation, at a specific point resulting in a specific phenotype. There may be some natural mechanisms that exist that can do this, but I don't know of any and certainly they are not the dominant mechanisms. Science can select a specific gene and move it into a new genome, but there is still a large random component. There are "site directed mutatagensis" methods for instigating artificial mutations at specific points, but these don't occur outside the lab.
The mutations remain the totally random component of the two step process.
To put it the best way I can:

These random mutations are caused by environmental factors to aid in survival. So I think one could say that they are, so to speak, planned. They happen for a reason and said reason is for survival and they are brought about by the effects of the environment.

If 10 people in the same population have the same said mutation but the trait/variation it causes is different for them, then it is not a random mutation, it is a random effect of the said mutation. Any mutation will cause a slight/slightest variation. So as I said if the variation is different in those 10 people with the same mutation, then it is not a random mutation but a random effect of the mutation on the person. The thing is that we don’t know enough to figure that out yet.

The day someone stop’s question things because at the present they are content because science says this is how it is, then they are no different than someone who stopped looking because they are content with ‘god did.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114296 Jun 15, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
To put it the best way I can:
These random mutations are caused by environmental factors to aid in survival. So I think one could say that they are, so to speak, planned. They happen for a reason and said reason is for survival and they are brought about by the effects of the environment.
If 10 people in the same population have the same said mutation but the trait/variation it causes is different for them, then it is not a random mutation, it is a random effect of the said mutation. Any mutation will cause a slight/slightest variation. So as I said if the variation is different in those 10 people with the same mutation, then it is not a random mutation but a random effect of the mutation on the person. The thing is that we don’t know enough to figure that out yet.
The day someone stop’s question things because at the present they are content because science says this is how it is, then they are no different than someone who stopped looking because they are content with ‘god did.
Ok, I think I see where you are at. The mutations are caused by environmental factors, but these factors are not causing the mutations for a specified reason. The causes of mutations, can be from chemicals, radiation, or copy errors in replication. I had a discussion with a herpetologist many years ago and he was able to induce mutation in developing frog embryos with very high pressure. They were still random and to get what he wanted, he had to play the numbers and perform his technique on very large numbers of embryos at very early stages of development.

I am going to have to call it a night, but I will think about your questions some more and see if I can find a better way to explain myself. I will leave you with this and I may be repeating myself so ignore it if I am. Natural selection is a two step process acting on the phenotype. The first step is mutation that can result from any cause on any point in the genome. If it hits a gene that results in a phenotype with greater fitness as dictated by the selection pressures then that phenotype will be protected and carried into the next generation stemming from that individual. All this is not carried out in a void. There are as you have pointed out numerous mutations in each individual and these mean that each individual is unique even if it shares a particular mutation with 9 other individuals. So, a particular mutation will be expressed the same, but the ultimate phenotype can and does vary among the individuals.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114297 Jun 15, 2014
replaytime wrote:
:
<quoted text>
You are putting the cart before the horse. Random mutations or the random effect of mutations has to happen before natural selection.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not relevant...
I beg to differ!

His question is every bit pertinent.

I am suggesting that it is relevant, thought it seems as if He is the one putting the cart before the horse.

While X did not create itself, its presence and continuity must have been supported by the environment and formed through or from factors in the environment.

While "natural selection" is observed/treated as a tendency, influence or behavior of the environment:did the things which arose and begin to mutate arise against the natural tendency or influence of the environment?

Is it not natural selection that should have determined what mutated or even arose in the first place?
TurkanaBoy wrote:
...Random mutations that happen to be deleterious bring, by their very deleteriousness, lower survival or reproduction chances to the individuals carrying them. For this reason, those random deleterious mutations are not likely to be transferred to the next generation: they disappear along with the death of the individual carrying them...
Simply put: The physically weak face suffering and death... quicker.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
...Random mutations that happen to be advantageous, bring by their very advantageousness, BETTER survival and reproduction chances to the individuals carrying them. Those mutations will very (or more) likely be transferred to the next generation. In that next generation they still will be advantageous etc. It is a matter of many generations until that advantageous mutations has become dominant within the species genome...
And now arises the questions:

If nature (and the reality in which nature exists) does not support disadvantageous attributes, HOW is it generating them?

Is physical reality permeated by that which can induce changes that are contrary to the physical reality itself?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114298 Jun 15, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
... The mutations are caused by environmental factors, but these factors are not causing the mutations for a specified reason...
What is the meaning of "reason"?

What are the natural implications of "reason"?

When a human being searches for a reason, he is searching for "why".

And the most accurate response to the question of "why" is an explanation of "how".

And when a human being investigates how, he is investigating a process or a cause.

Therefore when you say "...factors are not causing the mutations for a specific reason...", you are saying essentially "...the factors are not causing the mutations for a specific cause (or so that something can follow)".

That is not an accurate conclusion (by my calculations anyway).

The first natural reason why anything happens is that nothing prevented it from happening (duh...).

That of course leads to further questions; but its welcomed cuz its more fun.
deutscher Stolz

Vechta, Germany

#114299 Jun 16, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You are wrong, your countrymen and women were not traitors.
They were simply led to disaster by probably the worst leader in modern history.
They some of them were bad people, but the fault is in the few and not the many.
I know some who were participants , but many were victims as much as Jews were.
The guilty are those who held SS , Gestapo titles and were actively in command.
We do not lay blame on people who only followed orders in fear of their lives.
I meant that only the real Nazis were traitors. The real Nazis that rose to power because of Brits. Of course they were only a few.
deutscher Stolz

Vechta, Germany

#114300 Jun 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Although I agree that the German people can't get away with "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" (an infamous and very well known saying in postwar Germany, meaning "I didn't know it" (pertaining the Holocaust), the world is not as simple as black or white reasoning.
But that's true My grand parents didn't know anything. In contrast to the British government.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114301 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree here. Asexually only requires one organism where as sexually requires a male and female organism. But the ability to reproduce could not have came from a mutation through evolution for said mutation would have had to been passed on after reproduction. So again at best what can be said is that reproduction abilities already existed in the first life (It already possessed reproduction abilities when it came to life).
Thanks Pete, you are very correct. Amoeba proteus, and other unicellular are not sexually reproductive.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114302 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
hahahaha
Do you know the "Gebrüder Grimm"? Maybe you would be more successful as a story-teller like "Gebrüder Grimm".
Why is the use of God tenable to date?
This is because we all know the truth but too shy to admit to that.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114303 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant that only the real Nazis were traitors. The real Nazis that rose to power because of Brits. Of course they were only a few.
You have not answered the questions i posted to you. During the European scramble of Africa, where was the meeting held, was it in France or Britain?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114304 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant that only the real Nazis were traitors. The real Nazis that rose to power because of Brits. Of course they were only a few.
If you don' t know, it was decided in your country in BERLIN. SO, how is GERMANY free from colonialism?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114305 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I beg to differ!
His question is every bit pertinent.
I am suggesting that it is relevant, thought it seems as if He is the one putting the cart before the horse.
You are of course entitled to differ. no problem.
But I ALSO explained him VERY EXTENSIVELY WHY it is not relevant.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
While X did not create itself, its presence and continuity must have been supported by the environment and formed through or from factors in the environment.
While "natural selection" is observed/treated as a tendency, influence or behavior of the environment:did the things which arose and begin to mutate arise against the natural tendency or influence of the environment?
Is it not natural selection that should have determined what mutated or even arose in the first place?
NO. Read my post again:
The mutations that are "arise against the the natural tendency or influence of the environment" will be weeded out. The advantageous ones will be retained.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put: The physically weak face suffering and death... quicker.
No WRONGLY put.
The ones LESS ADAPTED to the environment will experience less survival and reproduction chances. Not "physically weak" but the less adapted. Not "suffering and death" but less survival and reproduction chances.

Moreover, you impose a moral verdict over things that just happen.
You may as well blame gravity of falling and hurting your knee.
If an antelope isn't agile and fast enough, it will be eaten by the lion. Lions focus on the weak and vulnerable ones because for them it also is a matter of alive or death. Why chasing a healthy agile antelope if an old or young one, not so fast running, is available. If the lion isn't agile and fast enough or smart in stealth, he will starve to death.
You can impose a moral imperative on that but it won't change reality a bit.
Nature is not for the weak hearted as every wildlife documentary demonstrates.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And now arises the questions:
If nature (and the reality in which nature exists) does not support disadvantageous attributes, HOW is it generating them?
Random mutations due to natural radiation or the effect of mutagen chemical substances, hitting the DNA arbitrarily on just the wrong place causing disadvantageous errors.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Is physical reality permeated by that which can induce changes that are contrary to the physical reality itself?
No.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114306 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is born with mutations, so in a sense they are not random things. It is the effect of the mutation that is random.
Correct.
Mutations are random because they are indifferent to the adaptivity of the individual.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114307 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the meaning of "reason"?
What are the natural implications of "reason"?
When a human being searches for a reason, he is searching for "why".
And the most accurate response to the question of "why" is an explanation of "how".
And when a human being investigates how, he is investigating a process or a cause.
Therefore when you say "...factors are not causing the mutations for a specific reason...", you are saying essentially "...the factors are not causing the mutations for a specific cause (or so that something can follow)".
That is not an accurate conclusion (by my calculations anyway).
The first natural reason why anything happens is that nothing prevented it from happening (duh...).
That of course leads to further questions; but its welcomed cuz its more fun.
There is no specific intent behind the mutations. Which individual gets which mutations if any is random. That is what I am saying.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114308 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's true My grand parents didn't know anything. In contrast to the British government.
Yes that is why they set up an invasion army. To get rid of this orgy of violence and terror.

Next, not only the English government knew it, also a considerable part of the German population did. Apart from Stauffenberg, nobody acted. Instead the majority were stretching their right arm, saying "Sieg Heil".

Several historical studies, unfortunately not by German historians themselves, indicated that a considerable part of the German population knew what was going on. They virtually ALL read Mein Kampf and Hitler was not very ambiguous about his intentions pertaining the Jew.

I WONDER how people like your great parents managed to stay ignorant.
I am afraid you inherited much of them.
Even now you are denying and distorting history.

Now, we live 65 years after that most profound disaster in human history.
Most of the perpetrators are dead and gone.
We can't blame modern Germans for the mischief of their grandparents.
Germany is a vibrant democracy and revenged its past by its current acts and performance.
It recuperated and took its place in modern European history.

You are ruining this by your Geschichtsverfälschung.

THIS is what brought Germany back as the respected country it is today: http://understandinggermany.de/history/chance... .
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#114309 Jun 16, 2014
Britain, the USA and France are doing 'Geschichtsverfälschung'.
Britain knew it and did nothing over 6 years. Besides they are responsible for the raise of the Nazis. WW2 wouldn't happened without the treaty of Versaille. It wasn't the most profound disaster in human history. The colonization by the Brits was worse.

My grandparents aren't ignorant. My grandfather fought against the Brits for our freedom.
We should have won WW1. Then WW2 would never happened. We had forced Britain to give up their colonies. Then these countries would be free. The cold war would never happened and there were not an NSA today.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes that is why they set up an invasion army. To get rid of this orgy of violence and terror.
Next, not only the English government knew it, also a considerable part of the German population did. Apart from Stauffenberg, nobody acted. Instead the majority were stretching their right arm, saying "Sieg Heil".
Several historical studies, unfortunately not by German historians themselves, indicated that a considerable part of the German population knew what was going on. They virtually ALL read Mein Kampf and Hitler was not very ambiguous about his intentions pertaining the Jew.
I WONDER how people like your great parents managed to stay ignorant.
I am afraid you inherited much of them.
Even now you are denying and distorting history.
Now, we live 65 years after that most profound disaster in human history.
Most of the perpetrators are dead and gone.
We can't blame modern Germans for the mischief of their grandparents.
Germany is a vibrant democracy and revenged its past by its current acts and performance.
It recuperated and took its place in modern European history.
You are ruining this by your Geschichtsverfälschung.
THIS is what brought Germany back as the respected country it is today: http://understandinggermany.de/history/chance... .

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114310 Jun 16, 2014
I see "Deutschland über alles" is still spouting off.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114311 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
Britain, the USA and France are doing 'Geschichtsverfälschung'.
Britain knew it and did nothing over 6 years. Besides they are responsible for the raise of the Nazis. WW2 wouldn't happened without the treaty of Versaille. It wasn't the most profound disaster in human history. The colonization by the Brits was worse.
My grandparents aren't ignorant. My grandfather fought against the Brits for our freedom.
We should have won WW1. Then WW2 would never happened. We had forced Britain to give up their colonies. Then these countries would be free. The cold war would never happened and there were not an NSA today.
<quoted text>
FART. PUPS. Ungeheuer riechende Kacke.
Geschichtsfälscher.

Yes we all know that the gas chambers were situated in England, France and Holland.
And the poor Germans, innocent victims as they were, accidentally gassed and killed 8 million people because of ehhhh......ehhhhh.....ehhhhh.. .... the English did it.....ehhhh..... eeehhhhh.... something like that. Ah! Got it!....because the English had more colonies! ehhhh.....

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
I screamed like a ....... 1 min greymouser 4
The website match.com is a rip off for men! 3 min Prince John 1
News Jury questions posed during Bill Cosby's sex as... 8 min Just Sayin 20
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Princess Hey 218,926
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 45 min Parden Pard 47,050
News O.J. Simpson up for parole nine years into sent... 48 min Parden Pard 55
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 52 min SweLL GirL 33,181
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Funny stuff 22,925
What Turns You Off? 1 hr RACY_MEAN_DISAGREE 638
News Toilet charity gets Indian village to take on T... 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 25
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr _Zoey_ 4,304
More from around the web