Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201773 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.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114317 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't act like a child
Don't distort history to your pathetic whims.
Because it STINKS like PUPS.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#114318 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
There aren't good reasons. Personally I hate Nazis and I hate Hitler.
Americans just think that every German is a Nazi.
Some Americans even think that Europe is a country and everyone speaks French there.
Look there how much Americans know about Europe
http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/americans-...
There are only some exceptions.
There are good reasons that are evident in your posts and who you hate has nothing to do with your xenophobia

The American concept of Europe is not the point, there are some deliberately ignorant Americans and there are some exceedingly intelligent ones just as there are some deliberately ignorant Germans and some exceedingly clever ones.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#114319 Jun 16, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> So, tell me how reproduction, a process of creation is evolution?
Creation and evolution are two separate concepts.

creation is a process of reproduction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#114320 Jun 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be very much out of your mind, and completely stupid.
American Universities lead the world in every area of scientific research.
The USA is one of the world leaders in productivity, invention, industry, culture.
Don't be an ethnocentric idiot your entire life.
Yes Germany is a great country and a wonderful place...so is the Neatherlands, Greece, Spain, Italy, England, France and many other European countries.
If you do not like this country than get the He11 out. People will be lining up to take your place
The funny part here about your lecture to our resident German pal is that YOUR people are working to DESTROY what's left of American education.

You can't simultaneously tout US universities while trying to convince us all that The Flinstones is a science documentary.

You DISAGREE with most American universities, remember. Bozo.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#114321 Jun 16, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> So, tell me how reproduction, a process of creation is evolution?
Are we all clones? If not then evolution happens.

It's up to you if you wish to consider evolution to be an opposite to "creation" or not.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#114322 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
THE NATURE OF REALITY:
1. "reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist."
THE LIMITS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD:
2. "The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five senses. "Therefore even if I could not "demonstrate such by providing the mechanisms AND evidence for them"; that would not alter the fact of their existence.
Then it is not the scientific method that's limited, but rather your God concept, as there is no way to distinguish it from reality and BS. That means it COULD be true, but COULD be BS. And YOU don't know. That's why I prefer to stick to things I KNOW aren't BS.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
From here on I will begin to ascertain whether it is that you are incapable of understanding, or you cover your eyes and claim that nothing exists since you cannot see:
Since some real phenomena are not observable or comprehensible; you cannot conclude on the absence or non-existence of a thing based on the fact that you cannot observe, measure or demonstrate it.
Furthermore, whereas the things in reality (which includes the detectable and undetectable) are continually interacting; it will always be questionable whether the causes one identifies are sufficient to bring about an effect by themselves, without the influence of undetected factors.
THE RELIABILITY OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING AND OBSERVATION ITSELF:
"Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of REASONING FROM one or more general statements (PREMISES) TO REACH A LOGICALLY CERTAIN CONCLUSION"
"Sometimes the NATURE of an investigation makes a controlled experiment impossible. For example, the earth's core is surrounded by thousands of meters of rock. Under such circumstances, A HYPOTHESIS MAY BE TESTED BY MAKING DETAILED OBSERVATION."
Therefore the failure or inability to create or suggest a controlled experiment to validate a claim or test a hypothesis, NEVER immediately means that the subject the hypothesis attempts to describe is non-existent or incapable of being proven or validated.
THE VALUE OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN SCIENCE:
"Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories."
IS VALID KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENTIFIC NATURE POSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPERIMENTATION AND/OR OBSERVATION:
"...A thought experiment might also be used to test the hypothesis as well."
EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF DEDUCTION OR THOUGHT ITSELF IN SCIENCE:
"There are many different kinds of thought experiments. All thought experiments, however, employ a methodology that is a priori, rather than a posteriori, in that they do not proceed by observation or physical experiment... Thought experiments have been used in a variety of fields, including philosophy, law, physics, and mathematics.[Wikipedia.com]
But I am not relying on thought experiments that do not proceed by observations & physical experiments. You on the other hand are relying on non-verifiable dogma. I accept your concession that you cannot back up your claims.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#114323 Jun 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The funny part here about your lecture to our resident German pal is that YOUR people are working to DESTROY what's left of American education.
You can't simultaneously tout US universities while trying to convince us all that The Flinstones is a science documentary.
You DISAGREE with most American universities, remember. Bozo.
SevenTee does seem to exemplify the Aryan boy's stereotype of an American.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114324 Jun 16, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>There is no specific intent behind the mutations.
What is "intent"?

Actually yes there is.

Natural "selection" demonstrates intent.

Whether "selective" behavior results from elements that lack consciousness it is a disposition called a disposition and when it involves conscious factors it is a will).
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Which individual gets which mutations if any is random. That is what I am saying.
Are you saying or asking?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114326 Jun 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it is not the scientific method that's limited, but rather your God concept, as there is no way to distinguish it from reality and BS. That means it COULD be true, but COULD be BS. And YOU don't know. That's why I prefer to stick to things I KNOW aren't BS.
Explain how the limitations of science dont really exist, as I have posted.

Describe my God concept.

Define "BS".

What makes a BS, BSy?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But I am not relying on thought experiments that do not proceed by observations & physical experiments. You on the other hand are relying on non-verifiable dogma.
What aspect of the "dogma" is non-verifiable?

How does one verify?

What happens when it is not possible to observe and conduct physical experiments?
The Dude wrote:
I accept your concession that you cannot back up your claims.
I leave the entire universe to see that you are a brain-washed, mind programmed entity; trying to mimic intelligent behavior.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114327 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
THE NATURE OF REALITY:
1. "... reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Reality]
THE LIMITS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD:
2. "The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five senses. "[http://www.apologeticsp ress.org/apcontent.aspx?catego ry=9&article=315]
Therefore even if I could not "demonstrate such by providing the mechanisms AND evidence for them"; that would not alter the fact of their existence.
This has some very obvious problems: for example radio waves cannot be observed directly with the five senses. neither can neutrinos, ultra-sound, or any number of scientifically verified things or processes in the universe. So, at the very start, your definition seems to be much to narrow to cover how science is actually done.
From here on I will begin to ascertain whether it is that you are incapable of understanding, or you cover your eyes and claim that nothing exists since you cannot see:
***Since some real phenomena are not observable or comprehensible; you cannot conclude on the absence or non-existence of a thing based on the fact that you cannot observe, measure or demonstrate it.
Let's distinguish between not being able to observe or measure it with current technology and not being able to do so even in theory. Since observation often, even typically, amount to seeing some change in another material, all that is really required for observation in theory is that there be *some* sort of interaction with things we can detect.

And yes, I deny that it is meaningful for something to exist if it cannot be detected even in theory in any way whatsoever.
Furthermore, whereas the things in reality (which includes the detectable and undetectable) are continually interacting; it will always be questionable whether the causes one identifies are sufficient to bring about an effect by themselves, without the influence of undetected factors.
Such is the nature of science. This is exactly why we require testability of all of our ideas via observation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114328 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
THE RELIABILITY OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING AND OBSERVATION ITSELF:
"Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of REASONING FROM one or more general statements (PREMISES) TO REACH A LOGICALLY CERTAIN CONCLUSION..." [Wikipedia.com]
"Sometimes the NATURE of an investigation makes a controlled experiment impossible. For example, the earth's core is surrounded by thousands of meters of rock. Under such circumstances, A HYPOTHESIS MAY BE TESTED BY MAKING DETAILED OBSERVATION." [P638, Appendix, Holt Science and Technology, North Carolina, Grade 7]
***Therefore the failure or inability to create or suggest a controlled experiment to validate a claim or test a hypothesis, NEVER immediately means that the subject the hypothesis attempts to describe is non-existent or incapable of being proven or validated.
The problem with deductive reasoning is that the starting assumptions for the reasoning must be correct. If they are not, the result of the deduction may be wrong. Even in the example you used, we have to start from known laws of physics and *speculate* about the conditions in the center of the earth. These speculations are still subject to the requirement that they be consistent with the data we can obtain (say, waves detected from earthquakes, results of volcanic activity, knowledge of density of different materials, effects of pressure, etc).

While not having an experiment to test or validate an idea *now* is not enough to say an idea is meaningless, the absence of even a theoretical way to test or verify an idea *is* enough to say that the idea is not scientific. Any idea that describes reality *must* be testable in some form.
THE VALUE OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN SCIENCE:
"Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories." [http://www.livescience.com/21 569-deduction-vs-induction.htm l]
**********
And, once again, to begin to use deductive reasoning, you must have general axioms that are reliable and can be used in the situations where the deduction is applied. if the general rules are not correct, then errors can arise.
IS VALID KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENTIFIC NATURE POSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPERIMENTATION AND/OR OBSERVATION:
"...A thought experiment might also be used to test the hypothesis as well." [Wikipedia.com]
EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF DEDUCTION OR THOUGHT ITSELF IN SCIENCE:
"There are many different kinds of thought experiments. All thought experiments, however, employ a methodology that is a priori, rather than a posteriori, in that they do not proceed by observation or physical experiment... Thought experiments have been used in a variety of fields, including philosophy, law, physics, and mathematics.[Wikipedia.com]
And *all* thought experiments in the sciences must subsequently be tested by observations to determine whether the assumptions of the thought experiment are correct. The problem is that correct reasoning from incorrect principles will lead to incorrect conclusions. many times, the facts we can deduce from actual observation and testing are counter-intuitive, which means that pure thought experiments are not enough to deduce the validity of an idea.

Mathematics has its own ways to verify ideas: based on proof starting from accepted axioms which may or may not apply to reality. Philosophy and law are not sciences in the modern sense and cannot validate *any* idea except via convention.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114329 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what evolution says but if the mutations are because of environmental effects then in a sense they are not random since they are producing what is needed other wise producing a trait for survival reasons caused by the environment factors..
Part of the problem here is the word 'random'. As far as I can see, it means very different things to different people.

For example, when you throw a pair of dice, the end result of the dice is determined by the properties of the dice, the friction of the table, the air currents, and a host of other variables. But the result could, in theory, be predicted by a very fast calculation on these parameters after the throw and before the dice stop. And yet, we say that the result of the dice is random.

The *reason* we say the result is random is that very small changes in initial conditions (force of the throw, angle of rebound, direction of air current, etc) can lead to a different final result. In other words, the result has sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

The same happens with mutations. yes, everyone has some mutation. But *which* mutations does any given person have? That will depend on whether a cosmic ray deposited its energy on one part of the DNA molecule or on the protein nearby. Or whether a particular chemical managed to diffuse into a particular cell and which, exact rung of the DNA ladder it interacted with. Even a millimeter difference in position of the animal could lead to a very different mutation.

So, once again, the specific mutations that are produced have a very high dependence on initial conditions, including position of the individual, air currents, diffusion, etc. For exactly the same reason that we say that the result of a throw of dice is random, the specific mutations an individual has are random.

We can go further, suppose that we throw a pair of dice every hour and record the results. The sequence of scores will be a random sequence. But we have the non-random assumption that we throw the dice every hour. We can go further and use the laws of probability to say that approximately 1/6 of the throws of the dice will add to be 7 and 1/36 will add to be 12. There is some variance in these numbers in any given run of scores, but the long-term, overall average is regular in this way.

In the same way, the individual mutations are random, but each person is likely to have 150 mutations. Exactly which ones cannot be determined except through an very detailed analysis of position, air currents, etc, but the average over a large population will be regular in many ways.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114330 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
OK another question: to my knowledge every person born has 150 or more mutations. Now mutations happen to everyone and that is a fact. Should it not be said the "random effects” of mutations (everyone experiences mutations) are what are responsible for the new traits instead of just saying "random mutations" are what is responsible? We really don’t even know what mutations causes what trait/effect or how it even really works. In my opinion! After all it is the random effect of the mutation not the mutation itself. <<<(if that makes sense to anyone)
No, for each mutation, the effect is pretty well determined. The issue is *which* mutations any particular person will have. Two different people are very unlikely to have exactly the same collection of mutations. So, it really is having the effects of random mutations instead of the random effects of mutations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114331 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.
No, the specific mutations are random. Which specific mutations an individual will have is random. But every individual will have *some* mutations. The mutations are random things. Given a specific mutation, the effect is NOT random. For example the mutation that causes sickle-cell disease is a very specific mutation on the gene for hemoglobin. Given that mutation, sickle-cell disease is the result. But whether that mutation arises or not is a random thing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114332 Jun 16, 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.
But that isn't what actually happens in practice. Different people tend to have different mutations. All those with the same mutation are subject to the same effects of that mutation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114333 Jun 16, 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.
Stop right there. They are NOT produced by the environment to aid survival. The causes of the mutations have nothing at all to do with the survival aspects of the resulting mutations. The two aspects are uncorrelated.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114335 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop right there. They are NOT produced by the environment to aid survival. The causes of the mutations have nothing at all to do with the survival aspects of the resulting mutations. The two aspects are uncorrelated.
As I have said I do a lot of reading and in every article I have ever read they mention the environment influence of mutations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/env...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variat...

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114336 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, for each mutation, the effect is pretty well determined. The issue is *which* mutations any particular person will have. Two different people are very unlikely to have exactly the same collection of mutations. So, it really is having the effects of random mutations instead of the random effects of mutations.
Ok no two individuals have the same mutations. So are you saying that in a population, different mutations can cause the same evolution of the population? Like you can get 100 by adding up several different numbers, ie different mutations in different individuals can still lead up to the same changes in the population?.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114337 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Part of the problem here is the word 'random'. As far as I can see, it means very different things to different people.
For example, when you throw a pair of dice, the end result of the dice is determined by the properties of the dice, the friction of the table, the air currents, and a host of other variables. But the result could, in theory, be predicted by a very fast calculation on these parameters after the throw and before the dice stop. And yet, we say that the result of the dice is random.
The *reason* we say the result is random is that very small changes in initial conditions (force of the throw, angle of rebound, direction of air current, etc) can lead to a different final result. In other words, the result has sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
The same happens with mutations. yes, everyone has some mutation. But *which* mutations does any given person have? That will depend on whether a cosmic ray deposited its energy on one part of the DNA molecule or on the protein nearby. Or whether a particular chemical managed to diffuse into a particular cell and which, exact rung of the DNA ladder it interacted with. Even a millimeter difference in position of the animal could lead to a very different mutation.
So, once again, the specific mutations that are produced have a very high dependence on initial conditions, including position of the individual, air currents, diffusion, etc. For exactly the same reason that we say that the result of a throw of dice is random, the specific mutations an individual has are random.
We can go further, suppose that we throw a pair of dice every hour and record the results. The sequence of scores will be a random sequence. But we have the non-random assumption that we throw the dice every hour. We can go further and use the laws of probability to say that approximately 1/6 of the throws of the dice will add to be 7 and 1/36 will add to be 12. There is some variance in these numbers in any given run of scores, but the long-term, overall average is regular in this way.
In the same way, the individual mutations are random, but each person is likely to have 150 mutations. Exactly which ones cannot be determined except through an very detailed analysis of position, air currents, etc, but the average over a large population will be regular in many ways.
On your dice analogy. the blank dice will always give the same roll, now add numbers (the effect of the roll) and it becomes random. That is why I ask/say the mutation is not random, they happen all the time and are influenced by environmental factors. It is the effect of the mutation that is random for it seems that the effects of a mutation differ for each individual.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114338 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But that isn't what actually happens in practice. Different people tend to have different mutations. All those with the same mutation are subject to the same effects of that mutation.
You said in a earlier post that no 2 will have the exact mutations so again it seems that different mutations in individuals can lead to the same outcome/effect of the different mutations.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min Sharlene45 194,774
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 9 min Northbound 8,540
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 17 min Lucy the First 7,898
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 25 min sippingmytea 4,108
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 57 min Denny CranesPlace 19,884
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 58,219
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr SweLL GirL 146,103
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 5 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 32,701
More from around the web