Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201234 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

#114903 Jun 20, 2014
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution of man from ape-like creatures is impossible
• Also for every favourable mutation there must be at least 100 unfavourable ones. When is the last time a random spelling mistake improved the text? For an unfavourable change to die out the individual must die. Apes don’t have enough babies for 100 to die for every one that lives. So the species would quickly die out.
The layman who tattles about things he has no single clue or understanding of.

The major flaws here are:
- you assume that ALL deleterious mutations have to be lethal. It's not.
- there are lethal deleterious mutations all the way to deleterious mutations that only cause minor problems - an individual not able to run that fast, individual with genetic disorders or problems but who live on and even get offspring etc. and everything in between.
- you don't start with "having babies" but at the moment of fertilization. Of 1000 fertilized eggs, only 500 or even less result in life birth. 70% of those miscarriages are found to be caused by genetic disorders in the foetus.
- in nature of all born offspring 40% or even more die before they reach fertile age.
- that means that, cumulated, ONLY 25-30% of all fertilized eggs reach fertile age.
- THEN you just ignore sexual selection. Genetic DNA studies in humans revealed that of all men ever lived, only 40% reproduced. In women the rate is 80%. This can be estimated by comparing differential mutation rates in mtDNA, along with x- and y-chromosomes.
- that means that roughly only 50% of all humans who ever lived, actually reproduced.
- cumulated: only 12.5-15% of all fertilized eggs lead to reproducing individuals.
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>
• If the unfavourable mutations don’t die out then the genome will slowly deteriorate not evolve. That is we would get devolution.
Yet they WILL die out: 85-87.5% of all fertilized eggs do not result in reproducing individuals.
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>
• Also a single small change in the genome - one base pair in a billion would be such a small change that it would be unlikely to be the reason an individual lived rather than died. Random chance would be a much bigger factor affecting whether they ran into a predator.
Just ONE base-pair (in a billion) can produce:
- lethal genetic diseases. Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by just one point-mutation. ONE letter, out of 3.1 billion!
- or, for that matter, also considerable advantage.

Although the size of the mutation matters of course (the bigger the size, the larger the genetic effect to be expected), the EFFECT of a mutation is also very strongly dependant on the PARTICULAR SPOT on he genome hit.

HENCE evolution of man from ape like creatures will have enough time, enough progeny, enough of a driving force and if it did would actually happens.

Two further things:
- in dog breeding we can see HOW FAST evolution can go and HOW LITTLE progeny it takes. In dog breeding human breeder do the selection but the only thing the breeder does is taking advantage of the mechanisms nature provides. All dog breeds, from chihuahua to Danish dogs, descend from the grey wolf. Most dog breeds are from the last millennium (only a few date back earlier) and even form the last few centuries.
- as we examine the geological record, we observe rock layers. The deeper, the older the layer - by very logic. If we start to dig, in some top layers we find remains of humans. When we dig deeper, those disappear. We see fossils of homo erectus, australopithecus and other hominids. But NO humans. Even deeper these disappear also and we ar eleft with fossils of pithecia ("apes"). You may draw your conclusions.

I strongly advice you NOT to tattle about things BEFORE you have some MINIMUM understanding and clue about it.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114904 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Germans have nothing to do with Nazis.
Apart from the fact that all nazi's were germans and nazism was founded and invented in Germany.
Sieg Heil!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114905 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is typical American to be mortally offended if someone is criticizing America.
All Germans are potential Nazi's.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114906 Jun 20, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>So, what part of murdering 11 million people was smart? Or starting two World Wars, and losing them both...Nice try dummkopf. Every country has stupid people, nice to meet you! I do enjoy the Heineken.
Heineken is Dutch.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#114907 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
trigonometric equations are trivial. I am talking about differential equations.
For example
d²y/dx²=-1/y²
<=> 1/2*d(y'²)/dx+d(1/y)/dx=0
<=> 1/2*y'²+1/y=K
<=> y'²=K-2/y
<=>( y/K*sqrt(K+2/y)-ln(y(x)(sqrt(K )sqrt(K+2/y)+K)+1)/K^(3/2))^2= (K'+x)²
This isn't just about puzzles. Without mathematics, airplanes would never be developed.
Puzzles don't make aircraft fly dumb ass.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#114908 Jun 20, 2014
As matter of fact aviation R&D was never based in mathematical certainties or about explaining it in theorem. This has always come after the fact. Sure we try to explain why this works and why that does not.
But true advance has always come from knuckle busting gear wrenching... experimentation in the real world, using the known, and trying something new. Sometimes it works and sometimes, well sometimes we need to bust another knuckle turning the wrenches to figure out what will work. This has always been the philosophy at the skonk works, and it takes them to the top!

Engineers and inventors rule the world, everybody tries to explain it and figure out why ...after the fact.

So tell us why continuous curvature works better than multi-fauceted configurations in radar deception, but faucet is still the ultimate rendering advantage in viability. So a blend is in order, and what problems will we encounter in blending the two into a system in the evasion of radar? Absorption and Reflection is the key..

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/...

All the calculations in the world will not replace the knuckle busting experimentation and all the math cannot always explain why .
And we still have to have them both to solve these questions, even poly will tell you that..



Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114909 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
So we do accept that science ITSELF has limits.
However, at the point where science becomes limited; is there nothing that we can use, no faculty or mechanism by which to investigate and observe what science itself is too limited to assist us with?
Yes. And that faculty is logic.
It is logic that allowed Einstein to perform a thought experiment WHICH WAS PROVEN ACCURATE years after he performed it.
This should have demonstrated that logic and reason are most effective in discovery IF USED ACCURATELY.
But then there was PolyMath.
Logic, as in rational thinking or reason, is already a part of science. But ways that people have used in order to explore or think about the universe beyond just science could be things like philosophy, introspection, meditation, and yes, religion.

Yes, science is limited. It explores and investigates the mechanistic, naturalistic aspects of the universe. That's it. If you want to explore beyond that (or explore if there IS something beyond that) you need to rely on something else. Different tools for different jobs.

The reasons we have these debates at all is because some people think that the mechanistic explorations science does somehow conflicts with the other explorations they are doing.

Let me give you an example. Presumably you believe God created rainbows. But at some point you probably learned about how rainbows are made by light going through rain droplets. Did learning that undermine your belief that God created rainbows? Of course not, that was just the mechanism by which rainbows are formed.

Same thing with Evolution or the Big Bang Theory or whatever other science. Evolution is the mechanistic explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. That's it.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114910 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Between me and you, I have no real interest in proving that intelligent design is real or that evolution is false.
You realize you are basically admitting to trolling, right? The purpose of these forums is to discuss and debate Evolution. You are hijacking the discussion in order to argue about the existence of God, when a forum for that already exists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114911 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I dentify the aspect of my argument that was incoherent:
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
But then an intelligent being that the unintelligent universe created demonstrates intelligence by creating intelligence...
My oh my, you seem to be right.
An intelligent universe would have no part of you.
You win!!!
Why do you think that intelligence is required to create intelligence? That is an unsupportable argument. If intelligence is needed to create intelligence what being created the being the created intelligence? It is a problem of infinite regress.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114912 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz, in the interests of international cooperation and in the slight hopes it might you slightly less insufferable, I'll give you a small piece of info that might benefit you when you come to America. I don't know what music you listen to, but you might be aware of certain German bands like wumpscut, Funker Vogt, Wolfsheim and others that are usually classified as electro, industrial, synthpop or EBM. There are scenes in the US where such bands are very popular and where your accent and language would be very beneficial. Industrial, alternative or goth clubs that play that kind of music are in most major markets and many suburban ones.

Don't say I never gave you nothing.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#114913 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is typical American to be mortally offended if someone is criticizing America.
Of course as a German, you are above such offense. Typical arrogant kraut.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#114914 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Germans have nothing to do with Nazis.
Except for creating, supporting, following and serving as Nazis. Other than that you are spot on.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#114915 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure that you don't know the meaning of "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles"
I give you a hint. It has nothing to do with Germany ruling over the world.
You can translate it with "Germany, Germany above all" but that doesn't give you the real meaning.
It is the same with the myth about Kennedy as he said "Ich bin ein Berliner". The first time I heard that he actually said "I am a jelly doughnut" was in an English newspaper.
English people proposed that he should say "Ich bin Berliner" but this means that he is a Berliner citizen what is wrong. "Ich bin ein Berliner" means that he is feeling with the Berliner citizens. I have to admit that his translator was good value.
Of course there is the pastry what we called "Berliner" but no German would confusing it.
To be honest, I have nothing against Germany the country or the people of Germany, I descend from them. I just figure that just as there are stupid people here in the United States, there are stupid people in Germany. You just happen to one of those on the internet.

No Germans, show evidence that they would ignore the Berliner as it rolled across Europe killing Jewish people and waging war with an entire continent only to deny they ever heard of or supported the donut when it was defeated.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114916 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Yes. By definition of all. So? How does that prove the existence of an X with that property?
<quoted text>
Its ok.

I have seen what I have seen.

*puffs cigarette*
polymath257 wrote:
...The word 'potential' has multiple meanings in various guises. Is existence a 'potential'? Is non-existence? How do you determine if some property is or is not a potential?
By deciding on the definition of "potential" that you will be using for the investigation; DUH.
polymath257 wrote:
If every property is a potential, then existence of something with all potentials is self-contradictory.
Exactly.

So we can rule out the conclusion that every property is a potential; or look at it from a perspective where every property is not a potential.

And from then on, you proceed to further eliminate the unlikely/impossible.

You see, you can do it too.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114917 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
... I said that the production of an intelligence is not enough to conclude intelligence....
At the point where the production of an intelligence such as man's does not demonstrate intelligence, the implication is that man is more intelligent than the source of intelligence.

That is an absurdity, in and of itself.
polymath257 wrote:
All you have shown is either your own dishonesty or your inability to understand my point.
Here is dishonesty, read it and weep:
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
... I said that the production of an intelligence is not enough to conclude intelligence....

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114918 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not empirically testable. But it is an assumption (or easily proven) in some abstract systems that are used as a language to investigate empirical reality.
But when I use it it is what?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114919 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...Intelligence is the ability to come up with ideas that correspond with testable observations. This ability arose from the differential survival of species that are able to accurately store and interpret sensory information about their surroundings. If you want more detail, look into biology.
<quoted text>...
You see what we have here is a paradox.

A) generating an intelligent being (the universe);

B) come up with ideas (man);

GENERALLY, AND WHICHEVER WAY YOU DESCRIBE IT:

Both A and B are equally ACTIONS,

Both A and B are equally BEHAVIORS

Both A and B are equally DEMONSTRATORS OF CAPACITY.

*****As such, the same terms that apply in the description of the universe will be applicable in the description of you.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114920 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...Which is not enough. They also need to be consistent with observation...
What evidence would you look for if you were trying to prove that God exists?

What would you expect to observe?

How would you identify evidence of God?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114921 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Is 'Bubi' an English word as well?
It could be the shortened version of bubbeleh.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114922 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
...Do you realize that your assumptions about what is required for science are actually not required and have actually been shown to be wrong?
Not according to the information I presented from the various sources.

All you have is a claim of my errors.

You claim that you require evidence to validate assumptions, and that is fair.

But how does evidence prove something that you are not interested to prove?

"When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence. " [wikipedia.com]

So you can always interpret evidence according to YOUR PERSONAL INTERESTS.

IN AN ANALOGICAL FORM:

A man walks into a town wearing a hat with half red and half black.

After he passed through the town and left, the people in the town were asked what color hat the man was wearing.

Some people said "a black hat"; some people said "a red hat".

What would you accept as evidence proving God existed?

Even if the evidence where to be presented to you, you would still be led to conclude otherwise based on YOUR OWN DISPOSITION:

"A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. "[wikipedia.com]

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 2 min Handyman 35,546
News Fridley Man Charged With Attempted Murder After... 4 min Dr Wu 1
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 4 min Arched Varied Cradle 35,104
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 6 min Muffin Top 44,355
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 8 min Quiet Please 59,539
News Doctor spots 'decomposed body part' sticking ou... 10 min Mans Bird Perch 5
News Man shoots himself in the face in a weird attem... 13 min Kanye East 12
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 194,268
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 4 hr Northbound 8,521
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 9 hr pending wtf 160
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 10 hr Enzo49 7,814
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... 11 hr President Trump 63
More from around the web