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.

wondering

Morris, OK

#115361 Jun 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "accidentally".
NEXT TIME you address abiogenesis and NOT your own devises, OK?
Genetic drift is not the only factor in genetic variation.
Genetic drift is even not a very strong factor.
Genetic drift is pure RANDOM process. Pure random processes do not AUTOMATICALLY cause decrease of genetic variation. Genetic drift MAY cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation. When the genetic variation has declined, it does not mean that the species gets extinct.
The only thing happening is that the surviving population will be vulnerable to any new selection pressures such as disease, climate change or shift in the available food source, because adapting in response to environmental changes requires sufficient genetic variation in the population for natural selection to take place.
But the first species we are talking about here, did not have a predator. There was no disease by infections because there were no other species to infect them. The food source would have been abiotic. If the abiotic food chain was still there and didn't change, there were no problems there. As the first life forms were sea borne, climate wasn't much of a problem. For instance, when they lived near undersea fumeroles as basic source for chemicals as 'food' and energy, they could have well survived even ice ages.
Please read a little bit more in the things you are talking about.
how did one simple single-celled organism began to reproduce, become multi-cellular and began to change shape if it was not by accident?? how would you say it happened?

keep in mind unless you are claiming that life started with a large population, there would not be a sufficient population to change the population over time. remember evolution is on a population level, not an individual level. small populations don't fair well for they lose genetic variation due to genetic drift and founder effect when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#115362 Jun 23, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
Ich verstehe das, du verstehst es auch.

You managed to make people think THE SHIT about Germans.
VERY WELL DONE.

Sieg heil!
wondering

Morris, OK

#115363 Jun 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case airplanes were flying over when the pyramids were built.
Science as we know today it dates back to the 18th century, with important precursors to the middle ages. a precursor of science is, in very rudimentary fashion, also found in the Greek philosophers after Socrates, when empirical observations became the leading guidance. Immediately the concept of a flat earth was abandoned.
The concept of a flat earth and geocentricism, for instance, were very ancient bronze age concepts who therefore made it into the bible.
Unfortunately, the Christians adopted the Jewish bible and a tremendous setback occurred. The Scriptures and revelation again prevailed instead of empirical evidence. The West only arose from this setback in the Renaissance (which means "rebirth" for A VERY GOOD REASON), when the preliminary scientific approach of the Greeks, cherished and continued in Islamic Golden Age, gradually were adopted by Europe.
The main cause for the flat earth being dominating in Europe was Christianity, not science.
Science begins when one stops sticking his head all day riffling through the "Holy" books and starts to LOOK AROUND what REALLY happens.
When that happened in Greece with the Socratic philosophers, the concept of a flat earth immediately was dropped. In the Islamic Golden Age there was hardly any support for a flat earth. When after 1250 this era ended, more traditional, religious views were restored and the flat earth immediately regained support.
science has existed for many thousands of years. are understanding and knowledge of science has just grown leaps and bounds in the last 200 years. why do you find that hard to accept? there were forms of science back in 200bc. it was very primitive but it existed.
wondering

Morris, OK

#115364 Jun 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> About everything you said is horseshit, outdated and from a sarcastic apologetic pov..
Nothing accidentally happens though blind it has a purpose, that is survival.
Life simply throws everything it has at doing so.
We now know Darwin was wrong about one thing , he was not a microbiologist and had no knowledge of the Microbiome world, which 150 years we are barely able to begin to understand. There may have never been a singular organism all life sprang from, but most likely a super-organism that shared through HGT to form all the clades and biota of life.
refute it with science then. not insults.
wondering

Morris, OK

#115366 Jun 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> About everything you said is horseshit, outdated and from a sarcastic apologetic pov..
Nothing accidentally happens though blind it has a purpose, that is survival.
Life simply throws everything it has at doing so.
We now know Darwin was wrong about one thing , he was not a microbiologist and had no knowledge of the Microbiome world, which 150 years we are barely able to begin to understand. There may have never been a singular organism all life sprang from, but most likely a super-organism that shared through HGT to form all the clades and biota of life.
give a scientific definition and evidence of such of a "super-organism" that you feel is most likely that life sprang from.
Adams Apple

Los Angeles, CA

#115367 Jun 23, 2014
Christian religion simplified:

Back when Cain was able
way before the stable
lighting struck right down from the sky
a mother ship with fate said let's give it a try
conscience was related
man he was created
lady luck took him by surprise
a sweet and bitter fruit
it surely opened his eyes
well she ate it
lordy it was love at first bite
well she ate it
never knowin' wrong from right

even Eve in Eden
voices tried deceiving
with lies that showed the lady the way
at first she stopped turned and tried to walk away
man he was believer
lady was deceiver
so the story goes but you see
that snake was he
she just climbed right up his tree

Science was related
man he was created
evil came like rainin'
who knows who's to blamin'
something tried to lay her to waste
and all she want and need was just a little taste..

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#115368 Jun 23, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried telling then that.
Tried telling them that Christians identify with the Eastern concept of God (AL/EL) which means power, source, mighty etc.
We do not concern ourselves with the Egyptian, Greek, Roman etc concepts which describe God as a "supernatural being".
Youre a girl, maybe they will listen to you.
You really don't understand and I don't see you gaining any understanding with that closed mind of yours. Ah well, typical FFC.

No matter what your concept of God is or what the origin of it is, YOU have done nothing but make what if stories. No evidence. No experiments. For all your arrogant rhetoric against Western science you have done even less and understand even less than you claim it does.

You talk about God as if you have seen God, measured God, gotten photos of God, invited him and his son over to dinner and had a rip roaring time. Or in your case seen the energy that you know to be God, felt the intangible spirit that you know to be God or been actually lifted up an flown somewhere by God or some such thing.

Oddly, you are now claiming you consider God to be some sort of energy, yet you named yourself Hand of God. An obvious reference to God as a human-like being. You are all over the place.

Still no evidence from you. Just claims. Just demands that others who have never made your claims show evidence to support your claims.

Whadda ya gonna do. Forget about it.
wondering

Morris, OK

#115369 Jun 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "accidentally".
NEXT TIME you address abiogenesis and NOT your own devises, OK?
Genetic drift is not the only factor in genetic variation.
Genetic drift is even not a very strong factor.
Genetic drift is pure RANDOM process. Pure random processes do not AUTOMATICALLY cause decrease of genetic variation. Genetic drift MAY cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation. When the genetic variation has declined, it does not mean that the species gets extinct.
The only thing happening is that the surviving population will be vulnerable to any new selection pressures such as disease, climate change or shift in the available food source, because adapting in response to environmental changes requires sufficient genetic variation in the population for natural selection to take place.
But the first species we are talking about here, did not have a predator. There was no disease by infections because there were no other species to infect them. The food source would have been abiotic. If the abiotic food chain was still there and didn't change, there were no problems there. As the first life forms were sea borne, climate wasn't much of a problem. For instance, when they lived near undersea fumeroles as basic source for chemicals as 'food' and energy, they could have well survived even ice ages.
Please read a little bit more in the things you are talking about.
abiogenesis does not successfully scientifically explain by what mechanisms the organism began to reproduce, by what mechanisms it became multi-cellular. it just tries to explain how life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.
wondering

Morris, OK

#115370 Jun 23, 2014
reporterreport wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't been pretending to be anything - YOU were assuming (just like you ASS UME that Americans are stupid, ugly, fat - you name it. When the shoe's on the other foot, and people say something negative against Germans you're all up in arms, though).
P.S.: I have lived in the U.S.A. for the greater part of my life. So have numerous Germans, Austrians and Swiss. So - do you think they're all stupid, too?
i don't know about the stupidest, all countries have their share of ugly's, but the USA is definitely the most obese country in the world. all studies have shown that.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#115371 Jun 23, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!
That was nice, do it again.
No tip, no dance.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#115372 Jun 23, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose they never said the dinasors were reptiles and that they died because of the ice age either. They themselves have proven themselves wrong many times but you will never find reference to this.
The scientific community is as good at making things disappear as the Catholic Church. Lol.
No, science readily admits to being wrong. But science never said the Earth was flat. How do you extrapolate that (correct) statement to science never admits when it is wrong? Science loves being wrong because that is often how progress happens.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#115373 Jun 23, 2014
wondering wrote:
proportionally more deleterious genetic variation in european than in african populations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n71...
a cornell-led study, reported in the feb. 21 issue of the journal nature, compared more than 10,000 sequenced genes from 15 african-americans and 20 european-americans. the results suggest that european populations have proportionately more harmful variations, though it is unclear what effects these variations actually may have on the overall health of europeans
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/02/m...
thoughts on this anyone?
I saw your post and read it. I haven't had time to read the information in your links. I was going to give it some serious review because it sounds interesting. However, since you are impatient, here are some quick thoughts.

African populations are older and natural selection has removed many of the deleterious genes from the gene pool while smaller populations that migrated to Europe may have a greater number of deleterious alleles as a proportion of the populaion. As humans moved into Europe the different environment of Europe has certainly had and impact on evolution and the speed of evolution for those populations. Does he article indicate whether these deleterious genes are linked to more recent or older haplogroups? What proportion derives from new, independent mutation in the European populations. What was the level of divergence among the populations?

Why don't you let some of us read this and get back to you.
wondering

Morris, OK

#115374 Jun 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> About everything you said is horseshit, outdated and from a sarcastic apologetic pov..
Nothing accidentally happens though blind it has a purpose, that is survival.
Life simply throws everything it has at doing so.
We now know Darwin was wrong about one thing , he was not a microbiologist and had no knowledge of the Microbiome world, which 150 years we are barely able to begin to understand. There may have never been a singular organism all life sprang from, but most likely a super-organism that shared through HGT to form all the clades and biota of life.
you say from first life it was all about survival. being life just started, where did that survival instinct come from? how did it obtain that survival instinct. how would it know to survive? was life "just" born with built in survival instincts it received from non-living simple organic compounds?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115375 Jun 23, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>i don't know about the stupidest, all countries have their share of ugly's, but the USA is definitely the most obese country in the world. all studies have shown that.

Actually Mexico recently took over that title. We're a just-a-tad-svelter #2.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#115376 Jun 23, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose they never said the dinasors were reptiles and that they died because of the ice age either. They themselves have proven themselves wrong many times but you will never find reference to this.
The scientific community is as good at making things disappear as the Catholic Church. Lol.
I am curious, are you suggesting that since science has been wrong in the past we should ignore or set aside current theories like Evolution because there is a chance it might be proved wrong in the future?
wondering

Morris, OK

#115377 Jun 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "accidentally".
NEXT TIME you address abiogenesis and NOT your own devises, OK?
Genetic drift is not the only factor in genetic variation.
Genetic drift is even not a very strong factor.
Genetic drift is pure RANDOM process. Pure random processes do not AUTOMATICALLY cause decrease of genetic variation. Genetic drift MAY cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation. When the genetic variation has declined, it does not mean that the species gets extinct.
The only thing happening is that the surviving population will be vulnerable to any new selection pressures such as disease, climate change or shift in the available food source, because adapting in response to environmental changes requires sufficient genetic variation in the population for natural selection to take place.
But the first species we are talking about here, did not have a predator. There was no disease by infections because there were no other species to infect them. The food source would have been abiotic. If the abiotic food chain was still there and didn't change, there were no problems there. As the first life forms were sea borne, climate wasn't much of a problem. For instance, when they lived near undersea fumeroles as basic source for chemicals as 'food' and energy, they could have well survived even ice ages.
Please read a little bit more in the things you are talking about.
everything about evolution according to science depends upon abiogenisis -"life". so if you believe that is how life started explain how the will to survive, the ability to reproduce, the ability to become multi-cellular, the ability to even survive in a cruel hot thin atmosphere, the ability to do any thing all came about. was it all received from non-living simple organic compounds?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#115378 Jun 23, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
how long has science been around? science has been around for many, many 1000's of years. in early science 1000's of years ago it was also thought the world was flat. it was further knowledge, coupled with time of the world they lived in that lead to knowing the world is a sphere. to say science "never" thought the world was flat is a smoke screen you are throwing out there simply in defense of science.
That is a good question and the answer is that I don't really know. But I have read one other of your posts on this and you will probably find it surprising that I agree with you that it has been around a long time, but was only formalized into its current state over the last three or four hundred years.

My response was not a smoke screen. The flat earth was considered common knowledge at one time. It was not the result of experiment or observation of someone falling off the edge. It was superstition and ignorance an those associated with some sort of proto-science might well have followed that ignorance, but to claim it was solely science that offered it up as an explanation of the world is reaching at best. It was left for science to pull the cobwebs of myth, belief and ignorance out of the eyes of the world and show that it was indeed round.

Now with regards to the age of science and who practices science, I have read some compelling arguments that science we might call primitive by todays standards was practiced thousands of years ago and indeed by those one wouldn't think of as scientists, however, even for those people it was often a mix of common sense, proto-scientific approach, belief and superstition. Your point that as we have gained knowledge over the millennia, centuries and now months, we have been able to understand things better.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#115379 Jun 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Mexico recently took over that title. We're a just-a-tad-svelter #2.
Lets celebrate. Super-sized double quarter pounders on me.
wondering

Morris, OK

#115380 Jun 23, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I saw your post and read it. I haven't had time to read the information in your links. I was going to give it some serious review because it sounds interesting. However, since you are impatient, here are some quick thoughts.
African populations are older and natural selection has removed many of the deleterious genes from the gene pool while smaller populations that migrated to Europe may have a greater number of deleterious alleles as a proportion of the populaion. As humans moved into Europe the different environment of Europe has certainly had and impact on evolution and the speed of evolution for those populations. Does he article indicate whether these deleterious genes are linked to more recent or older haplogroups? What proportion derives from new, independent mutation in the European populations. What was the level of divergence among the populations?
Why don't you let some of us read this and get back to you.
i gave links to read. as for your questions, you will have to read the links and/or do a little research of your own.
wondering

Morris, OK

#115381 Jun 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Mexico recently took over that title. We're a just-a-tad-svelter #2.


we must have just ate our way past them. according to this study from less than a month ago, we are number 1 again.(for most obese people)

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-w...

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
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 9 min Boink face 4,289
News O.J. Simpson up for parole nine years into sent... 49 min Trump Plotza 43
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 1 hr Crystal_Clear722 2,438
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 1 hr BLouise 1,953
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr CJ Rocker 218,790
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 1 hr Junket 83,793
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 1 hr Princess Hey 4,262
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Ohio Sam aka SNAF... 76,039
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 2 hr Bad Bex 6,297
What Turns You Off? 2 hr Bad Bex 557
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 4 hr SGHarleyhoney 22,892
More from around the web