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.

messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117986 Jul 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations affect the population as ALL are born with mutations, and it's YOUR claim that most mutations are harmful. Ergo this can only inevitably lead to population decline. If not, then obviously most mutations are NOT harmful. I'm sure you can find yourself a cherry picked study, however you may find that the factors that led to population decline were more than just mutations, like hunting, environmental disaster, etc.
.
Firstly, I did not make that statement. It really doesn't matter what percentage is harmful, what is important is if you can show a beneficial mutation. Then tie that in to why the creature is better than the rest of the population.
.
<quoted text>
Ergo this can only inevitably lead to population decline.
.
This is a Non sequitur as population decline is not affected due to a few mutations. We can see through population statistics that all of humanity could have started since 1200. See the chart at:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/07-m...
.
If a mutation is harmful it only effects that individual. Even if it is harmful, it doesn't by necessity require the death of the individual. We might say that myopia is a mutation, but it doesn't stop people from living or reproducing. Most population declines are due to wars and disease, not mutations.
.
All this is really a red herring as you have not shown a beneficial mutation which causes a new structure (like a wing, etc. which would be required for evolution to be true).Mutations have to increase the genetic data or change the genetic data to produce not only the wing but the nervous, muscle, circulatory, feather and bone systems required for a change in the organism (as evolution postulates). Can you imagine if a wing was formed without the bone or any of the other necessary structures required. If the wing replaced a leg, how would the creature escape from predators? If this were true, then we would find millions of these random mutations in the fossil record. Where are they?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117988 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And this fits in with the biblical record of 6000 years since Adam.
Nope, we know there was no Adam in the last 6,000 years. Man has been around for the last 200,000 years and the last dip in the population to a relatively small number of about 10,000 was roughly 50,000 years ago. The same evidence that allows Maury Povich to say "You ARE the father!" can be used to determine this.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117989 Jul 14, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ask your self that. Without culture there is no language. English lik all languages were influenced by one or more languages.
Irrelevant remark.
English language did not origin from nor started in England.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117990 Jul 14, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And again, yes, there were influences, like in other world languages.
But those influences never changed the language completely, like as it is seen in most conquered lands.
So, going by that, your points, are just dust thrown in your own very eyes.
English did not started in England.
This is an irrelevant post addressing not what we discussed.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117991 Jul 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, we know there was no Adam in the last 6,000 years. Man has been around for the last 200,000 years and the last dip in the population to a relatively small number of about 10,000 was roughly 50,000 years ago. The same evidence that allows Maury Povich to say "You ARE the father!" can be used to determine this.
.
All this shows is that you are willing to overlook scientific evidence if it doesn't fit your paradigm.
.
P.S. Can you show the evidence which supports:
the last dip in the population to a relatively small number of about 10,000 was roughly 50,000 years ago.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117992 Jul 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution does not claim a change of kinds. That is a strawman argument by creationists.
And yes, small slow changes show how wings form. They are not really "new structures". They are merely changes in already existing structures.
.
<quoted text>
Evolution does not claim a change of kinds.
.
It certainly does. We started out as a single celled organisms. Though time we evolved into vertebrates, more time and we emerged from the seas. This requires a change in kind. Before we were primates we were something else as primates didn't exist 65 million years ago (according to evolutionists).
.
<quoted text>
They are not really "new structures". They are merely changes in already existing structures
.
What changed in the single celled organism that had no means of sight to develop an eye from a structure that wasn't there?
.
Someone here used an example of a fish fossil found in Arctic Canada which had a leg in the area of the gills. What structure was there before?
.
P.S. None of this has been observed or tested. That would be the difference between science and science fiction.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117993 Jul 14, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
Wish I had wings. Especially buffalo wings. Soooo hungry.
.
If you wait long enough they will evolve.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117994 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
All this shows is that you are willing to overlook scientific evidence if it doesn't fit your paradigm.
.
P.S. Can you show the evidence which supports:
the last dip in the population to a relatively small number of about 10,000 was roughly 50,000 years ago.
No, there is no scientific evidence that does not fit the evolutionary paradigm. That is one of the reasons that it is such a strong theory. If you think you have some please post it.

And for your second question here is a short article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117995 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Evolution does not claim a change of kinds.
.
It certainly does. We started out as a single celled organisms. Though time we evolved into vertebrates, more time and we emerged from the seas. This requires a change in kind. Before we were primates we were something else as primates didn't exist 65 million years ago (according to evolutionists).
That is not a change of kinds.
.
They are not really "new structures". They are merely changes in already existing structures
.
What changed in the single celled organism that had no means of sight to develop an eye from a structure that wasn't there?
Single celled organisms evolved into multicelluar organisms first. Poorly worded question on your part, try again.
.
Someone here used an example of a fish fossil found in Arctic Canada which had a leg in the area of the gills. What structure was there before?
Could you be a bit clearer? Forelimbs evolved from pectoral fins.
.
P.S. None of this has been observed or tested. That would be the difference between science and science fiction.
Sure it has been. You have a faulty definition of "observed".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117996 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If you wait long enough they will evolve.
No, individuals do not evolve. Species evolve.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117998 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
You have not provided evidence of a change between kinds.
You're lying again. Here it is again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

You will note again the successful predictions that were made by the theory of evolution using all that evidence. And of course that post doesn't even go into all of the evidence. It merely goes into enough to demonstrate common ancestry unequivocally, which is why no-one has been able to address it yet. DNA is a measure of how closely related organisms are. That's why we have DNA tests. However you claim that DNA works like DNA, except at some unspecified time and space that DNA stops acting like DNA and acts like something completely different. There of course has yet to be any evidence from your side to back up this claim, which is why no-one except fundies take it seriously.
messianic114 wrote:
What you have provided is a change within a kind. This doesn't support that new structures can form like wings. This is an assumption on your part.
On the contrary. If we can get different or new DNA we will get new structures. Don't believe me? Just take a look at ANY other species on the entire planet different to humans - different genome, different structures.

Since I've already presented a research paper on the observed evolution of new genes (again, something geneticists have known for decades) that alone refutes your claim of my alleged assumptions.
messianic114 wrote:
I don't even see where you have ruled out (by scientific methods) that the ability to change isn't due to already existing cell nucleus material.
I do not have to rule out what you have not yet been able to rule in. So by all means feel free to go ahead and present evidence of identical clones with notably different biological characteristics - same genome, different structures.

But let's face it, I ain't expecting very much from you since not only have you NOT been able to address a single one of our posts so far, you still think evolution means cat giving birth to a dog.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118001 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Firstly, I did not make that statement. It really doesn't matter what percentage is harmful, what is important is if you can show a beneficial mutation.
But evidence doesn't matter to your position. Remember that we've already DONE that, you STILL haven't addressed it, and then all you do is claim that the advantages were already there. Something you have never been able to back up.(shrug)

Not to mention the fact that 7 million years of accumulated neutral genetic drift would produce a different organism anyway.
messianic114 wrote:
Then tie that in to why the creature is better than the rest of the population.
No I don't. There is no "better" in evolution. There is only what can survive long enough to reproduce. Evolution has no goal of advancement.
messianic114 wrote:
This is a Non sequitur as population decline is not affected due to a few mutations. We can see through population statistics that all of humanity could have started since 1200. See the chart at:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/07-m...
Already addressed in my previous post. And again, this is why (unfortunately) popular science articles that are written for joe-public still sometimes don't quite get things right. Saying "Most mutations are recent" is like saying most planes can fly. Well duh. And pointing out that harmful mutations outnumber the beneficial ones you may as well be teaching a chicken to suck eggs. We already know this, but YOUR contention was that evolution cannot occur due to too many harmful mutations. I'M pointing out that until they start affecting the population as a whole there's FA they can do about it. And even if you could point out say if the human race was declining NOW, that STILL wouldn't affect the fact of 3 billion years of our evolutionary past.
messianic114 wrote:
If a mutation is harmful it only effects that individual. Even if it is harmful, it doesn't by necessity require the death of the individual. We might say that myopia is a mutation, but it doesn't stop people from living or reproducing. Most population declines are due to wars and disease, not mutations.
Gee, well thanks for telling me your objections aren't relevant then. We KNOW this.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
All this is really a red herring
Yes it is, which is why you still haven't been able to address the vast majority of our posts yet, but merely repeat tired old fundie arguments against biology.
messianic114 wrote:
as you have not shown a beneficial mutation which causes a new structure (like a wing, etc. which would be required for evolution to be true).Mutations have to increase the genetic data or change the genetic data to produce not only the wing but the nervous, muscle, circulatory, feather and bone systems required for a change in the organism (as evolution postulates). Can you imagine if a wing was formed without the bone or any of the other necessary structures required.
Then show me clones with notably different biological characteristics.
messianic114 wrote:
If the wing replaced a leg, how would the creature escape from predators? If this were true, then we would find millions of these random mutations in the fossil record. Where are they?
So you're saying that INDIVIDUAL organisms which likely had MAJOR problems reproducing should have left LOTS of fossils? Just when I think you can't get any dumber you out-do yourself.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118002 Jul 14, 2014
Chill Out wrote:
This forum has gone on too long and not changing any minds.
Go watch a video: http://m.youtube.com/watch...
Then go out and buy some cupcakes for someone you love and forget about whether or not we crawled out of the sea or were divinely dropped on our heads from heaven.
I can be the hedgehog could not care less how he got here. He is just happy to have a party.
Bye then.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118004 Jul 14, 2014
Chill Out wrote:
This forum has gone on too long and not changing any minds.
Go watch a video: http://m.youtube.com/watch...
Then go out and buy some cupcakes for someone you love and forget about whether or not we crawled out of the sea or were divinely dropped on our heads from heaven.
I can be the hedgehog could not care less how he got here. He is just happy to have a party.
Hedgehogs are cool though.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118005 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And this fits in with the biblical record of 6000 years since Adam.
Actually nothing fits with the Biblical record of 6,000 years since Adam. Unless that is you fix any and all problems with invisible Jewmagic. But then that again only supports my contention that evidence is irrelevant to your position.

Congratulations, you just lost. Big time.

Okay, so that already happened long before you were born, but at least you realised it just now.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118007 Jul 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, we know there was no Adam in the last 6,000 years. Man has been around for the last 200,000 years and the last dip in the population to a relatively small number of about 10,000 was roughly 50,000 years ago. The same evidence that allows Maury Povich to say "You ARE the father!" can be used to determine this.
What he doesn't realise here is that he's not using genetics to support his position. He's claiming that you can use a fairly reasonable uniform reproduction rate going back 6,000 years from two people to today, and still reach 7 billion. Which from a purely numbers standpoint is okay. Of course it was much more hap-hazard than that in real life, but he doesn't realise that genetics would prevent Adam and Eve's inbred family from surviving.

But hey, no problem for creationists - nothing's a problem for Godmagic!
wondering

Morris, OK

#118008 Jul 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. And that is why we know the fundie's claims that "all" or even "most" mutations are detrimental are bogus. Neutral mutations could remain in a lineage for thousands of generations, until affected by either another mutation (or bunch of mutations) or reactant in some way by the environment. For instance, a gene that made an organism more fat might not do much in a temperate environment, but may be a serious disadvantage if the environment suddenly turned into hot one, or a benefit if there was a new ice age.
<quoted text>
And considering human genomes alone are over 3 billion bases long, with over 7 billion unique combinations currently, I don't think our resident Messiah has that kinda time.
<quoted text>
Then I will clarify my definition of detrimental mutations - detrimental as in enough to inhibit an organism's ability to reproduce, either partially or completely. While your linky claims that most harmful mutations arose within the last 5-10,000 years may be accurate, it also notes that they are NOT spread throughout the entire planet's population, and NOT always active (examples may include cancer which can pop up at almost any time during a person's life, or ovarian failure which was mentioned in the article). In fact harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones on average, however beneficial ones due to their nature spread faster through populations, and harmful mutations MUST prevent populations from increasing and force them to decline in order to prevent evolution - and his claim IS that evolution cannot occur on a macro-scale, which is why he attempts to impose limits which he cannot yet demonstrate. This is why we see harmful mutations are a problem in small populations (such as some endangered big cats in Africa). But until Messy can present enough mutations to cause the entire human race some concern (via purely genetic factor, and not outside ones such as natural disasters or hunting) his objections have no basis. And then AFTER that he can FINALLY get around to addressing common ancestry, which no fundie on the planet has been able to do for the past 150 years.
Sorry.
to make this short since you just said basically blah blah blah.

your definition of what a detrimental mutation is, is irrelevant. there are many detrimental mutations and it is what science says the definition of detrimental mutations are that matters.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118009 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution does not claim a change of kinds.
.
It certainly does. We started out as a single celled organisms.
You personally started out as a single-celled organism. What of it.
messianic114 wrote:
Though time we evolved into vertebrates, more time and we emerged from the seas. This requires a change in kind.
Please present the biological definition of "kind" in science. Then we will explain why your definition is not used.
messianic114 wrote:
Before we were primates we were something else as primates didn't exist 65 million years ago (according to evolutionists).
messianic114 wrote:
They are not really "new structures". They are merely changes in already existing structures
And sapiens are a modification of the Homogenus. Which are a type of hominin. Which is a kind of hominid. Which is a type of primate. Which is a form of mammal. Which is a chordate. Which is an animal. Which is an offshoot of filozoa. Which are a variation of Holozoa. Which is a form of Opisthokont. Which is obviously a type of eukaryote. Each a modification of what went before. And funnily enough we see that same order as we descend down the fossil record. And thus you have discovered the beauty of nested hierarchies.

Of course no reason why DNA should match those hierarchies too; in fact you claim that they don't. So how come you're wrong?
messianic114 wrote:
What changed in the single celled organism that had no means of sight to develop an eye from a structure that wasn't there?
That would be incremental modifications over generations. The eye is not really a good example to use, since remember that on Earth you can find species with all kinds of eyes of different complexity, ranging from simple light-sensitive cells to celaphods. In the case of wings all you need is a feathered organism with arms. Then just keep stretching the arms a little further, and a little further, and repeat the same genetic material that's already there for more feathers. Eventually, a wing.

Doesn't necessarily mean it could fly though...

http://eofdreams.com/data_images/dreams/ostri...
messianic114 wrote:
Someone here used an example of a fish fossil found in Arctic Canada which had a leg in the area of the gills. What structure was there before?
Go back and have a look if you're really interested.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
P.S. None of this has been observed or tested. That would be the difference between science and science fiction.
P.s. Since we've presented NUMEROUS different ways to test evolution, all you're doing is lying again.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118010 Jul 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If you wait long enough they will evolve.
HIGHLY unlikely, as evolution would not expect a violation of nested hierarchies.

Don'tcha just love the way that each time you post you show the whole world that you know jack diddly about evolutionary biology?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118011 Jul 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hedgehogs are cool though.
Okay, that obviously upset somebody. I mean seriously, what's wrong with hedgehogs?

:-/

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) 1 hr wichita-rick 231,436
"3 Syllable" Word s - A-Z" (Oct '17) 1 hr quilterqueen 239
**4 Syllable Word A-Z** (Jul '12) 1 hr quilterqueen 1,234
Double Word Fun Game (Sep '11) 1 hr quilterqueen 2,424
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 1 hr quilterqueen 1,550
What ?? are you thinking about NOW? 2014 (Jun '14) 1 hr quilterqueen 914
lets play follow the word! (Jul '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 40,164
what bothers you the most (Jun '13) 2 hr Brandiiiiiiii 1,185
I Like..... (Mar '14) 4 hr North Mountain 2,085