Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118661 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Could this be used as evidence that evolution is happening in reverse?
Devo fan, huh?
Abject lack of understanding of what evolution is; noted.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118662 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
No problem 99%(maybe even 100%) of mutations are not favorable (meaning do not lead to a benefit to the species), deal with the crux of the argument.
What problem? Natural selection gets rid of unfavorable mutations.

We know that 100% of mutations are not unfavorable since there are many positive mutations that we can point to. For example: Can you drink milk?

And the vast majority of mutations are neutral. They are not positive or negative. And since you have about 150 of them just from your parents that is a good thing..

Do you think that you could survive after acquiring 150 bad mutations in just one generation?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118663 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Could this be used as evidence that evolution is happening in reverse?
No.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118664 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Its pretty pathetic when you have to judge your own posts isn't it!
To do that you need to have sock puppets. Now I could make one if I wanted to. In fact I had a sock puppet account on this site in the past, but I forgot the username. wondering has admitted to using sock puppets very recently.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118665 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Its pretty pathetic when you have to judge your own posts isn't it!
OH NO! Not the judgit conspiracy! Paranoid delusional - Noted.
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118666 Jul 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I am under no obligation to provide you with what you missed the first time, especially when just going back a couple of pages on your browser would have got you there. But since I'm nice, here it is again:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
<quoted text>
Your personal concession is irrelevant. Your opinions are irrelevant. Simple fact is that biological reality doesn't go away simply because you personally don't believe in it. You are under the erroneous impression that your posts are somehow important.
<quoted text>
You are neglecting to understand that we had already done so, whether you recognised it or not. Plus if you can't understand it, you have no basis from which to make demands.
<quoted text>
Only to the ignorant. Which is what you are.
<quoted text>
In every single post you have shown dishonesty. If you understood evolution at all in the slightest you wouldn't have demanded we provide you with evidence of a violation of nested hiererachies. But since you did, the only rational conclusion is that you are either lying, or utterly ignorant of the subject. In which case you would still be being dishonest by making baseless assertions of evolution's alleged falsity.
.
<quoted text>
.messianic114 wrote:
Can you reference a post where I have lied?
.
In every single post you have shown dishonesty. If you understood evolution at all in the slightest you wouldn't have demanded we provide you with evidence of a violation of nested hiererachies. But since you did, the only rational conclusion is that you are either lying, or utterly ignorant of the subject. In which case you would still be being dishonest by making baseless assertions of evolution's alleged falsity.
.
I take it then all the posts I have made with lies in them you couldn't list one!
.
I suppose also that if one disagrees with the conclusions of science that makes one a liar?
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118667 Jul 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
.
Why not, we can observe that those who believe in a creator are evolving in the opposite way that the enlightened anti-theists and are becoming like ape-men according to the poster I responded to
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118670 Jul 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What problem? Natural selection gets rid of unfavorable mutations.
We know that 100% of mutations are not unfavorable since there are many positive mutations that we can point to. For example: Can you drink milk?
And the vast majority of mutations are neutral. They are not positive or negative. And since you have about 150 of them just from your parents that is a good thing..
Do you think that you could survive after acquiring 150 bad mutations in just one generation?
.
<quoted text>
We know that 100% of mutations are not unfavorable since there are many positive mutations that we can point to. For example: Can you drink milk?
.
To be able to say with certainty that this has occurred you would need data that this wasn't present in the past. Can you provide that data?
.
<quoted text>
Do you think that you could survive after acquiring 150 bad mutations in just one generation?
.
Harmful mutations are not germane to the discussion of evolution. Harmful mutations are not going to support evolution are they?
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118671 Jul 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If by that you mean wondering messing with the judge its, I agree.
.
If the shoe fits!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118673 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Why not, we can observe that those who believe in a creator are evolving in the opposite way that the enlightened anti-theists and are becoming like ape-men according to the poster I responded to
It shows that you do not understand evolution, or more specifically how it works.

Natural selection keeps life from devolving.
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118674 Jul 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The crux of the argument is a statement about mutation. Where do you get your numbers? Do you then consider that mutations do lead to favorable traits even if you don't think it is a high percentage?
.
I am waiting for evidence that favorable mutations occur before I would make any such statement.
.
We were told that a moth in England evolved to change from predominately white to black. As is turned out this was not a mutation as the position reversed itself in about 30 years. This tells us that the genes for white and black were present in the population all the time.
.
Even if you were to show that a favorable mutation has occurred, which I would say is impossible as we cannot isolate that change to one person, this would not prove that a change great enough to make a change from one kind to another will occur.
.
Even with intelligent design (genetic engineering) have we ever observed a change from one kind to another?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118675 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Could this be used as evidence that evolution is happening in reverse?
Of all mutations, the vast majority is neutral, because the most of eukaryote DNA is non-functional.

Of the remainder, the vast majority is deleterious.

That doesn't matter.
The reason for that is natural selection.
Deleterious mutations lead, by their very deleteriousness, to lower survival and reproduction chances for the individuals carrying them. Those individuals will not very likely survive to reproduction age. Hence they will not pass their deleterious mutations to the next generation. In other word: those deleterious will be weeded out by natural selection and not get fixed into the species' genome.

The few advantageous mutations have the opposite effect: they will yield higher survival and reproduction chances and will likely be passed to the next generation, where they bring advantage to the next generation of individuals carrying them. After many generations, those mutations not only will be fixed in to the species' genome but even will get dominant. the species has changed a little bit.

Many of those changes will accumulate over many generations until that sub population will not be able to mate with the rest of the population of the species. At that very moment a new species has emerged.

Hence, the fact that only a rather small proportion of the mutations are advantageous will not lead to an reverse of evolution nor "genetic entropy".

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118676 Jul 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually at the time it was the Saxons, they were NOT Anglo Saxons until after they settled. Learn some logic
And they brought their language with them. So what?
And they brought their language, English with them, that is why English is the dominant to date.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118677 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
We know that 100% of mutations are not unfavorable since there are many positive mutations that we can point to. For example: Can you drink milk?
.
To be able to say with certainty that this has occurred you would need data that this wasn't present in the past. Can you provide that data?
.
<quoted text>
Do you think that you could survive after acquiring 150 bad mutations in just one generation?
.
Harmful mutations are not germane to the discussion of evolution. Harmful mutations are not going to support evolution are they?
I can't, but a biologist could. We know that many people cannot drink milk. The ability to process lactose is a relatively recent mutation.

Now I can provide links to articles about the Long Term Ecoli Experiment where positive mutations were observed.

I could give you a link that explains how Nylonaise is the result of a recent positive mutation.

Or a case where a mutation is both positive and negative, I give you the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Of course the people most prone to sickle cell anemia have mostly passed away making it overall a positive mutation.

Of course creatards will persist in not understanding.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118678 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Why not, we can observe that those who believe in a creator are evolving in the opposite way that the enlightened anti-theists and are becoming like ape-men according to the poster I responded to
Actually, I think that human predisposition toward religion is probably a byproduct of how our brains have evolved. Arguably, our brains and how they function are the most marked feature that sets us apart from others in the animal kingdom and I've seen no evidence that anything else worships anything. A dog will piss on a telephone pole crucifix as readily as it would a fire hydrant.
As far as "reverse evolution," there is no such thing. There are accumulated mutations that are passed on through generations. Some are "successful" and some are not. Aside from selection, whether those mutations are pleasing and likable to you makes no difference to the theory. Perhaps the social benefits of religion have been beneficial to survival. <shrug> I can see an argument for it.
messianic1114

Calgary, Canada

#118679 Jul 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution doesn't happen in reverse. It is in one direction.
.
If evolution is the result of random processes, why couldn't this occur? In our current culture where the weak are protected and allowed to pass on their genes to others, is moving in reverse direction impossible?
.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118680 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant post again.
We were not talking about England but the origin of the English language.
This post is COMPLETELY irrelevant.
The language is also pertaining to England because it is the language of England and not the language of Denmark and Germany. Your post is the irrelevant one here.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#118681 Jul 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If the shoe fits!
So you mean wondering. Again I agree.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118682 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again a complete irrelevant post.
Dodge. English is the language of England while Denmark and Germany are Danish and German.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118683 Jul 19, 2014
Not a peer reviewed article, but based upon peer reviewed science, it is still an interesting read:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/12/27/1...

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 turns you on ? (Aug '11) 4 min Bovenzi13 2,952
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min Zani Grey 224,336
Why Do White People Start Stuff They Canít Fini... 18 min Boinkface 24
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 18 min Tissue For You 28,800
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 21 min Camilla 2,574
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 23 min Zani Grey 10,517
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 29 min Bovenzi13 4,108
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr whatimeisit 6,403
More from around the web