Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222984 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

#119376 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"- humans inherited technology from their ancestors, like homo Erectus and homo Habilis"
Erectus and Habilis...were humans too, just primitive humans.
Hence, to add to my previous post, you are entitled to use the designation "human" as an equivalent for "hominid". But scientifically spoken, I wouldn't prefer that. It is already difficult enough to get concepts defined straight and valid enough.

As we know speciation is a gradual process: tiny genetic steps taken on by one in each generation.

Now, is it possible to say exactly when you became an adult and stopped to be a child? Was it at 13? At 14? Maybe 15? Or even 18? Even though adolescents exhibit growth spurts and there are remarkable moments, "tipping points" you may say, like girls having their first period (and boys their first wet dream), it is impossible to draw a decisive line. But we unmistakably can tell that a 20 year old man is not a boy any more (at least physically....) and a 12 year old boy not an adult.

The same applies to speciation: when does a new species emerge? There even are no remarkable tipping points here. Even decisive instances like genetic isolation are not traceable in the lineage. There is not a single line to be drawn. The only line drawn we know of in EXTANT species is genetic isolation. But this applies to the phylogenetic identification of extant, related species, not to the ancestral history of a single species. We can draw the line between extant species and relate that to their differences in genotypes. From this we know a few things. We know some factors in the genotype that strongly correlate with genetic isolation. Those factors we may use as well in determining phylogenetic differences in fossil finds.

HENCE, what may we expect form the perspective of evolution theory? We may expect it to be very difficult to differentiate between fossils. THAT is exactly what we expect from GRADUAL speciation.

And that's EXACTLY why palaeontologists have a hard time to classify fossils according to their species. Dozens of times there is debate among scientists whether a particular fossil specimen were to be species A or species B or belonging to genus X or genus Y. Homo Habilis belonging to the Pithecus genus? OR to the Hominid one? were Homo Rudolfensis and Homo Habilis the same species? Etcetera.

The difficulties of palaeontologists to establish a unambiguous taxonomy of species is EXACTLY what one might expect in the light of common descent through gradual speciation.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119377 Aug 3, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
WE know damned well "it" wasn't 6,000 years ago. "It" never was.
Any ancient precedent? As as far as i know all ancient history assumes a young Earth. A flood; deluge. Now i know you guys think this is all rubbish, but those are the facts.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119378 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Species do not change into another species.
well heII there goes your whole theory of evolution if that is what you think. lol

but then again i know I have seen you, subduction zone, danfromsmithville and several other claim straight up that we have seen that happen in a lab. so please take the time and name one that we have seen!

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119379 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
well heII there goes your whole theory of evolution if that is what you think. lol
but then again i know I have seen you, subduction zone, danfromsmithville and several other claim straight up that we have seen that happen in a lab. so please take the time and name one that we have seen!
''Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.

A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.

In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software.

Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.''
----------

Not mine.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119380 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The same applies to speciation: when does a new species emerge? There even are no remarkable tipping points here. Even decisive instances like genetic isolation are not traceable in the lineage. There is not a single line to be drawn. The only line drawn we know of in EXTANT species is genetic isolation. But this applies to the phylogenetic identification of extant, related species, not to the ancestral history of a single species. We can draw the line between extant species and relate that to their differences in genotypes. From this we know a few things. We know some factors in the genotype that strongly correlate with genetic isolation. Those factors we may use as well in determining phylogenetic differences in fossil finds.
HENCE, what may we expect form the perspective of evolution theory? We may expect it to be very difficult to differentiate between fossils. THAT is exactly what we expect from GRADUAL speciation.
And that's EXACTLY why palaeontologists have a hard time to classify fossils according to their species. Dozens of times there is debate among scientists whether a particular fossil specimen were to be species A or species B or belonging to genus X or genus Y. Homo Habilis belonging to the Pithecus genus? OR to the Hominid one? were Homo Rudolfensis and Homo Habilis the same species? Etcetera.
The difficulties of palaeontologists to establish a unambiguous taxonomy of species is EXACTLY what one might expect in the light of common descent through gradual speciation.
species do not change into another species.
what do you mean? what is speciation being as you said species do not change into another species.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119381 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
''Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.
A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.
In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.
Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software.
Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.''
----------
Not mine.
nice speech. i am a supporter of evolution but these retards preach and claim we have sen species to species in a lab but cannot show a change of species to a new species as they claim. why lie to support your cause? that makes them on the same level of a creationists, lying for their cause and
not better than them as we should be because we have science on our side..
wondering

Morris, OK

#119382 Aug 3, 2014
well heII. as usual i come on burning the fire from the other end just for fun and everyone disappears. nothing new in that. always the same old story. hurry up and run away. then i will leave it at that and say good day then everyone. lmao

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119383 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
species do not change into another species.
what do you mean? what is speciation being as you said species do not change into another species.
Species have offspring that can become other species over time.
The parent species does not have to die, but more often does than not.
So what you have at some point is a species that gave rise to a subspecies, and the subspecies isolates itself from the parent species and eventually emerge as a different species because the isolation and genetic differences over time make them incompatible breeding partners.
pale horse of death

Los Angeles, CA

#119384 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Species do not change into another species.
What do you mean?
What do you mean with "real life"?
Excuse me, sir.
If I may be able to offer some small contribution?
Somewhere in my memory there is a study of some cheetahs that have
"changed their spots" so to speak.
I guess some of the spots on some of the cheetahs
have merged or fused together to form a slightly different pattern
on the top anterior area of the body ( the rump I think?).
The scientists had been studying the cheetahs for some
time when they noticed the mutation in a few of the specimens.
They were going to continue the study to see how far the mutation
would carry on into the population over time to study the process of "natural selection"
in a present-day context to see of course, if current experience would verify assessments made of fossil remains. A "reality check" on evolution theory. I don't know what the
study revealed later as I never kept up on it. I was younger and had
many other interests at the time.
Pardon my nom d' plume,
it has a certain purpose
as a sort of 'tool'
for a certain job.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119385 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Species have offspring that can become other species over time.
The parent species does not have to die, but more often does than not.
So what you have at some point is a species that gave rise to a subspecies, and the subspecies isolates itself from the parent species and eventually emerge as a different species because the isolation and genetic differences over time make them incompatible breeding partners.
"species have offspring that can become other species over time."
name one we have seen that has done that and not the fossil record or just mere change. actually a species becoming another species. after all the Lenski Ecoli that is always used is still just Ecoli.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119386 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
well heII there goes your whole theory of evolution if that is what you think. lol
but then again i know I have seen you, subduction zone, danfromsmithville and several other claim straight up that we have seen that happen in a lab. so please take the time and name one that we have seen!
Species according to evolution theory do not "change into" other species.
Nor do Sub or Dan implied this. ASK THEM, who knows you will LEARN something.
If you already don't know how evolution theory defines and conceptualizes "speciation", while it is among its core concepts, WHY THE HELL are you TATTLING about it.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119387 Aug 3, 2014
pale horse of death wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, sir.
If I may be able to offer some small contribution?
Somewhere in my memory there is a study of some cheetahs that have
"changed their spots" so to speak.
I guess some of the spots on some of the cheetahs
have merged or fused together to form a slightly different pattern
on the top anterior area of the body ( the rump I think?).
The scientists had been studying the cheetahs for some
time when they noticed the mutation in a few of the specimens.
They were going to continue the study to see how far the mutation
would carry on into the population over time to study the process of "natural selection"
in a present-day context to see of course, if current experience would verify assessments made of fossil remains. A "reality check" on evolution theory. I don't know what the
study revealed later as I never kept up on it. I was younger and had
many other interests at the time.
Pardon my nom d' plume,
it has a certain purpose
as a sort of 'tool'
for a certain job.
You are just talking about how gene flow causes species evolution, bit no new species is emerging in what you are saying. What would have made a new species emerge , is that if a group of slightly different spotted cheetahs left the main group, and could not or refused to mate with the main group of cheetahs. After some lengthy amount of time, the sub group would become sexually incompatible with the main group and then be defined a new species.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119388 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Species according to evolution theory do not "change into" other species.
Nor do Sub or Dan implied this. ASK THEM, who knows you will LEARN something.
If you already don't know how evolution theory defines and conceptualizes "speciation", while it is among its core concepts, WHY THE HELL are you TATTLING about it.
then you are saying a dinosaur did not become a bird or chicken. is that what you are saying? we all have been thinking about that the wrong way?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119389 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you already don't know how evolution theory defines and conceptualizes "speciation", while it is among its core concepts, WHY THE HELL are you TATTLING about it.
wow!! evolution does all that. heII i thought it was man, science and taxonomy that did that.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119390 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Any ancient precedent? As as far as i know all ancient history assumes a young Earth. A flood; deluge. Now i know you guys think this is all rubbish, but those are the facts.
In the first place the "flood" is not only lacking ANY geological evidence but is completely refuted by almost everything of modern geology.

As far as >I< know, all ancient history completely discards a young earth.
As far a I also know, about the whole of modern geology refutes a young earth.
As far as I know the whole of modern cosmology refutes a young earth.

So TELL us, WHAT scientific evidence do you have for a young earth then?
Wasting away in anticipation of your answer.
Tell me what I should have missed last 35 years in the scientific literature and journals.

You may try one out of the about 70 dating techniques we have.
Take ANY of them. You may choose randomly and entirely at your whim.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119391 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"species have offspring that can become other species over time."
name one we have seen that has done that and not the fossil record or just mere change. actually a species becoming another species. after all the Lenski Ecoli that is always used is still just Ecoli.
We see the evidence this happened with many species, due to continental drift. But what you are asking for isn't possible, on terms you would accept.
Because species emergence isn't a process of instant gratification. It takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years. We have seen the emergence of new species though.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-speci...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119392 Aug 3, 2014
paddyomalley wrote:
<quoted text>
"Of course none of this is relevant to the scientific validity of evolution". Sorry bunky, evolution is still a theory, so says the scientific community, excepting some God haters, that is. It is a theory. It is a theory. Can you remember that.
You mean like quantum *theory*, the atomic *theory*, the *theory* of general relativity, cell *theory*, or the *theory* of continental drift?

The problem is that you are using the popular idea of theory as a wild speculation that has no evidence to support it. That isn't how it is used in the scientific community. In that community, a theory is a cohesive collection of ideas that have have been extensively tested and found to work.

You are thinking that evolution is a *hypothesis*. Furthermore, you probably also think that science uses the word 'Law' for something that has been well-proven. But that is not the case: Newton's *Law* of gravity is known to be wrong. Ohm's *Law* has many exceptions. Historically, the word 'Law' was used for a simple mathematical hypothesis. The *theory* is the overarching collection of ideas that have single *Laws* as a part.

So, yes, the *theory* of evolution is a scientific *theory*; meaning is is a well-tested, coherent collection of ideas, in this case dealing with the *fact* that biological species change over time.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119393 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"species have offspring that can become other species over time."
name one we have seen that has done that and not the fossil record or just mere change. actually a species becoming another species. after all the Lenski Ecoli that is always used is still just Ecoli.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/new-species...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119394 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.
But what *can* be done is to take a *population* of computer programs, mutate them, and then select the ones that do the best job. Then repeat the process. In this way, it is possible to find optimal solutions to many types of search and recognition problems. And, guess what? That is *exactly* what evolution does.

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

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119395 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
then you are saying a dinosaur did not become a bird or chicken. is that what you are saying? we all have been thinking about that the wrong way?

(An *isolated group of dinosaurs evolved into birds).
But it actually may have been several groups that evolved more and more birdlike features over time. eventually becoming the species we see now. But a tyrannosaurus isn't a bird and a bird isn't a tyrannosaurus. But tyrannosaurus's offspring may have evolved toward birds.

http://www.haaretz.com/life/nature-environmen...

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
News Oh $!&@: Roadside defecation ends in disaster 10 min Rick Perry s Closet 11
News George Will: All eyes turn to Illinois for an i... 13 min Rick Perry s Closet 1
Why Do Losers Insist On Related Everything To T... 14 min Faith 1
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 27 min UStalker 150,581
Two rhyming words! (Jun '12) 42 min DumbDrumpft 370
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. (Oct '16) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 3,984
News Your Life Story In 6 Words (Feb '08) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 10,309
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Whatevs 30,835
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 hr -feelingSOblue- 225,301
More from around the web