Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221768 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

#119494 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
then by your standards and misunderstanding of evolution, a liger and a tigon even though they are hybrids of two closely related species, they are genetically different than their parents, and they are considered a separate species, they are evolution of a species. by that standard evolution can happen in just one generation and does not need the many many thousands or hundred of thousands of years..
No, you and some of your fellow creationists are the ones hung up on the false notion that hybridization is synonymous with speciation. Remember that it was not simply the hybridization of Tragopogon that formed a new species, it was the doubling of its chromosomes plus retaining the ability to reproduce. Be that as it may, you asked for an example of a new species that DID NOT take many, many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Now that you have one you are upset? There's just no pleasing some people.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119495 Aug 4, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And since it pertains to Dimbeam's silly claims too, here it is again since you missed it the last dozen times:
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
And if you think it's wrong then get on to U of Georgia and let them know precisely why invisible Jewmagic doesn't allow these documented observations to happen. After all the rest of us are just so dumb for not taking the "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" principle into account.
I mean, just this morning I reached for pocket change and found each coin had turned into a school of great white sharks. If I was a creationist I should have expected that.
.
<quoted text>
I mean, just this morning I reached for pocket change and found each coin had turned into a school of great white sharks. If I was a creationist I should have expected that.
.
Any creationist will tell you that can't happen, only an evolutionist would think that given enough time it could.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119496 Aug 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Animals changing (micro-evolution) is not disputed, what is disputed is can an animal change from one kind to another. Where is the proof of this.
.
Secondly as to whether insects are actually changing may not even qualify as micro-evolution. Unless someone has tested every individual in the species to see if it wasn't already resistant would mean this could be a case of natural selection. In that case no information has been added to the genome.
<quoted text>.
Instead, you attack the messenger - who in my case was just being sarcastic of your devotion to ignorance. You don't seem very proficient at self defense.
.
Isn't this a case of hypocrisy?
There is no "change of kind" in evolution. Perhaps your problem is that you cannot define kind properly.

What exactly is a kind? And more important how do we tell if two different groups of animals are the same kind or not?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119497 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
speciation occurred when the first mule was born from a donkey and horse. the nule was and is genetically different from it parents. evolution happened in one generation. but wait the evolution theory says it takes many many thousand, hundred of thousands of years for evolution to happen. your misunderstanding and confusion of hybrids and evolution is nothing but childish babble.
Rattle the tattle.
Speciation has been demonstrated, as required.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119498 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
then by your standards and misunderstanding of evolution, a liger and a tigon even though they are hybrids of two closely related species, they are genetically different than their parents, and they are considered a separate species, they are evolution of a species. by that standard evolution can happen in just one generation and does not need the many many thousands or hundred of thousands of years..
Rattle the tattle.
Speciation has been demonstrated as required.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119499 Aug 4, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And since it pertains to Dimbeam's silly claims too, here it is again since you missed it the last dozen times:
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
And if you think it's wrong then get on to U of Georgia and let them know precisely why invisible Jewmagic doesn't allow these documented observations to happen. After all the rest of us are just so dumb for not taking the "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" principle into account.
I mean, just this morning I reached for pocket change and found each coin had turned into a school of great white sharks. If I was a creationist I should have expected that.
.
<quoted text>
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.
Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design)
.
The Dude wrote:
A baseless claim of intelligent design.
.
It seems to me it doesn't take much common sense to reason that if we all started as a single celled organism somewhere in the primordial soup that it would take a gain in information/function (GOF) to end up where we are now.
.
Can you explain how we evolved from a single celled organism to human without gaining information/function in the genome? Are you suggesting every creature has within it the potential to become human given enough time?
.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
Finale of straw-men. I really don't have to remind anyone that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
.
The Dude wrote:
Finale of straw-men. I really don't have to remind anyone that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
.
It seems to me you side stepped the bulk of this and looked for two words (came about) to not answer the questions/assertions posed.
.
If you expect to convince any creationist of your position you won't do it by running away.
.
By the way abiogenesis is even a greater indication of science's lack of answers than evolution.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119500 Aug 4, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because they can still mate with both (though they do suffer from the usual fertility problems). Tigers and lions are the ones that are considered different species, although some might say they are both subspecies of a larger grouping of big cats, as they can still mate and produce offspring.
The problem here is not with evolution, or whether or not that evolution occurs. It's just a language problem, as words tend to be pigeon-holed, while a continuous progression of life cannot ever be. This then causes confusion with lay-people which creationists subsequently exploit.
Well said.
I think it may be pretty hard for anyone to stay conscious of this fact when they're
trying to win an argument with facts and being unwittingly led in endless circles by some NOT-Christian creep with just enough knowledge to be a real abusing, lying, BUCKNUT
wondering

Morris, OK

#119501 Aug 4, 2014
it is bogus to say hybrids are evolution of a new species. 1) it occurs in one generation. 2) not all hybrids are sterile. some can reproduce. 3)is it the evolution fast track?
do some reading

Hybrid (biology)
In biology a hybrid is an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera.Using genetics terminology, it may be defined as follows.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_ (biology)

List of genetic hybrids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...

Hybrid speciation
Hybrid speciation is a form of speciation wherein hybridization between two different species leads to a new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species. From the 1940s, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents was thought to be particularly difficult to achieve and thus hybrid species were thought to be extremely rare. With DNA analysis becoming more accessible in the 1990s, hybrid speciation has been shown to be a fairly common phenomenon, particularly in plants.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciatio...
wondering

Morris, OK

#119502 Aug 4, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Rattle the tattle.
Speciation has been demonstrated as required.
i asked for live observation a species changing to another species as evolution predicts.we have never observed that. now you want to call hybrids evolution. what a fcking joke!

specieation of a hybrid that occurs in ONE generation is not what the theory of evolution predicts.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

if you only rely on your limited education and knowledge of evolution you will never understand it.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119503 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
it is bogus to say hybrids are evolution of a new species. 1) it occurs in one generation. 2) not all hybrids are sterile. some can reproduce. 3)is it the evolution fast track?
do some reading
Hybrid (biology)
In biology a hybrid is an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera.Using genetics terminology, it may be defined as follows.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_ (biology)
List of genetic hybrids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...
Hybrid speciation
Hybrid speciation is a form of speciation wherein hybridization between two different species leads to a new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species. From the 1940s, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents was thought to be particularly difficult to achieve and thus hybrid species were thought to be extremely rare. With DNA analysis becoming more accessible in the 1990s, hybrid speciation has been shown to be a fairly common phenomenon, particularly in plants.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciatio...
Rattle the tattle.
Speciation demonstrated.
As required.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119504 Aug 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
If you think that bison are going to change into antelope, you paid too much attention in Sunday school and not enough in science class.
.
What I was taught in science class is that the dog and the wolf descended from a comman ancestor (kind). One kind begets after its kind, meaning the dog family will always produce another dog family member, but not a cat like creature.
.
<quoted text>
but they have evolved resistances to chemicals that their forebearers did not have and that is a gamechanger in the survival of the species.
.
This is not obvious to me. If 1% of the bed bugs were naturally resistant before the chemical was invented, then this is not evidence of evolution, it is natural selection. Also the statement is based upon assumption, that the forebears didn't have this ability.
.
The flaws are:
1. No control group was separated to check later if the bugs were not already resistant.
2. No mapping was done on the genome to check later if a change has occurred.
3. No testing is being done to determine if this doesn't happen every time and therefore inherit in the kind itself.
I fail to see the point that creationists keep trying to make with wolves and dogs being unable to "beget" cats - besides illustrating a penchant for reading the same pseudoscience sites, a deep ignorance of biology and unrepentant loss of any ability to tolerate a logical thought.

Actually, there was a discovery of viable "old" bedbugs found fairly recently, so there is a control group. So much for #1. To be candid, I'm not up on what has come of research from them and in keeping with that honesty, you didn't and don't have even the remotest clue if your 1. 2. 3. is or was honest or blowing smoke and as a Liar for Jesus trying to win the day >you do not care<.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119505 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i asked for live observation a species changing to another species as evolution predicts.we have never observed that. now you want to call hybrids evolution. what a fcking joke!
specieation of a hybrid that occurs in ONE generation is not what the theory of evolution predicts.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
if you only rely on your limited education and knowledge of evolution you will never understand it.
Oh, there's a fcking joke here, but it isn't a new plant species - it's the old creatard one.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119506 Aug 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
I mean, just this morning I reached for pocket change and found each coin had turned into a school of great white sharks. If I was a creationist I should have expected that.
.
Any creationist will tell you that can't happen, only an evolutionist would think that given enough time it could.
Time? Who was talking about time? I was talking about spontaneous generation. Also known as non-uniformitarianism. Also known as the "How do you know where you there" principle. Also known as creationism.

Notice how non-creationists not only know our position better than you do, we even know YOUR position better than you do.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119507 Aug 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.
Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design)
.
The Dude wrote:
A baseless claim of intelligent design.
.
It seems to me it doesn't take much common sense to reason that if we all started as a single celled organism somewhere in the primordial soup that it would take a gain in information/function (GOF) to end up where we are now.
.
Can you explain how we evolved from a single celled organism to human without gaining information/function in the genome? Are you suggesting every creature has within it the potential to become human given enough time?
.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
Finale of straw-men. I really don't have to remind anyone that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
.
The Dude wrote:
Finale of straw-men. I really don't have to remind anyone that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
.
It seems to me you side stepped the bulk of this and looked for two words (came about) to not answer the questions/assertions posed.
.
If you expect to convince any creationist of your position you won't do it by running away.
.
By the way abiogenesis is even a greater indication of science's lack of answers than evolution.
It seems to me you sidestepped Katy's post which provided the relevant research reference. In case my browsers are out of synch (which happens over time when mods delete posts for naughty words) the post you're (not) looking for belongs to Katydid, and it's post #68139.

P.s. Abiogenesis is under research at places such as Harvard. Where's the scientific research on invisible Jew magic? Which is obviously BY FAR less explanatory than abiogenesis.

P.p.s. The theory of evolution STILL does not rely on abiogenesis.

P.p.p.s. You nearly blew out half of the world's irony meters when you accused me of running away and not providing any answers.

P.p.p.p.s. And as for our old pal Cowboy, I personally grilled him once a month for two years straight in order to try to get him to tell us all what the "scientific theory" of ID is. And twenty years after it was first thought up (or a few thousand depending on how you look at it) NO-ONE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET has yet been able to explain exactly what it is. You may note Cowboy's current absence (and you may also note that should the boy return, the same absence of ID will prevail).

Howzatt for a kick in the nuts.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119508 Aug 4, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, there's a fcking joke here, but it isn't a new plant species - it's the old creatard one.
it is a hybrid plant that is fertile and that can reproduce with the same hybrids/species. forming a stable species.though reproducing is one of the requirements of being a new species. 80 years is not evolution of a new species as defined in the theory of evolution. how hard is that to understand. by your standards evolution has put in a fast track and said the heII with many many thousands of years lets do this in one or two generations. lmao

example: to be a new species it has to be able to mate with another(hybrid) and be able to produce fertile offspring, if wolphins mated with wolphins and produced fertile wolphins but they are unable to.
a wolphin is the result of a mating between a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale. these species are in the same family (Delphinidae) but different genera. a female at the hawaii sea park named kekaimalu is fertile and has mated with male bottlenose dolphins but has not/cannot mate with another wolphin..
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119509 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i asked for live observation a species changing to another species as evolution predicts.we have never observed that. now you want to call hybrids evolution. what a fcking joke!
specieation of a hybrid that occurs in ONE generation is not what the theory of evolution predicts.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
if you only rely on your limited education and knowledge of evolution you will never understand it.
If evolution doesn't predict it, then explain Ring Species. Which in a sense is just hybrids but on a much larger scale.

Bozo.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119510 Aug 4, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Rattle the tattle.
Speciation demonstrated.
As required.
Plus he still needs to demonstrate that life has remained unchanged for billions of years.

Or in other words, Adam at the point of abiogenesis.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119511 Aug 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems to me it doesn't take much common sense to reason that if we all started as a single celled organism somewhere in the primordial soup that it would take a gain in information/function (GOF) to end up where we are now.

Can you explain how we evolved from a single celled organism to human without gaining information/function in the genome? Are you suggesting every creature has within it the potential to become human given enough time?
He doesn't imply so.
Why asking then?
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
Indeed they can't.
But it is TERRIBLE straw man fallacy, leaving about 90% of the basic concepts of evolution theory away. Its leaves away:
- neutral mutations, observed in dozens of genetic studies and empirical research
- advantageous, observed in dozens of genetic studies and empirical research
- genetic drift, observed in dozens of genetic studies and empirical research
- gene duplication, observed in dozens of genetic studies and empirical research
- sexual selection, observed in - literally - thousands of field observations and empirical research
- natural selection, observed in - literally - thousands of field observations and empirical research.

Tell me, Messianic, why are creationists ALWAYS deceiving?
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Again straw man fallacy, leaving away:
- neutral mutations, observed in dozens of genetic studies and empirical research
- advantageous, observed in dozens of genetic studies and empirical research
- gene duplication, observed in dozens of genetic studies and empirical research

Tell me, Messianic, why are creationists ALWAYS deceiving?
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
Yes it can, modern genetics explains that ABUNDANTLY and how this leads to evolution, backed by thousands of empirical studies on it. And if I say thousands, I mean THOUSANDS.

Tell me, Messianic, why are creationists ALWAYS deceiving?

LYING and DECEIT.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119512 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
it is a hybrid plant that is fertile and that can reproduce with the same hybrids/species. forming a stable species.though reproducing is one of the requirements of being a new species. 80 years is not evolution of a new species as defined in the theory of evolution. how hard is that to understand. by your standards evolution has put in a fast track and said the heII with many many thousands of years lets do this in one or two generations. lmao
example: to be a new species it has to be able to mate with another(hybrid) and be able to produce fertile offspring, if wolphins mated with wolphins and produced fertile wolphins but they are unable to.
a wolphin is the result of a mating between a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale. these species are in the same family (Delphinidae) but different genera. a female at the hawaii sea park named kekaimalu is fertile and has mated with male bottlenose dolphins but has not/cannot mate with another wolphin..
Rattle the tattle.
You asked examples of speciation.
It has been provided.
END STORY.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119513 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i asked for live observation a species changing to another species as evolution predicts.we have never observed that. now you want to call hybrids evolution. what a fcking joke!
specieation of a hybrid that occurs in ONE generation is not what the theory of evolution predicts.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
if you only rely on your limited education and knowledge of evolution you will never understand it.
Rattle the tattle.
Speciation demonstrated.
As required.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 6 min Rosa 23,925
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 8 min Chilli J 5,841
News Florida Man Shoots Neighbor, Drives Dead Body t... 16 min Chilli J 15
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 18 min Dr S Niper 4,554
A six word game (Dec '08) 42 min Hoosier Hillbilly 21,138
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 46 min Hoosier Hillbilly 4,045
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 56 min Hoosier Hillbilly 38,142
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Mister_ E 220,679
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 3 hr Mister_ E 2,113
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Rich and Happy 76,666
More from around the web