Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223289 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.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119662 Aug 6, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case God created itself. Yet YOU claim it's uncaused.
Hence by your own rules, you have chosen an imbecilic notion because you're afraid of the other answer. That is obvious.(shrug)
By the way, none of this STILL has any bearing on the validity of evolution.
You are just a damn coward, who is too ashamed of your answer. Did the universe create itself and all life?
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119663 Aug 6, 2014
Humans

Further information: Triploid syndrome

True polyploidy rarely occurs in humans, although polyploid cells occur in highly differentiated tissue, such as liver parenchyma and heart muscle, and in bone marrow. Aneuploidy is more common.

Polyploidy occurs in humans in the form of triploidy, with 69 chromosomes (sometimes called 69,XXX), and tetraploidy with 92 chromosomes (sometimes called 92,XXXX). Triploidy, usually due to polyspermy, occurs in about 23% of all human pregnancies and ~15% of miscarriages.[citation needed] The vast majority of triploid conceptions end as a miscarriage; those that do survive to term typically die shortly after birth. In some cases, survival past birth may occur longer if there is mixoploidy with both a diploid and a triploid cell population present.

Triploidy may be the result of either digyny (the extra haploid set is from the mother) or diandry (the extra haploid set is from the father). Diandry is mostly caused by reduplication of the paternal haploid set from a single sperm, but may also be the consequence of dispermic (two sperm) fertilization of the egg. Digyny is most commonly caused by either failure of one meiotic division during oogenesis leading to a diploid oocyte or failure to extrude one polar body from the oocyte. Diandry appears to predominate among early miscarriages, while digyny predominates among triploidy that survives into the fetal period.[citation needed] However, among early miscarriages, digyny is also more common in those cases <8.5 weeks gestational age or those in which an embryo is present. There are also two distinct phenotypes in triploid placentas and fetuses that are dependent on the origin of the extra haploid set. In digyny, there is typically an asymmetric poorly grown fetus, with marked adrenal hypoplasia and a very small placenta.[citation needed] In diandry, a partial hydatidiform mole develops. These parent-of-origin effects reflect the effects of genomic imprinting.[citation needed]

Complete tetraploidy is more rarely diagnosed than triploidy, but is observed in 12% of early miscarriages. However, some tetraploid cells are commonly found in chromosome analysis at prenatal diagnosis and these are generally considered 'harmless'. It is not clear whether these tetraploid cells simply tend to arise during in vitro cell culture or whether they are also present in placental cells in vivo. There are, at any rate, very few clinical reports of fetuses/infants diagnosed with tetraploidy mosaicism.

Mixoploidy is quite commonly observed in human preimplantation embryos and includes haploid/diploid as well as diploid/tetraploid mixed cell populations. It is unknown whether these embryos fail to implant and are therefore rarely detected in ongoing pregnancies or if there is simply a selective process favoring the diploid cells.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119664 Aug 6, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony meter go boom.
<quoted text>
I don't hold to any belief system, in the religious sense. I simply do not acknowledge the existence of something which has no evidence. Just like I don't have to acknowledge the existence of fairies.
I am open to the possibility of some kind of creator, if such a thing even exists. All you need to do is present evidence. But I have no reason to fear it even if it did exist, for the odds of it resembling anything at all like your particular favourite deity are rather slim to say the least.
<quoted text>
We have not made that claim. We have said it might have had a cause which was not a deity, or that it was uncaused. An option you outright REFUSE to consider unless it applies only to your deity. Which is the height of hypocrisy to say the least.
<quoted text>
But let's face it Bo, you of all people are unqualified to judge.(shrug)
I mean look at yourself. This is an evolution forum. Which is biology. You came along and couldn't argue against that so you moved the goalposts back to abiogenesis. Then you found you couldn't argue against that either, so now you're moving the goalposts back to the very very start of the universe. That's a cosmology problem. And the funny part is that you call US cowards.
<quoted text>
Word games is what creationists do. We use words that have meaninful definitions, which you don't understand because you aren't interested to learn. And we DO provide answers which you simply ignore instead of address. Then all we do is point out that you DO lie, just like you did right now.
So stop whining just because you wanna join Wondering in the ranks of being a sad whiny beeyach.
You won't acknowledge the existence of something with no evidence!!!!!!!!!

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,

the puddle of goo springing to life! you have acknowledged that for years
your evidence.....none!
The universe creating itself,..evidence ..none
The only thing I see about you that's uncaused is your stupidity.

Please explain how the universe came into existence,...uncaused!
only a fool would try
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119665 Aug 6, 2014
Now that's settled.
Plants, some animals and dead babies.
No thanks, evolution ain't perfect
But it'll do

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119666 Aug 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet all of the scientific evidence supports us and not you.
How do you explain that?
Would one of you brainwashed morons please take up the task of explaining Poly's statement that the universe was most likely uncaused,

Please give your scientific evidence of how an effect,( the universe ) didn't have a cause.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119667 Aug 6, 2014
Hybrid chops with potato au gatin and
French green beans with a daisy garnish.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119668 Aug 6, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If the lake dried up wouldn't all the fish have died?
.
Are you saying they evolved from micro organisms left over from the dried lake?
.
If evolution can occur this fast why aren't we seeing this duplicated?
The lake dried up and then refilled. About 15000 years ago, the lake was a grassland with a creek in it. As the waters became impounded the founder species or a few species came from the creek. They radiated out into the new ecological niches. Over the past 15,000 years this radiation has resulted in more than 300 different species of cichlid that exist no where else.

We see varying speeds at which speciation can occur. It is dependent on a mixed lot of factors. The ancestral species, selection pressures, mutations, genetic variability, quantity and quality of the various niches available to fill and on and on.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119669 Aug 6, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
Hybrid chops with potato au gatin and
French green beans with a daisy garnish.
Sounds good. I like my hybrid rare if bovine.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119670 Aug 6, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Would one of you brainwashed morons please take up the task of explaining Poly's statement that the universe was most likely uncaused,
Please give your scientific evidence of how an effect,( the universe ) didn't have a cause.
You want to talk to a brainwashed moron, go into your bathroom. He will be staring back at you from the mirror.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119671 Aug 6, 2014
Hybrids are functionally the same as an organism with a new mutation. They would be subject to selection pressures the same as any other organism. Their perpetuation isn't dependent on the origin of their genome, but how the phenotype resulting from that genotype responds to selection pressure. In those rare instances, where speciation occurs due to hybridization, the theory of evolution is defied, bent or broken. This type of speciation fits the theory of evolution just fine. There is no set duration for the occurrence of speciation stated in the theory.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119672 Aug 6, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
We see varying speeds at which speciation can occur. It is dependent on a mixed lot of factors. The ancestral species, selection pressures, mutations, genetic variability, quantity and quality of the various niches available to fill and on and on.
you left out hybrids. many of your cichlids are hybrids while others species have died off.

because of the introduced Nile perch and water hyacinth, deforestation that led to water siltation, and overfishing, many lake victoria species have been wiped out or drastically reduced. by around 1980, lake fisheries yielded only 1% cichlids, a drastic decline from 80% in earlier years.
about two-thirds of endemic cichlids (about 300 species), especially bottom feeders, became endangered or extinct. some survivors have adapted by becoming smaller or hybridizing with other species.

saying those species of cichlid exist no where else is over stating the fact. at best all we can say is those species of cichlid exist no where else that we know of yet. there is still much we do not know and we still find species that we think have gone extinct residing in a different location.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119673 Aug 7, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Would one of you brainwashed morons please take up the task of explaining Poly's statement that the universe was most likely uncaused,
Please give your scientific evidence of how an effect,( the universe ) didn't have a cause.
You're assuming the universe is an effect. Effects are caused. You demand it "must" have a cause because you can't see any way otherwise. Yet God is uncaused. Deal with your own hypocrisy first.

And try dealing with what we ACTUALLY say, instead of deliberately trying to steer the conversation in a flawed attempt to force us to say the universe has a cause. We've ALREADY SAID the universe having a cause is ONE of the possibilities, the other it being uncaused. But having a cause does NOT nessecitate invisible magic wizards. And even if it did, it could EASILY be Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is currently no evidence of it being caused OR uncaused at this present time.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119674 Aug 7, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked him whether the universe was created or did it create itself, you can answer the same question
His answer was loud and clear.
This is an evolution forum and not about cosmology.
EXPLAIN how you manage to ask whether the universe is created or self generated, a cosmological question, in a forum about evolution, a biological item.
THAT was a very relevant answer by Dude and to the point.

In other threads he answered your question dozens of times to other persons.

Do you have a topic to discuss relevant to the subject of this thread, which is evolution theory?

I don't say your questions are irrelevant but if you want to discuss cosmology, without any doubt there should be some Topix threads on that subject. Otherwise open a thread yourself on the right spot.

Maybe you ask why I would insist rather formally on this. Well this has to do with the tendency among creationists to reason like "evolution is not true because the big bang didn't happen." They THINK that big bang somehow has no empirical evidence, so there are two major flaws here: debunk a biological theory by means of cosmological arguments and the false assertion that there is no empirical evidence for big bang.

Constantly we try to unravel this nonsensical clew.
After a while you just get the answer Dude provided you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119675 Aug 7, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If the lake dried up wouldn't all the fish have died?
Not according to you.(shrug)

Silly non-uniformitarianists.
THINK

Youngstown, OH

#119676 Aug 7, 2014
All effects have causes. It's a law.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119677 Aug 7, 2014
bohart wrote:
You are just a damn coward, who is too ashamed of your answer.
False. You're projecting.
bohart wrote:
Did the universe create itself and all life?
Uncaused is NOT the same as creating itself, just like you claim God did not create itself. Life on the other hand was produced by the universe, and is a cause and effect phenomenon either way.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119678 Aug 7, 2014
THINK wrote:
All effects have causes. It's a law.
So was Newton's Law of Gravity, until Einstein came along.

But what you haven't demonstrated yet is that the universe IS an effect.

I know uncaused phenomena is a funky concept to get your head around but it's funny how fundies have no problem with the idea when it comes to their God.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119679 Aug 7, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You won't acknowledge the existence of something with no evidence!!!!!!!!!
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,
the puddle of goo springing to life! you have acknowledged that for years
your evidence.....none!
You're lying again, since I've personally presented to you LOTS of evidence for abiogenesis ever since you showed up.

Still waiting for you to stop dodging and deal with what I actually say though.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
The universe creating itself,..evidence ..none
That's fine, since that's not our claim.

Try addressing what we say instead of what you preferred we said.
bohart wrote:
The only thing I see about you that's uncaused is your stupidity.
Yet I can address your posts. You can't address ours. So I guess that makes you the stupid one.
bohart wrote:
Please explain how the universe came into existence,...uncaused!
only a fool would try
Please explain how the universe came into existence with a cause. You don't need to be a fool to try, but you would be a fool to try.

... at pretty much anything.(shrug)
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119680 Aug 7, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
This seems like a very good time to stay grounded in reality.
But it seems like a whole lot of people have a problem with such.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119681 Aug 7, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
The Dude wrote: Plus also, if Josephus REALLY believed that Jesus was a magical wizard, how come he did not instantly convert to Christianity?
.
Firstly if he believed he was a wizard as a Jew he would not follow him, but if he thought he was the Messiah, then he may have been a secret convert as many Jews are.
Good, then we agree you have no evidence because if you HAD evidence then that would mean he wouldn't have done a good job of keeping it a secret.

But the point I'm saying is that pointing to somebody who, as far as all evidence demonstrates, did NOT believe that Jews were magic is NOT good evidence that Jews were magic. ESPECIALLY when we DON'T have any CONTEMPORARY evidence of the stuff Josephus was talking about. Claiming that "HE might have had it at the time" is not very convincing. Especially when he didn't even think the evidence was very convincing either.
messianic114 wrote:
But then again you would say that because of this he wrote what he did. So either way you can make it so you don't believe.
The only reason I don't believe is because you can't present evidence. And I even think that there could well have been some preacher called Jeshua whose stories were roughly based on, or inspired by him.

But since we KNOW some parts of the Bible to be categorically factually inaccurate, that's a darn good reason to look at the rest with skepticism, even though SOME parts of it are based in historical fact (eg the existence of Herod). That means the factually inaccurate parts have to be rationalized away as either poetic non-literal allegory (which would make it an unreliable source of information due to subjectivity of interpretation), or Godmagic.

So all you need to do now is demonstrate how invisble Jew magic passes the scientific method.

Take your time.

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 Off? (Jan '17) 12 min ThomasTheTrain 1,231
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 12 min Sublime1 6,980
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 14 min Alain Vain 6,085
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min wichita-rick 227,230
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 15 min Rusty 35,149
News Indiana Waitress Gets $10,000 Tip (Jul '07) 16 min brooke 2
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 17 min Alain Vain 21,262
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 1 hr Jackie 9,789
More from around the web