Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204725 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

#119650 Aug 6, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Now ya see there, this is the kind of road they're going down. The Bible is true, and the truth about circuits is undeniable.
there are two major flaws in this one little sentence:
1) the bible is very wrong on a bunch of items and for the rest just an average bronze age mythology book
2) and "the truth about circuits is undeniable" is as obvious as "there is water on the world". It is a completely empty statement unless you explain WHICH circuits you are talking about.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119651 Aug 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
as noted before. it is a public forum and anyone can answer any post.
Yes and everyone also can assess certain posts to be irrelevant.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119652 Aug 6, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Now ya see there, this is the kind of road they're going down. The Bible is true, and the truth about circuits is undeniable.
The truth about circuits is true. That is a self fulfilling statement.
The Bible is true? Not so much. It is true that it's a book, some of the place names and people existed and that it's from the bronze age. Beyond that ya got nuthin' evidenced except delusion.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119653 Aug 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea of gradual, rather slow evolution was conceived by Darwin himself.
But there are instances of rather rapid evolution found in the fossil record. This issue is already settled in biology with the theory of punctuated equilibria. 30 years ago.
An example of very rapid evolution is the cichlids radiation of Lake Victoria (and adjacent lakes). There are 300 species of cichlids in Lake Victoria. But another 200 species are found to became extinct. But Lake Victoria, in itself only 400,000 years old, dried up completely at least three times since it was formed. Last time 17,300 years ago, and it refilled beginning about 14,700 years ago. That means that those 300 cichlid species evolved in just 14,700 years.
The rapid emergence of Tragopogon miscellus is explained in this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/... . Basically the genetic basis is chromosome duplication.
.
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?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119654 Aug 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea of gradual, rather slow evolution was conceived by Darwin himself.
But there are instances of rather rapid evolution found in the fossil record. This issue is already settled in biology with the theory of punctuated equilibria. 30 years ago.
An example of very rapid evolution is the cichlids radiation of Lake Victoria (and adjacent lakes). There are 300 species of cichlids in Lake Victoria. But another 200 species are found to became extinct. But Lake Victoria, in itself only 400,000 years old, dried up completely at least three times since it was formed. Last time 17,300 years ago, and it refilled beginning about 14,700 years ago. That means that those 300 cichlid species evolved in just 14,700 years.
The rapid emergence of Tragopogon miscellus is explained in this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/... . Basically the genetic basis is chromosome duplication.
you don't get it do you. hybrids do not require natural selection, or mutations changing the species slowly throughout many many generations and many many years which are all called for/required in ToE. when ToE was worked up/out, it did work up hybrids in the theory. hybrids are the curve ball in ToE because they do not require natural selection, mutations changing the species slowly throughout many many generations and many many years.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119655 Aug 6, 2014
I just looked at the two most commonly known accepted modes of speciation
Allopatric (theory of punctuated equilibria) and peripatric and I get it, with the isolated Galapagos finches and the polar bears on the nearby islands to the brown bear parent specie far to the north. allopatric, where ya got the geographic isolation of populations of one specie and each population changes over time, then the other peripatric one, where geographic marginalization gives rise to new specie while parent specie lives on.
I think the allopatric scenario kind of implied extinction of parent specie
by the time new one/s becomes dominant, I could be mistaken on that
point. Now we have this allopolyploid *spontaneous-grow-a-set*
speciation.
I feel like I've seen something I cant UN-see.
..... it's an abomination!
;-D !
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119656 Aug 6, 2014
punctuated equilibria
Allopatric: geographic isolation of populations of one specie and each population changes over time, while parent specie dies out(?) finches.
Peripatric: geographic marginalization gives rise to new specie while parent specie lives on, brown bears to polar bears
allopolyploid: Two separate but similar parent species have offspring
that are at first hybrid, but somewhere in the exchange DNA between
the two species, a second set of DNA *spontaneously*
gets replicated during the transaction to make what should essentially be a hybrid into a fertile separate specie that can have fertile offspring
able to mate/cross pollenate with others of the same genome, specie, but not bear fertile offspring with either of parent specieS
daisies and wheat.
Are there any animals that have this? i'm looking..

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119658 Aug 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What fear? Oh I get it, you are a godbot and scared shItless that you may be wrong and hence spend eternity rotting in a grave rather than living it up with your buddies in imaginary dream of heaven?
There ya go butt brain, just to let you know that when someone abuses me then I abuse them tight back
It is not a simple questions otherwise even a simple moron like you would have a definitive answer.
There are many reasons why it is not a simple question, most are too difficult for you to comprehend, including the biggest of all... the laws that govern this universe and hence your ability to think did not exist at that moment in time.
However there is no scientific reason why it did not create itself.
There it is! It is a simple question, I asked what you believe , the reason you insult whine and cry is that you are ashamed of the answer.

You have the unmitigated gall to say the universe created itself, there is no scientific evidence ever ! that anything created itself ! none ! yet you believe it! IT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE ,NOTHING ELSE

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119659 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?
Explain how the universe is uncaused, how it created itself?
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119660 Aug 6, 2014
Examples in animals are more common in non-vertebrates[9] such as flatworms, leeches, and brine shrimp. Within vertebrates, examples of stable polyploidy include the salmonids and many cyprinids (i.e. carp). Some fish have as many as 400 chromosomes. Polyploidy also occurs commonly in amphibians; for example the biomedically-important Xenopus genus contains many different species with as many as 12 sets of chromosomes (dodecaploid).
Polyploid lizards are also quite common, but are sterile and must reproduce by parthenogenesis.[citation needed] Polyploid mole salamanders (mostly triploids) are all female and reproduce by kleptogenesis, "stealing" spermatophores from diploid males of related species to trigger egg development but not incorporating the males' DNA into the offspring. While mammalian liver cells are polyploid, rare instances of polyploid mammals are known, but most often result in prenatal death.
An octodontid rodent of Argentina's harsh desert regions, known as the Plains Viscacha-Rat (Tympanoctomys barrerae) has been reported as an exception to this 'rule'. However, careful analysis using chromosome paints shows that there are only two copies of each chromosome in T. barrerae, not the four expected if it were truly a tetraploid. The rodent is not a rat, but kin to guinea pigs and chinchillas. Its "new" diploid [2n] number is 102 and so its cells are roughly twice normal size. Its closest living relation is Octomys mimax, the Andean Viscacha-Rat of the same family, whose 2n = 56. It was therefore surmised that an Octomys-like ancestor produced tetraploid (i.e., 2n = 4x = 112) offspring that were, by virtue of their doubled chromosomes, reproductively isolated from their parents.
Polyploidy was induced in fish by Har Swarup (1956) using a cold-shock treatment of the eggs close to the time of fertilization, which produced triploid embryos that successfully matured. Cold or heat shock has also been shown to result in unreduced amphibian gametes, though this occurs more commonly in eggs than in sperm. John Gurdon (1958) transplanted intact nuclei from somatic cells to produce diploid eggs in the frog, Xenopus (an extension of the work of Briggs and King in 1952) that were able to develop to the tadpole stage. The British Scientist, J. B. S. Haldane hailed the work for its potential medical applications and, in describing the results, became one of the first to use the word “clone” in reference to animals. Later work by Shinya Yamanaka showed how mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent, extending the possibilities to non-stem cells. Gurdon and Yamanaka were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in 2012 for this work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119661 Aug 6, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not addressing what Dude said.
Please answer his point or else leave away your post.
He was talking about evolution and abiogenesis and cosmology to be different realms and that you can't address evolution by alleged problems in abiogenesis.
Your answer is COMPLETELY out of order.
It is COMPLETELY non sequitur.
It is entirely futile.
I asked him whether the universe was created or did it create itself, you can answer the same question

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 2–3% 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 1–2% 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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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.

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
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 min DMan 33,141
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 3 min Go Blue Forever 1,175
News Man Caught Having Sex with a Picnic Table (Mar '08) 5 min andet1987 956
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 min LoL 59,659
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 5 min Poppyann 14,083
2words into 2new words (May '12) 6 min Poppyann 3,753
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 10 min Grace Nerissa 2,924
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 19 min avon5735 19,655
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sharlene45 197,284
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 2 hr A TROLL NAMED SLACK 8,792
More from around the web