Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223360 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.

Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119952 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have been following my posts, my contention is that one kind cannot change into another kind.
"Kind" is not a scientific term. It;s a Biblical term. So it has no place in a discussion of science.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would disagree with you as to your analogy that bacteria are as different as mammals.
On what scientific basis would you "disagree"?

WIthin its DOMAIN of Bacteria, various bacteria are as wildly different (while still being species of bacteria) as the differing species of a horse, a tree and a sturgeon are within THEIR domain of Eukarya.

Remember, Eukarya is a DOMAIN that includes ALL animals, plants, and fungi.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119953 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
If a bacterium evolves only into another bacterium, we will not have the progression postulated by evolution..
Of course we will. In fact, we can ONLY EXPECT (if evolution is correct) for a bacterium, when it changes species, to STILL be within the DOMAIN of Bacteria.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is needed is from one kind to evolve into another kind to get the diversity and complexity we see in the world today.
Again, DEFINE "KIND."

So far, it's a meaningless word that seems to mean whatever it is convenient for you to have it mean.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119954 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
If evolution were happening then organisms which were on earth millions of years ago (and there would be millions of species) would be evolving every year or ten. We are not seeing this. This is observable. We can test the theory by observing if the changes are occurring. We can see that they are not changing to the extent evolution postulates.
Yes we can observe this in the fossil record. We see species appear in each geological layer we study while they weren't there in the geological layers below.

Now you seem to dance around these observations, I shall ask you directly: we see species appear in each geological layer we study while they weren't there in the geological layers below. EXPLAIN. Notice that you are on a public forum.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave an example of the difference between the human genome and a chimp. Giving a 4% difference in the genome (I cited a study which said 30%+) yields 12 million changes in the 6 million years we supposedly evolved from a common ancestor. I asked are we seeing the 2 changes in the genome per year necessary to see if evolution is occurring. No one said yes.
BECAUSE if you had took notice of genetics, you would know the answer yourself.
I shall give you three answers out of the extensive literature on this:
1) the genetic differences between chimps and humans are the sum of the the genetic changes in the chimp lineage and those in the human lineage since both species split up from their common ancestor. That grossly cuts the amount of chances in half
2) many mutations cause complete gene duplications. That means that in one newborn individual one tiny mutation adds a complete new gene to its genome. The 4% is more correct. But these 4% pertain the individual nucleotides. Actually it is 30 million nucleotides having mutated. But some genes can hold 100,000 nucleotides or more. Hence a far less number of mutations can produce 30 million mutations.
3) every newborn human, you included, has 125-175 mutations in its DNA. This means that 100,000 newborn children add 100,000 X ~150 = 15,000,000. After 1,000 generations, this subpopulation has accumulated 1,000 X 15,000,000 mutations = 15,000,000,000 mutations. That's 15 billion. The total human genome counts 3 billion nucleotide base pairs. Thus, in a small population of just 100,000 people, the amount of genetic mutations accumulated in just 1,000 generations has the POTENTIAL to alter the complete human genome more than twofold. The number of generations since humans and chimps split of (about 5-7 million ya) counts about 250,000 generations. In humans. In chimps even more.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119955 Aug 12, 2014
Evolution claims that survival of the fittest happens in nature and yes nature may do whatever is needed for survival. The thing Evolutionists look over is the fact that living things are mostly striving to be fruitful and are multiplying after their own kind. In some things a change of appearance from what their forerunners were was brought about by information they received from systems by necessity. This is a causal relationship that has always been a cyclical phenomena in life on earth from the first reproduction which followed patterns and circuits produced things.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119956 Aug 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution does not "insure" not "builds up".
If an organism catches a mutation that makes it to retain water better, it would be an advantage when it lives in an arid environment. For organisms living in the sea, this might be a disadvantage. The advantage IMPLIES better survival and reproduction chances, the disadvantage lower. To insuring, no steering, no building up, nothing. Just mechanisms.
When you ask whether "to fit" equals "to suit better", it will be nothing but a language issue. Like anyone else, scientists are thrown on language as it is. Our language is blurry. The same words have a multitude of connotations. There are almost no words without different meaning and many words come with meaning and emotion. Nothing wrong with that of course, language meets more ends than science alone. Of course scientists developed a very special language that hasn't all those double meanings, emotions and connotations: mathematics. But you can't communicate with maths alone.
Hence you may set up a linguistic discussion about the meaning of "to fit" but science says evolution is driven by mechanisms and uses the verb "to fit" to capture that.
The RNA is a macromolecule that consists of ribose, a phosphate, 2 purines and 2 pyrimidines. The biochemical pathway from simple molecules to each of these components is already pretty much on its way, by a range of experiments. The gaps are not filled yet and a lot of work still to be done. But the results until now are very promising. There is no single reason to abandon this line of research. On the contrary.
And THIS is PRECISELY why we don't need creation to be invoked. At the very moment when creation is invoked, this line of research will be abandoned. And science will perish.
By "simple molecules" I mean the ones that we know by other experiments could have emerged spontaneously in pre-biotic conditions.
In their 2009 experiment, Joyce and Lincoln showed that RNA starts to self-replicate even when there are no proteins around. More interestingly, the different RNA strains stated to "compete" and some of them became dominant in the "population". they correctly concluded from their experiment that natural selection is ALREADY a a-biotic, PURE BIOCHEMICAL property of RNA molecules. Some RNA strains "fitted" that particulat biochemical environment better.
i did not ask you what RNA was, nor did i ask you if it has been seen to self-replicate,, i asked you what did the RNA originate/emerge from? and what or how would you say they became programmed(so to speak) to code, decode and regulate genes?

"individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?

evolutions beneficial mutations are influenced by the environment and passed on to future generations which pass on that mutation and other mutations that are influenced by the environment to future generations===built up mutations. we know those mutations that are caused by the environment factors over the years are not there to kill off the species, they are there to better suit it for the environment and aid in its survival.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119957 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Evolution claims that survival of the fittest happens in nature and yes nature may do whatever is needed for survival. The thing Evolutionists look over is the fact that living things are mostly striving to be fruitful and are multiplying after their own kind. In some things a change of appearance from what their forerunners were was brought about by information they received from systems by necessity. This is a causal relationship that has always been a cyclical phenomena in life on earth from the first reproduction which followed patterns and circuits produced things.
Why did the dinosaurs stop multiplying after their own kind?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119958 Aug 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Not even close. You have the cause and effect completely reversed.
Evolution did NOT build up those traits to insure survival of those individuals.
Instead, those traits appear at random in various forms because of mutations. Whether a mutation appears has nothing to do with its survival value: it only has to do with which piece of DNA was affected by the mutation.
Now, those mutations that *happen* to provide traits that are more 'fitted' to their particular environment will survive and get reproduced. So survivability follows from the trait and the environment.
As the environment changes, the population changes along with it. But the survival value of previous stages may or may not have anything to do with survivability in the new environment. Those new mutations that *happen* to fit into the new environment survive and are reproduced.
Again, the traits are not 'put in' to insure survivability of individuals. The traits vary at random around a mean and those that are better suited to a particular environment survive and reproduce. Whether those traits are good for later generations is not relevant. And yes, it is quite possible for evolution to lead to 'dead ends' when th environment changes enough that no new mutations are enough to ensure survivability.
individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?

evolutions beneficial mutations are influenced by the environment and passed on to future generations which pass on that mutation and other mutations that are influenced by the environment to future generations===built up mutations over time changing the species/adding traits. take away anyone and the outcome would be different. we know those mutations that are caused by the environment factors over the years are not there to kill off the species, they are there to better suit it for the environment and aid in its survival.

the mutations are random. nah. it is the individuals that get them that are random. the mutations are results of environmental factors meaning they have a cause and they happen from that cause to be able to deal with that cause. if it is a cold environment and a mutations happens to grow more hair on the body, the cause was the cold, the more hair mutation was caused by the cold environment and its purpose is to deal with that cold environment. the ones that get that mutation will be random individuals then they will randomly pass them on, to future generations and repeat and so on but not all will get that mutation and not all will survive in the population . the ones that survive will be the random ones that get the mutation because not every offspring of the individual with the mutation will get the mutation.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119959 Aug 12, 2014
It is the systems that cause change and not the condition or harmful agent itself. Systems regulate things and in living bodies they have Effector mechanisms that can vary conditions within the body of the living thing when sensors give patterned signals to them and corrections are applied from feedback. The information is imparted and steps are taken and a procedure for performing required tasks are followed.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119960 Aug 12, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did the dinosaurs stop multiplying after their own kind?
Necessity.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119961 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
Necessity.
What necessity?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119962 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Evolution claims that survival of the fittest happens in nature and yes nature may do whatever is needed for survival. The thing Evolutionists look over is the fact that living things are mostly striving to be fruitful and are multiplying after their own kind. In some things a change of appearance from what their forerunners were was brought about by information they received from systems by necessity. This is a causal relationship that has always been a cyclical phenomena in life on earth from the first reproduction which followed patterns and circuits produced things.
"to be fruitful and are multiplying after their own kind"
You mean reproduction?
Central theme of evolution theory.
I just don't know what you are talking about.
For the rest your post is not according the biological observations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119963 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
the mutations are random. nah. it is the individuals that get them that are random. the mutations are results of environmental factors meaning they have a cause and they happen from that cause to be able to deal with that cause.
This is wrong. Yes, mutations have causes: radiation, chemicals, etc. But the mutations that happen are NOT necessarily (or likely) to deal with those causes. For example, radiation causes point mutations in the DNA. It is random in the sense that *where* on the DNA the mutation happens depends on the placement of the organism with respect to the radiation source, NOT on what would be best for survival of the organism. If the organism were a millimeter to one side, a different mutation would happen.The mutations that happen are NOT those that reduce the effects of radiation. They are randomly distributed over the chromosomes.
if it is a cold environment and a mutations happens to grow more hair on the body, the cause was the cold, the more hair mutation was caused by the cold environment and its purpose is to deal with that cold environment.
And that is demonstrably NOT what actually happens. Cold, for example, does NOT cause mutations. Radiation and various chemicals do. So the mutations that happen are NOT to 'deal with the cold', they are caused by the other factors and the link between those factors and the temperature isn't there.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119964 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
Necessity.
No, species change due to changes in the environment they live in and due to genetic drift.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119965 Aug 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have been following my posts, my contention is that one kind cannot change into another kind. So a bacterium cannot change into anything else but a bacterium.
Yes, let's talk a bit about "following posts".
.
<quoted text>
If you have been following my posts, you should have known hat the fossil record tells that once in the earliest history of life, there were only bacteria around. Multicellular life came later. But you "neatly" avoid this 230 years old observational information in order to be able to tattle further on to someone else. You assertion that bacteria cannot evolve into other species is directly discarded by the fossil evidence.
.
I have already answered this assertion. A fossil cannot tell us who is its predecessor or its descendent. All we can do is GUESS based upon a similarity.
.
Lets see if I am following you.
1. You assert that bacteria can change into another kind.
2. You assert that this bacterial fossil evolved into another fossil type.
3. Therefore evolution is proved.
.
Does anyone besides me see that this is circular reasoning?
.
<quoted text>
1. evolution is not about "one kind to evolve into another kind". In the first place, "kind" is not used in biology. Second, species do not evolve INTO other species.
.
Let's see if I am following you on this one:
1. A bacteria didn't evolve into another species but is the ancestor of all life on earth without changing species.
2. This contradicts your assertion that bacteria have changed into present day life forms.
.
Isn't this magic?
.
<quoted text>
Currently, estimates of the total number of bacterial species range from about 10 million to a billion, but these estimates are tentative, and may be off by many orders of magnitude. By comparison, there are probably between 10 and 30 million species of animals, the vast majority of them insects.
.
Let's see if I am following you on this one:
There may be over 1 billion life forms on earth all evolving yet we haven't seen any major change in any organism.(meaning changing to a different kind)
.
Conclusion with this many life forms all under the sway of evolution, we would have observed in the 4,000 years of recorded history someone making an observation.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119966 Aug 12, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, damn few of any of the "organisms" on earth millions of years ago still exist. Even the few that survive are not the same species that they were millions of years ago. Now if most species have gone extinct and will still have millions of species that did not exist millions of year ago, how do you suppose that could happen?
"Evolving every year or ten"??? Where did you come up with that?
<quoted text>
Please provide a reference for this so-called postulation.
.
<quoted text>
Bull. We know that every human is born with 125-175 mutations. Well in excess of your requirement.
.
<quoted text>
First off, damn few of any of the "organisms" on earth millions of years ago still exist. Even the few that survive are not the same species that they were millions of years ago. Now if most species have gone extinct and will still have millions of species that did not exist millions of year ago, how do you suppose that could happen?
.
I will submit two possibilities:
1. The dating is incorrect.
2. There was a recreation about 6,000 years ago.
.
As evidence I will submit C14 dating of fossils supposedly 65 million years old to be about 50,000 years old as evidence that:
A. C14 dating is inaccurate
B. The fossils aren't that old.
C. A combination of A & B.
.
<quoted text>
"Evolving every year or ten"??? Where did you come up with that?
.
If we have as many as 1 billion life forms in a total of 3.5 billion year biological history, there has to be change quite frequently. If you calculate the difference in number of cells between a bacterium and a man there is quite a bit of change. i submitted earlier that there are a minimum of 12 million changes in the genome between man and chimp. This all supposedly happened within a 6 million year time frame. This requires 2 changes every year in the genome. I asked are we seeing this? I cited a study which would put the changes at 90 million, that 15 changes per year. Additionally with a possible billion life forms all evolving, what is the probability of any one of them evolving this year. I gave ten as a way to be more conservative.
.
If we made 150 changes to the human genome, wouldn't we be able to tell?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119967 Aug 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is wrong. Yes, mutations have causes: radiation, chemicals, etc. But the mutations that happen are NOT necessarily (or likely) to deal with those causes. For example, radiation causes point mutations in the DNA. It is random in the sense that *where* on the DNA the mutation happens depends on the placement of the organism with respect to the radiation source, NOT on what would be best for survival of the organism. If the organism were a millimeter to one side, a different mutation would happen.The mutations that happen are NOT those that reduce the effects of radiation. They are randomly distributed over the chromosomes.
<quoted text>
And that is demonstrably NOT what actually happens. Cold, for example, does NOT cause mutations. Radiation and various chemicals do. So the mutations that happen are NOT to 'deal with the cold', they are caused by the other factors and the link between those factors and the temperature isn't there.
beneficial mutations:
1) do mutations aid in a species survival?
2) do mutations have a cause?
3) do those mutations help to deal with that cause?
4) is the purpose of those mutations to deal with that cause?
5) does everyone get the mutations or random individuals get the mutations?
6) if a mutation is needed for survival but only random some get it
6-a) what happens to the ones that get the mutations?
6-b) what happens to the ones that don't get the mutation?
6-c) will the random ones in the population that acquired said needed mutation have a better chance of surviving/reproducing?

that is all cause and effect by cause. otherwise the mutations are caused by the effects of the environment. the effects of the mutations have a purpose which is to deal with the cause.that is responsible for the effects, hence the environment.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119968 Aug 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cold, for example, does NOT cause mutations. Radiation and various chemicals do. So the mutations that happen are NOT to 'deal with the cold', they are caused by the other factors and the link between those factors and the temperature isn't there.
what radiation, chemicals, etc.do you think is the cause for modern man to have less hair than our ancestors of millions of years ago or even as short as hundred of thousand years ago?(<neanderthal for example)
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#119969 Aug 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
"to be fruitful and are multiplying after their own kind"
You mean reproduction?
Central theme of evolution theory.
I just don't know what you are talking about.
For the rest your post is not according the biological observations.
It's just a simple little theory of System Circuits and Patterns, haven't you ever heard of it?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119970 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If evolution were happening then organisms which were on earth millions of years ago (and there would be millions of species) would be evolving every year or ten. We are not seeing this. This is observable. We can test the theory by observing if the changes are occurring. We can see that they are not changing to the extent evolution postulates.
.
I gave an example of the difference between the human genome and a chimp. Giving a 4% difference in the genome (I cited a study which said 30%+) yields 12 million changes in the 6 million years we supposedly evolved from a common ancestor. I asked are we seeing the 2 changes in the genome per year necessary to see if evolution is occurring. No one said yes.
We do see it. You just don't understand the science well enough to even pose proper questions, let alone consider yourself the judge of how and where it is occurring. It is seen in the development of resistance. There is lots of research that show exactly what you refer to. Change in a population over time is documented. Many examples have been posted here.

I believe I did address your misunderstanding. Your rate is wrong. It assumes change in only one genome and not in the two genomes. Further, we are seeing changes in the human genome. I don't know what the rate of fixation is, but it is there. As an example, height and mean body mass have increased over the last 80-100 years. Like any species or populations within a species we are subject to constant selective pressure. What these selective pressures currently are is a more important question that whether they are causing change. They are.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119971 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
It is the systems that cause change and not the condition or harmful agent itself. Systems regulate things and in living bodies they have Effector mechanisms that can vary conditions within the body of the living thing when sensors give patterned signals to them and corrections are applied from feedback. The information is imparted and steps are taken and a procedure for performing required tasks are followed.
Just random noise. You have this vague generalization with no mechanism. No specifics. You could be talking about the management at Ford and be equally meaningful in this discussion about science. In fact, that would be more meaningful.

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
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 8 min andet1987 1,553
I love it when... (Dec '09) 12 min andet1987 1,143
True False Game (Jun '11) 16 min avon5735 16,478
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 21 min andet1987 6,749
call it green... (Aug '14) 23 min andet1987 158
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 26 min andet1987 14,180
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 28 min andet1987 10,790
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Politico Incorrecto 7,202
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 hr avon5735 228,487
More from around the web