Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199176 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

#119981 Aug 12, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not over 50,000 years or so you can't. Any soft tissue older that that still could not be accurately dated by C14. IOW, once you get to the lower limit, you're hitting a brick wall.
And who dated the soft tissue?
Maybe you need to learn the basics.
NOBODY dated it. Here is the ICR article where they referred to a Swedish study of Mosasaur specimen: http://www.icr.org/article/6084/ . Second paragraph, last line: "One of those analyses was carbon dating". When you go to the Swedish article, see http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1... , and go to the section, go to the "Rationale for excluding fungal growth and animal glue as potential collagen sources" section. The researchers C14 dated the specimen BECAUSE they wanted MODERN organic traces to be detected to distinguish them form the Mosasaur components. They DID NOT try to date the Mosasaur components as such.

The reason for this is because the pertaining specimen had been kept for decades in a Belgium museum. Hence the risk of contamination by modern organic substances like bone glue (used for preservation purposes) and of course bacteria.

Now let's compare the ICR deceit with the real report:
ICR: "The researchers found plenty of C-14 in their mosasaur—enough to calculate "an age of 24,600 BP [years before present]."2 To explain how any C-14 could be present at all after millions of years, the study authors speculated that the C-14 could have come from recent bacteria. But this doesn't fit well with the data, since "no bacterial proteins or hopanoids [cholesterol-like compounds] were detected.""

Original article: "Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex). Two short DNA sequences of possible lagomorph origin were amplified by PCR (together with three human sequences), and consequently it is possible that the outer surface of the bone has been painted with animal glue at some point".

I shall compare again on the crucial parts:

ICR: "The researchers found plenty of C-14"
Article: "the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small"

ICR: "the study authors speculated"
Article: didn't speculate AT ALL

ICR: "since "no bacterial proteins or hopanoids [cholesterol-like compounds] were detected."
Article: "and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex"

Note that the ICR AS ALWAYS uses the old creationist's trick of QUOTE MINING by DELIBERATELY leaving away the unwanted parts.

The C14 found was due to modern bacteria and animal glue as well as human DNA.

I also shall quote another conclusion of the article:
"Additionally, some fiber bundles are partially mineralized (Figure 8), providing convincing evidence for their antiquity". INDEED.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold how creationist's deceit works.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119982 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Feel free to define "kind".
For us to have evolved from bacteria, a change of some kind must have occurred.
But, don't worry, for us in order to bacteria evolving they once evolved into another single celled organism, a eukaryote. That happened after some hundreds of million of years. Because in the deepest layers we only find bacteria. Some hundreds of layers above (hence: younger) we find the first eukaryotes.

Glad we both agree.

A change of some kind indeed had happened. As follows:
1) Eukaryotes contain membrane-bound organelles; bacteria do not.
2) Eukaryotic DNA is circular and is captured in a nucleus; bacterial DNA is linear and concentrated in a nucleoid region with no membrane.
3) Eukaryotic DNA has a complex of histones; bacteria does not.
4) The ribosomes of eukaryotic cells are larger and more complex than those of bacteria.
5) In Eukaryotes, transcription and translation are distinct processes, whereas in bacteria, the two occur simultaneously.
6) Eukaryotic cells comprise multicellular organisms, whereas bacteria are usually single-celled organisms. Although there are also unicellular eukaryotes (protozoa).

The eukaryotes are the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells (bacteria) that joined together in a symbiotic union. We know this because the mitochondria of eukaryote cells (not present in prokaryotes) have their own, separate DNA. The DNA of mitochondria resemble those of bacteria strongly.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119983 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your rate is wrong. It assumes change in only one genome and not in the two genomes.
Dodging, Messianic?
Don't worry, I always will be at your service:

1) the genetic differences between chimps and humans are the sum of the genetic changes in the chimp lineage PLUS those in the human lineage since both species SPLIT up from their common ancestor. This means that the genetic difference between humans and chimps today is equal to the genetic change in the genome of chimps PLUS the genetic change in the genome of humans since the split up.

Hence you are just plainly wrong.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if I am off by a factor of 2, we are still not seeing the amount of change needed to see the difference between a man and a chimp in 6 million years.
Yes you are off by a factor of about 2.
Dodging, Messianic?
Not a problem, just copy&paste my own piece:

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 will produce 30 million point mutations.

3) every newborn human, you included, carries 125-175 mutations in its DNA. This means that 100,000 newborn children add 100,000 X ~150 = 15,000,000 mutations to the human genome. After 1,000 generations, this subpopulation has accumulated 1,000 X 15,000,000 mutations = 15,000,000,000 (point) 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.

Your genome mutation rate is PIECE OF CAKE for evolution.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#119984 Aug 12, 2014
An intervention from above or just pure luck? You decide and show why or why not

A Rocket Was About to Cause the Worst Terror Attack in Israel’s History, But a ‘Miracle’ Happened
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/167229-rocket...

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119985 Aug 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, is this kind of miserable, deplorable posts the only thing you manage to produce.
What a twerp.
If you have nothing of substantial interest to say, annoy anyone else on this forum with your deplorable tattle.
Pointing out your stupidity is very substantial ! Now go and try to figure out the subject on this thread

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119986 Aug 12, 2014
replaytime wrote:
An intervention from above or just pure luck? You decide and show why or why not
A Rocket Was About to Cause the Worst Terror Attack in Israel’s History, But a ‘Miracle’ Happened
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/167229-rocket...
I fail to see the relevance to the current topic.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119987 Aug 12, 2014
replaytime wrote:
An intervention from above or just pure luck? You decide and show why or why not
A Rocket Was About to Cause the Worst Terror Attack in Israel’s History, But a ‘Miracle’ Happened
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/167229-rocket...
Besides, the Japanese have already attributed a 'divine wind'(kamikaze) in the years 1274 & again in 1281.

Perhaps it was the Japanese god showing his/her/its hand!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119988 Aug 12, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Pointing out your stupidity is very substantial ! Now go and try to figure out the subject on this thread
Sure.
<....>
Have looked.
Still a twerp having nothing of substantial interest to say.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119989 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
messianic114 wrote:
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.
.
You answered
You do realize that you cannot carbon date a fossil as the organic material is long gone being replace by minerals, right?
ound soft tissue of dinosaurs, so we can C14 date them.
.
Maybe you need to upgrade your science.

LOL.

You have not read any of the articles.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119990 Aug 12, 2014
replaytime wrote:
An intervention from above or just pure luck? You decide and show why or why not
A Rocket Was About to Cause the Worst Terror Attack in Israel’s History, But a ‘Miracle’ Happened
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/167229-rocket...

It was a miracle that the interceptors missed. God must be on the terrorists side.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119991 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

Um.... hey stupid, you just received the answer to your questions and don't seem to understand that.

WOW! How do people get this dumb?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119992 Aug 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is a complex collection of interacting chemical reactions. What is the difficulty with the universe 'creating' that?
If that's what you choose to believe, no problem, there's zero evidence mind you,...I see you still believe in the life is a cake mix theory,...mix the proper ingredients , pop it in the oven and presto! You might what to update your information, many astrophysicists and astrobiologists are rejecting this outdated notion and have admitted when it comes to creating life, there isn't any agreement on how to approach the problem.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119993 Aug 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I explained why you were deliberately presenting loaded questions.
<quoted text>
Radioactive decay.
<quoted text>
Of course we deal with cause and effect. However cause and effect can be rendered redundant at the quantum level.
<quoted text>
That must be why you always dodge what we say then.(shrug)
By the way, the theory of evolution doesn't rely on abiogenesis. And has long been demonstrated. You can stick all the invisible Jewmagic you like into abiogenesis or the start of the universe. Evolution still remains unrefuted. Which is all we have to worry about around here.
Where did radioactivity come from?.......what caused it?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119994 Aug 12, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that the context of "creation" is clearly implied when pitted against evolution as an alternative as per the title of the thread. Evolution does not and never did pretend to explain the origin of the universe, or the earth, or even the first life for that matter. The theory posits a specific process that explains how life, once present, could change, develop, and diversify.
So obviously, its being contrasted with creationism as an explanation for these things, not for the origin of the universe. Evolution as a theory is not concerned at all whether God created the universe, and is perfectly compatible with God as a hypothesis. Its NOT compatible with literal biblical creationism, so that is obviously the relevant contrast here.
You couldn't be more wrong , the entirety of this debate is a God created universe with life, versus a universe that came into being on its own and created life on its own. Hell you've read these posts, Its nihilism vs those who believe in a God, that is the real debate here.

Now ,..do you believe that the universe came into existence , say the way polymath says,...uncaused,.and then created life on its own. or do you believe that the universe had a creator that caused it to come into existence and created life?
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#119995 Aug 12, 2014
replaytime wrote:
An intervention from above or just pure luck? You decide and show why or why not
A Rocket Was About to Cause the Worst Terror Attack in Israel’s History, But a ‘Miracle’ Happened
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/167229-rocket...
Nice story, I like it.
BTW I don't know where the website is from, but noticed the same semi-pretty Asian girl with the big tiddies on there. Same girl as here on topix ads at top or side of page.
...Actually yes, cool website.
Very center-left progressive !

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#119996 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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)
The ability to swim, Hey I could explain it to you , but If poly fails in explaining it to you.
Then you're beyond explaining to.
I will not even try because.....


“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#119997 Aug 12, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did radioactivity come from?.......what caused it?
The decay of matter?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#119998 Aug 12, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't be more wrong , the entirety of this debate is a God created universe with life, versus a universe that came into being on its own and created life on its own. Hell you've read these posts, Its nihilism vs those who believe in a God, that is the real debate here.
Now ,..do you believe that the universe came into existence , say the way polymath says,...uncaused,.and then created life on its own. or do you believe that the universe had a creator that caused it to come into existence and created life?
still not one teensy weensy shred of proof suggesting that creator you took from the religious cults and incorporated into your worldview...not one shred...

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119999 Aug 12, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... hey stupid, you just received the answer to your questions and don't seem to understand that.
WOW! How do people get this dumb?
It must be an art.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#120000 Aug 12, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides, the Japanese have already attributed a 'divine wind'(kamikaze) in the years 1274 & again in 1281.
Perhaps it was the Japanese god showing his/her/its hand!
Godzilla?

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
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 2 min eleanorigby 7,134
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 7 min ilovedesigirls 7,400
Same Letter Sentence Game (Feb '15) 33 min Rachel 68
True False Game (Jun '11) 35 min SweLL GirL 12,368
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 43 min SweLL GirL 2,933
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 44 min SweLL GirL 7,642
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 57 min Sublime1 32,397
2words into 2new words (May '12) 1 hr Sharlene45 2,149
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr River Tam 192,708
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 10 hr A Typical 56,717
More from around the web