Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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.

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.

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

Sunset, TX

#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

Sunset, TX

#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

United States

#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?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119972 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
I will submit two possibilities:
1. The dating is incorrect.
Sure. All 40 some-odd of them are whacked and all scientists are complete idiots and have no idea what they are talking about. Great point!
messianic114 wrote:
2. There was a recreation about 6,000 years ago.
For which no one can find the slightest sign off.
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 do realize that you cannot carbon date a fossil as the organic material is long gone being replace by minerals, right?

No, I guess not. But don't let any damn facts get in your way.
messianic114 wrote:
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?
Science can. I'm not so sure about you.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119973 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It's just a simple little theory of System Circuits and Patterns, haven't you ever heard of it?
Yeah, it's simple alright.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119974 Aug 12, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
"Kind" is not a scientific term. It;s a Biblical term. So it has no place in a discussion of science.
<quoted text>
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.
.
Feel free to define "kind".
For us to have evolved from bacteria, a change of some kind must have occurred.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119975 Aug 12, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. All 40 some-odd of them are whacked and all scientists are complete idiots and have no idea what they are talking about. Great point!
<quoted text>
For which no one can find the slightest sign off.
<quoted text>
You do realize that you cannot carbon date a fossil as the organic material is long gone being replace by minerals, right?
No, I guess not. But don't let any damn facts get in your way.
<quoted text>
Science can. I'm not so sure about you.
.
<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?
.
We have found soft tissue of dinosaurs, so we can C14 date them.
.
Maybe you need to upgrade your science.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119976 Aug 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
.
<quoted text>
We do see it. It is seen in the development of resistance.
.
This is not evidence that something (a bacteria) can change into something else (like a 4 celled organism)
.
<quoted text>
As an example, height and mean body mass have increased over the last 80-100 years.
.
This is due to health and nutrition, not a change in the genome.
.
<quoted text>
Your rate is wrong. It assumes change in only one genome and not in the two genomes.
.
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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119977 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?
.
We have found soft tissue of dinosaurs, so we can C14 date them.
.
Maybe you need to upgrade your science.
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.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#119978 Aug 12, 2014
New studies have brought to light certain circuits that are pattern generators of the neural circuitry of the nervous system of an organism. They can modulate to.adapt to the organisms needs and surroundings.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119979 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.
No, YOU use the term, so YOU define it, in a scientifically-acceptable manner.

You either cannot, or you won't because you want to be able to continue to play word games.

Hopefully now, at least, you will understand why it's just silly to say, "But it's still just a bacteria."

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119980 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It's just a simple little theory of System Circuits and Patterns, haven't you ever heard of it?
Yes but I was talking about your post, which is wrong according to the biological observations.

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.

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 song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min I Am No One_ 161,783
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 25 min Camilla 10,887
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 27 min Judy 123 8,132
last word - first (Jun '12) 29 min Judy 123 7,705
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 41 min Judy 123 31,832
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 47 min I Am No One_ 895
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 51 min I Am No One_ 816
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Glory Be 40,265
News Baltimore Mom Catches Her Son Rioting, Beats Hi... 2 hr Reality 177
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr -ThatsAllFolks- 28,978
More from around the web