Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120102 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Why is it scientists say that a man and a chimp came from a common ancestor 6 million years ago (400,000 generations) requiring possibly 90 million changes in the genome and in approx. 4 million generations of bacteria we seen hardly any change?
.
Am I incorrect in THINKING there should have been more of a change? We haven't seen a transition in approx. 4 million generations. How am I supposed to believe given this rate of change that 3.5 billion years is enough for a bacterium to evolve into all life on earth. If we can agree that the changes in the bacterium are 100 in the 150 years then how long would it take to reach just the 90 million differences between a man and a chimp?
Ninety million differences between a human and a chimp? Name eight.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120103 Aug 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bub, let's face it, you don't reall have the ability to tell right from wrong.
<quoted text>
You mean beyond religion being a socio-cultural-political construct? Absolutely no bearing at all whatsoever, as far as can be determined. I mean it WOULD, if you could demonstrate your deity exists. But since you can't the effects of religion are similar to that of astrology (though the latter to a somewhat lesser extent).
<quoted text>
Ah, "self-evident" - the last vestige of the fundie who knows he has nothing.
If it really WAS as evident as you claim you would be able to provide evidence. I would say gravity is self-evident, but on the other hand we can provide evidence. Something like evolution however is not so much self-evident, but on the other hand we can still provide evidence. Just like infra-red or microscopic stuff is not self-evident, yet we can provide evidence of that also.
So all you need to do Bo, is present objectively verifiable evidence.
<quoted text>
Or other alternatives are that the universe has a cause which wasn't necessarily intelligent. Or that the universe was uncaused. Which you have no right to have a beef with consider the fact you claim your God was also uncaused. And this is why your arguments are not only totally lacking in evidence, they are stupendously flawed, and rife with hypocrisy. Which is why you constantly resort to dishonesty by avoiding our arguments and beating up straw-men.
The existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the universe. It's not evidence of the universe AND invisible magic Jewish wizards. That is why we reject your logical fallacy of "If not A then it must be B!"
That doesn't mean there's definitely no evidence of a 'god'(whatever that means) or that there cannot ever be any, it's just that you've presented diddly. Feel free to provide something of substance for once. Any time you like.
.
<quoted text>
Or that the universe was uncaused.
.
Can you provide evidence of anything physical that is uncaused?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120104 Aug 14, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Ninety million differences between a human and a chimp? Name eight.
.
You are the one who is supposed to be scientifically literate.
.
1. Cranial capacity
2. Distribution of hair
3. Opposing big toes.
4. Ability to speak
5. Ability to reason at a high level.(This is not so apparent in all humans)
6. Ability to create music.
7. Relative strength.
8. Diet
.
Each one of these traits takes many changes to the genome. Additionally it is not me who has documented the genome differences between man and chimp. Have you bothered to Google this?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120105 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
Firstly, I didn't see you answer this.
Who cares. We never see you answer our posts a million times over. That's because you don't.
messianic114 wrote:
Secondly I answer the same questions over and over so why can't you.
We do. You on the other hand, avoid the same questions over and over.
messianic114 wrote:
Thirdly you evolutionists are contradicting each other.
If so you don't have the intellectual capacity to demonstrate it.
messianic114 wrote:
Fourthly I think this is your way of not answering the objection.
Who cares what you think? You can't think. We KNOW this is your way of not answering, well, anything at all.(shrug)
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120106 Aug 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares. We never see you answer our posts a million times over. That's because you don't.
<quoted text>
We do. You on the other hand, avoid the same questions over and over.
<quoted text>
If so you don't have the intellectual capacity to demonstrate it.
<quoted text>
Who cares what you think? You can't think. We KNOW this is your way of not answering, well, anything at all.(shrug)
.
As far as I can tell it is me asking the questions, are you asking me to answer them too?
.
Can you reference a post where you asked me something?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120107 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Bacteria compose many species but only one kind. We have bacterial cultures in labs all over the world being bred for the purpose of testing. Have we noticed a change in kind to another life form in 150 years? No we haven't. This is observable evidence of lack of change in 4 million generations.
Irrelevant to the fact that quite obviously there has been a change of "kinds" over three and a half billion years,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

and that quite obviously speciation, which is what we're talking about here, does not even REQUIRE a change of domain. And that too has quite obviously been observed and demonstrated via the evidence.
messianic114 wrote:
What planet are you living on?
Earth. The point was common ancestry between humans and chimps, therefore you moved the goalposts all the way down the Linnaean classification system to entire biological domains which does not even address the point. Therefore it still stands.
messianic114 wrote:
But if we could see a change from bacteria to another life form in a measured timespan we could extrapolate how long it would take for man and chimp to descend from a common ancestor. If you could document the number of changes in a bacterium genome over the last 150 years we can extrapolate how long it would take for 90 million changes to occur. So if you could document 150 changes in the bacterium in 150 years, then we might say it can take 90 million years for common descent to be a possibility. We may argue over the details of how long it takes to change but I don't think you are going to be able to document 150 changes.
Darn, I guess that common descent isn't a possibility then. That means no-one can demonstrate that you are related to your parents, despite your minimum difference of 150 changes.

You're not even using terminology correctly, never mind the erroneous assumptions your objections are based on. Once you learn something about the subject then maybe we can take you seriously.
messianic114 wrote:
What do you think this post is about. I am questioning one of the assertions in that post which is the 6 million years of common descent.
And even your questions don't make sense.
messianic114 wrote:
I am saying that we are not seeing the rate of change needed to account for 90 million changes in the genome.
Actually we showed you otherwise last month. And it turned out that my own post contained a wee math error that made me overshoot the mark. That's NOT good news for you.
messianic114 wrote:
Can you document 15 changes per year? Can you document any amount of change per year?
Can you document any humans who are precise clones of their parents, then further demonstrate that this is the norm for the species?
messianic114 wrote:
And I don't mind pointing out you don't have the data to support your position.
And I don't mind pointing out that your claim is erroneous due to the data we've repeatedly presented that you've never addressed.

Don't worry. No other fundie has either.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120108 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Unless Pasteur attributed the spontaneous generation to G-d, then he made a falsification of abiogenesis.
Except I explained otherwise. As always you avoided the points and merely repeated the baseless assertion which we thoroughly refuted.
messianic114 wrote:
No problem for scientists, they just blame it upon ignorance.
And that's what creationists are.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
What are you calling a protocell, something that is not a cell. It would have to predict that a cell would form at some time. Do we have any evidence of this?
Apparently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Collapsedtr...
messianic114 wrote:
Can you explain how life can evolve if abiogensis never happened? Please give evidence for your position.
Life is here. Life evolves. Facts.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.
messianic114 wrote:
By the way G-d can cure you of that nervous tick (shrug) you have.
Placebos tend not to be as effective when the prescribee is aware of the placebo.

However if you were attempting to claim that this entity of yours is a real existing entity, please present objectively verifiable scientific evidence. Be the only person in thousands of years to be able to do this.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120109 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Or that the universe was uncaused.
.
Can you provide evidence of anything physical that is uncaused?
You need to go back and read a bit.

Besides which, I never made the positive assertion that the universe WAS uncaused, and I presented a number of other possible hypotheses, none of which have been confirmed yet. However I understand that won't stop you from attacking our posts in a dishonest manner.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120110 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You are the one who is supposed to be scientifically literate.
.
1. Cranial capacity
2. Distribution of hair
3. Opposing big toes.
4. Ability to speak
5. Ability to reason at a high level.(This is not so apparent in all humans)
6. Ability to create music.
7. Relative strength.
8. Diet
.
Each one of these traits takes many changes to the genome. Additionally it is not me who has documented the genome differences between man and chimp. Have you bothered to Google this?
And creationists certainly have great difficulty with number 5!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#120111 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
As far as I can tell it is me asking the questions, are you asking me to answer them too?
.
Can you reference a post where you asked me something?
Yes.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120112 Aug 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to go back and read a bit.
Besides which, I never made the positive assertion that the universe WAS uncaused, and I presented a number of other possible hypotheses, none of which have been confirmed yet. However I understand that won't stop you from attacking our posts in a dishonest manner.
.
Then I suggest you not make statements which are so easily shown to be without evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120113 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Or that the universe was uncaused.
.
Can you provide evidence of anything physical that is uncaused?
yes, once again, nearly every quantum event is uncaused. For example, the decay of a radioactive nucleus is uncaused: there is nothing that happens just before the decay that is any different than at any other time. No switch is flipped, no timer is set off. And yet, the nucleus decays. it is an uncaused event.

Furthermore, there are some nuclei that can decay in more than one way. For those, there is nothing different between those nuclei that decay by one method from the nuclei that decay by a different method. For such nuclei, the timing and the type of decay is uncaused.

I can go further if you want, but such things are very, very common at the subatomic level.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120114 Aug 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And creationists certainly have great difficulty with number 5!
.
I didn't have a problem showing eight differences. I was stunned that someone who claims to be so scientific and well read gave me such an easy task which I did in minutes without having to resort to Google. I wasn't surprised though he didn't know how many differences in the genome there were.
.
Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why we are nor seeing the rapidity of change required to change from a common ancestor 6 million years ago?
.
You guys claim you are answering, but I don't see any data being presented. What I get is a quote or two (like I am supposed to take that as evidence).
.
Additionally when I question the quote, I don't get data to support the quote. Sometimes I even get bad quoting like in the case where one claimed radiometric dating of the K-pg boundary. If an asteroid hit the earth and we measure the daughter products how does that tell us when the asteroid hit. It could have been flying around for billions of years before it hit.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120115 Aug 14, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, once again, nearly every quantum event is uncaused. For example, the decay of a radioactive nucleus is uncaused: there is nothing that happens just before the decay that is any different than at any other time. No switch is flipped, no timer is set off. And yet, the nucleus decays. it is an uncaused event.
Furthermore, there are some nuclei that can decay in more than one way. For those, there is nothing different between those nuclei that decay by one method from the nuclei that decay by a different method. For such nuclei, the timing and the type of decay is uncaused.
I can go further if you want, but such things are very, very common at the subatomic level.
.
Is nuclear decay associated with a loss of a neutrino? If it is how can you be sure this is not the cause?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120116 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You are the one who is supposed to be scientifically literate.
.
1. Cranial capacity
2. Distribution of hair
3. Opposing big toes.
4. Ability to speak
5. Ability to reason at a high level.(This is not so apparent in all humans)
6. Ability to create music.
7. Relative strength.
8. Diet
.
Each one of these traits takes many changes to the genome. Additionally it is not me who has documented the genome differences between man and chimp. Have you bothered to Google this?
One, four, five and six are the same. Seven is meaningless. Chimps and humans are omnivores.

Opposing large toe, upright gait. Tomatoes, tomatoes.

For a fundie, three is passing grade.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#120117 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bacteria compose many species but only one kind.
GIve us a scientific definition of "kind." Or, stop using the word in a scientific discussion and use accepted taxonomical terminology.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bacteria compose many species but only one kind. We have bacterial cultures in labs all over the world being bred for the purpose of testing. Have we noticed a change in kind to another life form in 150 years? No we haven't..
Again, what do you mean by :change of kind"?

And we certainly have observed bacteria evolving into NEW SPECIES of bacteria, which is all we should expect, since "bacteria' is the name of a DOMAIN, not a SPECIES.

There are 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species (human beings, i.e. homo sapiens, are a species)

Bacteria is the name of one of the broadest possible classifications in biology -- it is one of the three Domains:
Archaea
Bacteria
Eukarya (Eukarya = ALL animals, plants, fungi)

Within their biological Domain of "Bacteria," bacterial species are as different from one another as a dog, a giraffe and an oak tree are different within THEIR Domain of Eukaryotes.

There are ZILLIONS of different species of bacteria, equivalent to (within THEIR domain of Eukaryotes) different species of animals, plants, fungi, etc.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#120118 Aug 14, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying that we are not seeing the rate of change needed to account for 90 million changes in the genome.
And your rate of change" is made-up, unscientific bullshit dreamed up by someone without even a BASIC understanding of the science involved.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120119 Aug 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And creationists certainly have great difficulty with number 5!
Four is a stumbling block for many, as you well know.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#120120 Aug 14, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
And we certainly have observed bacteria evolving into NEW SPECIES of bacteria, which is all we should expect, since "bacteria' is the name of a DOMAIN, not a SPECIES.
1) what species did it start as?
2) what changes happened?
3) how did the changes change it genetically?
4) how did the changes change its classifications?
5) what "new species" did the "starting species" evolve to be?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120121 Aug 14, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1) what species did it start as?
2) what changes happened?
3) how did the changes change it genetically?
4) how did the changes change its classifications?
5) what "new species" did the "starting species" evolve to be?
Since we don't know the precisely the conditions of early life we cannot answer your first question precisely. Tidal pools and hydrothermal vents are good candidates. Magic, not so much. To answer the rest of your questions you should probably invest in a microscope and some Gram stain, perhaps some culture plates.

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
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 4 min -CatCiao- 3,764
Fergson Police Dept. 5 min Hoosier Hillbilly 418
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 6 min No Kidding 7,972
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 7 min -CatCiao- 30,046
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 9 min ladywolfgramm 7,151
ozzie = pie? (Nov '13) 9 min Sure Thing 17
Should a Husband Help His Wife With the Dishes? (Dec '12) 19 min ladywolfgramm 486
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 42 min dragoon70056 2,483
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 50 min ladywolfgramm 150,994
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr -Lea- 23,923
Bill Cosby 2 hr FTW Forever 176

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE