Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120404 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
I even trust his calculus on that.
And problem is with these anti-abiogenesis assertions is that realistically speaking we don't have enough information about the specifics of the early environments that enabled abiogenesis to occur. So while the numbers the fundies give out may even add up, the numbers aren't valid because we don't know all the variables that were involved, much less know precise numbers that should be assigned TO those variables. Therefore a truly accurate calculation of the odds of abiogenesis can't really be done by anybody.

So, again for Bo's benefit, we'll point out what's happened and the possibilities of how it happened. The chances of life appearing on Earth are 100%. We know that because life is here. There's four potential possible ways for that to have happened:

1 - Natural development of life via already existing processes, the short version we call "abiogenesis".

2 - Goddidit with magic.

3 - Aliens.

4 - An unknown fourth option which nobody has considered since nobody's thought it up yet.

So far however there's only evidence of one of these. And that would be option 1, abiogenesis. For reasons explained to Bo and the rest of the fundies a multitude of times.

By the way, Bohart? The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120405 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Well let's go back to the biblical myth of Noah.
There we read Noah was commanded to gather of each KIND a male and female to board on his ark.
In biology a family is a groups of genera. And each genera consists of one or more, mostly more, species. The family felidae consists of five subfamilies based on phenotypical features: the Felinae, the Pantherinae, the Acinonychinae, the extinct Machairodontinae, and the extinct Proailurinae. In total including 8 genera and 42 extant species and 28 extinct ones.
Now the bible doesn't summarize the precise species Noah took on his ark. Let's assume you are right and the ones he took were kind = "family".
WHICH male and female did he took out of the Felidae family? Two lions? Two domestic cats? Who panthers? Or a Dinofelis male and female (extinct sabre toothed felid)? Who knows.
But, more importantly, how did that one species of cat managed to produce the extinct 26 species of felidae species and 42 extant ones in just 4,500 years? Macro-evolution in a unprecedented fast pace!
THAT is the consequence of your kind = family definition.
And this is what renders all Messy's Young Earth apologetics (dinosaur soft tissue and the like) utterly irrelevant. For if we take his BS at his word for the sake of argument, for those arguments to work they also refute all his bogus flood claims too. Since those arguments don't actually address the evidence or the hypothesis of common ancestry, but rather attempt to pull the rug out from underneath evolution by claiming it hasn't had enough time to occur. Same would apply to creationism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120406 Aug 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And I am talking about life forming on earth. What is stopping new life from forming, and is it being tested?
Life is extinct? When did that happen?

Why do you think you can make a valid argument when you can't even put together a coherent query correctly?

That's just it, isn't it? You're here for the sake of argumentation, right or wrong doesn't make a difference. The Bible "predicted" people would call out your BS and that's what you're here for - your daily martyr whipping.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120407 Aug 19, 2014
messiac114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Now it seems since we have 15,000,000 mutations we should expect that even more change is happening, which we are still not seeing, so even though I disagree with your method of multiplying mutations (which I don't think you can documeny 15 billion mutations, you still ahve a problem because you have increased the rate of change without anything happening.
You REALLY have no f*cking idea what you are talking about, don't you?

Do I really have to explain basic biology to some-one who feels himself entitled to discuss it?

First of all your meanwhile infamous reading capabilities. I wrote:
- the DIFFERENCES between the human and chimp genome are 90 Mb or 30 million single nucleotide differences.

THEN I wrote:
- when a population of 100,000 animals with an average mutations rate of 150 in each newborn procreates for 1000 generations, POTENTIALLY this accumulates to 15 BILLION mutations in the species' genome.

Are these the same?
NO.

Here are your misreadings:
- not 15,000,000 (15 million) mutations but 15 BILLION. 15 million is also LOWER than 30 million, so I just can't make any sense about your post saying "even more change is happening". But 15 billion indeed is more than 30 million, so let's consider it was a typo of you.
- although I purposely put it in capitals, even then it did not manage to catch tour attention: POTENTIAL.

And now I have to explain the very next of basic 101 biology to you. But, frankly speaking, it is getting annoying to constantly address one on the basics of biology which he nonetheless feels entitled to criticize.

When mutations are occurring, most of them will be weeded out by the process of natural selection. The ones that account for differences between two species are those mutations that are fixed in the population's genome. When biologists refer to "fixing into the population's (=species') genome", they mean the number of mutations that were not weeded out by natural selection.

Example: of all conceptions in humans, only 15% result in a life birth. That's TODAY. Today we have medicine to save premature born children. Under pure natural circumstances, this 15% would inevitably be much lower. Now let's go back to the European, medieval parish population administrations. There they registered every birth, marriage and death. Also archaeological excavations of graveyards give a good impression of the average age of death. See http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Fertilit.htm . From those we know the demographic regime of the middle ages. Hence we know that in average only 60% of all children managed to survive 12 years. For the female death rate in the link above (land holding families in England 1276-1300), the chance of surviving the first 9 years of life was less than 50%. MIND that these figures pertain land holding families, the more wealthy part of the population. And wealth always yield higher longevity. Males tend to do worse.

In other words, before a generation reaches its reproductive age (only in reproduction it passes its genes to the next generation), a vast majority of it has died. In uterus or, otherwise, in life. Most of the POTENTIALLY genetic variations, caused by mutations, is gone.

But THAT wasn't my point. My point was that the mutation rate AS SUCH has the potential to change about everything in the genome manifold in just 1000 generations. 90Mb or 30 million point generations in 250,000 generations in 2 lineages? PIECE OF CAKE.
messiac114 wrote:
<quoted text>
"... though I disagree with your method of multiplying mutations ..."
Well, let's see YOUR calculations THEN.
Or, AT LEAST, a proper explanation WHY you don't agree.

You must do MUCH BETTER than this rather irrelevant and poor response.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120408 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
And you prove me right again, I said you believe in the cake mix theory of life, and here you are , chemicals coming together ,..getting mixed the right way.
1. coming together,.. and mixed the right way?.......A.K.A ,... self assembly
You have a interesting belief
Considering that we *are* mixes of chemicals, what is problematic with the 'bake mix' theory? Yes, life is ultimately self-assembling in the right environment. So?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120409 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I gotcha! nothing caused the universe, right, and the uncaused universe caused life..........
That's quite a belief you have there.
Close enough. Life is part of the universe and its causes are part of the universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120410 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You've done it Poly! you answered #5 the chemicals become alive when.....yada,yada,yada?
How come no one else knows the secret of life but you?
or are you just bullshitting,...yep, that's it.
its not observable
its experimented
its not repeatable
etc
etc
etc.
Hey , believe what you want
OK, the chemicals are said to be alive when their internal state is self-sustaining, when the system grows and reproduces. ALL of those are chemical processes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120411 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life! So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
Life is a bunch of chemical reactions. Life has a habit of self-organising due to chemistry. Happens all over the entire planet every single day.

If there's a mechanism for intelligence that we're missing then please tell us what that mechanism is and present evidence of it.
bohart wrote:
complexity is evidence of intelligence
Your claim MIGHT be fine.

So what you need to do now is point out WHY "complexity" is evidence of intelligence. You need to tell us how you're measuring complexity, what the demarcation line is between designed and non-designed, how you were able to determine that line in an objective manner via the scientific method, and what the mechanisms are that are responsible along with evidence of them.

Oh, and while you're at it you need to state exactly what the designer's limits are and how you were able to determine those limits by using the scientific method. For example, why is a deity that creates entire universes as a hobby incapable of designing a biological cell capable of evolution? Though I imagine you might have a little trouble with all this as so far none of you guys have ever been able to demonstrate that such a being even exists in the first place.

Best o' luck to ya.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120412 Aug 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And problem is with these anti-abiogenesis assertions is that realistically speaking we don't have enough information about the specifics of the early environments that enabled abiogenesis to occur. So while the numbers the fundies give out may even add up, the numbers aren't valid because we don't know all the variables that were involved, much less know precise numbers that should be assigned TO those variables. Therefore a truly accurate calculation of the odds of abiogenesis can't really be done by anybody.
So, again for Bo's benefit, we'll point out what's happened and the possibilities of how it happened. The chances of life appearing on Earth are 100%. We know that because life is here. There's four potential possible ways for that to have happened:
1 - Natural development of life via already existing processes, the short version we call "abiogenesis".
2 - Goddidit with magic.
3 - Aliens.
4 - An unknown fourth option which nobody has considered since nobody's thought it up yet.
So far however there's only evidence of one of these. And that would be option 1, abiogenesis. For reasons explained to Bo and the rest of the fundies a multitude of times.
By the way, Bohart? The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
Yes I know and fully agree but his post referred to the probability calculations of proteins occurring out of the "primordial soup" and that's a little bit different than calculating the odds of life as such emerging out of abiotic conditions. The calculus was about a primordial soup containing all the basic elementary compounds needed for proteins to emerge.

But, even within these parameters, STILL about everything was wrong. Apart from the mathematical calculus itself. I assume. I hope. At least.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120413 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
complexity is evidence of intelligence
Actually, it is often simplicity that is evidence of intelligence: smooth lines where nature produces complex ones, perfect squares when nature tends not to produce such. Even out more complex devices have simple lines in them that nature does not make spontaneously. THAT is the evidence for intelligence.

Nature is often, even typically complex, with multiple feedback loops and multiple causes for most events.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120414 Aug 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And I am talking about life forming on earth. What is stopping new life from forming, and is it being tested?
Why do you care what's being tested?

Evidence doesn't matter to your position. Testing doesn't matter to your position.

So how come all you can do is ask dishonest questions.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120415 Aug 19, 2014
In the real world nothing can be made without a plan and in nature these plans are patterns.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120416 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. James Coppedge an expert in statistical probability puts it this way:..the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the 161st power using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began....That's just the beginning!
For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life the probability is 1 in 10 followed by 119, 879 zeros.
When the evolutionists began saying that life arose by chance, math could be used to measure the probabilities of that chance.
of course since it conflicts with their beliefs , they dismiss the math.
yes, I have seen such calculations like that. They are uniformly wrong and for a very simple reason: they assume each step is probabilistically independent from every other step. This is known not to be the case. The way these calculations work is that they multiply a LOT of different probabilities together to get the odds you see. But that means *any* dependence of the different stages is completely ignored. It means that *any* differences in the interactions are completely ignored.

For example, the types of interaction between hydrogen and oxygen atoms is quite different than those between hydrogen and carbon, or between carbon and nitrogen, etc. That simple fact alone means the probabilities are not independent. But it goes much, much further. Any time there is a feedback loop in your system, the probabilities are NOT independent. Any time the probabilities are not independent, the calculation of the end result is MUCH more complicated.

I can set up a simple demonstration of the difference between independent probabilities and what happens in the real world as follows: Write out a string of, say, 150 characters where each character can be one of, say 90 possibilities (upper case, lower case, spaces, punctuation). Then ask how long it would take to find a *specific* string of your choosing.

Well, the probability of finding that one string is 1 in 90^150. If you guessed 100 times each second, it would take much longer than the age of the universe (13 billion years) many times over to find your target string. this is how those making creationist claims work their calculations.

But, suppose instead I randomly take 50 strings, each with 150 characters. I select the 5 that are closest to the target string. Then I have each of those produce 10 'children' by randomly selecting a spot in the string and randomly changing it. That gives 50 children, all chosen 'randomly'.

Now, again, I select the 5 that are closest to the target string and do the same process over again. NOW how long does it take to find the target string? You can do the actual experiment on your computer and it will find your target string in a few minutes.

The point is that in the latter process, the later stages are dependent on the earlier ones. That means the calculation of probabilities by multiplication does not work. Instead a much, much more subtle calculation needs to be done.

In the case of life in the real world, we do not know all of the dependencies to even begin the calculation. ANYONE claiming to do such a calculation is lying or simply ignorant. I think the person you quoted is both.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120417 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life!
Time isn't the cause, bu the chemical reactions take time to occur. They take time to mix. They take time to build up concentrations.
So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
And those chemical reactions take time. At the least, it takes time for the concentrations to build up.
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
All that does is push the question back a stage. Life *still* would arise by chemical means in some environment. And yes, alternative environments are being considered. But given the variety of chemicals and environments on the early Earth, there is still a LOT to investigate right here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120418 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
This not a word game like scrabble,..there are only two possibilities as I've stated, we can say created or it created itself, we can say caused or uncaused
1. requires a creator or a cause
2. requires nothing as a cause or creator
or....
3. duck the question, hide and play semantic word games
Speaking of option three, you ignored my last rather thorough rebuttal of your assertions. Why's that, Bo?
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120421 Aug 19, 2014
Step by step plans must be set forth for anything such as a machine that functions to be made. Intelligence is needed to set up the assembly process in the first place. Machines can be programmed to make other machines, but always according to a pattern that is shown for them to follow. Nature works this way, and things are reproduced from patterns of former things. We could say that life unfolds to be what it is to be following instructions that are shown through patterns.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120422 Aug 19, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So sue me, I was at work then and working from memory. It was SANDSTONE, not Limestone.
.
<quoted text>
Please be so kind as to repost that link. Somehow I feel that you're missing something -- or the link itself is the problem.
.
I couldn't find my original link, but I did find similar data referencing the same 70% similarity.
http://blog.drwile.com/...
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120423 Aug 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, I have seen such calculations like that. They are uniformly wrong and for a very simple reason: they assume each step is probabilistically independent from every other step. This is known not to be the case. The way these calculations work is that they multiply a LOT of different probabilities together to get the odds you see. But that means *any* dependence of the different stages is completely ignored. It means that *any* differences in the interactions are completely ignored.
For example, the types of interaction between hydrogen and oxygen atoms is quite different than those between hydrogen and carbon, or between carbon and nitrogen, etc. That simple fact alone means the probabilities are not independent. But it goes much, much further. Any time there is a feedback loop in your system, the probabilities are NOT independent. Any time the probabilities are not independent, the calculation of the end result is MUCH more complicated.
I can set up a simple demonstration of the difference between independent probabilities and what happens in the real world as follows: Write out a string of, say, 150 characters where each character can be one of, say 90 possibilities (upper case, lower case, spaces, punctuation). Then ask how long it would take to find a *specific* string of your choosing.
Well, the probability of finding that one string is 1 in 90^150. If you guessed 100 times each second, it would take much longer than the age of the universe (13 billion years) many times over to find your target string. this is how those making creationist claims work their calculations.
But, suppose instead I randomly take 50 strings, each with 150 characters. I select the 5 that are closest to the target string. Then I have each of those produce 10 'children' by randomly selecting a spot in the string and randomly changing it. That gives 50 children, all chosen 'randomly'.
Now, again, I select the 5 that are closest to the target string and do the same process over again. NOW how long does it take to find the target string? You can do the actual experiment on your computer and it will find your target string in a few minutes.
The point is that in the latter process, the later stages are dependent on the earlier ones. That means the calculation of probabilities by multiplication does not work. Instead a much, much more subtle calculation needs to be done.
In the case of life in the real world, we do not know all of the dependencies to even begin the calculation. ANYONE claiming to do such a calculation is lying or simply ignorant. I think the person you quoted is both.
.
So what is the probability? Go best case scenario.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120424 Aug 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you care what's being tested?
Evidence doesn't matter to your position. Testing doesn't matter to your position.
So how come all you can do is ask dishonest questions.
.
And why can't you produce the data?
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120425 Aug 19, 2014
Contrary to what evolutionists want the public to believe, the Creationists camp is still in the battle and the guys in the white lab coats on the other side should be getting the flags of surrender ready. I expect this will really make them mad now, but both sides will be heard from unless our freedom of speech is taken from us by the lawless ones on their side.

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
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 41 min wichita-rick 2,578
Phrases that you don't hear very often (Nov '11) 44 min Gunslinger45 930
True False Game (Jun '11) 51 min Gunslinger45 15,734
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 52 min wichita-rick 224,407
Alien Sex is better 59 min Gunslinger45 14
Why did Ozzie say..."Winter is Coming"? (Oct '11) 1 hr Brisbane Bella 18
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 1 hr quilterqueen 7,508
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr quilterqueen 6,425
#Things You DON'T Want To Hear# 1 hr Camilla 220
More from around the web