Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222271 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

#120489 Aug 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ask dishonest questions?
We can say the same regarding all the data presented to you on God or Jesus.
NO, NOT AT ALL, because God or Jesus were not HIS claims but YOURS.
So you CANNOT say the same.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120490 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who to believe
Coppedge?
or an internet troll,...called the earth clod?.........
You REALLY have NOTHING to say, isn't it?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120491 Aug 20, 2014
Bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Life exists ergo,...God made it
Do you have any evidence for that?
At least WE do have much evidence for abiogenesis, as pointed out to you - on which you didn't manage to produce ONE substantially sensible response until now.

Pertaining your next, predictable response:
"on which you didn't manage to produce ONE substantially sensible response until again".
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120492 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
......as I said,...you dismiss the math
Ah, EXPLAIN.
Let's see WHO understands the math here.

Prediction: this question will NOT be answered, NO mathematical explanation will follow.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120493 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
When 40% of the Americans think that Noah's flood really happened, hilbilly or not, they are indeed morons.
If 90% of the populations think that, they all are morons.
BTW, 90% of the Arabic Islamic population indeed believes Noah's deluge, as it also is the Qu'ran.
.
How do you explain this as we are supposed to be evolving into a more complex form?
.
You anti-theists are doing a poor job of convincing the US public you're right? With all your intelligence, one would think you could do a better job.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120494 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Aliens is no more a dodge than saying God didn't need an origin. There's very little difference between the two really, since God is an alien anyway.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Yet the evidence demonstrates zero life prior to 3.5 billion years ago. So obviously your assertion is incorrect until you can provide evidence to the contrary.
<quoted text>
I don't worry about trying to change the mind of fundies, they're immune to evidence anyway.
<quoted text>
And we have correctly pointed out that you are wrong.
So to paraphrase yourself - who to believe? The biochemists actually engaged in research on the subject or a clueless internet troll called Bohart who has to engage in disingenuous tactics to defend his position anyway?
<quoted text>
Wrong. There is a scientific explanation, however it's only a hypothesis and not a fully-fledged scientific theory. So far no better hypothesis has been proposed. We know this since abiogenesis has not been falsified as of yet, plus it has the added benefit of being testable.
<quoted text>
Wrong. The Big Bang is how the universe came into existence. Admittedly current classical physics breaks down as the Big Bang reaches the point of the singularity, however we do have quantum physicists working on the problem. Again, that's the added advantage science has over invisible magic Jews. All you can do is laugh at science any time it admits it doesn't know everything yet then claim that your ignorance is just as good as even established science, as well as hypothetical science. It's not and never has been. But of course as the hypocrite you are, you still take medicine, go to hospital and use a computer.
<quoted text>
Except you're incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction.
This is why no-one pays attention to you.
By the way, the theory of evolution still doesn't rely on abiogenesis. And certainly not the Big Bang. As usual there is no reasonable dispute over its validity.
Denial,...quite predictable
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120495 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You are, I assume now DELIBERATELY, making errors.
.
I did make an error I thought there were only 90 million differences between a man and a chimp, it turns out to be 900 million.(not counting junk DNA) Now If I am incorrect, you need to explain how 30% of 6 billion is not 900 million.
Yes and now you are DELIBERATELY deceiving.
There are no "90 million differences" between chimps and humans there are >>>90 Kb<<< difference in the human and chimp genome SIZE.

The DIFFERENCE between both genomes counts 30 million POINT mutations.

Even after putting everything in CAPITALS you KEEP ON deceiving, deliberately blurring concepts.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
(As every SINGLE human newborn carries 125 - 175 POINT mutations with it, any generation of 100,000 accumulates 100,000 X ~150 = 15,000,000 POINT mutations within its population genome).

It doesn't seem to me that these will all be different mutations. You have calculated that everyone of (100,000) is producing ~150 new mutations per generation. Where is this documented?
No these are not all different mutations because many of them will be doubles. But most of them will be different mutations indeed. POINT mutations.

Documentation (among many many many): http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.ful...
Quote: "The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 10^&#8722;8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."

Shall I do the calculation?
Here we go: if you counted the number of positions - As, Ts, Gs, and Cs - you would have approximately 3.2 billion positions across those 23 chromosomes. As we are diploids, having 2 X 23 chromosomes, we actually have 6.4 billion single places where a mutation can happen (=point mutation). Now ~2.5 10^&#8722;8 = 0,000000025. The number of POINT mutations equals 0,000000025 X 6.4 billion = 160.0 per diploid. The number of 175 from the article derives from the fact that not all sites on the human chromosomes have the exact same mutation rate. I spared you this higher number.

I shall do the calculation in another way.
The current human population counts 7.165 billion people.
Now let's apply the mutation rate again: each of those 7.165 billion people experienced the same mutation rate of 0,000000025 per nucleotide. Hence: 0.000000025 mutations/site/generation * 7,165,000,000 generations = 86 mutations/site. The CURRENT population of humans on earth have accumulated a number of 86 mutations on EACH of the 6.2 billion nucleotide sites on the human genome.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120496 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is zero evidence that that life created itself, all the scientific research , the real evidence not speculation, is against it. Its a faith driven concept,..oh look! sooner or later all these building blocks of life will assemble and then in an unknown process come alive!
2. That is totally a belief!
3. What I want to point out is the idea of self assembling life has no scientific basis whatsoever .
4. As one scientist said who studied the problem,...there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem
5. You can take all the building blocks of life available , put them together, change atmospheres, gases , add lightening, radiation , whatever else you can think of , what do you get ? nothing
5. Here is the problem you people have: there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of life
Also there is no scientific explanation for how the universe came into existence,
I numbered your assertions above.
1. This a plain lie and deceit, as proven by me and Polymath: there is CONSIDERABLE evidence of life generated from abiotic conditions. The pathway is not conclusive but to say there is "zero evidence" is blunt lying.

2. No it isn't, is is a very promising scientific hypothesis with, in all its components, MUCH evidence already provided and for the rest there is not A SINGLE VALID reason to change this course of research. ON THE CONTRARY.

3. yes it has and much research is going on worldwide on it.

4. sure. We don't need consensus on how to approach a problem. That's VERY scientific. The only thing that counts is the end result.

5. that, as Polymath and I tried to explain you, is NOT the way it is done.

6. yes there is. And the empirical evidence for it is already partly there and for the rest on its way.

So, as Dude noted correctly, we have 4 possible explanation for the universe and life:
- God did it
- natural causes
- Aliens did it
- some yet not conceived explanation.

We may exclude the last 2 ones here.

Now what do we have pertaining scientific evidence, that's what you demanded, ISN'T IT?

Hypothesis 1 "God did it":
1 do you have any scientific evidence for a god?
2 do you have any scientific evidence of some intelligence creating it?
-3evidence for intelligent origin of complexness?

Shall I give the answer?
1 nada
2 nothing
3 nope.

Hypothesis 2 "natural causes":
1 we have considerable evidence for the big bang
2 we do have no idea what came before the Planck epoch though
3 we do have already much evidence for several stages in the pathway of life from abiotic conditions.

Now let's compare, what's better: "nada, nothing and nope" or "considerable and much".
I did not include evolution. Because it is not about the origin of the universe or life.
But as creationists tend to muddle everything, I now will add: for evolution theory the evidence is overwhelmingly and decisive to the degree that it is not an doubt in science any more.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120497 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
You anti-theists are doing a poor job of convincing the US public you're right? With all your intelligence, one would think you could do a better job.
My position here is not anti-theistic.
My only position here is to kick religion out of science.and schools.
Because it does not belong there. For religion we have the private homes and churches.

The US public is infested by religion fundamentalism.
The same applies to the Arabic countries where Islam, also a mere fundamentalist religion of the same Abrahamic branch, is infesting the human mind also and thus, as a result, 90% of all Muslims believe that evolution is not true.
Congratulations.

In Europe YEC is virtually non existing. In England the number of people doubting is 26%, the highest number in the EU as far as I know.

I am an European, the discussions like these ones on Topix are merely non existing here as well. When I engaged in these debates lately, I just wrapped my eyes in unbelief. to be honest.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120499 Aug 20, 2014
When will people realize that the issue should not be Evolution VERSUS Creation. One need not negate the other. Each raises a different question. Evolution deals with the issue of how life adapted and changed over time. Creation deals with the question of how life began. It is possible to simultaneously acknowledge both evolution and some sort of "creative" force from which original life began.

Abiogenesis fans, please don't bother using that argument. From the very beginning, living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct. The abiogenesis molecules display no instinct for survival, and therefore cannot be used to show that "life" can arise from inorganic matter.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120500 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial,...quite predictable
You REALLY have NOTHING to say, isn't it?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120502 Aug 20, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
When will people realize that the issue should not be Evolution VERSUS Creation. One need not negate the other. Each raises a different question. Evolution deals with the issue of how life adapted and changed over time. Creation deals with the question of how life began. It is possible to simultaneously acknowledge both evolution and some sort of "creative" force from which original life began.
Abiogenesis fans, please don't bother using that argument. From the very beginning, living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct. The abiogenesis molecules display no instinct for survival, and therefore cannot be used to show that "life" can arise from inorganic matter.
"please don't bother using that argument"

Counter arguments do not exist because you say.?
The Dude

UK

#120503 Aug 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ask dishonest questions?
We can say the same regarding all the data presented to you on God or Jesus.
Except you uh, haven't presented any data.

Heck, even if you were able to give us contemporary evidence of some guy called Jesus who invented a religion called Christianity it still wouldn't be evidence that Jews are magic or that an invisible wizard made the universe.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120504 Aug 20, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>When will people realize that the issue should not be Evolution VERSUS Creation. One need not negate the other. Each raises a different question. Evolution deals with the issue of how life adapted and changed over time. Creation deals with the question of how life began. It is possible to simultaneously acknowledge both evolution and some sort of "creative" force from which original life began.
Explain that to the creationists.
We tried this about a million times.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis fans, please don't bother using that argument. From the very beginning, living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct. The abiogenesis molecules display no instinct for survival, and therefore cannot be used to show that "life" can arise from inorganic matter.
It entirely fails me how the fact that organisms demonstrated a survival instinct from the very beginning would be a problem for abiogenesis.
The Dude

UK

#120505 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
How do you explain this as we are supposed to be evolving into a more complex form?
Wrong.

This was even explained to you last month.

So why are you arguing against a caricature of evolution that requires constant upward progression?
The Dude

UK

#120506 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial,...quite predictable
Yes, your denial is quite predictable. In the meantime have you ever considered refuting my posts by addressing what I say for once?
The Dude

UK

#120508 Aug 20, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
When will people realize that the issue should not be Evolution VERSUS Creation. One need not negate the other. Each raises a different question. Evolution deals with the issue of how life adapted and changed over time. Creation deals with the question of how life began. It is possible to simultaneously acknowledge both evolution and some sort of "creative" force from which original life began.
Abiogenesis fans, please don't bother using that argument. From the very beginning, living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct. The abiogenesis molecules display no instinct for survival, and therefore cannot be used to show that "life" can arise from inorganic matter.
Grass doesn't have much instinct either. That doesn't stop the fact that everything alive today is made of matter that was once inorganic.

Besides, organic chemistry isn't even relevant to creationists either, as they think the definition of life somehow includes magic Jew ghosts.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#120509 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain that to the creationists.
We tried this about a million times.
<quoted text>
It entirely fails me how the fact that organisms demonstrated a survival instinct from the very beginning would be a problem for abiogenesis.
If self replicating molecules were started with a survival instinct , it would entirely negate evolution and selection. This process from simple replication toward true life IS the entire biopoiesis theory. Stated here in simple terms.

The term 'life' in relation to abiogenesis embraces the notion of utilization of energy sources and biochemical self-replication. This requires that an assembly of molecules and macromolecules acquired the ability to convert energy into growth and that informational macromolecules directed self-replication.

The processes that led from inorganic chemicals to the panoply of organic, carbon-based chemicals in primordial cells would have been governed by the non-random physical laws of chemistry, specifically those physical properties related to organic molecules. Since the processes involved would be widespread across the primordial planet, enormous numbers of molecules and macromolecules would have been generated in the first 1 billion years of Earth history. Because modern cells contain only L-amino acids, it is believed that a single primitive cell line, the universal cenancestor is the ancestor of all living cells. According to most theorists, conditions on Earth are no longer suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Unfavorable conditions apply because oxygen is 'toxic' to molecules.

http://biopoiesis.blogspot.com/

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120510 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain that to the creationists.
We tried this about a million times.
<quoted text>
It entirely fails me how the fact that organisms demonstrated a survival instinct from the very beginning would be a problem for abiogenesis.
The results of abiogenesis ask us to accept it as evidence that primordial life emerged from inorganic matter, and not from some godlike entity. One thing we have discovered about living things is that they invariably demonstrate an instinct for survival. In abiogenesis we find molecules that show no such survival instinct. Therefore this does not replicate the beginnings of true organic life.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120511 Aug 20, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
"please don't bother using that argument"
Counter arguments do not exist because you say.?
I would welcome a logical counter-argument in favor of abiogenesis.

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
Poll It's been a good week for Troll removal! (Jun '13) 6 min Goku Black 160
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 21 min BITTERSWEET GOODBYES 11,063
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 25 min BITTERSWEET GOODBYES 33,509
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 27 min BITTERSWEET GOODBYES 17,379
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 29 min BITTERSWEET GOODBYES 8,471
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 39 min T Bone 222,247
Change-one-of-six-letters (Oct '15) 1 hr SweLL GirL 15
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Rosa 25,528
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 5 hr whatimeisit 9,348
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 7 hr Bovenzi13 5,524
More from around the web