Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120158 Aug 15, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
.
Whether you like my differences or not, I will let others judge. The fact still remains you are ignorant of the differences.
.
0 for an anti-theist is a passing grade.
.
Large cranial capacity will not give you the ability to think, look at an elephant, he has large cranial capacity, can he speak, create music, cook food, make clothes, have morals, etc.
.
But if you think there are less than 8 differences between an man and a chimp why would that take 6 million years?
.
Oh my bad, I should ask polymath, he gives intelligent answers, not snide remarks.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#120159 Aug 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.
uhmmm.... uncaused adj: 1) not brought into existence by any cause; spontaneous or natural.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uncaused
wondering

Sunset, TX

#120160 Aug 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.
being you think it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon what would you say the "cause" was that brought those chemicals together to produce the reaction we know as life?.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120161 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be rational, I have a question, according to the abiogenesis believers after the universe caused itself , the first puddle of goo sprang to life, when this biomass decided to crawl onto the land to live , we're their plants and a functioning ecosystem there to sustain it?
If so ,does this mean that plants came to life first from the goo , then evolved into plant eating animals? Were the first plants grass, weeds? or banana trees? Maybe the pond scum changed into apple trees.
.
I'm not that intelligent, I can't get beyond "everything came from nothing". Once I am able to grasp that I can go on to abiogenesis.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120162 Aug 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<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.
Messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
WRONG.
First of all the stratification of fossils in the geological record is NOT an assertion but an OBSERVATION.

Second, I was not talking about "a fossil" but the STRATIFICATION of fossils.
Your answer has no single bearing on the point I made.
You seem not able to understand this VERY SIMPLE thing we OBSERVE.
If there once only were bacteria on earth and the rest of life chronologically follows in the geological record, there is ONLY ONE and SINGLE conclusion to draw: life began single cellular became multi cellular and from that moment became ever more complex.

The determination of the predecessor of some particular fossil species is totally irrelevant and even not necessary. A species to species record would be nice (actually sometimes we are very close to that in some lineages) but not required. The only requirements to be fulfilled are:
1) a gradual change in the phenology from ancestor to descendant on all essential traits
2) enough fossils that show intermediary traits
3) these fossils should lay in the correct time-frame (in between ancestor and descendant)
4) all relevant traits should be represented in the intermediary fossil finds
5) the gradual evolution of each trait should yield better survival chances (because natural selection only passes new genes to the next generation if those genes yield better adaptation. As a matter of fact, natural selection IS the process due to differential survival and reproduction chances).

As follows:
I presented you a post about the evolution of land animals. these show an almost perfect chance in all relevant traits for fish to evolve to land animals:
1. from cartilage fish to bony fish
2. from bony fish to bony fish with both lungs and gills
3. from bony fish with both lungs and gills to bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor
4. from bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor to bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor and the land
5. from bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor and the land to early amphibians with, as you call it, tiny feet who crawled the land but still with lungs and gills and clear signs of still being quite aquatic
6. from early amphibians with, as you call it, tiny feet who crawled the land but still with lungs and gills and clear signs of still being quite aquatic to amphibians with only gills in their infant stage but lungs in their adult state and less aquatic.

Of ALL of these stages we do have the fossil evidence. That fossil evidence is in the chronological correct order. All changes do reflect better survival chances.

I also showed you that descendants of these diverse species are still living today or the examples of divergent evolution in extant species that reflect each of the stages 1 to 5. I even pointed you to the fact that many amphibians even today start their life as fish (like tadpoles) and later metamorphose to land dwelling adults (but often still quite aquatic).

You ALL ignored this and even in your last post you manage to say that we didn't provide much until now. Well we did and ENOUGH to silence you on the particular points - assessed by your lack of answers on them.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120163 Aug 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.
.
I believe what is being disputed is that chemical reactions by themselves cannot bring about life. I was told 40 years ago scientists created life in a lab. Where is that life now?
.
Additionally if "Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon", then why would you think nuclear decay is uncaused?
.
I didn't see you respond to my question about a loss of a neutrino as the cause of nuclear decay.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120164 Aug 15, 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?
Let's take Lenski's long term experiment on E. coli (Wiki it). It is an experiment on E. coli bacteria depriving of their normal diet - glucose - and providing citrate instead. E. coli normally are not capable of metabolising citrate in aerobic conditions.
1) E. coli.
2) the bacterium became larger and gained the ability to grow on citrate in aerobic conditions.
3) the genetic changes involving the larger size needed 59 genes to be altered. The ability to grow on citrate came in 2 steps: first a slight ability to process citrate, followed by a change in iron acquisition that enhanced the ability to process citrate dramatically
4) metabolism is the major factor in classification of species. For instance, the differences between carnivores like lions and hyenas and herbivores like goat and sheep are merely to be traced back to difference in diet. To compare: there are other bacteria that grow on citrate, like Salmonella. But Salmonella is in a different genus than E. coli and a slight 70 million years of evolution separates them. In all respects of bacterium classification Lenki's larger citrate processing bacterium is to be called a different species.
5) see 4.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#120165 Aug 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take Lenski's long term experiment on E. coli (Wiki it). It is an experiment on E. coli bacteria depriving of their normal diet - glucose - and providing citrate instead. E. coli normally are not capable of metabolising citrate in aerobic conditions.
1) E. coli.
2) the bacterium became larger and gained the ability to grow on citrate in aerobic conditions.
3) the genetic changes involving the larger size needed 59 genes to be altered. The ability to grow on citrate came in 2 steps: first a slight ability to process citrate, followed by a change in iron acquisition that enhanced the ability to process citrate dramatically
4) metabolism is the major factor in classification of species. For instance, the differences between carnivores like lions and hyenas and herbivores like goat and sheep are merely to be traced back to difference in diet. To compare: there are other bacteria that grow on citrate, like Salmonella. But Salmonella is in a different genus than E. coli and a slight 70 million years of evolution separates them. In all respects of bacterium classification Lenki's larger citrate processing bacterium is to be called a different species.
5) see 4.
so it became a little different but still stayed e-coli.
kind of like homo-sapiens that were lactose intolerant that became lactose tolerant but still stayed homo-sapiens.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120166 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
so it became a little different but still stayed e-coli.
kind of like homo-sapiens that were lactose intolerant that became lactose tolerant but still stayed homo-sapiens.
"Escherichia coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. Genome sequencing of a large number of isolates of E. coli and related bacteria shows that a taxonomic reclassification would be desirable. However, this has not been done, largely due to its medical importance[21] and E. coli remains one of the most diverse bacterial species: only 20% of the genome is common to all strains.[22]

In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.[23] Similarly, other strains of E. coli (e.g. the K-12 strain commonly used in recombinant DNA work) are sufficiently different that they would merit reclassification."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120167 Aug 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
.
<quoted text>
First of all the stratification of fossils in the geological record is NOT an assertion but an OBSERVATION.
.
Correct, what is asserted is the age.
.
<quoted text>
If there once only were bacteria on earth and the rest of life chronologically follows in the geological record, there is ONLY ONE and SINGLE conclusion to draw: life began single cellular became multi cellular and from that moment became ever more complex.
.
You are asserting an assumption, that there was ONLY bacterial life in the beginning.
.
Lets assume this, a flood buried all life on earth. Would the bacteria die from the flood?
.
<quoted text>
1) a gradual change in the phenology from ancestor to descendant on all essential traits
.
Please explain how phenology applies.
.
<quoted text>
2) enough fossils that show intermediary traits
.
Firstly you don't have enough, secondly this is not proof of descent. thirdly you can claim descent without intermediate forms. Which is what you are doing because there are no intermediate forms between the intermediate forms.
.
<quoted text>
3) these fossils should lay in the correct time-frame (in between ancestor and descendant)
.
I agree but we don't always find this. Plus why is C14 dating rejected at this point?
.
Until the question of the dating is answered the chronology you have given is just an example of the diversity of life.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#120168 Aug 15, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you like my differences or not, I will let others judge.
We DO judge. You;re a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Large cranial capacity will not give you the ability to think, look at an elephant, he has large cranial capacity, can he speak, create music, cook food, make clothes, have morals, etc.
An animal can think without functioning or behaving like a human being.

And elephants are probably more loving and moral than many of us.

http://www.iptv.org/series.cfm/23934/my_wild_...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#120169 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
so it became a little different but still stayed e-coli.
A different SPECIES of e-coli.

There are zillions of different species of bacteria.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120170 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
We been here before, you are such a lying fool ,you still bring up the same old lies.
There is zero evidence life has ever self assembled itself!!!!
To say so is lying for the goo.
Life has never ,ever, ever been shown to come from anything but already existing life, to claim otherwise or to say you know how makes you an idiotic lying S.O.B
I, again, only need to copy my former post, which you *OF COURSE* completely ignored in order to continue your ignorant lies.

I shall repeat your own words:
- "We been here before"
- "you still bring up the same old lies"
- "makes you an idiotic lying S.O.B"

Let's have your claim again:
- "There is zero evidence life has ever self assembled itself!!!!" MIND the claim "zero"

Now, let's that claim "zero":

But to say that there is "zero evidence" is just PLAIN LYING.
Also a notorious trait of creationism. As demonstrated by you by bluntly repeating it.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120171 Aug 15, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.
.
I believe what is being disputed is that chemical reactions by themselves cannot bring about life. I was told 40 years ago scientists created life in a lab. Where is that life now?
As far as I know, no single scientist EVER claimed he could or did create life.

Abiogenesis follow different paths. It follows a two-way approach:

1.(top down) the engineering of existing prokaryote (bacterial) cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life are reached.
2.(bottom up) than we may build up the line of events from the other side to arrive at that point.

There have been numerous experiments done that have showed that:
1) complex organic molecules can emerge from prebiotic environments in varying simulations of early earth conditions
2) already the evidence for several pathways from those basic molecules to macromolecules are demonstrated or at least very promising. Among those are several amino acids (the building blocks of proteins as well as proteins themselves and all nucleotides of RNA, including the phosphate and sugar parts of it
3) the self-replication of RNA in prebiotic conditions with no proteins around and even showing natural selection to occur
4) the emergence of metabolism is also on its way with a bunch of experiments.

Each of those lines 1 - 4 comprise dozens of experiments.
Creationists only refer to the Urey-Miller experiments. That was almost 60 years ago. For everything that happened since they are COMPLETELY ignorant of. It is as if nothing happened in physics after Newton. But we ALL KNOW how creationism works.

Hence: the emergence of (complex) organic molecules is already pretty much understood. The emergence of self-replication is pretty much on its way and major steps have been taken. The next step will be how biological reactions were incorporated behind and contained within cell walls. This research also started and is on its way. The same applies to metabolism.

But these lines are still different building blocks, many of them not complete and even others lacking and neither of them integrated in one construction of the pathway from abiotic to biotic.
NOBODY claimed we already finished the job.

Mind that we do not need to recreate life in the lab to prove for abiogenesis.
Neither as we need to kill the victim again to prove who was the culprit.
Or as we don't need to recreate the atom to understand the physics of it.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#120172 Aug 15, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
A different SPECIES of e-coli.
There are zillions of different species of bacteria.
then for the 5th time asked,,, "what species did he start with and what species did he end up with?"

or if you prefer since you say A different SPECIES of e-coli. "what species of e-coli did he start with and what species of e-coli did he end up with?"

if the two are different species as you say then they should be classified by different names.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120173 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
so it became a little different but still stayed e-coli.
kind of like homo-sapiens that were lactose intolerant that became lactose tolerant but still stayed homo-sapiens.
No it changed a lot (>31 genes) on an essential trait and isn't an E. coli any more according to the standards of bacterial classification. It is like a carnivore which became a herbivore. Like the Panda bear who became exclusively a herbivore, still is within the Ursidae (bear) family but a separate species. The other bears are omnivores except the polar bear, which is a carnivore.
Panda bear became panda bear because it became trapped in a habitat where eating bamboo was the only strategy left for survival. It has to eat all day because its intestines are still pretty omnivore-like.
Or, in your example, it is like humans starting to eat only vegetables (and no bans or soya or other protein rich plants.

I guess you know that a complete other diet is something different than intolerance against one nutrition component.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120174 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
then for the 5th time asked,,, "what species did he start with and what species did he end up with?"
or if you prefer since you say A different SPECIES of e-coli. "what species of e-coli did he start with and what species of e-coli did he end up with?"
if the two are different species as you say then they should be classified by different names.
He started with E. coli and ended with a bacterium that according to all standards of bacterial phylogenetic classification isn't a E. coli species any more. He gave it no new name though.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120176 Aug 15, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I'm not that intelligent, I can't get beyond "everything came from nothing". Once I am able to grasp that I can go on to abiogenesis.
There are several things WRONG with this.
And terribly wrong.

In the first place, how was it called again?- God created the universe and life from ......????
Yes, from WHAT precisely?
Many theologians even insist on a creation out of nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_ex_nihi... .

Of course I don't your position on it but until you manage to explain where god took all the stuff from when he created the universe and life, I hold YOU as the one who asserts that "everything came from nothing".

Apparently you are perfectly able to get beyond "everything came from nothing".

Abiogenesis tells that life emerged from abiotic conditions through biochemistry.
That is about EVERYTHING BUT "nothing".

If you require that life came from something different than "nothing" you better start to read into abiogenesis.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#120177 Aug 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
He started with E. coli and ended with a bacterium that according to all standards of bacterial phylogenetic classification isn't a E. coli species any more. He gave it no new name though.
"E. coli and ended with a bacterium that according to all standards of bacterial phylogenetic classification isn't a E. coli species any more"

saying this 1000 times will not change the fact that is is still classified as e-coli. in science when certain changes are seen or certain changes develop they re-classify them. so one has to wonder why they have not done this to his e-coli yet.

fact is it is still just e-coli
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#120178 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
fact is it is still just e-coli
Yup. And the fact is that you're still a moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli

"Escherichia coli (commonly abbreviated E. coli) is a Gram-negative, facultatively anaerobic, rod-shaped bacterium of the genus Escherichia that is commonly found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded organisms (endotherms)."

Of the GENUS Escherichia

The 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

In other words, E-COli is the name of an ENTIRE GENUS of different, separate species.

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) 6 min SLY WEST 147,636
(Non Computer) Mouse issues HELP!! 1 hr SLY WEST 42
Things Not To Say In Bed (Oct '11) 1 hr -Lea- 2,659
Top Deal Breakers in Relationships (Feb '13) 1 hr SLY WEST 835
I Like..... (Mar '14) 1 hr SLY WEST 376
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 2 hr Crazy Jae 1,418
Offbeat Happy Thread (Aug '12) 2 hr CJ Rocker 161
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr -Lea- 21,356
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 4 hr Princess Hey 6,370
Woman Held in Jail for Weeks Over SpaghettiOs 5 hr NOM s Waffle House 9
Official: Oklahoma beheading suspect a bit 'weird' 7 hr Streetrunner 33

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE