Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201752 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

#120694 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It is interesting that you mentioned the source that even we Christians conclude is the most unreliable.
Is it that you know of no other sources or that the unreliable one will suit your disposition?
<quoted text>
So what if he actually said and did those things; would it prove that he is the son of God?
What if he NEVER said nor did any of those things; would it prove that he is not the son of God?
Note again how you are avoiding presenting evidence to back yourself up and constantly providing "what ifs". That is why no-one has to take your claims seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120695 Aug 22, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. But that does not change the language of England, which is English and the Anglican church, known as the church of England.
Gee, thanks Chuck. But I thought you would have noticed by now that I didn't care about that particular subject.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120696 Aug 22, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually eye color is determined by more than one gene and the presence or absence of specific genes determine eye color. A few years back a study supported that the pure strain of blue eyes first appeared in Northern Europe about 10,000 years ago and every person alive today with pure blue eyes shows that specific gene sequence. People of other eye colors, including blue with brown flecks, show a different set of genes.
Actually there is a relatively small group of people who eye color is more toward violet than blue. If they start reproducing amongst themselves, you might very well see the allele frequency within the human population showing more and more violet eyes. I'm not aware of any genetic studies done on those folks, it might be interesting to study their DNA.
Another change you might do a little homework on is the ability to digest milk. Again, Northern European area allele frequency change. Some folks cannot digest milk past a certain age, but think of a survival advantage milk digestion in a cold region of the world with a limited growing season might offer.
You inability to accept evolution being true has nothing to do with it being true. Science works whether you believe in it or not. Can't say the same for religion. If you disagree go ask Odin or Zues :-)
.
Some nice facts, but does this address the assertions that gene frequency can change without any new information being added to the genome?
.
Does this address the major issue which is can the genome change enough to add a new structure?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120697 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Some nice facts, but does this address the assertions that gene frequency can change without any new information being added to the genome?
.
Does this address the major issue which is can the genome change enough to add a new structure?
Well that's the thing, ain't it?

If it can't then please present evidence of a cactus with identical DNA to a cat. Please present evidence of a Walrus with identical DNA to a goldfish. If you can't do anything like this and it turns out that similar genomes produce similar structures (such as humans and chimps) while different genomes produce different structures (such as cacti and cats) then I'd say it's not unreasonable to point out that different genomes produce different structures.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120698 Aug 22, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably not.
Nooooo, of course not.
They are not interested in evidence.
They not even know what it is: they think that if something is in the bible, it's evidence.
That is alien to their way of thinking.

This will happen:
C: "there is a gap in the fossil record"
E: "here's a intermediate fossil, look"
C: "there are two gaps in the fossil record"
E: "look, here's another one"
C: "there are 3 gaps in the fossil record"
....

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120700 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Some nice facts, but does this address the assertions that gene frequency can change without any new information being added to the genome?
.
Does this address the major issue which is can the genome change enough to add a new structure?
Actually, yes it did. You might do more of your own homework rather than raise questions that were already answered. Reference either the work on the pure blue eyes or milk digestion. When you add in the changes in allele frequency witnessed by the increase in the human population with pure blue eyes and those that can comfortably digest milk, you will see evolution in action.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120701 Aug 22, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, yes it did. You might do more of your own homework rather than raise questions that were already answered. Reference either the work on the pure blue eyes or milk digestion. When you add in the changes in allele frequency witnessed by the increase in the human population with pure blue eyes and those that can comfortably digest milk, you will see evolution in action.
.
This is a forum where questions can be re-raised and re-answered. You can choose to participate or not. You have not answered, You had the chance to answer if a new structure is formed. This you dodged. You also didn't plainly answer if killing all non-blue eyed people is a change in the gene or just a change in the frequency of the gene for non-blue eyes.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120702 Aug 22, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you just wrote down the same you said in your previous post in just other words.
Apparently, the macromolecules that were on the brink of life were not living.
Now how do we define life in biology?
1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state;
2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life;
3. Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism);
4. Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism;
5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment;
6. Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms;
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms.
Note that "instinct for survival" or "self-preservation" is not in the list.
Bacteria or any other single-cellular life and even very primitive multi-cellular life forms do not have instincts. Because they lack the nervous system for that. But bacteria do self-preserve. For instance if they are under attack of antibiotics, they develop resistance. Hence, survival instinct is not a general trait of life, self-preservation though is. Self-preservation is accounted for in trait 5.
But the acquisition of resistance against chemicals is a fully understood mechanism in bacteria. It is pure biochemistry. But biochemistry is nothing more than the behavior of molecules.
Now, in their 2009 experiment, Lincoln and Joyce proved that RNA can self-replicate in abiotic conditions even without proteins around (DNA needs proteins to self-replicate). The interesting thing they also noticed was that the RNA did not randomly self-replicate: some RNA strands changed (the biologist would say "mutation"), became ever more prevalent and eventually dominated the whole mixture. Is seems that Darwinian natural selection in its primordial form already is a biochemical trait of RNA macromolecules.
But natural selection is the main mechanism after trait 5. And the mechanism that makes bacteria adapt to hazardous chemicals in their environment.
Is it of any interest to you that Darwin himself could offer no explanation for how the first conscious life form came to be?

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#120703 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Is it of any interest to you that Darwin himself could offer no explanation for how the first conscious life form came to be?
It's the ones who claim they know, is what bothers us the most.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120704 Aug 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the ones who claim they know, is what bothers us the most.
The basic argument here is that conscious life can be created without a "creator". All that's needed is the right combination of inorganic matter. Is that any more reasonable than the biblical explanation?

Of course the ultimate question is one that is not answered by the theory of evolution. It is the question of how something can emerge from absolute nothing. If there was a Big Bang, what lit the match?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120705 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Is it of any interest to you that Darwin himself could offer no explanation for how the first conscious life form came to be?
1. have you read Darwin?

No you didn't.
Since WHEN are we entitled to tattle about things we even didn't took the effort to get acquainted to?

2. why don't you ask about 21st century biology?

How fruitful do you think it would be to deny the advancing of modern medicine by asking about the ability of Louis Pasteur to address cancer?

3. do you know what exactly evolution theory is about?

No you don't.
What are you doing here then on this thread?
Are you addressing evolution theory or your own devises?
Are you aware of the fact that addressing your own devises is the same as me addressing the Qu'ran while saying I was addressing the Bible?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120706 Aug 22, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
1. have you read Darwin?
No you didn't.
Since WHEN are we entitled to tattle about things we even didn't took the effort to get acquainted to?
2. why don't you ask about 21st century biology?
How fruitful do you think it would be to deny the advancing of modern medicine by asking about the ability of Louis Pasteur to address cancer?
3. do you know what exactly evolution theory is about?
No you don't.
What are you doing here then on this thread?
Are you addressing evolution theory or your own devises?
Are you aware of the fact that addressing your own devises is the same as me addressing the Qu'ran while saying I was addressing the Bible?
You're an arrogant little putz, aren't you? If you think insulting me masks the fact that you came from the shallow end of the gene pool, run with that.

The point , Your Vacancy, is that since Darwin confessed he didn't know where the first life came from, no one has solved that mystery. Unlike your silly Louis Pasteur example, Darwin's puzzlement was not a precursor to greater knowledge. Any attempts to solve the mystery of the original life, including abiogenesis, are only fools gold.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#120707 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The basic argument here is that conscious life can be created without a "creator". All that's needed is the right combination of inorganic matter. Is that any more reasonable than the biblical explanation?
Of course the ultimate question is one that is not answered by the theory of evolution. It is the question of how something can emerge from absolute nothing. If there was a Big Bang, what lit the match?
Some questions just cannot be answered, but as yet we have found no reason to believe there was any reason why the universe and life exist. We can only arrive at two possible conclusions that natural origin by chance is the reason, by using evidence alone
or we can believe that if there is/were a creator,
If you choose to believe creation .......the creator hid itself so very cleverly and it did not want to be discovered. In quantum mechanics and in physics the conclusion for unanswerable questions are decided that " anything that can happen, will happen, if it does not break physical laws and is given enough time, it will happen"
This also includes "murphys law" , in that if anything can go wrong it will go wrong.
So with that said, if anything can go right, it will also go right.
This is what we observe, that by chance is true. Things are just a fortuitous as they are cursed.

Just know if you choose to believe there maybe a creator, it's only a belief that you have choosen and by choosing to believe , one way or the other, you have 50% odds of being right at best. Because there is nothing you can use to support the contention one way or the other.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120708 Aug 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Some questions just cannot be answered, but as yet we have found no reason to believe there was any reason why the universe and life exist. We can only arrive at two possible conclusions that natural origin by chance is the reason, by using evidence alone
or we can believe that if there is/were a creator,
If you choose to believe creation .......the creator hid itself so very cleverly and it did not want to be discovered. In quantum mechanics and in physics the conclusion for unanswerable questions are decided that " anything that can happen, will happen, if it does not break physical laws and is given enough time, it will happen"
This also includes "murphys law" , in that if anything can go wrong it will go wrong.
So with that said, if anything can go right, it will also go right.
This is what we observe, that by chance is true. Things are just a fortuitous as they are cursed.
Just know if you choose to believe there maybe a creator, it's only a belief that you have choosen and by choosing to believe , one way or the other, you have 50% odds of being right at best. Because there is nothing you can use to support the contention one way or the other.
I neither support nor reject the notion of a creator.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#120709 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You're an arrogant little putz, aren't you? If you think insulting me masks the fact that you came from the shallow end of the gene pool, run with that.
The point , Your Vacancy, is that since Darwin confessed he didn't know where the first life came from, no one has solved that mystery. Unlike your silly Louis Pasteur example, Darwin's puzzlement was not a precursor to greater knowledge. Any attempts to solve the mystery of the original life, including abiogenesis, are only fools gold.
Darwin didn't know about genetics either or molecular biology. That doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution. As to abiogenesis, we have some hypotheses and are accumulating data.

Science has solved many mysteries despite the "true believers" claims to the contrary.

Abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang are three separate concepts that do not require each other to achieve an explanation for that which they have been formulated to describe and explain. Why is it that so many seem viscously intent on mixing these together?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120710 Aug 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
You asked for a non-Christian source for the existence of Jesus. I know of a number of sources for the existence of Christians, but none other then Josephus for the existence of the person.
Oh.

So what about Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian and the rest; even the ones yet to be discovered?
polymath257 wrote:
...
Since the qualities of a 'son of God' have not been determined, proving *anyone* is not such is impossible.
Oh. I see.
So what is it that will determine when anyone can/will determine the qualities of a 'son of God'?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120711 Aug 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A circular argument does nothing. An axiom is simply the start of the inquiry. If evidence shows the assumption (axiom) to be wrong, it can be dispensed with.
So how do you dispense with a circular argument?

Contemplate this form:

Brooklyn is in the USA: therefore Brooklyn is in the USA.

How do you dispute that or dispense with it; apart from passing it off as a forgone conclusion?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120712 Aug 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
An axiom is simply a starting assumption.
I am saying to you that a circular argument is both a starting point and an ending point.
polymath257 wrote:
A circular argument attempts to prove a point by using the point itself.
It MUST necessarily be so for any point that is REAL.

The reason is that whatever is real must be what it is by itself... the influences which produce the sound of a falling tree, are still effective even when you do not see nor hear the tree fall.

The first starting assumption regarding anything MUST be that the this IS what is it because it is what it is...

For if it is not what it is; what else can it be?
polymath257 wrote:
Axioms are necessary to begin a discussion.
It may be argued so.
polymath257 wrote:
Circular arguments are useless since even a false proposition proves itself. p=>p
There is no such thing as a factual nor false proposition.

Either a thing is a) fact b) falsehood c) a proposition.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120713 Aug 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Does calling it "daytime" when the sun is shining brightly outside require proof?
It depends on if you decide to label the shining of the sun brightly outside "daytime".

It also or then depends on whether you are outside or inside (a cave for example).

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120714 Aug 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Either it exists or it doesn't. BUT nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility until we have conclusive evidence.
Either heads or tails, but nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility (of head) until the coin is tossed and lands...
The Dude wrote:
...an agnostic position is ... in fact THE most rational position to take.
Tail is the most rational position to take?

Why?

How?
The Dude wrote:
You can't provide that.
If I provided it would you indeed accept it?

Tell me what you are looking for as evidence; for while you reject what I offer as evidence, you must have knowledge of the subject so that you can justify you rejection.

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
Favorite lines from a song (Mar '08) 2 min 7th grade 3,648
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 min More like 58,215
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 2 min Princess Hey 146,099
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 2 min Princess Hey 82,387
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 3 min Princess Hey 11,777
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 4 min Princess Hey 3,547
2words into 2new words (May '12) 6 min Princess Hey 2,941
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 22 min ceemee2 18,521
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Camilla 194,702
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Spirit67_ 7,893
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 5 hr Lucy the Worst 8,538
More from around the web