Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223384 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

#121710 Sep 4, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
How would the natural rhythms of animals relate to any of this? A human baby heart rate is around 120 beats a minute at rest and a chimpanzees rate is 123 bpm. A full grown humans rate is between 70 and 75 beats per minute and a large dog like the German Shepherds rate is 75 bpm. A pigs is 70 bpm and a cow and a giraffes is 65 bpm.
Huh?
I don't not what you are asking here pertaining the subjects discussed.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121711 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
But everyone knows it is intelligent design.
For cars. Not life. And as I pointed out, the gradual change of cars over time is not what demonstrates intelligent design. A single car would do it. A single life form can't demonstrate evolution.
messianic114 wrote:
I don't follow your logic here.
Or anywhere.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
Potential does not translate to action in every case so how is this logical. This seems to follow the evolutionist viewpoint. A creature can change so it must have changed! Illogical.
Yes, that is illogical. Which is why it's not a claim of evolution.
messianic114 wrote:
As I have stated in the past, we are not seeing the changes needed to verify that man and chimp shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago. I dealt with this in many posts regarding the number of changes needed. If we have a 4% difference (the study I posted cited 30%) then we would need 12 x 10^7 changes in 5 million years. That's 24 changes a year if my math is correct. If we use the 30% study that would be over 168 changes per year. Feel free to use your own numbers, just justify them. What are we seeing as far as change in the human genome per year? Keep in mind these must be inheritable traits.
And we pointed out your math was wrong, just as your science claims are wrong, and your view of reality itself is wrong. We know this as we know that hundreds of thousands are born each day and each of them are born with between one to two hundred mutations each. I think that works out to just a little more than 24 changes per year. And since the population is increasing instead of decreasing, I'd call those traits inheritable.

But why are you pretending to talk about evidence when evidence doesn't matter to your position?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121712 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
ever heard of traitors?
Bark.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121713 Sep 4, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<
.
<quoted text>
Firstly, could you repost the link to that article again, please, misted it and Topix is not quite user friendly in its search engine.
.
As you have stated Topix is not friendly in this respect and I didn't keep a record of the link as I thought it would be easy to find again. I probably will not find this (due to time/desire factors). For argument we can use 4%. Please tell me how many changes we are talking about if 4% of the human genome has changed? Please spell out the math for me so I can be in agreement with you. Then please show any evidence that this amount of change is occurring. We are talking about a lot of change. I assert that we don't have the time and I have given my reasoning based upon the number of changes required divided by 5 million years. As far as I am concerned the only thing missing is documentation of the change. Since it is your position that this has occurred surely there would be hard data to support this. Is this an unreasonable request for me to ask for a quantified verification?
.
<quoted text>
For that you need to read into the literature, as EVERYBODY is bound to do BEFORE starting to criticize things. The ONLY things going on here is that we need to EDUCATE you ALL THE TIME on biology.
.
Yet you don't educate you insult. I made a simple statement. "A fossil cannot tell us what its parent were or what its descendants are. If you can prove descent then prove it. What I see you doing is claiming descent with no proof. Even if you had DNA this wouldn't prove descent because the study I cited showed a greater similarity between man and cow than man and chimp.
.
This brings up an idea. Ted from Ohio made mention of the specie of cow, so he may have the link.
.
<quoted text>
Cars, for instance, do not show nested hierarchy.
.
Hows this for a nested heirarchy
first car was a passenger vehicle, now we have trucks, tractors, farm equipment, sports cars, etc.
.
Again if aliens came to this planet in 2000 years after we are all dead and saw a book on evolution showing a chain of descent and they also found a book on the history of cars (not knowing they were manufactured) could they not reason that these evolved biologically (as they have no way of knowing if they are alive or not)?
.
Lastly this is just an analogy to point out the foolishness of claiming descent based upon similarity.
.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
In the USA 54% of the public affirm evolution and only 31% YEC. 14% are sitting on the fence. 22% out of those 54% evolutionists of those believe in a guided evolution. But still, they are evolutionists.
.
Even if I take this as valid, it still shows you are doing a poor job.
.
<quoted text>
AND you don't answer questions posed to you - despite the fact you are in a public forum. Hence, pertaining "make a rebuttal but none of you did" I would suggest you temper your moral assessments a bit.
.
If I missed your rebuttal, I would be happy to read it, what is the post#?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121714 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should it be a problem? Dutch culture is very close to German culture and the Netherlands belong to the best countries in the world.
You DO realize that you are making a complete fool out of yourself here, I HOPE?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#121715 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
But cars can still be used as a metaphor for evolution, though they are not evidence of an intelligent designer.
.
But everyone knows it is intelligent design.
.
<quoted text>
Your implication follows the logic that a person can kill so this person must have killed.
.
I don't follow your logic here. Potential does not translate to action in every case so how is this logical. This seems to follow the evolutionist viewpoint. A creature can change so it must have changed! Illogical.
.
As I have stated in the past, we are not seeing the changes needed to verify that man and chimp shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago. I dealt with this in many posts regarding the number of changes needed. If we have a 4% difference (the study I posted cited 30%) then we would need 12 x 10^7 changes in 5 million years. That's 24 changes a year if my math is correct. If we use the 30% study that would be over 168 changes per year. Feel free to use your own numbers, just justify them. What are we seeing as far as change in the human genome per year? Keep in mind these must be inheritable traits.
The next time two cars have a brand new baby car together, you will make sense.
Until then...gobbledygook.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121717 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
But cars can still be used as a metaphor for evolution, though they are not evidence of an intelligent designer.
Analogies, metaphors are literary devices designed to convey meaning. They are not carbon copies of replications of other ideas. Many things evolve, manufactured good through a manufacturing process that is intelligent ... well mostly (Edsel? Mustang II?). Biological organisms through a number of processes including a number that are not driven by intelligence.
.
But everyone knows it is intelligent design.
Because we can identify the designer, the company responsible, hell we even get warranties from those organizations. My Chevy didn't just appear in my driveway, Chevrolet, a division of General Motors built it. For a long time I could have driven a couple of miles and see the factory casting certain parts and another one assembling it. WHo is your designer and where can I write him to discuss a warranty issue?
I don't follow your logic here. Potential does not translate to action in every case so how is this logical. This seems to follow the evolutionist viewpoint. A creature can change so it must have changed! Illogical.
No, the evidence shows that biological organisms HAVE changed. If you don't like fossils, look at bio-geographical diversity. The question comes in as to how they have changed, what drove the change. In the search for answers, we found that organisms can change without the need for divine intervention. Putting two and two together makes more sense than adding in a new box that says 'And God Does his Magic Here', much more sense.
.
As I have stated in the past, we are not seeing the changes needed to verify that man and chimp shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago. I dealt with this in many posts regarding the number of changes needed. If we have a 4% difference (the study I posted cited 30%) then we would need 12 x 10^7 changes in 5 million years. That's 24 changes a year if my math is correct. If we use the 30% study that would be over 168 changes per year. Feel free to use your own numbers, just justify them. What are we seeing as far as change in the human genome per year? Keep in mind these must be inheritable traits.
Yes, we are seeing. What you are doing is trying to raise the goal posts to an impossible degree. No matter what we discover, you will insist that it's not enough. If we laid out the entire spectrum of knowledge, including all evidence supporting common descent, you would dismiss it out of hand. You might look at your own motivations! As for now, do your own homework, I don't feel like trying to educate you any longer. You can lead a Creationist to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121718 Sep 4, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
ever heard of traitors?
You must have a hell of a lot of them.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/e...
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121719 Sep 4, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
For cars. Not life. And as I pointed out, the gradual change of cars over time is not what demonstrates intelligent design. A single car would do it. A single life form can't demonstrate evolution.
<quoted text>
Or anywhere.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Yes, that is illogical. Which is why it's not a claim of evolution.
<quoted text>
And we pointed out your math was wrong, just as your science claims are wrong, and your view of reality itself is wrong. We know this as we know that hundreds of thousands are born each day and each of them are born with between one to two hundred mutations each. I think that works out to just a little more than 24 changes per year. And since the population is increasing instead of decreasing, I'd call those traits inheritable.
But why are you pretending to talk about evidence when evidence doesn't matter to your position?
.
<quoted text>
And we pointed out your math was wrong,....I think that works out to just a little more than 24 changes per year.
.
It is interesting you claim my math was wrong yet you assert the number (24) I said would be required at the 4% difference? Which is wrong my math or your assertion?

<quoted text>
And we pointed out your math was wrong, just as your science claims are wrong, and your view of reality itself is wrong. We know this as we know that hundreds of thousands are born each day and each of them are born with between one to two hundred mutations each.
.
And where did you cite a study that confirms this? Where is a study which shows that these are new mutations? If we have millions born with 200 mutations each year and the same mutations are showing up again and again, how does this support the change needed to show common descent 5 million years ago? We would need a minimum of 24 new changes each year that are passed down to children. That is based upon the 4% difference I believe, what about a 30% difference? How many changes can you document in the entire history of mankind? At 24 changes per year, what can you correlate to anything that has happened in the last 6000 years? What is your prediction for change in humanity?
.
<quoted text>
why are you pretending to talk about evidence when evidence doesn't matter to your position?
.
Why are you pretending to give evidence when you only give assertions? You can't even keep your assertions straight. You assert my math is wrong then you assert the number I predicted!

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#121720 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
But cars can still be used as a metaphor for evolution, though they are not evidence of an intelligent designer.
.
But everyone knows it is intelligent design.
.
<quoted text>
Your implication follows the logic that a person can kill so this person must have killed.
.
I don't follow your logic here. Potential does not translate to action in every case so how is this logical. This seems to follow the evolutionist viewpoint. A creature can change so it must have changed! Illogical.
.
As I have stated in the past, we are not seeing the changes needed to verify that man and chimp shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago. I dealt with this in many posts regarding the number of changes needed. If we have a 4% difference (the study I posted cited 30%) then we would need 12 x 10^7 changes in 5 million years. That's 24 changes a year if my math is correct. If we use the 30% study that would be over 168 changes per year. Feel free to use your own numbers, just justify them. What are we seeing as far as change in the human genome per year? Keep in mind these must be inheritable traits.
I meant an intelligent designer of life. My mistake for not being clear.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121721 Sep 4, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>Analogies, metaphors are literary devices designed to convey meaning. Many things evolve, manufactured good through a manufacturing process that is intelligent ... well mostly (Edsel? Mustang II?). Biological organisms through a number of processes including a number that are not driven by intelligence. <quoted text>Because we can identify the designer, the company responsible, hell we even get warranties from those organizations. My Chevy didn't just appear in my driveway, Chevrolet, a division of General Motors built it. For a long time I could have driven a couple of miles and see the factory casting certain parts and another one assembling it. WHo is your designer and where can I write him to discuss a warranty issue?<quoted text>No, the evidence shows that biological organisms HAVE changed. If you don't like fossils, look at bio-geographical diversity. The question comes in as to how they have changed, what drove the change. In the search for answers, we found that organisms can change without the need for divine intervention. Putting two and two together makes more sense than adding in a new box that says 'And God Does his Magic Here', much more sense.<quoted text> Yes, we are seeing. What you are doing is trying to raise the goal posts to an impossible degree. No matter what we discover, you will insist that it's not enough. If we laid out the entire spectrum of knowledge, including all evidence supporting common descent, you would dismiss it out of hand. You might look at your own motivations!
.
<quoted text>
Biological organisms through a number of processes including a number that are not driven by intelligence.
.
This is an assertion.
.
<quoted text>
WHo is your designer and where can I write him to discuss a warranty issue?
.
My designer is G-d and if you humble yourself he will discuss anything with you.
.
<quoted text>
In the search for answers, we found that organisms can change without the need for divine intervention.
.
And how did you rule divine intervention out since you already admit you can't find Him?
.
<quoted text>
Putting two and two together makes more sense than adding in a new box that says 'And God Does his Magic Here',
.
I think you are using too much of a generality. I assert G-d created the life we know today. I don't assert that he did not include in the design adaptability. I also don't assert he is directly responsible for every mutation that occurs, although he already knows about it.
.
<quoted text>
What you are doing is trying to raise the goal posts to an impossible degree.
.
I feel the same way from the opposition also. But certainly to ask for documented change in the human genome year by year is not impossible is it?
.
<quoted text>
If we laid out the entire spectrum of knowledge, including all evidence supporting common descent, you would dismiss it out of hand.
.
So far what hard evidence have you provided? What study that one could reasonably conclude that this is the only possible answer? I at least have provided links of studies we can discuss. Additionally there are many scientists far more educated than me who hold the same views, so it is not a matter of education. I hope you realize that.
.
The thread of the genetic difference between man and chimp is a good example. We could have discussed this study and its implications. We could have reasoned if there is truly enough time for a common descent in 5 million years, but I haven't read anything from you or others which wanted to go down this path. If I missed it, I will apologize in advance, just give me the post# and if I see your response (I don't live on Topix as some must to have 30,000+ posts) I will certainly give it the respect it deserves.(I mean that in a positive way). Please don't show me a response that asserted something. Give me evidence, not assertion. Then we can discuss the evidence, we can't discuss an assertion.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#121722 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
But cars can still be used as a metaphor for evolution, though they are not evidence of an intelligent designer.
.
But everyone knows it is intelligent design.
.
<quoted text>
Your implication follows the logic that a person can kill so this person must have killed.
.
I don't follow your logic here. Potential does not translate to action in every case so how is this logical. This seems to follow the evolutionist viewpoint. A creature can change so it must have changed! Illogical.
.
As I have stated in the past, we are not seeing the changes needed to verify that man and chimp shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago. I dealt with this in many posts regarding the number of changes needed. If we have a 4% difference (the study I posted cited 30%) then we would need 12 x 10^7 changes in 5 million years. That's 24 changes a year if my math is correct. If we use the 30% study that would be over 168 changes per year. Feel free to use your own numbers, just justify them. What are we seeing as far as change in the human genome per year? Keep in mind these must be inheritable traits.
Your logic seems to be that if cars are designed by intelligence, then life must have such a designer as well and that is an old argument that has not been shown to be true. Essentially, you are saying if a widget with these attributes has this origin then if a this thingy has similar attributes then it also must have a similar argument. However, as with all analogies the car analogy isn't perfect.

You haven't dealt with it in the sense that you have shown anything that strongly supports your argument. You have just made claims. You, yourself aren't justifying the claims. I have previously stated that you forget that two genomes are changing over time since splitting from each other. Selection pressure on each has varied with different traits being selected for and some being lost. There have been a chromosomal fusion since the last common ancestor. You seem to be hanging your hat on the number of changes, but not all the changes result in traits, they are neutral but are heritable. Something you don't seem to keep in mind.

You have placed a great deal of value in some mean number that really doesn't tell that much and can even be misleading. Mutations occur in humans today around 150 per individual. I don't see why you are so mystified about the point difference between humans and chimpanzees. It certainly doesn't support that there is no difference or the difference didn't occur. The data shows we are different and the estimates show how big that difference is. I will go to one of my favorite examples. The endemic cichlid species of Lake Victoria in Africa number around 400 species that are closely related to each other and less related to cichlid species outside of the lake. 15,000 years ago, the lake was a grassland with a stream running through it. The founding population of cichlids came from one or a few species in the stream. Now there are over 400 in 15,000 years. A very rapid speciation event. There is no set speed on the rate of speciation, nor set changes in each derived species. You don't explain why you think 5 or 6 million years isn't enough time. You just keep repeating it.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121723 Sep 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant an intelligent designer of life. My mistake for not being clear.
.
No problem, we all made mistakes, my point in the cars is we know intelligent design in non-living things when we see it. If we went to Mars and saw a rock formation that was a perfect imitation of the great pyramid, we would know that this was intelligent design, not coincidence.
.
So why can't we see that the diversity and complexity of life and the cosmos is also intelligent design. What experience do we have where things left to themselves go from worse to better? Isn't it the other way around?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#121724 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
And we pointed out your math was wrong,....I think that works out to just a little more than 24 changes per year.
.
It is interesting you claim my math was wrong yet you assert the number (24) I said would be required at the 4% difference? Which is wrong my math or your assertion?
<quoted text>
And we pointed out your math was wrong, just as your science claims are wrong, and your view of reality itself is wrong. We know this as we know that hundreds of thousands are born each day and each of them are born with between one to two hundred mutations each.
.
And where did you cite a study that confirms this? Where is a study which shows that these are new mutations? If we have millions born with 200 mutations each year and the same mutations are showing up again and again, how does this support the change needed to show common descent 5 million years ago? We would need a minimum of 24 new changes each year that are passed down to children. That is based upon the 4% difference I believe, what about a 30% difference? How many changes can you document in the entire history of mankind? At 24 changes per year, what can you correlate to anything that has happened in the last 6000 years? What is your prediction for change in humanity?
.
<quoted text>
why are you pretending to talk about evidence when evidence doesn't matter to your position?
.
Why are you pretending to give evidence when you only give assertions? You can't even keep your assertions straight. You assert my math is wrong then you assert the number I predicted!
Your problem is that you seem to be equating each mutation with some very visible difference in the phenotype. Sometimes it is and results from a single change and sometimes it results from numerous changes and sometimes and more often the changes don't result in a different phenotype at all. They are all still heritable. Some of the differences may also be part of the non-expressing portion of the genome known collectively as the "junk DNA". There are for instance differences in ERV's within the genome between humans and chimpanzees. The presence or absence of specific ERV sequences further supports common decent. We share some from before divergence and have different ones since.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121725 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>

As you have stated Topix is not friendly in this respect and I didn't keep a record of the link as I thought it would be easy to find again. I probably will not find this (due to time/desire factors). For argument we can use 4%. Please tell me how many changes we are talking about if 4% of the human genome has changed? Please spell out the math for me so I can be in agreement with you. Then please show any evidence that this amount of change is occurring. We are talking about a lot of change. I assert that we don't have the time and I have given my reasoning based upon the number of changes required divided by 5 million years. As far as I am concerned the only thing missing is documentation of the change. Since it is your position that this has occurred surely there would be hard data to support this. Is this an unreasonable request for me to ask for a quantified verification?
This has been done by me SEVERAL times to which posts I received NO ANSWER AT ALL. Including calculations and all the relevant sources. The required genetic change in the given time is biologically spoken a PIECE OF CAKE. There are examples of much faster genetic change that are much more extensive.
I sorry, I won't repeat it again.
Look it up again, despite the Topix issues.
You are found to be WRONG on this.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
For that you need to read into the literature, as EVERYBODY is bound to do BEFORE starting to criticize things. The ONLY things going on here is that we need to EDUCATE you ALL THE TIME on biology.

Yet you don't educate you insult. I made a simple statement. "A fossil cannot tell us what its parent were or what its descendants are. If you can prove descent then prove it. What I see you doing is claiming descent with no proof. Even if you had DNA this wouldn't prove descent because the study I cited showed a greater similarity between man and cow than man and chimp.
.
This brings up an idea. Ted from Ohio made mention of the specie of cow, so he may have the link.
The "fossil cannot tell us what its parent were or what its descendants are" thing is ALSO addressed SEVERAL times by me and also Dude as I recall well. It is IRRELEVANT. Nobody has to prove the descendant(s) of a fossil species. It is not necessary and completely irrelevant. These previous posts also were not addressed by you. I neither won't repeat them. You are found to be completely wrong on this.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cars, for instance, do not show nested hierarchy.

Hows this for a nested heirarchy
first car was a passenger vehicle, now we have trucks, tractors, farm equipment, sports cars, etc.

Lastly this is just an analogy to point out the foolishness of claiming descent based upon similarity.
You do not understand the concept of nested hierarchy AT ALL.
Take a book on biology or search online and continue AFTER you know what you are talking about.
Descent is NOT based upon just "similarities" but on nested hierarchy and SEVERAL other lines of evidence that even are not addressed at all until now. Because you just don't know what you tattle about.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if I take this as valid, it still shows you are doing a poor job.
Like the belief in astrology and horoscopes, bronze age mythologies are extremely difficult to eradicate, I admit.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
AND you don't answer questions posed to you - despite the fact you are in a public forum. Hence, pertaining "make a rebuttal but none of you did" I would suggest you temper your moral assessments a bit.

If I missed your rebuttal, I would be happy to read it, what is the post#?
ALL the ones I mentioned above.
And I already made a list BEFORE to remind you about them.
That reminder also was left unaddressed.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121726 Sep 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
.
<quoted text>
Your logic seems to be that if cars are designed by intelligence, then life must have such a designer as well and that is an old argument that has not been shown to be true.
.
I can agree that it has not been shown to be true scientifically. But neither has it been shown to be false scientifically.
.
However, as with all analogies the car analogy isn't perfect.
.
<quoted text>
I agree, its only an analogy and therefore imperfect. It is only to convey a point.
.
<quoted text>
You haven't dealt with it in the sense that you have shown anything that strongly supports your argument. You have just made claims.
.
I agree again. Since my position is one of faith, I cannot prove it scientifically, neither have I attempted to do so. On the other hand you claim to be moved by science, evidence and reason so this is all I can discuss with you. So I am asking for data that we can look at to see if the conclusions are correct and not influenced by anti-theist bias. Is this unreasonable?
.
<quoted text>
I have previously stated that you forget that two genomes are changing over time since splitting from each other. Selection pressure on each has varied with different traits being selected for and some being lost.
.
I don't dispute this, what I am asking is there enough time to have a common ancestor 5 million years ago considering the millions of changes needed?
.
There have been a chromosomal fusion since the last common ancestor.
.
<quoted text>
This is an inference, based upon the idea of common descent. Look if you claim a 96% similarity in the chromosomes, but we have an extra chromosome (in the chimp), isn't it likely (96%) that we could line up segments to find a similarity?
.
<quoted text>
You seem to be hanging your hat on the number of changes, but not all the changes result in traits,
.
Even if you change the discussion to traits, what traits have we documented in the last 6000 years?
We certainly have many traits different from a chimp.
.
<quoted text>
You don't explain why you think 5 or 6 million years isn't enough time. You just keep repeating it.
.
What I keep asking for is what evidence is there that any significant change is happening? If we haven't seen anything in 6000 years (significant enough to warrant a belief we developed an opposing thumb for instance) why would I believe it can happen quickly? In your lake example we still have a fish. For evolution to be true at some point we have to have a non-fish. This has never been observed. You would think that over the last 150 years with millions (or can I say billions) of species, that we would have observed a new "kind" develop. I also gave the example of bacterial reproduction. The number of generations in the last 150 years is staggering, yet we still have a bacterium. No new "kind" has been observed in 1.35 x 10^8 generations.
.
<quoted text>
There is no set speed on the rate of speciation, nor set changes in each derived species.
.
Isn't this an example of moving the goalpost from a slow steady rate of change to what, we don't know? It was the lack of evidence for this slow steady change the fueled PE. Yet we have never observed any PE. Again with millions of species we should expect this to be observed. But all I get from the opposition is the slow steady change for which we will not be able to observe any new "kind". If I argue there is not enough time, use PE, if we say there is no observation of this kind of change what I am given is the slow steady minute changes as evidence. I hope you can see my frustration with dealing with this.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121727 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And where did you cite a study that confirms this? Where is a study which shows that these are new mutations? If we have millions born with 200 mutations each year and the same mutations are showing up again and again, how does this support the change needed to show common descent 5 million years ago? We would need a minimum of 24 new changes each year that are passed down to children. That is based upon the 4% difference I believe, what about a 30% difference? How many changes can you document in the entire history of mankind? At 24 changes per year, what can you correlate to anything that has happened in the last 6000 years? What is your prediction for change in humanity?
.
<quoted text>
why are you pretending to talk about evidence when evidence doesn't matter to your position?
.
Why are you pretending to give evidence when you only give assertions? You can't even keep your assertions straight. You assert my math is wrong then you assert the number I predicted!
The (summarizing) study about the mutation rate in humans has been provided by me to you some weeks ago. You did not answer that. Like all other creationists. you just "forget" about those et voilá, after some weeks, the caboodle start all over again! Hopla! Trick form the magic top hat.

The 30% assertion is found to be wrong and I extensively proved for that.It basically is fraud and distortions by incompetent creationists.

The second question, how mutations accumulate and account PIECE OF CAKE for the genetic difference between, for instance, humans and chimps, has also been addressed extensively. The mechanism how these genetic mutations lead to phenotypical features, has ALSO been addressed. These include gene duplication, genetic innovation and natural selection. The empirical basis of these is extensive and some of them have been pointed out to you as well.

Like in your previous posts on this, you are constantly muddling up concepts and distorting them.
In this case, you jump from POINT mutations (remember "point" also being written in my previous posts in capitals?) to "changes". What do you mean with "changes" all of a sudden? There are no yearly "changes" but POINT mutations in the species' genome.

You calculated 24 each year? 24 OF WHAT? Point mutations? In the complete human genome?

I did the calculation for you. PIECE OF CAKE. Look them up. I did it 3 times if recalling well.

Maybe .... uhhh .... you start to address posts, in order to obtain a sensible debate in the first place?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121728 Sep 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Your problem is that you seem to be equating each mutation with some very visible difference in the phenotype. Sometimes it is and results from a single change and sometimes it results from numerous changes and sometimes and more often the changes don't result in a different phenotype at all. They are all still heritable. Some of the differences may also be part of the non-expressing portion of the genome known collectively as the "junk DNA". There are for instance differences in ERV's within the genome between humans and chimpanzees. The presence or absence of specific ERV sequences further supports common decent. We share some from before divergence and have different ones since.
FYI: I have explained this already twice to him.
Including the junk DNA, the difference between advantageous, disadvantageous and neutral mutations, gene duplications, natural selection, you name it.

He first refuses to address the posts and, of course, after some weeks, he just "forgets".

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121729 Sep 4, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>

This is an assertion.
But one based on the evidence. Biological organisms have evolved, we have seen it in nature and we have seen it in the lab. They evolve through Natural and Artificial Selection, gene transfer, gene flow ... and other mechanisms. Are you denying biolgical organisms do not change and we have not observed the change? You do realize that every piece of food, except for certain minerals, has been genetically altered for centuries? The banana you might have had this morning does not exist in nature, a natural one is pretty much inedible. The beef you might have had for dinner is from cows that have been selectively bred for decades and would have trouble surviving outside of a ranch under human care. Life has evolved and will continue to evolve. The mechanisms that have been observed have no need for divine intervention
My designer is G-d and if you humble yourself he will discuss anything with you.
Why would a supposed omnipotent being require me to humble myself? My idea of a deity is one who doesn't bother with such nonsense. You might read up on Benito Spinoza.
And how did you rule divine intervention out since you already admit you can't find Him?
Easy. I am not the one insisting on divine intervention. Show the evidence, without that, it can be dismissed. The same way we no longer believe rainbows have pots of gold and the position of the stars determine our fates. Lack of evidence.
I think you are using too much of a generality. I assert G-d created the life we know today. I don't assert that he did not include in the design adaptability. I also don't assert he is directly responsible for every mutation that occurs, although he already knows about it.
You can assert what you like, but your lack of evidence makes your assertion speculation and wishful thinking.
I feel the same way from the opposition also. But certainly to ask for documented change in the human genome year by year is not impossible is it?
First of you, you are understating the issue. What exactly do you mean the human genome? There isn't one. There are hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions. The genome is the genetic material that makes up each organism. How are you planning to track that? See what I mean about goal posts.
So far what hard evidence have you provided? What study that one could reasonably conclude that this is the only possible answer? I at least have provided links of studies we can discuss. Additionally there are many scientists far more educated than me who hold the same views, so it is not a matter of education. I hope you realize that.
.
I haven't said it's the only answer, but right now, it's the only answer that has any supporting evidence, in fact it has all the supporting evidence. Time and time again we have aimed you in the direction of evidence. Link to material which you have disregarded. Your goal posts seem to demand an absolute answer and you try and twist reasonable scientific uncertainty into something that it is not. We will never be able to give you the answer you seem to want, because you are incapable of examining it for comprehension. You insist on inserting the actions of a deity, yet you offer nothing to support it and then deny everything else because we won't bow down before your deity. No thanks, your deity is way too limited for my tastes.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121730 Sep 4, 2014
little dude i never once said it makes evolution wrong. messianic114 posted something about cows being genetically closer to humans than chimps or something like that. so I posted links showing the genic similarities of human and several animals. why you went off on a "it doesn't prove evolution wrong rant" i have no clue. maybe you did like the fact that one study shows mice to be 99% genetically similar to humans.

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
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 12 min North Mountain 151,913
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 35 min -Papa-Smurf- 50,480
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 37 min Just Sayin 14,726
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 37 min -Papa-Smurf- 1,996
News Students must ask for toilet paper (Jan '13) 37 min brooke 42
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 38 min -Papa-Smurf- 4,789
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 39 min CJ Rocker 4,216
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 46 min CJ Rocker 231,495
I Like..... (Mar '14) 2 hr Misanthropic Eric 2,128