Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197404 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

Wallasey, UK

#121642 Sep 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
various studies show various answers.
- chimpanzees are 90% to 97% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cows are 80% to 86% genetically similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cats have 90% to 92% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice, depending on how it is calculated.
- mice 75% to 79% of genes have equivalents in humans. 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- fruit fly shares about 60% to 62% of its DNA with humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- chickens about 60% to 64% of genes correspond to a similar human genes, depending on how it is calculated.
i think the mouse thing has some significance for many people are dirty little rats. lol
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121643 Sep 3, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
I am God.
This is true because I say so and God can't lie.
I am God.
The above is a circular argument. You may accept it as truth if you wish.
More accurately, a circular argument would take the form of "I am God because/therefore I am God".

Interestingly, there is nothing to deny in such arguments...

The argument may be described as TRUTHFUL; but that is not the same as saying that it is THE TRUTH.

Your assertions become questionable when you begin to state or describe the implications of you being "God".
wondering

Morris, OK

#121644 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.
who says evolution is false? that is always your first cry when you are shown different things. why don't you instead of spewing out insults that are meaningless and crying "show evolution to be false",,,,, just refute what is posted.
1 post removed
wondering

Morris, OK

#121646 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.
you say "stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes",
1) they are not my methods
2) they are science methods
3) if you would quit acting like a programmed robot you could read more up on it yourself.

for my post of similarities:
1) chimpanzees source: http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020730.ht...
2) cat source: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.fu...
3) cow source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/52...
4) mouse source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n69...
5) fruit fly source: http://www.genome.gov/10005835
6) chicken source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/...

as I said various studies produce various answers. there are a few and I am sure if you do web searches you can find more.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121647 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
... preachers don't demonstrate Gods.
And if a real Jesus ever did, the evidence of this was lost 2,000 years ago. Oh well...
Oh.

I see.

So that justifies your failure to accept the fact of his existence?

I wont even bother going into any reasoning with you...

I have been down that road before and the only thing it lead me to is the realization that you are intellectually irredeemable.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121648 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
...False. For instance we have evidence of T-Rex BECAUSE we have contemporary evidence...
What exactly is contemporayry evidenc of T-Rex?

Describe it.

IS there evidence apart from the REMAINS that are left from the PAST lives of T-rex?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121649 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
...But we can at least see a man holding a knife over a dead corpse, which is at least evidence of a man holding a knife that is buried in a corpse...
And with that you could send an innocent man to jail; simply because of the "evidence" you have experienced/witnessed.

The man could in fact have been trying to assist the man who was stabbed prior to his arrival on the scene.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE TRUTH.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121650 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask the fundies.(shrug)
It's them who claim that God could not have used evolution because God is limited by some ancient book that says the Earth is flat.
<quoted text>
Sure. It was called theism.
<quoted text>
Poor analogy. Concrete can be made in many places on the planet. However if you want a genome that looks like 50 percent HOG's Pa and 50 percent HOG's Ma plus between one and two hundred different bases then the only way of doing that if by Ma and Pa... well, you know. We know this because the mechanisms of DNA reproduction are quite well understood by scientists and have been observed ever since its discovery in the 1950's.
But if you can point to a cactus in Africa with DNA that matches your own, or point to another HOG with matching genome that spontaneously appeared in China then we'd be happy to consider the evidence should you present it.
Until then we shall assume that DNA acts like, well, DNA.(shrug)
NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR DISCUSSION i WAS HAVING WITH TED.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121651 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Same applies to you Wonder Woman. Give me a cactus genetically identical to yourself or a twin brother in China that's not related to your parents. After all both these scenarios (and many more besides) are viable if DNA is not an indicator of common ancestry. Stop distorting the different methods of comparing our genomes, give evidence that evolution is false or an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.
science and its finding are in the same line as trucks and their performance, business’s and there performance, hospitals and their performance, electronics and their performance stc. etc.. they all pay someone to analyze them to say they are the best and say they are right and number one. using trucks in this analogy every year we see some company say dodge is best, another company will say ford is best, another company will say chevy is best and yet another company will say toyota is best. they all can not be the best but shell out that $$ and they can be.

if you pay enough to the right experts they will say and back what you want them to. we live in a world where money is the main speaker(greed) and money can buy the best experts to verify (be it honestly or dishonestly) the evidence presented to them as accurate and correct. the highest price buys the best results. those little dude are the facts.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#121652 Sep 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
science and its finding are in the same line as trucks and their performance, business’s and there performance, hospitals and their performance, electronics and their performance stc. etc.. they all pay someone to analyze them to say they are the best and say they are right and number one. using trucks in this analogy every year we see some company say dodge is best, another company will say ford is best, another company will say chevy is best and yet another company will say toyota is best. they all can not be the best but shell out that $$ and they can be.
if you pay enough to the right experts they will say and back what you want them to. we live in a world where money is the main speaker(greed) and money can buy the best experts to verify (be it honestly or dishonestly) the evidence presented to them as accurate and correct. the highest price buys the best results. those little dude are the facts.
The facts are facts. I know Ford has always made a tough truck, because I still have a 1973 F350 Super Camper Special that is still a good truck. This truck came out with Air conditioning, disc front brakes and power steering, and I am just the second owner. It has an 8 track tape player CB AM/FM radio from the seventies as well. The man I bought it from way back in the early eighties said he paid less than $ 4,000 for it new. Real good things last.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121653 Sep 3, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>Where did I admit that? Let's see, Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil between fish and four legged animals. Why would a paleontologist make such a determination? I think you might look at experience and education. The structures match predictions made by evolutionary theory. The dating of the samples also corresponds with evolutionary predictions of when such creatures would have existed. The type of find was predicted and lo and behold, it came true. If the dating of the Tiktaalik put it farther in the past or even closer to modern times, it might have called into question parts of evolutionary theory. But it did not. We've discovered many transitional forms, and so far they all fit pretty nicely within evolutionary theory. One error many Creationist make is assuming Biology stands alone. Biology is well supported by Physics, Chemistry, Paleontology, Geography, and even Climatology, to name a few. You might question one or two fossil finds, and you might even find that as we discover more fossils the exact position in the chain of descent might shift, but that's the strength of science.Because of the physical structures Tiktaalik will remain between fish and 4-legged mammals. The people making those determinations are the ones with the training and experience to make them. Arm-chair Creationists who don't like it need more than their dislike to change it.<quoted text>Because then you would be adding in a factor that has no support. You can conceptualize a common designer all you like, but all it does is complicate the picture because there is no evidence supporting a designer, the evidence only supports common descent. It's like if I make the claim flowers were caused by pixies. Unless I offer actual evidence of pixies, I cannot insert pixies into picture just because I want to believe in them. That's not how science works.
.
.
<quoted text>
It is an assumption to say that the same concept can be automatically be assigned to biological organisms. There is no evidence supporting it where there is much evidence of manufactured goods.

I took this to mean there is no experience of seeing a chain of descent, but if you can show experience (not inference) where one can be certain one organism descended from another I would like to see the evidence.
.
<quoted text>
Why would a paleontologist make such a determination?
.
Let's see.... how about he is looking for a chain of descent and viola.
.
<quoted text>
The dating of the samples also corresponds with evolutionary predictions of when such creatures would have existed.
.
And how was this determined?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121654 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
quoted text>And when you look at a series of years in the life span of a specific car model, you can see the progression quite easily. It's very rare when the changes from one model year to the next as so drastic that you cannot see the old in the new. In fact I can't remember one that different. So based on that criteria, you can certainly use the term evolution to describe a chain of descent for automobiles.
.
Yet even a child can tell you this is a result of intelligent design.
.
<quoted text>The mistake you make is that you used only genetic similarity. There are more studies linking ape to man. In fact the relationship was clear well before genetics, genetic testing was more the cherry on top than an earth-shattering revelation ... well except for Creationists who continue to deny the relationship. Genetically, we are closely related to a number of animals, but when all evidence is taken into account, we are more closely related to modern Chimpanzees than Holsteins.
.
When dealing with evolution, what is more important than genetic similarity? As you stated in your car example similarity in appearance is not that important.
.
Lastly is seems to me that if evolution is as predicted, we wouldn't expect this similarity with the cow.
1967 to 1968 Pontiac GTO. 1967 to 1968 Dogge Charger. 1974 to 1975 Dodge Charger. 1973-1974 Mustang to Mustand II. It goes on and on and on. The GTO and Mustang, the 1953 Corvette, the Ford Thunderbird were very different automobiles at the time of their launches. But cars can still be used as a metaphor for evolution, though they are not evidence of an intelligent designer. Your implication follows the logic that a person can kill so this person must have killed.

What is probably most important are natural selection and biological speciation. Genetic similarity just establishes a relationship and the distance over time between two species. I remember you article, but I will have to read it again, because as I recall you were reading something out of it, that it wasn't really stating. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will look for it and review it again.

The evolution of humans from a common ancestor with other apes has been established by three primary sources of evidence and numerous lesser sources. Paleontology and the evidence of the fossil record. We have fossils that show the development of homonids over the last five million years. Comparative anatomy and physiology between humans and apes. Obviously, we share anatomical and physiological similarities to the other great apes. Finally, molecular biology and chemistry show that even down to the molecular level we share basic biological molecules, some exactly the same. We share some ERV's and lack others. Chromosome #2 in humans is a fusion of two chromosomes still independent chromosomes in other apes.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121655 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
<quoted text>
It is an assumption to say that the same concept can be automatically be assigned to biological organisms. There is no evidence supporting it where there is much evidence of manufactured goods.
I took this to mean there is no experience of seeing a chain of descent, but if you can show experience (not inference) where one can be certain one organism descended from another I would like to see the evidence.
.
<quoted text>
Why would a paleontologist make such a determination?
.
Let's see.... how about he is looking for a chain of descent and viola.
.
<quoted text>
The dating of the samples also corresponds with evolutionary predictions of when such creatures would have existed.
.
And how was this determined?
There is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution. We find ourselves once again at that place where your denial of the evidence does not refute the evidence.

We have discussed speciation that has been observed here before. It has been shown in fish, fruit flies, and plants. That we have not observed this directly in man, does not invalidate the evidence that shows it occurred. You can say it all you like, but the evidence isn't going away because you find the concept distasteful and fear it will harm your religious views. God is still God no matter what we learn about this world.

Evolution doesn't predict when a creature should exist.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121656 Sep 3, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR DISCUSSION i WAS HAVING WITH TED.
Nothing you post is relevant, but that hasn't stopped you.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121657 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
<quoted text>
It is an assumption to say that the same concept can be automatically be assigned to biological organisms. There is no evidence supporting it where there is much evidence of manufactured goods.
I took this to mean there is no experience of seeing a chain of descent, but if you can show experience (not inference) where one can be certain one organism descended from another I would like to see the evidence.
.
<quoted text>
Why would a paleontologist make such a determination?
.
Let's see.... how about he is looking for a chain of descent and viola.
.
<quoted text>
The dating of the samples also corresponds with evolutionary predictions of when such creatures would have existed.
.
And how was this determined?
Ah, I see. You were speaking in relative terms as to whether something is intermediate and exists prior to its descendants based on morphology preserved in the fossil and its age. In that case, I would have to agree that evolution would predict where in line the organism should exist between and earlier and a later species.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121658 Sep 3, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And with that you could send an innocent man to jail; simply because of the "evidence" you have experienced/witnessed.
The man could in fact have been trying to assist the man who was stabbed prior to his arrival on the scene.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE TRUTH.
It is better than the psychotic rambles that you proclaim to be the path to truth. The best that can be achieved by your belief is your being the butt of many jokes. You nailed that, pig.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121659 Sep 3, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
More accurately, a circular argument would take the form of "I am God because/therefore I am God".
Interestingly, there is nothing to deny in such arguments...
The argument may be described as TRUTHFUL; but that is not the same as saying that it is THE TRUTH.
Your assertions become questionable when you begin to state or describe the implications of you being "God".
You are stupid, therefore you are stupid. I might have to reconsider your pointless bullshit. You may have stumbled blindly upon something.

On another note, I still see you are coming across as someone barely in control of themselves. It would surprise me to one day read about how they raided your home and found half eaten people buried beneath your hut and under the outhouse.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121660 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
I took this to mean there is no experience of seeing a chain of descent, but if you can show experience (not inference) where one can be certain one organism descended from another I would like to see the evidence.
Have a child. You might not realize this, but a child would not be a carbon copy of you or your spouse. Approximately 98% of the genes in a child would also be present in you or your spouse. The rest would be what we commonly call mutations. The exact number is an approximate because only a genetic analysis of the three of you would give you a more accurate number. You can be pretty sure that the child was descended from you and your spouse.

Now, if you can, add in your parents and compare with your child and you will see significantly more differences in the second generation than the first. If you are lucky enough to have living grandparents, you can repeat the process and see an even wider divergence. That's evolution in action.

Now while we cannot go back in time and perform such analysis, the evidence supports the chain of descent. We haven't found any evidence of human beings (homo sapien) past about 250,000 years ago, but we have found evidence of hominid apes stretching back to about 8 to 10 million years ago. In fact when the discoveries are examined in a time line, you can see the progression from our earliest ancestors to the modern. Is the chain perfect? No, the rarity of fossils make is challenging to fill in all the blanks. But like any progression, it's not a requirement to have all the blanks filled, but that the evidence you have demonstrates the progression. Are we certain? Not to 100% and with the way science works, as we learn more, the exact position might shift laterally one direction or another. But all the evidence we have supports the common descent without needing to insert a deity into the picture.
Let's see.... how about he is looking for a chain of descent and viola.
You not only seem to not understand science, but you seem to have a distrust of science. One scientists coming to a single conclusion a theory does not make. It requires many scientists working both together and independently over a long period of time. So far no one has found anything that would invalidate common descent. You might look at what happened with Cold Fusion to see how the process works. Not only was it scientists working both independently and in teams, but the findings that support common descent cross national boundaries and span decades, even centuries of time. Are you thinking some sort of conspiracy? Hard to make a case for that
And how was this determined?
You can do your own homework on all of the dating methods. There are a number of methods supported by a wide variety of physics and chemistry.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121661 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Now, the real question. Why can a child identify an object like a car as a manufactured item? It's called experience.
.
I like this answer, what experience do we have that can tell us that Tiktaalik had relatives that were fish and descendants that are amphibians? As you admitted you have none.
.
<quoted text>
Actually we have many documented similarities between many mammals, including cows. Why wouldn't there be? The similarities are part of the the theory of common descent, which is part of the over arching theory of evolution. Seems like the similarities confirm the theories rather than refute them.
.
And why would I not also use these similarities to argue a common designer?
Because you can't show that a designer exists, common or multiples. That has not been done. You can use the evidence however, you like, but using it badly won't help you out.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#121662 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope?
.
Yet you expect me to believe that given enough time a more complex molecule would develop in a primordial soup?
.
<quoted text>
Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
.
If we were to assume that a G-d existed that could speak the universe into existence, don't you think he would have more sense than to be a Santa Claus? If he were everyone would serve him not out of love but out of greed!
We have evidence of chemistry. Even you have that evidence. We know of spontaneous reactions that have created something unexpected, for instance the herbicide 2,4-D spontaneously forming in a reaction of chemical waste at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Yet, you are saying you have trouble believing in chemistry, but can readily accept the existence of a designer you have never, seen, heard, smelled or felt. That you know of only through word of mouth. This doesn't sound like denialism to you?

I believe in God, but I don't live life as if he intended me to be stupid and deny reality.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 min Quirky 868
News Donald Trump rally draws thousands to Albuquerq... 6 min more 9
News Trump's Supreme Court list underscores election... 11 min YourEx 258
News After focus on social issues, Pence facing toug... 28 min Cordwainer Trout 6
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 29 min Agents of Corruption 384,179
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 33 min Dr Guru 214,480
News Dickerson and Colbert talk politics, 2016 campaign 33 min woodtick57 6
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr TeaRump Idiots 1,383,525
News Protesters clash with police outside Trump rall... 1 hr NotSoDivineMsM 308
News House takes action against Confederate flag, a ... 4 hr Ronald 295
More from around the web