|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5279 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4438 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Falsification can do either. It can overturn a theory ie: phlogiston or simply modify a theory ie: the Periodic Law.
In the former Oxidation -reduction completely falsified the entire theory. Whereas the discovery of the Proton changed the Periodic Law from periodic function of Atomic weights to Periodic function of Atomic numbers. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2946 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dennis.
dennis780 writes: I love when evolutionists point to antibiotic resistance as evidence of evolutionary change. So do I. -----
dennis780 writes: However, bacteria acquire this information through plasmids, from a process called horizontal gene transfer. Not in this case, they didn’t. The genetic information for quinolone resistance did not exist in this colony prior to this experiment. This was verified by genetic sequencing and by the fact that the founders of the colony were killed by quinolone. Thus, there was nowhere from which this information could have been horizontally transferred. Furthermore, the change in information content was exactly one base pair. Evoking HGT to explain a one-base-pair difference is overkill. Thus, HGT is an absurdly poor explanation for what these researchers observed. -----
dennis780 writes: Mutations can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to evolution. These mutations usually eliminate transport genes, and regulatory control systems. This may be true in some cases, but, in Hallett and Maxwell 1991, the mutation did not affect any transport genes or regulatory genes in any way: the mutation only affected the final protein product.
Here is a link to the abstract of the Hallett and Maxwell 1991 article again: I think you need a subscription (or an institution that has a subscription) to the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy to view the full text, though. If you can get access (e.g. from a local university), I recommend you read it. Edited by Bluejay, : dBCodes problem -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I just wanted to drop in here quick. I find it amusing that evolutionist thinking to check evolution is to compare the fossil record...to the fossil record. That would be amusing if it was remotely true. Back in the real world, the one the rest of us live in, it's still quite amusing that you made up that stupid garbage in your head, and that you're deluded enough to think that it's supported by the passage you quoted, which of course says absolutely nothing of the kind. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
abrown9 Junior Member (Idle past 5202 days) Posts: 8 From: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Sorry Dennis, I don't think you grasped what I was trying to say. Controlled laboratory experiments are exactly that, controlled experiments. Mutations that are selected for in controlled environments will be beneficial for animals in controlled environments, but not necessarily for animals in the wild.
It's virtually impossible to perform an experiment that will imitate ex vitro conditions, so it seems unlikely that a laboratory experiment could produce a mutant optimized to survive and flourish in nature. The only suitable organisms for these kind of experiments are unicellular, viral, or RNA species. If you can find a way to completely mimic natural conditions (or perform an experiment ex vitro), then you have a good career ahead of you. There are untold millions of bacterial species that can act in synergistic or antagonistic manners towards the species you wish to study. To fully account for all of the variables is impossible. What these experiments do demonstrate, however, is the fact that EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE. Just because it is observed in a lab does not make it any less real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
First, let me implore you to learn to use the quote tags, as this would make your posts look slightly less like gibberish.
"And your secret method of measuring information is?" mentioned above. No it isn't. Try again. We want a method where you put in a string of bases (A, G, C, T) and get out a number which is the quantity of information.
There are more examples if you want them. All of these genetic changes are a result of genetic loss. ... which you are unable to define.
"And the information in the gene pool has increased." Reference please. I'm not debating your opinions. I thought you had already admitted that. Really, you want a reference to show that more information is required to describe wolves and poodles and dalmatians and Old English sheepdogs and dachshunds than is required to describe wolves alone?
So evolution selects with some sort of intelligence certain aspects of an organism to benefit it? No.
I was under the impression that eovlution was random selection...in fact, I'm sure of it. And you are rather comically wrong.
This experiment represents natural evolution. If selection is required by a higher power for evolution of advantageous genes to come about, then doesn't that require a 'God' of some kind? If that meant anything, it would be wrong. The words all mean something, but the entire sentence doesn't. Sometimes listening to a creationist try to talk about biology is like listening to someone trying to talk about sports and saying "The third baseman scored a touchdown, so the quarterback awarded a slam-dunk." It's not just wrong, it's meaningless, in that it conveys no picture of events to anyone who understands the terms being used.
"A creationist saying something is, if anything, evidence that it isn't true." This is an opinion. Not a fact. In this case, it's both. I have long experience of reading creationist literature.
Since evolution is random, and so was the majority of this experiment, isn't this a perfect documented experiment to prove that even over a million human years, there cannot be enough advantageous genetic mutations to take us from apes to humans? No. Because of that not being what "this experiment" (actually, lots of different experiments) shows. 'Cos of that not even tangentially being what the fruit-fly experiments were about.
The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, FERTILITY, longevity. And again, this does not say that they all became sterile.
"In practice mutants die, are STERILE, or tend to revert to the wild type." And if creationists asserting stuff, without evidence, without references, about experiments they didn't do, was in any way a substitute for evidence, then creationism would be on a much firmer footing than it actually is.
So it doesn't matter if they are right. If they are against evolution, then they are wrong. I get it. No you don't. What matters is that they were wrong. The mutants were not sterile. This is why it was possible to breed from them. Don't you know anything about the fruit-fly experiments? The whole point of finding the mutants in the first place was to see what happened when you crossed them with one another and with the wild type. If they were sterile, there wouldn't have been any fruit-fly experiments.
What about you? You refuse to accept my evidence, an ongoing evolutionary experiment for over 100 years. No, I refuse to accept your false statements about the fruit fly experiments, because I know them to be false. As would you if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in the experiments.
I already brought that up in this discussion, as evidence for me. Horizontal gene transfer does not explain the origin of the cells, as well as crippling the organism in some way or another. If you are under the delusion that you are discussing Lenski's experiment, you are wrong.
This reaction is HARMFUL to the organism, other than allowing it to survive Oh, other than that. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The experiment documents many mutations, including wing changes, hairs on the face, clear eyes, etc. But none of the groups were at an advantage compared to the original fruit flies. Being able to survive in the wild is EXACTLY what is required for evolution to be an accurate theory. You don't understand the theory of evolution at all, do you? Let's look at what it actually says. About the wild type, it says that they have undergone millions of years of evolution adapting them to live in the wild, and that it is therefore profoundly unlikely that (without a change to their environment) any mutation could arise making them better adapted to that task that hasn't already happened. About the lab specimens, it says that they have undergone a further sixty years or so of: (a) artificial selection for use in genetics experiments;(b) natural selection for living in fly bottles. We would therefore predict that they will be more suitable for genetics experiments (as is the case) and that they might well be better adapted to living in fly bottles (I don't know if anyone's checked). And as both these selective pressures move them away from the type adapted to survival in the wild, they would with extremely high probability be worse at surviving in the wild (as you assert is the case). So the theory is borne out by the observations; and from an evolutionary perspective it would be astonishing and inexplicable if the experimental strains were superior to the wild type in the wild. The observations may contradict a made-up "theory of evolution" that exists only in your head, but they are predicted by the actual theory of evolution --- the one in biology textbooks. Maybe you should spend less time reading stuff that creationists have made up and more time reading biology textbooks. At least that way you'd know what you ought to be arguing against. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1716 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You're not doing very well at answering my questions. I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.
They do, they come from the E. Cole, either during cell division, or by some sexual process. No, that's just how they're transferred. That's not where the genes come from. Remember every single individual in this population is a clone of a single founder individual, so if mutation can't result in new genes they can engage in all the horizontal gene transfer they like and they'll never get anything new - they all have the same genes, already. They're clones! But we observe that they do gain new genes. Mutation is how they gain these new genes, and natural selection explains why they come to dominate the population as a result of the advantage having them bestows.
And yet, it does. No, it doesn't, because they're all clones of an organism that had no resistance genes. The genes can't have already existed in the population because the entire population is a clone of a single individual. The resistance genes arise by mutation and are transferred on plasmids. They're not something that could have previously existed in the population.
From genetic material inside (or possibly outside, but unlikely) the chromosome, usually at a cost to some other process. But the genetic material wasn't present inside, or outside, any of the chromosomes of any of the individuals, because they were clones of an individual that had no resistance genes. Mutation is the origin of resistance; horizontal (and vertical) gene transfer is merely how the mutated gene is spread among individual.
It is simply (in this case) 10x more resistant to it. By eliminating a vulnerability. So why isn't eliminating a vulnerability a gain in information? It seems to me like it would have to be.
Agreed. Now I'd like some references. Already given. Can you please answer my questions, now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3879 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Bolder, be nice. Thanks for your advice, but no thank you. If this were in fact a well moderated site, then perhaps that would be an effective, strategy, but you will soon find out (if you haven't already) that arguments here from evolutionists are quickly of the sort of "you don't know what you are talking about," "you are comically wrong" "only a creationist idiot would think such a thing" blah blah ad infinitum. How long do you think you will be able to continue to attempt a discussion with them with those responses? Are you a masochist? In regards to crashfrogs claim that his experiment was confirming the existence of natural selection and random mutation through predictability, I would say that would be akin to saying that cigarette smoking would also be testing the predictability of evolution. Cigarettes, (the mutagen in this case) cause "random mutations" (cancer in this case), which in turn prevents the "benefactor" from dying of traumatic head injury caused by playing football, because the benefactor of the cancer mutation can't breath well enough to run (natural selection).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
you will soon find out (if you haven't already) that arguments here from evolutionists are quickly of the sort of "you don't know what you are talking about," "you are comically wrong" "only a creationist idiot would think such a thing" blah blah ad infinitum. The problem is that creationists are talking nonsense. St. Augustine warned about this very thing, but creationists have ignored that too: Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How long do you think you will be able to continue to attempt a discussion with them with those responses? Are you a masochist? If that is your opinion, what are you doing here?
Cigarettes, (the mutagen in this case) cause "random mutations" (cancer in this case), which in turn prevents the "benefactor" from dying of traumatic head injury caused by playing football, because the benefactor of the cancer mutation can't breath well enough to run (natural selection). And if germ-line mutations were the same as somatic mutations, which they aren't, or if cancer were hereditary, which it isn't; and if the ability to produce histidine was fatal like cancer, which it isn't, or if having cancer was harmless to one's health like the ability to produce histidine, which it isn't; and if running was inevitably fatal like having a broken his operon in a histidine-free environment, which it isn't, or if having a broken his operon in a histidine free environment was only occasionally a mere predisposing factor to accidental death, which it isn't; and if people with cancer were more favored by natural selection than people with the ability to run, which they aren't, or if bacteria dying of malnutrition were more favored by natural selection then bacteria not dying of malnutrition, which they aren't --- then this would be an accurate analogy, which it isn't. --- Oh, and to satisfy your apparent masochism, let me add that "you don't know what you are talking about", that "you are comically wrong", and that "only a creationist idiot would think such a thing". Happy now? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Thanks for your advice, but no thank you. If this were in fact a well moderated site, then perhaps that would be an effective, strategy, but you will soon find out (if you haven't already) that arguments here from evolutionists are quickly of the sort of "you don't know what you are talking about," "you are comically wrong" "only a creationist idiot would think such a thing" blah blah ad infinitum. How long do you think you will be able to continue to attempt a discussion with them with those responses? Are you a masochist? In regards to crashfrogs claim that his experiment was confirming the existence of natural selection and random mutation through predictability, I would say that would be akin to saying that cigarette smoking would also be testing the predictability of evolution. Cigarettes, (the mutagen in this case) cause "random mutations" (cancer in this case), which in turn prevents the "benefactor" from dying of traumatic head injury caused by playing football, because the benefactor of the cancer mutation can't breath well enough to run (natural selection). Well said Bolder-dash! Well said! Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3879 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Exposing the hypocrisy of the evolutionists arguments, thank you very much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Exposing the hypocrisy of the evolutionists arguments, thank you very much. Exposing the hypocrisy of the evolutionists arguments, thank you very much. Not noticeably.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well said Bolder-dash! Well said! You didn't notice, then, that he was comparing being able to make histidine, which is essential to life, with having cancer, which is generally supposed to be bad for you? Or is this the sort of argument you find congenial?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3879 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
According to you, there is no such thing as being good or bad for you, just so long as it let's you live one more day to have sex. People take longer to die from cancer than they do from traumatic head injury.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024