nafajoeverclear writes:
quote:
I cannot proove it is a lie, you cannot proove it isn't one.
If I can show you evolution happening right in front of your eyes, is that not proof that it isn't a lie?
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
So there you go: Evolution right before your eyes. Not once but twice.
So now that we have evidence that evolution happens, how can you say that it cannot be proven not to be a lie?
quote:
I personally think evolution comes from a certain type of thinking that has certain values
And you would be wrong. Tell me how a "certain type of thinking" makes the bacteria somehow immune to T4 phage or converts the phage into being able to infect a new host.
quote:
but scientists put all their faith in it as if it is a religion(though they'd deny this).
And it can't possibly be because it isn't true?
Who do you think is more likely to know if evolution is a religion or not: Those who study it or those who know very little about it?
quote:
In my experience it is the more i think about evolution (or anything else i guess) the more questions i have to it.
Good. That's the best thing to have happen.
The question then becomes how you go about answering those questions.
Do you go into the lab and perform experiments? Do you go into the field and conduct studies? Do you go to the library and read the journals for the results of studies carried out by other researchers? Do you go to the university to take classes and ask the professors your questions to see if they can guide you to find out the answers?
Or do you talk to other people who know just as little about evolutionary theory as you do?
quote:
There are certain parts of the evolutionary theory that are undeniable---- but for it to be true it has to be completely true---
Yes...? For it to be true it has to be completely true. What's wrong with that? There's a reason that evolutionary theory is advanced as it is. It has the evidence to back it up.
What data, studies, articles, or experiments are you using to justify your claim that there is something wrong?
quote:
and i still have many significant problems with evolution.
And your "problems" are "significant" for what reason, specifically?
Look, everybody is entitled to have an opinion. But just because you are entitled to an opinion doesn't mean your opinion has any validity or value.
What evidence are you using to justify yourself? What do you know about evolutionary theory? You need to be specific.
You can disbelieve in the results of the work of literally thousands of scientists all you want, but if you expect anybody to take you seriously, you're going to need more support for that rejection than simply, "I don't like the way it makes me feel."
I'm sorry if I sound like I am being harsh, but you don't do this with other aspects of science. You don't debate the germ "theory" of disease or the atomic "theory" of matter or gravitational "theory" or the photon "theory" of light even though you probably have never seen a germ, have never seen an atom, have no idea what gravity actually is, and have never seen a photon.
You don't go to your tax attorney for advice on how to treat heart disease or to perform an angioplasty. You don't go to your cardiologist for advice on how to change the transmission in your car. You don't go your mechanic for advice on how to best take care of the new lime tree you've planted in the back yard. You don't go to your horticulturist for instruction on how to speak Japanese. You don't hire a language teacher to build your house. You don't seek an architect when trying to build a menu for dinner. You don't ask the chef to prepare your taxes. And yet, you seem to think that somebody other than biologists are the best qualified people to tell you about biology?
I am not saying that it is impossible for biologists to be wrong. I am simply saying that the evidence that will prove them wrong will come from those who are versed in biology. How could it come from anywhere else? How do you show a scientific theory to be wrong when you know nothing about what the theory actually says?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2