Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF against evolution
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 126 of 562 (46490)
07-19-2003 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
07-18-2003 5:16 PM


buzsaw writes:
quote:
I was thinking more in terms of our own Solar System where it is quite likely nothing is happening so far as evolution goes
(*blink!*)
Did you really just say that?
Here's some evolution you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab for very little cost (it's a common experiment in high school and college biology classes):
Take a single K-type E. coli bacterium. Let it reproduce in solution and then infect the solution with T4 phage. Pour the solution into a petri dish to form a lawn.
Knowing that T4 phage infects and kills K-type E. coli bacteria, what do you think will happen? That's right, plaques should form in the petri dish where the bacteria are dying, eventually killing off the entire lawn.
But what do we actually see? Plaques do form, but the lawn refuses to die off. In the middle of the plaques, you will find a colony or two still alive.
How can this be? All the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor which is vulnerable to T4 phage. There is only one answer: The bacteria evolved. They are called K/4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But wait, there's more. Take a single bacterium from one of these surviving colonies, that is a K/4 bacterium, and again, let it reproduce in solution and then infect the solution with T4 phage and pour it into a petri dish to form a lawn.
What do you think will happen? That's right, nothing. The bacteria are immune to T4 phage and thus we should see no change.
But what do we actually see? Plaques form.
But how can this be? All the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. There is only one answer: The phage evolved.
Yes, that's right...the phage evolved. A little thought shows why this must be the case. If a bacterium had reverted to K-type, it would die from being infected with T4 phage, but it would immediately be replaced by the neighboring K4 bacteria reproducing. The phage could never get the upper hand and we would never see any plaques.
Therefore, since we do see plaques, it must be that the phage that has mutated to get past the K4 bacteria's defenses. This new phage is called T4h.
So there you go...evolution right before your eyes. Not just once but twice.
How can you say that there is nothing happening as far as evolution goes? It is going on all around us. You, yourself, are a mutant. We all are. The average human has 3-6 mutations compared to his parents.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 07-18-2003 5:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by k.kslick, posted 01-14-2004 7:43 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 133 of 562 (46828)
07-22-2003 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Buzsaw
07-19-2003 6:15 PM


buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
Rrhain, if you'd been following my statements, the solar system statement was to clarify my statement in 121 to the effect that if evo was going on here on earth, it should be happening elsewhere in the universe.
I have been following your statements, but you still haven't shown any evidence for this statement. Why should evolution be happening elsewhere in the universe?
And just as importantly, if it were happening elsehwere in the universe, how could you tell? The universe is huge. The nearest solar system is at least 4 light years away. How on earth do you plan on investigating if there is life out there? Only recently have we been able to send anything that left the solar system and only even more recently did it leave the solar system. And none of them were being sent to a star system anywhere nearby and none had any instruments capable of detecting life and sending the message back (yes, I know about the gold records...that requires the life that finds it to decode the instructions on how to play the record and respond.)
The universe just might be filled with life. We'd never know it. While my personal opinion is that we are not alone in the universe, I also state that we are isolated.
quote:
I meant elsewhere besides earth and specifically our Solar System as that's the more observable area.
Again, why? There aren't many places in the solar system with liquid water. From what we can tell using our sample of one, life needs liquid water. Venus is too hot. Mars is too dry. Mercury is too close to the sun. The other planets are gas giants and we can only speculate about the moons of those giants.
What on earth makes you think that there should be life somewhere else in the solar system if evolution is true? It seems that you're dancing around the mistake of equating evolution with abiogenesis.
quote:
Some would argue that the earth is the only place because earth has water, the right amount of heat and light, the right amount of barometric pressure and all, to which I might counter, "how did all these factors just happen to be in place on one planet in exact proportions so as to effect so called informational theory and alleged life producing RM/NS?"
You're invoking the anthropomorphic principle. Where else would you expect to find life except in the spot where life could exist? You seem to be saying that if you drop your keys in the parking lot next to your car, there is a reasonable chance that you might find them in your desk drawer instead of by your car.
I'm reminded of an old joke: Why is the sky blue? Because if it were green we would ask, "Why is the sky green?"
We should not be surprised to find life on a planet that has conditions suitable to supporting life. What might make your argument more plausible is if we had a slew of examples of planets that were suitable to supporting life that were sterile. If there were a bunch of planets that were capable of supporting life and ours was the only one that had life, then we might wonder about what was so special about our planet. But since we only have a sample of one, we cannot make that claim.
And let us not forget that life managed to change the environment. There's a reason plants took over the surface of the earth long before animals: There wasn't any oxygen. It took thousands of years of plants exhaling oxygen in order to make the atmosphere habitable for animals. Part of the reason the planet is capable of supporting life as we know it today is because the life that came before made it that way. It had nothing to do with intelligent design.
quote:
No need to respond to that as it's a new topic.
You mean you actually take the anthropic principle seriously?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 07-19-2003 6:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024