Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hugh_Farey said:
Is this your idea that you cannot make proteins without enzymes, and you can’t make enzymes without proteins? Neither is necessarily true. They both facilitate each others formation, but are not absolutely essential to it. Any general article on evolution will discuss the solution. Try ‘The Classification and Evolution of Enzyme Function’ by Sergio Martínez Cuesta et al for a start.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s my question and thank you for your answer. I’ll have a look in time.
 
I hope you know I’m genuinely interested in the questions I ask you so I am grateful for your answer.
For example I have gone through the Wikipedia article you sent me about genetic evolution. I just find it frustrating the most fundamental data I’m after is very difficult to find/decipher. This is symptomatic of the fact that people who write these things assume evolution is true and therefore doesn’t provide the data that supports it.
 
ratio1 said:
No I don’t actually. (I’m serious)
Click to expand...
Sorry; it was the way you said that without critical evaluation science was “just a religion” which tickled my funny-bone. Creationism has nil critical evaluation. Presumably it is “just a religion”.
 
Yes it is. You know I’m no hardline creationist. I believe in scientific evidence.
 
Bingo - Everything is framed in the evolution it true thinking.

Research is done in academia. Academia is supported by corporations. Academia rates itself of grant funding. Researchers must churn papers to keep funded and employed. Peer review is supposed to be objective, but is subjective and badly broken.

In the end we have evolution self perpetuating itself. Don’t dare work outside the set boundaries.

Real scientific research is being stifled by this money deal. It is in bad need of reform.
 
Valid point. I think starting with complex features is mistake, and the grabbing of evolutionist quotations regarding the frontiers of evolutionist research only serves to make ordinary people confused. If you really want to understand the fundamentals of evolution, and the evidence which led to its rapid, and vast, popularity and general acceptance, you really ought to read Darwin’s “Origin of Species”. He, above all, knew that he had to provide real evidence for his ideas. He describes simple observations, bucketfuls of them, and why they support the conclusions he drew from them. After that, try “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne, “The Making of the Fittest”, by Sean Carroll, and “Finding Darwin’s God” by Ken Miller.

For a briefer overview, try the Wikipedia article “Evidence of Common Descent”, which gives a comprehensive overview of evidence from comparisons between living organisms, from paleogeography, biogeography and various other fields of study.
 
buffalo said:
Wikipedia is a terrible source.
Click to expand...
This is a popular mantra, but based on misuse of Wikipedia, I feel. At its best, a Wikipedia article is a compendium of primary sources, and an explanation of why they are relevant to the topic. It is therefore most useful for topics for which there are primary sources. A poor article is one which seems to depend more on the opinion of the author than his sources, but these are become less and less common.
 
Do you really think none of us understand the fundamentals of evolution?

Did it ever cross your mind that many of us understand evolution very well and is exactly why we have challenged it?

There is increasing evidence that common descent is wrong.

Bottom line - been there, done that.
 
But the issue is still it’s all retrospective.
What I expect real science to be is that the retrospective evidence generates a theory which is what Darwin did. And then to “confirm” this hypothesis with prospective experiments.
Now I don’t mean prove and observe evolution taking place.
I’m just asking for example calculating how many genetic mutations are required and then observe actual genetic mutation rate etc. the primordial soup and abiogenesis therefore were great and good experiments. Are there more like these?
 
Last edited:
That is the reason why my very first post is on the E. coli mutation to a new enzyme function. But it’s just frustrating I can’t find any evolutionists putting it all together by estimating the mutation rate etc.
they just seem to say, see! New enzyme, there you have it, the bacteria has evolved.
Rather than “let’s see if this new evidence fits with the estimation of the existing theory.”
 
A proper theory should also be able to make predictions.
Have they predicted or estimated how long it takes to observe a new gain in enzyme function based on previous evolution? And are we observing this prospectively?
 
ratio1 said:
So the church is wrong in endorsing it?

What about medical miracles that are required for sainthood? Do you believe in them?
Click to expand...
The Church is quite staggeringly reticent in ‘endorsing’ any miracles at all, let alone those from medieval superstition. However, when it does - such as the miracles required for sainthood or the healings at Lourdes - it does so almost entirely on the basis of spontaneous remission of medical conditions. In themselves, spontaneous remissions are unusual but by no means unheard of throughout the world. What makes one a miracle is more to do with the circumstances in which the remission occurred rather than the ‘cure’ itself.

So, although I know this will infuriate some of you, yes, I believe in miracles, but no, I do not think God acts contrary to the laws he has decided to organise his creation by. Such a view is not, I think, contrary to Catholic theology.
 
Once again, Hall before and others have have seen this happen in 4 weeks and it was not evolution, it was rapid adaptation. This has been ignored as they continue to peddle and fund Lenski.
 
buffalo said:
Do you really think none of us understand the fundamentals of evolution?
Did it ever cross your mind that many of us understand evolution very well and is exactly why we have challenged it?
Click to expand...
It is absolutely clear to me that few if any of the creationists on this thread understand the fundamentals of evolution, and some do not even understand the fundamentals of science in general. Anybody who bandies the word ‘proof’ about in a scientific context does not understand science, and anybody who thinks evolution cannot be correct because it has not been observed does not understand evolution. There are many such among the commenters on this thread.
 
Research in academia has nothing but money to back it. No money, no research. No R&D. Except for problems that need to be solved. The pecking order goes like this:

The Military
Pharmaceutical/chemical companies
Computers and communications (with possible military applications)

Just look up whatever and find out who’s funding it. Aside from the military, billionaires, corporations and research funded through grants. Or other private investment source(s).

All they care about is results. If there is a deadline, then two or more research institutions may get involved. In the end, no results, no more money. But you are still a valuable asset. Materials Science is going through one breakthrough after another. Problems? Cheap enough? Lasts long enough by whatever standard you want to apply? But human ingenuity can still be rewarded.

A device used to deposit a thin layer of material on a surface was abandoned when a new device became available to researchers working on a problem. A researcher at a private company did not abandon the device, solved the problem and anyone who wanted the finished product had only one source to get it.
 
For example in the E. coli experiment where they discovered it for a new enzyme after 31500 generation.

What I expect a proper scientist would say is something like this
Before the experiment we estimated it would take approximately x generations that evolve a new enzyme based on estimates of current available data on evolution. And therefore this finding is exciting as it shortens the time required for evolution. Or this finding has prolonged our estimates so we would need to revise our previous estimates.

But all we got was
We can finally observe bacteria has evolved a new enzyme.
Suggesting they didn’t even try to estimate this previously and have no intention of comparing this with other data because it seems evolution is already true therefore no need to take the extra step to “prove” it.
 
Perhaps the issue lies in what science is competent in and not?

Is your claim science exempts itself from proving itself?

Evolution then gets a pass by your understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top