Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
The billions and billions of various viruses and bacteria living in the hospital are “selected” as disinfectants clean out the susceptible ones and leave behind those with ever increasing resistance.
Click to expand...
Here we go again…extrapolating microevolution and macroevolution.
 
ID the science does not know the designer, only His design signatures. Who the designer is would be IDvolution, the philosophy.
 
We now know bacteria have latent memories and recall them to fight off threats.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
goout:
The billions and billions of various viruses and bacteria living in the hospital are “selected” as disinfectants clean out the susceptible ones and leave behind those with ever increasing resistance.
Click to expand...
Here we go again…extrapolating microevolution and macroevolution.
Click to expand...
Here we go again, giving distinct labels to two aspects of the same phenomenon.
 
NS is only a conservative process, that is, limiting variation within a species to adapt.
 
Techno2000 said:
So that means evolution would have to know these problems and challenges ahead of time in order to evolve the necessary solutions.
Click to expand...
No it does not. You have not been reading your earlier answers. Random mutations are random so they are scattered all over the place. When the environment changes, a mutation that was previously neutral or mildly deleterious is now beneficial because of the change in environment. I gave the example of HIV resistance, which was not beneficial until HIV spread into humans.

Now please do not ask that question again, it has been answered twice.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
NS is only a conservative process, that is, limiting variation within a species to adapt.
Click to expand...
And as I have told you before, random mutation is not a conservative process, continually introducing new variants into species. There is a dynamic tension between the two processes: RM introduces new variants while NS weeds out variants that are less successful in the current environment.

If you want to talk about evolution, you need both RM and NS. Omitting one or the other makes your comments irrelevant to evolution.

rossum
 
rossum said:
I gave the example of HIV resistance, which was not beneficial until HIV spread into humans.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t talking about microevolution, I’m talking about animals changing into new species,because of new environments.
 
ID, the science looks for evidence of design. Philosophy and religion tell us about Him.
 
I wonder if you have inadvertently overlooked the contribution of natural selection in producing the appearance of design?
 
To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers

Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes. M. genitalium’s diminutive genome made it the first target for Stanford and J. Craig Venter Institute researchers who wanted to simulate an organism in software.

The bioengineers, led by Stanford’s Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What’s fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.

On the other hand, the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.

Loading…

www.theatlantic.com
Yet we know NS and RM did this… It had to be…
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
We agree living systems appear designed?
Click to expand...
Sure, an Intelligent designer, but that Intelligence was so intelligent He could have things run on these things called natural laws which He wouldn’t have to override or tweak everytime He wanted a new species. 😉
 
Theologically God is present at every moment of every living creature, but He nonetheless works within the framework of His own laws, rarely suspending those laws in our everyday life. I’m not talking about a Deistic God mind you.

How many miracles have you seen? Things which seem to buck the laws of nature? I haven’t seen a miracle in my lifetime with my own eyes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top