Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? Talk to the scientists who lost their jobs trying to publish papers contrary to the current paradigm. The scientific method? The observable, repeatable and predictable part? or the educated guesses?
 
These experiments were done before Watson and Crick. So few become beneficial and far fewer stick. Keep sticking to it though. It has to be that way or else it all comes crumbling down.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Really? Talk to the scientists who lost their jobs trying to publish papers contrary to the current paradigm.
Click to expand...
What happened to…
buffalo said:
Science itself is making the modern synthesis obsolete. No need for religion.
Click to expand...
…This is not explaining yourself. I trust that if somebody lost their Job they probably wasn’t doing their job properly. Do i have any reason to think otherwise? Please, before you continue, no more conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
“We learn time and time again that the popular theological interpretation of creation is in error or contradicts scientific discovery.”

I see. So now, I can become an Anti-Evolutionist.

Ed

… just kidding.
 
And the merry-go-round goes round and round and goes nowhere. Part 3 will be more of the same.
 
First, it is not a complex organism. We see patterns in nature all the time. But not all are designed. However, all designs have patterns. What function does radium decay serve?

The key words which were conveniently ignored was specified. Functionally, specified, complex information comes from a mind. It is designed with a purpose. The transfer of codes has to be interpreted. It needs a key. The key comes from a mind.

How do we know the dependencies of decay are not designed? Half lifes could be designed for various reasons.
 
Last edited:
There is bias in the science community without doubt. Read the current literature.

How about a judge making a decision about whether ID is science or not? Does science need a judge to protect it?
 
buffalo said:
Look back through the posts. There are several papers and more in the literature.
Click to expand...
Okay, but what I read doesn’t seem to disprove evolution or prove positively any theory other than that they are resistant to some antibiotics. Some bacteria are in fact naturally resistant, that is no surprise. What is surprising is that ones that were not before, are now, and adapted in a quick amount of time.
 
Yes, rapid adaptation and complex information transfer to other bacteria is built in. It is not macro-evolution. In the end they are still bacteria.

I posted my answers to other posters who claimed bacteria resistance to antibiotics is a proof for evolution. I smashed that idea to pieces.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Yes, rapid adaptation and complex information transfer to other bacteria is built in. It is not macro-evolution. In the end they are still bacteria.
Click to expand...
But these adaptations are passed down in DNA each generation, they are built into the next generation to a greater degree, which fits one definition of evolution, namely
“Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations”
Click to expand...
There is though a undeniable case of evolution happening before the eyes of scientists in a lab over a 20 year period.

Twenty years ago, a scientist took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations.

Sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species.
 
Big deal. Bacteria remain bacteria. No news there. And built-in Horizontal Gene Transfer is still HGT. This doesn’t prove anything. It’s not convincing.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, rapid adaptation and complex information transfer to other bacteria is built in.
Click to expand...
Anything that resulted from horizontal gene transfer evolved slowly in some other organism, so the fact that it appeared quickly in this organism does not nullify evolution. It supports it.
It is not macro-evolution. In the end they are still bacteria.
Click to expand...
It is unlikely that a single HGT would ever result is a huge change. But enough successive HGTs over a long time might do it.
 
Not quite. They are a huge library that bacteria draw upon. Also, phages must be considered. They are packed with information.

If we agree it is adaptation, then there is no more to argue. If you are using this to make a case for macro-evolution, let’s continue.

The bacteria adapted the ability to digest citrate in an oxygen rich environment, one it already had in an anoerobic environment.

There were no examples of an adaptive mutation in Lenski’s experiment that showed a gain of a new molecular function. Most of our known examples of molecular adaptations in bacteria entail “loss-of-function” mutations and this is one more. Knocking out gene or the a problem with a regulatory function that causes an overexpression is not Darwinian evolution. Reusing a preexisting pathway is not either.
 
I asked a question that you will not answer. You used the word function for the half life of radium? What is the specified function?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top