B
buffalo
Guest
Lenski’s experiment has shown degradation.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
Super complexity is not my personal opinion. I know why you and others will not consider it and fall back on the old view.By now you should know what I think about unsupported personal opinion.
R
rossum
Guest
So, what is your observational evidence of a barrier or similar that prevents the evolution of bacteria into multicellular organisms? You might want to start by looking at bacterial mats.That’s fine and addresses microevolution in bacteria nicely. However, it is not helpful in explaining bacteria to human being.
R
rossum
Guest
Lenski’s experiment has shown evolution. Do you have a workable definition of “degredation”? A bacterium can fit through a smaller hole than a human being. Is that a “degredation” in the capabilities of a human being compared to the capabilities of a bacterium?Lenski’s experiment has shown degradation.
Evolutionary processes can increase complexity. How does that differ from your “super complexity”? Or do you just mean ‘very complex’? Given a piece of DNA, evolution can increase its complexity. Reaching highly complex outcomes is not a problem for evolution.Super complexity is not my personal opinion. I know why you and others will not consider it and fall back on the old view.
B
buffalo
Guest
No it has not. It has shown adaptation and degradation.Lenski’s experiment has shown evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
Of course not. the god of BUC can do anything.Evolutionary processes can increase complexity.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The same as my observational evidence that unicorns do not exist. The burden of positive evidence in support logically falls on the one who makes the claim as one cannot prove a negative.So, what is your observational evidence of a barrier or similar that prevents the evolution of bacteria into multicellular organisms? You might want to start by looking at bacterial mats.
T
Techno2000
Guest
It’s not that simple.There are a million variables in an ecosystem.Everything is connected together, if you change one thing, it’s going to affect another.The process is rather like compound interest. As an example, take a population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organisms with a deleterious mutation, giving a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
R
rossum
Guest
You have failed to define “degredation”. Adaptation is evolution: evolution adapts organisms to their environment.No it has not. It has shown adaptation and degradation.
Evolution can increase complexity. At its simplest a duplication will increase complexity. And you appear incapable of seeing that natural selection is not a blind chance process.Of course not. the god of BUC can do anything.
R
rossum
Guest
However, I do have observational evidence. The eukaryotic cell contains both bacterial and archeal DNA from a very early symbiotic event. Plant cells contain evidence of a second such event.The same as my observational evidence that unicorns do not exist. The burden of positive evidence in support logically falls on the one who makes the claim as one cannot prove a negative.
I have direct evidence that such a barrier does not exist. You will need to come up with something better.
R
rossum
Guest
Which is why the calculations are done on averages, to even out all those many variables. They are all boiled down to reproduction rates. A deleterious mutation reduces the average reproduction rate of it’s carriers. A neutral mutation leaves the reproduction rate unchanged. A beneficial mutation increases the average reproduction rate.It’s not that simple.There are a million variables in an ecosystem.Everything is connected together, if you change one thing, it’s going to affect another.
As you correctly point out, trying to directly measure all the possible variable influences is impossible, hence the need to use averages.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, we call that micro-evolution. No one argues adaptation happens.Adaptation is evolution: evolution adapts organisms to their environment.
Are you now leaning to natural selection being an intelligent agent? Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one. We have been over this and you probably ignored the sources I have provided. This is a problem on this forum. The very same science many have such belief in is showing the errors. Yet you and others just put your fingers in your ears.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Search and ye shall find.A vague answer that tells me nothing about the nuts-and-bolts of how a single-circulation heart could have evolved into a double-circulation heart.
R
rossum
Guest
No, natural selection is a natural process, it is not intelligent. The more grandchildren you have, the more copies of your genes are in the population. That is all.Are you now leaning to natural selection being an intelligent agent?
Correct. And random mutation is a creative process, not a conservative one. Evolution works because of the tension between the two different processes.Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Couple reasons I do. Primarily, I want to show that there’s a certain level of scientific denial required for the denial of evolution and the ways we arrive at the conclusion that evolution is responsible for life’s diversity.And probably more to the point, why are we wasting our time trying to explain it to you?
Second, I just like talking about this stuff. Far more interesting than evolution.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m still baffled as to the resistance to understand that God gave us DNA that is able to mutate for the benefit of survival. It’s those very mutations that allows species to adapt to changing environments and lead to new species over time…step by small step. It’s a brilliant system otherwise we would be stuck with just being Protozoa. A stagnant DNA would have wiped out life long ago. Instead, the variations of each group tends to assure that some will survive.
If buffalo wants to call it front loading in the DNA initially, that’s fine with me but life has spread and changed and adapted all because our DNA is changeable, adaptable and mutatable. As we learn more about how even one single protein can influence the behavior of a system and that these novel proteins appear and cause more complexity…it just boggles!
If buffalo wants to call it front loading in the DNA initially, that’s fine with me but life has spread and changed and adapted all because our DNA is changeable, adaptable and mutatable. As we learn more about how even one single protein can influence the behavior of a system and that these novel proteins appear and cause more complexity…it just boggles!
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
The problem with calling it “front-loading” is that it assumes a certain limit to what can be done, that eventually life will be unable to adapt.If buffalo wants to call it front loading in the DNA initially,
P
Pattylt
Guest
I know…he’s finally admitted to speciation but has never been able (or tried) to state what the mechanism is for stopping evolution beyond speciation. It’s not like it’s hard to grasp that changes amongst groups, especially if they become isolated, will lead to further and further distinctions…new species, to new genus to new family…The problem with calling it “front-loading” is that it assumes a certain limit to what can be done, that eventually life will be unable to adapt.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Indeed. If flu and colds are front loaded, then they will eventually run out of possible changes. I am waiting for the ID research labs to unravel that front loading and devise a flu or cold vaccine that will work permanently because resistance to the vaccine is outside the limits of what has been front loaded into their genome.The problem with calling it “front-loading” is that it assumes a certain limit to what can be done, that eventually life will be unable to adapt.
Covid-19 has been sequenced. If they can move quickly the ID people could have a vaccine for that ready as well.
Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
A wonderful dream, though. If only they were right, we’d be free of the flu, of the cold, at some point in the future.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.