Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[o_mlly]

Please read these references on the Lederberg Experiment and what it proves (especially the second one, which was written by Lederberg himself.)

I can see how you might think the idea of “mutations were always there” might support the idea that all genetic information for primates was present in the first bacteria. But it doesn’t actually support that strong a claim. All it does is support the claim that random mutations (Lederberg uses the word random) were there before exposure to an environment in which they proved beneficial. To borrow a word from the evolution denying lexicon, these are “micro-mutations”. They are small enough to have occurred randomly. But that does not mean that “macro-mutations” for primates were present in bacteria. To get from bacteria to primates takes many many mutations. The only reasonable way those mutations could be properly cascaded is for some sort of selection process that approves or rejects micro-mutations as they occur. Those were the mutations studied by Lederberg.

I see nothing in the articles which support the narrative you have posted which is simply more evolutionary speculation. Staying within the data produced by the (repeatable) experiment evidences that no mutations were produced to enable penicillin-resistance in the population. No mutation means no evolution.

If you believe either article support your narrative, please cite and quote the relevant text. What I do read in both articles is a re-statement of the evidence supporting the notion that the gene pool already contained within the population of bacteria elements capable of resisting penicillin. (It is logically incorrect to label the penicillin-resistant bacteria as “mutants” since these same bacteria were present in the initial plates. No change, therefore, no mutations.)

“Replicas to agar containing bacteriophage or streptomycin showed that mutants of Escherichia coli resistant to these agents existed in clones on the initial plates of indifferent agar medium.”

“Thus, by using their replica-plating technique, the Lederbergs demonstrated the existence of streptomycin-resistant mutants in a population of bacteria prior to their exposure to the antibiotic. Their results, along with those of many other experiments, have shown that environmental stress does not direct or cause genetic changes; it simply selects rare preexisting mutations that result in phenotypes better adapted to the new environment.”

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

We do not come from animals because we are a different kind of creature, defined by our souls.

I do not claim that the Christian version of ‘human’, complete with soul, evolved. I do claim that the human body (not soul) evolved from earlier non-human primates. Souls did not evolve; bodies did. Adam had a body (nostrils) before God breathed. It is that pre-breath body that I am talking about.

rossum

I do understand your point of view. I do not agree that the human body evolved from earlier non-human primates. While sharing a similar psychological and physical structure, Adam would not have been conceived from two animals. He would have been created genetically perfect, with a built-in genetic and epigenetic capacity to allow for the diversification of humanity. This feature, found in pretty much every kind of organism, allows for the flourishing of life, where individual creatures exist as participants in their environment. Since all the information that constitues a zygote is pretty much the same as that in an adult, albeit repeated a billion times as cells diversified, it makes equal sense if we think of creation, that the design process began with that of the final product, the adult form, which was then “shrunk” into an egg and split into two gametes, to allow for reproduction. If one does not believe in God, evolution is the only option; theistic evolution is out there as a consideration, but I have yet to hear a valid argument in its defense.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You can believe that if you want to, but the Church does not insist that we take the dimensions of the ark as literal truth.

If the dimensions of the ark aren’t literal, what is their meaning?

I don’t know. I am not a bible scholar, and I don’t want to spend all day researching what the Church has said about the dimensions of the ark. But I do know that the Church has not said that every word of Genesis is literal scientific truth. The commentaries in my Catholic bible say otherwise.

Which science says mankind is much older than 7000 years?

Anthropology.

In my opinion, the Church is plagued by lost intellectuals whose interpretations of certain Scriptures are ludicrous and aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. …

That’s a straw person argument (formerly a straw man argument).

Except that it isn’t. [incompatible with the fossil record]

"The EXTREME RARITY OF TRANISTIONAL FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD persists as the TRADE SECRET of paleontology. …

For several years, Niles Eldrege … and I have been advocating a resolution to this UNCOMFORTABLE PARADOX" (emphasis mine) - S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, pp. 181-182

That’s S. J. Gould’s personal opinion. It is illogical to seek out dissenting voices to prove a preconception of yours that is denied by the majority of experts, and giving those dissenting voices weight beyond their representation in the totality of such experts.

 

[Aloysium]

Edgar:

In my opinion, the Church is plagued by lost intellectuals whose interpretations of certain Scriptures are ludicrous and aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. …

That’s a straw person argument (formerly a straw man argument).

It’s not an argument, an impression, perhaps fantasy if you like, rather than a point to be made in support of a position. If anything it is an ad hominem, where attacking an attribute of the person, such as their character or motivations avoids a discussion of the topic.

This would be an example of a strawman fallacy:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That is the first step in the scientific process.

Catholics don’t need a “scientific process” to explain the history of life …

No one is saying science is needed for salvation. But science is needed if one wants to understand more of our world than is revealed in scriptures, revelations, and traditions of the Church. But if one wants to travel to the moon, one does need science. And if one wants to know the details of the history of life beyond what is in Church teaching, one needs science.

Are there any identifiable portions of advanced DNA in the most primitive life forms?

A creation model can account for any “advanced DNA” evident in the most primitive life forms.

The creation model has not demonstrated that there is advanced DNA sufficient to make a monkey in bacteria. But evolution provides a model of how to get there.

What about artificial selection where very unnatural characteristics are selected for and evolve?

What about dogs remaining dogs,…

You can give them the same name of “dog”, but an English Bulldog looks very different from a Great Dane or a Chihuahua. I would say the history of dogs is one of the best examples of evolution within human history and knowledge. We have seen the process right under our noses.

“Every paleotologist knows that MOST SPECIES DON’T CHANGE … They may get a little bigger or bumpier but REMAIN THE SAME SPECIES and that’s NOT DUE TO IMPERFECTIONS AND GAPS (in the fossil record) but STASIS. And yet this REMARKABLE STASIS has generally been IGNORED AS NO DATA. If they don’t change, it’s not evolution so you don’t talk about it” (emphasis mine).
S. J. Gould, Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, 1980

More cherry-picking from the tree of experts.

What is the proposed mechanism by which advanced characteritics appear at the proper time?

The will of God and the miracles He wroughts.

Even assuming that God does cause each and every event that we call scientific, there is still the observation that these choices by God seem to follow certain patterns we call the laws of nature. It seems reasonable to assume God wanted us to recognize and codify those “laws” and depend on them working repeatedly. So the study of science is still justified, even if it turn out to be only a study of the regular patterns by which God acts in our world. We don’t assume a break in those rules unless we absolutely have to (such as in a true miracle).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

(It is logically incorrect to label the penicillin-resistant bacteria as “mutants” since these same bacteria were present in the initial plates. No change, therefore, no mutations.)

Then you are getting something entirely different from the Lederberg experiment than Lederberg himself said the experiment shows. Maybe you should go argue with him.

Yes, they were mutations. Lederberg says so. The only thing his experiment shows is that the mutation took place “before exposure”. You have zero evidence that such a mutation was present in the very first bacteria - just speculation.

 

[buffalo]

A zero energy universe is just another way of saying “nothing”. You now have the choice of either denying science or saying “look how Genesis predicted something cosmologists have only just discovered”.

rossum

Nothing is not no-thing.

 

[buffalo]

The creation model has not demonstrated that there is advanced DNA sufficient to make a monkey in bacteria. But evolution provides a model of how to get there.

Intelligent Design is a much better explanation.

 

[buffalo]

You can give them the same name of “dog”, but an English Bulldog looks very different from a Great Dane or a Chihuahua. I would say the history of dogs is one of the best examples of evolution within human history and knowledge. We have seen the process right under our noses.

That is breeding and PURPOSELY DESIGNED to do just that. It is not evolution, it is variation within.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You can give them the same name of “dog”, but an English Bulldog looks very different from a Great Dane or a Chihuahua. I would say the history of dogs is one of the best examples of evolution within human history and knowledge. We have seen the process right under our noses.

That is breeding and PURPOSELY DESIGNED to do just that. It is not evolution, it is variation within.

That’s just your sematics. Evolution is any inheritable change, no matter how small, that dominates future generations due to selection. That selection can be artificial and purposeful, or it can be natural in the wild. The effect is the same - evolution. You can establish arbitrary are irrelevant distinguishing categories on the word, but that does not change the facts. Dogs evolved and we witnessed it.

 

[o_mlly]

Then you are getting something entirely different from the Lederberg experiment than Lederberg himself said the experiment shows. Maybe you should go argue with him.

I agree with Lederberg – I’m quoting him from his own text. You, however, appear to once again slip into the fog of evolution talking-points rather than examining the evidence he produced. Can you cite Lederberg in support of your claims as I requested? I guess not. Nor have you (or can you) produced any experimental data of mutation in support of evolution as I also requested.

Yes, they were mutations. Lederberg says so. The only thing his experiment shows is that the mutation took place “before exposure”. You have zero evidence that such a mutation was present in the very first bacteria - just speculation.

As explained (and apparently ignored), mutation means change. If the organism existed in Lederberg’s initial dish then, logically, there is no change, no mutation.

You have no evidence of mutation. Therefore, as I have evidence of no mutation, my speculation of never any mutation is more scientific than your unsupported claim of mutations from the beginning with no evidence in support.

 

[buss0042]

I would certainly contend that humans could never live for 600 or even 900 years. This is the most obvious symbolic detail of all.

But, I digress. It’s obvious your heart isn’t in a place to be open to what I present. And that’s fine, just the way it is. It’s not worth either of our times anymore

 

[rossum]

He would have been created genetically perfect, with a built-in genetic and epigenetic capacity to allow for the diversification of humanity.

Where is your evidence for this? buffalo has claimed that Adam’s skeleton is held as a relic in the church of the Holy Sepulchre (?) If so, then you can sequence Adam’s DNA and show us evidence for what you claim.

However, bear in mind that if Adam’s DNA is too different, then Adam was not human, but some other species. For example, between them Adam and Eve could only have had a maximum of four alleles at any one locus. There are some loci in humans which have thousands of alleles, and the majority of those alleles are also found in chimpanzee populations.

You may possibly be correct theologically, but the weight of the available scientific evidence is against you. Better get sequencing the DNA from Adam’s bones if you want evidence to convince scientists.

Alternatively, if Jesus was the new Adam, then maybe His DNA would suffice? The Turin Shroud has blood, and there are various Holy Prepuce and Holy Umbilicus relics which could also be sequenced.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As explained (and apparently ignored), mutation means change. If the organism existed in Lederberg’s initial dish then, logically, there is no change, no mutation.

Lederberg proved there was no change during the course of the experiment. Prior to Lederberg, some people believed that mutations occurred in response to exposure to an environment that needed them. Lederberg proved them wrong. He proved that the mutations were already there before exposure. He did not speculate at all on how those mutations came to be.

 

[rossum]

Nothing is not no-thing.

Of course not. “no-thing” has an added hyphen, and a hyphen is not nothing. Once you add something to nothing, you no longer have nothing. QED.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Dogs evolved and we witnessed it.

They are still dogs.

 

[o_mlly]

Lederberg proved there was no change during the course of the experiment . Prior to Lederberg, some people believed that mutations occurred in response to exposure to an environment that needed them. Lederberg proved them wrong. He proved that the mutations were already there before exposure. He did not speculate at all on how those mutations came to be.

Before one labels an organism as a spontaneous mutation, one must evidence its non-existence in the species within prior population. Lederberg proved those who assumed spontaneous mutation were wrong. As no one has ever experimentally produced data in support, any claim of mutation is pure speculation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Dogs evolved and we witnessed it.

They are still dogs.

The criterion you set for “real” evolution is arbitrary and fluid. Whatever contemporaneous evidence we come up with, you will adjust the border so that “real” evolution is just on the other side of that border, not quite reachable. I see your game.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Lederberg proved there was no change during the course of the experiment . Prior to Lederberg, some people believed that mutations occurred in response to exposure to an environment that needed them. Lederberg proved them wrong. He proved that the mutations were already there before exposure. He did not speculate at all on how those mutations came to be.

Before one labels an organism as a spontaneous mutation, one must evidence its non-existence in the species within prior population. Lederberg proved those who assumed spontaneous mutation were wrong. As no one has ever experimentally produced data in support, any claim of mutation is pure speculation.

Evidence of spontaneous mutations is very easy to obtain. Just run the full DNA sequence of a mother and father, and then run the DNA sequence of a child born to them. You will occasionally find sequences in the DNA of the child that were not in either parent. Those are spontaneous mutations.

 

[buffalo]

The criterion you set for “real” evolution is arbitrary and fluid. Whatever contemporaneous evidence we come up with, you will adjust the border so that “real” evolution is just on the other side of that border, not quite reachable. I see your game.

The distinction is between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.