evolution unravled

Listen to me SP. If there is ANYTHING false about the following statements, you let me know. K?

K

Evolution cannot technically be proved because it's pretense can only be observed hypothetically

Wrong - it has been observed demonstrated and replicated- in and out of the lab

and cannot be factually demonstrated in a controlled replication of the process

Wrong - it has been observed demonstrated and replicated- in and out of the lab

Certainly any form of "genetic engineering" can only bear speculative similarities,

Wrong - evolutionary theory underpins genetics - without our understanding of evolutions we would run into considerable deads ends in genetics - analogy: if you have no knowledge of gasoline you'll never figure out how an engine works.

Evolution is a theory based on the assembly of post related information and evidence as validated via empirical review.

Wrong (if I get your meaning right) its based on what's observable and demonstrable as well

Is this not 100% true?

Clearly not
 
Listen to me all of you.

One simple formulae in this problem:

You can't transform non-life material to life matter. There is one more brilliant than us million times matter create life-form. There must be 'Information' pass down to us.....
 
I love Calvin and Hobbes.

Calvin is my inner child and Hobbes is my conscience :p

calvinandhobbesonethics.jpg


As far as evolution goes versus creation, I have to say that the evidence for the existence of evolution far out ways the evidence for creationism...well in scientific terms there isn't any evidence of a "God". There is no way to disprove the existence of a "God", but that doesn't mean that makes it real. My two cents. Faith is a different story and I don't see harm in faith as long as it is a personal choice that doesn't bring harm to others. That's my 'religion': And it harm none, do what ye will ;)
 
Listen to me all of you.

One simple formulae in this problem:

You can't transform non-life material to life matter. There is one more brilliant than us million times matter create life-form. There must be 'Information' pass down to us.....

It's being done.
In 50 years, you won't be able to make this claim anymore.
 
Listen to me all of you.

One simple formulae in this problem:

You can't transform non-life material to life matter. There is one more brilliant than us million times matter create life-form. There must be 'Information' pass down to us.....

Where do you think the food you eat goes ? :D
 
synthesizer-patel
We are not talking about proof of religion we are talking about proof of evolution stop changing the subject this not bible club are right you tring to fit God into evolution which is mortaly impossible you want talk about we will after everybody knows the truth only thang you been giving is a observation not truth of you have a less complex organism and you make a complicated organism which is impossible me and you know that DNA is a faulty system it makes mistaskes its not getting better it never was unless you have a resource that proves me wrong yah i fix the other one ity was a typo on my part
 
synthesizer-patel were the fossil records because I haven't one fossil that agrees with evolution i want to see what you have so i can see why you believe in evolution only thang i been getting is your word know one elses. and you have not yet show me anything to back up your theory but your word for it. I showed you resources and when you prove it wrong you cant make it right
 
albertchong1999 listen im a believer to but we are on evolution and that what we are talking about after this proven to be right or wrong then we will talk about God
 
K



Wrong - it has been observed demonstrated and replicated- in and out of the lab



Wrong - it has been observed demonstrated and replicated- in and out of the lab



Wrong - evolutionary theory underpins genetics - without our understanding of evolutions we would run into considerable deads ends in genetics - analogy: if you have no knowledge of gasoline you'll never figure out how an engine works.



Wrong (if I get your meaning right) its based on what's observable and demonstrable as well



Clearly not

Total and complete bullshit and YOU KNOW IT. If it's not, SHOW US your proof! I cannot believe you are lying about this. Clearly LYING. Why have you lost all your integrity?

If what you stated was true there would be no argument. Please DO NOT confuse people by LYING.
 
Does it really matter who's right and who's wrong? You're all going to die anyway so why waste your time arguing until you're blue in the face on a subject that none of you are ever going to agree on no matter what evidence is offered. Just my imo. Not like any of you care about that either ;)
 
jessiej920 they shouldnt be arguing but debating wat the truth and it doesnt matter but then they know the truth in there heart and that what counts it doesnt matter if they lie
 
Total and complete bullshit and YOU KNOW IT. If it's not, SHOW US your proof!

Ask, and it shall be given you

Matthew 7: 7


Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

Bloody red-handed!

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, 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, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

This, on it's own, is pretty bloody dramatic. The same patterns in each pop! Fascinating stuff, really.

But 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.

Ding. Observed evolution. A little evolutionary ecology in this too:

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
 
GeoffP
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

as you see they have missing links but they always get missing links look they say we evolve from the monkey what did the monkey evolve and and what did that evolve to many missing links it doesnt prove nothing but im glad you put a effort in to finding proof
 
Back
Top