evolution unravled

[synthesizer-patel]

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.

The problem is EF - by your own admission - you know nothing about biology or evolution. Now this would be fine if you weren't making statements about the subject based upon that ignorance.

I'll discuss the subject with you gladly - but its not my job to edufuckingcate on it.

If you have a problem with any of hundreds of thousands of experiments that demonstrate evolution in action then cite the study and tell us what you think is wrong with it.

 

[JesusFreak]

syntheizer patel you guys have to many missing links to be talking crap if you guys are so intelligent then why arent the missing links complete

 

[JesusFreak]

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm here you go have fun

 

[synthesizer-patel]

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

JF - you need to be more specific about your objections - for all I know the reason why you think that the fissil record doesn't support evolution is simply because that's what you have been told to think - certainly you're not showing much evidence of ever having read a book in your life.

Some of the very best examples of evolution contained in the fossil record are the examples of transitions between reptiles and mammals - and i between early homonids and homo sapiens.
Perhaps if you explained why these do not represent an example of phyletic gradualism we might have somewhere to go from here.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

GeoffP
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.

Only people who don't know anything about evolution wiould claim that evolution does always come out with the best outcome - ever heard of an extinction?

Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

yeah? and? so? what?

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

we didn't evolve from monkeys

JF - all three of those statements prove that you know very very little about evolution - do you know how silly you are going to end up looking by attempting to discuss something when you don't in fact know what it really is?

Seriously - I know I keep banging on about this but it uis in your best interests - READ A BOOK!
understand what evolution actually is instead of what you have been told it is- then come back here with some questions that don't make you look like a dull third grader - then we can talk

we have suprisingly few missing links considering how rare fossils are

 

[JesusFreak]

synthesizer-patel
If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution. http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm and i been giving you resource and only thang you gave me is missing links and you think
synthesizer-patel
Only people who don't know anything about evolution wiould claim that evolution does always come out with the best outcome - ever heard of an extinction?

where in the article did it say that no where that not a fact that there observation again you are using your words not theres i been using resources i study on evolution for a long time i know what im talking about it you that hasnt shown proof you dont think i cant find facilties in your resource and when i do you try to say i dont know what im talking about and try to say your smarter than me which im not saying i am smarter im saying that i know a lot more than you think i proved fossil records contradicts evolution and you yet to show me it doesnt show me one fossil record that doesnt contradict evolution

synthesizer-patel we didn't evolve from monkeys

then show me the links of evolving what did we evolve from

 

[JesusFreak]

http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html

 

[electrafixtion]

The problem is EF - by your own admission - you know nothing about biology or evolution. Now this would be fine if you weren't making statements about the subject based upon that ignorance.

I'll discuss the subject with you gladly - but its not my job to edufuckingcate on it.

If you have a problem with any of hundreds of thousands of experiments that demonstrate evolution in action then cite the study and tell us what you think is wrong with it.

SP
Where do you get the "i know nothing about" this or that stuff from? I admit fully that I don't know EVERYTHING about any particular subject, however I know a good deal about biology.

I do most certainly know enough to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Theory of Evolution has NEVER be duplicated or replicated in a controlled situation. I also know that unguided evolution has NEVER been proved although it is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

For you as a true respecter of TRUTH and INTEGRITY to state unequivocally that evolution has been replicate and duplicated in a controlled environment is foolish and indeed a great insult to your own intelligence. It has not.

Bottom Line: Unguided Evolution (Darwinian Evolution) as a means by which all life has came to be on Earth is FAR FROM FACT. That's a fact.

 

[JesusFreak]

Not only that they do not give any scientific data- this is more of a summary of what was being done. The fact is they did not prove that there was an increase in genetic information - loss/deletion/duplication etc. is not the evolution we are discussing. We are talking molecules to man evolution not "micro". By assuming that creationists believe in the fixity of species is a straw man tactic. It sad that you are not more critical of the things you read on the internet. How did the bacteria gain this ability? I would bet the bacteria lost some genetic information because this is hardly beneficial. Using the fallacy of equivocation is just wrong. To take adaptation and variation in a species and say it is evidence for goo to man evolution ( macro) is completely dishonest. Creationists accept adaptation and variations in a species - we do not believe new, more complex life forms can evolve this way. This is what has never been observed so far.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

SP
Where do you get the "i know nothing about" this or that stuff from? I admit fully that I don't know EVERYTHING about any particular subject, however I know a good deal about biology.

you don't appear to - for example you admit to knowing nothing about how genetics complements evolution

I do most certainly know enough to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Theory of Evolution has NEVER be duplicated or replicated in a controlled situation. I also know that unguided evolution has NEVER been proved although it is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

well another poster has posted examples - I have in previous threads - I have read numerous books and papers that do just this - why don't you know about them? because you know next to nothing about the subject.

For you as a true respecter of TRUTH and INTEGRITY to state unequivocally that evolution has been replicate and duplicated in a controlled environment is foolish and indeed a great insult to your own intelligence. It has not.

great then you'll be able to cite the studies which have donew this an refute them - any time you're ready - I'm waiting

Bottom Line: Unguided Evolution (Darwinian Evolution) as a means by which all life has came to be on Earth is FAR FROM FACT. That's a fact.

Correct - while evolution is indeed a fact there may well be a new theory that comes along that explains the facts of evolution better than the new synthesis does - however with the sum total of zero contradictory evidence arriving in the last 120ish years, evolution is safe for the moment.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

synthesizer-patel
If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.

yes and no - in general terms we only see transitional fossils that represent transition between the higher taxonomical groups i.e high level macroevolution - so at the level of class, order and family transitional fossils are very abundant indeed (so crinoids evolving into basket stars or elasmobranchs evolving into bony fishes for example).
Complete fossil records displaying small gradual changes at the level of genus and species are pretty rare - but not entirely absent - two of the best examples of phyletic gradualism can be saeen in the transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals, and within the hominids which show the descent of man from other apes.
So in no way does the fossil record contradict evolution - it confirms that it happens higher up the taxonomical tree - it merely contains some gaps in some of the very fine detail.
What this does contradict is the creationist view of evolution, that evolution will take place within species or within "kinds" but not across the higher taxons - what they (somewhat inaccurately) describe as microevolution.

where in the article did it say that no where that not a fact that there observation again you are using your words not theres i been using resources i study on evolution for a long time i know what im talking about it you that hasnt shown proof you dont think i cant find facilties in your resource and when i do you try to say i dont know what im talking about and try to say your smarter than me which im not saying i am smarter im saying that i know a lot more than you think i proved fossil records contradicts evolution and you yet to show me it doesnt show me one fossil record that doesnt contradict evolution

can you repost this with some punctuation please - its unintelligible

then show me the links of evolving what did we evolve from

 

[electrafixtion]

you don't appear to - for example you admit to knowing nothing about how genetics complements evolution


well another poster has posted examples - I have in previous threads - I have read numerous books and papers that do just this - why don't you know about them? because you know next to nothing about the subject.





great then you'll be able to cite the studies which have donew this an refute them - any time you're ready - I'm waiting



Correct - while evolution is indeed a fact there may well be a new theory that comes along that explains the facts of evolution better than the new synthesis does - however with the sum total of zero contradictory evidence arriving in the last 120ish years, evolution is safe for the moment.

I love your dancing here SP. Not one shred of REAL information or proof for the case of Evolution being a FACT. Which BTW, is the debate we are having in this thread in case you forgot. I just LOVE how the so called scientists do a more exacting and efficient job of being woo woos than the offenders to the sacred cross of their "so called" science, that they so diligently attempt to persecute. Your EXCUSES for the factual legitimacy of evolution here are clumsy SP. Honestly, they are nonexistent.

ANYTHING that can be proved can be done so concisely and efficiently. All you have provided thus far is blue smoke in mirrors. Care to try again?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I love your dancing here SP. Not one shred of REAL information or proof for the case of Evolution being a FACT. Which BTW, is the debate we are having in this thread in case you forgot. I just LOVE how the so called scientists do a more exacting and efficient job of being woo woos than the offenders to the sacred cross of their "so called" science, that they so diligently attempt to persecute. Your EXCUSES for the factual legitimacy of evolution here are clumsy SP. Honestly, they are nonexistent.

ANYTHING that can be proved can be done so concisely and efficiently. All you have provided thus far is blue smoke in mirrors. Care to try again?

great - then you'll rise above it - cite a study that claims to show evolution in action and comprehensively refute it for us all to see.

 

[JesusFreak]

Ask, and it shall be given you

Matthew 7: 7




Bloody red-handed!



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



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

Lol - not quite there bud- you just do not understand. We are not talking about micro evolution we are talking about genetic information increasing via chance random mutations - molecules to man. Creationists believe in variation and adaptation and natural selection. Stop with the dishonesty and logical fallacies. Equivocation, red haring, straw men tactics is all this is. If you seriously have an open mind check out this link concerning your E. coli bacteria.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm

 

[JesusFreak]

Here is some more information on your so called evolution being observed with E. coli bacteria.

Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate (Cit+). As mentioned previously, E. coli are not usually able to utilize citrate (Cit-), and this fact is typically used as diagnostic identification of E. coli. A New Scientist writer proclaims, “A major 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.”2 However, as we will see, this is a gross overstatement in regards to what actually occurred.

Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low.6 Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway. The gene (citT) in E. coli is believed to encode a citrate transporter (a protein which transports citrate into the cell).6 When oxygen levels are high, it is thought that the citrate transporter does not function or is not produced (even though they still possess the enzymes necessary to utilize citrate). Thus, wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and utilize it—so much for the idea of a “major innovation” and “evolution . . . making a rare and complex new trait”! Other labs have also produced Cit+ E. coli and speculated that mutation(s) in citT (or its regulators) allow the citrate transporter to function or be produced under high oxygen levels.6, 7 These types of changes are very consistent with the creation model (see below), but cannot serve as a means for evolution.

Lenski’s lab has not yet identified the genetic alterations of the Cit+ E. coli line, but he believes that there are multiple mutations involved. Studies of the “fossil record” of this line indicate that one or more mutations occurred around generation 20,000 which he terms “potentiating” mutations that were necessary before additional mutations around generation 31,500 led to Cit+ cells. Lenski thinks that the mutations may have activated a “cryptic” transporter (a once functional transporter that has been damaged due to the accumulation of mutations) that can now transport citrate. However, he states, “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted [sic] for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen levels] conditions.”1 He believes this could be the same citrate transporter (citT) used in low oxygen conditions (inferring a loss of regulation) or a transporter for another substrate that has been modified to transport citrate (inferring a loss of specificity).

Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”1 If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds! Lenski’s work shows a clear case of adaptation and not evolution.(http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye)[Answers in Genesis]

 

[JesusFreak]

The White Cliffs of Dover. This is made of chalk, which is the accumulated skeletons of tiny marine animals. It would take way more than 6,000 years to build up a structure like this. Also, it erodes at a rate of one centimeter per year, that's about 200 feet in 6,000 years, meaning it would have existed before then.

Let me guess, you go to school in Kansas? Or maybe you are homeschooled? Intelligent Design was an instrument of creationists to force the teaching of creation in public schools. This was proven in court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Once again you are only seeing one side of the picture - if you have an open mind then go ahead and check out this link. Your "evidence" does not discredit a biblical account. Assumptions, presuppositions, bias we all have it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/white-cliffs-dover

 

[JesusFreak]

And stop using wiki it is not a credible source - most college professors do not allow students to cite wiki.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Once again you are only seeing one side of the picture - if you have an open mind then go ahead and check out this link. Your "evidence" does not discredit a biblical account. Assumptions, presuppositions, bias we all have it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/white-cliffs-dover

JF - I think we have a little hypocracy here don't you - you rebuke someone for using wiki - which is mostly ok, but can be rather patchy in its accuracy - and in response you post AIG - who even you know are liars - not even a kindergarten teacher would allow a citation from that

for a good example of some of the lies they are telling in the link you provided, they state that turbulent waters promote high plankton growth - this is a lie - the answer is the opposite (remember I'm a marine biologist so I know this stuff inside out) for plankton to bloom a stable water column is essential.

They state that increased nutirents would promote increased plankton growth - this is correct but only up to a point.
There is a point at which plankton cannot grow any faster regardless of how good the growth conditions are and how much nutrient is available (plankton growth dynamics are very similar to michaelis menten enzyme kynetics - for good reason - they use proteins to transport nutrients acrioss their cell membranes) - this point is approximately 10 times the highest growth rate we see in nature.
However for the white cliffs of dover to form they would (using AIG's own figures) have had to grow at approximately 1,200,000 times their natural rate if we allow for time for the plankton to grow die, sink, be buried, lithified, have the surface eroded away, and then uplifted in the space of one year.

Finally - all coccoliths are marine - they die in freshwater - the flood would have rendered them extinct unless noah took them on the ark - but according to the article he didn't.


Conclusion?

Its just a story

JF - if you had ever read a decent book on the subject you wouldn't need me to embarass you publicly with this - that's why I STILL recommend you read one

 

[JesusFreak]

JF - I think we have a little hypocracy here don't you - you rebuke someone for using wiki - which is mostly ok, but can be rather patchy in its accuracy - and in response you post AIG - who even you know are liars - not even a kindergarten teacher would allow a citation from that

for a good example of some of the lies they are telling in the link you provided, they state that turbulent waters promote high plankton growth - this is a lie - the answer is the opposite (remember I'm a marine biologist so I know this stuff inside out) for plankton to bloom a stable water column is essential.

They state that increased nutirents would promote increased plankton growth - this is correct but only up to a point.
There is a point at which plankton cannot grow any faster regardless of how good the growth conditions are and how much nutrient is available (plankton growth dynamics are very similar to michaelis menten enzyme kynetics - for good reason - they use proteins to transport nutrients acrioss their cell membranes) - this point is approximately 10 times the highest growth rate we see in nature.
However for the white cliffs of dover to form they would (using AIG's own figures) have had to grow at approximately 1,200,000 times their natural rate if we allow for time for the plankton to grow die, sink, be buried, lithified, have the surface eroded away, and then uplifted in the space of one year.

Finally - all coccoliths are marine - they die in freshwater - the flood would have rendered them extinct unless noah took them on the ark.

JF - if you had ever read a decent book on the subject you wouldn't need me to embarass you publicly with this - that's why I STILL recommend you read one

You seriously cannot comprehend why wiki is not a reliable source and why college professors will not allow students to cite it? They would and do allow Answers in Genesis and Science Against Evolution. There are ligament reasons why wiki is not a reliable source. Their religion and views has nothing to do with it. But that is how you attack mine right?

I will give you a few reasons and then I am done with this red haring.



The first fundamental flaw in Wikipedia is that it lacks permanence. You can’t depend upon it to say the same thing today as it said yesterday.

The second fundamental flaw is that although Wikipedia is theoretically democratic, in practice it is Stalinist. Joseph Stalin said, “The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” 1 The content of Wikipedia is not determined by the smart people in the world who contribute to it. It is determined by the people who decide what edits are legitimate, and what edits are “vandalism.”

The third fundamental flaw is that you know nothing about the qualifications or possible agenda of the people who wrote the Wikipedia article. [SAE]

Finally, if AIG and Science Against evolution are liars call them on it - they welcome email and critiques.

Honestly, this appears to be just another outlandish claim. As far as I know, you might not even be a marine biologist.I, however, am not a biologist, and will get a counter argument to you statements. From experience, I am certain I will discover you have grossly misrepresented evidence and built straw men to tear down.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

You seriously cannot comprehend why wiki is not a reliable source and why college professors will not allow students to cite it?

I didn't say that - don't be dishonest - I merely pointed out that you are hypocrite for complaining about using wiki links due to their unreliability, and you then go and post from the laughing stock of the internet AIG

They would and do allow Answers in Genesis and Science Against Evolution. There are ligament reasons why wiki is not a reliable source. Their religion and views has nothing to do with it. But that is how you attack mine right?

sure in a comparative religion class - or politics it would be fine- but not in a dicussion of evolution - becuase as you know full well - it's lies.

Honestly, this appears to be just another outlandish claim. As far as I know, you might not even be a marine biologist.I, however, am not a biologist, and will get a counter argument to you statements. From experience, I am certain I will discover you have grossly misrepresented evidence and built straw men to tear down.

Bring it on! - I'll even help you

here's some links on plankton growth dynamics and coccolith deposition rates to get your teeth into:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...al&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...x-a&q=coccolith+"deposition+rate"&btnG=Search