The debating skills of evolutionists

The thought has occurred to me.
A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters.
In a billion years, one of them might type out a complete new play by Shakespeare.

In fact, one of them might be Shakespeare.
 
“ While the bacteria have adapted, it has come at a cost. For example, all the lines have lost the ability to catabolize ribose (a sugar).1 ”
<That's not a cost in their environment where there is no ribose. It's an economy. Shutting down the useless ribose machinery makes the bacterium a more streamlined glucose-eating-machine. This too, is evolution and of a type seen in blind crayfish.>

You may called it “evolution” if you wish, I will called it an adaptive mutation. The issue here is no new information has been gained which could be used as an example of molecules to men evolution, so we are left with nothing but “change”. Change fits nicely in the creation model of origins as why would a creator not build an adaptive system into his created organisms? A blind crayfish has lost information which is no longer needed, this is not a gain. It did not add sight where none existed, but lost sight were it was not needed. No one would deny such change, and only a fool would argue this helps evolution along from fish to fibbing atheists.

“ Originally Posted by mynameisDan
The article you offered suggests that E. Coli cannot metabolize citrate in the wild. However, this is not true. Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low. 3

3. Klaas Pos, et al., “The Escherichia coil Citrate Carrier citT: A Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family Related to the 2-oxoglutarate/malate Translocator from Spinach Chloroplasts,” Journal of Bacteriology 180 no. 16 (1998): 4160–4165. ”
<Reference 3 does not make the claim that E. coli can grow on a citrate-only substrate in aerobic conditions.>

That is not the point and you know it. I stated “when oxygen levels are low” above (anoxic). This means that the ability is to utilize citrate is already present in E. Coli in the wild in some conditions, so what Lenski has done is really not novel and it certainly has not increased information in this organism!

“Thus, E. coli is classified as "citrate negative" as every worker in taxonomy knows. Lenski is perfectly aware of this, and cites the same article. In fact, Lenski is a co-author of (31) (your reference 1), (33) (your reference 2), and cited (43) (your reference 3). Did you do any original research of your own?”
Look, the article is available online.

http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160

First sentence:
“Under anoxic conditions in the presence of an oxidizable cosubstrate such as glucose or glycerol, Escherichia coli converts citrate to acetate and succinate.”

“ E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power (40). The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions (41–43). ”
<Which is why the lab work is an actual demonstration of evolution.>

The labwork is a demonstation of adaptive mutation. No new information was gained, some information was lost. This is not the kind of change we need to created a biosphere from a single cell. But one thing is interesting about this discovery. It has been touted as the “first example of evolution”. So you can understand why evolutionists are clinging to this with the fervor of a religious zealot. It is all they got!

Provide a step by step example of true information gaining evolutionary change observed in any laboratory in the world in the germ cell, or admit that no real observations of information gaining evolution have ever been observed and thus we have a belief about the past and nothing more.
 
"It matters not what exact mutation occurred. It doesn't matter that it has side effects. The mutation that allows Africans to survive malaria also leads to sickle cell anemia."

It matters to the millions of sufferers of sickle cell I am guessing! Sickle cell is an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. While carriers of sickle cell are immune to malaria, their offspring are not. About 25% die of sickle cell disease and another 25% can still get malaria! Now if you want to call this disease "beneficial" go ahead. But it is highly unlikely that this "wonderful mutation" is the type necessary to bring about molecules to man evolution!

"Any beneficial mutation is one that adds information to the genome about the environment in which the life form is likely to find itself."

Information is specified complexity according to Dr. Spetner. How is a defect adding specified complexity. It is not! It is a corruption. A blind fish has not gained anything, but it is safer not to have eyeballs when swimming in underground caves!

This is why proponents of evolutionary faith are so easily brainwashed and brainwash others. They cannot tell the difference between change and true molecules to man evolution. It is like a train leaving Miami for Chicago on a 15 hour trip. But 15 hours later they have not arrived. A search party discovers that they have indeed made progress, but in the wrong direction. They are stuck in the ocean just off of Key West! Yes, they made progress, but in the wrong direction. Demonstrating that organisms can lose information which sometimes benefits them is hardly helping your cause. This is not scales to feathers evolution, this is not arms to wings evolution, this is not eye spot to eye evolution. This train is going downhill, and the end result is extinction, not evolution.
 
"Antibiotic resistance is a common one, and an easy example - that's why I mentioned it, and probably why others have mentioned it. But you don't recognize it. It's time to ask why not."

thanks for asking! there are several reasons for antibiotic resistance in bacteria including acquiring from a direct transfer from other bacteria, already possessiong resistance and mutation. Obviously, we are only interested in mutation here. Interestingly, when resistance occurs through mutation it is the result of degeneration and information loss, not gain such as the loss of a control gene.

Actually, bacteria are excellent examples of "antievolution". These little critters multiply at incredibly high rates. In just a few years they go through a huge amount of generations equivalent to millions of years in human years. Yet bacteria remain essentially unchanged since being discovered by Robert Kock a century ago. In fact, fossils of bacteria believed by evolutionists to be millions of years old appear the same as their modern counterparts!

As the famous French biologist Pièrre Grassé has admitted, rather than demonstrating evolution, bacteria appear to be shifting back and forth around a mean, but no net effect.
 
mynameisDan said:
You may called it “evolution” if you wish, I will called it an adaptive mutation. The issue here is no new information has been gained which could be used as an example of molecules to men evolution, so we are left with nothing but “change”.
Click to expand...

Then you will be partially wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies, nothing more. You are referring to progression or descent with modification, if you must. Demonstration that organisms can, indeed, change, implies that some change may be in the direction you use as a stop-point for all further reference - a monkey, a mole, a man.

Change fits nicely in the creation model of origins as why would a creator not build an adaptive system into his created organisms? A blind crayfish has lost information which is no longer needed, this is not a gain. It did not add sight where none existed, but lost sight were it was not needed. No one would deny such change, and only a fool would argue this helps evolution along from fish to fibbing atheists.
Click to expand...

Whether or not God is responsible is not the issue. The issue is that such a crayfish represents a marked differentiation to other crayfish. With sufficient time, mutation will also build up reproductive isolation with other crayfish. It would be a slow process, but there is little mathematical doubt that such a process would occur. If you're looking for God in there, you frankly wouldn't have the faintest idea where to find him. He's clever, you know.

The labwork is a demonstation of adaptive mutation. No new information was gained, some information was lost.
Click to expand...

This is evolution. Descent with modification proceeds from there, as should be apparent.


This is not the kind of change we need to created a biosphere from a single cell.
Click to expand...

Not specifically, but the logical extension of the same process could easily be responsible for the entirety of the biome. Be reasonable.

This is why proponents of evolutionary faith are so easily brainwashed and brainwash others. They cannot tell the difference between change and true molecules to man evolution. It is like a train leaving Miami for Chicago on a 15 hour trip. But 15 hours later they have not arrived. A search party discovers that they have indeed made progress, but in the wrong direction. They are stuck in the ocean just off of Key West! Yes, they made progress, but in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

Yet; and if the members of that train needed to get to Chicago, it is likely that they will die off or be eaten by alligators (red in tooth and claw). What you fail to realize is that a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand, or ten billion "trains" have also left from Miami on that day. Some of them will arrive in Chicago. Some will arrive in horrifying, terrible places like Key West where they will be destroyed, unable to pass on their terrible sense of direction to future generations of train travellers. Still others will arrive in Spokane, or Pennsylvania, which they might find even preferable to Chicago, or marginally more or less preferable. Some trains will simply be unable to go at all. But some will get through. And this is descent with modification, and fitness.

Best regards,

Geoff
 
The creationists seem to have dried up again.
I don't think their heart is in it somehow.

There is one weapon in the creationist's armoury to which I have no answer.

Can anybody explain to me why despite the human race being a million years old, and the human of a million years ago being as smart as the human of today, that there is no evidence of cave art produced before about 40,000 years ago. Why did the notion of dipping your palm into coloured clay and slapping it against a wall to say "I am here. I lived", take 960,000 years?

(Remember that among them were thousands of potential Einsteins, Michaelangelos and Beethovens.)
 
Captain Kremmen said:
The creationists seem to have dried up again.
I don't think their heart is in it somehow.

There is one weapon in the creationist's armoury to which I have no answer.

Can anybody explain to me why despite the human race being a million years old, and the human of a million years ago being as smart as the human of today, that there is no evidence of cave art produced before about 40,000 years ago. Why did the notion of dipping your palm into coloured clay and slapping it against a wall to say "I am here. I lived", take 960,000 years?

(Remember that among them were thousands of potential Einsteins, Michaelangelos and Beethovens.)
Click to expand...

simple they don't know what they are talking about. human is homo sapien sapien isn't very old now hominids are over million year of age.
 
Thanks pj. First Off. I'm making no pretence of ignorance.
The argument really threw me.

Yes, I'm confusing hominids with homo sapiens.
That brings the period down to 200,000 years, which is more credible.

From Wiki:
Human beings, humans or man (Origin: 1590–1600; < L homō man; OL hemō the earthly one (see humus),[3] also Homo sapiens — Latin: "wise human" or "knowing human"),[4] are bipedal primates in the family Hominidae.[5][6] DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and emotion. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the forelimbs (arms) for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans are distributed worldwide, large populations inhabiting every continent on Earth except Antarctica. The human population on Earth is greater than 6.7 billion, as of July, 2008.[7] There is only one extant subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. As of 2008, humans are listed as a species of least concern for extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.[2]



I've found this as well.
A nice website showing current theory on spread of homo sapiens.
Very unexpected to me. I would have thought that humans spread from Africa into the med. Not currently thought so.
According to this, they were in Australia, before they spread through Europe.
If anyone here is not 100% up to date with modern theories, take a look.
I bet you there will be a few surprises for you.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Creationists are invited to provide alternative theories of the spread of mankind. Presumably, it is thought that humanity spread from the garden of Eden. That would be modern day Iraq I think.
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
Then both sides lack skills because all so-called knowledge and wisdom (including empirical and scientific knowledge) are based upon faith.
Click to expand...

faith that we can trust more than "I think therefor I am" and "2+2=4" yes, science is based on faith that reality exists as is, that all test and experiments provide true knowledge, religion is base on faith that even the unprovable exists and that it has specific parameters which cannot be proven but must be believed in none the less.
 
That you can trust me saying "I think therefore I am" or that I can trust me realizing it?
Regardless of the possibility of gods or anything else, the most evident & trustworthy thing to me inherently is & always will be my selfevident existence.
2+2=4 is extremely high on the list, higher than gods naturally. Regardless of gods or their power or whatever, no 1 invented it, it simply is.
Reality exists. Our perception of reality might be muddied. If the perception(s) of logic minded scientists are flawed, theists certainly have no reason to think theirs aren't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
That you can trust me saying "I think therefore I am" or that I can trust me realizing it?
Click to expand...

One can only trust in the exist one's self, not others.

Regardless of the possibility of gods or anything else, the most evident & trustworthy thing to me inherently is & always will be my selfevident existence.
2+2=4 is extremely high on the list, higher than gods naturally. Regardless of gods or their power or whatever, no 1 invented it, it simply is.
Reality exists. Our perception of reality might be muddied. If the perception(s) of logic minded scientists are flawed, theists certainly have no reason to think theirs aren't.
Click to expand...

The argument (even some religions rely on it) is that reality is simply false (sort of like the matrix) and that any evidence that might run contrary to a god is simply placed their to "test our faith". science can not disprove that reality is not fake nor can it disprove untrue knowledge where random chance always makes an outcome that would be predicted but in fact is not predictable by that model.
 
ElectricFetus said:
One can only trust in the exist one's self, not others.
Click to expand...

I hope I'm understanding that.

ElectricFetus said:
The argument (even some religions rely on it) is that reality is simply false (sort of like the matrix) and that any evidence that might run contrary to a god is simply placed their to "test our faith". science can not disprove that reality is not fake nor can it disprove untrue knowledge where random chance always makes an outcome that would be predicted but in fact is not predictable by that model.
Click to expand...

REALITY isn't false. Perhaps our perception of it is. REALITY isn't fake. Perhaps you're being tricked into thinking your perception is reality.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
I hope I'm understanding that.

REALITY isn't false. Perhaps our perception of it is. REALITY isn't fake. Perhaps you're being tricked into thinking your perception is reality.
Click to expand...

it can't be proved beyond all doubt (like 2+2=4 can) that reality is not fake: time, physics, all could be claimed to be illusionary, if so then the construct which our perception of reality exist in is not real by most definitions as it lacks time, order and mass.
 
You just used the word reality in 2 contradictory ways in the same sentence. 1 made sense, the other didn't. If humans' perception of reality is illusory, reality isn't false, fake or illusory. It's the perception. Humans might never know reality but reality yet exists.
2+2=4 not only can be proven, it's obvious. Even if nearly all human perception is flawed, 2+2=4.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
You just used the word reality in 2 contradictory ways in the same sentence. 1 made sense, the other didn't. If humans' perception of reality is illusory, reality isn't false, fake or illusory. It's the perception. Humans might never know reality but reality yet exists.
2+2=4 not only can be proven, it's obvious. Even if nearly all human perception is flawed, 2+2=4.
Click to expand...

lets take the most limited reality possible, a reality of one, were everything else is illusionary, including time, that not much of a reality, I can only be sure of my self, not of others, or time or space, what kind of reality is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top