The debating skills of evolutionists
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
Thank you Spidergoat for your valiant attempt at googling a solution to your problem. Unfortunately, your example falls short. No information was added. The bacteria simply adapted to their new surroundings. Some call this "adaptive evolution" (which in english means no evolution at all)
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 Some lines have lost the ability to repair DNA. 2
True evolution, molecules to man, requires new information being added, but these bacteria are experiencing a loss of information and functional systems.. While these changes are beneficial (in the lab environment), they do not add information nor would they help them compete in the wild.
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
Finally, note that in your article it admits that the mutations involved have not been identified but only suggests it was a "chromosome inversion".
1. Vaughn Cooper, et al., “Mechanisms Causing Rapid and Parallel Losses of Ribose Catabolism in Evolving Populations of Escherichia coli B,” Journal of Bacteriology 183 no. 9 (2001): 2834–2841.
2. Paul Sniegowski, et al., “Evolution of High Mutation Rates in Experimental Populations of Escherichia coli,” Nature 387 (1997): 703–705.
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.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
Your detailed reply iceaura lacked any examples of step by step information increasing mutations found in the germ cells of any organism in any lab in the world. Since you are obviously a well educated person, we can conclude you do not have any to offer and that this was a smokescreen and a poor attempt to hide your embarrassment.
...precisely because the E. coli is known to be unable to metabolize citrate, it's this inability that stands as one of the indicators used to identify it from other bacteria...
So, the information in the genome required to make a cell that can metabolize citrate has been added. This was not the case of an individual adapting to it's surroundings, but a hereditary ability that has been added. 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.
Any beneficial mutation is one that adds information to the genome about the environment in which the life form is likely to find itself.
you all do realize that you are debating about the abilities of a certain people.
this is comparable to debating about the ability to play basketball in white people (forgive the mild racism, but I would have said the ability to play basketball in black people, but that's not an apt comparison, because all black people can play basketball.
this is comparable to debating about the ability to play basketball in white people (forgive the mild racism, but I would have said the ability to play basketball in black people, but that's not an apt comparison, because all black people can play basketball.
"Mild" racism?
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.dan said:
It's right in front of you. The mechanisms are all laid out in numerous venues, the reality of it is not in dispute, it's common knowledge. Something odd is going on in your brain.
You apparently don't know how it is acquired, or possibly don't know what Darwinian evolution is, any more than you know what "information" is in this context. But such knowledge is easily obtained.
You're in the position of someone unfamiliar with Newton's Laws of Motion claiming rockets can't fly in space because there's no air to push against. Except you go on to claim that therefore no rockets have ever flown in space. And pretty soon you're claiming the moon landings were faked, and so forth.
The end of this kind of chain of assertion is going to be a grand conspiracy theory, in which tens of thousands of scientists work their lives away in state of brainwashed idiocy, parroting a belief in a theory that does not and cannot yield guidance or explain results.
Just Curious
Registered Senior Member
You will soon come to the conclusion that there is no point in having a scientific discussion with a Creationist. They have an extra tool in their tool box called faith which defies all scientific analysis. What all true scientists have in common is that they are prepared to be wrong when presented with different facts and they are prepared to modify their ideas when presented with different thoughts. Steven Hawking first said that nothing came out of Black Holes. Years later he then said that actually a form of radiation comes out of a Black Hole and called it Hawking radiation. Fellow scientists didn’t call him an idiot for his first statement they respected him for changing his mind in the light of new science. Creationists on the other hand believe they are right because God told them so and therefore everybody else is wrong. You cannot discuss anything with these people because all you get back form them is that familiar sickly grin which says they know the truth and you don’t. Facts never interfere with faith. You have it or you don’t.
Good Point.
Possibly not in this context, but undeniably true.
United States, Russia, China. (oh, and crappy UK wanabees)
The Spanish have beaten you all!
Possibly not in this context, but undeniably true.
United States, Russia, China. (oh, and crappy UK wanabees)
The Spanish have beaten you all!
Last edited:
While a scientist who does not take his science from Genesis would say that the reason for the emergence of separate species of Finches on the Galapagos was the result of having an isolated population in which some ecological niches were not filled, the scientific creationist must say that God, for whatever reasons, made the Islands and knowing that other species would be unable to compete for resources, decided to create a wide variety of species of Finches, individually, one for each niche.
I take from this that, the reality of competition between species is the same in God's mind as in the Evolutionists. ie, The fittest survive, and the rest will die out.
If God does not proceed through evolution, then he must plan the world carefully so that precious creatures are not immediately gobbled up or outcompeted by similar creatures.
That's why, in answer to any question, a creationist will want to know what the scientific answer is.
They will then say that that is what God decided would be appropriate.
Take meteorology.
Before scientific discoveries, the creationist would have said (in fact everyone would have said), that every bolt of lightning and every hurricane were direct actions of God.
Now, everyone knows that weather events are, in the short term at least, predictable.
No matter how much you knock the forecasters, they are good up to about five days, before chaos, or perhaps God, kicks in.
A dilemma for the creationist.
The solution, a shift of ground.
God has made weather systems.
As recently as 2004, a person with traditional views of the nature of God (Muslims this time), told people in a tiny area of the cataclysm that the cause of the Indian Ocean Tsunami was that God was angry with local people who had indulged themselves in dancing. If the people in that village had refrained from dancing, the whole of the ocean rim would have been spared.
The only problem with evolution from a Christian point of view is with Christians from who want to believe in every word of the Bible as fact. Bible Worshippers.
I take from this that, the reality of competition between species is the same in God's mind as in the Evolutionists. ie, The fittest survive, and the rest will die out.
If God does not proceed through evolution, then he must plan the world carefully so that precious creatures are not immediately gobbled up or outcompeted by similar creatures.
That's why, in answer to any question, a creationist will want to know what the scientific answer is.
They will then say that that is what God decided would be appropriate.
Take meteorology.
Before scientific discoveries, the creationist would have said (in fact everyone would have said), that every bolt of lightning and every hurricane were direct actions of God.
Now, everyone knows that weather events are, in the short term at least, predictable.
No matter how much you knock the forecasters, they are good up to about five days, before chaos, or perhaps God, kicks in.
A dilemma for the creationist.
The solution, a shift of ground.
God has made weather systems.
As recently as 2004, a person with traditional views of the nature of God (Muslims this time), told people in a tiny area of the cataclysm that the cause of the Indian Ocean Tsunami was that God was angry with local people who had indulged themselves in dancing. If the people in that village had refrained from dancing, the whole of the ocean rim would have been spared.
The only problem with evolution from a Christian point of view is with Christians from who want to believe in every word of the Bible as fact. Bible Worshippers.
Last edited:
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.
That's not what that article says.
Reference 3 does not make the claim that E. coli can grow on a citrate-only substrate in aerobic conditions. 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?
Which is why the lab work is an actual demonstration of evolution.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008, PNAS, Blount et al.pdf
Though all populations have been fed with glucose, one of them suddenly mutated in order to metabolize citrate, which, usually, is of no use to E. coli bacteria. In fact, precisely because the E. coli is known to be unable to metabolize citrate, it's this inability that stands as one of the indicators used to identify it from other bacteria. Evolution had taken place right in front of Lenski's eyes.
The experiment itself might be valid, but the write up is as clear as mud.
It says that all the populations were fed glucose, in which case why would a population evolve to metabolise citrate?
It would be selected against as a useless trait.
Perhaps they were fed a mixture of both, but that isn't what the article says.
Also "Evolution had taken place right in front of Lenski's eyes"
The writer sounds like a bit of a twit to me.
Last edited:
Citrate was used as a preservative in the growth medium. The article I referenced isn't the original paper of course.
Er, no. They experienced a change in the frequency of a gene that allowed them to make use of a local resource. That is not "no evolution".
No it does not.
Evolution is change in gene frequencies. It does not require the addition of information, only change in it. A fish may evolve without any increase in complexity, which is what you are arguing.
How do you know? More to the point, even if this particular mutation wasn't beneficial in the wild, it illustrates that such changes can occur. Many - the vast majority - will be detrimental, but some thereof will be beneficial, allowing avoidance of some stressor or exploitation of some resource. This is the entire point. You are attempting to find directionalism in the details, which means your job is greater than that of evolutionary science - you want all mutation to be beneficial. It isn't. No reasonable scientific work has adopted that viewpoint in more than a hundred years.
And? Inversions can cause massive alteration in function. This is not a relevant point.
Captain, you are assuming directionalism.
Best,
Geoff
The creationists seem to have dried up.
I'm just playing angel's advocate.
I'm just playing angel's advocate.
This is a metaphor on creationism verse evolutionist on this thread.
Evolutionist: "Look here is a chair"
Creationist: "I don't see a chair"
Evolutionist: "What are you blind, look I'm sitting on it right now!"
Creationist: "no your not"
Evolutionist: "What?!? look I'm standing on the chair now, how could I possibly be above the ground unless I was standing on this chair?"
Creationist: "God's making you float in the air, that all."
Evolutionist: "Look here is a chair"
Creationist: "I don't see a chair"
Evolutionist: "What are you blind, look I'm sitting on it right now!"
Creationist: "no your not"
Evolutionist: "What?!? look I'm standing on the chair now, how could I possibly be above the ground unless I was standing on this chair?"
Creationist: "God's making you float in the air, that all."
Aye Capn', that he does. The plank is ready!
The media will quite literally say anything if it sells their product. The lean is usually towards the Publishers beliefs, but in the process of backing their master, they stretch theirtruth in all directions.
Now you quit that! You made me crack up. For a second there, I felt a common bond between us, and it makes it difficult to dislike you.
So quit that! :roflmao:
All kidding aside, babble thumpers crack me up. My son and his wife are serious thumpers. I manage to keep my tongue silent because if I spoke my mind, I would suddenly find it difficult to see my teen grandchildren who (while living at home with Mom and Dad) are mirroring their folks in the Sky-Pixie dream-around. My own son. went from (later) admitted hard core drug use (I worked all the time and seriously did not see it) to "born again". I still look him in the eye when he talks the talk and all the circle hand holding and praying starts and wonder; "Does he really believe this shit falling out of his mouth?".
They do. They have turned off that part of their minds that real logic comes from. The normal questioning of everything that should be present in everyone's mind, and the gathering of data to fit the pieces of the vast puzzles of existence are simply, publicly, turned off while the Sky-Pixie puts the puzzle together and frames it nicely. In private, within their own mind in silence, those who are intelligent, really intelligent, can not turn off their desire for the facts about their own existence. Outside of that silence, where others can see and hear them, the parroting and hug-hug-feel-good "we're all jebus's chillins" starts up again. Each of these persons has their own reason for this way of being, but each are actually phony as a, as a, uh, virgin human birth.
The debating skills of the evolutionists win again. The Thumpers cycle as they graduate from the semenary to look for a new class of young men to preach to.:roflmao: