views on evolution

[leopold]

So, what was bastardized? the OP, it was born that way.

the post was directed at hercules.
he chose not to discuss the matter.

In order to argue against evolution, you need evidence

since when has "needing evidence" stopped evolutionists from disregarding, even toppling, scientific laws?

which you will never find

.

since the mountains of evidence already collected have grown beyond disrepute.

mountains of PHD authored papers, very little in respect to demonstrated results.
and please, don't start dragging out the "adaptation" bit.

 

[Aqueous Id]

(Note: I accidentally edited this post and have restored it verbatim to its original content.)

originally posted by leopold
since when has "needing evidence" stopped evolutionists from diregarding, even toppling, scientific laws?

The epithet, "evolutionists", synonymous with Darwinist, infers a doctrine or ideology, as opposed to Science. Evolution is Science, not ideology. Scientists do not disregard or topple scientific law. They discover the laws of nature from the evidence presented. The implication that scientists are outlaws ("disregarding or toppling law") - if that is your meaning, is a common tactic used by creationists to fire up their congregations, but adds nothing to he[sic] substance of the debate.

Originally posted by leopold:
mountains of PHD authored papers, very little in respect to demonstrated results, and please, don't start dragging out the "adaptation" bit'


If there was one credible shred of evidence that species do not evolve by process of natural selection, the entire scientific community would be frantically searching fro new information that may helpcrack some of the very puzzling and urgent problems of the day, from energy to medicine. To think that any practical or industrial person would give a damn about ideology in a situation so phenomenal as that, seems naive to me.

Disprove natural selection and you can become rich and famous. it simply can't be done.

 

[leopold]

The epithet, "evolutionist", synonymous with "Darwinist", infers a doctrine or ideology, as opposed to Science. Evolution is Science, not ideology. Scientists do not disregard or topple scientific law. They discover the laws of nature from the evidence presented. The implication that scientists are outlaws
("disregarding or toppling law") - if that is your meaning, is a common tactic used by creationists to fire up their congregations, but adds nothing to he substance of the debate.



If there was one credible shred of evidence that species do not evolve by process of natural selection, the entire scientific community would be frantically searching for new information that may help crack some of the very puzzling and urgent problems of the day, from energy to medicine. To think that any practical or industrial person would give a damn about ideology in a situation so phenomenal as that, seems naive to me.

Disprove natural selection and you can become rich and famous. It simply can't be done.

The path of least resistance is to accept that Creationism is a form of denial, and that admission will lead to rehabilitation and recovery, a healthier state of mind. Eventually, if this recovery were to spread, we could rid ourselves of this parasitic distraction that sets Science back every time the creationists get re-elected.

i have no idea why you think i'm a creationist.
is that how you silence all of your detractors?

evolution is science?
well, what experiment has been devised which can be falsified that proves evolution?

 

[Aqueous Id]

i have no idea why you think i'm a creationist.

Because you use creationist slogans in your language
If you are not creationist, why say "evolutionist" instead of "scientist"?

is that how you silence all of your detractors?

Not sure what you mean by silence, nor do I have a sense of anyone detracting from me.

evolution is science?

Yes, of course. Is there any doubt?

well, what experiment has been devised which can be falsified that proves evolution?

I would suppose that there are any number of creationists who occasionally try to to devise various experiments. For example, I recall an exhibit that was put together to attempt to prove that the ark could have carried all the species through the Flood. This is tantamount to what you are asking, maybe.

Of course, it's ludicrous to devise an experiment for the sole purpose of toppling evidence, theory and law with which a person has an ideological sensitivity.

Hopefully the evidence comes first, never as a weapon for ideological war, but as a tool for understanding.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqu,

well, what experiment has been devised which can be falsified that proves evolution?

I would suppose that there are any number of creationists who occasionally try to to devise various experiments. For example, I recall an exhibit that was put together to attempt to prove that the ark could have carried all the species through the Flood. This is tantamount to what you are asking, maybe.

Of course, it's ludicrous to devise an experiment for the sole purpose of toppling evidence, theory and law with which a person has an ideological sensitivity.

Hopefully the evidence comes first, never as a weapon for ideological war, but as a tool for understanding.

And the answer is......


jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Do you mean I didn't answer the question?

OK what experiment has been devised, that can be falsified, that proves evolution?

The question is flawed, so I answered it as above. Here I will add:

Here is a repeatable experiment to test a specific case of evolution:

Grow some non-virulent Staphylococcus. Add some penicillin. Watch what happens. Repeat with a series of increasingly new antibiotics. At successive stages you will decimate each population and it will recover with antibiotic resistance, i.e., it evolved. (simplifying for purposes of exposition, obviously a lot of details in culturing have been omitted).

Can it be falsified (I guess this means "confirmed", "tested")? Yes. Apply penicillin and kill the MRSA you created from a nonvirulent strain. You will never succeed, therefore, the conclusion stands. Or you could just check the DNA. It will not match non-virulent DNA.

 

[leopold]

Because you use creationist slogans in your language
If you are not creationist, why say "evolutionist" instead of "scientist"?

what "slogans" are those?
you find, and post, where i said "god did it".
your posts will be reported if you don't post the source and you refer to me as a creationist again.

 

[Aqueous Id]

sorry leopold, I accidentally edited my post above instead of inserting it here I will try to fix it - hang on.
I am fixing the post above - here is the text I accidentally stuck up there:

what "slogans" are those?

the following slogans:

how is that any different than idiot evolutionists that have bastardized and corrupted the topic to fit their pre-conceived non-scientific viewpoint?

would suggest a creationist stance; note I did not say "You are a Creationist"

you find, and post, where i said "god did it".
your posts will be reported if you don't post the source and you refer to me as a creationist again.

you find and post where I said "you said 'god did it'"
I find no such post by me

find my post where I called you creationist

as far as I can tell, you are referring to my post:

The epithet, "evolutionist", synonymous with "Darwinist", infers a doctrine or ideology, as opposed to Science. Evolution is Science, not ideology. Scientists do not disregard or topple scientific law. They discover the laws of nature from the evidence presented. The implication that scientists are outlaws ("disregarding or toppling law") - if that is your meaning, is a common tactic used by creationists to fire up their congregations, but adds nothing to he substance of the debate.

see, I was looking for the underlying motive in the use of the term "Darwinist" - the name of this thread - and "evolutionist" - the term you used. What is that motive? Why borrow the language of creationists if you do not support creationism?

If you want to give me constructive opinions convering the forum rules I'm happy to discuss them. I'm not sure what you mean about reporting me or why. As far as I can tell, I am on topic, addressing the remarks I see posted here with candor and without bluster or personal affronts.

If you wish, you can explain your stance. If I misread or misundertood you, then just say so.

 

[leopold]

Here is a repeatable experiment to test a specific case of evolution:

Grow some non-virulent Staphylococcus. Add some penicillin. Watch what happens. Repeat with a series of increasingly new antibiotics. At successive stages you will decimate each population and it will recover with antibiotic resistance, i.e., it evolved. (simplifying for purposes of exposition, obviously a lot of details in culturing have been omitted).

Can it be falsified (I guess this means "confirmed", "tested")? Yes.

adaptability.
the genes were already present.
i can provide a gazillion such examples.
your qoute does not prove "molecules to man".

see, I was looking for the underlying motive in the use of the term "Darwinist" - the name of this thread - and "evolutionist" - the term you used. What is that motive?

the terms "darwinist" and "evolutionist" are interchangeable, one IS the other.

If I misread or misundertood you, then just say so.

you have misread me and misunderstood me.
i don't mean to piss off anyone but i find the concept of some glorified god coming down here and creating everything laughable.

question for you:
how scientific is it to say " evolution proceeds fast or slow or sometimes not at all"?
am i missing something?

 

[Aqueous Id]

adaptability.
the genes were already present.
i can provide a gazillion such examples.
your qoute does not prove "molecules to man".

I was responding to the question "state an experiment showing evolution, which can be falsified (tested).

Not sure why you refer to adaptability. The bacteria evolved. To say any different, is to change the meaning of the word.

You did not ask for an experiment in which genes were not already present. Nor do I understand your reference to "molecules to man". We were talking about "Darwinian" evolution. I suspect we still define this topic differently. to me, it means denial of evolution for the creationist perspective. The OP chose butterfly metamorphosis as the base.

Maybe you can expand on the significance of "molecules to man", which sounds more oriented to human evolution, but also incorporating all chains backward to abiogenesis. That's an awful lot to chew, and perhaps too much to swallow!

the terms "darwinist" and "evolutionist" are interchangeable, one IS the other.

If you mean to refer to the science, you can say "Darwin's Theory" and this distinguishes his original ideas from the newer refinements on things like gradualism. But to say "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist" is to convert the science into an ideology, by creating an epithet which adds cynical irony to the meaning of the words "Darwin" and "Evolution".

you have misread me and misunderstood me.
i don't mean to piss off anyone but i find the concept of some glorified god coming down here and creating everything laughable.

OK then I guess you're not a creationist? So why borrow their slogans?

question for you:
how scientific is it to say " evolution proceeds fast or slow or sometimes not at all"?
am i missing something?

I'm not sure what that's in reference to, but I will answer you as I understand the question.

The rate that species emerge and evolve has statistical independence insofar as the probability that a stress will randomly arrive and spur an evolutionary change. However, time may correlate with trends in evolution according to other more predictable events, such as the gradual of an climate change.

Evolution does not have any bearing on the smoothness over time of any particular change. It is not linear. Thinking in linear terms is a common oversimplification that leads to many misunderstandings of science. One type of stress on a population may lead to a smooth evolutionary change over time. Another stress may trigger rapid and large changes, such as in the Cambrian era when evolution triggered many branches of innovation in the fundamental bases of common ancestry. There were many factors present at that time to induce this kind of rapid and diverse result. We can talk about that more if you want.

 

[billvon]

evolution is science?

Yes, as much as genetics is science.

well, what experiment has been devised which can be falsified that proves evolution?

Evolution of microorganisms under adverse conditions. If evolution did not exist, they would not create new proteins/structures that allowed them to survive. They do.

 

[billvon]

adaptability. the genes were already present.

In many cases, no, they were not present. Random mutation made a change that allowed new proteins to be expressed. These new proteins allowed survival in inhospitable environments.

your qoute does not prove "molecules to man".

Nope - but it does demonstrate "bacteria to man."

how scientific is it to say " evolution proceeds fast or slow or sometimes not at all"?

As scientific as it is to say "some stars become supernovas and some stars become novas and sometimes they don't become either one."

 

[Aqueous Id]

As scientific as it is to say "some stars become supernovas and some stars become novas and sometimes they don't become either one."

Or, how about this: hydrogen emerges from that process, transmuted into all the elements of the periodic table.

 

[leopold]

Grow some non-virulent Staphylococcus. Add some penicillin. Watch what happens. Repeat with a series of increasingly new antibiotics. At successive stages you will decimate each population and it will recover with antibiotic resistance, i.e., it evolved. (simplifying for purposes of exposition, obviously a lot of details in culturing have been omitted).

can you point me to the source where this experiment is demonstrated?

 

[AlexG]

can you point me to the source where this experiment is demonstrated?

You'll find a bunch here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=antibiotic+resistance+review&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Try this one in particular:

http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/11/2180


You often ask others to point you to a source. Are you google challenged?

 

[leopold]

i've had it with your ad homs alex.
go away and don't even bother responding to any more of my posts.

 

[Aqueous Id]

can you point me to the source where this experiment is demonstrated?

AlexG found some.

so is it resolved then, that antibiotic resistance is a well confirmed proof of the evolution of bacteria?

 

[leopold]

AlexG found some.

so is it resolved then, that antibiotic resistance is a well confirmed proof of the evolution of bacteria?

i cannot see alex's posts.
besides, i asked you for the source since you presented the evidence.

actually i'm interested to see what happens to the organism when the stimuli is removed.

 

[Aqueous Id]

here is an related article: wait a minute and I'll get on I had i mind - the NIH site is busy - hang on....


Evolution Getting Faster Thanks to Germs, Viruses, Study Says
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
March 5, 2007

Viruses and bacteria have sped up the process of evolution by rapidly transferring DNA from one species to another, a new study suggests.

Gene-mapping projects over the past decade have already shown that genes can move between species via tiny microorganisms.

Now a team of scientists at Texas' Rice University believes that microbes are accelerating evolution by constantly transporting whole chunks of DNA that may represent new and beneficial functions—like resistance to disease.

This process—called horizontal gene transfer (HGT)—may allow life-forms to evolve more quickly than they would by occasional, random mutations alone, the scientists say.

"We know that the majority of the DNA in the genomes of some animal and plant species—including humans, mice, wheat and corn—came from HGT insertions," said Michael Deem, a genetic engineer at Rice, in a press statement.

"For example, we can trace the development of the adaptive immune system in humans and other jointed vertebrates to an HGT insertion about 400 million years ago."

"Once [viruses and bacteria] find a useful protein or gene, it can be transmitted to more complex species by [this process]," Deem told National Geographic News.

"I think this is the main mechanism by which dramatically new function evolves."

Evolution in Overdrive?

Evolution, as most scientists understand the process, has been getting faster and more complex over time.

Fossil records indicate that single-celled organisms appeared on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago. It took a further 2.5 billion years for the first multicellular life-forms to evolve.

But over the next billion years, those first multi-cellular organisms evolved into the staggering diversity of plant and animal life found on modern Earth.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@leopold

I couldn't get into the NIH library - how's this, from Wiki:

(ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_resistance)

Drug or toxin or chemical resistance is a consequence of evolution and is a response to pressures imposed on any living organism. Individual organisms vary in their sensitivity to the drug used and some with greater fitness may be capable of surviving drug treatment. Drug-resistant traits are accordingly inherited by subsequent offspring, resulting in a population that is more drug-resistant. Unless the drug used makes sexual reproduction or cell-division or horizontal gene transfer impossible in the entire target population, resistance to the drug will inevitably follow. This can be seen in cancerous tumours where some cells may develop resistance to the drugs used in chemotherapy.[2] A quicker process of sharing resistance exists among single-celled organisms, and is termed horizontal gene transfer in which there is a direct exchange of genes, particularly in the biofilm state.[3] A similar asexual method is used by fungi and is termed parasexuality. Examples of drug-resistant strains are to be found in microorganisms[4] such as bacteria and viruses, parasites both endo- and ecto-, plants, fungi, arthropods,[5] mammals,[6] birds,[7] reptiles,[8] fish and amphibians.[8]