AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Definitive Proof of Evolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Definitive Proof of Evolution

post #1 of 63
6/10/08 at 10:07am
Thread Starter 
Mutation? Evolution? Likely both sides of the same coin.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

It should take mere minutes for this solid evidence to be decried as fraudulent by "intelligent design" fans.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #2 of 63
6/10/08 at 10:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It should take mere minutes for this solid evidence to be decried as fraudulent by "intelligent design" fans.

You're behind the curve!

The pretext for creationism is now called "strengths and weaknesses."
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 63
6/10/08 at 10:12am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You're behind the curve!

The pretext for creationism is now called "strengths and weaknesses."

They're evolving their message! There really is no substitute for good old fashioned ignorance and stupidity.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 63
6/10/08 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

They're evolving their message! There really is no substitute for good old fashioned ignorance and stupidity.

Capt. Cook never heard of no Escherichia coli bacterium.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 63
6/10/08 at 12:28pm
**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Darwinism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.

-----------------------------------------------------------



I saw that a couple of days ago. There's only one problem with Lenski and his 30,000 generations: It's never going to get where it needs to go in the time given. Of the ~100,000 [somebody check that] generations that supposedly separate us from the chimps, you're going to need more than two or three "double jump" mutations to gain advantage, to adapt our body plans, generate self consciousness, Bach, Newton, etc.


There's a limit to what Darwinism can accomplish, Lenski has found what Behe wrote about last year, that the observable rates of mutation cannot go much of anywhere -- hence "The Edge of Evolution." When you need more than one mutation -- two or three to gain your advantage -- that increases the unlikelihood exponentially, which, one more time, has been demonstrated scientifically. It took trillions of cells to do this -- how could that possibly scale to humans? Or any other lifeform that can't have ever existed -- even cumulatively -- in those quantities? Maybe you guys weren't listening last year what I posted on this? The edge is there, and they've found it again, just like they found it in chloroquine resistance. What it took to get there is what makes evolution unviable.

Now, you can choose to have faith that evolution suddenly happened in all animals, everywhere, constantly for hundreds of thousands of generations -- but back at the lab, under controlled conditions, that just isn't happening.

(You are more than welcome to your faith-based positions, of course.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #6 of 63
6/10/08 at 12:37pm
Who do you think you're kidding?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 63
6/10/08 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Who do you think you're kidding?

Um, I don't know. how far are we going get with one double jump mutation every 30,000 generations?

????

How far?

Hell, ShawnJ, believe what you want, but we aren't finding you guys any favors in the lab. The numbers just keep getting worse, the complexities just keep increasing. And like I said, if they could have put together an simple organism on paper in a stepwise fashion -- and don't think they don't have the software or proc cycles to to do it -- they would have done it by now, and it would be on the front page of every periodical from Nature to Newsweek.

They haven't -- at least guys like Venter don't let it bother them, and actually produce something.

Behave yourself!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #8 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

**I'm going to preface this with an acknowledgement that too many of you who hold with Darwinism demonstrate excessive levels of hatred, profanity, and downright rudeness, if not certain irascibility, which precludes a lot of people from arguing with you. Learning civility may be more elusive than learning the science of life.

-----------------------------------------------------------



I saw that a couple of days ago. There's only one problem with Lenski and his 30,000 generations: It's never going to get where it needs to go in the time given. Of the ~100,000 [somebody check that] generations that supposedly separate us from the chimps, you're going to need more than two or three "double jump" mutations to gain advantage, to adapt our body plans, generate self consciousness, Bach, Newton, etc.


There's a limit to what Darwinism can accomplish, Lenski has found what Behe wrote about last year, that the observable rates of mutation cannot go much of anywhere -- hence "The Edge of Evolution." When you need more than one mutation -- two or three to gain your advantage -- that increases the unlikelihood exponentially, which, one more time, has been demonstrated scientifically. It took trillions of cells to do this -- how could that possibly scale to humans? Or any other lifeform that can't have ever existed -- even cumulatively -- in those quantities? Maybe you guys weren't listening last year what I posted on this? The edge is there, and they've found it again, just like they found it in chloroquine resistance. What it took to get there is what makes evolution unviable.

Now, you can choose to have faith that evolution suddenly happened in all animals, everywhere, constantly for hundreds of thousands of generations -- but back at the lab, under controlled conditions, that just isn't happening.

(You are more than welcome to your faith-based positions, of course.)

You show an amazing lack of the power of parallization. Evolution happened on a parallel scale so VAST that we cannot even begin to mimic it on the level you so desire to see for your proof. 1:30,000,000 is a really small number when you are dealing with scales of 10^100 candidate reactions early in evolution. An experiment operating on something less than 10^10 scales just wont show anything more than noise.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #9 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

You show an amazing lack of the power of parallization. Evolution happened on a parallel scale so VAST that we cannot even begin to mimic it on the level you so desire to see for your proof. 1:30,000,000 is a really small number when you are dealing with scales of 10^100 candidate reactions early in evolution. An experiment operating on something less than 10^10 scales just wont show anything more than noise.

To the doubters... reality is an immensely complex thing and all of the formulae and theories haven't yet come close to a 'grand unified theory' that encompasses this vast puzzle. Nonetheless, this clear evidence on a micro scale is proof positive of evolutionary processes at work.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #10 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post


How far?


Behave yourself!

Every single generation evolved something, some of these were reported - bigger cells - faster glucose growth rates - and dont forget that all the bacteria were in a very very similar fixed environment, so the selection pressure would be extremely limited.

But lets not overlook the fact, that every generation evolved something and just because it wasn't apparent, or had not been tested for, it still happened.

Was that civil enough?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:32pm
Mutations do occur yes that is a fact. I think it is far from proven that mutations explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Clean and simple reply with no baiting.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #12 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:39pm
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I think it is far from proven that mutations explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Clean and simple reply with no baiting.

Fellows

I think its far from proven that believing mythologies based on worshipping the sun explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Move along, no bait here!
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

I think its far from proven that believing mythologies based on worshipping the sun explain the origins, diversity and complexity of life forms.

Move along, no bait here!

Get over here you big lug and come get a hug!!!

You know I am dragging you to heaven with me despite your heathen ways

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #15 of 63
6/10/08 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Get over here you big lug and come get a hug!!!

You know I am dragging you to heaven with me despite your heathen ways

Fellows

Oh come on, im already there, when are you going to drag your butt up here and say hi?
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 63
6/10/08 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Um, I don't know. how far are we going get with one double jump mutation every 30,000 generations?

????

How far?

Hell, ShawnJ, believe what you want, but we aren't finding you guys any favors in the lab. The numbers just keep getting worse, the complexities just keep increasing. And like I said, if they could have put together an simple organism on paper in a stepwise fashion -- and don't think they don't have the software or proc cycles to to do it -- they would have done it by now, and it would be on the front page of every periodical from Nature to Newsweek.

They haven't -- at least guys like Venter don't let it bother them, and actually produce something.

Behave yourself!

Please, he falsified his research so RDU could be approved and Devlin MacGregor could give you Provasic.

He was the only one who had access after Lentz died. He switched the samples and the pathology reports.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 63
6/10/08 at 11:00pm
How many genes are there in the chimp body? How many genes in an E. Coli bacterium? Obviously the number of generations per mutation is going to be greater for bacteria! Duh.

Now generations per mutation per gene should be about constant, presuming a similar mutation-conducive environment, which cannot possibly exist, by the way...
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 63
6/10/08 at 11:53pm
K.I.S.S.

A wise, gentle, loving old man with a big beard, sitting on a cloud made everything.

And if you don't believe that he'll make you burn in a fiery pit forever.

That or your coconut crop failed because you didn't toss a virgin into the Volcano god last wet season.

... or maybe the beings on Halley-Bop...
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 63
6/11/08 at 3:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Um, I don't know. how far are we going get with one double jump mutation every 30,000 generations?

snip

c cycles to to do it -- they would have done it by now, and it would be on the front page of every periodical from Nature to Newsweek.

They haven't -- at least guys like Venter don't let it bother them, and actually produce something.

Behave yourself!

How will they slime the bacteria?

Even though weve now actually seen evolution occurring in a laboratory, apparently the only evidence that would actually do, its still not good enough because human beings are more complex than bacteria. Yes, even though evolutions been documented and the results are even repeatable, theres no significance in the experiment because other organisms are more complex.

I thought it would be Yes, but God didnt invent bacteria! or some other form of bacteria doesnt count.

Go to your room. Dont act the giddy goat. Behave yourself. Ikkle snookums. Other patronising epithets and requests designed to make the bad sensible people go away by conceiving of them and the things they say as naughty children. Now dont talk back to your father, dmz, Im really displeased now. OK BUSTER NO CHOCOLATE PUDDING FOR A MONTH.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 63
6/11/08 at 6:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Mutation? Evolution? Likely both sides of the same coin.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

It should take mere minutes for this solid evidence to be decried as fraudulent by "intelligent design" fans.

I've read through the article and the thread, but let me address this point. I consider intelligent design a real possibility, provided it is in its truest form. There are those (both for and against it) that pervert it into something it's really not--or at least---shouldn't be. I myself subscribe to a version of it, though I also think the evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming. In other words, evolution clearly takes place...but where did it begin? Secondly, who is to say evolution itself is not guided by a higher power?

Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!

I also think that the article overstates what actually happened. OMG! A mutation!

Quote:
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.

So the bacteria organized themselves into a higher life form, then (any type of higher life form?). Is there evidence this may happen after say, 1,000,000 generations? It just seems like a very small change, even if it is "random."
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #21 of 63
6/11/08 at 6:30am
Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.

dmz:

The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).

Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.

If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #22 of 63
6/11/08 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I consider intelligent design a real possibility, provided it is in its truest form.

You're literally the only one.

Like I said, the creationists have abandoned intelligent design and moved on to "strengths and weaknesses."
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 63
6/11/08 at 9:45am
Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.

I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities.

Oh, and man made god in his own image.

Question: Did god evolve?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #24 of 63
6/11/08 at 10:40am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.

I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities,

Oh, and man made god in his own image,

Question: Did god evolve?

Funny you should ask.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #25 of 63
6/11/08 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Question: Did god evolve?

Yes He/She did.

Basically God/s exist/s as part of a contractual arrangement for the individual to obtain whatever it is they feel they lack or want.

eg Eternal life, health or wealth, reassurance that acquired wealth is acceptable and possibly even retained in the afterlife, acquisition of land or prestige, victories,vengeance on their enemies etc

So as individuals change their requirements, God/s must evolve to suit.

When a God no longer meets the requirements set by the worshipper, they are neglected in favor of alternatives till they become extinct, as in the Gods of the Romans and Greeks. That is why all Gods demand constant worship, without it they die.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 63
6/11/08 at 11:32am
Id consider design a possibility - lets just make sure we have a fundamental grasp of what design means in context, and update our rather primitive understanding of God!.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 63
6/11/08 at 12:48pm
I'll leave the same obligatory post I leave in every evolutoin thread.

Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.

That is all.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #28 of 63
6/11/08 at 12:55pm
  • Kickaha
  • Really Fast Typing Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #29 of 63
6/11/08 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not direct the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

++

Couldn't have said it better myself.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #30 of 63
6/11/08 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I also think that the article overstates what actually happened. OMG! A mutation!

I'm not sure how you get that. They literally don't know what actually happened yet, and the article explicitly states that. It will be fascinating to see how this story progresses.

What they do know is that this is a gain of function that could not have happened due to one simple point mutation, or as you so eloquently put it "OMG! A mutation!"
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #31 of 63
6/11/08 at 2:12pm
Quote:
When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

That's beautiful.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #32 of 63
6/11/08 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

That's beautiful.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion

Reply
Reply
post #33 of 63
6/11/08 at 3:32pm
Great article. Best laugh I've had in weeks. 'Course I'm embarrassed to live in Missouri with folk of that type, but so far I have survived with some reasonable sense of logic intact.

"intelligent falling"....

"secular gravity" .....

"Evangelical physicists" ....

"Anti-falling physicists" ....

I really do need to find out where these type of people find their drugs.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #34 of 63
6/11/08 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.

Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.

I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities.

Oh, and man made god in his own image.

Question: Did god evolve?

The reason why you need to act like this really escapes me.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #35 of 63
6/11/08 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.

No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.

Quote:

Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?

The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.

That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.

And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #36 of 63
6/11/08 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.

That's directly contradicted by this:

Quote:
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.


dmz:

The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).

Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.

If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.[/QUOTE]
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #37 of 63
6/11/08 at 7:47pm
Could you explain for me what the contradiction is? I don't see it.

I said that what they observed a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success, which is what evolution is.
What you quoted says that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.

I cannot see the contradiction.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #38 of 63
6/11/08 at 7:50pm
Thread Starter 
There are also evolutionary dead ends. Evolution does not always ensure success.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #39 of 63
6/11/08 at 8:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Please, he falsified his research so RDU could be approved and Devlin MacGregor could give you Provasic.

He was the only one who had access after Lentz died. He switched the samples and the pathology reports.

Nobody appreciated the quote from the Fugitive.

Tough crowd.

Reply
Reply
post #40 of 63
6/11/08 at 8:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Nobody appreciated the quote from the Fugitive.

Tough crowd.


I just figured you were rambling.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Definitive Proof of Evolution