Definitive Proof of Evolution
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.
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.
Comments
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."
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.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.)
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!
**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.
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.
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?
Clean and simple reply with no baiting.
Fellows
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!
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
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?
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.
Now generations per mutation per gene should be about constant, presuming a similar mutation-conducive environment, which cannot possibly exist, by the way...
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...
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 we?ve now actually seen evolution occurring in a laboratory, apparently the only evidence that would actually do, it?s still not good enough because human beings are ?more complex than bacteria.? Yes, even though evolution?s been documented and the results are even repeatable, there?s no significance in the experiment because ?other organisms are more complex.?
I thought it would be ?Yes, but God didn?t invent bacteria!? or some other form of ?bacteria doesn?t count.?
Go to your room.
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!
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."
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.