Jump to content


Photo

E. Coli Develops The Ability To Metabolise Citrate.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#1 Michamus

Michamus

    AKA assist24

  • Evolution babbler
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Camp Blessing, Afghanistan

Posted 31 March 2009 - 06:02 PM

New Scientist - Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

I found this article, and was intrigued. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

I for one find this to be yet another evidence that random mutation does provide a means for beneficial mutations, as evidenced by this event. This capability is stated to have not existed previously within E. Coli. This makes sense to me as E. Coli has never been attributed with the ability to metabolise citrate, as far as my studies go, until I came across this article.

Just my 2 cents.

#2 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 March 2009 - 06:31 PM

It's funny how the article is guessing that it must have been a mutation within the bacteria to be able to do this. They think it was a mutation, and they think creationist believe that bacteria can't do this.

Well, there are several instances of bacteria being able to eat what they want to. This was obviously not random. Why? Because the scientist was feeding the bacteria citrate, and the bacteria were enjoying it obviously.

Scientist are quick to point out the quick changes that bacteria make as evolution, but I think there is more to bacteria than just evolution and hand waved mutations.

Something obviously caused these bacteria to start eating glucose, they hyothesize that it must automatically be a mutation, but such cannot be confirmed. This trait appeared with the Bacteria. Now glucose is a substance that many bacteria can eat, so the ecoli may be a different breed of bacteria that normally can't eat citrate, but... what if the trait is not randomly reappearing.

Maybe, the bacteria has information built into its system to reawaken the trait from past generations of breeds.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:08 PM

Hi Guys,

I'm glad this thread was started. Here are a couple of articles that refute this marvelous not-so-magic bullet:

http://creation.com/...igesting-e-coli

http://www.answersin...poke-in-the-eye

Now Jason78 gave me an article in a post several months ago that I can't find. Jason78, if you're reading this can you help me find that paper you posted for me once? I believe it deals with the same or a similar issue.

I don't know much about this but I'm anxious to learn the details so I can understand it better.

#4 Michamus

Michamus

    AKA assist24

  • Evolution babbler
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Camp Blessing, Afghanistan

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:21 PM

It's funny how the article is guessing that it must have been a mutation within the bacteria to be able to do this.  They think it was a mutation, and they think creationist believe that bacteria can't do this.

Jerry Coyne made the comment about creationist's POV on the matter. The bacterial research is being done by Richard Lenski. I don't know what part of the article made you interpret them as "think"ing it was a mutation. They know it was a mutation, and that the basis of the mutation started about 20,000 generations into the experiment.

Well, there are several instances of bacteria being able to eat what they want to.

Different bacteria metabolise different "food sources".

This was obviously not random.  Why? Because the scientist was feeding the bacteria citrate, and the bacteria were enjoying it obviously.

He wasn't "feeding" the bacteria citrate, as they couldn't metabolise it until they developed the ability to. Once the ability developed it was rewarded with the available food source.

Scientist are quick to point out the quick changes that bacteria make as evolution, but I think there is more to bacteria than just evolution and hand waved mutations.

The reason bacteria change so quickly is due to their significantly shorter lifecycles. This enable hundreds of thousands of generations to occur within one of our lifetimes.

Something obviously caused these bacteria to start eating glucose,

Ahem, you mean citrate.

they hyothesize that it must automatically be a mutation, but such cannot be confirmed.

This is confirmed as a mutation by the very fact that previous generations did not possess the genetic data to accomplish citrate consumption.

  This trait appeared with the Bacteria. Now glucose

Ahem, you mean citrate.

is a substance that many bacteria can eat, so the ecoli may be a different breed of bacteria that normally can't eat citrate, but... what if the trait is not randomly reappearing.

I don't know of a bacteria that can consume citrate, until now.

Maybe, the bacteria has information built into its system to reawaken the trait from past generations of breeds.

Or maybe this is yet another evidence of random mutation, through natural selection providing a beneficial effect. If this is truly a past trait, why is it that it has not developed until now?

#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 March 2009 - 08:32 PM

Jerry Coyne made the comment about creationist's POV on the matter. The bacterial research is being done by Richard Lenski. I don't know what part of the article made you interpret them as "think"ing it was a mutation. They know it was a mutation, and that the basis of the mutation started about 20,000 generations into the experiment.
Different bacteria metabolise different "food sources".
He wasn't "feeding" the bacteria citrate, as they couldn't metabolise it until they developed the ability to. Once the ability developed it was rewarded with the available food source.
The reason bacteria change so quickly is due to their significantly shorter lifecycles. This enable hundreds of thousands of generations to occur within one of our lifetimes.
Ahem, you mean citrate.
This is confirmed as a mutation by the very fact that previous generations did not possess the genetic data to accomplish citrate consumption.
Ahem, you mean citrate.

I don't know of a bacteria that can consume citrate, until now.
Or maybe this is yet another evidence of random mutation, through natural selection providing a beneficial effect. If this is truly a past trait, why is it that it has not developed until now?

View Post


Ahem, it isn't a why has it developed until now... it's why have scientist just now been started inducing these bacteria to citrate...

By the way... I have absolutely no clue why I was saying glucose, then citrate... I'm sorry I didn't re-read my post at all.

Besides, bacteria change to what they eat all the time. Does this mean they evolved each time... No. It could be a built in mechanism within all bacteria, because who knows, some of these bacteria are probably related, or it may be that we don't quite understand the way bacteria adapt to new foods, and don't respond with maybe it's because you don't understand how bacteria adapt to new foods.

I highly doubt that the bacteria's acceptance of this new food was random.

#6 Michamus

Michamus

    AKA assist24

  • Evolution babbler
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Camp Blessing, Afghanistan

Posted 31 March 2009 - 10:09 PM

By the way... I have absolutely no clue why I was saying glucose, then citrate... I'm sorry I didn't re-read my post at all.

I figured it was an honest typo, that's why I corrected it with "you mean citrate". No harm no foul.

Besides, bacteria change to what they eat all the time.

Indeed, bacteria do change what foods they can metabolize. Evolution describes how this can be achieved through random mutation, natural selection, and reproduction.

Does this mean they evolved each time... No.

Each generation evolves from it's parent. You have roughly 50-100 random mutations within your DNA that cannot be attributed to either parent's half.

  It could be a built in mechanism within all bacteria,

Yes, it very well is a built in mechanism. This mechanism is known as random mutation coupled with natural selection, and reproduction.

because who knows, some of these bacteria are probably related,

This experiment dealt with the E. Coli bacteria, it was a range spanning tens of thousands of generations. They are all related.

or it may be that we don't quite understand the way bacteria adapt to new foods, and don't respond with maybe it's because you don't understand how bacteria adapt to new foods.

Well, the issue here though is that we have a perfectly adequate explanation for how these features develop. No one is claiming here that a bacteria developed into a non-bacteria. This development simply represents a beneficial mutation. This capability did not exist within the E. Coli, until it was developed.

I highly doubt that the bacteria's acceptance of this new food was random.

Well, the development of the genetic material occurred through random mutation. that random mutation was non-randomly selected through the environmental pressure (abundance of citrate in the environment). It was only a matter of time (reproduction) before the sequence was hit.

That's what I think of it all anyway.


Adam_777 linked a couple of very interesting articles that I am intent on reading. I have only gone halfway through the first link, but I will be sure to respond as soon as possible. It takes a little more time for me to research these topics, as I am presently deployed in Afghanistan.

#7 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 31 March 2009 - 11:25 PM

Indeed, bacteria do change what foods they can metabolize. Evolution describes how this can be achieved through random mutation, natural selection, and reproduction.
Each generation evolves from it's parent. You have roughly 50-100 random mutations within your DNA that cannot be attributed to either parent's half.
Yes, it very well is a built in mechanism. This mechanism is known as random mutation coupled with natural selection, and reproduction.

A better explanation is that God has built into bacteria a means of varying their genetic programming in certain areas. They can exchange bits of genetic material (plasmids? -- is that the right word?) and they can mutate part of their genome to search for means of using new resources. One example is the ability of certain bacteria to digest nylon. It was shown that this was developed by several different populations when exposed to nylon (which does not occur naturally, of course). The fact that this was reproducible argues against its being random and instead favours the idea that they have an inherent ability to find ways to digest some new materials.

The neo-Darwinian hypothesis alleges that random mutation can generate new genetic information. However, this is highly unlikely. We know that genetic information is coded (and it can be transformed into a different symbol set and written out on paper or stored on a hard disk just like any other code) and we know that no other code was ever created without intelligent design. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the genetic code was not created by intelligence.

Presumably you should have no problem with that idea, since you describe yourself as Christian?

Link on information theory in this context:
Dr Werner Gitt: In the Beginning was Information

Well, the development of the genetic material occurred through random mutation. that random mutation was non-randomly selected through the environmental pressure (abundance of citrate in the environment). It was only a matter of time (reproduction) before the sequence was hit.

View Post

That is how atheist evolutionists suppose that all genetic material appeared. They even believe that non-living matter somehow became living by the same method. However, considering the changes needed to turn a dinosaur into a bird (which they firmly believe happened), this process is simply not credible. To take that particular case, random mutations have got to
create feathers, with the complex hook system to keep a smooth surface
change a bellows lung into a bird's uni-directional breathing system
change the feet so that the bird can perch
create all the instincts for flying
All these have got to happen at once to make a viable bird; the lack of any one of them makes an animal that is less fit than its parent and therefore will not be selected. But random point mutations can't do any of that. A number of different mutations working together need to happen, that must include the creation of entire new genes. If you apply that idea to a computer program, it immediately becomes obvious how ridiculous it is; but the genetic code is a (part of) a program, though hugely more complex than one that we could write.

#8 Michamus

Michamus

    AKA assist24

  • Evolution babbler
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Camp Blessing, Afghanistan

Posted 01 April 2009 - 01:55 AM

A better explanation is that God has built into bacteria a means of varying their genetic programming in certain areas.  They can exchange bits of genetic material (plasmids? -- is that the right word?) and they can mutate part of their genome to search for means of using new resources.  One example is the ability of certain bacteria to digest nylon.  It was shown that this was developed by several different populations when exposed to nylon (which does not occur naturally, of course).  The fact that this was reproducible argues against its being random and instead favours the idea that they have an inherent ability to find ways to digest some new materials. 

From what you have just stated, you have accepted the ToE. This inherent ability you refer to is random mutation, natural selection, and reproduction.

The neo-Darwinian hypothesis alleges that random mutation can generate new genetic information.  However, this is highly unlikely.  We know that genetic information is coded (and it can be transformed into a different symbol set and written out on paper or stored on a hard disk  just like any other code) and we know that no other code was ever created without intelligent design.  Therefore it is highly unlikely that the genetic code was not created by intelligence.

Question. What do you define as genetic information? I would imagine if we are discussing the base pairs A C T G, then yes, no new information is naturally created. We can artificially create materials to disrupt DNA duplication through the displacement of A C T or G, but this is highly unnatural. Are you describing information on a gene level? If this is the case then we can show many examples of new genes being naturally developed, as exemplified with the E. Coli bacteria developing citrate consumption.

Presumably you should have no problem with that idea, since you describe yourself as Christian?

No problem with which idea specifically? That God created the first strand of DNA? Please be more specific.

Link on information theory in this context:
Dr Werner Gitt: In the Beginning was Information
That is how atheist evolutionists suppose that all genetic material appeared.  They even believe that non-living matter somehow became living by the same method.

Admittedly I know very little about abiogenesis. I highly doubt that even if abiogenesis were to be shown to have naturally occurred in the past, that it would sway my belief in God.

  However, considering the changes needed to turn a dinosaur into a bird (which they firmly believe happened), this process is simply not credible.  To take that particular case, random mutations have got to
  create feathers, with the complex hook system to keep a smooth surface
  change a bellows lung into a bird's uni-directional breathing system
  change the feet so that the bird can perch
  create all the instincts for flying
All these have got to happen at once to make a viable bird; the lack of any one of them makes an animal that is less fit than its parent and therefore will not be selected.

But random point mutations can't do any of that.  A number of different mutations working together need to happen, that must include the creation of entire new genes.

Or perhaps we can utilize the evolutionary model, which allows gradual changes spanning many generations, with each subsequent generation not easily differentiated from it's prior generation. Once you reach a certain comparison point (ig. modern birds vs dinosaurs) you will notice large changes. This can best be demonstrated through ring species.

  If you apply that idea to a computer program, it immediately becomes obvious how ridiculous it is; but the genetic code is a (part of) a program, though hugely more complex than one that we could write.

The main difference is that computer programs don't do what DNA does in driving evolution, that is computer programs do not reproduce, they do not produce random mutations with each forthcoming generation, nor are computer programs naturally selected. The only comparison DNA has to a computer program is that it uses a coding sequence.

I appreciate your response, and look forward to any reply you would care to provide. ;)

#9 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 01 April 2009 - 02:29 AM

New Scientist - Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

I found this article, and was intrigued. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

I for one find this to be yet another evidence that random mutation does provide a means for beneficial mutations, as evidenced by this event. This capability is stated to have not existed previously within E. Coli. This makes sense to me as E. Coli has never been attributed with the ability to metabolise citrate, as far as my studies go, until I came across this article.

Just my 2 cents.

View Post


That´s not true. E.Coli has the ability to metabolise citrate in the absence of oxygen.In this case they are only trying to evolve the ability in the presence of oxygen.So, all the machinery is there , they need only two or three mutations for the protein which put the citrate inside the cell.

I´ve already created a thread about this, showing that the experiment proves evolution is impossible.

LTEE

#10 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:28 AM

That is how atheist evolutionists suppose that all genetic material appeared. They even believe that non-living matter somehow became living by the same method. However, considering the changes needed to turn a dinosaur into a bird (which they firmly believe happened), this process is simply not credible. To take that particular case, random mutations have got to
create feathers, with the complex hook system to keep a smooth surface
change a bellows lung into a bird's uni-directional breathing system
change the feet so that the bird can perch
create all the instincts for flying
All these have got to happen at once to make a viable bird; the lack of any one of them makes an animal that is less fit than its parent and therefore will not be selected. But random point mutations can't do any of that. A number of different mutations working together need to happen, that must include the creation of entire new genes. If you apply that idea to a computer program, it immediately becomes obvious how ridiculous it is; but the genetic code is a (part of) a program, though hugely more complex than one that we could write.

View Post

[/quote]

I don't believe it's necessary for all these changes to happen at once.

There's pretty much incontrovertible evidence that dinosaurs evolved feathers before birds did, for reasons unknown.

There's also some good evidence that dinosaurs evolved the breathing system that birds have before there were birds.

So these two aren't connected to flying atall.

I'm not sure about the feet and it's not possible to say anything about the evolution of flying instincts in this case.

Creation of new genes is quite common - by gene duplication and mutation. Mutation means many things other than point mutation, as well as point mutation - interpolations, deletions etc etc, some of which can bring radical changes to the genome.

We can't replicate this evolutionary sequence (yet - we may be able to through computer simulations in the distant future). The best we have done is to simulate evolution of the vertebrate eye through a series of 1500 or so small changes all of which occurred separately, and all of which contributed individually to the improving fitness of the eye.

The genome system doesn't work like a computer program. It's more forgiving of changes than any computer system.

Rich

#11 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:56 AM

That is how atheist evolutionists suppose that all genetic material appeared.  They even believe that non-living matter somehow became living by the same method.  However, considering the changes needed to turn a dinosaur into a bird (which they firmly believe happened), this process is simply not credible.  To take that particular case, random mutations have got to
  create feathers, with the complex hook system to keep a smooth surface
  change a bellows lung into a bird's uni-directional breathing system
  change the feet so that the bird can perch
  create all the instincts for flying
All these have got to happen at once to make a viable bird; the lack of any one of them makes an animal that is less fit than its parent and therefore will not be selected.  But random point mutations can't do any of that.  A number of different mutations working together need to happen, that must include the creation of entire new genes.  If you apply that idea to a computer program, it immediately becomes obvious how ridiculous it is; but the genetic code is a (part of) a program, though hugely more complex than one that we could write.

View Post


I don't believe it's necessary for all these changes to happen at once.

There's pretty much incontrovertible evidence that dinosaurs evolved feathers before birds did, for reasons unknown.

They have found some dinosaurs with strands of collagen on their skin. Since they have already decided that dinosaurs evolved into birds, they say these must be proto-feathers. It's their assumption that drives the whole thing.

There's also some good evidence that dinosaurs evolved the breathing system that birds have before there were birds.

So these two aren't connected to flying atall.

This is more wishful thinking. Dinosaurs must have evolved into birds, so if we find something vaguely related to a bird's breathing system in a dinosaur we will call it proof. What genetic changes would have led to the development of a new breathing system? (A system which is highly complex and well designed for its purpose.) What selective advantages did each stage convey? How did an animal cope with two separate breathing systems at once? It must have had them, because if it stopped using one before the other was developed it would be dead! On the other hand, the cost of maintaining parallel systems would have been a selective disadvantage. How did the change get spread around the population in the face of the genetic systems designed to eliminate errors and the disadvantages (from this point of view) of S@xual reproduction? Let's have some details, hey! If you haven't got a detailed account of exactly how one form changed into another, it isn't science; it's fairy stories.

I'm not sure about the feet and it's not possible to say anything about the evolution of flying instincts in this case.

Precisely!

Creation of new genes is quite common - by gene duplication and mutation. Mutation means many things other than point mutation, as well as point mutation - interpolations, deletions etc etc, some of which can bring radical changes to the genome.

I think these statements would be OK if you preceded them by "Some people hypothesise that...". The trouble is that those people have got into the habit of describing as fact any hypothesis which bolsters evolution, no matter how ill-supported it is.

All currently observed examples of gene duplication lead to trouble, I think. They cause genetic diseases and may well lead to rapid deselection. How many gene duplications etc have been observed to create new features? Observed from start to finish, that is.

We can't replicate this evolutionary sequence (yet  - we may be able to through computer simulations in the distant future). The best we have done is to simulate evolution of the vertebrate eye through a series of 1500 or so small changes all of which occurred separately, and all of which contributed individually to the improving fitness of the eye.

And what evidence do you have to show that this simulation bears any relation to reality in each of its 1500 steps? (If one of them doesn't work, I suspect the whole chain would fail, and I bet most of them are entirely speculative.

The genome system doesn't work like a computer program. It's more forgiving of changes than any computer system.

View Post

True enough, God is an infinitely capable designer, and his programming is infinitely better than ours. The genome has a lot of redundancy and recovery built in. But beyond a certain point, mutations will lead to error catastrophe.

The genome does contain coded information; this is quite obvious to any programmer. It may be closer to assembler code than to BASIC, in some of its aspects, but it is unquestionably information, and information never comes into existence without intelligence.

#12 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 03 April 2009 - 01:32 PM

They have found some dinosaurs with strands of collagen on their skin.  Since they have already decided that dinosaurs evolved into birds, they say these must be proto-feathers.  It's their assumption that drives the whole thing.

This is more wishful thinking.  Dinosaurs must have evolved into birds, so if we find something vaguely related to a bird's breathing system in a dinosaur we will call it proof.  What genetic changes would have led to the development of a new breathing system?  (A system which is highly complex and well designed for its purpose.)  What selective advantages did each stage convey?  How did an animal cope with two separate breathing systems at once?  It must have had them, because if it stopped using one before the other was developed it would be dead!  On the other hand, the cost of maintaining parallel systems would have been a selective disadvantage.  How did the change get spread around the population in the face of the genetic systems designed to eliminate errors and the disadvantages (from this point of view) of S@xual reproduction?  Let's have some details, hey!  If you haven't got a detailed account of exactly how one form changed into another, it isn't science; it's fairy stories.
Precisely!
I think these statements would be OK if you preceded them by "Some people hypothesise that...".  The trouble is that those people have got into the habit of describing as fact any hypothesis which bolsters evolution, no matter how ill-supported it is.

All currently observed examples of gene duplication lead to trouble, I think.  They cause genetic diseases and may well lead to rapid deselection.  How many gene duplications etc have been observed to create new features?  Observed from start to finish, that is.
And what evidence do you have to show that this simulation bears any relation to reality in each of its 1500 steps?  (If one of them doesn't work, I suspect the whole chain would fail, and I bet most of them are entirely speculative.

True enough,  God is an infinitely capable designer, and his programming is infinitely better than ours.  The genome has a lot of redundancy and recovery built in.  But beyond a certain point, mutations will lead to error catastrophe.

The genome does contain coded information; this is quite obvious to any programmer.  It may be closer to assembler code than to BASIC, in some of its aspects, but it is unquestionably information, and information never comes into existence without intelligence.

View Post


How open are you to changing your mind on this Oliver? Please be honest. I won't bother finding more evidence for you (it does exist) unless you tell me that evidence is capable of changing your mind.

None of the evidence amounts to absolute proof - that is unattainable. If you want that, I can't give it to you.

Rich

#13 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 03 April 2009 - 02:02 PM

How open are you to changing your mind on this Oliver? Please be honest. I won't bother finding more evidence for you (it does exist) unless you tell me that evidence is capable of changing your mind.

None of the evidence amounts to absolute proof - that is unattainable. If you want that, I can't give it to you.

Rich

View Post

I'm not open to changing my mind on evolution versus creation; that would be to make God a liar.

I'm not open to changing my mind about the weakness of evolutionary arguments unless someone can produce something a lot better than I have seen so far. (But a strong evolutionary argument would still not override the witness of our creator. I decided to believe God a long time before I knew about creation science.)

I see the following major weaknesses in evolutionary arguments:

1. they assume evolution and force everything into that mould;

2. they do not offer nor do they expect detailed explanations; handwaving is deemed acceptable;

3. any problems are covered up by invoking the god-of-the-gaps (time);

4. rules that apply to the rest of the world are not applied to evolution; thermodynamics, abiogenesis, not to mention probability, are all sacrificed on the altar of the evolution god.

5. no experimental verification is possible;

6. naturalism is assumed a priori.

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:54 PM

Majungatholus atopus has an avian respiratory system not an intermediate respiratory system.There is nothing in between one respiratory system and another.Birds are also known from the fossil record,not just millions of years before Majungatholus atopus,but at least 100 million years or more according to the evolutionists time scale.

If we go by the evidence,we would have to conclude that birds show up from nowhere,then they devolved into dinosaurs. :huh:

#15 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2009 - 04:31 PM

It looks like even creationists admit that a mutation caused this.

Hi Guys,

I'm glad this thread was started. Here are a couple of articles that refute this marvelous not-so-magic bullet:

http://creation.com/...igesting-e-coli

http://www.answersin...poke-in-the-eye

Now Jason78 gave me an article in a post several months ago that I can't find. Jason78, if you're reading this can you help me find that paper you posted for me once? I believe it deals with the same or a similar issue.

I don't know much about this but I'm anxious to learn the details so I can understand it better.

View Post

The first link mentions "So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). "

The second link mentions "It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect."

Since mutations + natural selection = evolution, if you admit that mutations occur and that natural selection is real then you accept evolution. So these creationists accept evolution completely - they just bicker about the terminology about "new information" and prefer to use the much safer term 'adaptation' to 'evolution.' The only difference between creationists and evolutionists seems to be that although they both accept the same evolutionary process, creationists argue about what to call it.

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 April 2009 - 04:38 PM

So these creationists accept evolution completely

View Post

Could you explain what you think accepting evolution completely means to you in this context?

...they just bicker about the terminology about "new information" and prefer to use the much safer term 'adaptation' to 'evolution.' The only difference between creationists and evolutionists seems to be that although they both accept the same evolutionary process, creationists argue about what to call it.

View Post

Your on to us. :lol:

Please define evolution for us.

#17 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:03 PM

Could you explain what you think accepting evolution completely means to you in this context?

I'd be happy to Adam.
It means that they accept the processes that drive evolution. Therefore, they accept evolution.

Please define evolution for us.

View Post

Okay. I'll borrow wiki's definition "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next....Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare...The second major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. "

Which I simplified to: natural selection + mutations = evolution.

So I'm finding that creationists accept natural selection and mutations. AiG even admits that speciation occurs. This clearly shows that they accept evolution, they just say they don't.
Its like saying that you believe that God created the world, the universe, humanity, and life in its present form...but you don't believe in creationism.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:46 PM

Hi Loveslife,

Okay let's say this is all there is to it.

I reject completely the idea that descent with modification from a single common ancestor as scientifically demonstrated or scientifically verifiable.

I believe philosophical naturalism is an unscientific strain on methodological naturalism which limits the scope of scientific inquiry but does not disprove the existence of God or the inquiry itself but the scientific method can be used to validate, through observation, the conclusive inference that our universe has an intelligent causal agent who designed with information, order, intent, and purpose.

I fully believe in change over time.

So now please tell us how the main stream scientific community would look upon my beliefs? They do not violate the definition you offered. If my views are not in alignment with evolutionary thinking than you aren't offering the actual definition. You are offering a scrubbed politically correct and very ambiguous definition which either means you aren't telling the whole truth or you believed someone who wasn't telling you the whole truth.

Sorry to be too direct. Loveslife, a quick question; if you were taught something that wasn't true, with distortions and half truths, would you want someone to help you navigate the information to change your mind?

Respectfully,
Adam

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:35 PM

What's really suspicious here? The choice of citrate. Why would anyone invest so much time & effort isolating bacteria with citrate? There are ten thousands of substances they could've chosen, after all.

That's a pretty lucky "guess". I think there's more to this story than what's being disclosed.

Oh well. The hype's not very convincing to anyone who understands the saying "every cloud has a silver lining". All they ever do is put evospin on obviously bad mutations.

Oh, your investment didn't bring in the $500,000 you were expecting? Hey! Look at all the income taxes you won't have to pay! See? You're better off now! And just think, if you go totally broke and can't afford to buy anything, you won't have to pay any sales tax either. Wouldn't that be swell?

#20 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:39 PM

Hi Loveslife,

View Post

sup

I reject completely the idea that descent with modification from a single common ancestor as scientifically demonstrated or scientifically verifiable.

View Post

What's with all the big words? All you have to say is you reject common descent.
Did you know that Michael Behe believes in common descent?

I believe philosophical naturalism is an unscientific strain on methodological naturalism which limits the scope of scientific inquiry but does not disprove the existence of God or the inquiry itself but the scientific method can be used to validate, through observation, the conclusive inference that our universe has an intelligent causal agent who designed with information, order, intent, and purpose.

View Post

Big words don't impress anyone. I hope you keep it simple next time.
Of course science doesn't disprove the existence of God, or any other non-science entity that is beyond the scope of science.

I fully believe in change over time.

View Post

Okay, but it seems you believe there is a limit to that change.

So now please tell us how the main stream scientific community would look upon my beliefs?

View Post

So far they wouldn't say much.
If you mentioned something like, for example, a belief that the earth is young, they'd probably have a lot to say.

They do not violate the definition you offered. If my views are not in alignment with evolutionary thinking than you aren't offering the actual definition. You are offering a scrubbed politically correct and very ambiguous definition which either means you aren't telling the whole truth or you believed someone who wasn't telling you the whole truth.

View Post

Your argument is flawed. Its like me saying I believe that 2 + 2 = 4, does that disagree with creationism - no? - gee I guess that makes me a creationist.
As I already mentioned, my definition came from wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with it.

Sorry to be too direct. Loveslife, a quick question; if you were taught something that wasn't true, with distortions and half truths, would you want someone to help you navigate the information to change your mind?

View Post

I'm not sure what you mean about navigating the info to change my mind, but I'd sure appreciate someone who presented the evidence that showed that it was untrue. I've revised my beliefs in light of evidence numerous times, every time I do my beliefs are strengthened.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users