Jump to content


Photo

Microevolution Observed In Laboratory


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#21 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 August 2009 - 08:55 AM

You guys are completely jumping into a conclusion without even defining,predicting,or testing what micro evolution is and how it accumulates into macro evolution.your just asserting that evolution explains everything.


There is no such thing as a single cell evolving into a multicellular organism.It's a strategy called "safety in numbers" that all organisms use when being attacked by a predator.

It's kind of like jello.if the individual drop of jello bonds with the rest of the bowl it's still jello.



Enjoy.

#22 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 August 2009 - 01:57 PM

Not in my book it doesn't.  I was a single cell in the womb at one time, became multiple cells and then became mankind.  Shall we say that I was a different kind of being when I was a single cell?

View Post


That may have been a stage in your life cycle. But your parents weren't single celled organisms were they?

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:08 AM

A 6000 year Earth. This is absolutely fundamental to YEC - anything that explains anything outside a 6000 year timeframe is inadmissable. By default, macro-evolution must be wrong.

Incidentally, I don't subscribe to distinguishing between micro and macro. It's all just evolution over different time periods.

View Post


Time periods which make the claims unobservable. It's just like saying God did it, except you use the word time with god and say: Time god did it.

So why cannot macro-evolution be observed? Takes to much time (time god did it).
Micro to infinity = maco. Can we observe this? Takes to much time (time god did it).

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:10 AM

Does evolution from single cell life to multicellular life count as macro evolution?

View Post


Is it still a cell? Then you answered the question.

#25 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:13 AM

Time periods which make the claims unobservable. It's just like saying God did it, except you use the word time with god and say: Time god did it.

So why cannot macro-evolution be observed? Takes to much time (time god did it).
Micro to infinity = maco. Can we observe this? Takes to much time (time god did it).

View Post


You're right Ike, time does make for some issues, not the least of which is getting other people to understand the theory. But complaining doesn't answer the question I asked.

We all agree micro-evolution happens. Believing in a 6000 year old earth doesn't stop the process, it only delays it. So what system is in place to stop micro becoming macro over a long period of time?

Regards,

Arch.

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:15 AM

Well technically that doesn't stop it. It would prevent the changes from being as big as an evolutionist might expect, but it wouldn't stop it altogether. I'm wondering if creationists reject macro evolution outright, or do they just reject the timescale being so large?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Is the process observable?
Have all the transitional fossils been found?
Is the process repeatable?
And as you know, there are breeding bounderies. So as evolution supposetly happened, how did the evolving species always know who to breed with in order to continue?

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 August 2009 - 02:35 AM

That may have been a stage in your life cycle.  But your parents weren't single celled organisms were they?

View Post



As a matter of fact, yes they are a conglomeration of single celled organisms Jason. But they are human beings as well. The cells are still cells (they haven’t become anything else) and mankind’s parents are still humans (they haven’t become anything else). And that’s the point you are still missing (or attempting to get around).

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 August 2009 - 02:40 AM

The basic tenet of evolution can and has been practically applied in real life, in the development of better antenna, for example.

View Post


Your antenna analogy is a fine argument for design, not evolution falcone

I've also always liked the video Evolution is a blind watchmaker

View Post


Again, a fine argument for design, not evolution.


However, neither of these examples count as the programs that drive them had to be created by someone.

View Post


That would be incorrect; both examples would not exist without the designer and builder to “make it so”.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 August 2009 - 02:41 AM

Does evolution from single cell life to multicellular life count as macro evolution?

View Post



Nope. The cells are still cells Jason (but I think deep down, you already knew this).

#30 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 August 2009 - 02:54 AM

Nope. The cells are still cells Jason (but I think deep down, you already knew this).

View Post


The cells that make up you are still cells.

#31 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 August 2009 - 03:19 AM

Your antenna analogy is a fine argument for design, not evolution falcone

Question: Do you think a person designed the antenna, or a person designed software which in turn desiged the antenna? Same question applies to the clocks example.

both examples would not exist without the designer and builder to “make it so”.

I know. That's what I said. :blink:

Evolutionary computuation is based on biological evolution and it works.

Even if you don't accept that evolution plays a role in life on Earth, surely you would agree that at least the mechanisms of evolution have a practical application in the real world?

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 August 2009 - 03:45 AM

Question: Do you think a person designed the antenna, or a person designed software which in turn desiged the antenna? Same question applies to the clocks example.
I know. That's what I said.  :blink:

View Post


Answer: Yes!

People design antennas, and the software that aides in the design of antennas (I’ve been involved in this field). And before we had “software” to aid in the design, we did it on a different kind of “software” (we called it paper).

And the clock/watch is no different.

Design, Design, Design!

And no, that’s not what you were saying.

Evolutionary computuation is based on biological evolution and it works.

View Post



Adaptation is where evolution steals its ideas, then in turn attempts to promulgate the fairytale of macroevolution.



Even if you don't accept that evolution plays a role in life on Earth, surely you would agree that at least the mechanisms of evolution have a practical application in the real world?

View Post


Adaptation plays a role in life on Earth. Evolution is a cheap rip-off of the tenants of adaptation.


And no, that’s not really what you were attempting to get at (based upon my above responses).

#33 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 August 2009 - 03:58 AM

People design antennas, and the software that aides in the design of antennas (I’ve been involved in this field). And before we had “software” to aid in the design, we did it on a different kind of “software” (we called it paper).

Are we singing from the same hymn sheet? Evolutionary computation isn't the same thing as CAD

Adaptation plays a role in life on Earth.

How does life on Earth adapt? What's the process?

<edit> Let's call Evolutionary Computation something else. How about Adaptive Computation. So, me question is: does Adaptive Computation work?

#34 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 August 2009 - 04:52 AM

Darwin didn't invent trial-and-error. Programming computers to simulate trials? That application of technology's been around quite a while too, decades longer than the pathetic spin which tries to rewrite history and claim Darwin inspired it. Common sense and life experience inspired it.

When someone is desperate to claim a contribution to real science from antiscience, well, we see the results.

#35 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 August 2009 - 03:39 AM

How does life on Earth adapt? What's the process?


I think it's ironic that creationists have to educate evolutionists on the mechanisms for adaptation,while at the same time they accuse us of not understanding evolution.LOL

If you would really like to know.Adaptation is usually associated with protein changes (e.g. nylon eating bacteria).



Enjoy.

#36 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 14 August 2009 - 04:25 AM

I think it's ironic that creationists have to educate evolutionists on the mechanisms for adaptation,while at the same time they accuse us of not understanding evolution.

I don't accuse you of not understanding evolution.

If you would really like to know.Adaptation is usually associated with protein changes (e.g. nylon eating bacteria).

Thanks, but that link doesn't tell me anything about how organisms adapt within a creationist model. Random mutation plus a selection filter is a non-starter. So, could you explain, in your own words, how adaptation takes place?

#37 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:46 AM

Adaptation plays a role in life on Earth. Evolution is a cheap rip-off of the tenants of adaptation.

View Post


Hello Ron

What is the distinction between adaptation and evolution?

I thought all evolution was adaptation. I mean, I understood Darwin to mean evolution is just sort of long-term adaptation.

There's no other kind of evolution is there?

Thanks
SeeJay

#38 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:00 AM

What is the distinction between adaptation and evolution?

I thought all evolution was adaptation. I mean, I understood Darwin to mean evolution is just sort of long-term adaptation.

There's no other kind of evolution is there?

View Post

The trick for you, SeeJay, is this. Are you placing your faith in a good place when you see the observable adaptation, that happens, to believe that this observation has the power to make brand new organs, totally different body plans, information systems that communicate across multi-tiered and inter-related but unique systems, symbiotic relationships, eco-system balances, and last but certainly not least... drum roll please... the geniuses who teach evolution in college classrooms.

I already have a faith. You tell me about your faith and I'll tell you about mine.

#39 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:15 AM

The trick for you, SeeJay, is this. Are you placing your faith in a good place when you see the observable adaptation, that happens, to believe that this observation has the power to make brand new organs, totally different body plans, information systems that communicate across multi-tiered and inter-related but unique systems, symbiotic relationships, eco-system balances, and last but certainly not least... drum roll please... the geniuses who teach evolution in college classrooms.

I already have a faith. You tell me about your faith and I'll tell you about mine.

View Post


Hi Adam Nagy

I guess I'm just trying to understand if the modern theory of evolution requires any other process besides "basic" adaptation as described by Darwin. Because, if not, and given we know adaptation is a real process, then it seems the only thing that would stop the adaptation of new organs etc. would be if there wasn't enough time.

As to my faith, it is pretty simple. If I can see it, then it is real, no matter what anyone may say. If I can't see it, then I tend to go with the majority.

Regards
SeeJay

Thanks
SeeJay

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:58 AM

I guess I'm just trying to understand if the modern theory of evolution requires any other process besides "basic" adaptation as described by Darwin. Because, if not, and given we know adaptation is a real process, then it seems the only thing that would stop the adaptation of new organs etc. would be if there wasn't enough time.

View Post

Time doesn't help you here because you are observing a process that mostly scrambles information to get these variations. Epigenetics is an interesting field because it demonstrates that the vast majority of variation is related to built in mechanisms that promote variation. There are proteins called histones:

Posted Image

These histones are more responsible for variation than random mutations which are almost entirely if not entirely harmful to creatures that have the misfortune of acquiring expressed mutations, especially the kind that effect body plans and system functions.

Histones are responsible for gene expression. Altering histone locations determine how a body plan will express a variety.

So here you have this amazing system that is designed to introduce variety and adaptability into populations. With this knowledge and the way information actually works, it is a blind leap of faith to believe that Darwin's 19th century pseudo-science has any real relevance to the future of science. It's all story telling with no real science to back it up.

When you can show me, through actual science, how evolution accounts for syntax generation and contextually relevant information which results in alterations without instantaneously crashing a living organism's central computers. I'll be listening.

Until then you're committing yourself to elaborate story telling born off the back of a clever young rhetorician, by the name of Charles Darwin.

As to my faith, it is pretty simple. If I can see it, then it is real, no matter what anyone may say. If I can't see it, then I tend to go with the majority.

View Post

Suit yourself. It is a folly to limit yourself in such any arbitrary manner. I believe God made people capable of understanding beyond there little bubble into some very intimate truths, if we are willing to listen.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users