Jump to content


Photo

Microevolution Observed In Laboratory


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#1 Grix

Grix

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Norway

Posted 09 August 2009 - 03:16 AM

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. [...]


http://www.newscient...in-the-lab.html

How does creationists explain this?

#2 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 09 August 2009 - 05:14 AM

http://www.newscient...in-the-lab.html

How does creationists explain this?

View Post

This is old news Grix. It turns out these bacteria are able to digest citrate all along. What they needed was repair to a transport function to get it in their gut.

So it isn't evolution, it's a few mutations that switched back from breaking something to allowing the bacteria to digest something they had been able to digest long ago, again.

There's a thread around here somewhere about it.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 August 2009 - 11:51 PM

Also, the Bible supports micro-evolution because it is changes "within" a kind. That is what God commanded His creation to do was only reproduce after their kind. There was no command that changes within a kind cannot be done.

#4 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 11 August 2009 - 05:09 PM

It not only is'nt good evidence of evolution,but the mutation rate actually makes evolution very unlikely to even be possible.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=19530



Enjoy.

#5 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 August 2009 - 05:52 PM

As someone already stated, micro evolution is accepted on both sides of the debate (although I've met one creationist that denies micro evolution). Plus the mutation presented is no where near the first time scientists have observed micro evolution creating new traits, take the nylon eating bacteria as an example.

#6 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 11 August 2009 - 06:55 PM

As someone already stated, micro evolution is accepted on both sides of the debate.

View Post


I think this is generally agreed upon. What do you think it is that stops micro evolution from progressing through to macro?

Regards,

Arch.

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:04 PM

I think this is generally agreed upon. What do you think it is that stops micro evolution from progressing through to macro?

View Post

I think micro to macro is like looking at a construction site in a town where some new bigger and better houses are going up but the same basic supplies as the smaller houses that were built ten years ago. Somebody comes along and says that the houses grew in height on average 20% in ten years. Then going to a site in New York City and seeing a skyscraper going up and connecting the dots in a way that proclaims how many years and generations of workers making bigger houses will it take to be making skyscrapers based on the adaptation rate from smaller houses to bigger houses, ignoring the whole time that the two types of construction sites are totally different and the house builders have limitations. Even though they are making taller houses, than they used to, at some point the construction style will completely change.

#8 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 11 August 2009 - 07:13 PM

I think this is generally agreed upon. What do you think it is that stops micro evolution from progressing through to macro?


Arch,

As an evolutionists that knows creationists know nothing about evolution,do you think you could tell us the mechanism for both micro and macro evolution?



Thanks.

#9 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 11 August 2009 - 08:05 PM

When macroevolution is observed in a labratory please let us know. I would imagine if that happens there would be about a thousand one hit wonders on here in a short span of time. :D

#10 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 August 2009 - 08:10 PM

I think this is generally agreed upon. What do you think it is that stops micro evolution from progressing through to macro?

View Post


Hi Arch, I consider myself liberal in my theology, and I don't have a problem with macro evolution, thus the theistic evolution label under my name. :D But the link in the OP is not macro evolution, only micro evolution.

To Adam's post I think that is a great example for the leap of single celled organisms to multi celled organisms. Eventually the single cell will get too large to successfully do chemical reactions needed for survival and a new structure is needed: multi celled organism. And I must say such a leap can be detrimental to the idea of common decent for all organisms.

#11 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 11 August 2009 - 08:11 PM

Well thank you to Adam who at least had a go at answering the question. But again Adam, you use stories and metaphors rather than just addressing the question as is.

We all agree that micro evolution or adaption does happen. This is where small changes happen to an animal to help it survive (Adam has given the example of finches beaks changing size depending on conditions in another post. I think this is a good example of micro). What is it that stops these small changes from adding up to make larger changes?

Regards,

Arch.

#12 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2009 - 03:18 AM

What is it that stops these small changes from adding up to make larger changes?

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.

#13 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 August 2009 - 04:21 AM

When macroevolution is observed in a labratory please let us know.  I would imagine if that happens there would be about a thousand one hit wonders on here in a short span of time. :D

View Post


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

#14 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2009 - 04:32 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


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.

#15 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2009 - 05:07 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?

Fair point. I think it depends though on what creationists would accept as macro-evolution. Usually they want something like a fish growing legs and turning into a frog, which isn't going to happen in 6000 years. What creationists would consider macro-evolution takes more than 6000 years and is therefore impossible. I have no doubt that Jason78's example above will be rejected as an example of macro-evolution.

I like where you're going with this, Arch. Would they accept that if there was enough time, then species level evolution is at least hypothetically possible.

I'll be impressed if you get any creationists here to bite, though. Good luck!

#16 Arch

Arch

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2009 - 05:20 AM

Lol, thanks Falcon :D

One of the things I've never quite managed to grasp is whether Creationists reject the theory of evolution, or the application of evolution. It makes it difficult to debate, as you don't know whether to use real world examples to press your case, or whether you need to drop back to fundamentals and explain why the process works.

Actually I believe you tried once to get this exact question answered Falcon, but I don't think that thread really went anywhere. Hopefully we'll have more luck here.

Regards,

Arch.

#17 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2009 - 05:46 AM

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

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

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

#18 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 12 August 2009 - 07:32 AM

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

View Post


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?

#19 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2009 - 07:41 AM

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


Hello Mankind.

You're referring to growth, which happens to cells.

Evolution is something that happens to populations - often called 'species'.

Also, I thought was was no other kind of evolution besides microevolution; there's just microevolution, and more microevolution. Isn't that so?

Cheers
SeeJay

#20 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 12 August 2009 - 08:09 AM

Hello Mankind.

You're referring to growth, which happens to cells.

Evolution is something that happens to populations - often called 'species'.

Also, I thought was was no other kind of evolution besides microevolution; there's just microevolution, and more microevolution. Isn't that so?

Cheers
SeeJay

View Post


What my example shows is that single cell to multicell does not prove macroevolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users