|
3 registered members (7th_zorro, Aku_Aku, 1 invisible),
579
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: delerna]
#231973
10/18/08 14:39
10/18/08 14:39
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
mpdeveloper_B
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
|
Sure, it certainly does that but If I said to you that creation is a THEORY would you apply that same rule?
I think the theory of creation also has many, valid "Scientifically" observable evidences in its favor, that it helps the actions of society and gives predictable results within certain constraints.
Here is just one "Scientifically" observable evidence
If archaeologists can pick up a stone and say, see the way its been chipped and worked to form this nice edge, designed as a cutting tool by ancient man. If they can conclude that the rocks shape shows evidence of design and therefore there must be a maker.
How can they then turn around and mock creationists for expressing that very same principle. That principle is either valid, or, it is not valid.
I see exquisite design in everything, all around me. I am forced to conclude that there IS a maker for what I believe to be a far stronger reason than the archeologist had.
If evidence of design prooves the rocks shape had a maker then the infinitely superior evidence of design in the universe and everything it it also prooves a maker.
How can anyone say that the THEORY of evolution dosn't need absolute proof to be believable and
then mock and insult the intelligence of a creationist for not needing absolute proof for believing in the principle of design necessitates a designer and a maker? Why dosn't the principle of "Seeing is believing" apply to evolution also?
Sorry not actually directing the "mock and insult" bit at you, it's more a general statement of observation.
Not that it worries me either, I see things the way I do and for the reasons that I have and if anyone thinks I am stupid for it then good.
I just see that many evolutionists will believe anything that a scientist tells them and not apply the same critical thinking that they encourage creationists to do.
 agreed, completely.
- aka Manslayer101
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: NITRO777]
#231988
10/18/08 16:34
10/18/08 16:34
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
No? So maybe you will place a pregnant woman 5 hrs a day under a radiation machine and see what kind of evolution happens when she has the child? eek Radiation may sound dangerous and deadly and it is, but it's also what can cause mutations. Mutations are part of evolution, whether beneficial, deadly or neither doesn't really matter that much. A hazardous mutation might clean a population of a certain species from a previous genetic problem. Whether a mutation ultimately is positive or negative is often quite difficult to tell because of the gradual nature of evolution itself. The scientists in this article are trying very hard to find out what happened in the 20000th generation. Right now it is still experimental. Saying this is 'evolution before our very eyes' is a bait and switch tactic from the media. True and I agree with you, but don't forget the media always has a strong tendency to exaggerate things like this. It works both ways and is why you can find articles or even headlines in newspapers saying the 'biblical flood' in the vicinity of Israel has been proven and similarly stretched and far fetched conclusions.
Also according to the article, they_dont_know what happened. The citrate-processing ability may be due to the activation of a latent function. Thats why I posed so many alternatives. You should always look at alternative solutions and possibilities when you dont know something specifically. Again I do agree with you, but science works a lot with best-guesses and interpretations of results when such 'accidents' happen. It makes sense not to rule out other less probably events for sure though, Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: NITRO777]
#232040
10/18/08 23:35
10/18/08 23:35
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
What drives you here? Did they gain this ability by loosing some gens? No, I just doubt that the gained ability to metabolize citrate is going to help the species survive. If the ability to metabolize citrate is a property that makes a difference to similar species, it actually has been proven by those species that it is an advantage that helps to survive under certain conditions. And I dont know how they gained the ability. But there really is too much left out of the article to form a healthy hypothesis. I don't think that 20 years of scientific evaluations, if they are worth the word 'scientific', can be presented in such a small article. Although, I agree that the article gives not enough information to show why this is a prove of evolution.
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#232045
10/19/08 00:18
10/19/08 00:18
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 54
Taipei, Taiwan
PlaystationThree
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 54
Taipei, Taiwan
|
Interesting article but 'evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes'?
They speak of evolution as if it's a 100% proven fact. It's not even a scientific Law! And it can't ever be because all the data must agree with a theory to make it a law, and if even one little shred of information doesn't, the law is nullified.On that note Creationism cannot be PROVEN either.
What it boils down to then is choosing which idea you want to believe. I for one prefer a loving and forgiving God.
Edit:
By the way, love the writing dalerna...very poetic.
Last edited by PlaystationThree; 10/19/08 00:23.
Bet you don't know where Taiwan is lol.
"The Lord is my light and my salvation..." Psm 27:1
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: PlaystationThree]
#232049
10/19/08 00:35
10/19/08 00:35
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,247
Deutsch Niedersachsen
Puppeteer
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,247
Deutsch Niedersachsen
|
It's not even a scientific Law! In my opinion it is definetly a logical consequence. Since it is proven that there are changes in the genetic material (and not only there btw) and because of those changes the species will die (faster) or have a better life. I think there can't be any doubts at this point so far. And that is evolution. Of course if you believe in something non physical in cells or whatever which can't be changed you can't change one species into an other. But i don't believe that something like this exists so evolution makes sense to me.
Last edited by Puppeteer; 10/19/08 00:36.
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: PlaystationThree]
#232051
10/19/08 00:39
10/19/08 00:39
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
They speak of evolution as if it's a 100% proven fact. It's not even a scientific Law! And it can't ever be because all the data must agree with a theory to make it a law, and if even one little shred of information doesn't, the law is nullified.On that note Creationism cannot be PROVEN either. Heh heh. thats great! Your are going to make them angry about your use of the words fact and law, but I understand what you mean. It is not certain, it is not observable, noone should be think that it true with any measure of certainty. No amount of semantic wrangling is going to make people believe that evolution is true, no matter how much of a vacuum word 'theory' happens to be. Any theory has to rest on evidence, plain and simple. even if its 'only facts', any theory needs concrete facts to be believed, and evolution has no factual basis. I am happy that Im not the only crazy creationist around here. God bless!
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: AlbertoT]
#232089
10/19/08 10:58
10/19/08 10:58
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Two neadherthal men, Einstone and Simplestone, are watching the moon
Einstone : The moon must be much like our earth
Simplestone : Are you sure ?
Einstone : Well..apparently there are mountains and valleys
Simplestone : Why does it shine ,then ?
Einstone : Well ..It should reflects the light of the sun
Simplestone : Are you sure ? Why does it turn from yellow into red ?
Einstone : Well...I dont know
Simplestone : You see..it is just a theory
The moon is made of cheese
Einstone : Of Cheese ? are you sure ?
Simplestone : Of course, I am
It is what the wizard of our village said A pretty much perfect analogy. There's more of evolution that can be readily observed than you'd think, pieces of the puzzle, but still, Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years
[Re: PHeMoX]
#232094
10/19/08 12:20
10/19/08 12:20
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Not only
Fundamentalista are hyper critic vs some actual flaw of evolutionism but they do not hesitate to accept any absurdities of creationism
Men and dino's living together
Fossils created by the devil
and many others amenities like that
Consider this point
Either evolutionis is true or creationism is true
There is not a third alternative, at least I dont see it
Driven evolutionism is of course just a version of evolutionism
The validity of evolutionism can be simply proved by exclusion
Last edited by AlbertoT; 10/19/08 12:23.
|
|
|
|
