Creation -v- Evolution: For The Young People
- Thread starter Brother_Mike_V
- Start date
Haha, I wish I could understand it! I still want those bunnies....
Gotcha. Well that video is from a while ago and pretty popular in the US (as you can see). I'm not big in to college sports either, but I do love a good NBA game.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Rusty,
I'm not going to go any farther with this. The Lenski experiment is a clear example of a species gaining traits through random mutation. All you can do in a lab experiment like this are set the environmental conditions in which the species is kept. Even if those conditions were the cause of the E coli to mutate, it still means that under the right conditions a species DOES mutate.
Lifeasweknowit: I'm guessing you have a particular idea in your mind about what morality means. I also don't want to have a one way discussion where you say I am wrong, and I try to explain it in a way you will understand when you have not yet explained your understanding of the topic you want me to continually explain.
I'm not going to go any farther with this. The Lenski experiment is a clear example of a species gaining traits through random mutation. All you can do in a lab experiment like this are set the environmental conditions in which the species is kept. Even if those conditions were the cause of the E coli to mutate, it still means that under the right conditions a species DOES mutate.
Lifeasweknowit: I'm guessing you have a particular idea in your mind about what morality means. I also don't want to have a one way discussion where you say I am wrong, and I try to explain it in a way you will understand when you have not yet explained your understanding of the topic you want me to continually explain.
Yes GMO's needed a 'designer'/"Creator". Hmmm imagine that! Someone manipulated them out of their natural state....
An 'intelligent' being attempts to recombine cells/ molecules/ DNA to create a new thing by forcing change in gene traits-this is NOT a natural process no matter what you say....
The other thing I find amusing is that scientists BELIEVE (Uh hem-FAITH) that they can 'speed up evolution' through an unnatural process of "evolution" even though no TRUE scientific proof has concluded that evolution happens.
It is the 'God Complex' syndrome at it's best-and it is contagious...
An 'intelligent' being attempts to recombine cells/ molecules/ DNA to create a new thing by forcing change in gene traits-this is NOT a natural process no matter what you say....
The other thing I find amusing is that scientists BELIEVE (Uh hem-FAITH) that they can 'speed up evolution' through an unnatural process of "evolution" even though no TRUE scientific proof has concluded that evolution happens.
It is the 'God Complex' syndrome at it's best-and it is contagious...
Humble_Servant
Inactive
you obviously don't know about the specific example I am referring to. You can continue to claim that there is no evidence of evolution if it makes you sleep better at night, I guess that is your prerogative.
This one? http://www.icr.org/article/7083/
Bacterial 'Evolution' Is Actually Design in Action
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
The evolutionary community has been buzzing over bacteria's new ability to obtain citrate, a carbon-containing chemical, from their environment and use it as a food source. Some say this confirms evolution in action, but what if the bacteria were designed to modify themselves? That might disappoint evolution enthusiasts.
Microbiologist Richard Lenski is renowned for managing the most extensive and intensive evolutionary experiment on bacteria. Over several decades, his team has tracked changes in over 40,000 generations of E. coli. Although these bacteria normally can't import citrate in the presence of oxygen, after 30,000 generations, some of his did. Did the bacteria invent a new mechanism to import citrate? If so, then how?
To verify that this new trait represents the kind of evolution that can change a microbe into a man, researchers needed to describe exactly what went on behind the scenes. The highly anticipated details appear in the journal Nature.1
Prior to this new trait, none of the other observed changes that Lenski and his team had tracked showed that the bacteria evolved into a different basic kind—they were all still E. coli. And so far, none of those changes specified any new functional coding, which would occur the same as if chance-based phenomena could write a computer program. Did the strain of E. coli that acquired the new ability to import citrate—called Cit+—construct new functional, biochemical machinery by chance-base mutations?
In 2010, biochemist Michael Behe reviewed 12 new phenotypes, which are outward expressions of genetic coding, that Lenski's E. coli displayed from 1994 to 2008.2 Behe categorized the known genetics producing each new bacterial phenotype as either losing, shuffling, or gaining what he called "functional coded elements," which include genes and gene promoters. All the known changes in the bacteria were either a loss or reorganization of pre-existing functional coded elements. None of the new phenotypes came from a gain of functional coded elements, and yet this is what molecules-to-man evolution requires.
At that time, the mechanism underlying the citrate-eating phenotype was unknown. Behe wrote, "If the [Cit+] phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT [Functional Coded elemenT] mutation."2
So, the big question is: Did E. coli evolve into a Cit+ strain by natural selection? Or did mutations construct new and functional coded elements to its DNA? If so, it would be the first in recorded biological history. If not, then it would be just another loss or modification of a pre-existing piece.
In Lenski's experiment, the bacteria (both Cit+ and wild-type) already possessed a gene named citT. It encodes a protein that transports a range of citrate-like chemicals. The recent results showed that the bacteria made extra copies of citT and a neighboring sequence—a process called gene amplification.
More copies of the gene should translate to higher amounts of the transporter protein that it encodes. With enough transporters, the bacteria could access enough citrate. But oxygen deactivates citT, and having many copies of a gene that is turned off is not very useful!
But the bacteria solved this problem when the amplification event also moved the gene sequence to a different place in the bacterial chromosome, where a different but pre-existing promoter could regulate it. Unlike the original one, it appears that the new promoter does not have an "oxygen off" switching mode. Instead, it allowed expression of citT in the presence of oxygen so that the bacteria successfully imported enough citrate to grow.
The study authors wrote, "The structure of the cit amplification led us to propose that the Cit+ trait arose from an amplification-mediated promoter capture."1 Further investigation confirmed the proposal.
So, the bacteria solved the problem of accessing an alternative food source by generating extra copies of the critical gene and by placing those copies under the control of an appropriate promoter. Does any of this resemble natural, undirected Darwinian evolution? Not at all. This amazing mechanism invented no new functional coded elements. It merely modified pre-existing elements.
Therefore, not only did the Cit+ bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3
References
Article posted on October 15, 2012.
Bacterial 'Evolution' Is Actually Design in Action
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
The evolutionary community has been buzzing over bacteria's new ability to obtain citrate, a carbon-containing chemical, from their environment and use it as a food source. Some say this confirms evolution in action, but what if the bacteria were designed to modify themselves? That might disappoint evolution enthusiasts.
Microbiologist Richard Lenski is renowned for managing the most extensive and intensive evolutionary experiment on bacteria. Over several decades, his team has tracked changes in over 40,000 generations of E. coli. Although these bacteria normally can't import citrate in the presence of oxygen, after 30,000 generations, some of his did. Did the bacteria invent a new mechanism to import citrate? If so, then how?
To verify that this new trait represents the kind of evolution that can change a microbe into a man, researchers needed to describe exactly what went on behind the scenes. The highly anticipated details appear in the journal Nature.1
Prior to this new trait, none of the other observed changes that Lenski and his team had tracked showed that the bacteria evolved into a different basic kind—they were all still E. coli. And so far, none of those changes specified any new functional coding, which would occur the same as if chance-based phenomena could write a computer program. Did the strain of E. coli that acquired the new ability to import citrate—called Cit+—construct new functional, biochemical machinery by chance-base mutations?
In 2010, biochemist Michael Behe reviewed 12 new phenotypes, which are outward expressions of genetic coding, that Lenski's E. coli displayed from 1994 to 2008.2 Behe categorized the known genetics producing each new bacterial phenotype as either losing, shuffling, or gaining what he called "functional coded elements," which include genes and gene promoters. All the known changes in the bacteria were either a loss or reorganization of pre-existing functional coded elements. None of the new phenotypes came from a gain of functional coded elements, and yet this is what molecules-to-man evolution requires.
At that time, the mechanism underlying the citrate-eating phenotype was unknown. Behe wrote, "If the [Cit+] phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT [Functional Coded elemenT] mutation."2
So, the big question is: Did E. coli evolve into a Cit+ strain by natural selection? Or did mutations construct new and functional coded elements to its DNA? If so, it would be the first in recorded biological history. If not, then it would be just another loss or modification of a pre-existing piece.
In Lenski's experiment, the bacteria (both Cit+ and wild-type) already possessed a gene named citT. It encodes a protein that transports a range of citrate-like chemicals. The recent results showed that the bacteria made extra copies of citT and a neighboring sequence—a process called gene amplification.
More copies of the gene should translate to higher amounts of the transporter protein that it encodes. With enough transporters, the bacteria could access enough citrate. But oxygen deactivates citT, and having many copies of a gene that is turned off is not very useful!
But the bacteria solved this problem when the amplification event also moved the gene sequence to a different place in the bacterial chromosome, where a different but pre-existing promoter could regulate it. Unlike the original one, it appears that the new promoter does not have an "oxygen off" switching mode. Instead, it allowed expression of citT in the presence of oxygen so that the bacteria successfully imported enough citrate to grow.
The study authors wrote, "The structure of the cit amplification led us to propose that the Cit+ trait arose from an amplification-mediated promoter capture."1 Further investigation confirmed the proposal.
So, the bacteria solved the problem of accessing an alternative food source by generating extra copies of the critical gene and by placing those copies under the control of an appropriate promoter. Does any of this resemble natural, undirected Darwinian evolution? Not at all. This amazing mechanism invented no new functional coded elements. It merely modified pre-existing elements.
Therefore, not only did the Cit+ bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3
References
- Blount, Z. D. et al. 2012. Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population. Nature. 489 (7417): 513-518.
- Behe, M. Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution." The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 419-445.
- For example, see: Boytchev, H. Evolutionary innovation caught in the act. The Washington Post. Posted on washingtonpost.com September 19, 2012, accessed September 30, 2012., and Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3. Michigan State University News. Posted on news.msu.edu September 19, 2012, accessed October 12, 2012.
Article posted on October 15, 2012.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
I am just dumbfounded... I believe the author of that article either is clueless (probably not), or deliberately misrepresenting the scenario.
I am just kind of taken aback. I mean... what else does undirected evolution look like if not a species being unable to do something, and then gaining the ability to do something through a mutation (or change) in their genetic code? The author treats these changes as if an individual microbe had a clever idea up his sleeve, and so chose to just modify its code. Microbes don't choose to do things... they don't have clever ideas. One generation of E coli had a mutation in its code, and that mutation was beneficial to its survival, and so it thrived. How is that not natural selection? What else could be a more perfect example of natural selection than an attribute giving survival-advantage to organisms in a particular environment?
Didn't invent new functional coded elements, just modified? THAT'S A MUTATION! Gradual changes in the code provide different attributes and abilities to the organism. This "evolution has to create some amazing something out of nothing" idea is false. No one claims this to happen, and it doesn't need to happen in order for mutation to occur.
The question still stands: what stops continuous change in a species from eventually making a new species? I've provided a lot, in reference to research, examples of transitional species, and explanation of why evolution is true. I've defended my views, now you defend yours. I will admit that I believe you have no real explanations for your views of science. You have what you think the bible says, and then you have criticisms of evolution. However, the case for micro-evolution only, and why changes just stop to suit our sensibilities of what we categorize as species, has no scientific defense. If it does, please provide it.
Again, don't tell me how evolution is wrong, tell me why your beliefs are right.
I am just kind of taken aback. I mean... what else does undirected evolution look like if not a species being unable to do something, and then gaining the ability to do something through a mutation (or change) in their genetic code? The author treats these changes as if an individual microbe had a clever idea up his sleeve, and so chose to just modify its code. Microbes don't choose to do things... they don't have clever ideas. One generation of E coli had a mutation in its code, and that mutation was beneficial to its survival, and so it thrived. How is that not natural selection? What else could be a more perfect example of natural selection than an attribute giving survival-advantage to organisms in a particular environment?
Didn't invent new functional coded elements, just modified? THAT'S A MUTATION! Gradual changes in the code provide different attributes and abilities to the organism. This "evolution has to create some amazing something out of nothing" idea is false. No one claims this to happen, and it doesn't need to happen in order for mutation to occur.
The question still stands: what stops continuous change in a species from eventually making a new species? I've provided a lot, in reference to research, examples of transitional species, and explanation of why evolution is true. I've defended my views, now you defend yours. I will admit that I believe you have no real explanations for your views of science. You have what you think the bible says, and then you have criticisms of evolution. However, the case for micro-evolution only, and why changes just stop to suit our sensibilities of what we categorize as species, has no scientific defense. If it does, please provide it.
Again, don't tell me how evolution is wrong, tell me why your beliefs are right.
Jesus loves you....
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Thank you, but I would rather have a straight answer.
I like Beef steak. But if I was locked up in a glass topped paddock with nothing but a stove, a knife and fork and a good supply of Pheasants, I would start exclusively eating Pheasant under glass. Would that mean I have evolved, or just got real lucky. Maybe after eating thousands of pheasants I would grow wings and become the first winged human.
H.S posted
Who was the mental microbe that said something like "We went up into space and there was no God"? or words to that effect...Sputnik, no Crusovisk something like that. Well anyway your argument can be turned right back on you..
Again, don't tell me how creation is wrong, tell me why your beliefs are right.
One person says "there are no flies on me."
The other person says "No, but we can see where they've been"
One person says "I see no God"
Another person says " you can see where He has been" Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Well, have a pheasant day.
H.S posted
Creation as a belief system works. The only argument against creation is that 'there is no creator.'
Who was the mental microbe that said something like "We went up into space and there was no God"? or words to that effect...Sputnik, no Crusovisk something like that. Well anyway your argument can be turned right back on you..
Again, don't tell me how creation is wrong, tell me why your beliefs are right.
One person says "there are no flies on me."
The other person says "No, but we can see where they've been"
One person says "I see no God"
Another person says " you can see where He has been" Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Well, have a pheasant day.
I don't believe people evolved from apes. Period. Until they can prove it, I will never believe it. Any other evolution, I'm open to. Okay maybe not any others, but some. Other examples of evolution you've provided can't explain the missing link of the theory of evolution.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
This isn't analogous at all. E Coli gained this ability through a change in its genetic code, not by choosing a similar food to what it prefers.In fact, when being examined, E Coli's main identifiable characteristic is that it does not feed on citrate, that's how people tell that it is E coli. So developing that ability is much more than eating pheasant instead of beef.
I have already written a number of posts about why my beliefs are right. I have yet to tell you why you're wrong
I would say that just because a system of belief "works", doesn't mean that it is true. When you use the word "works" I'm assuming you mean it has internal reliability, it doesn't disagree with itself... that doesn't infer validity, that it is true. For example: Lord of the Rings works as a belief system, no parts of the story disagree with any of the other parts. However, that doesn't make LoTR nonfiction.One person says "there are no flies on me."
The other person says "No, but we can see where they've been"
One person says "I see no God"
Another person says " you can see where He has been" Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Well, have a pheasant day.
Have a pheasant day... lol!
How can you say "I see no God but can see where He has been", yet say "I see no evolution, therefore it can't be true!" Regardless, evolution has been seen.
Humble_Servant, do you believe in God?
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Yes I do. The third video I posted on my initial post (page 8 I think?) are all from Christians who believe in evolution. The basic argument the video starts with is that the basal laws of the universe are such that eventually life will come into being, and those universal laws are set by God.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Rusty,
I was more speaking to our current line of discussion... it seemed like you were just making things up to promote your case (the lab conditions), and I didn't think discussing that point any further would do any good.
My request wasn't for you to prove evolution wrong, I want your scientific reasoning as to why your view is correct. I provided mine, isn't it reasonable that you provide yours? I think it remains well within the scope of thread's theme.
I was more speaking to our current line of discussion... it seemed like you were just making things up to promote your case (the lab conditions), and I didn't think discussing that point any further would do any good.
My request wasn't for you to prove evolution wrong, I want your scientific reasoning as to why your view is correct. I provided mine, isn't it reasonable that you provide yours? I think it remains well within the scope of thread's theme.
http://storyislove.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/john-173/
I think your view of Christianity in your Blog is interesting to say the least. I understand what you say about church and prayer but that doesn't mean you have to stop or do them less.
Have you actually read the entire bible? I feel like your blog is more your spin on Christianity than even what's in the bible. Not attacking you, just a discussion.
Also, you said you don't believe in out of body experiences. Well, you are looking at the writing of someone who has experienced it and I can say, that it is certainly real.
I think your view of Christianity in your Blog is interesting to say the least. I understand what you say about church and prayer but that doesn't mean you have to stop or do them less.
Have you actually read the entire bible? I feel like your blog is more your spin on Christianity than even what's in the bible. Not attacking you, just a discussion.
Also, you said you don't believe in out of body experiences. Well, you are looking at the writing of someone who has experienced it and I can say, that it is certainly real.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Rusty, yes, it seemed to me like you were making things up. And if that means you don't want to talk to me, that's fine. I would still like to hear your scientific reasoning as to why your view is right though. My assumption is that when I ask for scientific reasoning and none is provided, that there is none.
Lifeasweknowit,
I have read the entire bible, yes. I was once a vigorous student of scripture when I was in church leadership. The blog is definitely supposed to be my personal take on faith, what I personally hold to be true... I would imagine that is anyone's perspective: their own. I don't have a hermeneutic that bodes well with modern evangelicalism, that's why it may seem a little bit out-there, but that's okay... with me at least.
While I don't personally believe that someone actually goes outside of their body, I firmly believe that the experience you had, and whatever meaning you took from that experience, is very real.
Maybe if you want to talk about this further we can do it in a different forum that doesn't hijack this one?
Lifeasweknowit,
I have read the entire bible, yes. I was once a vigorous student of scripture when I was in church leadership. The blog is definitely supposed to be my personal take on faith, what I personally hold to be true... I would imagine that is anyone's perspective: their own. I don't have a hermeneutic that bodes well with modern evangelicalism, that's why it may seem a little bit out-there, but that's okay... with me at least.
While I don't personally believe that someone actually goes outside of their body, I firmly believe that the experience you had, and whatever meaning you took from that experience, is very real.
Maybe if you want to talk about this further we can do it in a different forum that doesn't hijack this one?
I think you're correct...I didn't go outside my body, but in my dream I was floating atop of it. I believe that's called a lucid dream. Anyhow, I stand firm that dream was not a coincidence and that I would have lost my life had I not called out on Him. I wouldn't mind talking to you, I just get scared that I will question things (which I greatly dislike as you can see...).
Oh and I just realized you actually write about Pavlov's Dog on here under "Let It Die":
http://storyislove.wordpress.com/2009/10/
Although this was written in 2009, are you stating that Christianity is a way to control the masses as many atheists believe?
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Questioning can definitely be scary! However, if you do question.... where ever you wind up due to your questioning, you got there by being truly honest... something that is uncommon and sacred.