23 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerAndrew's answered this post at the bottom of the previous page, but my initial post wasn't about bacterias resistance to antibiotics, it was a link to Richard Lenski's 20 year e-coli evolution experiment.
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification&rdquo😉. Rather, resistance resulting f ...[text shortened]... be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobOh! How wonderful!
The e-coli your thinking of is the strain which causes food poisoning in humans. Most e-coli strains are harmless.
But whether or not they are harmful or harmless to humans has nothing to do with the fact that genetic mutations can be of benefit to the organism itself.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2becker90% of the battle is won in debate by the side that gets to state and define and get the debate to concern, the terms so stated and defined. "True evolution" is one such term. It sounds similar to "true Scotsman."
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification&rdquo😉. Rather, resistance resulting f ...[text shortened]... be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by JS357I must have missed this. What is "True” evolution ?
90% of the battle is won in debate by the side that gets to state and define and get the debate to concern, the terms so stated and defined. "True evolution" is one such term. It sounds similar to "true Scotsman."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Mar 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMy post referenced what you missed. Maybe you didn't read dj2becker's post dated 23 Mar '11 03:39 and the link dj posted.
I must have missed this. What is "True” evolution ?
It was:
Originally posted by dj2becker
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification&rdquo😉. Rather, resistance resulting f ...[text shortened]... be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
... where the true Scotsman fallacy is put forth.
Hope this does not leave you even more in doubt.
24 Mar 11
Originally posted by JS357Oh, I see (I think).
My post referenced what you missed. Maybe you didn't read dj2becker's post dated 23 Mar '11 03:39 and the link dj posted.
It was:
Originally posted by dj2becker
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance re ...[text shortened]... e the true Scotsman fallacy is put forth.
Hope this does not leave you even more in doubt.
They just say “true” evolution is “descent with modification” and claim this is not what was shown because they claim most of the beneficial genes originated from something other than mutations because they were “transferred” there.
Well, to them, I would point out three things:
1, science does not claim that evolution cannot occur through just transfer of genes alone (as opposed to mutations) for it to be defined as “evolution” and science makes no such distinction between “true” evolution and this evolution.
Therefore, they are just using a straw-man argument here.
2, this evolution would still be “descent with modification” because, even if their claim is correct, there is still “descent” and there is still “modification” there.
So their argument doesn't even make any logical sense!
3, many experiments (and observations) have proved that beneficial mutations do occur and that they are selected for under the right conditions (and BY those same right conditions).
25 Mar 11
To Whom It May Concern:
On Answers.com there is a list of words related to
Genetics, Heredity, and Evolution taken from
Random House Word Menu:
abiogenesis - discredited theory that living organism can develop by
spontaneous generation from inanimate material.
adaptation - any feature that increases fitness of organism to its
environment: process of developing or altering these
features by natural selection.
biogenesis - principle that living organisms originate from other living
organisms similar to themselves.
evolution - development of species or organism from primitive state
to present or specialized state.
mutation - sudden inheritable change to new allelic form of gene.
Plants and animals change by adaptations and mutations.
See the definitions and note the "true" definition of evolution.
Evolution, as you seem to define it, does not exist.
God created the plants and animals of various kinds and by
adaptations and mutations there is change to a more specialized
state. There is no such thing as an ape evolving into a human
being or some reptile evolving into a bird for example, for they
are of different "kinds". (The authority is the Holy Bible like it or not.)
25 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsoh, so now we have a slight form of evolution because some dudes actually went through the trouble of observing one organism adapt to certain conditions so the fundies from answers have no choice but to accept them. not that long ago there were fundies on this forum and elsewhere claiming that no evolution occurs, ever. but since nobody actually saw an ape turn into a human, you will dismiss that.
To Whom It May Concern:
On Answers.com there is a list of words related to
Genetics, Heredity, and Evolution taken from
Random House Word Menu:
abiogenesis - discredited theory that living organism can develop by
spontaneous generation from inanimate material.
adaptation - any feature that increases fitness of organism to its
environment: ample, for they
are of different "kinds". (The authority is the Holy Bible like it or not.)
because of people like you we have stickers in biology books warning that evolution is just a theory and children getting thought intelligent design as if it were a valid theory.
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe old definition, of what evolution is, has caused all the
oh, so now we have a slight form of evolution because some dudes actually went through the trouble of observing one organism adapt to certain conditions so the fundies from answers have no choice but to accept them. not that long ago there were fundies on this forum and elsewhere claiming that no evolution occurs, ever. but since nobody actually saw an ape ...[text shortened]... n is just a theory and children getting thought intelligent design as if it were a valid theory.
controversy. I was not aware of this new definition until
recently. But atheist are intent on arguing for evolution
under the old definition because they want to discredit God
as the creator.
25 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou don't consider the possibility the Bible was a human written text,
The old definition, of what evolution is, has caused all the
controversy. I was not aware of this new definition until
recently. But atheist are intent on arguing for evolution
under the old definition because they want to discredit God
as the creator.
(perhaps to approximate the nature of some existent god or, in my opinion, more likely pure fiction borrowing elements from older \'holy\' books)
and so contains errors consistent with the scientific knowledge and enlightenment available to people of an ancient era.
In this case your objections fail. But then the possibility your holy book could possibly contain errors is something you've never acknowledged, and thus my point here will miss entirely.
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am not aware of there being an old definition and a new definition. It is more likely that the word has a range of meaning and means slightly different things in different contexts. Also the word 'evolution' and the theory, "The Theory of Evolution" are not quite the same thing either.
The old definition, of what evolution is, has caused all the
controversy.
But atheist are intent on arguing for evolution under the old definition because they want to discredit God
as the creator.
Once again, you make the claim that atheists are responsible even though it has been pointed out to you multiple times that there are many Theist and Christian scientists, even biologists and even those that study and accept the theory of evolution.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that people arguing for evolution are doing so in order to discredit God as the creator, or is that something you heard or made up?
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsno atheist considers evolution as a proof towards god's inexistance
The old definition, of what evolution is, has caused all the
controversy. I was not aware of this new definition until
recently. But atheist are intent on arguing for evolution
under the old definition because they want to discredit God
as the creator.
for atheists evolution is simply a theory by itself, no different than "the strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together"
and there is no new and old definition. the one you got from answers is insane. basically anything you get from answers that isn't telling you to be nice and help others and love god is insane (and sometimes they mess up even there)
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadi am a christian and i see no problem between evolution and god.
I am not aware of there being an old definition and a new definition. It is more likely that the word has a range of meaning and means slightly different things in different contexts. Also the word 'evolution' and the theory, "The Theory of Evolution" are not quite the same thing either.
[b]But atheist are intent on arguing for evolution under the old ...[text shortened]... oing so in order to discredit God as the creator, or is that something you heard or made up?
sure, now he will say i am not a good christian. i am not a real christian. so i suppose i fail, like so others before me to make a fundie understand he is wrong.
darn it, maybe next time. i am sure to get a fundie next time.
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziFrom the words of Jesus, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
i am a christian and i see no problem between evolution and god.
sure, now he will say i am not a good christian. i am not a real christian. so i suppose i fail, like so others before me to make a fundie understand he is wrong.
darn it, maybe next time. i am sure to get a fundie next time.
hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the
outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's
bones and all uncleanness. Even so you too outwardly appear
righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness." Matthew 23:27-28
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyes it is a nice quote, with mentioning that jesus was calling them out for paying attention to the wrong details of religion instead of the important ones. like caring more what one ate on sabbath instead of caring for an old lady or an orphan.
From the words of Jesus, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the
outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's
bones and all uncleanness. Even so you too outwardly appear
righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness." Matthew 23:27-28
so my opinion is that in this case, you are the pharisee jesus is talking about