01 Jan 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobDr. Richard Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment with E. coli is commonly used to support evolution without distinction between observable limited change and unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Many publications in scientific journals have described the mutations that have provided these bacteria with a benefit in their laboratory environment. A close look at the biochemical basis behind these mutations shows that the vast majority of fitness benefits are due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of unique genetic information. Furthermore, mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed. As the idea of evolution from a simple, common ancestor requires the accumulation of novel genetic information over a long period of time, Lenski’s experiment then actually provides evidence against this idea and instead supports a Biblical creation model of life and origins.
I'm more than happy to discuss topics with you.
So the Lenski experiment, are you up to speed with it?
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/hijacking-good-science-lenskis-bacteria-support-creation/
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe trouble you have with detrimental mutations is they could do one of
Detrimental mutations reduce the reproductive success of an organism. Hence, the relative frequency of these mutations will decrease over time.
two things to any life form, the first being kill it off right away so end of
story, the 2nd it could add weaknesses to something. The 2nd one that
adds weaknesses could only happen to those living systems which are also
the only ones that could possibly get something we'd call a good mutation
as well. That is on top of the fact what still has not gone away that good
mutations if they do come could also go away the next time there is
another mutation. The thought that they would continue to build upon
themselves is so beyond reason I'm surprised you still think it is what really
has been happening.
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by SoothfastIt must have been a over a year ago... or sometime shortly after I joined this site. It was probably in the science forum and around the time I first started posting at boards here. It seems odd to me too that I can remember this, but inconsistencies in stories do have a way of jumping off the page and scream "Look at me, look at me!" LOL
You must be reading about a page per decade...
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieThere's two meanings of random used in this type of discussion. There's the scientific meaning of stochastic but there is also a common usage meaning arbitrary. Since the big evolutionary driver for the last 500 million years or so is climate change which is entirely predictable on geological time scales I think the sense of arbitrary was meant.
who said it was random???
01 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraKellyJay is willing to engage you in a discussion about mutations, so talk to him about that.
I don't think you are lying, but you do not appear to have made much progress in those 50 years. It took me about two minutes to find a study reporting the experimental detection of beneficial mutations, yet it seemed to be news to you. Perhaps you have been reading about evolution in the wrong places? I would recommend starting with some work by people ...[text shortened]... ertions" I made regarding "information" in connection to DNA. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
My question is not about mutations, but points to a pivotal claim that is critical to verifying (macro)evolutionary change. It's the same question asked 150 years ago and still hasn't been answered... which is weird, because today we actually have the necessary tools and technology for answering the question.
But don't ask me to repeat it because I'm tired of asking... ask RJ or Kelly. I've asked several times, but either you don't understand the question or you're unwilling to address it. I ask about a process and you offer me a candy bar (mutations)... it's the same answer I've been getting from everyone, and not just from you. If I was asking you about the candy making process and you offer me a candy bar, am I supposed to infer from this that you know anything about the candy making process?
I did however get some interesting responses to my question...
~ The same kind of candy bar, over and over again... (burp)
~ Simply asking for an answer means I'm a pathological liar
~ It also mean the request is insincere
~ It also means I don't know nothin' abouts no evolutionism
Anyway, don't worry about it. You can't answer the question because no one can. At least not without slipping a bit of poorly disguised intelligent guidance into the answer... but that would be cheating.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Jan 15
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhen contrasted with designed, the most charitable interpretation of random is undesigned. Or not designed. That is, not itself designed nor the result of a designed process like evolution. So the dichotomy between ID and evolution is false if evolution is allowed as the intelligent design. This is why YEC lurks behind most objections to evolution.
There's two meanings of random used in this type of discussion. There's the scientific meaning of stochastic but there is also a common usage meaning arbitrary. Since the big evolutionary driver for the last 500 million years or so is climate change which is entirely predictable on geological time scales I think the sense of arbitrary was meant.
Edit: like evolution is thought to be by progressive Christians.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by Proper Knob"Before the beginning of the experiment, Lenski prepared an Ara+ variant (a point mutation in the ara operon that enables growth on arabinose) of the strain; the initial populations consisted of 6 Ara− colonies and 6 Ara+ colonies, which allowed the two sets of strains to be differentiated and tested for fitness against each other. Unique genetic markers have since evolved to allow identification of each strain."
I'm more than happy to discuss topics with you.
So the Lenski experiment, are you up to speed with it?
Can we start here, what was done?
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeThe process is called "evolution." If you want a more specific answer, try asking a more specific question than "how does evolution happen?"
KellyJay is willing to engage you in a discussion about mutations, so talk to him about that.
My question is not about mutations, but points to a pivotal claim that is critical to verifying ([b]macro)evolutionary change. It's the same question asked 150 years ago and still hasn't been answered... which is weird, because today we actually hav ...[text shortened]... ng a bit of poorly disguised intelligent guidance into the answer... but that would be cheating.[/b]
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you understand that the principle of natural selection implies that organisms with beneficial mutations are more likely to reproduce? It would strongly appear that you still have not acted to my suggestion to read up on natural selection. I once again urge you to do so.
The trouble you have with detrimental mutations is they could do one of
two things to any life form, the first being kill it off right away so end of
story, the 2nd it could add weaknesses to something. The 2nd one that
adds weaknesses could only happen to those living systems which are also
the only ones that could possibly get something we'd call a go ...[text shortened]... mselves is so beyond reason I'm surprised you still think it is what really
has been happening.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, that does not alter the fact that all mutations are random! As a matter
Do you understand that the principle of natural selection implies that organisms with beneficial mutations are more likely to reproduce? It would strongly appear that you still have not acted to my suggestion to read up on natural selection. I once again urge you to do so.
of fact it doesn't even talk to anything that has anything to do with any
mutations!
This once again is like a few people's debating style here, ignore all the
points that have nothing to do with promoting the cause and highlight all
that does. The trouble is that isn't how life works in the case of mutations,
the bad far out number the good, then you run into the issue that even if
you get a good one, the next random change could take it away.
Natural selection only helps if there is something about the mutation that
allows for the change to be meaningful in the environment the life form is
in. That said another change in environment could make what used to be
a good meaningful mutation and turn it into a bad one. Helping some life
cope with the cold is only good as long as it does not get really hot out.
I urge you to start using your own brain and thinking these things through.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI urge you to start using you own brain and thinking things through
Yes, that does not alter the fact that all mutations are random! As a matter
of fact it doesn't even talk to anything that has anything to do with any
mutations!
This once again is like a few people's debating style here, ignore all the
points that have nothing to do with promoting the cause and highlight all
that does. The trouble is that isn't how ...[text shortened]... t really hot out.
I urge you to start using your own brain and thinking these things through.
LOL!!!, Says the man who thinks humans lived with dinosaurs, you couldn't make it up.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe bad probably do out number the good. That's why we see a fossil record containing millions upon millions of now extinct species.
Yes, that does not alter the fact that all mutations are random! As a matter
of fact it doesn't even talk to anything that has anything to do with any
mutations!
This once again is like a few people's debating style here, ignore all the
points that have nothing to do with promoting the cause and highlight all
that does. The trouble is that isn't how ...[text shortened]... t really hot out.
I urge you to start using your own brain and thinking these things through.
I think you need to think it through.