The design argument

Originally posted by JS357
Question: was strain exposed to citrate in an aerobic condition (the "locked up food" ) prior to and during its "useful" change?

This gets to the point of whether the presence of citrate in an aerobic condition somehow "caused" the change. I would hypothesize that the heritable change would occur independently of whether the "food" was present. If not harmf ...[text shortened]... if it were present, the benefit (relative population growth) would begin to accrue immediately.

The citrate is present in the growth medium for all six batches which don't, or didn't, have the ability to 'feed' from it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The point of design is that when changes are made it is done so with a
plan and purpose in mind. Random does not abide by the rules of keeping
good or bad, it doesn't know the difference between harmful or helpful.

I've gone through some nasty stuff with development I'm afraid I know
more now about Pulmonary Atresia with ASD and VSD that I'd ever want ...[text shortened]... nd will only
need later if a million other things that will be working with it also are
built!

Kelly, are you up to speed with the Lenski experiment now? Do you understand what I have explained?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Kelly, are you up to speed with the Lenski experiment now? Do you understand what I have explained?

I read up on it, and will continue too if you have other links.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The point of design is that when changes are made it is done so with a
plan and purpose in mind. Random does not abide by the rules of keeping
good or bad, it doesn't know the difference between harmful or helpful.

There is a concept called "natural selection" which is how the distinguishing between "good" and "bad" mutations works. In fact, without an environment to interact with, "good" and "bad" mutations are not meaningfully defined.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is a concept called "natural selection" which is how the distinguishing between "good" and "bad" mutations works. In fact, without an environment to interact with, "good" and "bad" mutations are not meaningfully defined.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

A mutation might cause normal cell processes to fail independently of the environment external to the cell, in which case the gene is always bad. Such a gene might persist in sexual reproducers provided that it is recessive and when accompanied by a dominant healthy gene has no adverse effects for the carrier. However, mutations which do not automatically kill the host come under your environmental criterion.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No.

How can a strain of bacteria 'get the secret' from another strain of bacteria? Turn your brain on.

They get the secret by breeding with each other. Turn your brain on, numbnuts.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is a concept called "natural selection" which is how the distinguishing between "good" and "bad" mutations works. In fact, without an environment to interact with, "good" and "bad" mutations are not meaningfully defined.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural selection can not be as good as selective breeding because natural selection depends on the luck of random factors whereas selective breeding is controlled by intelligent breeders. 😏

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually, what the theory of evolution predicts is that such structures arrive through intermediate steps which are either itself beneficial or neutral in terms of fitness. For instance, in the Lenski experiment it was shown that the ability to metabolize citric acid occurred through several independent steps. Maybe if you had done some reading about evolution in the past fifty years, you'd know this.

Does Macro-e predict this can lead to new species? Yes it does, because if it didn't then the Macro-e version (of evolution) is a lame duck argument. Micro beneficial changes in e-coli only reveal how the e-coli bacteria is able to become better at survival. For you this probably suggests how Macro evolutionary changes might be possible, but for me it still doesn't answer the question of how the e-coli would be able to evolve into some other classification of bacteria.

So my question is still not answered, because it didn't center around small beneficial changes enabling survival within a species. If you want to presume this can explain the emergence of one species from another you may do so... and I'm not actually questioning your presumption of Macro. I'm questioning your presumption of evidence proving Macro when the evidence (Lenski experiment) doesn't actually do that.


And by the way, suggesting I haven't learned anything new over the past fifty years is worse than useless as a bluff... because it doesn't suggest what you have, it suggests what you don't have.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Does [b]Macro-e predict this can lead to new species? Yes it does, because if it didn't then the Macro-e version (of evolution) is a lame duck argument. Micro beneficial changes in e-coli only reveal how the e-coli bacteria is able to become better at survival. For you this probably suggests how Macro evolutionary changes might be possible, but ...[text shortened]... as a bluff... because it doesn't suggest what you have, it suggests what you don't have.[/b]

You are right, because even selective breeders have not changed a dog into a horse. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are right, because even selective breeders have not changed a dog into a horse. 😏

Well yeah, but this doesn't mean it can't be done.

http://www.reiwholesaleguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BirdDog.jpg

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well yeah, but this doesn't mean it [b]can't be done.

http://www.reiwholesaleguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BirdDog.jpg[/b]

I agree, but it will take more knowledge than we know now to do it. And it certainly will not be done by natural selection or selective breeding. That is what I am saying is impossible and can't be done.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Drawing inferences of intelligent design shouldn't be a problem for anyone, but it appears to be a problem for evolutionists... and so I think this may be the reason why many only see it as a theory and assume it should not be taken seriously.

But I have another question about evolution. I can't think of any other science (or branch of science) ...[text shortened]... to that now because Miss C is threatening to move out if Mr E doesn't break it off with Mr A....

previously...

Mr E is not sure why Miss C is courting him, because Mr A is his true love and Miss C is obviously trying to come between them. But then Mr E discovers that Mr A was responsible for getting E and C together, which leaves him to wonder if Mr A really loves him or is using him for some nefarious purpose. Miss C is confused because Mr A is continuing to see Mr E in spite of the fact that E and C are now living together in what appears to be a committed relationship. E appears to be confused as well because he knows it was A who got them together, even though Mr A stills wants to be a part of Mr Es' life and continue along as though nothing has changed.

Mr A is the only one who doesn't appear to be confused, but there isn't time to go into that now because Miss C is threatening to move out if Mr E doesn't break it off with Mr A....

... A few days later Miss C comes home to find that Mr E has been shot to death. She calls the police and they dispatch Detective Science (S) to the scene. During the course of his investigation witnesses say the two had been fighting, then Det S notices her car has been broken into and discovers a gun in the back seat. Ballistics confirm it is the murder weapon, but prints found on the gun belong not to Miss C but to Mr Es' lover Mr A. So Det S interviews Mr A who tells him Miss C showed him the gun, and his prints must have gotten on it when he handled it. Det S is satisfied with this explanation and has Miss C arrested and charged with the murder of Mr E.

But disturbing discrepancies are discovered in Det Ss' investigation, so someone from the Internal Investigations Division (ID) shows up to look into the matter...

Originally posted by DeepThought
A mutation might cause normal cell processes to fail independently of the environment external to the cell, in which case the gene is always bad.

In such cases, one can consider the cell itself to be the environment in which the gene is residing. But the gene is not always 'bad' simply because it stops some processes. It has to actually result in cell death prior to cell division more often than other variants for it to be correctly labelled 'bad'.
In reality, genes do not have a binary good/bad characteristic, but rather have a whole range of goodness/badness and their goodness/badness varies depending on the environment they are in. If a gene mutation stops a particular 'normal' chemical pathway, it may not be a problem if the product is present in the environment. In some circumstances it may even be beneficial.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Does [b]Macro-e predict this can lead to new species? Yes it does, because if it didn't then the Macro-e version (of evolution) is a lame duck argument. Micro beneficial changes in e-coli only reveal how the e-coli bacteria is able to become better at survival. For you this probably suggests how Macro evolutionary changes might be possible, but ...[text shortened]... as a bluff... because it doesn't suggest what you have, it suggests what you don't have.[/b]

Evolution works at the level of DNA, not species. The classification of different organisms into species (by humans, not nature) predates the discovery of DNA. So your question seems to indicate you don't know what evolution is.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution works at the level of DNA, not species. The classification of different organisms into species (by humans, not nature) predates the discovery of DNA. So your question seems to indicate you don't know what evolution is.

The theory relies on the idea of lower life forms gradually changing into progressively higher and more complex forms of life... and that idea hasn't changed.

If you believe a process of evolution only affects DNA, then you are forgetting the link between DNA and what DNA causes to happen. You're presuming new information can easily arise to build molecular structures and machines (integrated functions working in concert) sophisticated enough to be selectable functions. However, new information cannot be selected until it results in a selectable form, ie. molecular structures and machines working in concert with everything else. For the inner working of a cell to be viable the various parts have to be functioning together in concert with one another... and this is something else that wasn't understood 150 years ago.

I could be wrong, but you appear to be referring to the egg coming before the chicken idea. The problem with this idea is that an egg is the result of copied information coming from chickens, so it can work either way. If you are presuming egg before chicken it may be because it just happens to better suit your theory.