05 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wasn't making that claim, but since you obviously want to explore this...
Is it your claim that no known life form has the motor without the flagellum or the flagellum without the motor?
If I can find such a life form, will you admit that your whole argument if flawed?
How would this cause my argument to be flawed? You might find a motor that does something other than causing mobility, or has some other way of causing mobility (without a flagellum). Or you could find a flagellum that doesn't need a motor to fulfill a function, whether that function is mobility or not.
But it doesn't really matter since my argument centers around a process that explains (or attempts to explain) how something that is there got there... and in this case what is being discussed is a motor with a flagellum.
05 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIn reference to the E.Coli experiments RJ is claiming that because one of the groups of bacteria were genetically modified the explanation of the genetic changes in the other groups is due to horizontal gene transfer between the modified and unmodified bacterial groups and not due to evolution in response to environmental changes. In other words he is disputing the validity of the experiment. Since he's presented no evidence that there could be a problem with the experiment there's no particular reason to take his objection seriously.
Prove what?
05 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI was just playing the "out of context" game. You know, the game where someone pretends to not know what came before the post they respond to.
In reference to the E.Coli experiments RJ is claiming that because one of the groups of bacteria were genetically modified the explanation of the genetic changes in the other groups is due to horizontal gene transfer between the modified and unmodified bacterial groups and not due to evolution in response to environmental changes. In other words he is d ...[text shortened]... d be a problem with the experiment there's no particular reason to take his objection seriously.
It's late and I'm bored, so I suppose it's time for me to call it a day...
and two edits for this little post...
05 Jan 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI disagree, of course I believe becoming immune to something you were
I say biological evolution is a fairy tale. It never happened and it does not happen today nor will it ever happen. 😏
infected with is evolution, much like the examples they are giving us. I just
don't see it going beyond small changes like acquiring immunities and
things like that. They all stay within the species, there isn't any leap to
turn into something else, the only way they get that is through fairy tales
where someone connects the dots in the fossil record.
05 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI disagree with this, "...interact with their environments to cause variations
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
in traits." Natural selection doesn't cause variations it may filter them out
but it is not a leading force in random mutations. As I pointed out to you
more than once environments come and go, they get hot, they get cold,
they get wet, they get dry they are ever changing as are food supplies and
any number of things life require. You are talking about a process so slow
according the believers that changes take millions of years to build upon
themselves.
I think it is bogus. A random mutation is just random if they are caused it
would be like someone striking a piano key for a desired sound they are not
random. If something is directing mutations then you have left the world of
randomness and entered into a place where it is guided. You may as well
say that evolution the grandness cause of Divine flow ever to be played out
by the hand of God, since planets and stars, forces like gravity, light,
heat, and all things between those and what takes place on the sub-atomic
levels caused non-living mater to become alive and change into what we
see today. Seriously look at all that would have to just be right without
which all things could not support life.
I don't claim to be an I.D. person, but a creationist, but you almost have
me changing my point of view.
05 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe objection raised, earlier in the thread by lemon lime, was that no beneficial mutation had ever been observed. The Lenski experiment quite clearly shows this claim is false. Having now read up on the topic I presume you agree.
Did you have an argument you wanted to present with it?
05 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayAny 'leap to turn into something else'? What does that even mean? Again, I've read a handful of books on evolution and nowhere, I'll repeat that - nowhere - have I read any such claim being made.
I disagree, of course I believe becoming immune to something you were
infected with is evolution, much like the examples they are giving us. I just
don't see it going beyond small changes like acquiring immunities and
things like that. They all stay within the species, there isn't any leap to
turn into something else, the only way they get that is through fairy tales
where someone connects the dots in the fossil record.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
05 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me put it simply: A toaster and a living organism do not display the same kind of complexity. One is the accumulation of materials that can't all form naturally without destroying each other, and is incapable of reproducing itself (or its parts), and the other is made of only a few materials, all of which can form naturally, and can reproduce its parts as well as itself (all through natural, imperfect, observed processes). It's a very, very bad analogy, even from a shallow perspective. Nothing in nature comes even close to being materially or purposefully similar to any human-built machines (other than maybe bio-engineered products).
I fail to see why you dismiss the toaster argument since after all just to get
to the wonderful world where evolutionary theory supposedly is real that
was exactly what needed to happen! Non-living material needed to become
living material in a world void of life.
As for how it had to begin, the truth is that you don't need anything even remotely as complex as a toaster (or the modern cell) for evolutionary processes to kick in. Basically, all you need is the hypothesised RNA-world. Once you have molecules that self-replicate with inheritable, slightly changing traits, and an environment that supports them, you're good to go (or they're good to go, I should say).
