[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

I thought panspermia was the leading evo-means.

Nope. It's like I've pointed out. Most people who think they hate evolution have no idea what it is.

 

[Cygnus]

Nope. It's like I've pointed out. Most people who think they hate evolution have no idea what it is.

..and you being a person who can't explain how mutations add up....beyond a coloring book explanation...have the audacity to say those who oppse evo-ism have no idea????????????

 

[Barbarian]

..and you being a person who can't explain how mutations add up....beyond a coloring book explanation...have the audacity to say those who oppse evo-ism have no idea????????????

As you learned, scientists have directly observed how they add up. It works by mutation and natural selection. Would you like me to show you, again?

The point, of course, is that people who think that they hate evolution, really don't know what it is.

 

[Cygnus]

As you learned, scientists have directly observed how they add up. It works by mutation and natural selection. Would you like me to show you, again?

The point, of course, is that people who think that they hate evolution, really don't know what it is.

Yes, considering you never showed me in the first place.

 

[Barbarian]

Barry Hall’s lac Bug
Lactose is a sugar that bacteria can use as a food. In order to do this, they first have to cut lactose in half, releasing two simple sugars (glucose and galactose) that the metabolism of the cell can use for energy. In E. coli, the ability to metabolize lactose depends on having (1) a gene that produces the protein (the enzyme beta-galactosidase) that cuts the lactose, (2) an appropriate regulatory region which turns on this gene when lactose is present but turns it off (to conserve metabolic energy) when lactose is absent, and (3) another protein, called a permease, which imports lactose through the otherwise-impermeable cell membrane. These three functions are normally co-located on a stretch of DNA called the lac operon.



Structure of lactose and the products of its cleavage. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_operon

In 1982, Professor Barry Hall at the University of Rochester initiated a set of experiments using some E. coli in which he deleted the gene for the beta-galactosidase from this lac operon. The loss of this gene knocked out the operation of the three-part system, which made it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. He then let the bacteria reproduce in a nutrient mixture which contained galactose. The bacteria would only thrive if they managed to evolve a new metabolic pathway to digest galactose. The bacteria needed to evolve both (1) a gene which would produce the enzyme beta-galactosidase, and also (2) the appropriate controlling region of DNA. The growth medium contained the chemical IPTG, which promoted the cellular production of permease from the original lac genetic region, since that function had been disabled by Hall’s gene knock-out. Having the permease present in this way allowed the experimenters to detect any new mutants which had evolved the ability to cleave galactose.

As it happened, in the course of many generations, the bacterium did exactly that. Two mutations in a distant gene converted it into an effective gene for making beta-galactosidase enzyme, and further mutation in the DNA which controls the expression of this new gene gave it the needed galactose sensitivity. Neither part was greatly effective without the other. So, this is an example of a new multi-part genetic system, with a function which was new to this hacked bacterial strain, which was produced by mutation coupled with natural selection.

In further series of mutation and natural selection experiments, Hall found a new set of bacteria which had a new enzyme which was able to switch on the production of the lac permease, in addition to having the new regulated beta-galactosidase gene.

Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe has attempted to minimize the significance of these observations. His main objection seems to be that this evolution of a new function took place by various alterations to existing genetic material. But that is exactly how evolution normally proceeds! Evolutionary biologists do not claim that fully functional, whole new genes suddenly appear in the genome ex nihilo. That seems to be what Behe is demanding. Rather, evolution is typically a matter of step by step modifications in the DNA which is already there.

Evolution Before Our Eyes: Complex Mutations in Microbes Giving New Functions

OUTLINE ( 1 ) Barry Hall’s lac Bug ( 2 ) Lenski’s Long Term E. Coli Evolution Experiment Lenski’s E. coli Evolve Ability to Metabolize Citrate under Aerobic Conditions ( 3 ) Bacteriophage …

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com

Precisely what you claimed to be impossible. Want to see another one?

 

[Truthfrees]

Creation fits the evidence for evolution much better than your man-made doctrine of creationism.

typo? - what? - just so you know it's fine if you think evolution fits the evidence better - i think creation fits the evidence better - either one is a personal choice - you can't prove evolution - it's just a theory

 

[Cygnus]

Precisely what you claimed to be impossible. Want to see another one?

perhaps something that doesn't involve bacteria that reproduces nothing like animals do. They can bump into each other and exchange their DNA.

 

[Barbarian]

perhaps something that doesn't involve bacteria that reproduces nothing like animals do.

Creationists often consider bacteria to be cheating, because they reproduce so fast, we can observe hundreds of generations in a short time.

They can bump into each other and exchange their DNA.

Actually, that's how animals reproduce. It's optional for bacteria; required for animals. So yes, bacteria tend to evolve more slowly than animals, per generation. In fact, where environments are very stable, and variation isn't a good thing, there are examples of animals evolving to eliminate sexual reproduction.

As you see, mutation plus natural selection explains the evolution of useful new traits. That's what we observe happening.

 

[Barbarian]

you can't prove evolution - it's just a theory

See above. It's directly observed. I think you've confused evolution, which is an observed phenomenon, with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. But we also have very good evidence for common descent, as even knowledgeable creationists admit.

 

[Truthfrees]

See above. It's directly observed. I think you've confused evolution, which is an observed phenomenon, with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. But we also have very good evidence for common descent, as even knowledgeable creationists admit.

not in the way you imply - you have the evolution slant that wants to make people think there is no evidence for creation but there is in fact more for creation than evolution

 

[Barbarian]

not in the way you imply - you have the evolution slant that wants to make people think there is no evidence for creation but there is in fact more for creation than evolution

In fact, the evidence for creation is also evidence for evolution. It's just the way God creates new taxa.

 

[Truthfrees]

In fact, the evidence for creation is also evidence for evolution. It's just the way God creates new taxa.

both sides use the same evidence - they just make opposite conclusions - i think creation is more accurate a conclusion than the evolution paradigm

 

[Barbarian]

both sides use the same evidence - they just make opposite conclusions - i think creation is more accurate a conclusion than the evolution paradigm

Sorry, postmodernism doesn't work with me. Creation includes evolution; it's how He creates new taxa. And as you know, even knowledgeable creationists admit that the evidence supports evolution, even if they don't accept the evidence.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE creationist scientist, Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

 

[Truthfrees]

Sorry, postmodernism doesn't work with me. Creation includes evolution; it's how He creates new taxa. And as you know, even knowledgeable creationists admit that the evidence supports evolution, even if they don't accept the evidence.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE creationist scientist, Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

that's fine - modern stuff is unreliable - ancient original bible creation is reliable - your yec's aren't reliable - there are much better yec's than yours - but what does it matter what the rest of us think? - if you are confident that evolution is true then you should be happy and not care what we think

 

[Barbarian]

that's fine - modern stuff is unreliable - ancient original bible creation is reliable - your yec's aren't reliable

They actually know what the evidence is. So they are much more reliable than those who do not know. That's how it works.

but what does it matter what the rest of us think?

That's why facts are king. Reality is remarkably resistant to our hopes and wishes. That was the point of those YECs who, although they prefer their particular interpretation of Genesis, are honest enough to admit the evidence indicates evolution.

if you are confident that evolution is true then you should be happy and not care what we think

There's a problem. I have seen many young Christians, taught that creationism was essential Christian doctrine, go through crises of faith, when they learned that YE creationism could not be true. Some lost their faith. This is the real damage that YE causes.

You can minimize this, as some YE creationists do, by saying that this is just their understanding of scripture, and not essential Christian doctrine.

 

[Truthfrees]

They actually know what the evidence is. So they are much more reliable than those who do not know. That's how it works.


That's why facts are king. Reality is remarkably resistant to our hopes and wishes. That was the point of those YECs who, although they prefer their particular interpretation of Genesis, are honest enough to admit the evidence indicates evolution.



There's a problem. I have seen many young Christians, taught that creationism was essential Christian doctrine, go through crises of faith, when they learned that YE creationism could not be true. Some lost their faith. This is the real damage that YE causes.

You can minimize this, as some YE creationists do, by saying that this is just their understanding of scripture, and not essential Christian doctrine.

truth is different than essential religious doctrine - when a person studies the evidence for creation they discover it is more science-based than religion-based - your yec's not so much - there are better yecs

 

[Barbarian]

truth is different than essential religious doctrine - when a person studies the evidence for creation they discover it is more science-based than religion-based -

Show us that. As you have seen, YECs who are actually familiar with the evidence, admit that there is more evidence for evolution than for creationism.

 

[Truthfrees]

Show us that. As you have seen, YECs who are actually familiar with the evidence, admit that there is more evidence for evolution than for creationism.

here are better yec's - yours believe in evolution - not sure why you promote yours

Creation Scientists

Secular scientists often boldly declare that creationists aren’t “real” scientists. History and many modern, well-educated scientists would disagree!

answersingenesis.org

Creation scientists

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

browse both these websites for answers to evidence for creation

here is a really cool creation youtube chanel - this guy is really funny

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC23yiJV4Bkagj5dkH-UyHFA

 

[Barbarian]

here are better yec's - yours believe in evolution - not sure why you promote yours

No, the YECs I mentioned believe in special creationism. They just admit that the evidence supports evolution. But they know what the evidence is. Like Harold Coffin, who admitted in the Arkansas creationism trial that if it were not for his reading of scripture, the evidence would convince him that the world was very old, these YECs admit the evidence, but anticipate that someday a YEC explanation for the evidence will be possible.

I would of course be happy to what you think convincing evidence for YEC might be. What do you have?

 

[Truthfrees]

No, the YECs I mentioned believe in special creationism. They just admit that the evidence supports evolution. But they know what the evidence is. Like Harold Coffin, who admitted in the Arkansas creationism trial that if it were not for his reading of scripture, the evidence would convince him that the world was very old, these YECs admit the evidence, but anticipate that someday a YEC explanation for the evidence will be possible.

I would of course be happy to what you think convincing evidence for YEC might be. What do you have?

since neither you nor i are scientists i gave you links to the best yec's - they are scientists - their material is excellent

you can search any topic you want and read their conclusions on the evidence - just so you can see they do understand the science - contrary to what you have been claiming - in fact they being scientists would understand the science better than you do - and imo better than evolutionists do