yeaaaah, but Marcovic & al. (2004) showed in their study on E. Coli, F. Coli and G. Coli that Densky's results had probably been tampered with, so as to exclude the mere possibility of Jesus's intervention. They later (2008) found a significant dosage of the Holy Spirit in the broth, after the 21.023th geberation, which translate in human years into +/- 4000 y. after creation. The saviour of the E. Coli had come.
I'm over at ATHEISTS ARE BRAINWASHED. Its a hoax folks! if you want to talk about it. Meanwhile your bankrupt idealogy of moral anarchy isn't fit for skunk.
2Natural Selection:Those Genomes merly Varied their Existing Genes to change within their species...Not Trans-Speciation
3Those "Mutations" only are an advantage in the same Habitat,one could easly make a Mana Pool" specifically for the ancestors,thus making it less of an advantage to the Neo Set.
1) Resurrect is a metaphor. Nobody's actually claiming that a living thing can be brought back from the dead with pitiful 21st century medical technology. That would be absur--oh, you're a Christian.
2) Insertion: A mutation by which information is added to the genome which was not there to result in traits which were not there. Nobody said anything about trans-speciation.
3) What? Mana Pool? They use the same broth for all generations.
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
Lenski used tens of trillions of E Coli, what's the fuss all about?
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, mammalians never evolved.
I think that Lenski's experiments can be safely used by Christians
And lo, jesus loved population 12 so much he revealed unto them a method by which they could digest citrates, and the citrates were good, and the population did flourish.
The Lenski experiments involve forced adaptation, and are in no way evidence for evolution. Were he sure long ago when he started he would have invited Creationists to prove to us just how wrong the Word of God is, but his staff are all unbelievers promoting unbelief and are not to be trusted for objective scientific research results.
@MegaSage007 sounds like sour evolved grapes. can you prove that the experiments where forced? or is it your opinion? don't you know lying and bearing false witness is a sin? Cant even follow your own doctrine. Creationists are not scientist, (No duh) so there would be no reason to invite them. i really don't think he did this to prove Creationists wrong, just for science, so no need for Creationists. All you need to prove the word of god wrong, is to read it.
@MegaSage007 "forced adaptation"? In otherwords, Natural Selection? How nice of you to agree Sage. You're learning. Slowly, but still learning. And as far as his data, it's free to all. Samples of the particular strain that was used in this experiment are readily available from many resources, as well as from MSU itself. All you need is the proper lab setup and you're good to go. So go take 20 years and get back to us, K?
@NorthForkFisherman Its your egotistical arrogance that makes you godless, so don't waste your time preaching your BANKRUPT IDEALOGICAL MORAL ANARCHY of a self creating Universe with self creating life forms. You're not even learning slowly.
You're forever increasing in vain knowledge but are never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
@MegaSage007 Nonresponsive. And therefore, disregarded. Lenski has done the work and presented the data in such a way that it is betond doubt. All you can do is make noise. So, do you actually have anything of real content to put forward or no?
@NorthForkFisherman Lenski has papered his trail from behind locked doors. Don't deceive yourself buddy then think others should listen to your godless tales of discoveries proving science fictions to be science. Truth is not elected. Its the divine Person of Jesus Christ. Come on over to my atheistic video forums and share your wonderful proofs on ATHEIST THEOLOGY. Its a hoax folks. Se ya' there.
@MegaSage007 Well that's a little more on point - but simply a rehash of Conservapedias response. So I'll provide a summary of Dr. Lenski's: All the data is provided in all the free papers produced by his lab. The conclusions are clear. If you cannot understand what is being said, then that's a failure on your part. Additionally, if you can provide the necessary credentials for a lab the samples are free so you can attempt replication. SO PU or STFU. Have a nice day.
@NorthForkFisherman I repeat. Experiments done behind closed doors. No interest on our part for copies of the work. No Creationists invited in to regularly examine procedures on the payroll through the years. Your BANKRUPT IDEALOGY OF MORAL ANARCHY is worth wrangling about, and your acronyms tell it all. You are a Devil speaking for the Devil. Your witness is worth nada, zilch, zero. Have a nice forever.
@MegaSage007 So you wish neither to try to refute them or do other testing to verify their results? You simply reject them outright? So be it. You have neither data to support your claims, nor professional standing or other expertise that can be brought to bear. All you have is unfounded and uneducated opinion. But not surprising. People like you use the tools given them but do not have the mind to understand what goes into that effort. Laughably sad.
No, sir - YOU work for the forces of ignorance, the closest thing to the devil in the natural world of verifiable reality.
To protect your religious comfort zone, you are quite capable of fighting verified and verifiable science that could spell less suffering for mankind - and to do this you shamlessly smear a capable scientist using unverified, baseless accusations of scientific impropriety.
Is your love of dogma so much greater than your love of truth - verifiable truth?
@amoxtlacatl I'm over at ATHEISTS ARE BRAINWASHED. Its a hoax folks! if you want to talk about it. Meanwhile your bankrupt idealogy of moral anarchy isn't fit for skunk.
Sure, a hoax. A hoax that allows doctors to effectively cure diseases and prevent infections by studying how bacteria have evolved in order to learn how to fight them.
How much effective and useful science has come out of the Bible? ZERO. Find one example, I dare you.
How much effective and useful science has come out of evolution? PLENTY. Evolutionary biology helps us fight disease.
I do not espouse moral anarchy. You place thoughts in my brain and words in my mouth that are not there.
A mindreader you are not.
Also, your punctuation is atrocious (no notion of comma use) and you seem to have trouble telling "it's" apart from "its" - as evidenced in you "Its a hoax folks!"
You strike me as one brainwashed with religion - one who thinks anyone else is brainwashed who does not accept his unproven god.
Provide evidence your god exists - or kindly shut up.
@MegaSage007 Conflation and psychological projection much? btw congrats on your nomination for WildwoodClaire1's Dim Bulb of the Week. Too bad ya got beat out by an overzealous prosecutor from Italy.
Inviting a creationist into a science lab would be like inviting a blindfolded man to a party. They won't understand what's happening, they'll get in everyone's way and they'll do nothing more productive than smack their heads on the walls, blaming everyone else but ignoring anyone yelling "take your fucking blindfold off you complete moron"
You speak of people going to hell with a grin on your face, and you dare to call me hateful? I don't hate you, I pity you that you are so devoid of compassion and justice, you truly are a shell of what a human being should be. You denounce satan and yet work so efficiently to achieve his goals, the irony being he doesn't even exist. It's a lie that makes itself real in the hateful actions of morons like you. Grow up and join humanity.
@Ainulindale21 You sow rebellion, disobedience & hate you reap the harvest of hell. Its not hate to warn you. But since you are so full of hate you can't tell the difference between love and hate. Thats your problem.
Generally I give people the benefit of the doubt, since humans are a complex bunch, but you come across so one dimensional it's hard not to see you as some automated shell, seeing everything in black and white. Can you feel empathy? Do you even understand the concept? Or are you so colour-blind to humanity that "hate" becomes the only thing you can experience when confronted with something you can't understand? I bet you can't even smile without seeking divine permission...
Only like 4000 views for one of the most important and elegant scientific experiments in the history of biology and science as a whole??? Internet, I am dissapoint...
...btw good explanation, have you read Dawkins' account of the experiment in The Greatest Show on Earth? It had some good graphs and stuff you could have used :D
There is one thing you left out of the article.."In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories"
I know this sounds harsh but unless this experiment can be repeated which could have easily been done with a double blind controlled experiment it cannot be regarded a empirical.
@MovieMonster9 ...Which differs from "macro-evolution" only in the scale of time involved. The micro-macro distinction is a fabrication of CREATIONISTS to save face against overwhelming evidence of evolution.
@MovieMonster9 Wiki is a start point. All the appropriate citations are there. But if you want the direct work: ht tp colon slash slash myxo dot css dot msu dot edu slash index dot ht ml. Enjoy. And considering that this is a major reworking of a metabolic pathway, this definite fits that criteria. Evolution is neither micro or macro. It simply is. Excellent work Ainulindale21. And of course, Giant Microbes FTW.
Here's what the creationist would say. It sounds exactly like adaptation for the increasing of viablility. Something that we know happens. It also sounds like they are all still ecoli. From the little information that has been shared in this video it is exactly as I would think would happen. Adaptiation to increase viability.
And an evolutionary biologist would mostly agree. What's important is the mechanism for that adaptation, which is what this experiment demonstrates nicely. The only difference is the creationist insists on arbitrary and undefined limitations on the process. They'll also insist that because this experiment didn't show speciation (it never intended or expected too) that the entire theory is wrong. What would you say the limitations are on adaptation, and how are they imposed?
@faithandpractice You are exactly right. Adaptation is not Evolution, but it can be made to appear so. In the Feudal System, the people had so little to eat and so much work to eat; they were puny in comparison to today's populations in prosperous countries so we are bigger, stronger more robust and we live longer. = adaptation not evolution. If Lenski wanted to make an honest experiment of proving God or that evolution accounts for man, he would have made sure a Creationist team was on site.
@faithandpractice You said it right. The godless will argue this one into infinity because they have got the Lenski experiments rolling in many major institutions now and therefore, to their way of thinking that proves them right and us wrong.
50 000 geerations of ecoli is = 1 000 000 years of human generations. 59 genetic changes is fuck all, especially when the only physical changes are they only got a bit bigger. How many changes did the rise of homo sapiens require, alot fucking more than 59....Oldest claim of a homo sapien bone is around 190 000 years. If you think that the Lenski experiment is proof of evolution then go back to maths class. Maybe a study in statistical analysis and probabilities might take off your blinkers.
So are you saying that these mutations did or did not result in better survivability compared to previous generations?
And which arse did you pull that 50,000 ecoli = 1000000 human value from?
Also 59 changes is indeed fuck all, 20 years is also fuck all, but guess what, e.coli had new beneficial information making it better adapted. With me so far? That's all this experiment was meant to show, the actual gradual natural selection process in action.
@Ainulindale21 I approximated one human generation as 20 years, some would consider it less than that but the Lenski experiment continues and is far greater than 50 000 generations now. 50 000 x 20 =? The changes in the ecoli thru natural selection though are thru loss of genetic information thru natural selection. Artificial confined environment with unlimited food supply will always result in the smaller of a species being out competed.
Why do you claim it's a loss of information..? What information has been lost?
Also the controlled environment didn't have an unlimited food supply, that was the whole point, the generations would have to compete, and the WEAKER ones were out competed by the STRONGER younger generations. Where the food source was very scarce, those cells adapted to digest citrate were stronger as they were able to utilise this different source they couldn't before the mutations. How clear do you need?
@Ainulindale21 Every time an organism dies genetic information is lost. Once a species gets down to a few hundred breeding pairs it`s extinction will soon follow. It will not evolve, it will inbreed and die out as it does not have enough genetic variation to carry on the species. This is an all too common observable phenomona. Lenski Experiments are an artificial environment regardless and the fact that the same changes occurred in different populations means that the info was already there!
@Ainulindale21 And 59 changes in 50 000 generations is an average of one change in 847 generations. In human generations, [20 years] that is one change in 16940 years. Our known history goes back less than half that. When we look at cliamtic earth changes and extinction rates, which are all quite sudden..sorry but evolution seems to be a tad slow to be responsible for everything. All fairy tales. I will ram my mathematics up my arse after I ever decide to put my common sense up there.
@Ainulindale21 And just to add that there are according to Data from NCBI, May 2009, have shown that there are 40,590 genes in human genome. If human evolution was like Ecoli evolution, I genetic change in 847 generations would have taken 687 MILLION years for the human genome to evolve. [847 generations x 20 years x 40 590 human genes]. ! I can see why you would encourage your subscribers to disregard the statistics and probabilities because in science they don`t matter at all.. BAHAHAHA
Add that we have over 100 mutations per generation in humans, and in those 190,000 years we didn't need to make humans from scratch, we developed from ancestor species. It wasn't 59 mutations in total in the e.coli, it was 59 involved in the acquired phenotype. If you're going to argue this make sure you actually have a grasp of the theory and what is happening in experiments of this kind. Did you honestly think the mutation rate in humans was that obscenely low? Think before you type.
@Ainulindale21 Someone did some googling overnight...I stand by my comments as I said "if human evolution was anything like ecoli evolution", and I crunched the numbers. That is scientific method. You have just admitted that ecoli and human evolution have nothing to do with each other and therefore. The chances of say a human heart mutating into a working organ is mathematically very improbable. Science has been trying to replicate this one organ for decades unsuccesfully. Thats just one organ!
You're crunching the wrong numbers and you're not understanding anything I've said. What are you not getting here? Evolution involves the same processes between all species, nowhere have I said it's got nothing to do with each other. We haven't been able to grow a human heart in a lab... what's your point? What relevance does that have? You're being deliberately misleading now, either that or horrendously thick.
this may 'appear' to be evolution, though through this actually quite rapid 'evolutionary proccess', comes no proof of any chance of simple cells ever being able to procceed in becoming anything different or significantly developing into a fully structured capable self sustaining organism beyond the current form, simply being able to develop defencivly is the proposed purpose of evolution here, therefore evolution being able to fully transform an organism is not neccessarily a proven theory
the video you show may 'appear' to be evolution, though through this actually quite rapid evolutionary proccess, comes no proof of any chance of simple cells ever being able to procceed into larger or significantly developing into a fully structured capable self sustaining organisms beyond there current form, simply being able to develop defencivly is the proposed purpose of evolution here, therefore evolution being able to fully transform an organism is not neccessarily a proven theory
the video you show may 'appear' to be evolution, though through this actually quite rapid evolutionary proccess, comes no proof of any chance of simple cells ever being able to procceed into larger or significantly developing into a fully structured capable self sustaining organisms beyond there current form, simply being able to develop defencivly is the proposed purpose of evolution here, therefore evolution being able to fully transform an organism is not neccessarily a proven theory
@mirrek74 i think we have safely leanrt that in the case of jojo and others the only evidence they would accept would infact disprove evolution if it ever came to light. its sort of a lose-lose thing they have set up.
@demondim5 : they can never actually tell what evidence would it have to be, because they would open up to a possibility that the evidence already exists and they just didn't know about it.. So their strategy is simple - keep asking for an evidence, without specifying what it is, and respond to all new evidence by saying "that's not what we wanted"..
@jojojosmart you again, i thought i beat the stupid out of you. hell, given current statistics, its entirly possible lenski is a theist, and entirly possible hes a christian (like say, another anti-creationist ken miller). the only difference between him and you being, you know, that hes not a moron.
@demondim5 -- You are easily decieved by the deception on you tube aetheists, evolutionists, and God-haters. Shine some light on that dim demon in your heart.
@jojojosmart of course, im easily decieved, i though i may have forced you to grom the other half of your brain. i was wrong it seems. and yet again with the dim demon bull, didnt i explain the origin of the word? or is your memory really that bad?
Richard Lenski rejected a request to release his bacteria mutation data to the public.I wonder why that is.Hmmmm is it because the results arent exactly in favor of evolution?Probably the latter.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 *cough* when did this happen? if your going to imply people in a conspiracy to cover up data atleast give the example of where they were asked for the data and they rejected the request.
i know but you can send messages on youtube right here...without a word limit...if u dont know how, tell me how you KNOW the big bang happened at psushch@yahoo.com
what? i asked you for evidence of the big bang and you say "you can contact me via email if you really want to"...yes i really want to know about ur evidence...
you can just send ur message here on youtube...but if u dont know how to do that...psushch@yahoo.com
ok ok.. give me all the evidence that makes you KNOW that the big bang happened...pleasse...maybe you'll convert me...and i will try to prove it wrong...
if belief has nothing to do with science than why do you "believe" there was a big bang...maybe there was no explosion at all....YOU WERE NOT THERE...you have no choice but to believe...ant that is exactly why evo is a religion...
again with the exaggerations...you compare the ability of the ecoli to use ascorbic acid to the difference between dogs and humans? no longer an ecoli? it still looks like one and has not changed into a different animal...it did not grow any legs, or wings, or any potential organs...all it did was it adapted to its surroundings...i never disagreed with adaptation...besides it took that ecoli 45 000 generations to adapt to that one acid...i wonder how long it would take for it to grow
actually they did grow, they showed the more recent generations became larger in cell size than the earlier generations that they out-competed in this experiment.
@pashasushch Evolution is not about growing things. It's about changing. The E.Coli changed its DNA in a way that allowed it to make use of the citrus.
Think about it from the bacteria's point of view, it can see the food it wants, why does it need to grow a leg/tail (or flagella in a bacteria's case)? That would waste valuable energy in obtaining more food than the rest of the bacteria, it would then die out, thus being a non-beneficial mutation.
ok..so if everything started with some bacteria cell, when did they decide to grow legs or other organs...and you say mutation- so the ecoli "accidentally" adapted to the acid? and then a billion years later it "accidentally" -by a mutation- it somehow grew a number of identical legs...and a billion years later some full functioning organs...and all by mutations..cool...
i cant believe people actually believe in your religion
@pashasushch It's amazing how small of a grasp you have on evolution. I don't think you really know what a mutation is. I may be able to understand evolution, but I don't consider myself experienced enough to teach someone else. I suggest you go study it, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
it's also amazing how you believe that there was some sort of big bang...just the way i believe that there is an almighty God..yet you get to teach ur religion in schools...i think anyone can teach evo...you basically ignore everything everybody has to say and push ur ill supported theory forward...
@pashasushch I didn't realize we were talking about the big bang theory now, I thought we were talking speaking of evolution. No, I do not believe there was some sort of "big bang", nor does anyone else who is reasonably educated in the big bang theory.
My ill supported theory?
1. It's not mine, but I get what you mean.
2. It is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. From rocks to fossils, bone structure, trees, tectonic plates and carbon dating, and more.
carbon dating: C14 is found in diamonds today and the longest time C14 CAN LAST IS 60,000 years...comets also run out of material in about 100,000 years ..not 4.5 billion yrs...
you realize that i can also name "rocks to fossils, bone structure, trees, tectonic plates and carbon dating" and i can say that they prove creationism.
1. clams on mt. everest = flood
2. if sun was 4.5 bill yrs old it would be much much bigger and would burn earth
Carbon-14 is indeed a short term clock, however there are many other clocks that can date back even further. But even 60,000 years is longer than the 6000 suggested by creationists.
Yes I realise you can name those things too, but it wouldn't make any sense, try researching them instead of making ridiculous statements.
1. Mount everest was not always a mountain. Research tectonic plate movement.
@pashasushch When I listed off those things, I wasn't trying to give facts, you said there was "ill evidence" for evolution, I just provided a few topics that provides a lot of evidence.
You have no idea about the growth of the sun.
2ms, not minutes, milliseconds, 1/50th of a second.
Yes, you assume, based on no evidence, I assume based on plentiful evidence.
8. because floods happen? im saying stories of one man surviving the flood...lets not use legends? well lets not use bones that according to you died billions of years ago...the same bones that you laid the base of our existence on...
hopefully you understand that we are both reading these messages with a mindset to reject the automatically...
i cant question your points cuz you dont have any...
We don't use legends because they can't be confirmed, that's why they're legends, and not historical facts. Why shouldn't we use bones?
Indeed I have no points, as that's usually what happens in a creationist/evolutionist debate, the creationists piles up a whole bunch of theories for the evolutionist to sift through. After I'm done refuting things that you clearly know nothing about, there's no room for any points of my own.
first of all you did not disprove my points and second who said there is no room for your points...give me some...maybe ill "sift" through them the same way...
you merely disagreed with my points...
at least people can speak..bones cant...that is why in one study theys gave 5 groups of scientists the same set of bones and they all got completely different animals from them..some even thot it was a water creature and others disagreed..so if u dont believe legends why believe bones
Didn't I disprove your points? Could have fooled me considering how wrong you were about the rate of change of an earth day, and the growth of the sun, and the clams on mt everest etc...
Well my original point was that evolution does not happen via random growth of limbs, and accidents, as you seem to have been pointing out at the start, it happens through natural selection.
Yes, people can speak, people can also make fictional stories, or outright lie. Bones don't lie.
yup bones dont lie..evolutionists lie for them...and you believe them...
oh..right natural selection..off course lets call natural selection and evolution the same thing...Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; u r giving natural selection a power that it doesn't have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists
did you get the part "it works with information that already exists"...so there is no way that some animal can get the information to grow a new organ or anything like that...
and when i called natural selection and evo the same thing i was being sarcastic if u haven't noticed...
and u know a lot about evo right...and so far ur proof was natural selection and fossils..which is really general...creationists can look at fossils and say they are 6,000 yrs old...the point is that...
@pashasushch "it works with information that already exists"
It's called a mutation, but even this is not enough, you don't have a child who suddenly has a completely new organ, such an organ can evolve from a shadow of its former self into something new.
Right, sarcasm, that's why over half your post was based on that assertion. Don't worry, I believe you.
Sure, they can look at fossils and say they're 6000 years old, but evolutionists can prove it. Creationists can't.
wtf...of course i was sarcastic...that is why i went on saying that natural selection does not have the power to give new info to species...o right mutation..do you have any examples of an organ evolving from a "shadow of its former self"...then where did the first shadow come from...
can u explain how it can be proven that a bone is "a billion" yrs old? there is no 100% way to know that unless you were there or something...
@pashasushch Oh and, could you refer me to the source of this comment about 5 scientists disagreement on bones? What bones? Where can I find out about it?
yes ppl can make fictional stories...but the story of the ark could not have gotten out of thin air..anyways...if a scientist comes up to the bone he has no idea where it came from...and the funny thing is how they start describing their living habits...aww come on if at least stopped guessing after they made up the kind of animal it is ...
sorry i dont remember what site i saw the example on...im not making it up as u probly think...it had the names of the orgs. and stuff
@pashasushch So perhaps the people of the time thought god had forsaken them, and a story was written about a man who had many animals on a boat during a flood that flooded as far as the eye could see. Or perhaps not and it was a motivational story by religious people to get others to believe.
Amazing how you assert so much about fossils when you obviously know nothing about them. They're not guessing.
I never suggested you made it up, perhaps you were mistaken though, or they were.
exactly...if you cant prove that there is gravity on another planet that you cant prove evo...i "believe" that there is gravity on other planets just like you believe in evo...so why does your belief get to be taught in our schools...at least we, creationists admit that there is no hard proof of intelligent design just like there is none for evo( even though all the fossils and geography points more toward a worldwide flood)...while you guys just your religion and proclaim it "fact"
are you retarded? we experience gravity every single day and it can be very easily proven...as you hopefully can see... evolution on the other hand cannot be proven like gravity because it is something that - you believe- happened in the past....
if you did want to prove evo like i can prove gravity you would have to go back in time (and see that you were wrong all along...
and dont be mad at me just because i disagree with your "theory"
predictions, predictions, and more predictions..."that are later proven to be true"?..ah cmon...when did you prove that the ecoli cell actually turned into even a different shape? and just like that evo guesses that somehow they became full functioning modern organisms...that is a joke...i hope your kids are smart enough not to believe you...
please dont associate evo with science...because science is something we can test and observe...no one was there to test and observe evo and now scientists are proving little facts of nature and making huge assumptions out of them...
yup...so next it will decide to grow one leg and then in the next step another leg right...you are still making a huge leap either way... they still started with ecoli and ended with ecoli...therefore evo is not fact and should not be taught in our schools...
i hate it when evolutionists prove something and then multiply it by a million...
it's like me saying "i can accelerate to 10 mph in 10 minutes...therefore i can accelerate to 1000 miles in 100 minutes" even though it is impossible for me to run 1000 mph...
just because the ecoli adapted to some acid does not mean it eventually ("after billions of years'), it can become something as advanced as a human being...
@pashasushch they started with an ecoli, but then the ecoli changed, the end result organism was different than the original orginism, thus technically you could say that you started with ecoli and ended with a different organism that was no longer ecoli. It was VERY similar, but the DNA was actually DIFFERENT. That proves evolution. There was a change in the DNA, You guys keep saying things like "oh he never grew wings, etc...", but they did change, not a huge change, but nevertheless a CHANGE.
Actually if they evolved an e. coli bacterie into a plant in 20 years that would be evidence against evolution, because this would require a mutation rate far greater than normal and natural selection won't make any difference, it doesnt have enough time to select anything.
The amount of change here is very impressive for such short times. Much more impressive than the changes we see in the fossil record time frame.
@pashasushch This is over 20 years, evolution is on geological time scale ie. millions of billions of years. Granted I'm can't tell you when multicellular organisms first came to be, this same principle can be applied to all organisms. This is why all chordate animals have the EXACT same skeletal layout, and I mean Exact. The proportionality is all different but the underlying structure is identical. This is due to small beneficial mutations that allowed that animal to exploit a niche in the env
You're ignorance is unprecedented. DNA was changed in the E.Coli to allow them to metabolized citrates as well glucose. This is the very definition of evolution. Adaptation is when an animal changes his behavior to help it survive in a certain environment, such as Humans adapting to the cold by using fur coats. Adaptation does not require internal mutations in the DNA. Evolution does.
@luke666808g Evolution depends upon genetic mutation. To claim that "mutations are always bad" entails your believing that all genetic mutations always select for ways to kill cells' future generations. If this is the case, then our own cells always survive for the purpose of killing themselves. That's contradictory. I suspect you're a reasonable person, so I'll run with the assumption that your claim was made in jest. All the best...
I came accross Lenski's experiment on wikipedia too, and then on followed the links and I have to say I am absolutely astonishing at the overwhelming force of these conclussions. Sure, creationists will come up with some other kind of jabber jabber, but this kind of experiments really works as line dividing "before" and "after" arguments.
By the way, did you see that mini-series "Journey to the centre of the earth" several yers back? The cast were mostly all gingers! I think that was English, though maybe it was from New Zealand - I can't remember. They must have hired hundreds of red-heads for that series. Also a hypothetical example of microevolution. Below the ground there's no sunburn (only magma burn perhaps). Ha ha.
you failed to mention the possibility of a shorter lifespan once frozen... there is no proof that 20 years of being frozen had no ill affects. very interesting though...
that's worth looking into yes. There were still visible differences such as cell size in newer populations though, and of course the citrate digestion is the most compelling part I feel
As for comparative anatomy ~ common designer, the problem with the design hypothesis is that it can't be tested, there's no criteria by which it can be falsified, it's essentially "this is the way god wanted it" as answer for all questions.
However we can point at artefacts of evolutionary history that contradict design, for example the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which pointlessly loops around the aorta and back up to the larynx in mammals.
You mentioned the laryngeal nerve that "pointlessly loops around the aorta and back up to the larynx in mammals". It's not pointless as there's many nerve connections that branch off from it during that path around the aorta. I'd check that out first before making a video on it.
As for Lenski's work, he shows some micro-evolution going on (but that's to be expected). So you know, there's no novel proteins being formed, just new adjustments of existing ones.
"It's not pointless as there's many nerve connections that branch off from it during that path around the aorta" such as? There really aren't, i've seen it for myself.
And of course this experiment doesn't show speciation, I never claimed it did, but it undoubtedly shows the process of natural selection working. And adjustments of proteins result in new proteins, that's how the entire process works.
I personally haven't seen the nerve. But I also doubt Greys Anatomy would invent connections where they didn't exist! No, they're there all right. Imagine a fibre optic cable travelling on a roundabout route through a university campus. Why? Because it's more efficient to have a major nerve travel to the vicinity of many connections, than to have lots and lots of little tiny fibres all making long individual connections. It's a way to package up and minimise the wiring.
I think you're looking at the Vagus nerve then, the RLN branches from it under the aortic arch and travels back up to the laryngeal muscles, which are the only thing it innervates. If you watch the giraffe episode of "inside nature's giants" you can see it dissected out, and as i've said, i've seen it for myself.
Well, the RLN itself branches off of the Vagus nerve. But then there are many other branches coming off of the RLN on the way down and back up, other than the Larynx. It shoots out quite a few fibres. There are two RLN's actually, the left and right RLN's. But both of them have many more connections branching off them. Small connections to be sure. Which is likely why you didn't see them on TV. It's hard to believe that Giraffes have none of the connections humans do.
You couldn't call such small adjustments of proteins new ones. I mean, sure, if you have two new cars, and then you break a headlight on one of them, well, then we have two different types of car, right? Technically yes, but anyone you tried to tell that to would look at you strangely. A slight variation is hardly a genuinely novel protein. Rather, in the Lenski case it's an example of a given system being varied, the most beneficial ones being passed on to descendants.
small adjustments lead to either loss of function, changed efficiency of function (for better or worse) or new function entirely, as was the case with the citrate digestion. If you don;t want to call that a new protein, fine, but you can't deny the results of the experiment where a changed protein now has a new function beneficial to the organism (and to compare it to smashing a headlight is missing the point entirely...)
I'd heard that the citrate digestion enzymes were already in place, but that it was a change in the cellular pore proteins that allowed citrate nutrients to enter and thus be digested. But it's also possible to adjust an existing enzyme to alter it's substrate without that much difficulty.
Yes, the headlight smashing analogy in this case was poor. More like in fact, two otherwise identical cars but with different brands of sound systems.
Actually, 2 different cars (with different brands of sound system) is also flawed since that implies separate design of each sound system.
It's a much better analogy to say we have two identical cars, but with different adjustments in such things as shock absorber firmness and tyre pressure. These cars (the same type of car) will each perform better (or worse) in different environments (roads).
Don't forget that advantages often come from the disablement of a system too.
yeah, that works better (although for some reason I can't help thinking of the robin reliant from only fools and horses...), but it still doesn't take into account that cars don't hump each other to make little baby cars with the blueprints slightly smudged in certain areas ;)
Back to the RLN, have any source on it's branches? Everything I can find points to the larynx being it's only target, and as I said, i've seen it, not the TV one, but in person, in a person, personally.
That proves that evolution happens. It doesn't even come close to explaining how all of life as we know it today could have come about via descent with modification from an initial one of few ancestor life-forms (whose origin is another mystery entirely).
It's a bit like saying that because I've verified that someone can walk from their house to the shops, there is now a really good case for accepting that they could (given enough time) walk to the moon. Hardly!
that's a bogus analogy, since the process of getting to the moon is clearly different from walking to the shops. The process of evolution, i.e. natural selection of small beneficial changes, is the same process that gives individuals survival advantages, and leads to speciation.
And journey to the centre of the earth was a terrible, terrible film.
Not a bogus analogy at all. Since the mechanism by which small beneficial changes occur is not known to be able to enable the creation of the "conserved core processes" as they are also known. I mean, many believe that it's the same process, but they have no evidence of that. What they're doing is inferring that it must be the mechanism (since they've already ruled out ID, and have nothing else to explain it yet). But you know, that's merely a belief, based on a worldview.
And it's the process that's led us from having a wolf to having chihuahuas and great danes, cumulative small changes over time in populations.
As for ID, that just doesn't work as an answer scientifically, it can't be tested, therefore can't be falsified or confirmed, there is no method of detecting the designer, it doesn't lead us to any practical conclusions or applications, you can't make any predictions.
The naturalistic worldview. With that as a basis, all of the normal reasoning has to go, since you're committing yourself to natural processes.
By the way, speciation isn't the point. I'm skeptical of how evolution could possibly build the complex cellular machinery present in cells (etc...). ID is the best explanation because such informationally rich functional systems are also produced by us (intelligent designers) and are never seen to emerge from natural processes.
Well naturalism is the only thing science can make any claims about simply by the way it works.
The problem with ID is that we can't take it any further than "it was designed", we can't find out how it was designed, by what processes etc. At some point whatever supernatural thing there was would have had to have some physical effect in changing stuff, ID doesn't tell us anything about how that could have possibly happened.
As for cells, remember the early cells wouldn't have required the same machinery as modern cells, they would have been far simpler.
Less is know about how it all came together of course, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. We've figured out how mitochondria and chloroplasts were likely engulfed by large cells, but not digested, and from there worked in symbiosis.
There are ways to test such things - given what we know currently.
Don't forget that science MUST work with what we know currently. It's why the "argument from incredulity" is a bogus defence for science. Science neccessarily MUST be skeptical (incredulous) of anything it can't explain. That's why all scientists worth their salt ought to be (scientifically) skeptical of evolution, abiogenesis, and religion. Scientifically we can't account for life, or God.
Of course, if scientists had accepted evolution without actually going out there making observations and testing it out then we'd have every right to tell them to get the hell out of the lab ;)
The whole point of experimentation is part of that scepticism, i.e. can my hypotheses be confirmed or not? So far evolution has come up trumps.
I'm not sure I understand you when you say we're unable to carry out normal life?
But also realize that to remian within scientific thinking means you'll be unable to carry on a normal life (to a certain extent) because there is so little that is actually verified. For example, we don't yet know how to explain or even define many things using science, but yet we believe in their existence. What wold life be, if all we could consider at all, were those things that had been scientifically verified. It would drive you bananas!
So in order to make sense of things in ways that seem acceptable to us, we go outside of science to choose to believe in things which haven't been proven, and may never be proven. That's where Worldviews come in.
You have chosen to adopt the naturalistic worldview. That being that nothing outside of known nature can be permitted to explain the way things are. I choose to allow both natural and ID explanations as warranted. But if nature suffices, then ID isn't needed...
But nature doesn't suffice as an explanation - until it has been verified to do so. What the majority or minority happens to believe in - is irrelevant to the question at hand. Does nature explain the phenomena in a scientifically verified way? If it does not - then naturalism itself may be in error. But then again it may not be in error, it's just that we don't yet understand enough to be able to explain a phenomena according to it's (yet unknown) natural explanation...
Where something doesn't have an explanation yet, I go with "I don't know", I just happen to think that naturalistic explanations are far more convincing, given that we know "nature" exists, going outside of that is by definition trying to find something completely outside of our possible perceptions, there is no reason to think such a state exists.
Anywho i'm heading off out so won't be replying for a while, it's been interesting though, nice talking to ya :)
But science must deal with what we currently know, not with what we suspect or hope MAY be known in the future.
The biggest problem with naturalism is that it simply isn't flexible enough to admit it may be wrong. It's a dogmatic assertion that has "faith in nature" such that regardless of what evidence in the present may suggest, if you're a naturalist, then you're absolutely committed to denying the possibility of an ID causation for any (pre-human) phenomenon...
But that dogmatism is merely an assertion. It's not science, but a belief about the universe that says that one day we will be able to explain using science, how nature can account for all of existence. Worse, it even must hold back and say that whhether we find out (or not) how things came to be - regardless - we're committed to a belief that nature is all that there is.
Can't you see the problem with that?
You're locked into a (possibly wrong) way of viewing reality.
Whereas the ID approach is different. Regardless of the personal religious convictions (which may never be eradicated) of IDists, when it comes to verifiable science, we have raher little wiggle room. If some phenomena which we had previously claimed to be likely to be the result of intelligent design, is then later on shown to be fully explainable as the result of natural processes, then the ID explanation (though even possibly still true) has been rendered uneccessary...
great video
JohnF30Music 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yeaaaah, but Marcovic & al. (2004) showed in their study on E. Coli, F. Coli and G. Coli that Densky's results had probably been tampered with, so as to exclude the mere possibility of Jesus's intervention. They later (2008) found a significant dosage of the Holy Spirit in the broth, after the 21.023th geberation, which translate in human years into +/- 4000 y. after creation. The saviour of the E. Coli had come.
So, you see !
Ha !
...
I think the saviour E. Coli had a beard, too.
SolDeSaBelle 4 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de Ainulindale21
Comment removed
SolDeSaBelle 4 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de Ainulindale21
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm over at ATHEISTS ARE BRAINWASHED. Its a hoax folks! if you want to talk about it. Meanwhile your bankrupt idealogy of moral anarchy isn't fit for skunk.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
1Resurrect?-They Ecoli were never dead...
2Natural Selection:Those Genomes merly Varied their Existing Genes to change within their species...Not Trans-Speciation
3Those "Mutations" only are an advantage in the same Habitat,one could easly make a Mana Pool" specifically for the ancestors,thus making it less of an advantage to the Neo Set.
iwanttocrashmybike 5 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike
1) Resurrect is a metaphor. Nobody's actually claiming that a living thing can be brought back from the dead with pitiful 21st century medical technology. That would be absur--oh, you're a Christian.
2) Insertion: A mutation by which information is added to the genome which was not there to result in traits which were not there. Nobody said anything about trans-speciation.
3) What? Mana Pool? They use the same broth for all generations.
rkyeun 5 months ago
Dude...I fuckin' love you. This is amazing,
Epic0Studios 5 months ago
I read about this in RD's book "the greatest show on earth" :D
MagMag96 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
Lenski used tens of trillions of E Coli, what's the fuss all about?
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, mammalians never evolved.
I think that Lenski's experiments can be safely used by Christians
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
And lo, jesus loved population 12 so much he revealed unto them a method by which they could digest citrates, and the citrates were good, and the population did flourish.
mrbill1032 7 months ago 19
win, good sir, win.
Ainulindale21 7 months ago
@mrbill1032 haha, the israel population if you will :)
Gulzt 3 weeks ago
The Lenski experiments involve forced adaptation, and are in no way evidence for evolution. Were he sure long ago when he started he would have invited Creationists to prove to us just how wrong the Word of God is, but his staff are all unbelievers promoting unbelief and are not to be trusted for objective scientific research results.
MegaSage007 8 months ago
@MegaSage007 sounds like sour evolved grapes. can you prove that the experiments where forced? or is it your opinion? don't you know lying and bearing false witness is a sin? Cant even follow your own doctrine. Creationists are not scientist, (No duh) so there would be no reason to invite them. i really don't think he did this to prove Creationists wrong, just for science, so no need for Creationists. All you need to prove the word of god wrong, is to read it.
Ulfvaldr2012 7 months ago
@MegaSage007 "forced adaptation"? In otherwords, Natural Selection? How nice of you to agree Sage. You're learning. Slowly, but still learning. And as far as his data, it's free to all. Samples of the particular strain that was used in this experiment are readily available from many resources, as well as from MSU itself. All you need is the proper lab setup and you're good to go. So go take 20 years and get back to us, K?
NorthForkFisherman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthForkFisherman Its your egotistical arrogance that makes you godless, so don't waste your time preaching your BANKRUPT IDEALOGICAL MORAL ANARCHY of a self creating Universe with self creating life forms. You're not even learning slowly.
You're forever increasing in vain knowledge but are never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
Daniel 12
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007 Nonresponsive. And therefore, disregarded. Lenski has done the work and presented the data in such a way that it is betond doubt. All you can do is make noise. So, do you actually have anything of real content to put forward or no?
NorthForkFisherman 5 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman Lenski has papered his trail from behind locked doors. Don't deceive yourself buddy then think others should listen to your godless tales of discoveries proving science fictions to be science. Truth is not elected. Its the divine Person of Jesus Christ. Come on over to my atheistic video forums and share your wonderful proofs on ATHEIST THEOLOGY. Its a hoax folks. Se ya' there.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007
oh go away ya nonce
Ainulindale21 5 months ago
@MegaSage007 Well that's a little more on point - but simply a rehash of Conservapedias response. So I'll provide a summary of Dr. Lenski's: All the data is provided in all the free papers produced by his lab. The conclusions are clear. If you cannot understand what is being said, then that's a failure on your part. Additionally, if you can provide the necessary credentials for a lab the samples are free so you can attempt replication. SO PU or STFU. Have a nice day.
NorthForkFisherman 5 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman I repeat. Experiments done behind closed doors. No interest on our part for copies of the work. No Creationists invited in to regularly examine procedures on the payroll through the years. Your BANKRUPT IDEALOGY OF MORAL ANARCHY is worth wrangling about, and your acronyms tell it all. You are a Devil speaking for the Devil. Your witness is worth nada, zilch, zero. Have a nice forever.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007 So you wish neither to try to refute them or do other testing to verify their results? You simply reject them outright? So be it. You have neither data to support your claims, nor professional standing or other expertise that can be brought to bear. All you have is unfounded and uneducated opinion. But not surprising. People like you use the tools given them but do not have the mind to understand what goes into that effort. Laughably sad.
NorthForkFisherman 5 months ago
Comment removed
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman LENSKI WORKS FOR THE DEVIL and you are his pr agent promoting lies.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007
No, sir - YOU work for the forces of ignorance, the closest thing to the devil in the natural world of verifiable reality.
To protect your religious comfort zone, you are quite capable of fighting verified and verifiable science that could spell less suffering for mankind - and to do this you shamlessly smear a capable scientist using unverified, baseless accusations of scientific impropriety.
Is your love of dogma so much greater than your love of truth - verifiable truth?
amoxtlacatl 5 months ago in playlist Evolution is true
@amoxtlacatl I'm over at ATHEISTS ARE BRAINWASHED. Its a hoax folks! if you want to talk about it. Meanwhile your bankrupt idealogy of moral anarchy isn't fit for skunk.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007
"Its a hoax folks""
Sure, a hoax. A hoax that allows doctors to effectively cure diseases and prevent infections by studying how bacteria have evolved in order to learn how to fight them.
How much effective and useful science has come out of the Bible? ZERO. Find one example, I dare you.
How much effective and useful science has come out of evolution? PLENTY. Evolutionary biology helps us fight disease.
Which is the hoax?
amoxtlacatl 5 months ago 2
@MegaSage007
I do not espouse moral anarchy. You place thoughts in my brain and words in my mouth that are not there.
A mindreader you are not.
Also, your punctuation is atrocious (no notion of comma use) and you seem to have trouble telling "it's" apart from "its" - as evidenced in you "Its a hoax folks!"
You strike me as one brainwashed with religion - one who thinks anyone else is brainwashed who does not accept his unproven god.
Provide evidence your god exists - or kindly shut up.
amoxtlacatl 5 months ago
@MegaSage007
And lest you accuse me of moving the goalposts, let me clarify what kind of evidence counts: evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Offer evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you god exists; then you can make statements about your god.
amoxtlacatl 5 months ago
@amoxtlacatl You know where to find me.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007 Conflation and psychological projection much? btw congrats on your nomination for WildwoodClaire1's Dim Bulb of the Week. Too bad ya got beat out by an overzealous prosecutor from Italy.
SpyHotz404 4 months ago
@MegaSage007
Inviting a creationist into a science lab would be like inviting a blindfolded man to a party. They won't understand what's happening, they'll get in everyone's way and they'll do nothing more productive than smack their heads on the walls, blaming everyone else but ignoring anyone yelling "take your fucking blindfold off you complete moron"
Ainulindale21 5 months ago
@Ainulindale21 I see your hateful fulfillment of Romans 1:28/32 Pslams 14:1 from the Book you don't believe in, so we know who is blindfolded.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007
You speak of people going to hell with a grin on your face, and you dare to call me hateful? I don't hate you, I pity you that you are so devoid of compassion and justice, you truly are a shell of what a human being should be. You denounce satan and yet work so efficiently to achieve his goals, the irony being he doesn't even exist. It's a lie that makes itself real in the hateful actions of morons like you. Grow up and join humanity.
Ainulindale21 5 months ago 2
@Ainulindale21 You sow rebellion, disobedience & hate you reap the harvest of hell. Its not hate to warn you. But since you are so full of hate you can't tell the difference between love and hate. Thats your problem.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
@MegaSage007
Generally I give people the benefit of the doubt, since humans are a complex bunch, but you come across so one dimensional it's hard not to see you as some automated shell, seeing everything in black and white. Can you feel empathy? Do you even understand the concept? Or are you so colour-blind to humanity that "hate" becomes the only thing you can experience when confronted with something you can't understand? I bet you can't even smile without seeking divine permission...
Ainulindale21 5 months ago 4
@MegaSage007 The thing I don't understand about people who distinguish between love and hate is this: what about neutrality?
MrLemex 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrLemex I can be found at IS ATHEISM LOGICAL? daily.
MegaSage007 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ainulindale21 For someone falsely accusing me of hate speeches yours are truely hateful.
MegaSage007 4 months ago
Comment removed
MegaSage007 5 months ago
Only like 4000 views for one of the most important and elegant scientific experiments in the history of biology and science as a whole??? Internet, I am dissapoint...
...btw good explanation, have you read Dawkins' account of the experiment in The Greatest Show on Earth? It had some good graphs and stuff you could have used :D
jaMMerZzz764 8 months ago
There is one thing you left out of the article.."In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories"
I know this sounds harsh but unless this experiment can be repeated which could have easily been done with a double blind controlled experiment it cannot be regarded a empirical.
benthemiester 11 months ago
Dude, wikipedia is NOT the source for this stuff! Also, that is an example of micro evolution!
MovieMonster9 1 year ago
@MovieMonster9 ...Which differs from "macro-evolution" only in the scale of time involved. The micro-macro distinction is a fabrication of CREATIONISTS to save face against overwhelming evidence of evolution.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@MovieMonster9 Wiki is a start point. All the appropriate citations are there. But if you want the direct work: ht tp colon slash slash myxo dot css dot msu dot edu slash index dot ht ml. Enjoy. And considering that this is a major reworking of a metabolic pathway, this definite fits that criteria. Evolution is neither micro or macro. It simply is. Excellent work Ainulindale21. And of course, Giant Microbes FTW.
NorthForkFisherman 8 months ago
Creationist answer: Gawd caused the mutations in order to test Lenski's faith!!
criskity 1 year ago
Here's what the creationist would say. It sounds exactly like adaptation for the increasing of viablility. Something that we know happens. It also sounds like they are all still ecoli. From the little information that has been shared in this video it is exactly as I would think would happen. Adaptiation to increase viability.
faithandpractice 1 year ago
@faithandpractice
And an evolutionary biologist would mostly agree. What's important is the mechanism for that adaptation, which is what this experiment demonstrates nicely. The only difference is the creationist insists on arbitrary and undefined limitations on the process. They'll also insist that because this experiment didn't show speciation (it never intended or expected too) that the entire theory is wrong. What would you say the limitations are on adaptation, and how are they imposed?
Ainulindale21 1 year ago 4
@faithandpractice You are exactly right. Adaptation is not Evolution, but it can be made to appear so. In the Feudal System, the people had so little to eat and so much work to eat; they were puny in comparison to today's populations in prosperous countries so we are bigger, stronger more robust and we live longer. = adaptation not evolution. If Lenski wanted to make an honest experiment of proving God or that evolution accounts for man, he would have made sure a Creationist team was on site.
MegaSage007 11 months ago
@MegaSage007 Life is so hard when you have a lot of work to eat.
realgfilms 8 months ago
@faithandpractice You said it right. The godless will argue this one into infinity because they have got the Lenski experiments rolling in many major institutions now and therefore, to their way of thinking that proves them right and us wrong.
MegaSage007 8 months ago
@MegaSage007
Why yes, evidence and reality DOES prove evolution right and creationists wrong. Glad of you to notice.
rkyeun 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun I'm over on ATHEIST THEOLOGY. Its a hoax folks! video forum if you want to talk about it.
MegaSage007 5 months ago
50 000 geerations of ecoli is = 1 000 000 years of human generations. 59 genetic changes is fuck all, especially when the only physical changes are they only got a bit bigger. How many changes did the rise of homo sapiens require, alot fucking more than 59....Oldest claim of a homo sapien bone is around 190 000 years. If you think that the Lenski experiment is proof of evolution then go back to maths class. Maybe a study in statistical analysis and probabilities might take off your blinkers.
you00t 1 year ago
@you00t
So are you saying that these mutations did or did not result in better survivability compared to previous generations?
And which arse did you pull that 50,000 ecoli = 1000000 human value from?
Also 59 changes is indeed fuck all, 20 years is also fuck all, but guess what, e.coli had new beneficial information making it better adapted. With me so far? That's all this experiment was meant to show, the actual gradual natural selection process in action.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21 I approximated one human generation as 20 years, some would consider it less than that but the Lenski experiment continues and is far greater than 50 000 generations now. 50 000 x 20 =? The changes in the ecoli thru natural selection though are thru loss of genetic information thru natural selection. Artificial confined environment with unlimited food supply will always result in the smaller of a species being out competed.
you00t 1 year ago
@you00t
Why do you claim it's a loss of information..? What information has been lost?
Also the controlled environment didn't have an unlimited food supply, that was the whole point, the generations would have to compete, and the WEAKER ones were out competed by the STRONGER younger generations. Where the food source was very scarce, those cells adapted to digest citrate were stronger as they were able to utilise this different source they couldn't before the mutations. How clear do you need?
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21 Every time an organism dies genetic information is lost. Once a species gets down to a few hundred breeding pairs it`s extinction will soon follow. It will not evolve, it will inbreed and die out as it does not have enough genetic variation to carry on the species. This is an all too common observable phenomona. Lenski Experiments are an artificial environment regardless and the fact that the same changes occurred in different populations means that the info was already there!
you00t 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21 And 59 changes in 50 000 generations is an average of one change in 847 generations. In human generations, [20 years] that is one change in 16940 years. Our known history goes back less than half that. When we look at cliamtic earth changes and extinction rates, which are all quite sudden..sorry but evolution seems to be a tad slow to be responsible for everything. All fairy tales. I will ram my mathematics up my arse after I ever decide to put my common sense up there.
you00t 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21 And just to add that there are according to Data from NCBI, May 2009, have shown that there are 40,590 genes in human genome. If human evolution was like Ecoli evolution, I genetic change in 847 generations would have taken 687 MILLION years for the human genome to evolve. [847 generations x 20 years x 40 590 human genes]. ! I can see why you would encourage your subscribers to disregard the statistics and probabilities because in science they don`t matter at all.. BAHAHAHA
you00t 1 year ago
@you00t
Add that we have over 100 mutations per generation in humans, and in those 190,000 years we didn't need to make humans from scratch, we developed from ancestor species. It wasn't 59 mutations in total in the e.coli, it was 59 involved in the acquired phenotype. If you're going to argue this make sure you actually have a grasp of the theory and what is happening in experiments of this kind. Did you honestly think the mutation rate in humans was that obscenely low? Think before you type.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21 Someone did some googling overnight...I stand by my comments as I said "if human evolution was anything like ecoli evolution", and I crunched the numbers. That is scientific method. You have just admitted that ecoli and human evolution have nothing to do with each other and therefore. The chances of say a human heart mutating into a working organ is mathematically very improbable. Science has been trying to replicate this one organ for decades unsuccesfully. Thats just one organ!
you00t 1 year ago
@you00t
You're crunching the wrong numbers and you're not understanding anything I've said. What are you not getting here? Evolution involves the same processes between all species, nowhere have I said it's got nothing to do with each other. We haven't been able to grow a human heart in a lab... what's your point? What relevance does that have? You're being deliberately misleading now, either that or horrendously thick.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
this may 'appear' to be evolution, though through this actually quite rapid 'evolutionary proccess', comes no proof of any chance of simple cells ever being able to procceed in becoming anything different or significantly developing into a fully structured capable self sustaining organism beyond the current form, simply being able to develop defencivly is the proposed purpose of evolution here, therefore evolution being able to fully transform an organism is not neccessarily a proven theory
TheBeeezel 1 year ago
the video you show may 'appear' to be evolution, though through this actually quite rapid evolutionary proccess, comes no proof of any chance of simple cells ever being able to procceed into larger or significantly developing into a fully structured capable self sustaining organisms beyond there current form, simply being able to develop defencivly is the proposed purpose of evolution here, therefore evolution being able to fully transform an organism is not neccessarily a proven theory
TheBeeezel 1 year ago
@TheBeeezel the theory of evolution says nothing at all about 'transformation'. Unless your source in kirk cameron or ray comfort.
erin321321 1 year ago
the video you show may 'appear' to be evolution, though through this actually quite rapid evolutionary proccess, comes no proof of any chance of simple cells ever being able to procceed into larger or significantly developing into a fully structured capable self sustaining organisms beyond there current form, simply being able to develop defencivly is the proposed purpose of evolution here, therefore evolution being able to fully transform an organism is not neccessarily a proven theory
TheBeeezel 1 year ago
i think Lenski has e-coli on the brain. Another dreamer dreaming that there is no God.
jojojosmart 1 year ago
@jojojosmart
what would it have to be, so you would say: yes, this is an evidence I can accept? Seriously, what?
mirrek74 1 year ago
@mirrek74 i think we have safely leanrt that in the case of jojo and others the only evidence they would accept would infact disprove evolution if it ever came to light. its sort of a lose-lose thing they have set up.
demondim5 1 year ago
@demondim5 : they can never actually tell what evidence would it have to be, because they would open up to a possibility that the evidence already exists and they just didn't know about it.. So their strategy is simple - keep asking for an evidence, without specifying what it is, and respond to all new evidence by saying "that's not what we wanted"..
mirrek74 1 year ago
@jojojosmart you again, i thought i beat the stupid out of you. hell, given current statistics, its entirly possible lenski is a theist, and entirly possible hes a christian (like say, another anti-creationist ken miller). the only difference between him and you being, you know, that hes not a moron.
demondim5 1 year ago
@demondim5 -- You are easily decieved by the deception on you tube aetheists, evolutionists, and God-haters. Shine some light on that dim demon in your heart.
jojojosmart 1 year ago
@jojojosmart of course, im easily decieved, i though i may have forced you to grom the other half of your brain. i was wrong it seems. and yet again with the dim demon bull, didnt i explain the origin of the word? or is your memory really that bad?
demondim5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Lenski rejected a request to release his bacteria mutation data to the public.I wonder why that is.Hmmmm is it because the results arent exactly in favor of evolution?Probably the latter.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 *cough* when did this happen? if your going to imply people in a conspiracy to cover up data atleast give the example of where they were asked for the data and they rejected the request.
demondim5 1 year ago
@mtnumb
i know but you can send messages on youtube right here...without a word limit...if u dont know how, tell me how you KNOW the big bang happened at psushch@yahoo.com
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
what? i asked you for evidence of the big bang and you say "you can contact me via email if you really want to"...yes i really want to know about ur evidence...
you can just send ur message here on youtube...but if u dont know how to do that...psushch@yahoo.com
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
ok ok.. give me all the evidence that makes you KNOW that the big bang happened...pleasse...maybe you'll convert me...and i will try to prove it wrong...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
if belief has nothing to do with science than why do you "believe" there was a big bang...maybe there was no explosion at all....YOU WERE NOT THERE...you have no choice but to believe...ant that is exactly why evo is a religion...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
again with the exaggerations...you compare the ability of the ecoli to use ascorbic acid to the difference between dogs and humans? no longer an ecoli? it still looks like one and has not changed into a different animal...it did not grow any legs, or wings, or any potential organs...all it did was it adapted to its surroundings...i never disagreed with adaptation...besides it took that ecoli 45 000 generations to adapt to that one acid...i wonder how long it would take for it to grow
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch
actually they did grow, they showed the more recent generations became larger in cell size than the earlier generations that they out-competed in this experiment.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@pashasushch Evolution is not about growing things. It's about changing. The E.Coli changed its DNA in a way that allowed it to make use of the citrus.
Think about it from the bacteria's point of view, it can see the food it wants, why does it need to grow a leg/tail (or flagella in a bacteria's case)? That would waste valuable energy in obtaining more food than the rest of the bacteria, it would then die out, thus being a non-beneficial mutation.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
ok..so if everything started with some bacteria cell, when did they decide to grow legs or other organs...and you say mutation- so the ecoli "accidentally" adapted to the acid? and then a billion years later it "accidentally" -by a mutation- it somehow grew a number of identical legs...and a billion years later some full functioning organs...and all by mutations..cool...
i cant believe people actually believe in your religion
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch It's amazing how small of a grasp you have on evolution. I don't think you really know what a mutation is. I may be able to understand evolution, but I don't consider myself experienced enough to teach someone else. I suggest you go study it, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
it's also amazing how you believe that there was some sort of big bang...just the way i believe that there is an almighty God..yet you get to teach ur religion in schools...i think anyone can teach evo...you basically ignore everything everybody has to say and push ur ill supported theory forward...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch I didn't realize we were talking about the big bang theory now, I thought we were talking speaking of evolution. No, I do not believe there was some sort of "big bang", nor does anyone else who is reasonably educated in the big bang theory.
My ill supported theory?
1. It's not mine, but I get what you mean.
2. It is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. From rocks to fossils, bone structure, trees, tectonic plates and carbon dating, and more.
Where's the evidence of your theory?
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
carbon dating: C14 is found in diamonds today and the longest time C14 CAN LAST IS 60,000 years...comets also run out of material in about 100,000 years ..not 4.5 billion yrs...
you realize that i can also name "rocks to fossils, bone structure, trees, tectonic plates and carbon dating" and i can say that they prove creationism.
1. clams on mt. everest = flood
2. if sun was 4.5 bill yrs old it would be much much bigger and would burn earth
3.methuselah tree is about 5,000 yrs old
pashasushch 1 year ago
Carbon-14 is indeed a short term clock, however there are many other clocks that can date back even further. But even 60,000 years is longer than the 6000 suggested by creationists.
Yes I realise you can name those things too, but it wouldn't make any sense, try researching them instead of making ridiculous statements.
1. Mount everest was not always a mountain. Research tectonic plate movement.
2. No, why do you think it would grow so large?
3. Why yes it is, what's your point?
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
4. Sahara desert would be way bigger
5. oil is still under pressure
6.earth's magnetic field is getting weaker putting a max age of 25, 000 yeas on it
7. earth's rotation is slowing down..it would be much slower if it was 4.5 bill yrs old...the moon is also gettin away farther...
8. 270 culture around the world have a legent of the flood.
the problem is that you will probably interpret this evidence in your own way cuz we have different worldviews..but ya i dont believe in nothin
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch
4. Why?
5. Indeed it is, what's your point?
6. Who's to say it has always been weakening at that rate?
7. Do you know how much longer the days are getting? About 2ms every hundred years. So no, it wouldn't make much of a difference at all.
8. Because floods happen. And your religion is very widespread, however lets not use "legend" in evidence, shall we?
Why did I question your points? To see if you know anything about the things you're spouting.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
ok..at least i gave FACTS...and not "rocks to fossils, bone structure, trees, tectonic plates and carbon dating, and more"
stars like the sun live for about 10 bill yrs...if it was 5 bill yrs old it would be much bigger...
actually if the earth wa 4.5 billion yrs old and days were getting 2 mins longer every hundred yrs, it would make a big difference...
6. well i assume that it was always weakening at this rate just like u assume that mutations have happened throughout time...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch When I listed off those things, I wasn't trying to give facts, you said there was "ill evidence" for evolution, I just provided a few topics that provides a lot of evidence.
You have no idea about the growth of the sun.
2ms, not minutes, milliseconds, 1/50th of a second.
Yes, you assume, based on no evidence, I assume based on plentiful evidence.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
8. because floods happen? im saying stories of one man surviving the flood...lets not use legends? well lets not use bones that according to you died billions of years ago...the same bones that you laid the base of our existence on...
hopefully you understand that we are both reading these messages with a mindset to reject the automatically...
i cant question your points cuz you dont have any...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch
We don't use legends because they can't be confirmed, that's why they're legends, and not historical facts. Why shouldn't we use bones?
Indeed I have no points, as that's usually what happens in a creationist/evolutionist debate, the creationists piles up a whole bunch of theories for the evolutionist to sift through. After I'm done refuting things that you clearly know nothing about, there's no room for any points of my own.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
first of all you did not disprove my points and second who said there is no room for your points...give me some...maybe ill "sift" through them the same way...
you merely disagreed with my points...
at least people can speak..bones cant...that is why in one study theys gave 5 groups of scientists the same set of bones and they all got completely different animals from them..some even thot it was a water creature and others disagreed..so if u dont believe legends why believe bones
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch
Didn't I disprove your points? Could have fooled me considering how wrong you were about the rate of change of an earth day, and the growth of the sun, and the clams on mt everest etc...
Well my original point was that evolution does not happen via random growth of limbs, and accidents, as you seem to have been pointing out at the start, it happens through natural selection.
Yes, people can speak, people can also make fictional stories, or outright lie. Bones don't lie.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
yup bones dont lie..evolutionists lie for them...and you believe them...
oh..right natural selection..off course lets call natural selection and evolution the same thing...Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; u r giving natural selection a power that it doesn't have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch So don't listen to the evolutionists, go and look at the evidence for yourself, you don't need to be well educated to understand.
Natural selection doesn't have any powers, it's just a process. Evolution and natural selection is not the same thing so lets not call it so.
Again and again you prove that you know nothing of evolution.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
did you get the part "it works with information that already exists"...so there is no way that some animal can get the information to grow a new organ or anything like that...
and when i called natural selection and evo the same thing i was being sarcastic if u haven't noticed...
and u know a lot about evo right...and so far ur proof was natural selection and fossils..which is really general...creationists can look at fossils and say they are 6,000 yrs old...the point is that...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch "it works with information that already exists"
It's called a mutation, but even this is not enough, you don't have a child who suddenly has a completely new organ, such an organ can evolve from a shadow of its former self into something new.
Right, sarcasm, that's why over half your post was based on that assertion. Don't worry, I believe you.
Sure, they can look at fossils and say they're 6000 years old, but evolutionists can prove it. Creationists can't.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
wtf...of course i was sarcastic...that is why i went on saying that natural selection does not have the power to give new info to species...o right mutation..do you have any examples of an organ evolving from a "shadow of its former self"...then where did the first shadow come from...
can u explain how it can be proven that a bone is "a billion" yrs old? there is no 100% way to know that unless you were there or something...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch Note I'll reply to this message in the PM I am typing right now. As it's annoying speaking in two places.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@pashasushch Oh and, could you refer me to the source of this comment about 5 scientists disagreement on bones? What bones? Where can I find out about it?
supertrinko 1 year ago
@supertrinko
yes ppl can make fictional stories...but the story of the ark could not have gotten out of thin air..anyways...if a scientist comes up to the bone he has no idea where it came from...and the funny thing is how they start describing their living habits...aww come on if at least stopped guessing after they made up the kind of animal it is ...
sorry i dont remember what site i saw the example on...im not making it up as u probly think...it had the names of the orgs. and stuff
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch So perhaps the people of the time thought god had forsaken them, and a story was written about a man who had many animals on a boat during a flood that flooded as far as the eye could see. Or perhaps not and it was a motivational story by religious people to get others to believe.
Amazing how you assert so much about fossils when you obviously know nothing about them. They're not guessing.
I never suggested you made it up, perhaps you were mistaken though, or they were.
supertrinko 1 year ago
@mtnumb
exactly...if you cant prove that there is gravity on another planet that you cant prove evo...i "believe" that there is gravity on other planets just like you believe in evo...so why does your belief get to be taught in our schools...at least we, creationists admit that there is no hard proof of intelligent design just like there is none for evo( even though all the fossils and geography points more toward a worldwide flood)...while you guys just your religion and proclaim it "fact"
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
are you retarded? we experience gravity every single day and it can be very easily proven...as you hopefully can see... evolution on the other hand cannot be proven like gravity because it is something that - you believe- happened in the past....
if you did want to prove evo like i can prove gravity you would have to go back in time (and see that you were wrong all along...
and dont be mad at me just because i disagree with your "theory"
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
predictions, predictions, and more predictions..."that are later proven to be true"?..ah cmon...when did you prove that the ecoli cell actually turned into even a different shape? and just like that evo guesses that somehow they became full functioning modern organisms...that is a joke...i hope your kids are smart enough not to believe you...
pashasushch 1 year ago
Whos the asshole that disliked this? I'm going to dick punch him!
Feralus69 1 year ago
@mtnumb
please dont associate evo with science...because science is something we can test and observe...no one was there to test and observe evo and now scientists are proving little facts of nature and making huge assumptions out of them...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
yup...so next it will decide to grow one leg and then in the next step another leg right...you are still making a huge leap either way... they still started with ecoli and ended with ecoli...therefore evo is not fact and should not be taught in our schools...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@mtnumb
i hate it when evolutionists prove something and then multiply it by a million...
it's like me saying "i can accelerate to 10 mph in 10 minutes...therefore i can accelerate to 1000 miles in 100 minutes" even though it is impossible for me to run 1000 mph...
just because the ecoli adapted to some acid does not mean it eventually ("after billions of years'), it can become something as advanced as a human being...
heelloooo...we're making a huge leap here...
pashasushch 1 year ago
so um...when in this experiment did the ecoli turn into a plant or an animal...
they started with ecoli and they ended with ecoli...
creationists never said that animals can't adapt...
pashasushch 1 year ago
@pashasushch
but they did say there was no such thing as a beneficial mutation or new protein function.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago 7
@pashasushch
you think evolution says that bacteria should turn into plants or animals in a short amount of time? hmm...
HODthunderwolf 1 year ago
@pashasushch they started with an ecoli, but then the ecoli changed, the end result organism was different than the original orginism, thus technically you could say that you started with ecoli and ended with a different organism that was no longer ecoli. It was VERY similar, but the DNA was actually DIFFERENT. That proves evolution. There was a change in the DNA, You guys keep saying things like "oh he never grew wings, etc...", but they did change, not a huge change, but nevertheless a CHANGE.
er876897 1 year ago
@pashasushch
Actually if they evolved an e. coli bacterie into a plant in 20 years that would be evidence against evolution, because this would require a mutation rate far greater than normal and natural selection won't make any difference, it doesnt have enough time to select anything.
The amount of change here is very impressive for such short times. Much more impressive than the changes we see in the fossil record time frame.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago 2
@pashasushch This is over 20 years, evolution is on geological time scale ie. millions of billions of years. Granted I'm can't tell you when multicellular organisms first came to be, this same principle can be applied to all organisms. This is why all chordate animals have the EXACT same skeletal layout, and I mean Exact. The proportionality is all different but the underlying structure is identical. This is due to small beneficial mutations that allowed that animal to exploit a niche in the env
BrootalMetalBanjo 1 year ago
@pashasushch
they did not end up with ecoli.. ecoli, by its definition, cannot process citrates.
mirrek74 1 year ago
@pashasushch
You're ignorance is unprecedented. DNA was changed in the E.Coli to allow them to metabolized citrates as well glucose. This is the very definition of evolution. Adaptation is when an animal changes his behavior to help it survive in a certain environment, such as Humans adapting to the cold by using fur coats. Adaptation does not require internal mutations in the DNA. Evolution does.
Please refrain from arguing from ignorance. kthx.
Crayloen 1 year ago
@pashasushch Lol, you have no idea of evolution - evolution IS adaptation.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
@pashasushch MUTATIONS ARE ALWAYS BAD!!!! ECOLI WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO EAT CITRATE!!!!!!!
luke666808g 1 year ago
@luke666808g Evolution depends upon genetic mutation. To claim that "mutations are always bad" entails your believing that all genetic mutations always select for ways to kill cells' future generations. If this is the case, then our own cells always survive for the purpose of killing themselves. That's contradictory. I suspect you're a reasonable person, so I'll run with the assumption that your claim was made in jest. All the best...
djordan0138 1 year ago
I came accross Lenski's experiment on wikipedia too, and then on followed the links and I have to say I am absolutely astonishing at the overwhelming force of these conclussions. Sure, creationists will come up with some other kind of jabber jabber, but this kind of experiments really works as line dividing "before" and "after" arguments.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
By the way, did you see that mini-series "Journey to the centre of the earth" several yers back? The cast were mostly all gingers! I think that was English, though maybe it was from New Zealand - I can't remember. They must have hired hundreds of red-heads for that series. Also a hypothetical example of microevolution. Below the ground there's no sunburn (only magma burn perhaps). Ha ha.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
you failed to mention the possibility of a shorter lifespan once frozen... there is no proof that 20 years of being frozen had no ill affects. very interesting though...
ZachariasClub 1 year ago
@ZachariasClub
that's worth looking into yes. There were still visible differences such as cell size in newer populations though, and of course the citrate digestion is the most compelling part I feel
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21 true, very true.
ZachariasClub 1 year ago
I like your style, Ainulindale21 ^^
FortisConscius 1 year ago
EPIC WIN
ZetaSimsoy 1 year ago
As for comparative anatomy ~ common designer, the problem with the design hypothesis is that it can't be tested, there's no criteria by which it can be falsified, it's essentially "this is the way god wanted it" as answer for all questions.
However we can point at artefacts of evolutionary history that contradict design, for example the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which pointlessly loops around the aorta and back up to the larynx in mammals.
I intend on making a video on it at some stage
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
You mentioned the laryngeal nerve that "pointlessly loops around the aorta and back up to the larynx in mammals". It's not pointless as there's many nerve connections that branch off from it during that path around the aorta. I'd check that out first before making a video on it.
As for Lenski's work, he shows some micro-evolution going on (but that's to be expected). So you know, there's no novel proteins being formed, just new adjustments of existing ones.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
"It's not pointless as there's many nerve connections that branch off from it during that path around the aorta" such as? There really aren't, i've seen it for myself.
And of course this experiment doesn't show speciation, I never claimed it did, but it undoubtedly shows the process of natural selection working. And adjustments of proteins result in new proteins, that's how the entire process works.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
I personally haven't seen the nerve. But I also doubt Greys Anatomy would invent connections where they didn't exist! No, they're there all right. Imagine a fibre optic cable travelling on a roundabout route through a university campus. Why? Because it's more efficient to have a major nerve travel to the vicinity of many connections, than to have lots and lots of little tiny fibres all making long individual connections. It's a way to package up and minimise the wiring.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
I think you're looking at the Vagus nerve then, the RLN branches from it under the aortic arch and travels back up to the laryngeal muscles, which are the only thing it innervates. If you watch the giraffe episode of "inside nature's giants" you can see it dissected out, and as i've said, i've seen it for myself.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
Well, the RLN itself branches off of the Vagus nerve. But then there are many other branches coming off of the RLN on the way down and back up, other than the Larynx. It shoots out quite a few fibres. There are two RLN's actually, the left and right RLN's. But both of them have many more connections branching off them. Small connections to be sure. Which is likely why you didn't see them on TV. It's hard to believe that Giraffes have none of the connections humans do.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
You couldn't call such small adjustments of proteins new ones. I mean, sure, if you have two new cars, and then you break a headlight on one of them, well, then we have two different types of car, right? Technically yes, but anyone you tried to tell that to would look at you strangely. A slight variation is hardly a genuinely novel protein. Rather, in the Lenski case it's an example of a given system being varied, the most beneficial ones being passed on to descendants.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
small adjustments lead to either loss of function, changed efficiency of function (for better or worse) or new function entirely, as was the case with the citrate digestion. If you don;t want to call that a new protein, fine, but you can't deny the results of the experiment where a changed protein now has a new function beneficial to the organism (and to compare it to smashing a headlight is missing the point entirely...)
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
I'd heard that the citrate digestion enzymes were already in place, but that it was a change in the cellular pore proteins that allowed citrate nutrients to enter and thus be digested. But it's also possible to adjust an existing enzyme to alter it's substrate without that much difficulty.
Yes, the headlight smashing analogy in this case was poor. More like in fact, two otherwise identical cars but with different brands of sound systems.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
Actually, 2 different cars (with different brands of sound system) is also flawed since that implies separate design of each sound system.
It's a much better analogy to say we have two identical cars, but with different adjustments in such things as shock absorber firmness and tyre pressure. These cars (the same type of car) will each perform better (or worse) in different environments (roads).
Don't forget that advantages often come from the disablement of a system too.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
yeah, that works better (although for some reason I can't help thinking of the robin reliant from only fools and horses...), but it still doesn't take into account that cars don't hump each other to make little baby cars with the blueprints slightly smudged in certain areas ;)
Back to the RLN, have any source on it's branches? Everything I can find points to the larynx being it's only target, and as I said, i've seen it, not the TV one, but in person, in a person, personally.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
That proves that evolution happens. It doesn't even come close to explaining how all of life as we know it today could have come about via descent with modification from an initial one of few ancestor life-forms (whose origin is another mystery entirely).
It's a bit like saying that because I've verified that someone can walk from their house to the shops, there is now a really good case for accepting that they could (given enough time) walk to the moon. Hardly!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
that's a bogus analogy, since the process of getting to the moon is clearly different from walking to the shops. The process of evolution, i.e. natural selection of small beneficial changes, is the same process that gives individuals survival advantages, and leads to speciation.
And journey to the centre of the earth was a terrible, terrible film.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
Not a bogus analogy at all. Since the mechanism by which small beneficial changes occur is not known to be able to enable the creation of the "conserved core processes" as they are also known. I mean, many believe that it's the same process, but they have no evidence of that. What they're doing is inferring that it must be the mechanism (since they've already ruled out ID, and have nothing else to explain it yet). But you know, that's merely a belief, based on a worldview.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
what world-view?
And it's the process that's led us from having a wolf to having chihuahuas and great danes, cumulative small changes over time in populations.
As for ID, that just doesn't work as an answer scientifically, it can't be tested, therefore can't be falsified or confirmed, there is no method of detecting the designer, it doesn't lead us to any practical conclusions or applications, you can't make any predictions.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
The naturalistic worldview. With that as a basis, all of the normal reasoning has to go, since you're committing yourself to natural processes.
By the way, speciation isn't the point. I'm skeptical of how evolution could possibly build the complex cellular machinery present in cells (etc...). ID is the best explanation because such informationally rich functional systems are also produced by us (intelligent designers) and are never seen to emerge from natural processes.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Well naturalism is the only thing science can make any claims about simply by the way it works.
The problem with ID is that we can't take it any further than "it was designed", we can't find out how it was designed, by what processes etc. At some point whatever supernatural thing there was would have had to have some physical effect in changing stuff, ID doesn't tell us anything about how that could have possibly happened.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
As for cells, remember the early cells wouldn't have required the same machinery as modern cells, they would have been far simpler.
Less is know about how it all came together of course, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. We've figured out how mitochondria and chloroplasts were likely engulfed by large cells, but not digested, and from there worked in symbiosis.
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
There are ways to test such things - given what we know currently.
Don't forget that science MUST work with what we know currently. It's why the "argument from incredulity" is a bogus defence for science. Science neccessarily MUST be skeptical (incredulous) of anything it can't explain. That's why all scientists worth their salt ought to be (scientifically) skeptical of evolution, abiogenesis, and religion. Scientifically we can't account for life, or God.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Of course, if scientists had accepted evolution without actually going out there making observations and testing it out then we'd have every right to tell them to get the hell out of the lab ;)
The whole point of experimentation is part of that scepticism, i.e. can my hypotheses be confirmed or not? So far evolution has come up trumps.
I'm not sure I understand you when you say we're unable to carry out normal life?
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
But also realize that to remian within scientific thinking means you'll be unable to carry on a normal life (to a certain extent) because there is so little that is actually verified. For example, we don't yet know how to explain or even define many things using science, but yet we believe in their existence. What wold life be, if all we could consider at all, were those things that had been scientifically verified. It would drive you bananas!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
So in order to make sense of things in ways that seem acceptable to us, we go outside of science to choose to believe in things which haven't been proven, and may never be proven. That's where Worldviews come in.
You have chosen to adopt the naturalistic worldview. That being that nothing outside of known nature can be permitted to explain the way things are. I choose to allow both natural and ID explanations as warranted. But if nature suffices, then ID isn't needed...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
But nature doesn't suffice as an explanation - until it has been verified to do so. What the majority or minority happens to believe in - is irrelevant to the question at hand. Does nature explain the phenomena in a scientifically verified way? If it does not - then naturalism itself may be in error. But then again it may not be in error, it's just that we don't yet understand enough to be able to explain a phenomena according to it's (yet unknown) natural explanation...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Where something doesn't have an explanation yet, I go with "I don't know", I just happen to think that naturalistic explanations are far more convincing, given that we know "nature" exists, going outside of that is by definition trying to find something completely outside of our possible perceptions, there is no reason to think such a state exists.
Anywho i'm heading off out so won't be replying for a while, it's been interesting though, nice talking to ya :)
Ainulindale21 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
But science must deal with what we currently know, not with what we suspect or hope MAY be known in the future.
The biggest problem with naturalism is that it simply isn't flexible enough to admit it may be wrong. It's a dogmatic assertion that has "faith in nature" such that regardless of what evidence in the present may suggest, if you're a naturalist, then you're absolutely committed to denying the possibility of an ID causation for any (pre-human) phenomenon...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
But that dogmatism is merely an assertion. It's not science, but a belief about the universe that says that one day we will be able to explain using science, how nature can account for all of existence. Worse, it even must hold back and say that whhether we find out (or not) how things came to be - regardless - we're committed to a belief that nature is all that there is.
Can't you see the problem with that?
You're locked into a (possibly wrong) way of viewing reality.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Ainulindale21
Whereas the ID approach is different. Regardless of the personal religious convictions (which may never be eradicated) of IDists, when it comes to verifiable science, we have raher little wiggle room. If some phenomena which we had previously claimed to be likely to be the result of intelligent design, is then later on shown to be fully explainable as the result of natural processes, then the ID explanation (though even possibly still true) has been rendered uneccessary...
tubewatch59 1 year ago