| Oct 12 @ 3:42 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
Thor1960303
Posts: 3,345
|
HERE and HERE are two articles about
a team of scientists around National Academy of Science member Prof. Richard Lenski, who published the results of a twenty year long experiment involving a strain of bacterium E. coli, separating its descendants into twelve populations and watching for twenty years how different mutations developed and even led to the digestion of citrate, formerly impossible. This pretty much proves evolution. This article, originally made public in the New Scientist magazine, somehow aggravated the people from Conservapedia, the creationist wannabe version of Wikipedia. Their founder, Andrew Schlafly, then wrote to the scientists and demanded an explanation. This then became the slap of the century in the face of creationists by Prof. Lenski. This has subsequently become “The Lenski Affair”, showing how creationists and Bible thumpers who pester real scientists should be and are being treated.
|
|
  |
|
| Oct 12 @ 3:49 PM |
Evolution Proven |
|
Josuha
Posts: 1,121
|
What you are discribing is 'adaptation'..not 'evolution'.
The e coli is still..e coli..
Birds for example have been known to change color once stranded in a different enviorment.
They are still the same 'species'..
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 3:55 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
Thor1960303
Posts: 3,345
|
Maybe so, Joshua, but this is what caught my eye.
how different mutations developed and even led to the digestion of citrate, formerly impossible.
An evolutionary precursor perhaps?
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 4:03 PM |
Evolution Proven |
|
Josuha
Posts: 1,121
|
An evolutionary precursor perhaps?
No..there is no direct evidence that any species evolved.
There is evidence of adaptation.
As stated earliar, birds have been known to change the color of feathers to blend in to the enviorment from predators.
But they are still the same 'species'.
Humans for example show evidence of 'adaptation' to cold, heat etc.
Even muscle development.
But we are still genetically the same 'species'.
Raccons have been known to 'adapt' to cities.
But they are still 'raccoons'.
The list goes on.
Adapatation continues until the species can no longer support itself by it's enviorment.
For example, there is evidence that Tyrannosaurus rex was not a 'predator' at all, but more of a scavenger.
When the predators died out, it did to, as it's food supply dwindled as well as climate change.
It was not able to 'adapt'.
The e coli experiment, simply shows that it took twenty years for the bacteria to 'adapt' to a new enviorment.
Change the enviorment radically and it will die.
Also understand that the ecoli was cultured under 'controlled' conditions.
In the natural enviorment, without it's natural time for 'adaptation' it would have most likely have become 'extinct'. (at least the culture we're speaking of.)
There was nothing in this experiment that could not already have been observed in nature today.
Unless of course, they just want spend 20 years to see e coli 'adapt'.
"A rose by any other name, is still a rose."
[Edited on 10/12/2009 4:27 PM]
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 8:21 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
The above is the current definition of evolution. So, simple change of genetic composition--by any mutation, or even by hybridization--is called evolution today. What's a bit deceptive about this is, when most people hear "evolution," they think in terms of one species evolving into another by mutation and natural selection. So, when an evolutionist says, "Evolution has been proven," the layman thinks they are saying that it's been scientifically proven that one species has evolved into another. When, in reality, nothing even remotely close to such has happened.
Tricky.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 8:28 PM |
Evolution Proven |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,916
|
This then became the slap of the century in the face of creationists by Prof. Lenski. I'll tell you what Thor,as soon as you post proof of macro-evolution or an entirely new species was developed with entirely different genetic information you'll have to hold back on slapping any creationists. 
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 8:40 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 2,382
|
I think we will find out much when we have completed charting the gnomes of some other species. From this work we will be able to study the common historical markers across species.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 10:50 PM |
Evolution Proven |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,531
|
Tell you guys what: I'll draw up a research grant proposal. You guys give me $1 Billion, and in 500,000 years, I'll settle whether macro-evolution exists.
The preponderance of evidence suggests that macro-evolution ("M-E") exists. The trouble is, we have only been looking for living proof of M-E for about 150 years. That seems like a long time to us humans, but it's nothing on a geological scale.
It's irrelevant, though. The main reason to teach evolution is: (1) it helps with the scientific method and (2) it provides a mechanism (i.e., micro-evolution) for biologists, geneticists, and doctors to deal with life (especially at the bacterial and viral level).
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 11:11 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,201
|
And a 2,000 year old seed now is a Date Palm...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026082/The-Jesus-tree-Date-palm-grown-2-000-year-old-seed.html
Creationism 
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 11:26 PM |
Evolution Proven |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,916
|
Angel...Looks like the preponderance of evidence suggests that Gods creation exists. 
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 11:33 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,531
|
In what way does that story equate to evidence for creationism?
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 11:44 PM |
Evolution Proven |
|
Josuha
Posts: 1,121
|
Gen 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
A cow is still a cow..
A raccoon is still a raccoon.
And e-coli..is still e-coli.
And always will be..barring extinction of course.
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 11:51 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,531
|
And yet, the fossil record does show the gradual introduction of new species. We can find the introduction of, for instance, bones, jaws, limbs, wrists, and so on.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 11:55 PM |
Evolution Proven |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,916
|
In what way does that story equate to evidence for creationism?
 Compare the unchanged genetics of a 2000 year old Palm seed to the unchanged genetics of a 20 year old bacterium E. coli and what do we have?
Evidence for evolution or for creation?
Let me know if its evolution in say....500,000 years and I'll give you the $1 billion.
|
| |
|
| Oct 12 @ 11:59 PM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,531
|
So a seed didn't germinate for 2000 years, and the fact that it didn't change while it wasn't active is proof that something completely different didn't happen...?
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 13 @ 12:10 AM |
Evolution Proven |
|
Josuha
Posts: 1,121
|
And yet, the fossil record does show the gradual introduction of new species.
The fossil records show 'species'..not direct transition of the species
'Missing link' if you will.
No species has been confirmed to have 'evolved' from another.
For example, Neanderthal gnome is about 98.5% that of modern man.
However, chimpanzees have 95%.
The difference of 5% is the difference of a modern man and chimp.
Completely different species.
Some have suggested that mating between neanderthal and modern man occured.
That Neanderthal was 'assimulated' into the the gene pool of modern man.
However, the 1.5% difference making it another specie, would most likely have prohibited contraception as it would if a modern man and chimpanzee mated.
"In February 2009, the Planck Institute's team, led by geneticist Svante Pääbo, announced that they had completed the first draft of the Neanderthal genome, which covers about 63% of the entire base pairs. An early analysis of the data suggested in "the genome of Neanderthals, a human species driven to extinction" "no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans".
It also likely, was a contributing factor to Neanderthals extinction.
Competition with modern man, unable to adapt to climate and smaller groups thus smaller population and unable to mate outside it's gene pool.
The 1.5% difference of Neandertal makes it a different specie.
A Neanderthal is still a Neanderthal.
|
| |
|
| Oct 13 @ 12:27 AM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
The preponderance of evidence suggests that macro-evolution ("M-E") exists. The trouble is, we have only been looking for living proof of M-E for about 150 years. That seems like a long time to us humans, but it's nothing on a geological scale.
No, you don't get it: evolution does not claim to have just started 150 years ago! It claims to have started about 4.5 BILLION years ago. Which means we should be finding all kinds of species evolving into other species, not only in the fossil record but also living all around us.
The theory acknowledges that although evolution depends upon DNA mutation in the sex cells, about 99.9% of these mutations are harmful; so evolution depends on a hypothetical .1% of all DNA mutations in the sex cells to be an advancement naturally selected by the environment. Now, considering the fact that most DNA is quite stable (which is why freaks are the exception rather than the rule), lots and lots of time must transpire, producing lots and lots of bad mutations (freaks) before a good one happens along, which is then naturally selected for the advancement of the species. Yet, even that advancement doesn't mean it is really any closer to becoming a higher species--in fact, evolution has yet to even produce examples (despite the supposed passage of 4.5 billions years) of one species actually advancing to the point of evolving into another species.
Again, according to the theory, we should be finding many many genetic freaks produced by the 99.9% bad mutations, not only in the fossil record but also living all around us. And, for even those rare favorable mutations, we should be finding lots and lots of limbs and organs just coming into being--nascent limbs and organs evolving into higher forms. And yet, we don't, do we? No. To the contrary, the vast majority of living things are formed quite nicely--with fully formed organs and limbs. Nothing caught in in-between stages--nonfunctional while evolving into something higher.
So, yeah, if we want to say that evolution is just a change in genetic composition, then evolution has happened--frequently. But if we want to say that evolution is the gradual change of one species or genus into a higher species or genus...well, even after 4.5 billions years, it has yet to be evidenced.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 13 @ 12:28 AM |
Evolution Proven |
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
And yet, the fossil record does show the gradual introduction of new species. We can find the introduction of, for instance, bones, jaws, limbs, wrists, and so on.
Examples, please?
|
| |
|
| Oct 13 @ 6:16 AM |
Evolution Proven
|
|
dizzydoll
Posts: 675
|
while you can continue to find names for things you will probably miss the connection. Right now i am loving space science because its becoming a whole lot more holistic than it was before. Many new doors are opening since they have stopped making new theories around the law of relativity. 
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 13 @ 7:01 AM |
Evolution Proven |
|
CPUfan
Posts: 7,983
|
The fossil records show 'species'..not direct transition of the species
'Missing link' if you will.
No species has been confirmed to have 'evolved' from another.
For example, Neanderthal gnome is about 98.5% that of modern man.
However, chimpanzees have 95%.
The difference of 5% is the difference of a modern man and chimp.
Completely different species. That's quite right. One species did not evolve from the other. They were never an identical species. Gorillas and rhesus apes are the same general species though, they are both ape primates. That's why we can breed dogs, wolves and foxes, for instance, because they are the same species.
But evolution did not claim that man descended from apes, just that they had a common ancestor and developed as parallel species. It was an ecclesiastical falsehood about Darwin, that he came from an ape. He was a Christian and wondered if he could see 'the hand of God' in evolution. He almost became a Pastor at one point. His wife on the other hand hated his theory and argued violently with him about it for much of his life. She thought he would go to hell for his troubles.
As for apes, look at the diversity of that species. From rhesus through chimp and baboon to orang utan and gorilla. Who would ever imagine they were a species. But they are. They are primates. There are more similarities between us and rhesus than there are between rhesus and gorilla. Just as a poodle can hardly reach up to a great dane. So if they were just created, someone went to a hell of a lot of trouble to make something so different in one species... Or maybe they just evolved separately?
The species did evolve separately, in parallel. You can see the stages of our evolution as a species by following a sperm and a fertilised egg through a foetus to a baby to a man. That is the scientific evidence of our development, right before your eyes. No apes involved in that anywhere. But at one point we were a parallel species. All species share basic DNA. Whales have mammal DNA and respiratory systems. Our foetus breaths fluid like earlier stages of evolution did. Fossils are an incomplete record. The development of the foetus is not.
Now I think personally that both the claims of religion and of science about the origins of species are exaggerated. There are many more mysteries involved in evolution than either science or religion can explain. But science definitely does a far superior job of explaining anything in a convincing way. Cars drive, planes fly, rockets soar, the internet works, you are the proof... but religious miracles don't happen. Only technological ones. Science is technology, and so is DNA. We will work it out sooner or later.
|
| |
|
|
|
|