Evolution is a Fact #12 - Lenski's E. coli Experiment

by cofty 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    I don't post articles for the Evo-dogmatists here.

  • bohm
    bohm
    Some of this might be due to what would more accurately be described as "devolution" rather than supporting unequivocally the evolutionists claimed version of history over creation.

    Yes, and an arguments for why god exist might be illogical, the ICR website might be lying, your favored political party might consist of crypto-nazis and your neighbor might be a murderer. The word "might" is not worth a lot in a conversation about what is.

    Rather than speculating that Coftys argument might suffer from this or that why not focus on what is the case? is this a case of "de-evolution"? In which case is it then not the case this organism "de-evolved" new genetic information responsible for a new metabolic pathway?

  • bohm
    bohm
    I don't post articles for the Evo-dogmatists here.

    I totally get you, name-calling is properly a better approach than discussing the evidence.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Anyone can read the short posted article and its references. If you still think that the O.P. provides proof that the evolutionists claimed version of history is true over creation than that's fine.

    Evolutionits claim to be purely evidence based, yet any information presented questioning evolutionary claims is immediately dismissed (Here as coming from "bullshit" -see also coftys response to links on his "10 questions for creationists" thread where the creation research society was dismissed as a "bullshit" website as well.

    And evolutionists think it as some sort of great evidence when no one wants to take their TIME to dialogue with them.


  • bohm
    bohm
    Anyone can read the short posted article and its references. If you still think that the O.P. provides proof that the evolutionists claimed version of history is true over creation than that's fine.

    The article incorrectly summarizes the experiments as a man who misses his arms might "gain" the ability to wiggle through the pipe. This summary misses that new genetic information arose by gene duplication, i.e. a gene was copied in such a way that it came under a different control mechanism and thereby gave the bacteria the ability to metabolize citrate. Can we agree on that?

  • cofty
    cofty
    I guess it shows that natural selection is anything BUT random. Randomness could NOT have accounted for the same changes in the same genes... the odds are just too low! - ILOVETTATT2

    That is an interesting point. I heard a debate on this once regarding whether if evolution started again from day one would it follow the same paths.

    Some of this might be due to what would more accurately be described as "devolution" - Hooby

    There is no such thing. Evolution is about changes in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool. Change is change whether it the gain or loss of a function. This series of threads is full of examples of both.

    In the case of E.coli it was very much a gain of function in exactly the way simplistic creationists claim is impossible. I bet you didn't even read the OP did you Hooby?

    I have read hundreds of creationist arguments. Every single one was vacuous. If you actually want to discuss anything in your own words let me know. I never read links or copy-paste.

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    you didn't even read the OP did you Hooby?
    Ugh, yes I did.
  • Simon
    Simon

    Fascinating.

    It reminds me of the use of multi-arm bandit / monte-carlo simulations in computer science to figure out the best option when the number of combinations and factors to consider is high and can't be predicted.

    Based on pure math, the number of combinations is staggering and couldn't be worked out but some random choices and an environment to promote promising versions quickly lead to good results and a better place to proceed from.

  • cofty
    cofty

    I read an article about a process based on natural selection being used in engineering to find optimum solutions.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    bohm - "...It's like a bucket of blue paint. You add a drop of yellow paint and it is still blue 'according to it's kind' of paint. You add another drop and still blue and so on and on. It will never change color because it is of the blue paint kind..."

    Wait...

    ...doesn't it become another "kind" of color (i.e. green) after enough yellow drops are added?

    ( :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: )

    PS: I think Vidqun was being sarcastic.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit