Ask Me Help Desk - Objective/subjective how does it disprove God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

Sassy you also never answered my question about the fact that evolution has been proven in a lab. If you are now going to change your line of thinking or are you going to ignore evidence and go with your religious ideas instead?
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

Micro evolution is an observable FACT, I have never denied that. Changes WITHIN Species have been observed, however darwinists take the leap of faith that these small changes within species will create an entirely new, never seen before species. Bacteria do evolve and develop new traits to adapt to new environments, however they don't evolve and ceased to be a bacteria and evolved into say, a virus. The bacteria is still bacteria.

So don't get too happy because its not like the bacteria evolved and changed into a guinea pig before their very eyes. The bacteria is still a Bacteria.

Besides that FACT that this bacteria evolved into what could be considered a new species of bacteria since one of the defining traits of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate.

What demonstratable mechanism is in place that prevents microevolution from changing a species into a new species over the course of a million years?

Define what in the DNA makes a certain species it's particular species and how many micro evolutionary changes occur before a species is considered a new species and if you say micro changes can't make a new species what stops those changes from occurring?

How can you be a biology student and not know that..

Bacteria is not a species.

What school are you attending? I'd like to go because based on what you know about biology I could probably get my doctorate there in a few weeks. If you won't tell us what school you go to at least tell us where it is accredited at or that its not accredited.

First, you are misunderstanding my use of the term 'ignorance'. It is not meant to be derogatory. It simply means 'lack of knowledge'. We are all ignorant about many things (some more than others :) ).

Wow, I can actually agree with several things you have to say in your last response! That's such a rarity, I'd like to dwell on them for a sec...

Mainly, that science currently doesn't have much to say with respect to 'first cause' and how life got started. I find your description for the purpose of science to be quite adequate. So let's celebrate our agreement here! If we were together it would call for a toast. You are also very correct with:

Quote:

mutation by definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect.

What you are overlooking is that mutations do not fuel evolution, natural selection does. The vast majority of mutations hinder survival. So again, I'm going to try and dwell on what you're right about.

Hopefully, you just need to finish your study of this subject and will soon see how and why The Theory of Evolution is the most sufficient theory we have to date. There is TONS of evidence for it and you cannot overlook the fact that 98% of members of the National Academy of Science fully accept it as FACT! But you seem to get hung up on the word 'prove'. Again, nothing is ever 'proven' in science. I'm surprised you don't know that.

Quote:

Michaelb Bacteria is not a species.

Oh gosh.. your level of ignorance astounds me.. lol are you serious right now?

You should be embarrassed by that statement

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

Besides that FACT that this bacteria evolved into what could be considered a new species of bacteria since one of the defining traits of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate.

So.. that is just a demonstration of micro evolution which is irrefutable.

Quote:

What demonstratable mechanism is in place that prevents microevolution from changing a species into a new species over the course of a million years?

Good Question...

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering, macroevolution will be impossible.

We have variaties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution within species) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirly new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not suport Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, tenticles or entirely new traits devalop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (e.g an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.
So like I keep saying, macro evolution takes a leap of faith I am not willing to make. :)

RTFA
The E Coli being able to consume citrate is a new trait. One of the major defining characteristics of the species of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate. Soo... the entire basis for your augment is now plainly wrong. Proven in a lab with repeatable results that new information can be added to DNA through mutation and natural selection.

And yes this is the level of intellect your dealing with(I saw you changed your wording since you apparently can't spell intellect but the point still stands even though you changed your wording). The word bacteria refers to a kingdom not a species. There are many different species that represent the bacteria kingdom. Again if you have a degree in biology I should go test out for my doctorate at your school. Which is accredited with what group again?

Sassy,

You are demonstrating more knowledge than I for one, gave you credit for. I'm pretty excited about that! So you accept micro evolution (that bacteria can evolve into new strains, for instance), but not macro evolution (that animals can evolve into new species), is that correct?

First of all, it's not just millions of years we have to work with, but hundreds of millions of years. Man has been on the scene a couple hundred thousands years at most. So just answer me this question: What sort of evidence for 'speciation' would you be willing to accept for macro evolution? Let's have a civil discourse here, because I am (naively?) thinking we are making progress. Perhaps I can provide you with some examples that will convince you.

One thing you are neglecting to take into consideration that I've mentioned before, is selection pressure. It's not just a matter of mutations 'randomly' developing into new species. If this is what you think is being said, then I can see why you have a problem with it. This would be a ridiculous claim as you point out. The best theory for what drives evolution (the same evolution that you admit exists at the micro level), is called 'natural selection'. So is there room to grow from here?

Yes Christians do believe in micro evolution and adaptive evolution.
Not species evolving/changing from one thing to another though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

RTFA
The E Coli being able to consume citrate is a new trait. One of the major defining characteristics of the species of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate. Soo... the entire basis for your augment is now plainly wrong. Proven in a lab with repeatable results that new information can be added to DNA through mutation and natural selection.

Again this is a perfect example of MICRO evolution this not "new" information it is specialisation within the bacteria.
Let me explain. We see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenarative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren't able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information, which says nothing for Macro evo. Scientists have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? NO
In fact, with over a hundred years of work with Ecoli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of ecoli minimum that have been witnessed you do the math), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Bottom line, no matter what traits your example of bacteria has developed, it is STILL BACTERIA 2 1/5 million (per 20min) generations later. So please stop trying to pass of evidence of micro as evidence for macro evolution. If you are going to show me a bacterium that evolved, show me one that evolved and changed not a virus, a fungus or heck, even a bird ;)

Quote:

And yes this is the level of intellect your dealing with(I saw you changed your wording ????since you apparently can't spell intellect but the point still stands even though you changed your wording). The word bacteria refers to a kingdom not a species. There are many different species that represent the bacteria kingdom. Again if you have a degree in biology I should go test out for my doctorate at your school. Which is accredited with what group again?

I don't know what you are even talking about here... lol Seriously, I am confused. You are the one that said bacteria can not have "species". :confused:

Whatever :rolleyes:

I said that bacteria is not a species. E coli is a species of bacteria. If you actually knew anything about biology you would know the difference and that there are six kingdoms in biology (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria). Calling something bacteria is like calling something an animal. What the experiment showed was one species becoming a new species and adding information to it's DNA. Still in the Eubacteria kingdom but a new species non the less.

I however feel the need to completely call you out since you don't understand this. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before thinking that maybe you were going to a christian school to get your biology degree but now...

I am calling you a flat out liar who doesn't even know enough about biology to pass a high school class.

Yes, liar liar pants on fire, sitting on a telephone wire.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobrobster

Sassy,

You are demonstrating more knowledge than I for one, gave you credit for. I'm pretty excited about that! So you accept micro evolution (that bacteria can evolve into new strains, for instance), but not macro evolution (that animals can evolve into new species), is that correct?

Correct i have no qualms with believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins or fruit flies (macroevolution).

Quote:

First of all, it's not just millions of years we have to work with, but hundreds of millions of years. Man has been on the scene a couple hundred thousands years at most.

This is an assuption made by scientists who believe in evolution, however as i have pointed out before.. the age of the earth is unknowable. The methods used by scientists to date the earth employ a number of assumptions that can not be veryfied. If the assuptions are accurate, then we are maybe talking billions of years, however there is no way to verify the validy and/or accuracy of these assuptions used. Time is not even a factor because bacteria have over 2 million generations in just 20 minutes and we have not observed bacteria cease to be bacteria and evolve into something totally different.

As far as man goes, i do not believe man is hundreds of thousands of years old considering the fact that documented human history only goes back about 5K-6K years.

Quote:

So just answer me this question: What sort of evidence for 'speciation' would you be willing to accept for macro evolution? Let's have a civil discourse here, because I am (naively?) thinking we are making progress. Perhaps I can provide you with some examples that will convince you.

I doubt you can because the evidence mutations that add "new" information just does not exists. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the environment will never qualify as genetic enginering. Like i have said before, mutation in human hair may change color or texture or basic traits of the hair but we have not observed mutations that add new information such that the hair becomes feathers, scales or tenticles etc.

Quote:

One thing you are neglecting to take into consideration that I've mentioned before, is selection pressure. It's not just a matter of mutations 'randomly' developing into new species. If this is what you think is being said, then I can see why you have a problem with it. This would be a ridiculous claim as you point out. The best theory for what drives evolution (the same evolution that you admit exists at the micro level), is called 'natural selection'. So is there room to grow from here?

I do not reject natural selection when it is not defined as a tautology. This completely naturalistic mechaanism observed in nature today is responsible for small adaptations, not radical genome mutation that evolution ultimately predicts has to happen. This is what has been observed, smal changes and that is all "creationism" has ever predicted to happen in organisms from natural selection. It is far more based off scientific observations, but evolutinists extrapolate from observed data to conclude things that fit their pre-concluded assumption of naturalism and macro evolution

a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more "children" In this sense, nature "selects" genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constently decreasing in general. This is what natural selection is.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not "increased". The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is just another example of natural selection producing micro (not macro) evolution.

I believe in micro evolution. I just don't believe in the unproven theory of evolution from ameboa to man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

I said that bacteria is not a species. E coli is a species of bacteria. If you actually knew anything about biology you would know the difference and that there are six kingdoms in biology (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria). Calling something bacteria is like calling something an animal. What the experiment showed was one species becoming a new species and adding information to it's DNA. Still in the Eubacteria kingdom but a new species non the less.

I however feel the need to completely call you out since you don't understand this. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before thinking that maybe you were going to a christian school to get your biology degree but now...

I am calling you a flat out liar who doesn't even know enough about biology to pass a high school class.

Yes, liar liar pants on fire,:mad: sitting on a telephone wire.

Lol.. lol... are you serious? This is what an intelligent debate has descended too?. lol play ground name calling?
Oh gosh... nice

I call them as I see them and at least you understood that part.

You have revealed yourself as someone who will do anything to push your religious agenda without regards for morals or facts and should loose any respect that anyone on this site gave you. Just my belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassyT

This is what an intelligent debate has descended too??

No, that all changed already when you showed up...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Well you all stay in your own playgrounds I'm going with the hokie pokie being what it all about. Play nice no throwing sand out of the sand box!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Well you all stay in your own playgrounds I'm going with the hokie pokie being what it all about. Play nice no throwing sand out of the sand box!!!

Will that in any way help in answering the question "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?"

;)

·

Doesn't look like you have any answers either
Your only answer is you think
But can't even get you to answer WHAT you do think
Only what you do not believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Doesn't look like you have any answers either
your only answer is you think but can't even get you to answer WHAT you do think
only what you do not believe.

Silly Linda. Really silly.

:rolleyes:

·

? Silly that you can not answer because you have no idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0help4u

? silly that you can not answer because you have no idea?

Silly Linda. Really silly.

:rolleyes:

·