[inthebox]

1.)[2.)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
.

And the rebuttals :

Literature - On the evolution of a "key innovation" in Escherichia coli

It is at least worth asking the question whether the E.coli bacterium had, in the past, lost the ability to metabolise citrate and what we are now seeing is a restoration of that damaged system. If this were the case, we should not be talking about "a major evolutionary innovation" but rather about the way complex systems can be impaired by mutations.

As yet, it is not known what mutations were involved. But clearly, if there were two, and if the first was needed before the second could complete the job, the experiments demonstrate how difficult it is to achieve orchestrated changes...

These mutations are not only rare, they are also useless without the pre-existence of a biochemical system that can turn the products of mutation into something beneficial

Here is another

Michael Behe's Amazon Blog: Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli Permalink

Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there.

20 years, 44000 generations later, in a tightly controlled manmade environment
And this is all they can come up with :confused:


Where is the proof :confused:

[WVHiflyer]

If you are able to give me 100% irrefutable conclusive evidence that a wolf and a carrot share a common ancestor, then i will no longer refuse to acknowledge Macro evolution as fact. Untill then i will just view your claim that "Macro evolution is fact" as a declairation of FAITH.
So plse... i challange you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Macro evolution is fact. ;)

You're showing your ICR basis again. Right of hand I can't think of a single scientific theory or even law that has "100% irrefutable, conclusive evidence." So make up your mind. Do you want that 100% or do you want "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? They are not the same thing.

I'm working on it, since you refuse to educate yourself. If this question is closed, look under Other Science for evidence. (BTW, as a science major, I was surprised to find you've never posted on any science board.)

So you can begin to work on your ICRrefutes, the following is the source I'm using first:

<http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg1mNSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnJW1%2Dsprf uR7baRaggZtUfYuPa7By%5FVIWu1mnAmjyPSW%5FNFgOqz2n%5 F%2DUFBCMQFCXG%2Df9yt2QwN57b%5Fv0B4ISl%2D59lai2y8A RYDpCOzHvb4Prk%5FK5EMYtCk496N5VwB2PrKZjn5ryj7JcT9W AhxE8rgi7Z5gSvOQkidqScZcIXOMPctmPwSvONNgAwcNq16rjI GRDdHD9pjZb8wTDOm899rGbLc5Kpuaux9vNKrDiiohTamWjxA% 2E%2E>

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of common descent and macroevolution

[WVHiflyer]

Whatever Michael Behe has to say on evolution is suspect. He is fully and ideologically fixed to ID and every single one of his ideas has been successfully refuted by credible scientists. His true colors were proved and his ideas refuted in court in Dover, PA.


And Sassy - yes, transitional fossils that show characteristics that are intermediate to others in later lifeforms have been identified. Not just once or twice but hundreds of them (tho I admit that most are marine). You just refuse to acknowledge them.

[sassyT]

First, I would suggest to anyone to take a college 100 level biology course and learn about DNA transcription and translation to protein.

D

That's right, I think the problem we are facing here is we are dealing with people who don't know the first thing about biology, all they are relying on is copying and pasting Darwinists propaganda from the web but they don't even have the fundamental knowledge of biology to even know that they are posting.
Having at least a College 100 level Biology class would be really helpful for these guys.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

You're showing your ICR basis again. Right of hand I can't think of a single scientific theory or even law that has "100% irrefutable, conclusive evidence." So make up your mind. Do you want that 100% or do you want "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? They are not the same thing.

Lol gravity is pretty irrefutable.

I'm working on it, since you refuse to educate yourself. If this question is closed, look under Other Science for evidence. (BTW, as a science major, I was surprised to find you've never posted on any science board.)

You are the one who refuses to educate yourself. You should study Biology then maybe you will actually know what you are talking about instead of just following your Darwinist propaganda.

So you can begin to work on your ICRrefutes, the following is the source I'm using first:

<http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg1mNSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBnJW1%2Dsprf uR7baRaggZtUfYuPa7By%5FVIWu1mnAmjyPSW%5FNFgOqz2n%5 F%2DUFBCMQFCXG%2Df9yt2QwN57b%5Fv0B4ISl%2D59lai2y8A RYDpCOzHvb4Prk%5FK5EMYtCk496N5VwB2PrKZjn5ryj7JcT9W AhxE8rgi7Z5gSvOQkidqScZcIXOMPctmPwSvONNgAwcNq16rjI GRDdHD9pjZb8wTDOm899rGbLc5Kpuaux9vNKrDiiohTamWjxA% 2E%2E>

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of common descent and macroevolution

More darwinist propaganda... I could pull it up but I can already predict what it says.

[Capuchin]

lol gravity is pretty irrefutable.

All you keep doing is spewing your Newtonist propaganda. There is no concrete evidence for the THEORY of gravity. (Yes that's right, it's ONLY A THEORY). Anyone can see that the evidence clearly points to an intelligent force pushing objects down.

[michealb]

After all we have more evidence for evolution than we do gravity. I mean we don't even know why things attract each other or where this force comes from or why it's so weak. We really know nothing about it other than things fall.

[sassyT]

Whatever Michael Behe has to say on evolution is suspect. He is fully and ideologically fixed to ID and every single one of his ideas has been sucessfully refuted by credible scientists. His true colors were proved and his ideas refuted in court in Dover, PA.


And Sassy - yes, transitional fossils that show characteristics that are intermediate to others in later lifeforms have been identified. Not just once or twice but hundreds of them (tho I admit that most are marine). You just refuse to acknowledge them.

Please provide links to these so called transitions and also explain how these forms differ from exticnt lineages.

[sassyT]

All you keep doing is spewing your Newtonist propaganda. There is no concrete evidence for the THEORY of gravity. (Yes that's right, it's ONLY A THEORY). Anyone can see that the evidence clearly points to an intelligent ???force pushing objects down.

The fact that Gravitation occurs is an irrefutable scientific fact that's why I am sitting on this chair. If you are referring to theories of gravitation that is something different. But let me ask you something... How can a theory be a fact? :confused:

[inthebox]

Whatever Michael Behe has to say on evolution is suspect. He is fully and ideologically fixed to ID and every single one of his ideas has been sucessfully refuted by credible scientists. His true colors were proved and his ideas refuted in court in Dover, PA.


And Sassy - yes, transitional fossils that show characteristics that are intermediate to others in later lifeforms have been identified. Not just once or twice but hundreds of them (tho I admit that most are marine). You just refuse to acknowledge them.

Dr Behe is a renown biochemist. The science is there.

Please post your biochemical resume wvhiflyer - do you have enough basic knowledge of bichemistry, genetics or cell biology to dispute a phD in their field :confused:

Whatever happened to tolerance of other scientific viewpoints? Or does darwinistic atheology prohibit you from doing so? ;)

[sassyT]

After all we have more evidence for evolution than we do gravity. I mean we don't even know why things attract each other or where this force comes from or why it's so weak. We really know nothing about it other than things fall.

Yes we have an insurmountable amount of evidence for MICRO evolution. I have not seen one iota of evidence that supports MACRO evolution. So please, stop making empty claims and provide the conclusive evidence.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

You're showing your ICR basis again. Right of hand I can't think of a single scientific theory or even law that has "100% irrefutable, conclusive evidence." So make up your mind. Do you want that 100% or do you want "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? They are not the same thing

.

WVH.. You are the one who was claiming MACRO evolution is a FACT. If you claim something is a fact, you better be prepared to provide 100% irrefutable conclusive evidence. For example the sky has blue appearance on a given clear sunny day. That is a fact that anyone who is not color blind can not refute. The evidence is 100% conclusive and irrefutable and is there to be observed so thus saying the sky has blue appearance on a given sunny day is an irrefutable factual statement.
So if you claim the theory that carrots and wolves share a common ancestor, is a fact, then you need to give me 100% conclusive, concrete evidence that I can not refute.

[michealb]

You can refute anything if you make stuff up and Michael Behe is a fraud and admitted so in court.

[inthebox]

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.

If you are referring to the above from Wiki


The same can be said for evolutionary biology! :eek:

Is the flagella motor, or the coagulation cascade "provable" by evolutionists in the lab? Can they reproduce the evolutionary steps it took to develop these complex molecular pathways? :confused: Then neither evolution nor ID can be proven as science by that court's decision.

To think that judges, that have no formal biochemistry or cell biology training, determine what science is, is as fatuous as allowing, say, the Roman Catholic church determine what science was during Galileo's day. :cool:

But where is your, Michaelb, reply to the E Coli "evolution?" Or did you just read the headline and not understand what it meant? :cool:

20 years, 44,000 generations, a manmade controlled experiment, and yet they cannot identify the exact mutation that occurred! The pre-requisite machinery to metabolize citrate was already in place.


How is this proof of evolution, especially at a Macro level.:confused:

[WVHiflyer]

Something does not necessarily have to be repeatable to be accepted as scientific proof - to claim to have see actual genera evolving is ridiculous. What it does have to be is be testable. That can happen simply by using the theory to predict what would occur. That has happened many times in evolutionary studies and the predictions were correct each time. (And my evolutionarily evolved brain is already predicting your responses... )

[inthebox]

Why is it "ridiculous?"

If I claim to have seen a mouse turn into a cat right before my very eyes, and it cannot be successfully repeated is that science? Is that proof? Is that your evidence for evolution?

[WVHiflyer]

No, that's not science. That's a reason to stop taking drugs or to see a doctor. You're confusing repeatability in experiments with testability.

"...universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation. "

"Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. ...In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason."

"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences. No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data."

(above quotes from "29 Evidences for Macroevolution")

[michealb]

If you are referring to the above from Wiki


The same can be said for evolutionary biology! :eek:

Not so evolutionary biology has been peer reviewed for over 100 years. What your missing here is that everyone wants to disprove evolution. I would love to be the scientist who disproved evolution. It's one of the most tested and well established theories of our day. To prove it wrong would make you one of the biggest stars on the planet. The problem is once you study evolution, I mean really study it to the point where you know enough about it that you are qualified to be able to prove it wrong you understand why it's not wrong. Don't feel bad though I didn't understand evolution either at first. High school does a lousy job at teaching evolution after my high school class I really thought intelligent design was a better answer it wasn't till later that when I studied beyond that high school course that I understood evolution.

But where is your, Michaelb, reply to the E Coli "evolution?" Or did you just read the headline and not understand what it meant? :cool:

20 years, 44,000 generations, a manmade controlled experiment, and yet they cannot identify the exact mutation that occurred! The pre-requisite machinery to metabolize citrate was already in place.
I'm sure that you know one of the things that defines E Coli is it's inability to use citrate. Just because some of the enzyme were there, doesn't belittle the experiment.

How is this proof of evolution, especially at a Macro level.:confused:

Perhaps you should read Lenski's paper on subject or at least read his response to Conservapedia when they claimed the same thing your claiming right now. It's actually quite funny to read the writings from someone who actually has a degree in biology answering these same questions.
Conservapedia:Lenski dialog - Conservapedia

[Credendovidis]

I repeat my original topic starter once more :

One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

NOTE :

Why does ICR in it's article on the problems Japanese encounter in their quest for a concentrated data storage system using DNA type coding try to connect the difficulty these Japanese experience with the religious CLAIM involving the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity connected to the origin of life by using a similar technique ?

Does ICR really think that the Japanese problems support any wild religious unsupported claims? HOW ?

PLEASE KEEP TO THE TOPIC ....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

[inthebox]

Michaelb:

Evolution has not been proven, so what is to prove?
The onus is on the evolutionary biologists to prove their theory.

If in evolution was a fact - why did Lenski spend 20 years and 44000 generations , all that time money and labor to prove what is suppose to be fact?

from your link

Sincerely,
Richard Lenski

P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.

So given all that opportunity, there is no documentation of E.coli becoming a "new" species. :confused: :confused: :eek: