Evolution Vs. Creationism

[Dirty Penguin]

Let me get this straight. A new, never before known material is introduced to the environment. Some bacteria, that naturally occur in this environment, evolve the ability to digest this new compound. To do this, the bacteria get new information in their genome through mutation. A new, never before existing, enzyme is produced by the bacteria to aid in the digestion of this new material.
That's right, new information in the genome through a beneficial mutation.
Were these bacteria manipulated in a lab? No.
Did conditions alter in the environment of the bacteria? Yes.
Did mutations occur naturally that promoted survival in certain bacteria? Yes.
Would these mutations have been beneficial if the new conditions did not exist? No.

The very process predicted in the Theory of Evolution.
Ain't science grand?

Thanks... I had a whole response but accidentally closed my window

 

[Gloone]

So artificial selection doesn't apply to bacteria? Or did the theory of evolution just evolve into something total different? Artificially breeding new bacteria. See.... not that hard to understand.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So artificial selection doesn't apply to bacteria? Or did the theory of evolution just evolve into something total different? Artificially breeding new bacteria. See.... not that hard to understand.

443 comments later....for you apparently it is....!

 

[Gloone]

443 comments later....for you apparently it is....!

No because I already told you I debate this once already and didn't want to debate it again.

 

[Gloone]

yawn... lets debate some more though. Help me get my post count up.

 

[Amill]

So artificial selection doesn't apply to bacteria? Or did the theory of evolution just evolve into something total different? Artificially breeding new bacteria. See.... not that hard to understand.

What evidence suggests that artificial breeding was involved? Even if that were so, artificial selection or breeding still simulates some of the mechanisms that drive evolution.

 

[micrurus]

I don't know, care to provide some proof for their existence?

no, let me know when you figure it out.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So artificial selection doesn't apply to bacteria? Or did the theory of evolution just evolve into something total different? Artificially breeding new bacteria. See.... not that hard to understand.

No because I already told you I debate this once already and didn't want to debate it again.

You obviously did not learn anything in your "debate" previously.

• Artificial selection (selective breeding) is intentional breeding for certain traits. As in dog breeding. The bacteria were not selectively breed. The evolved trait was the result of natural selection.

See.... not that hard to understand.

 

[McBell]

See.... not that hard to understand.

Did you get this fingers out of his ears and get him to stop humming whilst you said this?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No because I already told you I debate this once already and didn't want to debate it again.

And yet you still want to be involved in threads where evolution is discussed. You debated it, was shown the evidence that this bacteria evolves and is alive as ALL bacteria do and are. Why debate at all if you refuse to accept the evidence or are unable to refute or falsify?

 

[Autodidact]

The Nylon-Eating Bacteria is an example of a lab experiment done outdoors.

Sort of. It wasn't intentionally designed. Nature set up the experiment, and it yielded valuable data.

It isn’t something that happened naturally, so I don’t consider it to be evolution.

Actually, it did. The only input that wasn't created by nature was the nylon, which is why it's so neat. But the same sort of thing can happen naturally, do you see how?

It only serves as a great textbook example of what not to do and how you shouldn’t conduct experiments that are intended for a lab. IMO if you do think this is a great example of modern day evolution you are basically arguing that evolution is based on random nothingness and serves no real purpose.

Not really, but yes, evolution has no "purpose." It's just what nature does and how it works.

You could always argue that evolution isn’t about the study of nature and natural occurrences, which you might have a hard time doing. That is how pathetic I find the nylon-eating bacteria example of evolution to be. At least the methane-gas eating bacteria are naturally occurring; they were not created or induced by the interaction of mankind with artificial substances and chemicals. But even with the methane-gas eating bacteria you are still breaking away from the traditional theory of evolution for something a little different. I'd imagine it is easier to just burn old science documents and books than it is to go through and edit them.

No, methane eating bacteria are just another textbook example, direct application of evolutionary theory. There is nothing about it that deviates from evolutionary theory in any way.

You know how they put an * asterisk beside a baseball players name because they used steroids or some type of performance enhancing drugs? They might as well put one beside the nylon eating bacteria because it isn’t a real example of evolution.

But it is. No asterisk needed.

Anyone that argues in favor of this really has no idea what they are talking about. And certainly doesn’t follow the theory of evolution. If they do then they are not doing it any good.

Actually, you're the one who is not well informed, and had not even heard of it. Any Biologist will tell you that it is a classic example of evolution in action.

 

[Autodidact]

So artificial selection doesn't apply to bacteria?

It does, but this is not artificial selection. Artificial selection is like when dog breeders only choose a certain color of dog to breed. This happened naturally; no one did it on purpose.

Or did the theory of evolution just evolve into something total different? Artificially breeding new bacteria. See.... not that hard to understand.

No, this is plain old garden variety ordinary evolution, and plants are living organisms.

 

[Gloone]

It is NOT NORMAL OR NATURAL! How many people pour their chemicals in ponds to create new bacteria today? Not many because they know some of the problems it can cause for the environment like create new bacteria tha can kill or poison plant life and fish or cause them diseases. Nothing natural about dumping chemicals in a pond and watching it kill everything and grow new bacteria.

 

[Gloone]

Sort of. It wasn't intentionally designed. Nature set up the experiment, and it yielded valuable data.

Data a lot of people must have a hard time understanding.

 

[McBell]

Data a lot of people must have a hard time understanding.

Only those who refuse to understand it.

 

[Gloone]

Example of change or change in genetics that isn’t related to the theory of evolution is someone using steroids. It can change people’s facial features, bones structure and stunt people’s growth, including a long list of other things. Has nothing to do with ToE, artificial selection or natural selection.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Example of change or change in genetics that isn’t related to the theory of evolution is someone using steroids. It can change people’s facial features, bones structure and stunt people’s growth, including a long list of other things. Has nothing to do with ToE, artificial selection or natural selection.

You state the obvious considering this thread has nothing to do with any of that...

 

[Gloone]

Dallas,

Just study genetics, natural environments, and artificial selection and you can totally obliterate the theory of evolution. It is like kicking the legs right out from underneath the theory itself.

 

[outhouse]

Dallas,

Just study genetics, natural environments, and artificial selection and you can totally obliterate the theory of evolution. It is like kicking the legs right out from underneath the theory itself.

then show us exacxtly how it kicks the legs because i dont see it.

You can fight and squirm all you like but ToE is solid with evidence based on facts.

facts you can only deny because of your lack of education in science as a whole

 

[fantome profane]

Example of change or change in genetics that isn’t related to the theory of evolution is someone using steroids. It can change people’s facial features, bones structure and stunt people’s growth, including a long list of other things. Has nothing to do with ToE, artificial selection or natural selection.

Steroids do not change a person’s genetics.