Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Guessing again. Please read the whole story on how they got Lucy's age. That's why I ask you on how they got the age of argon or where do we find argon?

I don't see any guessing.

You measure the age of the strata above her, and you measure the age of the strata below her, and then you have a range of time that you can say she lived in, ie between the age of the strata above her, and the strata below her.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guessing again. Please read the whole story on how they got Lucy's age. That's why I ask you on how they got the age of argon or where do we find argon?

Oh you were talking about Lucy. No, I was not guessing. What part do you have problem with? Do you understand that if you lay down a series of blankets that the blanket on the bottom (assuming that you did not go to any extremes) was the one put down first or the oldest? Or that the blanket on top was the last one put in place or "the youngest"?

 

[Neb]

It was an experiment to see how the genome of E. coli varied over time under specific environmental pressures. A mutation probably occurred. Unfortunately unless one took the genome of every singled E. coli introduced into the experiment (a practice that destroys them) one could not be 100% sure. The mutation was not observed before the experiment so it probably did occur in the experiment itself.

Read the whole paper and we discuss it tomorrow and see if it's mutation or adaptation.

Why bring up this red herring?

What "red herring" are you talking about? You're the one who brought this up

What do you mean? By definition a beneficial mutation is "new information".

In Lenski's experiment we can find out if there is "new information" added to the genome.

 

[Neb]

I don't see any guessing.

You measure the age of the strata above her, and you measure the age of the strata below her, and then you have a range of time that you can say she lived in, ie between the age of the strata above her, and the strata below her.

You are talking about not even a foot in difference between strata.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the whole paper and we discuss it tomorrow and see if it's mutation or adaptation.

Why do you think that it has to be one or the other? It appears that you do not understand that terms that you are using.

What "red herring" are you talking about? You're the one who brought this up

The Lenski experiment has very little to do with our discussion here. It does not apply.

In Lenski's experiment we can find out if there is "new information" added to the genome.

We don't need that experiment. We know how new information is added. I gave you two articles on just one way that new information is added.


Once again, any mutation is by definition "new information". You are hanging onto what is largely a nonsense phrase. Gene duplication, which if you read the articles I supplied takes several forms, shows how even critical genes can mutate without endangering the organisms involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are talking about not even a foot in difference between strata.

So what? I am not sure if that is true or not, but the layer above her has to be younger than she is. The layer below her has to be younger than she is. That is a bracket. We know a younger than and an older than date. The exact date is gotten by analyzing other evidence.

 

[Neb]

Oh you were talking about Lucy. No, I was not guessing. What part do you have problem with? Do you understand that if you lay down a series of blankets that the blanket on the bottom (assuming that you did not go to any extremes) was the one put down first or the oldest? Or that the blanket on top was the last one put in place or "the youngest"?

Are you telling me that K-Ar dating would tell a different age from about a foot apart?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

You are talking about not even a foot in difference between strata.

And your problem is? If the strata one inch apart was a difference in age of 1000 years, and the age of the upper strata was 100,000 years old, you would know that Lucy lived anywhere from 100,000 years ago to 101,000 years ago. Obviously these aren't Lucy's real numbers, the numbers aren't important though as I'm just trying to see if you understand the concept.

EDITED

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you telling me that K-Ar dating would tell a different age from about a foot apart?

Yes.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Read the whole paper and we discuss it tomorrow and see if it's mutation or adaptation.
What "red herring" are you talking about? You're the one who brought this up
In Lenski's experiment we can find out if there is "new information" added to the genome.

Have you ever heard of Nylon before?

 

[Neb]

Why do you think that it has to be one or the other? It appears that you do not understand that terms that you are using.



The Lenski experiment has very little to do with our discussion here. It does not apply.




We don't need that experiment. We know how new information is added. I gave you two articles on just one way that new information is added.


Once again, any mutation is by definition "new information". You are hanging onto what is largely a nonsense phrase. Gene duplication, which if you read the articles I supplied takes several forms, shows how even critical genes can mutate without endangering the organisms involved.

Science have rules to follow, they have the law on how to process things from a hypothesis, deduction, predictions, observation, a test of predictions, then it becomes a theory. So, the theory of evolutions is not something like scientist made up stories and you’re right, they make mistakes and learned from it and moved on. But the question remains the same, did they proved that life began from a non-life? NO, they did not; they hit the wall on this one. Were they arrogant enough to insist that life did begin from a non-life? No, because they followed the law that governs them just like I followed the law that governs my belief. What rules do you follow to justify your philosophical faith?

 

[Neb]

Have you ever heard of Nylon before?

Nylonase?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Nylonase?

So you're familiar with what I'm about to tell you... Let me guess, you've been to a creationist website that has "debunked" the Nylon eating bacteria story...

Look, in only a few short decades, between the year 1938 and 1970, a period of about 30 years, we have a form of bacteria that has evolved a whole new way of living, eating a substance never before seen on this earth.

That is evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science have rules to follow, they have the law on how to process things from a hypothesis, deduction, predictions, observation, a test of predictions, then it becomes a theory. So, the theory of evolutions is not something like scientist made up stories and you’re right, they make mistakes and learned from it and moved on. But the question remains the same, did they proved that life began from a non-life? NO, they did not; they hit the wall on this one. Were they arrogant enough to insist that life did begin from a non-life? No, because they followed the law that governs them just like I followed the law that governs my belief. What rules do you follow to justify your philosophical faith?

You don't seem to understand. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. It does not matter where life came from. Why even ask? You are attempting to move the goalposts again.

And scientists have far from "hit the wall" on abiogenesis. I am more than happy to discuss that once we go over evolution. One idea at a time. You need to understand the basics of science first, as I have pointed out more than once here.

 

[Neb]

Have you ever heard of Nylon before?

Tell me something about it. I've heard it before and not sure what it's all about. Maybe we can discuss it tomorrow.

 

[Neb]

So you're familiar with what I'm about to tell you... Let me guess, you've been to a creationist website that has "debunked" the Nylon eating bacteria story...

Look, in only a few short decades, between the year 1938 and 1970, a period of about 30 years, we have a form of bacteria that has evolved a whole new way of living, eating a substance never before seen on this earth.

That isn't adaptation, that is evolution.

If you can tell me the difference between mutation and adaptation then maybe we can have a healthy debate tomorrow. Thanks

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can tell me the difference between mutation and adaptation then maybe we can have a healthy debate tomorrow. Thanks

Mutation is any change in the genome of an organism. Adaptation is a change in the alleles of the genome of a species. By the way, adaptation is evolution. Just on a very small scale. If you want to claim there is a limit somewhere then the burden of proof is upon you. There is almost endless evidence for the theory of evolution. As we can see with Lucy. Like it or not she fits the evolutionary paradigm perfectly and is thus evidence for the theory. If you can't admit that then you are not letting yourself understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If you can tell me the difference between mutation and adaptation then maybe we can have a healthy debate tomorrow. Thanks

I would add that you need to be careful about what context you are using the word "adapt". Humans can adapt to the cold by shivering which warms our body a bit. Our eyes can adapt to bright lights by constricting our pupils. That isn't the same type of adaptation that we are talking about with respect to long term trends in biology.

Adaptations with respect to biological change over time are heritable adaptations. These are physical features that organisms are born with which allow them to better survive in the environment they find themselves in. A polar bear's white fur is a good example. This is a heritable fur color that helps it to both camouflage itself and to also bring in warm light to the black skin that lies under the white fur. The white hairs can act like fiber optic cables and transmit light to the skin where it can be absorbed for warmth.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

For most but not all atheists, atheism is simply a lack of belief. For them it is not a positive statement that "there is no god"…

Someone who is not prepared to make the statement "there is no god" is not an atheist, but an agnostic. That's why the word "agnostic" was coined, to make it clear. People have been using it for 140 years. You should try it some time: it's really useful.

The sort of atheist who is always writing or broadcasting about their atheism and the folly of theism is hardly displaying simple lack of belief. Mind you, they certainly beieve in their royalty and appearence fees.

 

[shmogie]

Why?

Aren't you the guy who refuses to defend his assertions and doesn't care what anybody else believes? Do you think that you deserve more than you are willing to give? You called it casting pearls before swine.



A comment like that serves as a litmus test for scientific illiteracy. As soon as one makes it, he has identified himself as somebody uninterested in science enough to study its basic and fundamental concepts.



And you are way behind in abiogenesis research.

Restricted choice : the idea that if condition X is the case, we might see either A or B occur, but that if condition Y is the case, we will see B. Consider flipping a loaded and a fair coin. In one case, heads and tails both come up. In the other, only (or mostly) one or the other.

In this case, if abiogenesis is possible and occurred, we might see ongoing progress in its investigation, or we might hit an insurmountable dead en, If abiogenesis is impossible, we will hit that dead end. That hasn't happened yet after decades of research. New links are continually added to the forming chain.



Supernaturalism doesn't make any science better. It adds no explanatory or predictive power to any scientific law or theory.

Go ahead and stick religious ideas into any theory of your liking and show how it makes it better.



Soundslike you're looking for the biological equivalent of the rather nebulous biblical category of kind.

So then the dozens or hundreds of species in a biological family don't represent evolution? What magic barrier arises to stop that degree of evolution from proceeding further?

How about saying that macroevolution begins above the category of kingdom rather than family? God created a bacteria, a protist, a fungus, an plant, an animal, Noah carried them onto the ark in a basket and saved them all, and then they evolved. Those were the five kinds.

Please, way behind on abiogenesis research, OK. Then you must be able to tell me the answer to at least one of these simple questions. What chemicals ? What environment ? What creatures ? Only three. ¨new links are continually added to the forming chain ¨ That is profound gibberish worthy of a premiere UFOlogist, with the same net result 0. Process isn´t result. Alchemists learned this, after centuries.

Here is what you are not grasping, haven´t grasped, refuse to grasp. I will defend an assertion, when I make one, or when an assertion I make can be taken by a reasonably informed person as requiring support. I will not defend an obviously known concept for anyone with self alleged knowledge in an area, where the concept is obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge in the area. Demanding that I prove an 80 year old definition of a term, that anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution knows has changed, and with a little more knowledge knows means different things to different evolutionists is akin to asking me to prove when I use the term ground transport I don´t mean covered wagons.
Hmmmm. what magic barrier arises ? Well according to at least two very prominent evolutionists, maybe more, and a number of prominent scientists who support intelligent design, the lack of significant changes in the apparent stability and lack of aberration leading to significant changes at the family level is the magic barrier,. Not magic at all just science
I am not searching for anything. I have found it. Numerous citations from prominent evolutionists state that macro evolution begins at the family level, or as the citation I used states ¨ the higher taxa¨. I am shocked Ricky, yes, shocked, that someone with such a comfortable deep knowledge of evolution apparently doesn´t know this either.