Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 79
  1. #16
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    More nonsense. Evolutionists have also acknowledged the difference between evolution as a historical science and observational science like physics: ...
    But the study of evolution is not purely historical:
    A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

  2. #17
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    I would point that that not even History is a purely historical science and some claims can and are tested in experiments. For example historical reenactment can be used to inform prior probabilities for various competing hypotheses.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #18
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    But the study of evolution is not purely historical:
    A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
    Oh, this boring old Lenski stuff that we answered at the time. The E. coli already have a mechanism to metabolize citrate, but because this is less efficient than aerobic respiration, this is switched off in the presence of free oxygen and left for anaerobic conditions. However, one strain of Lenski's bacteria had a mutation disabling this off-switch, so the citrate-digestion pathway remained on in aerobic conditions. Here is a summary from last month (unlike PB's 2008 source):

    Except that's not true. Normal E. coli already have the ability to feed on citrate -- they just don't typically do it under oxic conditions (i.e., where oxygen is present). The interesting thing about Lenski's research is that his bugs evolved the ability to uptake citrate under oxic conditions. But did anything new evolve? Here's what the article says:

    But a mutation in the citrate-eaters allowed them to make an "antiporter" protein, CitT, that allows citrate to cross the membrane and enter the cell. The gene for this protein already existed, but it's usually switched off when oxygen is present.
    The antiporter is a kind of revolving door. It allows one molecule to be swapped for another. In this case, the citrate is imported into the cell in exchange for one of three smaller, less-valuable molecules: succinate, fumarate or malate.

    What really happened? A switch that normally represses expression of CitT under oxic conditions was broken, so the citrate-uptake pathway got turned on. This isn't the evolution of a new molecular feature. It's the breaking of a molecular feature -- a repressor switch. Of course none of this is disclosed in the article.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #19
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Oh, this boring old Lenski stuff that we answered at the time. The E. coli already have a mechanism to metabolize citrate, but because this is less efficient than aerobic respiration, this is switched off in the presence of free oxygen and left for anaerobic conditions. However, one strain of Lenski's bacteria had a mutation disabling this off-switch, so the citrate-digestion pathway remained on in aerobic conditions.
    The fact that there is a discussion about an experiment in evolution on a creationist website demonstrates conclusively that evolution is not purely historical - I'm glad you agree with me (and Rincewind by implication).

  5. #20
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,073
    I still appreciate when Capa gives up a chemistry lesson to show that he is really is into science
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The fact that there is a discussion about an experiment in evolution on a creationist website demonstrates conclusively that evolution is not purely historical - I'm glad you agree with me (and Rincewind by implication).
    Ah, here we are with the equivocation: evolution = change + evolution = goo-to-you-via-the-zoo.

    Too all but the most fanatical evolutionists, it should be obvious that breaking an off-switch is not the same direction of changes needed to turn bacteria into biologists.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  7. #22
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Ah, here we are with the equivocation: evolution = change + evolution = goo-to-you-via-the-zoo. Too all but the most fanatical evolutionists, it should be obvious that breaking an off-switch is not the same direction of changes needed to turn bacteria into biologists.
    What happened to the bacteria fits the Oxford dictionary definition of "evolve": "(With reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ...". The overwhelming majority of biologists would regard it as an example of evolution in action.

  8. #23
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Jono's complaint of equivocation here is nothing more than him committing a shifting of goal-posts fallacy. If the age of the evolution paper (2008) is really a problem I would point out that it has been 1994 since his last contribution to the scientific literature. Also Lenski's E coli experiments continue. See for example, Genetics June 1, 2015 vol. 200 no. 2 619-631

    Adaptation, Clonal Interference, and Frequency-Dependent Interactions in a Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia coli

    Rohan Maddamsetti, Richard E. Lenski and Jeffrey E. Barrick


    Abstract
    Twelve replicate populations of Escherichia coli have been evolving in the laboratory for >25 years and 60,000 generations. We analyzed bacteria from whole-population samples frozen every 500 generations through 20,000 generations for one well-studied population, called Ara−1. By tracking 42 known mutations in these samples, we reconstructed the history of this population’s genotypic evolution over this period. The evolutionary dynamics of Ara−1 show strong evidence of selective sweeps as well as clonal interference between competing lineages bearing different beneficial mutations. In some cases, sets of several mutations approached fixation simultaneously, often conveying no information about their order of origination; we present several possible explanations for the existence of these mutational cohorts. Against a backdrop of rapid selective sweeps both earlier and later, two genetically diverged clades coexisted for >6000 generations before one went extinct. In that time, many additional mutations arose in the clade that eventually prevailed. We show that the clades evolved a frequency-dependent interaction, which prevented the immediate competitive exclusion of either clade, but which collapsed as beneficial mutations accumulated in the clade that prevailed. Clonal interference and frequency dependence can occur even in the simplest microbial populations. Furthermore, frequency dependence may generate dynamics that extend the period of coexistence that would otherwise be sustained by clonal interference alone.

    Clearly the study of evolution is both experimental and historical. Which is all the original claim was saying anyway.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    What happened to the bacteria fits the Oxford dictionary definition of "evolve": "(With reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ...". The overwhelming majority of biologists would regard it as an example of evolution in action.
    Why argue that things change? Who denies that allele frequencies change over time? The problem is that this doesn't prove the idea, motivated by blind atheistic faith, that all living organisms evolved from a single-celled organism that itself came from non-living chemicals, aka the General Theory of Evolution.

    Your proposed definition also presupposes that natural selection is always the driving force of evolution, but not all evolutionists agree.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Why argue that things change? Who denies that allele frequencies change over time? The problem is that this doesn't prove the idea, motivated by blind atheistic faith, that all living organisms evolved from a single-celled organism that itself came from non-living chemicals, aka the General Theory of Evolution.

    Your proposed definition also presupposes that natural selection is always the driving force of evolution, but not all evolutionists agree.
    It's not my "proposed definition" - it's the dictionary definition!

    And you are the one who keeps bringing up this 'General Theory'. My claim was that you can conduct an experiment involving evolution (as defined in the Oxford Dictionary), which has now been proven. In this discussion, I haven't made any further claims about evolution.

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    It's not my "proposed definition" - it's the dictionary definition!
    Fine, but if that were the issue, there would be no anti-evolutionists!

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    And you are the one who keeps bringing up this 'General Theory'. My claim was that you can conduct an experiment involving evolution (as defined in the Oxford Dictionary), which has now been proven. In this discussion, I haven't made any further claims about evolution.
    Blame evolutionist Kerkut for the term. And you know perfectly well that this is the issue of dispute.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #27
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,582
    A bit confused what the meaning of ''Operational Science'' is. Is it same as ''Applied Science''?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,073
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    A bit confused what the meaning of ''Operational Science'' is. Is it same as ''Applied Science''?
    I checked it out here http://www.truthortradition.com/arti...orical-science, it states that past events sort of cannot be proven. Only assumptions can be made for example for evolution. But don't Creationists used historical science or something when assuming that Biblical heroes lived to a thousand years? That JC ascended to Heaven etc.? Jono expects to accept it a priori coz God can do anything no question marks. (are you transmitting from the MCC?)
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  14. #29
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Fine, but if that were the issue, there would be no anti-evolutionists!
    Did Augustine, Aquinas or Martin Luther believe that organisms: "develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ..."? If they did, they certainly didn't make it clear in their writings. That implies that it is possible to reject the idea of natural selection, and until Darwin, almost everyone did.

    The only reason there are (almost) no anti-evolutionists (using the Oxford definition) now is because everyone - even YECs - accepts Darwin's insight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Blame evolutionist Kerkut for the term. And you know perfectly well that this is the issue of dispute.
    Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - then Lenski's experiments are experiments in evolution? Until we agree on this, there is no point in discussing the 'General Theory'.

  15. #30
    Banned Hydra
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    84
    I have read this thread and am sad. You are all attacking Capafan. This is not good. CapAfan has a problem with wieghing evidence. It is a brain fault where all statements and evidence must be fitting desired answer or they are not true. You cannot talk about photography with a person blind from child. Cappafan should have you be kind to him. Needs care not kicking.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Science stories
    By Rincewind in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 510
    Last Post: 22-06-2019, 12:56 PM
  2. Matthew and Luke on the year of Jesus' birth (sf Science Stories)
    By Rincewind in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-02-2015, 07:50 PM
  3. Shortage of researchers, sf. Science stories
    By arosar in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 16-06-2014, 09:13 AM
  4. Religion and Science of Cosmology (s.f. Science Stories)
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 23-05-2013, 11:28 AM
  5. The Science Of Chess!!
    By Funiatra in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •