# Is there an edge to evolution?



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

Evolution cannot hold the weight that neo-Darwinist put upon it.

One example...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2501



> According to the prevailing theory of evolution, beneficial mutations acted upon by natural selection provide the driving force behind natureâ€™s production of new creatures. Of course, since mechanisms that reproduce genetic information in organisms are remarkably efficient, genetic modification by mutations are extremely rare. What is more, the overwhelming majority of mutations are so detrimental to the welfare of the mutant organism, the mutant dies or becomes a victim of predation before it has the ability to pass on its genes, and thus nature eliminates the mutation from the gene pool. Allegedly, in the rarest of cases, a â€œgoodâ€� mutation that confers an advantage on an organism slips into the gene pool. Since this â€œbeneficialâ€� mutation aids the organismâ€™s survival and reproductive ability, more offspring are produced that have the mutation. Supposedly, myriad millions of these types of mutations have accrued, by which single-celled bacteria have evolved, over billions of years, into humans. When asked why we do not see this process taking place before our eyes, we are told that it simply happens too slowly, is too gradual, and cannot be tested or witnessed in a single human generation, or even in hundreds of years.
> 
> What if, however, the process could be expedited? What if we could find some way to introduce exaggerated numbers of mutations into an organismâ€™s gene pool? Could we select the â€œbeneficialâ€� mutations and produce our own, humanly initiated, evolving creatures? If evolution was actually true, and we could find an organism that could be genetically manipulated satisfactorily, then we should be able to â€œreproduceâ€� evolution in a lab.
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

E. Coli.

Over 30,000 generations of e. coli have been studied, equivalent to about a million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced "mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that 30,000 generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery save the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
~Biochemist Michael Behe.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/behes-multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/



> I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> E. Coli.
> 
> Over 30,000 generations of e. coli have been studied, equivalent to about a million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced "mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that 30,000 generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery save the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
> ~Biochemist Michael Behe.



Devolution to me means less sophisticated maybe, but it's not moving backwards. It is doing all it needs to do. It's still here isn't it?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Devolution to me means less sophisticated maybe, but it's not moving backwards. It is doing all it needs to do. It's still here isn't it?



Yes, without any of it's basic makeup evolving.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Devolution to me means less sophisticated maybe, but it's not moving backwards. It is doing all it needs to do. It's still here isn't it?


I would call this "moving backwards", would you?


stringmusic said:


> E. Coli.
> 
> Over 30,000 generations of e. coli have been studied, equivalent to about a million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced "mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that 30,000 generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery save the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
> ~Biochemist Michael Behe.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

I really thought this thread would take off.

Nobody wants to debate what evolution can actually do?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

It is still E.Coli, no? It is surviving without it. Is our appendix a sign that we are moving backwards? No. It's not necessary for the life form, get rid of it, it's a waste. 

I've said it plenty of times here, think MACRO. This example, at least, is one organism doing it's thing. It may be losing complexity. That's because it can afford to. I can see how this particular organisms history is a bad example of evolution from single celled critters to any animal. And I don't have any example to open your eyes at hand... but this doesn't really do anything to the credibility of the overall idea of evolution... for me at least...

I have no specific faith or proof that life can do that, evolve that fully. I don't really buy that either. And I am comfortable saying I don't have any possibility that makes sense to me. I'm waiting for that.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It is still E.Coli, no? It is surviving without it. Is our appendix a sign that we are moving backwards? No. It's not necessary for the life form, get rid of it, it's a waste.


Yes, it is still E.coli, without _evolving_, but actually devolving.



> I've said it plenty of times here, think MACRO. This example, at least, is one organism doing it's thing. It may be losing complexity. That's because it can afford to. I can see how this particular organisms history is a bad example of evolution from single celled critters to any animal. And I don't have any example to open your eyes at hand... but this doesn't really do anything to the credibility of the overall idea of evolution... for me at least...


There is no evidence for macroevolution.

Here's a quote by astrophysicist and theoretical physicist Paul Wesson.



> Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, it is still E.coli, without _evolving_, but actually devolving.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for macroevolution.
> ...



I see absolutely no difference in the way you're using evolving and devolving. Getting more or less complex doesn't matter. Either way it's evolution. I heard someone say once that a black person "hating" a white person was "reverse" racism? No, it's racism. You can call it what you'd like if you feel the need to call it something different, but it's the same thing. 

I'm sorry that archaeology hasn't been able to find enough fossils of the same kind of an organism to set a 100 or even 1000 year timeline to paint a pretty enough picture for everyone. What I respect about it is that archaeology tries to... They don't just keep looking at the same fossils and saying the same things about them over and over. 


Answer this question please. Are humans "devolving" and becoming less complex now that we don't use our appedix?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I would call this "moving backwards", would you?


Continue your red highlight where it says it saves the bacterium energy. In other words it determined saving energy was more important than some (not all) of the sophisticated building blocks. That means more energy for the remaining building blocks. So no I don't call that moving backwards.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I see absolutely no difference in the way you're using evolving and devolving. Getting more or less complex doesn't matter. Either way it's evolution. I heard someone say once that a black person "hating" a white person was "reverse" racism? No, it's racism. You can call it what you'd like if you feel the need to call it something different, but it's the same thing.


 Definition of evolve (v)
Bing Dictionary
e·volve [ i vólv ]   1.develop gradually: to develop something gradually, often into something more complex or advanced, or undergo such development

Throwing away basic genetic material is not the same.




> Answer this question please. Are humans "devolving" and becoming less complex now that we don't use our appedix?


Have humans "repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA"?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Continue your red highlight where it says it saves the bacterium energy. In other words it determined saving energy was more important than some (not all) of the sophisticated building blocks. That means more energy for the remaining building blocks. So no I don't call that moving backwards.



Then read the next two sentences after that, with an emphasis on the last sentence.



> Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

Insects have developed an immunity to certain pesticides...microevolution.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I see absolutely no difference in the way you're using evolving and devolving. Getting more or less complex doesn't matter. Either way it's evolution. I heard someone say once that a black person "hating" a white person was "reverse" racism? No, it's racism. You can call it what you'd like if you feel the need to call it something different, but it's the same thing.
> 
> I'm sorry that archaeology hasn't been able to find enough fossils of the same kind of an organism to set a 100 or even 1000 year timeline to paint a pretty enough picture for everyone. What I respect about it is that archaeology tries to... They don't just keep looking at the same fossils and saying the same things about them over and over.
> 
> ...



Or the male nipple?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It is still E.Coli, no? It is surviving without it. Is our appendix a sign that we are moving backwards? No. It's not necessary for the life form, get rid of it, it's a waste.



Just because it is not necessary for life, does not mean that it doesn't enhance the survivability of life.  Sure, you can live without your appendix, but life is not easy without it.  Since mine was removed over 30 years ago, I can tell you that I have more problems with digestion than I ever did.  It was really bad when they first removed my appendix, but I have learned what my body can and can't digest easily now, and I avoid those things.

Next you will be claiming your tailbone is vestigial and doesn't do anything to help you either.


What String is putting out there for comment is the idea that if you leave things alone, they will decline in complexity and eventually they will cease to exist.  Evolution says the opposite. That left alone, things will go from simple to complex.  It just don't happen that way.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

Just FYI, I'm not trying to dismantle evolution or natural selection completely, just dispel some myths as it relates to neo-Darwinism.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

So I guess we'll cease to exist by devolving out to nothing? That was god's plan though....


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> Insects have developed an immunity to certain pesticides...microevolution.


Great observation. I'm not denying microevolution exists. It has been observed many times.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I would call this "moving backwards", would you?





stringmusic said:


> Then read the next two sentences after that, with an emphasis on the last sentence.


You mean where the writer is sad that it didn't build something of similar elegance but instead it chose to improve itself in the way it determined was best for itself?
And that because it didn't do what he thought it should do he determined it broke itself?
Gimme a break.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> What String is putting out there for comment is the idea that if you leave things alone, they will decline in complexity and eventually they will cease to exist.  Evolution says the opposite. That left alone, things will go from simple to complex.  It just don't happen that way.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Continue your red highlight where it says it saves the bacterium energy. In other words it determined saving energy was more important than some (not all) of the sophisticated building blocks. That means more energy for the remaining building blocks. So no I don't call that moving backwards.



Right, it was a waste. 

The e.coli that wasted energy on that isn't around any more and the e.coli that didn't waste the energy on it prevailed. It wasn't eat or be eaten in the jungle, it was be efficient or get out of the way. It did exactly what evolution says it should have...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Great observation. I'm not denying microevolution exists. It has been observed many times.



evolution on a large scale happens, it's just harder to visualize because we don't live with it every day.... and it's especially hard to visualize when you think the world has only been around a few thousand years...


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Evolution says the opposite. That left alone, things will go from simple to complex.  It just don't happen that way.



That is not what evolution says. Evolution means diversity. Elephants lose the ability to grow tusks. Sight loss in future generations of some animal because they live in a cave. A new genetic line that doesn't grow optical nerves, etc. They do not have to get more complex.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You mean where the writer is sad that it didn't build something of similar elegance but instead it chose to improve itself in the way it determined was best for itself?
> And that because it didn't do what he thought it should do he determined it broke itself?
> Gimme a break.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Right, it was a waste.
> 
> The e.coli that wasted energy on that isn't around any more and the e.coli that didn't waste the energy on it prevailed. It wasn't eat or be eaten in the jungle, it was be efficient or get out of the way. It did exactly what evolution says it should have...



There is no E. coli that did get rid of things and an E. coli that didn't get rid of things, there is just E. coli, and it doesn't evolve.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> It just don't happen that way.



Case in point. Things just doesn't...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


>


I addressed the last 2 sentences like you said. At least I think I did?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There is no E. coli that did get rid of things and an E. coli that didn't get rid of things, there is just E. coli, and it doesn't evolve.



You're right... The ones that didn't get rid of it aren't around any more... and today we're left with the e.coli that is.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> evolution on a large scale happens, it's just harder to visualize because we don't live with it every day....


I take it you can refute...





> Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.


By a respected astrophysicist and theoretical physicist?

And then give examples of macroevolution.




> and it's especially hard to visualize when you think the world has only been around a few thousand years...


Please stop, this has a chance to be a good discussion.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I addressed the last 2 sentences like you said. At least I think I did?



You lost me by talking about how the writer, who is a biochemist, was sad because the bacteria didn't do what he wanted it to do.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

The one you cited is an example. We've been talking about it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're right... The ones that didn't get rid of it aren't around any more... and today we're left with the e.coli that is.



Complete speculation that there were "ones that didn't get rid of it" because what we do know, and have observed over a million years, is that there is only E. coli the way we see it today.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

Did anybody read the first post?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Yes, only e.coli... Only e.coli that evolved... or de-volved. It's the SAME THING. You cited an example yourself!


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The one you cited is an example. We've been talking about it.


The one who cited is an example of what?

I haven't cited anything that is an example of macroevolution if that's what you're talking about.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Did anybody read the first post?



Obviously written by someone who wants the story of Genesis to be true... I'd rather stick to something with facts.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yes, only e.coli... Only e.coli that evolved... or de-volved. It's the SAME THING. You cited an example yourself!



It hasn't evolved, that's the point. It's basic genetic makeup is the same, over the past million years.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The one who cited is an example of what?
> 
> I haven't cited anything that is an example of macroevolution if that's what you're talking about.



You're right. You cited it as an example of macrodevolution of a particular organism. Then you say macroevolution doesn't happen.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Obviously written by someone who wants the story of Genesis to be true... I'd rather stick to something with facts.



It has plenty of facts. It even has references at the bottom of the link for your enjoyment.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Complete speculation that there were "ones that didn't get rid of it" because what we do know, and have observed over a million years, is that there is only E. coli the way we see it today.



E.coli does evolve.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345247/description/E_coli_caught_in_the_act_of_evolving
It doesn't have to change into a squirrel to evolve.

The ability of the Ara–3 E. coli to chow down on the alternative food source took at least three steps to develop, carried out over more than 13,000 generations. That’s the equivalent of a quarter-million years worth of human evolution in just five to six years of growth time in the lab. Step one, which the researchers call potentiation, set the stage for developing the citrate-eating ability. Bacteria as far back as generation 20,000 had the potential to evolve into citrate eaters, Blount found in earlier experiments.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're right. You cited it as an example of macrodevolution of a particular organism. Then you say macroevolution doesn't happen.



What? When have I used the word macrodevolution in this thread?

The entire point of the E. coli in this thread was to point out that even in a scientifically controlled environment, is hasn't changed in 30,000 generations.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You lost me by talking about how the writer, who is a biochemist, was sad because the bacteria didn't do what he wanted it to do.


 The last 2 sentences - 
Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
He thought the sophisticated building blocks were elegant. It didn't build more but instead had the audacity to shed some to save energy.
Wasn't elegant enough for him therefore he determined it broke itself.
I repeat, gimme a break.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> E.coli does evolve.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345247/description/E_coli_caught_in_the_act_of_evolving
> It doesn't have to change into a squirrel to evolve.
> 
> The ability of the Ara–3 E. coli to chow down on the alternative food source took at least three steps to develop, carried out over more than 13,000 generations. That’s the equivalent of a quarter-million years worth of human evolution in just five to six years of growth time in the lab. Step one, which the researchers call potentiation, set the stage for developing the citrate-eating ability. Bacteria as far back as generation 20,000 had the potential to evolve into citrate eaters, Blount found in earlier experiments.


I'm not seeing where E. coli evolved from something else, or into something else. They found out something else that it could eat.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> E. Coli.
> 
> ....has produced "mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that 30,000 generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA. A....



Both of those are examples of CHANGE.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not seeing where E. coli evolved from something else, or into something else. They found out something else that it could eat.







660griz said:


> It doesn't have to change into a squirrel to evolve.



......


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 5, 2013)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolve
e·volve  (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> The last 2 sentences -
> Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
> He thought the sophisticated building blocks were elegant. It didn't build more but instead had the audacity to shed some to save energy.
> Wasn't elegant enough for him therefore he determined it broke itself.
> I repeat, gimme a break.


You're putting thoughts in his head. You're insinuating things that are not implied, or said.

No mention of the word "audiacity" or anything "breaking".


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 5, 2013)

wow


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Both of those are examples of CHANGE.



Again, not denying that things change/evolve.

Just that we have no evidence of things changing on a macro scale, like a single celled organism evolving into a human.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not seeing where E. coli evolved from something else, or into something else. They found out something else that it could eat.



Yea. I have been down this road before. You have made up your own definition of evolution. Got it. Not going to argue with you about it. 

I have tried to convince folks we have been to the moon too. No go. 
I guess as long as everyone is happy in their world and don't try to wreck the other world...we are good to go.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Again, not denying that things change/evolve.
> 
> Just that we have no evidence of things changing on a macro scale, like a single celled organism evolving into a human.



I agree with that too. Which I think three of us have stated here... I really hope you weren't trying to prove we didn't evolve like that from e.coli... I definitely wouldn't try to prove we did with this example...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're putting thoughts in his head. You're insinuating things that are not implied, or said.
> 
> No mention of the word "audiacity" or anything "breaking".


 Now you are just pretending to be less than intelligent.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yea. I have been down this road before. You have made up your own definition of evolution. Got it. Not going to argue with you about it.
> 
> I have tried to convince folks we have been to the moon too. No go.
> I guess as long as everyone is happy in their world and don't try to wreck the other world...we are good to go.



How have I made up my own defintion?

Just because I don't buy into the neo-Darwinian definition doesn't mean I've made up my own defintion.

Evolution: beneficial change over time.

The entire point of this is not to deny evolution, but to point out that evolution cannot hold the weight of the claims that naturalist give it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I agree with that too. Which I think three of us have stated here... I really hope you weren't trying to prove we didn't evolve like that from e.coli... I definitely wouldn't try to prove we did with this example...


Where did I say that we evolved from E. coli? 

I'm using examples of how things do not change their genetic makeup over millions of years, including humans. I'm also saying there is no examples, nor has anything been observed that things evolve on the macro level. 

If things don't evolve on the macro level, then humans couldn't have evolved from primordial soup.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> like a single celled organism evolving into a human.



You said it....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

So you're not trying to say that this didn't happen with your e.coli?




stringmusic said:


> Evolution: beneficial change over time.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You said it....


You've got to be more specific.

I said there is no examples of evolution on the macro scale, an example would be human beings evolving from a single cell.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Just FYI, I'm not trying to dismantle evolution or natural selection completely, just dispel some myths as it relates to neo-Darwinism.



From the standpoint of not trying to dismantle evolution, I agree. Everything doesn't always evolve for the better. There is the probability of chance involved. I'm not familiar with neo-Darwinism but if they describe evolution as always something positive then I don't agree with it either.

In what way can or will we bring this into a religious debate? Devolution doesn't mean evolution isn't true.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you're not trying to say that this didn't happen with your e.coli?



Yes, it did happen. Just that the genetic makeup of E. coli stayed the same.

Just as the human genetic makeup has stayed the same, which goes more along the lines of being created, rather than evolving from primordial soup, because if we evolved from primordial soup, that would be considered macroevolution, which we have zero evidence of.

Follow my logic?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Now you are just pretending to be less than intelligent.



I stand by my post. You're making things up that are simple not there.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How have I made up my own defintion?


If I present evidence of e. coli evolving and you say it didn't evolve because it is still e. coli then that is a new definition of evolution.



> Just because I don't buy into the neo-Darwinian definition doesn't mean I've made up my own defintion.
> 
> Evolution: beneficial change over time.



Is this the definition you agree with or don't?



> The entire point of this is not to deny evolution, but to point out that evolution cannot hold the weight of the claims that naturalist give it.



Scientist give it pretty good weight. While they know better than say they have all the answers, they continue to study and perform experiments in order to give us answers and possibly be a benefit to mankind. See macro changes and explaining why they happen over millions of years is tough. I am still glad they don't just say, "Well, we need some long neck creatures to eat the leaves at the top and 'POOF', there is a giraffe."


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> From the standpoint of not trying to dismantle evolution, I agree. Everything doesn't always evolve for the better. There is the probability of chance involved. I'm not familiar with neo-Darwinism but if they describe evolution as always something positive then I don't agree with it either.
> 
> In what way can or will we bring this into a religious debate? Devolution doesn't mean evolution isn't true.



I'm showing the evidence for intelligent design by showing that evolution cannot bear the weight from the standpoint that everything was created by evolution, natural selection and mutation.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, it did happen. Just that the genetic makeup of E. coli stayed the same.
> 
> Just as the human genetic makeup has stayed the same, which goes more along the lines of being created, rather than evolving from primordial soup, because if we evolved from primordial soup, that would be considered macroevolution, which we have zero evidence of.
> 
> Follow my logic?



I wasn't using the term MACRO to refer directly to what you're talking about when I first said it. 

I am pretty sure that genetic makeup has changed somewhat, but may not. Either way, I see little evidence of what you (and me too for the part) would consider to be the a huge feat of evolution, which is us from soup. But obviously, you can't put us beside soup and see us develop in between... like you would see a baby develop from a fertilized cell.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm showing the evidence for intelligent design by showing that evolution cannot bear the weight from the standpoint that everything was created by evolution, natural selection and mutation.



Evolution may be able to carry the weight. We just can't substantiate it with that much evidence. Pretty much the same as your god doing it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> If I present evidence of e. coli evolving and you say it didn't evolve because it is still e. coli then that is a new definition of evolution.


How? Is a change in genetic makeup not a product of evolution on the macro scale?



> Is this the definition you agree with or don't?


I do agree with it.



> Scientist give it pretty good weight. While they know better than say they have all the answers, they continue to study and perform experiments in order to give us answers and possibly be a benefit to mankind. See macro changes and explaining why they happen over millions of years is tough. I am still glad they don't just say, "Well, we need some long neck creatures to eat the leaves at the top and 'POOF', there is a giraffe."


So are you waiting and hoping that scientist will one day affirm macroevolution or macromutation, or will you based your current conclusions off of what we know at the present time?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Everything doesn't always evolve for the better.



Give me an example of evolving for the worse? E.coli isn't one. It is still around and it's not the same as it used to be apparently. It just didn't turn in to a squirrel.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2013)

From a creation standpoint wouldn't devolution be just as wrong? God created everything as simple or complex as the way he wanted it. No human or animal has a right to evolve or devolve?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> E.coli isn't one. It is still around and it's not the same as it used to be apparently.



Is that what you've gotten out of all this, that E. coli has changed over millions of years?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> From a creation standpoint wouldn't devolution be just as wrong? God created everything as simple or complex as the way he wanted it. No human or animal has a right to evolve or devolve?



This is not a moral argument. Evolution is part of nature, which God created.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How? Is a change in genetic makeup not a product of evolution on the macro scale?


No, it is an example of evolution on a micro scale.




> So are you waiting and hoping that scientist will one day affirm macroevolution or macromutation, or will you based your current conclusions off of what we know at the present time?



I am definitely not waiting and hoping that they will one day affirm macroevolution. I have enough information to get me by for the rest of my life. Luckily, believing or not in evolution will not result in my eternal torture. 

We need more stem cell research. The great thing about being an infadel is that I can pick and chose what to believe based on my conclusions and logic and not based on whether it will interfere with another belief. 

Do you know we are all traveling about 10000 miles an hour right now? You can not prove this to anyone that doesn't want to know. My only difference is I want to know.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is not a moral argument. Evolution is part of nature, which God created.



There you go. Next topic. 
I think we could really knock these out if we put our minds to it. 

I'll make a long list of awesome stuff and you put God did it next to it. 
Why didn't we think of this before?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> From a creation standpoint wouldn't devolution be just as wrong? God created everything as simple or complex as the way he wanted it. No human or animal has a right to evolve or devolve?



By that argument, humans will fizzle out due to devolution one day...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I stand by my post. You're making things up that are simple not there.


Sorry String but I have to give up on you.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> No, it is an example of evolution on a micro scale.


I said it numerous times now, I'm not denying evolution on a micro scale.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> There you go. Next topic.
> I think we could really knock these out if we put our minds to it.
> 
> I'll make a long list of awesome stuff and you put God did it next to it.
> Why didn't we think of this before?



I know Art is a believer and therefor my answer to his question was based on the assumption that God is real.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry String but I have to give up on you.


That's fine. Whenever you want to point out to me in the post where he states the he is sad, or where he states the E. coli is broken, I'll be glad to finish the conversation with you.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I said it numerous times now, I'm not denying evolution on a micro scale.



So, as long as you can see it in your lifetime, it is true? 
I have no problem with that basis for most everything. 
Make em prove it...everything.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I really thought this thread would take off.
> 
> Nobody wants to debate what evolution can actually do?



I have posted links in other threads dealing with evolution. I don't have them saved in my bookmarks anymore but this stuff has been covered already.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> So, as long as you can see it in your lifetime, it is true?


We can see microevolution, we cannot see macroevolution, not even when in a controlled science lab and when interventing in the process.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have posted links in other threads dealing with evolution. I don't have them saved in my bookmarks anymore but this stuff has been covered already.



Well then, I need a refresher course.

BTW, when you post links, could you copy and past the most important parts as to give the jist of the argument? I understand that an entire argument is important, I'm just asking as a favor.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> We can see microevolution, we cannot see macroevolution, not even when in a controlled science lab and when interventing in the process.



I think agree that there isn't a great image of macroevolution  for you.... if there was, would you find disbelief in your god?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> We can see microevolution, we cannot see macroevolution, not even when in a controlled science lab and when interventing in the process.



We just don't live long enough. We have to go on fossil records etc. Crazy. Why can't they just have faith that evolution happened?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> We can see microevolution, we cannot see macroevolution, not even when in a controlled science lab and when interventing in the process.



Just because you can't see it means it doesn't exist?? 


If I could see a god made impact to my life, I could probably believe it on a larger scale. I can see evolution on a smaller scale, so I believe that it may be able to create complex life forms from less complex life forms.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Well then, I need a refresher course.
> 
> BTW, when you post links, could you copy and past the most important parts as to give the jist of the argument? I understand that an entire argument is important, I'm just asking as a favor.



I'd rather the reader get the entire story so nothing is missed than have question after question asked about when it has already been covered by the link provided.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Here's a question.... You say you never see macro evolution as in on celled critters to complex critters. A fertilized egg isn't a one celled critter but it's pretty small bit of nothing that turns in to a complex organism. Barring the "miracle" argument that I'm sure will come up, what else is that evidence of?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

You guys seem to be trying to leap too far too fast. 

You're trying to boil down 4.6 billion years of evolution, the path from amino acids to proteins to complex life, into one jump. 

Evolution doesn't go from single cell to humans in one jump, either. 

Macroevolution, to borrow the term, can be observed, but not in current frame. Meaning, if you want to see it, take a look at our own "past" if you subscribe to evolution. Neanderthals, Cro Magnons, Homo Erectus, and so on. Each had different traits and were intrinsically linked by the vast majority of their DNA. 

To expect to see evidence of evolution in real time and to be able to identify it as such is, I believe, a fool's errand. 

In the same vein as the question, "What is the difference between a Patriot and a Traitor," is the question "What is the difference between genetic mutant and newly evolved species?"

The answer is the same. Success and time. Only if an adaptation is successful does the owner get the chance to pass it to their progeny. Likewise, the test of that success is to spread it around and see if it gives an edge to the rest of the species. If it does it will become a dominant trait, but only when looked back upon; not forward. 

We can look forward and see niches that would benefit an animal, or even ourselves, if they should adapt it but that's a far cry from actually doing it. In other words, evolution is best observed on a long historical schedule rather than a human time scale, although exceptions to each can be observed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You guys seem to be trying to leap too far too fast.
> 
> You're trying to boil down 4.6 billion years of evolution, the path from amino acids to proteins to complex life, into one jump.
> 
> ...



Yyyyyyyyep!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin — Way Beyond

 Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, evolution has been widely accepted by scientists -- and, except for a few religious dogmatic types, the public -- as the blueprint for the engine of life.

But not every scientist thinks that evolution as it's now understood and applied is complete. They want to scale it up to the level of populations, even whole ecosystems. Moreover, they say evolution is intertwined with other dynamics that science is just starting to understand.

"The process of evolution is fundamental to the universe. Biology is the most obvious manifestation of it," said Carl Woese, a legendary microbiologist and one of the first proponents of this newly revised evolutionary framework.

Darwin described how changes in an organism are passed from generation to generation, dwindling or spreading through populations depending on their contribution to survival. Biologists later combined this with genetics, which had yet to be discovered in Darwin's time. The fusion -- called the modern evolutionary synthesis, or neo-Darwinian evolution -- describes evolution as we now know it: Genetic mutations produce changes that sometimes become part of a species' heritage and, when enough changes accumulate, produce new species.

But to Woese and others, change and selection need to be studied at other levels: A honeybee colony, for example, is as much an individual as a single bee. And when explaining how interacting units -- bees, or bacteria, or cells -- produce the qualities of the whole, change and selection alone might not suffice. What's needed is an understanding of the dynamics of complexity.

"There's nothing wrong with neo-Darwinian evolution in its own right," Woese said, "but it's not large enough to encompass what we know now."

Woese's specialty is bacteria, and he's not afraid of bold theories that turn conventional scientific wisdom on its head. In 1977, he and colleague George Fox rearranged the animal kingdom from five branches into three, two of which comprise microbes.

Microbes make up much of Earth's biomass, and they also cast into relief the shortcomings of neo-Darwinian evolution. A bucket of seawater can contain 60,000 bacterial species, and to Woese, these must be seen as a collective rather than as disparate units.

At the collective level, said Woese, bacteria exhibit patterns of organization and behavior that emerge suddenly, at tipping points of population variation and density called "saltations." Natural selection still favors -- or disfavors -- the ultimate outcome of these jumps, but the jumps themselves seem to defy explanation solely through genetic changes or individual properties.

Such jumps don't just call into question whether evolution is capable of producing sudden rather than gradual change. That debate raged during the later stages of the last century, but has been largely settled in favor of what paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould termed punctuated equilibrium. By contrast, Woese invokes yet-to-be-quantified rules of complexity and emergence. These, he said, may also explain other exceptional jumps, such as the transition from protein fragments to single cells and from single-celled organisms to multicellular ones.

But even bacterial communities resist framing in isolation. The human body, for example, contains nine bacterial cells for every cell of our own. There's no clear line separating our selves and our bacteria: We're walking ecosystems. The same blurriness exists when considering any collection of interacting organisms.

If these principles seem nebulous in a bacterial context -- microbes are, after all, invisible to the eye -- then the same principles can be discerned more clearly in the insect world, where some biologists now see certain species, especially honeybees and ants, as forming colonies that should be defined as self-interested organisms unto themselves.

In these so-called superorganisms, individual characteristics -- such as the chronologically varying reproductive stages of solitary female bees -- lay the foundations for highly complex organizations, such as honeybee hives in which different reproductive stages are assigned to separate worker castes.

According to Arizona State University evolutionary biologist Gro Amdam, until recently, scientists thought the division of labor had a genetic basis, but after scientists sequenced the honeybee genome, they couldn't find a trigger. Hyper-specialization seems to be an emergent property of the collective.

"That's a specific example of how a new pattern can be thrown into play," Amdam said. "You have an ordinary life cycle in an individual, but in a social context it's exploited by the colony."

The superorganism is still shaped by mutation and natural selection, but only recently have biologists, accustomed to thinking of evolution at the individual level, applied the superorganism concept to insects. It may very well have even broader applications.

"Man is the one who's undergoing this incredible evolution now," Woese said. "We see some in the insects, but the social processes by which man is evolving are creating a whole new level of organization."

But as with bacteria and people, how can a sharp distinction be drawn between a honeybee colony and the flowers that both nourish them and rely on them for pollination? And between the flowers and organisms that in turn rely upon them?

"Selection probably happens at all scales, from gene to individual to species to collection of species to ecosystem to we don't even know what," said Maya Paczuski, head of the Complexity Science Group at the University of Calgary.

Paczuski's group sees evolution as taking place at all these levels, with what happens in ecosystems rippling down to individuals, back up to populations, across to other populations, and so on -- all simultaneously, and in tandem with the mysterious dynamics of networked complexity.

But does it all happen mechanically? Or does evolution obey some larger imperative?

University of Nevada evolutionary biologist Guy Hoelzer calls that imperative biospheric self-organization. "The idea of evolution is embedded within self-organization," he said. "It coordinates the ecological roles of species so that ecosystems persist and process a great deal of energy."

Woese expanded the concept. "Evolution is a better version of the second law of thermodynamics, of time-zero, which implies that things are going to degenerate until even the atoms fall apart. But maybe that's not the way it's going to play out."

Such theories are still new and controversial. The scientific community at large may never accept them. But ideas do evolve, even Darwin's.

"I think Darwin would be happy as a lark to come back and see what's going on," said Peter Bowler, co-author of Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence. "He'd say, 'This is quite exciting!'"


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

660griz said:


> We just don't live long enough.


As I said... 


			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> not even when in a controlled science lab and when interventing in the process.





> We have to go on fossil records


We have no fossil records of macroevolution.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You guys seem to be trying to leap too far too fast.
> 
> You're trying to boil down 4.6 billion years of evolution, the path from amino acids to proteins to complex life, into one jump
> 
> Evolution doesn't go from single cell to humans in one jump, either.


That's not at all what I'm trying to do. I'm insisting that we have no evidence that a single cell evolves into many different, more complex things. As with the example of fruit fly's and E. coli.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Here's a question.... You say you never see macro evolution as in on celled critters to complex critters. A fertilized egg isn't a one celled critter but it's pretty small bit of nothing that turns in to a complex organism. Barring the "miracle" argument that I'm sure will come up, what else is that evidence of?



Are RNA and DNA in that fertilized egg?

Either way, the time it takes for a baby to develop is not an example of macroevolution, by defintion.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

Lehigh University is about 40 miles from me.
Here is their science departments position on Intelligent Design and Evolution.
string, Dr. Behe is a professor here and is specifically addressed.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
More about Behe


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin — Way Beyond
> 
> Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, evolution has been widely accepted by scientists -- and, except for a few religious dogmatic types, the public -- as the blueprint for the engine of life.
> 
> ...


Do we have any evidence of this?


> But to Woese and others, change and selection need to be studied at other levels: A honeybee colony, for example, is as much an individual as a single bee. And when explaining how interacting units -- bees, or bacteria, or cells -- produce the qualities of the whole, change and selection alone might not suffice. What's needed is an understanding of the dynamics of complexity.
> 
> "There's nothing wrong with neo-Darwinian evolution in its own right," Woese said, "but it's not large enough to encompass what we know now."
> 
> ...



 Great article, I'm not sure what it really has to do with what we're discussion. It doesn't seem to refute anything I'm claiming in this thread.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Lehigh University is about 40 miles from me.
> Here is their science departments position on Intelligent Design and Evolution.
> string, Dr. Behe is a professor here and is specifically addressed.
> 
> ...



So the University doesn't agree with him, I don't find that to be a problem. The funny thing is, I don't think Behe himself completely disagrees with Darwin and his observations.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's not at all what I'm trying to do. I'm insisting that we have no evidence that a single cell evolves into many different, more complex things. As with the example of fruit fly's and E. coli.



A single cell to a fruit fly, then; or to E. Coli? It's still too far. 

Try single cell to slightly better, or worse, adapted single cell and you might find what you're looking for. 

Evolution sometimes gets it right, sometimes it doesn't and the survival of the creature depends on it. There are fossil records of primitive humans, like Cromagnon and Neanderthal, living together at the same time. Would you be able to, sitting and looking each in the face, recognize that as evolution or as a different race? The differences were so minute, on an externally observable scale under those conditions, that it would have been hard just to see a difference, let alone recognize it as evolution. 

It seems, based on how hard you're sticking to macroevolution, string, and large jumps at that, that you're looking for the equivalent of a child being tomorrow with a horn in its head, whose parents had none. 

It's an unrealistic expectation, IMO.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

Part 1
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1

Part 2
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-2


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A single cell to a fruit fly, then; or to E. Coli? It's still too far.
> 
> Try single cell to slightly better, or worse, adapted single cell and you might find what you're looking for.
> 
> ...



I'm arguing that exact opposite of that. I'm saying there are no large changes at the basic level of any species.



> Well, as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small scale, but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits, not from either primeval soup or potatoes"


~Fred Hoyle


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm arguing that exact opposite of that. I'm saying there are no large changes at the basic level of any species.
> 
> 
> ~Fred Hoyle



My apologies then, I must have misunderstood something back there. I swear I thought I saw a post from you about how evolution was false because we couldn't draw that whole picture, or we couldn't observe an evolutional change on a large scale in real time.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Part 1
> http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1


Haven't gotten to part 2 yet, but here's part of one...



> Even in a controlled lab culture where bacteria are warm and well fed, the bug that reproduces fastest or outcompetes the others will dominate the population. Like gravity, Darwinian evolution never stops.
> 
> But what does it yield? … By now over thirty thousand generations of E. coli, roughly the equivalent of a million years in the history of humans, have been born and died in Lenski’s lab. Over the whole course of the experiment, perhaps ten trillion, 1013, E coli have been produced. Although ten trillion seems like a lot (it’s probably more than the number of primates on the line from chimp to human), it’s virtually nothing compared to the number of malarial cells that have infested the earth. In the past fifty years there have been about a billion times as many of those as E. coli in the Michigan lab, which makes the study less valuable than our data on malaria.
> 
> Nonetheless, the data has pointed in the same general direction. The lab bacteria performed much like the wild pathogens: A (sic) host of incoherent changes have slightly altered pre-existing systems. Nothing fundamentally new has been produced. No new protein-protein interactions, no new molecular machines. As with thalassemia in humans, some large evolutionary advantages have been conferred by breaking things… The fact that malaria, with a billion fold more chances, gave a pattern very similar to the more modest studies on E. coli strongly suggests that that’s all Darwinism can do.” (pp 141-142)


Here's what I'm trying to convey in this thread...


> Behe, then, appears to see “Darwinism” as capable of “breaking things” to gain an evolutionary advantage, but unable to produce “fundamentally new” things.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My apologies then, I must have misunderstood something back there. I swear I thought I saw a post from you about how evolution was false because we couldn't draw that whole picture, or we couldn't observe an evolutional change on a large scale in real time.


 No worries.

No sir, that's defintitely not my postition. I believe evolution to be true, on a micro scale. From what I've read, I don't see any evidence that evolution can actually create new species though, and that's my main point in this thread.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Haven't gotten to part 2 yet, but here's part of one...
> 
> 
> Here's what I'm trying to convey in this thread...



Yep, you need to get to part 2.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Haven't gotten to part 2 yet, but here's part of one...
> 
> 
> Here's what I'm trying to convey in this thread...



Define fundamentally new. 

Darwin's finches changed their beak size. It's not as dramatic as a second head with another beak sized for the task (hyperbole on fundamentally new), but it's a pretty obvious, and impactful, change.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yep, you need to get to part 2.



I'll get there, it may be tomorrow though. I've read a lot and I have probably 60-70 post today, almost 50 in this thread alone, I'm tired.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No worries.
> 
> No sir, that's defintitely not my postition. I believe evolution to be true, on a micro scale. From what I've read, I don't see any evidence that evolution can actually create new species though, and that's my main point in this thread.



Ever thought about pythons, I believe, and their vestigial legs?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Define fundamentally new.
> 
> Darwin's finches changed their beak size. It's not as dramatic as a second head with another beak sized for the task (hyperbole on fundamentally new), but it's a pretty obvious, and impactful, change.



That's actually being talked about in the book I'm reading, and I would consider it microevolution. Things change, slowly over time to better adapt to certian environments, but in the end(and I would argue in the beginning), they were still finches.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ever thought about pythons, I believe, and their vestigial legs?



Again, I'm not arguing that things don't adapt to different environments, they certianly do, I accept that, it doesn't hinder my faith in God at all.

We have evidence that pythons, at one time, may have had legs, but what we don't have, is evidence that a different species, or a different gentic makeup, evolved into a python.

Edit to add: I basing this off not calling a python with legs and a python without legs different species, they would still have the same genetic makeup.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are RNA and DNA in that fertilized egg?
> 
> Either way, the time it takes for a baby to develop is not an example of macroevolution, by defintion.



I agree... I was just throwing that out there was a question.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No worries.
> 
> No sir, that's defintitely not my postition. I believe evolution to be true, on a micro scale. From what I've read, I don't see any evidence that evolution can actually create new species though, and that's my main point in this thread.



It definitely does that... Different genetics, maybe not... I used to collect peacock bass... and in the 5 or so years that I did, about 6 new species were named. They existed over those years but I don't believe they were genetically different. They showed different colors and fins were slightly different. That is a slight divergence... That has happened over hundreds of years of different schools of the more exact same kind of fish living in different areas of South America. You're right, you won't see that evolution turning a fish in to squirrel... That is preposterous.... because we're thinking on a micro scale of time.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Define fundamentally new.
> 
> Darwin's finches changed their beak size. It's not as dramatic as a second head with another beak sized for the task (hyperbole on fundamentally new), but it's a pretty obvious, and impactful, change.



With evolution, you DON'T GET FUNDAMENTALLY NEW. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Like SH said, you won't see a child born with a horn in the middle of the forehead. You compare thousands of years apart and you see fundamentally new. If we had a fossil record of every single generation of the finch and run it backwards you'd see the beak size change... flip it back far enough... REALLY far... and you might see what you're looking for.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Again, I'm not arguing that things don't adapt to different environments, they certianly do, I accept that, it doesn't hinder my faith in God at all.
> 
> We have evidence that pythons, at one time, may have had legs, but what we don't have, is evidence that a different species, or a different gentic makeup, evolved into a python.
> 
> Edit to add: I basing this off not calling a python with legs and a python without legs different species, they would still have the same genetic makeup.



I call a python with legs something like a lizard..


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's fine. Whenever you want to point out to me in the post where he states the he is sad, or where he states the E. coli is broken, I'll be glad to finish the conversation with you.


Do you mean you wanted me to regurgitate back to you exactly what he said? Like cut and paste? What purpose does that serve? Ok so heres what he said -
Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post 
E. Coli.

Over 30,000 generations of e. coli have been studied, equivalent to about a million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced "mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that 30,000 generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery save the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
~Biochemist Michael Behe.
Now heres me using my own brain and words String - 
I already pointed that I didn't agree with you that throwing away molecular machinery was moving backward because its saves energy which then can be diverted to the remaining molecular machinery. 
Then you told me to focus on the last 2 lines particularly the last line. So here's those 2 lines String and I'll even separate them so we stay on the same page -

2nd to last line - Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built.

Now this me talking again String using my own brain and words -
He describes the molecular machinery as being elegant. That means he likes it, he approves of it, its attractive to him. He's being critical of the fact that the bacteria didn't produce more of it or something else as elegant as it. In fact the bacteria got rid of some of it. That's where I threw in it made him sad. Its a reasonable assumption but certainly my own opinion based on his disapproval. The reason it got rid of some was to save energy. But he didn't describe the saved energy as elegant, In fact he completely ignored the fact that the saved energy could be a positive. He did that on purpose. Why do you think that is? Now lets add in the last line - 

The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"

Me again String and heres where I answer your request to show you where he states that the E.coli is broken. Ready?
He said the lesson of the E.coli is its easier for evolution to break things than make things. If the article is about E.coli and the getting rid of the elegant molecular machinery, what "things" do you think he is talking about being broken?? Answer - E.coli. What "things" do you think he's saying were not made? Answer - something elegant like the molecular machinery. These aren't my opinions String these are his words. You could have read it and comprehended it for yourself just like I did.   Heres how I read it -
He wants to convince you that evolution failed in this case because it didn't make more elegant machinery and in fact reduced it. He wants to convince you that because of that it went backward. Again you aren't supposed to be smart enough to figure out that's probably a positive or it wouldn't have done it. That's why he doesn't mention any benefits of the saved energy. He didn't say they were any negatives which he surely would have done because that would back up his point. But he didn't. Because he couldn't. Now add in the fact that he is writing for an apologetics web site. Any bells going off String?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 5, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you mean you wanted me to regurgitate back to you exactly what he said? Like cut and paste? What purpose does that serve? Ok so heres what he said -
> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> E. Coli.
> 
> ...



so simple a caveman could get it!!       it's like going green for the simple


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I call a python with legs something like a lizard..





big one would be a komodo dragon


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I call a python with legs something like a lizard..



Whales still have remnants of hip bones.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 5, 2013)

Well now things make more sense String -
Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate.
That certainly explains why he wants you to believe that evolution failed doesn't it. What's sad is your fellow brother played you for a fool. He banked on the fact that you would just blindly shake your head up and down and say yeah yeah yeah without actually reading what he said and thinking about it in a critical manner. Which is exactly what you did. Despite his oh so impressive credentials it took about 10 seconds to rip huge holes in this argument. Hope that's not his best work String. Or yours.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> With evolution, you DON'T GET FUNDAMENTALLY NEW. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Like SH said, you won't see a child born with a horn in the middle of the forehead. You compare thousands of years apart and you see fundamentally new. If we had a fossil record of every single generation of the finch and run it backwards you'd see the beak size change... flip it back far enough... REALLY far... and you might see what you're looking for.



No you don't, there is no fundamentally new, there is only changes to the existing species.

The problem with that is many naturalists accept the fact that everything evolved from primordial soup, yet we have no evidence of that. We see microevolution all the time, and many people, including many scientist, extrapolate that into macroevolution.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I call a python with legs something like a lizard..


A python with legs is still genetically a python. 

Just like a human with no arms or legs is still a human.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you mean you wanted me to regurgitate back to you exactly what he said? Like cut and paste? What purpose does that serve? Ok so heres what he said -
> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> E. Coli.
> 
> ...



First, he's not writing for an apologetics website, he wrote a book.

The E. coli in fact did get rid of "sophisticated but costly molecular machinery " for energy and did not, could not, replace that machinery. Saving energy is a good thing, but not at the expence "genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA." So, a logical conclusion to come to is "The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"

I don't think he is sad about this. It's just a fact based of the experiment.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Whales still have remnants of hip bones.



.... and they're still whales.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Well now things make more sense String -
> Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate



And all other scientists are naturalists and advocate for that, what's your point?



> That certainly explains why he wants you to believe that evolution failed doesn't it.


He's a biochemist, and he accepts evolution. Not sure where you're getting this from? He's just explaing how evolution is not the be all end all that neo-Darwinists say it is.



> What's sad is your fellow brother played you for a fool. He banked on the fact that you would just blindly shake your head up and down and say yeah yeah yeah without actually reading what he said and thinking about it in a critical manner. Which is exactly what you did. Despite his oh so impressive credentials it took about 10 seconds to rip huge holes in this argument. Hope that's not his best work String. Or yours.


L......O.......L


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> .... and they're still whales.



Yes, now!!!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

Behe:
"Thanks to its enormous population size, rate of reproduction, and our knowledge of the genetics, the single best test case of Darwinian theory is the history of malria."

Behe points out that hundreds of different mutations conferring some resistance to malaria have occurred in the human genome and spread through our population by natual selection.

These mutations, he says, have been rightly hailed as some of the best examples of Darwinian evolution but the evidence also shows that there are 'radical limits on the efficacy of random mutation'. These studies have yielded unexpected results:
1) Darwinian processes are incoherent and highly constrained.
2)The battle of predator and prey (or parasite and host) which has often been portrayed by Darwinist writers as a productive arms-race cycle of the improvements on each side, is in fact a destructive cycle, more like trench-warfare, where conditions deteriorate.
3)Like a staggering drunk who falls after a step or two, when more than a single tiny step is needed for an evolutionary improvement, blind random mutation is very unlikely to find it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes, now!!!!!


Is there any evidence that they were not always whales? Because I would not consider the fact that at one time they may have had legs as evidence that they weren't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> First, he's not writing for an apologetics website, he wrote a book.
> 
> The E. coli in fact did get rid of "sophisticated but costly molecular machinery " for energy and did not, could not, replace that machinery. Saving energy is a good thing, but not at the expence "genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA." So, a logical conclusion to come to is "The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
> 
> I don't think he is sad about this. It's just a fact based of the experiment.


No String its not a fact until he proves that saving energy was bad and that discarding some (not all ) broke it. So you wanted me to show you things, you show me the scientific data in that article where he proves his claim that its broken.
And it is absolutely not a logical conclusion that it is broken. It is a logical conclusion that it changed itself.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No String its not a fact until he proves that saving energy was bad and that discarding some (not all ) broke it. So you wanted me to show you things, you show me the scientific data in that article where he proves his claim that its broken.
> And it is absolutely not a logical conclusion that it is broken. It is a logical conclusion that it changed itself.



He doesn't say that it's broken, he said that the process of evolution through E. coli shows that it's *easier* for evolution to breaks things. And I would consider "throwing away" it's basic genetic makeup is breaking it, along with changing it, for the worse.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> [/COLOR]
> And all other scientists are naturalists and advocate for that, what's your point?
> 
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I did String. But you've got your goggles on and cant see it.
He explained evolution is not the be all to end all from the view point of an intelligent design standpoint not a scientist standpoint. That's why he made no mention of the effect the saved energy would have. He called it broken and ended it there. If you don't see the problem with that I really cant help you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He doesn't say that it's broken, he said that the process of evolution through E. coli shows that it's *easier* for evolution to breaks things.


Wow.  How do you think he arrived at that conclusion? Because he viewed it as broken.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> That's exactly what I did String. But you've got your goggles on and cant see it.
> He explained evolution is not the be all to end all from the view point of an intelligent design standpoint not a scientist standpoint.


So now he's not explaining things from a scientific standpoint, yet he's a biochemist, because he believes in ID. Bias much?

Can I conclude, that because a particular scientist is an atheist/naturalist, they don't explain things scientifically either, but only explain things with their atheist goggles on through the view point of naturalism?



> That's why he made no mention of the effect the saved energy would have. He called it broken and ended it there. If you don't see the problem with that I really cant help you.



The effect was that it saved the energy so it could use it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He doesn't say that it's broken, he said that the process of evolution through E. coli shows that it's *easier* for evolution to breaks things. And I would consider "throwing away" it's basic genetic makeup is breaking it, along with changing it, for the worse.


I missed the part where he proved it was for the worst. Would you point that out to me? Thanks


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Behe:
> "Thanks to its enormous population size, rate of reproduction, and our knowledge of the genetics, the single best test case of Darwinian theory is the history of malria."
> 
> Behe points out that hundreds of different mutations conferring some resistance to malaria have occurred in the human genome and spread through our population by natual selection.
> ...



I think you are of the mind that everything that exists now was something else before and is going to turn into something else later. That MIGHT be true for a few species. You have to realize that most species have long been extinct. They got as far as they could with their changes and that was as far as they could make it. Things that are alive today are what they are because that is exactly what is needed to survive today. They branched off of the earliest version with other branches peeling off and other branches peeling off of those and each with minute changes over millions of years. Many if not most of those branches did not make it to today. Some things did. Some have changed drastically and some have not needed to change much if at all. This primordial soup did not start with one "adam" and one "eve" cell and everything doubled and tripled and kept going from there. There was a time on the planet when conditions got right for the available chemistry to make a giant leap forward in evolving ever so slightly, and all those successive ever so slight changes eventually added up into one major change. It literally took billions of years and most of the subjects didn't make it. Today your looking at what was able to.
That whale was hippo sized and running around on land at some point as was his cousin who never took to the ocean as was his cousin and on and on and on.
The e Coli may have no need to change and when forced may die out because they are at the pinnacle of what and where they need to be right now.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Wow.  How do you think he arrived at that conclusion?


Through an experiment. He's a biochemist.



> Because he viewed it as broken.


Because he viewed it as *breaking*, because it was. Throwing away basic genetic machinery, for whatever reason, is breaking Walt, it just is. You can call it simply changing, which it is, but it's also breaking it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So now he's not explaining things from a scientific standpoint, yet he's a biochemist, because he believes in ID. Bias much?
> 
> Can I conclude, that because a particular scientist is an atheist/naturalist, they don't explain things scientifically either, but only explain things with their atheist goggles on through the view point of naturalism?
> 
> ...


No you cant conclude that. What you can conclude is as soon as you see an Atheists opinions overshadowing scientific data that you should find a new source of information. And that's what you should be doing here.

Was the using of the saved energy positive or negative String? Your answer should be I don't know, he never said. He just said it was broken.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I missed the part where he proved it was for the worst. Would you point that out to me? Thanks


I don't know how he proved it, maybe he just assumed that throwing away basic genetic material is not good.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Through an experiment. He's a biochemist.
> 
> 
> Because he viewed it as *breaking*, because it was. Throwing away basic genetic machinery, for whatever reason, is breaking Walt, it just is. You can call it simply changing, which it is, but it's also breaking it.


Broken means doesn't work any more. If it uses the saved energy to be more efficient is it broken?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He doesn't say that it's broken, he said that the process of evolution through E. coli shows that it's *easier* for evolution to breaks things. And I would consider "throwing away" it's basic genetic makeup is breaking it, along with changing it, for the worse.



Not at all.. It's still here doing it's thing.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No you cant conclude that. What you can conclude is as soon as you see an Atheists opinions overshadowing scientific data that you should find a new source of information. And that's what you should be doing here.
> 
> Was the using of the saved energy positive or negative String? Your answer should be I don't know, he never said. He just said it was broken.



Breaking, ing, ing, breaking, he said it was breaking.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Broken means doesn't work any more. If it uses the saved energy to be more efficient is it broken?



No.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know how he proved it, maybe he just assumed that throwing away basic genetic material is not good.


Assumed is the key word String. That doesn't mean he proved it. That's why its not in his article. That's why he's depending on you just to believe his assumptions without requiring something more.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Not at all.. It's still here doing it's thing.



Ok?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Assumed is the key word String. That doesn't mean he proved it. That's why its not in his article. That's why he's depending on you just to believe his assumptions without requiring something more.



I said "maybe" he assumed, I'm sure he did not, but I don't know for sure. I'm going to assume, that since he is a respected biochemist, that he didn't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No.


Glad we agree. Can you use his article to show it didn't become more efficient which would prove his claim of it being broken? Again the answer is no.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I said "maybe" he assumed, I'm sure he did not, but I don't know for sure. I'm going to assume, that since he is a respected biochemist, that he didn't.


Bad practice String. If you are seriously looking for truth and facts that's the wrong way to go about it because you can be easily fooled.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No you cant conclude that. What you can conclude is as soon as you see an Atheists opinions overshadowing scientific data that you should find a new source of information. And that's what you should be doing here.


It was his conclusion, not his opinion. If you want to call his conclusion an opinion, that's fine, but you'll have to call every scientific conclusion you ever hear simply someones opinion.


> Was the using of the saved energy positive or negative String? Your answer should be I don't know, he never said. He just said it was broken.


Saving the energy was positive in the sense that it helped the bacterium survive, it was negative in the sense that it had to give up some up it's basic genetic machinery that makes it what it is. If it gives up too much of that machinery, to save energy, it ceases to exist and the saving of energy is a negative. It was stealing from Peter to pay Paul, play that cycle out over billions of years, and it's a negative.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Breaking, ing, ing, breaking, he said it was breaking.



The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"

Is that we said String?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Glad we agree. Can you use his article to show it didn't become more efficient which would prove his claim of it being broken? Again the answer is no.



See the second half of post #145


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Bad practice String. If you are seriously looking for truth and facts that's the wrong way to go about it because you can be easily fooled.



Don't listen to respected scientists, got it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
> 
> Is that we said String?



Yes, and you can conclude that he meant that E. coli was officially broken, or that by the example that it was throwing away it's genetic makeup is a process of "breaking" it.

He didn't conclude that E. coli no longer existed, just that it wasn't helping itself by throwing away genetic material, even at the expence of saving energy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> See the second half of post #145


Sure here it is -
Saving the energy was positive in the sense that it helped the bacterium survive, it was negative in the sense that it had to give up some up it's basic genetic machinery that makes it what it is. If it gives up too much of that machinery, to save energy, it ceases to exist and the saving of energy is a negative. It was stealing from Peter to pay Paul, play that cycle out over billions of years, and it's a negative. 
Key word is "if".
Also you are assuming its going continue giving up machinery over billions of years. Just wondering why it doesn't enter your mind that it might only shed enough machinery to achieve a balance of machinery and energy and continue on for billions of years?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> E. Coli.
> 
> Over 30,000 generations of e. coli have been studied, equivalent to about a million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced "mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that 30,000 generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery save the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
> ~Biochemist Michael Behe.



I've read about his.  John Lennox brings up this point in one of his books.  I'm of the opinion that there is a moderate amount of evidence for micro evolution in some cases, however little to no evidence of macro evolution.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, and you can conclude that he meant that E. coli was officially broken, or that by the example that it was throwing away it's genetic makeup is a process of "breaking" it.
> 
> He didn't conclude that E. coli no longer existed, just that it wasn't helping itself by throwing away genetic material, even at the expence of saving energy.


Sorry String but you are really starting to resemble a fence post to me and maybe that's my fault so lets just end it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure here it is -
> Saving the energy was positive in the sense that it helped the bacterium survive, it was negative in the sense that it had to give up some up it's basic genetic machinery that makes it what it is. If it gives up too much of that machinery, to save energy, it ceases to exist and the saving of energy is a negative. It was stealing from Peter to pay Paul, play that cycle out over billions of years, and it's a negative.
> Key word is "if".
> Also you are assuming its going continue giving up machinery over billions of years. Just wondering why it doesn't enter your mind that it might only shed enough machinery to achieve a balance of machinery and energy and continue on for billions of years?


Is there any evidence that might happen?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry String but you are really starting to resemble a fence post to me and maybe that's my fault so lets just end it.



Not sure I know what resembling a fence post means, but ok, we can end it, although I was actually enjoying the conversation very much.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've read about his.  John Lennox brings up this point in one of his books.  I'm of the opinion that there is a moderate amount of evidence for micro evolution in some cases, however little to no evidence of macro evolution.



 Yep.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

I like being a spectator to this thread.  It's very interesting watching the reactions of those who have tied their wagons to science and evolution for so long when the evidence from said fields begins pointing toward a different conclusion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Is there any evidence that might happen?


Now you want evidence? You've been vehemently defending an article that doesn't supply a shred of evidence to back up its claims and now you want evidence that there is more than one possibility of what something MIGHT do???
Its called critical thinking String. Give it a shot.
As for the fence post thing, a fence post is something that is not capable of critical thinking.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

The 5 stags of grief are all on display here.  Well maybe not the last one.....acceptance.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Now you want evidence? You've been vehemently defending an article that doesn't supply a shred of evidence to back up its claims and now you want evidence that there is more than one possibility of what something MIGHT do???
> Its called critical thinking String. Give it a shot.
> As for the fence post thing, a fence post is something that is not capable of critical thinking.



Denial


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I like being a spectator to this thread.  It's very interesting watching the reactions of those who have tied their wagons to science and evolution for so long when the evidence from said fields begins pointing toward a different conclusion.


No evidence was supplied that's why its being discarded.
If there is any in that article feel free to point it out, until then your above statement is just fooling yourself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Denial


Point out the evidence and I will absolutely say I was wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

Im waiting for the evidence in that article of the E. coli being broken guys.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Now you want evidence? You've been vehemently defending an article that doesn't supply a shred of evidence to back up its claims and now you want evidence that there is more than one possibility of what something MIGHT do???


"Not a shred of evidence" what do you want, Behe's notes from doing the experiment? 

An experiment was conducted which showed E. coli will throw away the genetic material that makes it E. coli to save energy. It was also shown that the baterium will not reproduce that genetic material or that it is somehow striving to find a "balance" of energy and genetic machinery. Therefor, the conclusion of the evolution of E. coli shows that the process is breaking the very foundation of what makes E. coli.



> Its called critical thinking String. Give it a shot.
> As for the fence post thing, a fence post is something that is not capable of critical thinking.


If this is all you've got left, maybe we do need to end this.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

Here I'll help you out. Theres the article. Highlight the evidence of the E.coli being broken. I'll wait some more.
Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post 
E. Coli.

Over 30,000 generations of e. coli have been studied, equivalent to about a million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced "mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that 30,000 generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thown away chunks of it's genetic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery save the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things than to make things"
~Biochemist Michael Behe.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The 5 stags of grief are all on display here.  Well maybe not the last one.....acceptance.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Here I'll help you out. Theres the article. Highlight the evidence of the E.coli being broken. I'll wait some more.
> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> E. Coli.
> 
> ...



There is no evidence of the E. coli being broken because that wasn't the conclusion of the experiment. There is evidence that the evolution of E. coli shows that it throws away fundamental genetic material.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "Not a shred of evidence" what do you want, Behe's notes from doing the experiment?
> 
> An experiment was conducted which showed E. coli will throw away the genetic material that makes it E. coli to save energy. It was also shown that the baterium will not reproduce that genetic material or that it is somehow striving to find a "balance" of energy and genetic machinery. Therefor, the conclusion of the evolution of E. coli shows that the process is breaking the very foundation of what makes E. coli.
> 
> ...


Yes thats evidence. Of change.
For it to be evidence of the E.coli being broken it would have to show that was a NEGATIVE change. To do that it would have to show that it needs that cast off genetic machinery to survive. Hint - E.Coli still exists.
Next?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

This is a fun thread to observe. What I find absolutely hilarious is all the religious folks demanding evidence. 
Sorry, just an observation. Carry on.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

Here, maybe you'll accept this...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/behes-multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/



> An interesting paper has just appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli”. (1) It is the “inaugural article” of Richard Lenski, who was recently elected to the National Academy. Lenski, of course, is well known for conducting the longest, most detailed “lab evolution” experiment in history, growing the bacterium E. coli continuously for about twenty years in his Michigan State lab. For the fast-growing bug, that’s over 40,000 generations!





> I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. So random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them, even when it helps an organism to survive. That’s a very important point. A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There is no evidence of the E. coli being broken because that wasn't the conclusion of the experiment. There is evidence that the evolution of E. coli shows that it throws away fundamental genetic material.


Ahhh now we are getting somewhere. If there is no evidence of the E. coli being broken then explain the last sentence where it specifically states that is was broken (i'm using the past tense of the word break because its proper grammar)


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> This is a fun thread to observe. What I find absolutely hilarious is all the religious folks demanding evidence.



Turnabout is fair play.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes thats evidence. Of change.
> For it to be evidence of the E.coli being broken it would have to show that was a NEGATIVE change. To do that it would have to show that it needs that cast off genetic machinery to survive. Hint - E.Coli still exists.
> Next?


Why do you refuse to admit that throwing away fudamental genetic material is not negative? It like a human throwing away chunks of DNA so it can live another few weeks, the inevitable is going to happen, and it's negative.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> This is a fun thread to observe. What I find absolutely hilarious is all the religious folks demanding evidence.
> Sorry, just an observation. Carry on.



Who's demanding evidence, and of what?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> This is a fun thread to observe. What I find absolutely hilarious is all the religious folks demanding evidence.
> Sorry, just an observation. Carry on. [/QUOTE
> Really its just an inconvenience. When you can use the authors own words to debunk himself it makes it fairly easy.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Turnabout is fair play.



Turnabout was expected. Fair? Not sure about that. Seems wishy washy to me. 

Why not apply the same principles as faith. I don't believe in evolution(Period) Evidence and logic mean nothing to me, I have faith evolution did not happen. That would be a proper christian response. 
(I think that really is the response it is just hidden in a lot of mumbo jumbo.)


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Who's demanding evidence, and of what?



Are you seriously going to make me copy and paste your words...and others?
Fine.

Couple examples:


> Stringmusic wrote:There is no evidence of the E. coli being broken because that wasn't the conclusion of the experiment





> SFD wrote: however little to no evidence of macro evolution.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ahhh now we are getting somewhere. If there is no evidence of the E. coli being broken then explain the last sentence where it specifically states that is was broken (i'm using the past tense of the word break because its proper grammar)



We've discussed this. http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7984675&postcount=149

Also post #169....


> I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. So random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them, even when it helps an organism to survive. That’s a very important point. A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell.


"Breaking" genes and an entire baterium being "broke" are two different things.

You continually insist that Behe's conclusion is that E. coli "broke" itself when he clearly referred to the process of evolution through E. coli that was breaking something. He never inferred that E. coli was broken, or no longer existed. 

I really would like to not have to type that again.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you refuse to admit that throwing away fudamental genetic material is not negative? It like a human throwing away chunks of DNA so it can live another few weeks, the inevitable is going to happen, and it's negative.


Your 1st question - because he showed absolutely no evidence of that.
Why do you refuse to admit that doing that to save energy can be a positive? Note I used the word can not is.
Your 2nd statement - Cant respond to that. Show me where its been proven that throwing away chunks of DNA will kill a human in a few weeks and also that its inevitable and Ill research it. But I would like to point that's not a good comparison because the E.coli didn't die in a few weeks nor has it been proven that it is inevitable.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> Are you seriously going to make me copy and paste your words...and others?
> Fine.
> 
> Couple examples:



Of me coming in this thread demanding evidence, yes.


If you're referring to my post at the end of page 3, I was asking Walt if there was evidence of something he referred to that was not in the experiment. I wouldn't call that demanding evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> Are you seriously going to make me copy and paste your words...and others?
> Fine.
> 
> Couple examples:



And how is that demanding evidence?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Of me coming in this thread demanding evidence, yes.



That's it. Not only you but, others.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> Why not apply the same principles as faith.



Because "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  The first principle of the scientific method , however, is observation.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And how is that demanding evidence?



You mean cause the word 'demand' is not in there? 
Hmmm. Not sure I can really answer that question. Maybe demand was too strong. Caused a little defensive posture. How about "asked politely for evidence"? 
Too me, it is looking like a christian not believing something because of lack of evidence. Sorry if I am mistaken. Feel free to correct my perception. However, if my perception is correct, I found it amusing. 



stringmusic said:


> From what I've read, I don't see any evidence that evolution can actually create new species though, and that's my main point in this thread.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Here, maybe you'll accept this...
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/behes-multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/


Another Intelligent Design website String? I automatically reject it because it has an agenda. Just like I would automatically reject an Atheist website on the subject. Vastly increased odds of either of them presenting their results in a favorable light for their agenda.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Your 1st question - because he showed absolutely no evidence of that.


Again, see post #169, it's observations from an experiment. Are they going to need to come to you house and reproduce the entire experiment for you to believe it's evidence?



> Why do you refuse to admit that doing that to save energy can be a positive? Note I used the word can not is.


Because if something continually gives up genetic material, it will no longer exist.



> Your 2nd statement - Cant respond to that. Show me where its been proven that throwing away chunks of DNA will kill a human in a few weeks and also that its inevitable and Ill research it. But I would like to point that's not a good comparison because the E.coli didn't die in a few weeks nor has it been proven that it is inevitable.


The point was that throwing away chunks of DNA in a human, without replacing it, will eventually kill, not necessarily in a couple of weeks.

It is logical that E. coli someday would not exist because over a million year period, it only devolved by throwing away chunks of genetic material, even if to save energy.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> That's it. Not only you but, others.


"I want evidence!"  "Show me evidence!"  "I demand evidence!"

These are examples of demanding evidence.

This:


			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> There is no evidence of the E. coli being broken because that wasn't the conclusion of the experiment


is exactly what is says. It's an assertion that there is no evidence.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Because "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  The first principle of the scientific method , however, is observation.



Thank you. My point was religion = faith
Religion asking for evidence is amusing since when religion is asked for evidence, it is just faith or ONLY observation. 
But you knew my point. Nice deflection though. 

In a broader view, "These folks that believe in mythical beings is asking for hard evidence of evolution." That is funny to me.  Would evidence of evolution change religious views or would it be dismissed as not real evidence? I think it would just be dismissed.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "I want evidence!"  "Show me evidence!"  "I demand evidence!"
> 
> These are examples of demanding evidence.
> 
> ...



Oh kee doke. You got me. I was way off.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> You mean cause the word 'demand' is not in there?
> Hmmm. Not sure I can really answer that question. Maybe demand was too strong. Caused a little defensive posture. How about "asked politely for evidence"?
> Too me, it is looking like a christian not believing something because of lack of evidence. Sorry if I am mistaken. Feel free to correct my perception. However, if my perception is correct, I found it amusing.



Ok, so I see no evidence that evolution can create things. I do see evidence of God.

You see evidence of God too, but you reject it as not good evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Another Intelligent Design website String? I automatically reject it because it has an agenda. Just like I would automatically reject an Atheist website on the subject. Vastly increased odds of either of them presenting their results in a favorable light for their agenda.


I understand. At least accept the experiment of E. coli referenced in the article as evidence of where Behe's claims come from. See the first quote in post #169.

You said there was zero evidence to back up his claims, and a very large, very lengthy experiment took place that corroberate his claims.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> Thank you. My point was religion = faith
> Religion asking for evidence is amusing since when religion is asked for evidence, it is just faith or ONLY observation.
> But you knew my point. Nice deflection though.
> 
> In a broader view, "These folks that believe in mythical beings is asking for hard evidence of evolution." That is funny to me.  Would evidence of evolution change religious views or would it be dismissed as not real evidence? I think it would just be dismissed.


Exactly like what's going on in this thread.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Again, see post #169, it's observations from an experiment. Are they going to need to come to you house and reproduce the entire experiment for you to believe it's evidence?
> 
> 
> Because if something continually gives up genetic material, it will no longer exist.
> ...


1.Our entire conversation has been about a specific article by a specific author. I see none of that post contained in that article. Do you? Or are you conceding that the author and article does not contain the evidence it needs to back up its claims and you have to move on to a different article to try to accomplish that?
2. Makes sense to me. Is it a fact that it CONTINUALLY does that? What if it doesn't?
3. That makes sense to me. But just making sense to me is not enough. Could you supply me with the research data you used to present that fact? I'd like to learn more about it.
4. I would agree if its shown that the saved energy isn't a positive and throwing  away some of its chunks will kill it. Has that been shown?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so I see no evidence that evolution can create things. I do see evidence of God.
> 
> You see evidence of God too, but you reject it as not good evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> 1.Our entire conversation has been about a specific article by a specific author. I see none of that post contained in that article. Do you? Or are you conceding that the author and article does not contain the evidence it needs to back up its claims and you have to move on to a different article to try to accomplish that?


You seemed to indicate that there is no evidence for Behe's conclusions, I showed you the evidence of the experiment and what happened in that experiment.



> 2. Makes sense to me. Is it a fact that it CONTINUALLY does that? What if it doesn't?


Then I guess it only throws away genetic material every now and then. It been shown that it does indeed throw it away, and it's been shown that it does not/can not make more.



> 3. That makes sense to me. But just making sense to me is not enough. Could you supply me with the research data you used to present that fact? I'd like to learn more about it.


That humans can't live without genetic material? It's true, trust me. 



> 4. I would agree if its shown that the saved energy isn't a positive. Has that been shown?


I've already explained that. I gave a very logical argument showing that it is a positive in the short term, but at the expense of "breaking" the baterium in the long term.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


>



The bible is evidence of God.


Don't like it? Reject it as not good evidence?

Fine, but it's evidence.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2013)

The E. Coli pricked my heart and now I believe.   It also made me stop watching anime porn.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The bible is evidence of God.
> 
> 
> Don't like it? Reject it as not good evidence?
> ...



Oh my.....


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> The E. Coli pricked my heart and now I believe.   It also made me stop watching anime porn.





ambush80 said:


> Oh my.....



Now the discussion is gettin' really good.....


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You seemed to indicate that there is no evidence for Behe's conclusions, I showed you the evidence of the experiment and what happened in that experiment.
> 
> 
> Then I guess it only throws away genetic material every now and then. It been shown that it does indeed throw it away, and it's been shown that it does not/can not make more.
> ...


1. So your answer is yes you are conceding you had to go to another article. That confirms my position that THIS author in THIS article did NOT provide evidence to back up his claims.
2. Yes we can only guess. Yes it shows that is hasn't made more. Not that it cant only that it hasn't at this point.
3. Drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels every day is good for you. Its true. Trust me.
4. This is an interesting one because it provides an opportunity for some critical thinking. A. We know it can change itself because it has. 
B. It determined for itself its top priority was saving energy because that's the change it made.
C. Now heres the fun part - it accomplished priority 1 saving energy. Wouldn't it be a hoot if priority 2 was to use that saved energy to repair any damage it may have done or even strengthen the remaining machinery so it doesn't need any more? Ahhhhh the possibilities....


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> 1. So your answer is yes you are conceding you had to go to another article. That confirms my position that THIS author in THIS article did NOT provide evidence to back up his claims.
> 2. Yes we can only guess. Yes it shows that is hasn't made more. Not that it cant only that it hasn't at this point.
> 3. Drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels every day is good for you. Its true. Trust me.
> 4. This is an interesting one because it provides an opportunity for some critical thinking. A. We know it can change itself because it has.
> ...



Either way I think if you want it to, it points to that "Allah Hu Akbar!" is true.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Either way I think if you want it to, it points to that "Allah Hu Akbar!" is true.


Yeah for some folks that's certainly true.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> 1. So your answer is yes you are conceding you had to go to another article. That confirms my position that THIS author in THIS article did NOT provide evidence to back up his claims.


Look at the article in post #169, then look at the article in post #3. If you're refering to post #2, that wasn't from an article, it was from a book in which I do not have.


> 2. Yes we can only guess. Yes it shows that is hasn't made more. Not that it cant only that it hasn't at this point.


That it hasn't, in over a _million_ years. Is that evidence that it doesn't, or does recreate genetic material?


> 3. Drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels every day is good for you. Its true. Trust me.


You're asking me to show you proof that humans need DNA to survive. Try asking it out loud.


> 4. This is an interesting one because it provides an opportunity for some critical thinking. A. We know it can change itself because it has.


We know that it can give up it's essential genetic material, that is a change, and it's negative. 


> B. It determined for itself its top priority was saving energy because that's the change it made.


Now your giving E. coli consciouness and a mind? Maybe the environment it's around forces it to do what it did.


> C. Now heres the fun part - it accomplished priority 1 saving energy. Wouldn't it be a hoot if priority 2 was to use that saved energy to repair any damage it may have done or even strengthen the remaining machinery so it doesn't need any more? Ahhhhh the possibilities....


But it didn't repair any damages, it threw away machinery and that was that.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Either way I think if you want it to, it points to that "Allah Hu Akbar!" is true.



Now you're really gettin' down to the nitty gritty of this evolution discussion Ambush! But we're not discussing different Gods in this thread.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

Let's discuss post #1. LOL


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Now you're really gettin' down to the nitty gritty of this evolution discussion Ambush! But we're not discussing different Gods in this thread.




Allah is the One True God.  Don't you know that, silly?  Says it right here in this book.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

Anybody want to discuss this?
Passage from the book: "God's undertaker; Has science buried God?"


> By means of a mutation involving the shift of two amino-acids, malaria has developed resistance to the drug chloroquine. The odds against this happening are about one in one hundred billion, billion (1 in 1020); yet it did happen, because there is a vast number of parasitic cells in an infected person’s body (about a trillion) and about a billion infected people in the world each year. Behe calls mutation clusters of this degree of complexity CCC-clusters (chloroquine-complexity clusters). He calculates that we would have to wait a hundred million times ten million years, which is many hundreds of thousands of times the age of the universe, before such a mutation occurred in the very much “smaller population of human beings.
> He deduces that one would not expect a double CCC (that is a mutation cluster twice as complex as a CCC) to show up as the result of a Darwinian process at any stage in the history of life on earth. ‘So if we do find features of life that would have required a double CCC or more, then we can infer that they likely did not arise as a result of a Darwinian process.’ He then argues in detail that ‘life is bursting with such features’,37 giving as just one of his impressive examples the elegant control systems, or genetic regulatory networks, which are involved in the construction of animal bodies.38
> He draws an interesting parallel. ‘Just as nineteenth-century physics presumed light to be carried by the ether, so modern Darwinian biology postulates random mutation and natural selection constructed the elaborate machinery of the cell. Unfortunately the inability to test the theory has hampered its critical appraisal and led to rampant speculation. Nevertheless, although we would certainly have wished otherwise, in just the past fifty years nature herself has ruthlessly conducted the biological equivalent of the Michelson-Morley39 experiment. Call “planet looking for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to build coherent biological machinery and has found absolutely nothing.
> ‘Why no trace of the fabled blind watchmaker? The simplest explanation is that, like the ether, the blind watchmaker does not exist.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Look at the article in post #169, then look at the article in post #3. If you're refering to post #2, that wasn't from an article, it was from a book in which I do not have.
> 
> That it hasn't, in over a _million_ years. Is that evidence that it doesn't, or does recreate genetic material?
> 
> ...


Ok String this is the last post for me. You are asking the same questions over and over, ignoring the answers over and over and then asking the same questions but in a different way over and over. Its tiring, fruitless and not fun at all. You've got me trapped on the merry-go-round that you are so well known for creating and the only intelligent thing to do is get off the ride. So here it is, if you don't get it or want to get it or refuse to get it well sorry.
1. AGAIN  I have commented on ONE and only ONE article that you posted. I have reposted that same article at least 5 times to try to keep you on track. I don't care if you have posted 50 different articles or have a library full of books. From the beginning to the end of our conversation I have commented on ONE. 
2. Yes that is evidence that it does not or has not yet. It is also evidence that it has not needed to to survive. You keep laying that out as evidence of failure while completely ignoring the fact that, to use your own number, for over a million years it didn't die because of that.
3. String you have morphed this question numerous times. From throwing off chunks at first, then to no DNA at all, first it will kill you in 20 years then maybe not 20 years but some other amount of years. To begin with its a mute point that has no bearing on the subject at hand.
4.Once again you insist its a negative. If the energy it saved has a more positive effect on it than the, in your view, negative change then its a positive. For the life of me I cant understand how you don't grasp that concept.
5. Oh String you make simplest things so difficult. The environment around it doesn't force it to change, it adapts to its environment. Kind of like you go to Alaska. Its 10 degrees. So you put a coat on so you don't freeze to death. Did the 10 degrees FORCE you to change or did you adapt to the 10 degrees by putting the coat on? You had a choice.
6. Yes it threw away SOME of its machinery. You keep ignoring the fact that it didn't throw away all its machinery.
It didn't die. Its still here. Like you said for a million years. A thinking person might say well so far it hasn't needed that machinery that it threw away. So far it looks the energy it saved was more important than the machinery it got rid of. 
Now this is where I get off the merry-go-round of nonsense.  Have a great day String.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The bible is evidence of God.
> 
> 
> Don't like it? Reject it as not good evidence?
> ...



Doesn't ever strike you odd that an omnipotent being couldn't write his own book?
Just one of those things that make you go, hmmmmm.
Sorry, one of those things that make me go, hmmmmm.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok String this is the last post for me. You are asking the same questions over and over, ignoring the answers over and over and then asking the same questions but in a different way over and over. Its tiring, fruitless and not fun at all. You've got me trapped on the merry-go-round that you are so well known for creating and the only intelligent thing to do is get off the ride. So here it is, if you don't get it or want to get it or refuse to get it well sorry.
> 1. AGAIN  I have commented on ONE and only ONE article that you posted. I have reposted that same article at least 5 times to try to keep you on track. I don't care if you have posted 50 different articles or have a library full of books. From the beginning to the end of our conversation I have commented on ONE.
> 2. Yes that is evidence that it does not or has not yet. It is also evidence that it has not needed to to survive. You keep laying that out as evidence of failure while completely ignoring the fact that, to use your own number, for over a million years it didn't die because of that.
> 3. String you have morphed this question numerous times. From throwing off chunks at first, then to no DNA at all, first it will kill you in 20 years then maybe not 20 years but some other amount of years. To begin with its a mute point that has no bearing on the subject at hand.
> ...



If you're done with it, I won't bother to respond to any of this. Have a great day yourself.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> Doesn't ever strike you odd that an omnipotent being couldn't write his own book?
> Just one of those things that make you go, hmmmmm.
> Sorry, one of those things that make me go, hmmmmm.



Who says God can't write his own book?


God used people to write the bible through His revelation, that doesn't mean He couldn't write a book.

Topic for another thread.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok String this is the last post for me. You are asking the same questions over and over, ignoring the answers over and over and then asking the same questions but in a different way over and over. Its tiring, fruitless and not fun at all. You've got me trapped on the merry-go-round that you are so well known for creating and the only intelligent thing to do is get off the ride. So here it is, if you don't get it or want to get it or refuse to get it well sorry.
> 1. AGAIN  I have commented on ONE and only ONE article that you posted. I have reposted that same article at least 5 times to try to keep you on track. I don't care if you have posted 50 different articles or have a library full of books. From the beginning to the end of our conversation I have commented on ONE.


I said I wouldn't respond to any of this but this one drives me crazy.

You've commented, and copied and pasted, an excerpt from a book that was posted in post #2

The same article that was posted in post #3 was posted in post number #169.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Who says God can't write his own book?
> 
> 
> God used people to write the bible through His revelation, that doesn't mean He couldn't write a book.
> ...



I say he couldn't write his own book. Show me any evidence at all that God could write. Or even color inside the lines. Why go through man, when he can't keep a story straight for 10 minutes much less many years, when you could just blink, nod, whatever and presto, perfect book?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> I say he couldn't write his own book. Show me any evidence at all that God could write. Or even color inside the lines. Why go through man, when he can't keep a story straight for 10 minutes much less many years, when you could just blink, nod, whatever and presto, perfect book?



Like I said, great topic for another thread. This one has stayed suprisingly on topic.

Start a thread, and I'll be glad to participate.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The bible is evidence of God.
> 
> 
> Don't like it? Reject it as not good evidence?
> ...



Just like the Harry Potter books are evidence of flying wizards.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok String this is the last post for me. You are asking the same questions over and over, ignoring the answers over and over and then asking the same questions but in a different way over and over. Its tiring, fruitless and not fun at all. You've got me trapped on the merry-go-round that you are so well known for creating and the only intelligent thing to do is get off the ride. So here it is, if you don't get it or want to get it or refuse to get it well sorry.
> 1. AGAIN  I have commented on ONE and only ONE article that you posted. I have reposted that same article at least 5 times to try to keep you on track. I don't care if you have posted 50 different articles or have a library full of books. From the beginning to the end of our conversation I have commented on ONE.
> 2. Yes that is evidence that it does not or has not yet. It is also evidence that it has not needed to to survive. You keep laying that out as evidence of failure while completely ignoring the fact that, to use your own number, for over a million years it didn't die because of that.
> 3. String you have morphed this question numerous times. From throwing off chunks at first, then to no DNA at all, first it will kill you in 20 years then maybe not 20 years but some other amount of years. To begin with its a mute point that has no bearing on the subject at hand.
> ...



Yes, I'm gonna say it...here it goes....
THANK GOD someone else noticed the constant merry go round.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes, I'm gonna say it...here it goes....
> THANK GOD someone else noticed the constant merry go round.



LOL, I actually thought the same thing to myself, "He just keeps saying the same thing over and over again"


See post #204

I tried.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, I actually thought the same thing to myself, "He just keeps saying the same thing over and over again"
> 
> 
> See post #204
> ...



 "He" is You.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok String this is the last post for me. You are asking the same questions over and over, ignoring the answers over and over and then asking the same questions but in a different way over and over. Its tiring, fruitless and not fun at all. You've got me trapped on the merry-go-round that you are so well known for creating and the only intelligent thing to do is get off the ride. So here it is, if you don't get it or want to get it or refuse to get it well sorry.
> 1. AGAIN  I have commented on ONE and only ONE article that you posted. I have reposted that same article at least 5 times to try to keep you on track. I don't care if you have posted 50 different articles or have a library full of books. From the beginning to the end of our conversation I have commented on ONE.
> 2. Yes that is evidence that it does not or has not yet. It is also evidence that it has not needed to to survive. You keep laying that out as evidence of failure while completely ignoring the fact that, to use your own number, for over a million years it didn't die because of that.
> 3. String you have morphed this question numerous times. From throwing off chunks at first, then to no DNA at all, first it will kill you in 20 years then maybe not 20 years but some other amount of years. To begin with its a mute point that has no bearing on the subject at hand.
> ...



I like you string. I honestly do. But Walt said many similar things that I have said to you lately on here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 6, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Im waiting for the evidence in that article of the E. coli being broken guys.



I would suggests the point has been missed completely.  The underlying assertion is that for macro evolution to take place variation must occur within the gene pool.  I don't think anyone would refute that.  It's a fundamental premise of evolution( however given the propensity of some on this board to deny even the obvious, who knows).

Anyway, that being agreed upon, the take home from point from the authors discussion of the study was that VARIATION was lost, not gained as the generations progressed.  The point of conservation of energy is moot.  You simply cannot increase variation by losing genetic material no matter how much energy is conserved no more than you can win a gun battle by missing faster.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would suggests the point has been missed completely.  The underlying assertion is that for macro evolution to take place variation must occur within the gene pool.  I don't think anyone would refute that.  It's a fundamental premise of evolution( however given the propensity of some on this board to deny even the obvious, who knows).
> 
> Anyway, that being agreed upon, the take home from point from the authors discussion of the study was that VARIATION was lost, not gained as the generations progressed.  The point of conservation of energy is moot.  You simply cannot increase variation by losing genetic material no matter how much energy is conserved no more than you can win a gun battle by missing faster.



The gun battle thing.......
Plenty of people have surrendered when they faced superior overwhelming firepower yet were not hit with a single round. While not the norm it has happened.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "He" is You.





bullethead said:


> I like you string. I honestly do. But Walt said many similar things that I have said to you lately on here.



I don't want to get into a battle of "I know you are but what am I", but, I wouldn't have to continue saying the same things over and over again if Walt(or you) weren't also saying the same things over and over again.

He asked the same questions many times, and I answered them with the same answers many times, yet I'm the one that get's blamed for being repetitive?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

Hey String -
I was getting really frustrated yesterday and got unnecessarily short with you and I want to apologize to you for that. No I'm not saying I want to continue the conversation, Im just saying my attitude may have gotten a little nasty and I am sorry.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey String -
> I was getting really frustrated yesterday and got unnecessarily short with you and I want to apologize to you for that. No I'm not saying I want to continue the conversation, Im just saying my attitude may have gotten a little nasty and I am sorry.



Thanks very much Walt. 

I know some of these kinds of discussions can bring out different emotions, I'm guilty of it myself. And it doesn't help that I'm hard headed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And it doesn't help that I'm hard headed.


String that is one belief that you have that I agree with 100% .


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> String that is one belief that you have that I agree with 100% .


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would suggests the point has been missed completely.  The underlying assertion is that for macro evolution to take place variation must occur within the gene pool.  I don't think anyone would refute that.  It's a fundamental premise of evolution( however given the propensity of some on this board to deny even the obvious, who knows).
> 
> Anyway, that being agreed upon, the take home from point from the authors discussion of the study was that VARIATION was lost, not gained as the generations progressed.  The point of conservation of energy is moot.  You simply cannot increase variation by losing genetic material no matter how much energy is conserved no more than you can win a gun battle by missing faster.


And heres the point you are missing entirely. That entire argument is based on something that has not happened yet. It is based on what some other things have done but not this thing. We don't yet know yet and we probably wont live another million years or two or three to find out. It is ASSUMED that this thing is going to do the same thing others have done.
There are 2 main facts here -
1. It shed genetic material 
2. It saved energy
So here is my question and the cruxt of my argument -
Do we know yet what END effect those 2 facts have on this specific thing?
The answer, I contend is NO. We know what it has done to other things in similar circumstances true. How many million examples do you want me to supply of different things not behaving the exact same way under similar circumstances?
You are claiming assumption to be fact and trying to defend them as though they are facts and not assumptions.
In a few million years if these changes causes it disappear from our world then you'll be right. 
However right now on this thread you are wrong. In fact its impossible for you to be right because we just don't know yet.
And as for the use of "micro" and "macro" evolution. There is a lot of information out there. If you stay away from any kind of atheist, religious etc website and stick with scientific sites there is something I found interesting.
The vast majority of scientists etc don't even use the words "micro" and "macro" evolution amongst themselves. They dismiss them as being inaccurate and made up distinctions to satisfy those that want to argue for or against.
To them there is only "evolution".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> And heres the point you are missing entirely. That entire argument is based on something that has not happened yet.



Walt you beat String over the head about not answering your question yesterday regarding the findings of the study.  Now you, by your own admission, are addressing the argument and not the study.  The study is done.  The data is in.  The conclusions from THIS study are drawn.  You may not like them , but they are what they are unless you can offer a more reasonable explanation.  Variability of E. coli was lost over 30,000 generations; or equivalent to 1 million years time wise.  You can't deny the data.  You have to conclude that the data is against the argument for macro evolution.



WaltL1 said:


> It is based on what some other things have done but not this thing.



No.  It is not based on what other things have done.  It's contrasted against what other things are ASSUMED to have done, and the results refute the assumption of variation as an answer for macro evolution.



WaltL1 said:


> We don't yet know yet and we probably wont live another million years or two or three to find out. It is ASSUMED that this thing is going to do the same thing others have done.



That very assumption is brought into question by the evidence.



WaltL1 said:


> There are 2 main facts here -
> 1. It shed genetic material
> 2. It saved energy
> So here is my question and the cruxt of my argument -
> Do we know yet what END effect those 2 facts have on this specific thing?



Walt you are doing the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand, denying the evidence, and waiting until evidence to the contrary, that supports your position, to pull it out by this "yet" you keep uttering.



WaltL1 said:


> The answer, I contend is NO.



Case in point.



WaltL1 said:


> We know what it has done to other things in similar circumstances true.



No you assumed, by your own admission.  Now the evidence isn't validating your assumption.



WaltL1 said:


> How many million examples do you want me to supply of different things not behaving the exact same way under similar circumstances?



It's much simpler than that.  Just one example in which variability is, if not increased, not lost over a million years would be a good start.



WaltL1 said:


> You are claiming assumption to be fact and trying to defend them as though they are facts and not assumptions.



I'm not claiming assumption squat brother.  You are by your own admission in this very post.  I'm addressing the study's findings.  



WaltL1 said:


> In a few million years if these changes causes it disappear from our world then you'll be right.





WaltL1 said:


> However right now on this thread you are wrong.



Listen Walt.  It's not a matter of me being right and wrong.  I believe in micro evolution, not macro evolution, however just as the OP stated I think there is a boundary to evolution.  That's not to say I don't find it a beautiful, elegant, sublime concept full of wonder and awe.  I do.  To me if it is true it just glorifies God more in the same way the cosmos and laws of nature do, so I'm not biased per se in this.  True or untrue it has not one iota of bearing on my faith in God.  I just don't think the evidence supports macro evolution from what I been able to gather on the subject.  There are some very learned people in scientific community who feel the same way BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE.





WaltL1 said:


> In fact its impossible for you to be right because we just don't know yet.



See above.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> And heres the point you are missing entirely. That entire argument is based on something that has not happened yet. It is based on what some other things have done but not this thing. We don't yet know yet and we probably wont live another million years or two or three to find out. It is ASSUMED that this thing is going to do the same thing others have done.
> There are 2 main facts here -
> 1. It shed genetic material
> 2. It saved energy
> ...


SFD I thought of a better way to explain my stance -
Lets switch things around but still use all the exact same information as before with 1 difference. 
It did this shedding of genetic material and the result was it saved energy and lost genetic material.
If a scientist or whoever had discovered FIRST that its available energy was not enough to support the amount of genetic material it has, using what we know from other studies it will therefore die out as result of lack of energy. And based on what we knew it appeared he was absolutely correct and it was a fact. And in your view he is correct and that is a fact.
But then what happened?
It shed off genetical material and saved energy. The above fact was not a fact at all. It did not die out due to lack of energy.
Then the discovery that based on what we know, because it shed off genetic material,  it will die out. Sound familiar?  We appear absolutely correct and its a fact. 
And heres the bottom line of where we don't agree.
Based on the facts of what happened with the 1st discovery im not ready to accept the 2nd discovery as fact.
You do accept it because it fits your world view. You want it to be correct and a fact. You are willing to ignore what happened with the first discovery. 
I am not. 
And this isn't a made up story. Its all the same facts and information with one exception. Nobody discovered first that it was low on energy and needed to save some.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt you beat String over the head about not answering your question yesterday regarding the findings of the study.  Now you, by your own admission, are addressing the argument and not the study.  The study is done.  The data is in.  The conclusions from THIS study are drawn.  You may not like them , but they are what they are unless you can offer a more reasonable explanation.  Variability of E. coli was lost over 30,000 generations; or equivalent to 1 million years time wise.  You can't deny the data.  You have to conclude that the data is against the argument for macro evolution.
> What I just posted addresses all your questions.
> 
> 
> ...


Apply all your questions and statements to what I just posted and determine for yourself if they were addressed. I believe they are.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The study is done.  The data is in.  The conclusions from THIS study are drawn.  You may not like them , but they are what they are unless you can offer a more reasonable explanation.


With that mindset, I find myself very grateful that you did not choose being a scientist as a career path.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> With that mindset, I find myself very grateful that you did not choose being a scientist as a career path.



Just throwing it out there, he didn't say more studies shouldn't be done, or that this was an be all end all, but all we can conclude from this particular study is what the evidence shows.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD I thought of a better way to explain my stance -
> Lets switch things around but still use all the exact same information as before with 1 difference.
> It did this shedding of genetic material and the result was it saved energy and lost genetic material.
> If a scientist or whoever had discovered FIRST that its available energy was not enough to support the amount of genetic material it has, using what we know from other studies it will therefore die out as result of lack of energy. And based on what we knew it appeared he was absolutely correct and it was a fact. And in your view he is correct and that is a fact.
> ...


Do you know of anything, any study, ever, that has shown that throwing away chunks of genetic material is shown to be a positive?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you know of anything, any study, ever, that has shown that throwing away chunks of genetic material is shown to be a positive?



when you shed pounds off your body ,and can do more with less energy exerted are you healthier?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)




----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you know of anything, any study, ever, that has shown that throwing away chunks of genetic material is shown to be a positive?


String for me huge red flags just went up. Just by the question you asked I can tell where this is headed.
I promise you Im not trying to be rude but Im passing on this one and here's why - the answer to your question is in that post you are just ignoring it and we know where that gets us.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> String for me huge red flags just went up. Just by the question you asked I can tell where this is headed.
> I promise you Im not trying to be rude but Im passing on this one and here's why - the answer to your question is in that post you are just ignoring it and we know where that gets us.



I tried to frame the question so your answer doesn't have to be relevant to E. coli. or the passage in the book. I was just asking for anything.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

BTW, thanks for the participation in this thread, it would have sucked if you hadn't have joined in, not sure why, but none of the other non believers seemed interested.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I tried to frame the question so your answer doesn't have to be relevant to E. coli. or the passage in the book. I was just asking for anything.



what was wrong with my answer?
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/he...nds-obesity-could-be-caused-by-specific-gene/


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> when you shed pounds off your body ,and can do more with less energy exerted are you healthier?


Do you conisider fat cells to be genetic machinery including some of the building blocks of RNA?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I tried to frame the question so your answer doesn't have to be relevant to E. coli. or the passage in the book. I was just asking for anything.


Appreciate that but the answer to your question is completely related to E.coli. It was in my post.
I'm not buying a ticket String.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you conisider fat cells to be genetic machinery including some of the building blocks of RNA?



http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/news-genes-idd-in-obesity-how-much-of-weight-is-genetic/

Two studies zero in on DNA-based drivers of weight. Is obesity written in our genes?


In two separate papers, published in the journal Science and in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI), researchers describe new genetic factors that could explain weight gain in some people. In the Science study, researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital studying mice found a rare genetic mutation that prevented the animals from burning off fat calories. They also found the same gene was mutated in a group of obese people. And a team based at University College London reported in JCI that a specific form of a gene previously linked to obesity, FTO, can increase craving for high-fat foods.

The discoveries add to the growing body of knowledge about the biology behind weight, and the results confirm that while it’s represented by a single number, weight is the complex combination of a multitude of different metabolic processes, from brain systems that regulate appetite to enzymes that control how efficiently calories are turned from food into energy that the body needs. Making matters even more confusing, these factors are also likely influenced by environmental contributors such as diet and lifestyle.

In the mouse study, the research team determined that mutations in the Mrap2 gene led the animals to eat less initially but still gain about twice as much weight as they normally would. While their appetites returned, these mice continued to gain weight despite being fed the same number of calories as a group of control animals. That led the scientists to figure out that the mice with the mutated gene were simply sequestering fat rather than breaking it down for energy. The mice, like people, possessed two copies of the gene, and mice with even one defective copy experienced significant weight gain, although not as much as those who had two mutated versions of Mrap2.

The scientists found a similar pattern among a group of 500 obese people; they detected four mutations in the human version of Mrap2, and each of the obese individuals possessed only one bad version of the gene.

(MORE: Study Identifies Four New Genetic Markers For Severe Childhood Obesity)

In the British study, the researchers divided a group of 359 healthy men of normal weight by their FTO gene status. The majority of the men had low-risk versions of the gene, while 45 of the participants had mutations that have been linked to greater appetite and caloric consumption. To figure out how the altered genes were affecting appetite, the team measured levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin both before and after meals that the participants ate; the men with the mutated form of FTO did not show the same drop in ghrelin levels, signifying that they were full, as the men with the low-risk form of FTO.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> BTW, thanks for the participation in this thread, it would have sucked if you hadn't have joined in, not sure why, but none of the other non believers seemed interested.




He's 'representing' just fine on his own.  What do you want?  A chorus of "Amens!"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He's 'representing' just fine on his own.  What do you want?  A chorus of "Amens!"?


Don't forget the Hallelujas.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> BTW, thanks for the participation in this thread, it would have sucked if you hadn't have joined in, not sure why, but none of the other non believers seemed interested.



Walt handled it better than I could have expressed it myself so there was no need to jump in. We(non-believers) have a nice tendency to help each other out if needed, but there was no need in this case.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

where did this obesity gene come from if adam and eve didn't have it


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> where did this obesity gene come from if adam and eve didn't have it



The land of Nod. That's also where the sickle cell gene came from.
We got our "sin" gene from Adam.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> The land of Nod. That's also where the sickle cell gene came from.
> We got our "sin" gene from Adam.



Oh boy


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD I thought of a better way to explain my stance -
> Lets switch things around but still use all the exact same information as before with 1 difference.
> It did this shedding of genetic material and the result was it saved energy and lost genetic material.
> If a scientist or whoever had discovered FIRST that its available energy was not enough to support the amount of genetic material it has, using what we know from other studies it will therefore die out as result of lack of energy. And based on what we knew it appeared he was absolutely correct and it was a fact. And in your view he is correct and that is a fact.
> ...



Walt, again you imply I have an agenda here. I don't.  Thought I already explained that.  As far as the study goes, generally as far as framework goes, the more precise a study is framed, the less generalized the conclusions that can be drawn from it.  The authors will note this and suggests further studies be conducted to answer variables their study didn't take into account.  It doesn't mean their results are not valid, just more data needs to be gathered.  If you want to say you need more data regarding the conservation of energy, fine, but you can't with any academic integrity just disregard what has been shown., nor what conclusions CAN be drawn from it.

Judging by your back and forth with String it appears you are the one that doesn't want your presuppositions challenged.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Oh boy



that's what i said considering the gene has to come from both parents!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Oh boy



Amen


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt, again you imply I have an agenda here. I don't.  Thought I already explained that.  As far as the study goes, generally as far as framework goes, the more precise a study is framed, the less generalized the conclusions that can be drawn from it.  The authors will note this and suggests further studies be conducted to answer variables their study didn't take into account.  It doesn't mean their results are not valid, just more data needs to be gathered.  If you want to say you need more data regarding the conservation of energy, fine, but you can't with any academic integrity just disregard what has been shown., nor what conclusions CAN be drawn from it.
> 
> Judging by your back and forth with String it appears you are the one that doesn't want your presuppositions challenged.


Blah blah blah..... Never said their results were invalid. Never said their data was invalid. In fact I used their results and data in my post.
And you are right you cant with any academic integrity just disregard what has been shown nor what conclusions CAN be drawn from it. That's exactly the argument I used.
I absolutely want to be challenged. That's how you learn. If you're presuppositions don't get challenged you end up only believing what you think is right. But the person chanellenging you has to use the facts and has to make some effort to understand what you are saying so they can challenge you intelligently. They cant change what you said, they cant ignore what you said and they cant have goggles on.  Other wise its just blah blah blah.......
And I never said you had an agenda. I said it fits your world view. I said you want it to be true. I said you were willing to ignore opposing evidence. By the way that's true for most humans.  Never said anything about an agenda. Good example of what I was talking about a few sentences ago.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He's 'representing' just fine on his own.  What do you want?  A chorus of "Amens!"?





bullethead said:


> Walt handled it better than I could have expressed it myself so there was no need to jump in. We(non-believers) have a nice tendency to help each other out if needed, but there was no need in this case.



Just thought some of you guys may have had some thoughts of your own to add to the discussion. Not a big deal if you don't.

How about the OP, or post #206? Neither of those have been discussed yet.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Blah blah blah..... Never said their results were invalid. Never said their data was invalid. In fact I used their results and data in my post.
> And you are right you cant with any academic integrity just disregard what has been shown nor what conclusions CAN be drawn from it. That's exactly the argument I used.
> I absolutely want to be challenged. That's how you learn. If you're presuppositions don't get challenged you end up only believing what you think is right. But the person chanellenging you has to use the facts and has to make some effort to understand what you are saying so they can challenge you intelligently. They cant change what you said, they cant ignore what you said and they cant have goggles on.  Other wise its just blah blah blah.......
> And I never said you had an agenda. I said it fits your world view. I said you want it to be true. I said you were willing to ignore opposing evidence. By the way that's true for most humans.  Never said anything about an agenda. Good example of what I was talking about a few sentences ago.



By your own admission, there is no opposing evidence. It was not shown that loosing genetic machinery to save energy is a good thing, yet this thread is six pages long on just this very thing. 

There is no evidence to show that there are small bugs that looks like elephants controlling the machinery either.

There is no evidence for myriad of things from this experiment.

THERE IS evidence for E. coli throwing away genetic material to save energy, and if that happens enough, say over billions of years, E. coli no longer exists. 

So coming to the conclusion that "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things" is a logical and reasonable conclusion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Just thought some of you guys may have had some thoughts of your own to add to the discussion. Not a big deal if you don't.


By the way guys, Id like to comment here -
I'm not on anybody's "team". I consider myself an independent. If an Atheist posts up an article or argument with glaring holes in it and claims it to be fact, I'll make an argument against that too. Just hasn't happened yet


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> By your own admission, there is no opposing evidence. It was not shown that loosing genetic machinery to save energy is a good thing, yet this thread is six pages long on just this very thing.
> 
> There is no evidence to show that there are small bugs that looks like elephants controlling the machinery either.
> 
> ...


No its not a logical and reasonable conclusion. Ive posted a pile of evidence to show why its not. And if you ask me to point that evidence out Im going to tell you to go read my posts because its all there you are just ignoring it and Im not getting back on the merry-go-round.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No its not a logical and reasonable conclusion. Ive posted a pile of evidence to show why its not. And if you ask me to point that evidence out Im going to tell you to go read my posts because its all there you are just ignoring it and Im not getting back on the merry-go-round.



Yes, I've read your posts in this thread. 

Your opposing "evidence" is that it may be a good thing to throw away genetic material to save energy, but, like you've admitted, we don't know that to be true, so it's not really evidence based on this experiment.

It's like watching a person walking out into the street and getting hit by a bus, I say "man Walt, that was not good" and you say "that person had a headache, he may have needed to be splattered by that bus String, so it may have been a good thing"


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I've read your posts in this thread.
> 
> Your opposing "evidence" is that it may be a good thing to throw away genetic material to save energy, but, like you've admitted, we don't know that to be true, so it's not really evidence based on this experiment.
> 
> It's like watching a person walking out into the street and getting hit by a bus, I say "man Walt, that was not good" and you say "that person had a headache, he may have needed to be splattered by that bus String, so it may have been a good thing"


Lets go at this a different way String. Let me ask you questions instead of you asking me. The rules are you can only answer exactly what I ask with the shortest to the point answer you can think of. Interested? By the way your question is invalid because its not using the facts -
The person that got splattered by the bus is now dead.  E.coli is not. 
Now Im going to use your exact story against you -
Its like watching a person walking into the street and a split second before he got splattered by the bus, he jumped out of the way and hit his head on the curb cracking it open and giving him a life threatening injury. You turn to me and say "wow that's bad he COULD die from that".
And I turn to you and say "Yeah but if that bus hit him, he DEFINITELY would be dead right now. At least he has a chance".


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets go at this a different way String. Let me ask you questions instead of you asking me. The rules are you can only answer exactly what I ask with the shortest to the point answer you can think of. Interested?


Shoot.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Blah blah blah.....
> And I never said you had an agenda. I said it fits your world view. I said you want it to be true. I said you were willing to ignore opposing evidence.



Unbelievable?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Unbelievable?


If you are saying those 3 things add up to me saying you have an agenda then yes the little guy with face in his hand is certainly appropriate.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Shoot.


Ok first tell me what you thought about my version of the bus splatter story.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 8, 2013)

Like talking to a fence post!!! NO THINKING INVOLVED,JUST FOLLOW THIS BOOK


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets go at this a different way String. Let me ask you questions instead of you asking me. The rules are you can only answer exactly what I ask with the shortest to the point answer you can think of. Interested? By the way your question is invalid because its not using the facts -
> The person that got splattered by the bus is now dead.  E.coli is not.
> Now Im going to use your exact story against you -
> Its like watching a person walking into the street and a split second before he got splattered by the bus, he jumped out of the way and hit his head on the curb cracking it open and giving him a life threatening injury. You turn to me and say "wow that's bad he COULD die from that".
> And I turn to you and say "Yeah but if that bus hit him, he DEFINITELY would be dead right now. At least he has a chance".


The person is much more likely to die now, than one minute before he walked into the street.

So he goes to the hospital  to "save energy". He doesn't die but he lost the use of his arms and legs, and is now in a wheelchair. There is nothing he can do to regain the use of his arms and legs. He has to continue to cross the street everyday(evolution), so there's a good chance that he'll be hurt again at the busy intersection.

If he couldn't cross the intersection without getting hurt while having the ability to walk and run, what makes me think his chances aren't much higher of getting hurt in a wheelchair and continuing to worsen his condition until he eventually dies?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The person is much more likely to die now, than one minute before he walked into the street/QUOTE]
> String lets slow things down. Im not trying to give you a hard time, im trying to improve the status of how we communicate to each other.   Are you forgetting that the problem he has now is better than being splattered by the bus?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 8, 2013)

I can't speak for string but maybe he is pointing to the fact that we often observe things going from complex to simple rather than the other direction . This may be more efficient, but if efficiency is so beneficial, then extrapolated backwards one wonders why anything would strive so hard to move from the simple to the complex.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 8, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> i can't speak for string but maybe he is pointing to the fact that we often observe things going from complex to simple rather than the other direction . This may be more efficient, but if efficiency is so beneficial, then extrapolated backwards one wonders why anything would strive so hard to move from the simple to the complex.



the complexity of things sometimes make things simpler and vice versa ...it's both evolving in the evolutionary chain


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I can't speak for string but maybe he is pointing to the fact that we often observe things going from complex to simple rather than the other direction . This may be more efficient, but if efficiency is so beneficial, then extrapolated backwards one wonders why anything would strive so hard to move from the simple to the complex.


One possibility is that with a constantly changing environment, efficiency is replacing complexity as the most important thing to its survival. By becoming more simple it didn't go backwards, it improved itself based on the environment now.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 8, 2013)

I simply meant, was there a time where complexity was more valuable than efficiency? It seems we are not in such an age currently. 

It does, at least to me, raise the question of what motivates a perfectly survivable organism changing simply for complexities sake.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The person is much more likely to die now, than one minute before he walked into the street





WaltL1 said:


> String lets slow things down. Im not trying to give you a hard time, im trying to improve the status of how we communicate to each other.   Are you forgetting that the problem he has now is better than being splattered by the bus?


Yes, it is better than being splattered by the bus.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> One possibility is that with a constantly changing environment, efficiency is replacing complexity as the most important thing to its survival. By becoming more simple it didn't go backwards, it improved itself based on the environment now.



That is a very good argument.

Although I'm not sure we have any examples of things going from complex to simple, and then back to complex again because we've never witnessed anything be able to replicate the original complexity.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, it is better than being splattered by the bus.


I agree, on to the next one -
now like you said we got this guy with no arms and no legs and he's probably going to get hit by a bus again and just die anyway. But he is still alive. So while he is alive science makes a breakthrough. They improve a fighter helmet type thing. Now he can drive that wheelchair just by looking where he wants to go and it goes there. Now the odds are no more for him to get hit by a bus than anybody else. Then science improves on artificial limbs. Now has he has use of arms and legs. His life threatening problems are being eliminated one by one. 
Now a question - Even though he gave himself life threatening injuries, is it true and a fact, by staying alive was he able to turn those life threatening injuries into non life threatening injuries by making use of changes in environment (new technology etc)?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That is a very good argument.
> 
> Although I'm not sure we have any examples of things going from complex to simple, and then back to complex again because we've never witnessed anything be able to replicate the original complexity.


Maybe not enough time has passed to see that. It started out complex was good. Now its changing and efficiency is good. Maybe in another however many years it changes back to complexity is good. Just haven't seen it yet and wont see it until it does. Or doesn't. Doesn't mean it cant just means it hasn't needed to try.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree, on to the next one -
> now like you said we got this guy with no arms and no legs and he's probably going to get hit by a bus again and just die anyway. But he is still alive. So while he is alive science makes a breakthrough. They improve a fighter helmet type thing. Now he can drive that wheelchair just by looking where he wants to go and it goes there. Now the odds are no more for him to get hit by a bus than anybody else. Then science improves on artificial limbs. Now has he has use of arms and legs. His life threatening problems are being eliminated one by one.
> Now a question - Even though he gave himself life threatening injuries, is it true and a fact, by staying alive was he able to turn those life threatening injuries into non life threatening injuries by making use of changes in environment (new technology etc)?



True. But see my post above. We don't have any examples of anything being able to do that, ever. Atleast that I know of. From my understanding, things get one shot with their genetic machinery.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe not enough time has passed to see that. It started out complex was good. Now its changing and efficiency is good. Maybe in another however many years it changes back to complexity is good. Just haven't seen it yet and wont see it until it does. Or doesn't. Doesn't mean it cant just means it hasn't needed to try.


Exactly right.

We have evidence that it looses genetic machinery, we have zero evidence that it ever regains it. You're correct in saying that it might.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe not enough time has passed to see that.



Scientists can also speed up, and manipulate the mutations, of the process in a lab. See the OP in this thread on fruit flies. I would imagine the E. coli experiment was done the same way, considering they're talking about a million years.

I know that's not the billions of years some say that earth and matter have existed, but they can speed the process up none the less.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Scientists can also speed up, and manipulate the mutations, of the process in a lab. See the OP in this thread on fruit flies. I would imagine the E. coli experiment was done the same way, considering they're talking about a million years.
> 
> I know that's not the billions of years some say that earth and matter have existed, but they can speed the process up none the less.



more than 6k though right


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> True. But see my post above. We don't have any examples of anything being able to do that, ever. Atleast that I know of. From my understanding, things get one shot with their genetic machinery.


I agree its true. 
So if I say to you by using that article this is what I think-
The e.coli was like the guy.
Because its energy was low it was going to die so it avoided being splattered but gave it self life threatening injuries by doing so. However by staying alive it too has the chance for something to change so it too can eliminate life threatening injuries.
Whats the flaw in my argument?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree its true.
> So if I say to you by using that article this is what I think-
> The e.coli was like the guy.
> Because its energy was low it was going to die so it avoided being splattered but gave it self life threatening injuries by doing so. However by staying alive it too has the chance for something to change so it too can eliminate life threatening injuries.
> Whats the flaw in my argument?


Nothing, the second part of it is just very unlikely and unlike the guy and the bus, something we have no evidence of anything ever doing.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

Four! I see you down there lurking. LOL

I thought "where the heck has Four been?" when I started this thread.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Nothing, the second part of it is just very unlikely and unlike the guy and the bus, something we have no evidence of anything ever doing.


String I want to narrow your focus down. Keep in mind we are talking about that article, the information it contained and the conclusion that it come up with. The entire time I have been arguing the validity of that conclusion based on the information it gave in that article.
Before I go any further you have to confirm that you know that and agree with it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> String I want to narrow your focus down. Keep in mind we are talking about that article, the information it contained and the conclusion that it come up with and you agree with. The entire time I have been arguing the validity of that conclusion based on the information it gave in that article that you agree with.
> Before I go any further you have to confirm that you know that and agree with it.



Yes, we are talking about Behe's conclusion on E. coli.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, we are talking about Behe's conclusion on E. coli.


Ok good. We are doing good String. Now 2 questions -
You said my scenario was unlikely. 
1st question -If I could show you in that article that the problem it had was worse than the problem it gave itself by shedding material would you still agree with this  conclusion -
 "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"
2nd question - If you showed me in that article where it gives you the results showing the e.coli didn't have any problem or had a lesser problem to begin with could I possibly argue against this -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok good. We are doing good String. Now 2 questions -
> You said my scenario was unlikely.
> 1st question -If I could show you in that article that the problem it had was worse than the problem it gave itself by shedding material would you still agree with this  conclusion -
> "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"


I would still have to agree with the conclusion because no matter how good it was that it solved it's current problem, there is no bigger problem to solve than stopping the loss of the genetic material that makes up E. coli. We have no evidence that it stops shedding genetic machinery and we have no evidence that it can "rebuild" that machinery.



> 2nd question - If you showed me in that article where it gives you the results showing the e.coli didn't have any problem or had a lesser problem to begin with could I possibly argue against this -
> "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"



I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I would still have to agree with the conclusion because no matter how good it was that it solved it's current problem, there is no bigger problem to solve than stopping the loss of the genetic material that makes up E. coli. We have no evidence that it stops shedding genetic machinery and we have no evidence that it can "rebuild" that machinery.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.


Im gonna tug your leash here a little String. 
Read my specific questions and for my sake go with yes or no answers. Don't complicate it just go with the flow and answer yes or no based on exactly whats in the 2 questions.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok good. We are doing good String. Now 2 questions -
> You said my scenario was unlikely.
> 1st question -If I could show you in that article that the problem it had was worse than the problem it gave itself by shedding material would you still agree with this  conclusion -
> "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"


No, I would no longer agree with the conclusion.


> 2nd question - If you showed me in that article where it gives you the results showing the e.coli didn't have any problem or had a lesser problem to begin with could I possibly argue against this -
> "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"



The more I read this, it just seems like a rewording of the 1st sentence, so yes, you could argue against that conclusion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No, I would no longer agree with the conclusion.
> 
> 
> The more I read this, it just seems like a rewording of the 1st sentence, so yes, you could argue against that conclusion.


I agree with you on number one.
number two is similar but very different.
Show me in that article where it states that the e.coli had no problem or a lesser problem before it started shedding material.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with you on number one.
> number two is similar but very different.
> Show me in that article where it states that the e.coli had no problem or a lesser problem before it started shedding material.


It had a problem, and it was in a catch 22.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It had a problem, and it was in a catch 22.


I agree it was a catch 22.
However you have to show me in that article where it tells us that according to their tests the e.coli had no problems or a lesser problem before it started shedding material. Its a critical point to our discussion.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree it was a catch 22.
> However you have to show me in that article where it tells us that according to their tests the e.coli had no problems or a lesser problem before it started shedding material. Its a critical point to our discussion.



I'm not going to be able to show you that, because it doesn't say that. I think it makes it pretty obvious that the bateria did have a problem before it start shedding material, otherwise it wouldn't have had to shed it in the first place.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not going to be able to show you that, because it doesn't say that. I think it makes it pretty obvious that the bateria did have a problem before it start shedding material, otherwise it wouldn't have had to shed it in the first place.


String I absolutely agree with you 100%. It doesn't say what was wrong with it, it obviously had a problem and yes it shed material for a reason.
And heres my entire point,
For you, you yourself, to agree with this to be a logical, factual, accurate finding  -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things" 
Don't you have to know this -
"If the e.coli had no problem or a lesser problem before it started shedding material"?
You must know, you have to know, there is no getting around it. You absolutely can NOT agree that it got worse or broke itself if you don't know what was wrong with it before. But this article, by this author doesn't tell you that, therefore you can not intelligently agree with that conclusion.
Do we agree or disagree?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> String I absolutely agree with you 100%. It doesn't say what was wrong with it, it obviously had a problem and yes it shed material for a reason.
> And heres my entire point,
> For you, you yourself, to agree with this to be a logical, factual, accurate finding  -
> "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"
> ...


I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.

The same with the guy and the bus. Did I have to know that he had a headache to know that the busting of his head on the concrete and the loss of his arms and legs was moving him towards death, especially knowing that he has to cross the street  millions of more times in his lifetime.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.
> 
> The same with the guy and the bus. Did I have to know that he had a headache to know that the busting of his head on the concrete and the loss of his arms and legs was moving him towards death, especially knowing that he has to cross the street  millions of more times in his lifetime.


Even if what it had before would kill it faster than shedding material would kill it, you still don't care? It broke itself? It is an absolute fact that by buying itself time, maybe millions and millions of years, it will not and cannot change in any possible way to fix the problem of shedding genetic material? Its done, Its dead, its broken. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Even if what it had before would kill it faster than shedding material would kill it, you still don't care?


That's the catch 22 I referenced earlier. It doesn't matter if what if had before is started shedding material, it's still "killing itself" by shedding that material, it's just (possibly) doing is slower.



> It broke itself? It is an absolute fact that by buying itself time, maybe millions and millions of years, it will not and cannot change in any possible way to fix the problem of shedding genetic material? Its done, Its dead, its broken. Is that what you are saying?



No, it did not break itself, what happened in the experiment showed that the evolution of E. coli shows that it's in the process of breaking itself without the possibility of regaining it's genetic material. Behe didn't say it was broken, dead or done, and neither did I.

As far as "It is an absolute fact that by buying itself time, maybe millions and millions of years, it will not and cannot change in any possible way to fix the problem of shedding genetic material?" no, I wouldn't call that an absolute fact, and you can even buy into that theory if you'd like, there's just no evidence, based on this experiment, for me to.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

Think of it this way, E. coli has cancer. It discards it's "leg"(genetic machinery) to save energy to fight the cancer and the cancer cannot take over that leg and spread to the rest of it's body, yet it still has cancer. There is zero evidence that the bateria can reproduce that "leg" again, and with it still having cancer, a logical conclusion is that it's going to have to eventually discard it's other "leg" because it will eventually need more energy to fight the cancer. And so on and so forth.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's the catch 22 I referenced earlier. It doesn't matter if what if had before is started shedding material, it's still "killing itself" by shedding that material, it's just (possibly) doing is slower.
> 
> 
> No, it did not break itself, what happened in the experiment showed that the evolution of E. coli shows that it's in the process of breaking itself without the possibility of regaining it's genetic material. Behe didn't say it was broken, dead or done, and neither did I.
> ...


1. No advantage to dying slower? None?
2. Did you mean without the possibility of regaining its genetic material or based on what we know today we don't think it can?
3. In this experiment it told you it started casting off genetic material that it wasn't doing before and started saving energy. If changing itself is not enough evidence that it can change itself, exactly what evidence would you need?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> 1. No advantage to dying slower? None?


Yes, there is an advantage, it dies slower. It's still dying.


> 2. Did you mean without the possibility of regaining its genetic material or based on what we know today we don't think it can?


I mean there is no evidence it can.


> 3. In this experiment it told you it started casting off genetic material that it wasn't doing before and started saving energy. If changing itself is not enough evidence that it can change itself, exactly what evidence would you need?


I have evidence that it can change itself by "killing" itself slower, but I have zero evidence that it can reverse that trend.
I would need actual evidence that it could replace it's genetic material.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, there is an advantage, it dies slower. It's still dying.
> 
> I mean there is no evidence it can.
> 
> ...


Well heres the deal String, we are starting to go round and round again. We were doing great for a while there but we went off the tracks when you said this -

I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.

Now here is where our thinking is a mile apart and there is really no reason to keep going -
For me,It absolutely does matter why it started throwing off chunks. If what it had killed it faster than casting off the chunks will, it is UNDENIABLY a positive change. Its whole goal in life is stay alive. If it saved itself from dying sooner by casting off material it is a SUCCESS, a POSITVE change.
Yes you are correct it has a new problem that will kill it if nothing changes. However if it weren't for the SUCCESSFUL, the POSITIVE, change it made by casting off material it wouldn't be alive to try to change itself again and fix its new problem. Now for me no logical argument can be made against that. You can say anything you want but you cant change those facts just as you cant change 1+1 = 2 being a fact. EVEN IF IT CANT CHANGE AND DIES BECAUSE OF IT, CASTING OFF THE MATERIAL WAS A SUCCESS, A POSITIVE BECAUSE IT PROLONGED ITS LIFE.
There is nothing you can say or do to change those facts. 
Those facts show that this is a skewed opinion by an intelligent Design advocate on a Apologetc website -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things" COMPLETELY MISLEADING
When in actuality the truth is -
"the lesson to learn from E.coli is that sometimes its necessary for evolution to break things in order to successfully stay alive" UNBIASED REPORT OF THE RESULTS


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 9, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Well heres the deal String, we are starting to go round and round again. We were doing great for a while there but we went off the tracks when you said this -
> 
> I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree. 


> Those facts show that this is a skewed opinion by an intelligent Design advocate on a Apologetc website -
> "the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things" COMPLETELY MISLEADING
> When in actuality the truth is -
> "the lesson to learn from E.coli is that sometimes its necessary for evolution to break things in order to successfully stay alive" UNBIASED REPORT OF THE RESULTS



This is where I'll disagree. I think the point was that evolution is better at breaking things rather than the neo-Darwinist theory of everything getting more complex through evolution. Behe didn't word the sentence to your liking and I understand how you could have a problem with that, but I don't see it as misleading.

Behe could have just as easily said your conclusion, and the point still would have been made that evolution of E. coli is a process of breaking, for whatever reason.

Anyway, thanks again for the discussion, I enjoyed it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't disagree.
> 
> 
> This is where I'll disagree. I think the point was that evolution is better at breaking things rather than the neo-Darwinist theory of everything getting more complex through evolution. Behe didn't word the sentence to your liking and I understand how you could have a problem with that, but I don't see it as misleading.
> ...


Not sure how you don't see it as misleading but I will give you one more example to prove it was biased that Im sure you wont accept -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things" 
Note he said its easier. Do you think he could possibly measure and know the level of difficulty it was for the E.coli to change itself? How much effort it took? Of course not. Therefore he couldn't possibly know how "easy" it was for the E.coli to change. But by saying its easier he is telling you that evolution is weak and takes the easy way out.
Of course he cant prove that and he doesn't actually know that but he knows his readers aren't interested in questioning it because they WANT to believe that too.
If you are really interested in discussing science and evolution, get your articles from a science site.. Not a religious site. Science and evolution aren't their friends if you didn't know


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 9, 2013)

so how did humans evolve according to where they lived with the sun with their skin color ,and other characteristics of people around the globe from adam and eve....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 9, 2013)

String, you referred to two things several times.

1 - something along the lines of e.coli losing material the that makes it e.coli

2 - a human with no arms is still a human or a whale with remnants of hip bones is still a whale.

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. If e.coli loses some of what makes it e.coli then it's not e.coli any more. Maybe it's just e.c? If it's still e.coli then it had no need for that material. It just dropped what was unnecessary. 

What we have seen in nature is where some section of a species of lizards gets trapped in a cave and after how many years their eyes don't work well any more. Is it still the same lizard as the group that is still outside? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think they'd be classified as different species. If the two were to breed, I doubt the offspring would have full vision. The lizard without full vision, though, while it lost some complexity in vision, it gained some complexity in sensing vibrations and smell. Those complexities are genetic. I can find the example I'm thinking about if you want.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> String, you referred to two things several times.
> 
> 1 - something along the lines of e.coli losing material the that makes it e.coli


It "threw away" gentic material that classifies it as E. coli.



> 2 - a human with no arms is still a human or a whale with remnants of hip bones is still a whale.
> 
> It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. If e.coli loses some of what makes it e.coli then it's not e.coli any more. Maybe it's just e.c? If it's still e.coli then it had no need for that material. It just dropped what was unnecessary.


Key word in your second sentence, "some". 


> What we have seen in nature is where some section of a species of lizards gets trapped in a cave and after how many years their eyes don't work well any more. Is it still the same lizard as the group that is still outside? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think they'd be classified as different species. If the two were to breed, I doubt the offspring would have full vision. The lizard without full vision, though, while it lost some complexity in vision, it gained some complexity in sensing vibrations and smell. Those complexities are genetic. I can find the example I'm thinking about if you want.


I'm talking about fundamental genetic material. The loss of vision does not change the species of the lizard, the same as a blind person is not classified as a sub species of human.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 9, 2013)

This isn't like a lizard that once had vision no longer had it. It's to the point that none of them ever develop it. It's a genetic difference, but they are similar enough for scientists to understand that they were once the same.

Keyword SOME doesn't really matter. There are only SOME genetic differences between primates and humans. SOME can be small or they can be big. If I lose some of what makes me human am I still human? If so, then it isn't even leading to my demise. If I lose enough to no longer be human, then it's leading to my demise.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> This isn't like a lizard that once had vision no longer had it. It's to the point that none of them ever develop it. It's a genetic difference, but they are similar enough for scientists to understand that they were once the same.
> 
> Keyword SOME doesn't really matter. There are only SOME genetic differences between primates and humans. SOME can be small or they can be big. If I lose some of what makes me human am I still human? If so, then it isn't even leading to my demise. If I lose enough to no longer be human, then it's leading to my demise.



If you're loosing _any_ genetic material, you're moving towards not only no longer being human, but no longer existing at all.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 9, 2013)

You're making that conclusion based on e.coli losing some of it's genetic material, but still being recognized as e.coli? Not that you have seen or have heard of it happening, right?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 9, 2013)

Well the DNA differential between a man and a frog is something tiny like 2%, if memory serves. 

It's a little hyperbolic, but not as much as it would sound.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you're loosing _any_ genetic material, you're moving towards not only no longer being human, but no longer existing at all.


If I'm reading this right, I think it suggests otherwise - 
THURSDAY, Oct. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have created their first map of parts of the human genome that are considered disposable.
Scientists estimate that at least 2.7 million base pairs of the human genome, which reside in 58 distinct regions of DNA, are non-essential and can disappear without hurting people's health.
The new report builds on previous findings by using microarray technology to find DNA in 600 young and healthy Dutch subjects. Nearly all of the study participants carried so-called complete DNA losses. On average, the number was 50,000 base pairs.
"The results of this study have provided insight into the 'non-essential' parts of the human genome, which will aid in expanding our current understanding of genetic variation among humans," study co-author Terry Vrijenhoek, a medical geneticist from Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, said in a news release from the American Society of Human Genetics.
"Clearly, while the large majority of our genes are essential, the current research results suggest that hardly any one of us possesses a complete genome," Vrijenhoek added.
The researchers noted that most people can do just fine without the DNA base pairs, even though some of the genes seem to play a role in disease -- like psoriasis -- and food digestion.
It also appears that evolution protects the most important genes by making sure they're not in areas where base pairs are often lost, the study authors explained.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you're loosing _any_ genetic material, you're moving towards not only no longer being human, but no longer existing at all.



that's my point about abortion and the lung sacs not being developed until the 26th week(they are not human until  then)

put your foot in your mouth now


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 9, 2013)

string


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 9, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> that's my point about abortion and the lung sacs not being developed until the 26th week(they are not human until  then)
> 
> put your foot in your mouth now



Lung sacs being developed has nothing to do whatsoever with your genetic makeup.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 9, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Lung sacs being developed has nothing to do whatsoever with your genetic makeup.



are you saying there is no dna in lungs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20152174


Preparing for the first breath: genetic and cellular mechanisms in lung development.
Morrisey EE, Hogan BL.
Source
Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. emorrise@mail.med.upenn.edu
Abstract
The mammalian respiratory system--the trachea and the lungs--arises from the anterior foregut through a sequence of morphogenetic events involving reciprocal endodermal-mesodermal interactions. The lung itself consists of two highly branched, tree-like systems--the airways and the vasculature--that develop in a coordinated way from the primary bud stage to the generation of millions of alveolar gas exchange units. We are beginning to understand some of the molecular and cellular mechanisms that underlie critical processes such as branching morphogenesis, vascular development, and the differentiation of multipotent progenitor populations. Nevertheless, many gaps remain in our knowledge, the filling of which is essential for understanding respiratory disorders, congenital defects in human neonates, and how the disruption of morphogenetic programs early in lung development can lead to deficiencies that persist throughout life.

http://www.hhmi.org/research/genetic-control-lung-developmen
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752334
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pedia...i-lab/Transciptomics-of-Lung-Development.aspx


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 10, 2013)

The material is there, just hasn't had time to develop. 

That is like saying you're not a human until after puberty because your body is still developing...


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 10, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> The material is there, just hasn't had time to develop.



okie dokie ,you know what that tells me


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> If I'm reading this right, I think it suggests otherwise -
> THURSDAY, Oct. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have created their first map of parts of the human genome that are considered disposable.
> Scientists estimate that at least 2.7 million base pairs of the human genome, which reside in 58 distinct regions of DNA, are non-essential and can disappear without hurting people's health.
> The new report builds on previous findings by using microarray technology to find DNA in 600 young and healthy Dutch subjects. Nearly all of the study participants carried so-called complete DNA losses. On average, the number was 50,000 base pairs.
> ...



Looks like we're on our way to devolving in to nothingness. It MUST be GOd's plan.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> If I'm reading this right, I think it suggests otherwise -
> THURSDAY, Oct. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have created their first map of parts of the human genome that are considered disposable.
> Scientists estimate that at least 2.7 million base pairs of the human genome, which reside in 58 distinct regions of DNA, are non-essential and can disappear without hurting people's health.
> The new report builds on previous findings by using microarray technology to find DNA in 600 young and healthy Dutch subjects. Nearly all of the study participants carried so-called complete DNA losses. On average, the number was 50,000 base pairs.
> ...



The part in red, that's not what happened as it relates to E. coli, it threw away "gentic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA"

Definition of patrimony 
pat·ri·mo·ny [ páttrÉ™ mï ’nee ]   1.heritage: the objects, traditions, or values that one generation has inherited from its ancestors

I would call that pretty important.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 12, 2013)

I can inherit junk from my ancestors that isn't necessary... and it's not at all important for me to hang on to it..

I agree that your e.coli example is not one that supports evolution to a more complex organism.... but you're arguing the wrong thing here. It lost what wasn't important. It's still what it was before losing it, so it couldn't have been very important.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 12, 2013)

I can inherit junk from my ancestors that isn't necessary... and it's not at all important for me to hang on to it.. It doesn't make me less me to not hang on to it.

I agree that your e.coli example is not one that supports evolution to a more complex organism.... but you're arguing the wrong thing here. It lost what wasn't important. It's still what it was before losing it, so it couldn't have been very important.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can inherit junk from my ancestors that isn't necessary... and it's not at all important for me to hang on to it..
> 
> I agree that your e.coli example is not one that supports evolution to a more complex organism.... but you're arguing the wrong thing here. It lost what wasn't important. It's still what it was before losing it, so it couldn't have been very important.



Read post #315 again, especially the quote. I can't consider that "junk".


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> T"gentic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA"



Sounds important, yes... But what was the result of losing it? If there was no negative impact to losing it, I conclude it's not important. If I'm still e.coli and keep doing the same thing I did before...... I'm good..


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Sounds important, yes... But what was the result of losing it? If there was no negative impact to losing it, I conclude it's not important. If I'm still e.coli and keep doing the same thing I did before...... I'm good..


I've never said that it was no longer E. coli, but that it's heading in the wrong direction, contrary to Darwinian evolutionary theory.


> I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. So random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them, even when it helps an organism to survive. That’s a very important point. A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Think of it this way, E. coli has cancer. It discards it's "leg"(genetic machinery) to save energy to fight the cancer and the cancer cannot take over that leg and spread to the rest of it's body, yet it still has cancer. There is zero evidence that the bateria can reproduce that "leg" again, and with it still having cancer, a logical conclusion is that it's going to have to eventually discard it's other "leg" because it will eventually need more energy to fight the cancer. And so on and so forth.



I thought this was a good analogy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I thought this was a good analogy.


You have a unique ability to not realize when your argument is shown to be false, not based on facts and you are getting them from a Intelligent Design website to try and discredit a genetic scientist writing for the American Society of Human Genetics.
As Ive said before, give me a break.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The part in red, that's not what happened as it relates to E. coli, it threw away "gentic patrimony, including the ablilty to make some of the building blocks or RNA"
> 
> Definition of patrimony
> pat·ri·mo·ny [ páttrÉ™ mï ’nee ]   1.heritage: the objects, traditions, or values that one generation has inherited from its ancestors
> ...


String this was your statement -
Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post 
If you're loosing any genetic material, you're moving towards not only no longer being human, but no longer existing at all.

Please note the subject you chose was about humans.
I posted research about humans showing your statement to be false.

E.coli was not the subject. Not real sure you comparing humans to E.coli is real accurate if you think about it. We are slightly different.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I've never said that it was no longer E. coli, but that it's heading in the wrong direction, contrary to Darwinian evolutionary theory.


String instead of going to Uncommon Descent Serving, the Intelligent Design Community website that you are using, I went to the actual website of the scientist Lenski. If you read what the ACTUAL SCIENTIST said instead of the writer for your website you will or at least should see the slanted information you are basing your argument on.
Please note when the scientist tells you what they are finding, NOWHERE does he mention its broke, its killing itself, its going backwards or contrary to Darwin or anybody else.
Stop going to those websites and make your points with credible information.
If you don't see the difference between what the actual scientist says and what your intelligent design writer says he says, then I really don't know what to say.
http://www.livescience.com/14557-coli-offers-insight-evolution-bts.html


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I've never said that it was no longer E. coli, but that it's heading in the wrong direction, contrary to Darwinian evolutionary theory.



Science has not let the Darwinian Theory rest as the do-all, end-all in evolution theory. They are constantly finding out new and different things and present those findings.
It is not a shock that this "de-evolution" has occurred and was noticed. To read about it for the first time in an article is almost a eureka moment, but then when researched there are and have been examples of this happening. Evolution does not mean that everything is eventually going to be the exact same thing as everything else and advance in the same ways. It means change over time in order to adapt. If losing some things are necessary then so be it. Humans have been able to shed un-NEEDED dna (we are missing body parts and have organs that we no longer use) and we are still going. Science has not yet cracked the surface of what species needed and what they did not need, what species may or may not have been more advanced and then cut back on what they did not need to get where they are today. There has been too many species and too much time to make such a dent.....yet.
At the time Darwin"s theory was one of the best available. Time and study has shown that there are other things happening that may be added to that theory.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 12, 2013)

Pretty good reading. http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 12, 2013)

660griz said:


> Pretty good reading. http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf



So we see pigs, cows and hippos with hip bones, manatees might be in the middle at this point and then whales with what's left of hip bones with similar ear structures to the others too. But still, whales are now (and yes, still) whales, string. You're right about that.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> But still, whales are now (and yes, still) whales, string. You're right about that.



Yep. Whales will be whales. 
I think string may be falling into the old argument, "if we evolved from monkeys(apes), why are there still monkeys(apes)?". 

There are two usual answers for that question.

1) We didn't evolve from apes.(Which is the point some are trying to make.)

2)  Species evolve as offshoots of parent species: they branch out. This tends to happen when they become isolated from the parental species in some way (as when the New and Old World monkeys became separated by the Atlantic Ocean). Entire species do not evolve into new species; their offshoots do—and they can have many branching offshoots.

In some cases, newly evolved species end up out-competing their parental (or sibling) species, driving them to extinction, but by no means in all cases. Otherwise, there would always be exactly the same number of species on the planet (which, taken to its logical extreme, bearing in mind that we all go back to the same common ancestor, would imply that there could only ever be a single species on the planet!).

To put it simply, there are monkeys still around because, like us, not all species of monkeys have yet gone extinct.


----------

