Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 151 of 402 (474127)
07-05-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 1:19 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
Show us the laboratory where the evolutionary model has been shown to be true from start to finish.
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
So there you go. The evolutionary model from start to finish. Right in front of your eyes using materials and techniques sufficiently simple enough for a 10th-grader to do.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 1:19 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:15 PM Rrhain has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 152 of 402 (474129)
07-05-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
07-05-2008 9:11 AM


Re: Running Power Plant
Why don't you ask some of the millions of people that were affected by, The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident.
Russia. 60,180 sq. miles affected 5 million people.
Belarus 2,316 sq. miles of land including 1,158 sq. miles of fertile agricultural land, was rendered useless. 3 million people affected.
Ukraine 11.36 million acres of fertile land, 17.2 million people affected.
20 years later the research still goes on. For decades to come the land and peoples will be affected.
This is what happens when science messes up in real life.
If you knew anything about what happened at Chernobyl, you would know it was not an accident cause by science messing up. It was cause by a plant manager deliberately shutting down safety systems in order to run an experiment that he could not run because the safety systems kept overriding his experiment. Yes, people were killed at Chernobyl due to this manager's incompetance.
Three Mile Island was caused the same way, plant operators deliberately shutting down safety systems because they thought they knew better and thought they were doing the right thing. Three Mile Island was an engineering disaster, but no one was injured, utility or public.
When people override the safety systems that are designed to protect the power plant or any other industrial plant, serious problems may result, including loss of life.
Edited by John 10:10, : sentence correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 9:11 AM ICANT has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 153 of 402 (474130)
07-05-2008 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Staffing
There are things that have not been observed, tested or reproduced but is accepted as a fact.
No one has been around the billions of years it would take to observe a water creature become a land creature or a land creature become a water creature. Neither has it been reproduced.
No one has observed some creature parenting offspring that evolved into apes on one side of the family and humans on the other side of the family. Neither has this been reproduced.
There is a lot of speculation concerning these events but they have not been observed, tested or reproduced.
They have been claimed to have been tested, observed and reproduced.
But claiming something does not make it so.
If I am not mistaken this is the point John 10:10 is trying to make.
Finally someone understands what I'm saying, but it seems to take another Believer in our creator God to do so.
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:59 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by subbie, posted 07-05-2008 7:27 PM John 10:10 has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 154 of 402 (474131)
07-05-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 1:39 PM


Re: Projects
quote:
Now you are finally beginning to understand why the evolutionary model is not true science.
No, the only thing that we're beginning to understand is the true depth of your misunderstanding about science.
Science studies the past by examining the evidence left behind. You are free to discount scientific study of the past if it disagrees with your minority religious view, that's your right. You are also free to believe that if an event cannot be observed real time, it can't be studied scientifically. The good thing is that your believing it won't stop science from studying it. It will just interfere with your ability to learn. So long as you don't try to prevent others from learning, you're the only one who suffers there.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 1:39 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:23 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 155 of 402 (474132)
07-05-2008 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 7:19 PM


Re: Staffing
quote:
Finally someone understands what I'm saying, but it seems to take another Believer in our creator God to do so.
I am quite confident that the only people who agree with what you're saying will be those who share your unusual reading of the bible. That fact ought to give you pause to consider whether you are wrong, but I fear that, perversely, it will only reinforce your ideas.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:19 PM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 156 of 402 (474133)
07-05-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by NosyNed
07-05-2008 11:34 AM


Re: Observations
So we can observe the past, just as directly as we do most things in life. We can arrive at a degree of certainty so high that, while less than 100%, is still higher than for most things we would all be comfortable with calling "fact"
Everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not to their own set of facts. Facts are things that have been proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Connecting certion observations together into what is called the evolutionary model are not proven facts, no matter how much evolutionists wish it to be so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2008 11:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2008 7:50 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 157 of 402 (474134)
07-05-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Rrhain
07-05-2008 11:42 AM


Of course not. Like all things in science, evolution is the result of the observational process and as such, it is never declared to be so with 100% knowledge. We might have it 100% right, but we'll never know for sure because we can only make observations and it is impossible to observe everything.
Exactly! In fact evolution is not really science at all. It's basically a theory about how life began and progressed to where we are today without a Creator. Many evolutionists state this up front by saying they do not want there to be a Creator God like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 11:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by subbie, posted 07-05-2008 7:45 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 07-07-2008 3:45 AM John 10:10 has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 158 of 402 (474138)
07-05-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 7:39 PM


quote:
Many evolutionists state this up front by saying they do not want there to be a Creator God like that.
No, but some do say that they don't believe in such a god. But also, many "evolutionists" believe in the same creator god that you do. The difference is that they believe as a matter of faith, while at the same time understanding and believing what science says about how god works.
What's the difference between a scientist and a creo? A scientist is able to understand both religion and science and synthesize the two into a consistent world view. A creo isn't.
What conclusion should we draw from the fact that many scientists who believe in religion also believe that the ToE is scientific, but only those who hold a particular religious view think the ToE isn't scientific and creationism is?
Edited by subbie, : Ooops.
Edited by subbie, : Tweek

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:39 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 159 of 402 (474139)
07-05-2008 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 7:30 PM


Re: Observations
Everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not to their own set of facts. Facts are things that have been proven to be correct to a very high degree of accuracy. Connecting certion observations together into what is called the evolutionary model are not proven facts, no matter how much evolutionists wish it to be so.
Let me try just once more.
Facts are pretty much as you describe them. Beyond that you are totally incorrect when it comes to the scientific method.
While everyone in a religious setting may be entitled to their own set of opinions, this is not the case in science. In science opinions or ideas (hypotheses) can be tested. Those failing the tests are scrapped! Once an idea is disproved it is no longer taken seriously unless additional evidence can be found. Therefore it is entirely false in science that "everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions."
You write that connecting observations (facts) together "into what is called the evolutionary model are not proven facts." No, that would be called a theory. A theory explains those facts. By themselves facts have little meaning; a theory organizes those facts into a framework and gives them much more meaning and usefulness. All of science operates on facts and theories. There is no such thing as "true science" as you have been claiming. That seems to be a religiously-based attempt to pry the theory of evolution out of the body of science in an effort to get it taken out of schools. It is essentially a lie, made from whole cloth, and not based on scientific evidence.
A theory is a construct that has explains pretty much all the facts, is not contradicted by significant facts, has withstood the test of time and has made successful predictions. This is considerably different from an opinion.
In science there generally is only one theory at a time within a given field. Currently the theory that explains speciation is the theory of evolution. There are no competing scientific theories. There are various religious beliefs which take a different position, but they are not science because they are revelation-based rather than evidence-based and they are not subject to falsification and the rest of the scientific method.
And please, when you are attempting to discuss science use the terminology of science and don't just make things up as you go along.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:30 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:57 PM Coyote has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 160 of 402 (474140)
07-05-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ICANT
07-05-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Running Power Plant
You are probably right that they were not doing research because if they had been they could have prevented those disasters rather than research it for the last 20 years.
I've answered this before, but I'll answer it again.
Sometimes we can't prevent man from deliberately doing some very stupid things, like overriding safety systems specifically designed to protect nuclear power plants from destroying themselves. Now we have more checks and balances that would prevent operators from making these kinds of mistakes.
New nuclear power plants that can be built today are what is called "passively safe." Passively-safe reactor designs use natural forces such as gravity or convection to replace multiple pumps, pipes and valves for supplying cooling water to the reactor in the event of an accident. But this again could possibly be overriden by operators choosing to do otherwise.
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 11:45 AM ICANT has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 161 of 402 (474142)
07-05-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Granny Magda
07-05-2008 1:27 PM


Re: Adam and the Apes
OK, I'll bite. If endogenous retroviruses are the legacy of Adam and Eve, why are the very same ERV's present in chimps?
The key is not "mutate and survive," but be "reborn and live eternally in a resurrection body."
The legacy that is our as a result of Adam & Eve has affected all of God's creatures, not just man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Granny Magda, posted 07-05-2008 1:27 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by subbie, posted 07-05-2008 8:12 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 168 by Granny Magda, posted 07-05-2008 8:39 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 162 of 402 (474144)
07-05-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Coyote
07-05-2008 1:28 PM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
Face it, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, but no scientific evidence for creationism.
Correction! There is a hugh amount of speculation for the theory of evolution, but no scientific evidence proven by scientific testing from start to finish for the evolutionary model.
Big difference!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2008 1:28 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Rrhain, posted 07-07-2008 3:55 AM John 10:10 has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 163 of 402 (474145)
07-05-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 8:06 PM


Re: Adam and the Apes
quote:
The key is not "mutate and survive," but be "reborn and live eternally in a resurrection body."
The legacy that is our as a result of Adam & Eve has affected all of God's creatures, not just man.
This particular forum is a science forum. Any scientific evidence to support these claims?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:06 PM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 164 of 402 (474147)
07-05-2008 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rrhain
07-05-2008 5:18 PM


So there you go. The evolutionary model from start to finish. Right in front of your eyes using materials and techniques sufficiently simple enough for a 10th-grader to do.
And a fully developed man pops out, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 5:18 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2008 8:25 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 199 by Rrhain, posted 07-07-2008 4:03 AM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 165 of 402 (474148)
07-05-2008 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by subbie
07-05-2008 7:24 PM


Re: Projects
Science studies the past by examining the evidence left behind. You are free to discount scientific study of the past if it disagrees with your minority religious view, that's your right. You are also free to believe that if an event cannot be observed real time, it can't be studied scientifically. The good thing is that your believing it won't stop science from studying it. It will just interfere with your ability to learn. So long as you don't try to prevent others from learning, you're the only one who suffers there.
Yes, science studies the past, and then "proves" what happened in the past has resulted in what we see today. I must sound like a broken record, but some here can't quite understand this.
The evolutionary model has not nor ever be proven; therefore, it's nothing more than wishful thinking by those who don't want there to be creator God as the reason why we exist.
It's as simple and as difficult as that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by subbie, posted 07-05-2008 7:24 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by subbie, posted 07-05-2008 8:31 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024