|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Taq, there is big difference, a huge difference a cavernous difference between saying that we can look at retro-viruses to see that over time random mutations have occurred to some bits of DNA, and saying that those RM actually formed the structure of anything. Nevermind even attempting to throw NS into the mix.
Who was making the argument that Rm never happened? Certainly not I. If science was really this loose in drawing correlations, we would still be blaming the moon for the irritating effects of Celine Dion music. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Bolder writes: Basically what is says is that the only evidence anyone can ever come up with since the beginning of time, for the supposed random mutations and natural selection of evolution, that they think shows how all of life on the planet, every system, every thought, ever animal trait and behavior, and every complex, interrelated detail of existence, is the changing diets of some bacteria. What? Have you ever heard of transitional fossils? Are you really going to deny the ability of evolutionary theory to make detailed predictions regarding transitional fossils? How do you think palaeontologists go about the business of transitional fossil discovery? Do you think they just stick pins in a globe, fly off to random locations around the world and then dig about aimlessly? No. Of course they don't. Palaeontologists have some knowledge of the earlier form of life in the sequence they are studying and some knowledge of the later forms of life. They know the time period where the predicted transitional fossils should exist between these forms of life (if evolutionary theory is indeed correct) and the geological conditions that relate to this time period. They then determine the areas on the Earth where suitably fossilising rocks from the required time period might be accessible and begin the painstaking process of fossil discovery. In many cases taking years of concerted effort in often hostile conditions (deserts, Polar Regions etc.) Lo and behold transitional forms have been discovered. Exactly as predicted. Exactly where predicted. Relating to exactly when predicted. How on Earth are you going to deny that as evidence?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Taq, there is big difference, a huge difference a cavernous difference between saying that we can look at retro-viruses to see that over time random mutations have occurred to some bits of DNA, and saying that those RM actually formed the structure of anything. Why? I am going to need more than your say so. We have clear cut evidence that mutations accumulate over time, and has done so amongst our ape family. We directly observe that differences between apes, including humans, is due to differences in DNA. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put these two together. We observe that the accumulation of mutations in genes such as ERV's differs greatly than the accumulation of mutations in coding genes which is clear cut evidence for selection. All of the evidence you want is right there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Chimps rarely, if ever, tip the cart girl after buying beers during a round of golf. Playing it coy, are we? Why is human and chimp morphology different?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Bolder, why are you ignoring post #5, above?
I presented some evidence very early in the thread and you have ignored it for a day or more now. I might begin to wonder if you have no explanation for the nice sequence shown by those fossils. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The bacteria proves it, that's why chimps and crashfrog don't have pockets!! Who needs more proof. Don't bacteria have DNA? Isn't their DNA used to synthesize proteins? What does DNA have to do with pockets? Can you show me the gene for pockets in human pants?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You want him to show you jeans with pockets?
Oh - Sorry. I misread. My bad.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Bolderdash writes: None of these types of simple mutations are creating any new kinds of potential structures. Mutations can be demonstrated to create new structures. As you know, when the generation gaps are very brief, we can witness significant changes in the lab. with your favourites, the bacteria. When generations are longer, there's another type of experiment we can make. We can cheat natural selection by selecting variations that we choose. In this way, we can see the potential of the random mutations to produce novelty far more quickly, and it illustrates the point that it's actually conservative natural selection that puts the brakes on evolution more than the variation produced by mutations. So, you claim that mutations can't produce new structures. And, as usual, you're wrong. Mutations have produced all the edible stuff from the first plant.
Brassica Oleracea Kohlrabi Kale Chinese Broccoli Cauliflower Romanesco Broccoli Cabbage Brussels Sprouts Broccoli All this (and more) from a common ancestor in just a few thousand years; instant geological time. For more details, see: So, now you can add plants to your bacteria theory, and, if you actually understood the implications of what Taq is trying to explain to you, you'd be able to add animals as well.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4830 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
Yes, I agree this is more appropriate.
It is the bacteria's world and this is obvious in the fact: The air we breathe is the waste product of bacteria.Our DNA is more bacterial than HUMAN. E.Coli lives in the intestines of all mammals and it also has the freedom to come and go as it pleases. Our skin is covered in microbes that are all waiting for our immune system to be compromised so it can gain entrance to the Human hotel. In our bodies there are billions of bacteria making a living by providing services to us in exchange for a meal. Evolution that improves a species ability to obtain a meal also feeds all of its permanent residents that live inside it. Genetics is forced to study microbes DNA because these tiny invisible critters are prime suspects and are being implicated in causing human diseases.If there any "switches" in life forms that initiate changes in appearance as a result of changing environments, I will not be surprised if the culprit is bacteria. Since we are just reduced to a being that are made of atoms that are constantly excited by ongoing chemical reactions that makes us alive then what have we been taught by science so far? Microbes are the bio-chemical engineers of life and what do they produce? chemical reactions!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Our DNA is more bacterial than HUMAN. No, it's not. There's barely any sequence identity between bacteria and humans at all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
But calling evolution the "bacteria diet theory" does not relate to the abundance of bacteria and microbes on the earth, and thus commenting on those seems somewhat superfluous.
The air we breathe is the waste product of bacteria.
Our DNA is more bacterial than HUMAN. E.Coli lives in the intestines of all mammals and it also has the freedom to come and go as it pleases. Our skin is covered in microbes that are all waiting for our immune system to be compromised so it can gain entrance to the Human hotel. In our bodies there are billions of bacteria making a living by providing services to us in exchange for a meal. BD's reasoning is that supposedly our only direct evidence of evolution is in bacteria and how their ability to metabolise certain chemicals changes over time; for example, the nylon-eating bacteria and the oil-eating bacteria. He then postulates that the theory should be renamed to more accurately label what it is based on. What he has not accounted for is the direct evidence in other organisms (humankind being one of them) nor the indirect evidence from genetics, the fossil record, the chain of development, etc. Hence, the new title is not appropriate, as it fails to reflect the whole body of science in support of the theory to focus on one part of that evidence, and one which is horribly misrepresented at that. In short, BD wishes to rename the theory based not on what the theory would actually describe, but on what his misconceptions about evolution allow him to concede that it does describe.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Which fairy tale world are you discussing?
I was talking about the real evidence, not the ones in your mind.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Non-responsive, Bolder-dash. It's not make-believe just because you refuse to admit it's true.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Bolderdash writes: Which fairy tale world are you discussing? I was talking about the real evidence, not the ones in your mind. If you don't explain to Nij why you think he's in fantasyland then how is he to understand how you reached this conclusion. Could you please explain for Nij why you are rejecting his reply so that he has something to respond to? Thanks!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: I was talking about the real evidence, not the ones in your mind. Weren't you talking about new structures not coming from mutations, amongst other things? Have you recently realised that they do?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024