Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 77 (578740)
09-02-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taq
09-02-2010 12:47 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:47 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 1:39 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 77 (578744)
09-02-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
08-31-2010 2:26 PM


Predicting Transitionals
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 2:26 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:26 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 48 of 77 (578745)
09-02-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 1:11 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:11 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 49 of 77 (578746)
09-02-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:55 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 50 of 77 (578748)
09-02-2010 1:43 PM


Why are you ignoring post #5, above?
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 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 77 (578775)
09-02-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 1:01 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:01 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 3:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 77 (578779)
09-02-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 3:18 PM


Genes With Pockets?
You want him to show you jeans with pockets?
Oh - Sorry. I misread. My bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 3:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 53 of 77 (578794)
09-02-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 1:30 AM


And the vegetable diet.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:30 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 54 of 77 (579183)
09-03-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
08-31-2010 2:26 PM


"The bacteria Diet Theory"
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 2:26 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2010 8:38 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 56 by Nij, posted 09-03-2010 9:38 PM barbara has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 77 (579218)
09-03-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by barbara
09-03-2010 7:26 PM


Re: "The bacteria Diet Theory"
Our DNA is more bacterial than HUMAN.
No, it's not. There's barely any sequence identity between bacteria and humans at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by barbara, posted 09-03-2010 7:26 PM barbara has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 56 of 77 (579241)
09-03-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by barbara
09-03-2010 7:26 PM


It's a bad name
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.
  • The nitrogen is; the oxygen actually comes from plants.
  • There are two ways to cut that: yes, a majority of the cells in a human body are bacteria, and if we were to count up how much total DNA is human and how much is bacterial in that body, you would be right. BUt if we examine only the human DNA, we see it is much more viral in origin (retroviruses inserting code, etc.) and this is still nowhere near a majority of it. To that also, if it is in the human genome it is necessarily human DNA: 100% of human DNA is human, regardless of where it initially came from.
  • I would not say it has that freedom. It certainly goes quite often, but modern man does its damnedest to ensure things like E. coli do NOT enter the body with every meal, for obvious reasons.
  • They are not waiting per se for us; if an opportunity arises they will merely take it, and if such a compromise is that opportunity then it is simply unfortunate for us.


    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.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by barbara, posted 09-03-2010 7:26 PM barbara has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 AM Nij has not replied
     Message 67 by barbara, posted 09-05-2010 12:28 AM Nij has not replied

      
    Bolder-dash
    Member (Idle past 3630 days)
    Posts: 983
    From: China
    Joined: 11-14-2009


    Message 57 of 77 (579377)
    09-04-2010 11:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 56 by Nij
    09-03-2010 9:38 PM


    Re: It's a bad name
    Which fairy tale world are you discussing?
    I was talking about the real evidence, not the ones in your mind.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by Nij, posted 09-03-2010 9:38 PM Nij has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2010 12:04 PM Bolder-dash has replied
     Message 59 by Admin, posted 09-04-2010 12:32 PM Bolder-dash has replied
     Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 09-04-2010 1:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 58 of 77 (579382)
    09-04-2010 12:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 57 by Bolder-dash
    09-04-2010 11:55 AM


    Re: It's a bad name
    Non-responsive, Bolder-dash. It's not make-believe just because you refuse to admit it's true.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

      
    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12998
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 59 of 77 (579389)
    09-04-2010 12:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 57 by Bolder-dash
    09-04-2010 11:55 AM


    Re: It's a bad name
    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!

    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:15 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

      
    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 2477 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 60 of 77 (579410)
    09-04-2010 1:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 57 by Bolder-dash
    09-04-2010 11:55 AM


    New structures
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash 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