|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
nafajoeverclear writes:
quote: If I can show you evolution happening right in front of your eyes, is that not proof that it isn't a lie? Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent 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 shold 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. So there you go: Evolution right before your eyes. Not once but twice. So now that we have evidence that evolution happens, how can you say that it cannot be proven not to be a lie?
quote: And you would be wrong. Tell me how a "certain type of thinking" makes the bacteria somehow immune to T4 phage or converts the phage into being able to infect a new host.
quote: And it can't possibly be because it isn't true? Who do you think is more likely to know if evolution is a religion or not: Those who study it or those who know very little about it?
quote: Good. That's the best thing to have happen. The question then becomes how you go about answering those questions. Do you go into the lab and perform experiments? Do you go into the field and conduct studies? Do you go to the library and read the journals for the results of studies carried out by other researchers? Do you go to the university to take classes and ask the professors your questions to see if they can guide you to find out the answers? Or do you talk to other people who know just as little about evolutionary theory as you do?
quote: Yes...? For it to be true it has to be completely true. What's wrong with that? There's a reason that evolutionary theory is advanced as it is. It has the evidence to back it up. What data, studies, articles, or experiments are you using to justify your claim that there is something wrong?
quote: And your "problems" are "significant" for what reason, specifically? Look, everybody is entitled to have an opinion. But just because you are entitled to an opinion doesn't mean your opinion has any validity or value. What evidence are you using to justify yourself? What do you know about evolutionary theory? You need to be specific. You can disbelieve in the results of the work of literally thousands of scientists all you want, but if you expect anybody to take you seriously, you're going to need more support for that rejection than simply, "I don't like the way it makes me feel." I'm sorry if I sound like I am being harsh, but you don't do this with other aspects of science. You don't debate the germ "theory" of disease or the atomic "theory" of matter or gravitational "theory" or the photon "theory" of light even though you probably have never seen a germ, have never seen an atom, have no idea what gravity actually is, and have never seen a photon. You don't go to your tax attorney for advice on how to treat heart disease or to perform an angioplasty. You don't go to your cardiologist for advice on how to change the transmission in your car. You don't go your mechanic for advice on how to best take care of the new lime tree you've planted in the back yard. You don't go to your horticulturist for instruction on how to speak Japanese. You don't hire a language teacher to build your house. You don't seek an architect when trying to build a menu for dinner. You don't ask the chef to prepare your taxes. And yet, you seem to think that somebody other than biologists are the best qualified people to tell you about biology? I am not saying that it is impossible for biologists to be wrong. I am simply saying that the evidence that will prove them wrong will come from those who are versed in biology. How could it come from anywhere else? How do you show a scientific theory to be wrong when you know nothing about what the theory actually says? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
navajoeverclear responds to me:
quote: No, it was something that was observed. I just showed you how you could observe evolution happening right in front of your eyes. Your thinking doesn't change the bacteria or the phage. That's the point behind science: It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can show.
quote: But where is your evidence? I don't deny that you think this, but you need to justify why you think this. The fact is that evolution happens. I have shown you an experiment that you can do that directly displays evolution right in front of your eyes. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how that happens. Do we know everything about how evolution happens? Of course not. Nobody will say otherwise. But to pretend that there is some question as to whether evolution happens in the first place is disingenuous at best. To behave as if the extent of evolution is somehow nebulous is to ignore reality.
quote: But the fact that you didn't mention them means we cannot answer them. We are incapable of reading your mind. If you want an answer, you're going to have to ask a question. Be specific.
quote: Which are? You haven't mentioned any that I have seen. How do you expect us to respond to your questions if you refuse to indicate what they are? Personally, it sounds like you're trying to play a game of gotcha. That isn't very nice. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
navajoeverclear writes:
quote: Logical error: Shifting the goalposts. You didn't ask for evidence of speciation. You asked for evidence of evolution. If you wanted evidence of speciation, then you should have asked for it:
Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events That said, what is the problem with the evidence from the bacteria that precludes speciation? That is, if you agree that 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? If you admit that the genome can change a little, why is it impossible for it to change as much as you like, given time? How does the chromosome know that it isn't allowed to mutate anymore? What chemical signal is there to inform the chromosome that if it mutates any more, it will create a new species, which isn't allowed, so it better not do that? Oh, if it had not done that last mutation, then it could do this next one, but the chromosome is only allowed to mutate X times, no more.
quote: What parts do you? The more you hold back, the more it appears like you're not actually interested in learning anything but rather you are more interested in playing games.
quote: I'll believe it when I see it. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
navajoeverclear responds to me...I think...he doesn't use the right Reply button:
quote:quote:quote: Why? Have you not looked at the fossil record? Or are the fossils not observable? Have you not looked at the genetic evidence? Or is that, too, not observable? The theory of evolution is based upon a huge number of observations. It is not like a there is only a single experiment that makes biologists claim what they do.
quote: I never said you were. What I said was that all opinions need to be justified. I never said you didn't have any justifications...just that you hadn't presented any.
quote: I don't understand. We take your comments seriously and present you with information that directly goes to the statements you are making, and somehow this is problematic? I can understand that you may feel overwhelmed by all of the information being presented to you. That is, you may feel that you have asked a simple question and we have responded with a barrage of information in return. But there's a reason for that: Your question actually has been answered in a seemingly definitive method. It may be upsetting to have such a strong response shown to you, but that does not mean anybody is being "defensive." In fact, one has to wonder why you are reacting the way you are. If you are truly here to learn something, why must we withhold information from you? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
navajoeverclear writes:
quote: Have you considered doing some research and finding out.
quote: Why not? What is it about studying bacteria, which have fast generational times, that is so disconcerting that you must ignore it?
quote: Excuse me, but what do you mean by "variation"? How is the example of the bacteria that I gave you not an example of evolution? Remember, all the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor. Therefore, it cannot be "variation." Since they're all from a single ancestor, there is no "variation." There can only be evolution. And it isn't "adaptation," either. If one of the bacteria can do it, then they all can do it. Since they don't all do it, there is no "adaptation." There can only be evolution.
quote: What about us? Have you done any research on transposons, insertions, and the like? You seem to have a pre-conceived notion that such things can't possibly happen and yet you provide no justification as to why they can't.
quote: Well, the evidence from chromosome 2 seems to indicate that the ancestor previous to humans had 48 chromosomes rather than 46. You see, if you look at the chromosomes of humans and compare them to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, you find that the human chromosome 2 looks exactly like a fusion of these primates chromosomes 2p and 2q. Chromosomes have caps on the ends called "telomeres." If you look at the human chromosome 2, you will find that right in the middle of one of the branches is a telomeric sequence. Plus, if you look at the bands on the chromosome you will find that the human chromosome 2 looks like the bands of primate chromosome 2p, the telomeric sequence, and then the primate chromosome 2q bands in reverse order. Here's some information about it, including pictures showing the bands:
Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry quote: Um, you claim you "don't want to start conflict," and yet you accuse people of "persecuting" you. That doesn't seem to be a consistent statement.
quote: Could you give an example of a question you have asked that hasn't been answered? You're playing games. Stop beating around the bush and come out with it. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
quote: Actually, it's the other way around. The chromosome didn't break into two. Rather, it fused into one.
A Translocation Between Man and Chimpanzee Chromosomes ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
navajoeverclear responds to me:
quote: No, not "variation." Evolution. Remember the experiment: All the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor. There is no variation. The experiment is explicitly designed to eliminate any claims of "pre-existing variation" in the population.
quote: As schrafinator pointed out, no. While bacteria with fully realized second chromosomes are fairly rare, even common bacteria often have more than one plasmid. It makes for some very interesting results from conjugation. You see, bacteria often exchange genetic information such that if one bacteria happens to have a genetic trait, it can give that trait to another, already-living bacterium...and sometimes in the process lose it for itself.
quote: Like what? You keep saying this, but you keep refusing to give a single example of what you think is an overstepping of analysis. What are you talking about? Be specific.
quote: An internet discussion group made up of random individuals is most likely the worst place to actually learn something. It may give you a plethora of information about where to start looking, get you at least cognizant of the terms used in the field, and such, but it is lousy when it comes to actually getting down to brass tacks. Even if we had a brilliant teacher here, online forums are slow, restricted, and not nearly as interactive as those who hype the internet make it out to be. We can help you get started, but the most significant learning you can do is going to be in a library and a lab. We cannot provide either of those things to you. A friend of mine once made a comment that is very appropriate here: If someone can change your morals simply by talking to you for ten minutes, then they weren't really your morals to begin with. Now, while she was talking about morality, it applies to most other deeply-held concepts. Evolutionary theory is a big topic. There is no way that we could give you a comprehensive understanding of it in just a few, brief posts scattered over the course of a week...not unless you were already on the way to having that understanding in the first place and just needed a few more pieces to tie it all together. If I recall correctly, you say you are in junior high school. I would highly recommend, if you are interested in this subject, to do what it takes to get into biology in high school...with lab. Ask your teachers about what books in the library would be appropriate for learning about evolutionary theory beyond what is dealt with in class (I can guarantee you that very little of your class time will be spent on evolution in particular) and see if there are any experiments you might be able to conduct concerning evolution...like the bacteria one I described. But even though this isn't the best place to learn everything about evolution, it can be a great place to learn something about it. If you have specific questions, we can help you organize what it is you are actually trying to find out at the very least. But you have to be specific. What is it you are getting at? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
youoweme50 writes:
quote: BZZZZT! Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, youoweme50. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has! Well, Bob, youoweme50 has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, youoweme50 gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations. But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
youoweme50 responds to me:
quote: (*chuckle*) I love being psychoanalyzed over the internet. I always learn such wonderful things about myself! Now I learn that because I don't believe in your god, that must mean I am "missing something." Did it ever cross your mind that just because I don't believe in your god, that doesn't mean I don't believe in any god? There is more to the question of religion than Christian/atheist.
quote: Your mind is set and only a true revelation of the Almighty Zeus can allow you to accept the Pantheon as the true gods. You see...your argument applies just as equally to you as it does to everybody else.
quote: What church? What poor treatment? Remember what I said about being analyzed over the internet? Some quick questions: Have I ever been to seminary?Rabbinical school? Am I ordained by any religious organization? Am I an atheist? Think carefully. Remember...just because I don't believe in your god does not mean I am an atheist.
quote: Physician, heal thyself! The Spirit has been screaming at you and you have yet to turn your ear to it.
quote: And what makes you think you have seen the sign of Jonah? Has it not crossed your mind that god does exist but not in the way you think? Or are you telling us you are incapable of error? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
zephyr responds to me:
quote: No. They are irrelevant. The validity of my arguments rests upon the justifications provided to support them, not whether or not I am a priest, ex-priest, atheist, or whatever. And I especially don't want people to respond with, "You're just saying that because you're such-and-such." Someone said the church had "hurt" me. And how would he know that? I know I haven't said so here and I'm fairly certain said person knows diddly squat about my personal life. Thus, they're saying that the only reason I'm saying what I'm saying is that I'm some disgruntled ex-Catholic or some such (and since I'm crawling into a cynical mood at the moment) who was probably sexually abused by the priests. I wanted him to consider the possibility that I am one of those priests. Maybe I am...maybe I'm not. Does it matter? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024