Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
29 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,272 Year: 22,308/19,786 Month: 871/1,834 Week: 371/500 Day: 4/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bacteria a powerful evidence of creation
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 12 (514378)
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


link writes:

The picture above is a short chain of cyanobacterial cells, from the Bitter Springs Chert of northern Australia (about 1 billion years old). Very similar cyanobacteria are alive today; in fact, most fossil cyanobacteria can almost be referred to living genera

http://www.mineraltown.com/Reports/fossil_record/fossil_bacteria.php?idioma=2

As with this example of a bacterial fossil, we can see that recognisable bacteria, from 1 billion years ago, have been found.

Since bacteria are asexual, reproduce much much faster than humans, then a fossil of 1 billion years would represent the equivalent of a human fossil which is what? 100 billion years old?

The silly examples of flagellum apparently "evolving" certainly seem to not to be impressive, when put next to such a living fossil.

If creation is true, you would expect that bacteria would be found in the fossils, as recognisable. This is evidence therefore, as defined in a mdus ponen, evidence being classed as a "viable" component.

Now given the hyper-ability of bacteria, to mutate, given that higher organisms such as humans don't have this phenomenal ability, we would expect EVEN MORE evolution. Yet what do we find? Powerful evidence that they adapt but do not change over time.

Now all you can do is ad-hoc -explain-away, the actual evidence, with nonsense such as normalised selection which is the equivalent of saying; "NOTHING is a better explanation, therefore this favours evolution".

It's the same with millions of years. "Nothing" is supposed to be impressive. What would be impressive is if we actually saw some evolution in the fossils. "Nothing" certainly doesn't favour you guys.

But ofcourse - just keep on stating ad nauseum, that there is no evidence for creation whatsoever. This doesn't make you scientific - it makes you dogmatic, because even a very weak theory has evidence.

Evidence is weak, as defined scientifically.

(Red balls only in a bag theory) -- pick one ball out, if it's red, that is evidence of red-ball theory. A weak consequent. Weak, because of the fallacy of affirmation, whereas a strong falsification is only one green ball). -- Intellectually, you have no option but to agree that if creation was true, such "evidence" would follow, and this particular evidence IS POWERFUL!

(put topic where you so choose)


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 07-07-2009 9:08 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 07-07-2009 9:16 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Phage0070, posted 07-07-2009 9:30 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 6 by bluescat48, posted 07-07-2009 2:01 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 07-07-2009 2:38 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-07-2009 11:54 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2009 5:23 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 07-08-2009 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 8:55 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 12 by tuffers, posted 07-20-2009 11:48 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 12 (514391)
07-07-2009 8:56 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 3 of 12 (514395)
07-07-2009 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


Image 1

Image 2

Look at those two images. Now imagine they fossilised. Do you think you'd be claiming they're 'practically identical'? Almost indistinguishable?

I would.

Here's the thing: the first image is of Bacteria, the second of Archaea. Genetically and biochemically the second one is as close to you and I as it is to the first one.

Morphological description of microbes tells you very little about them because they are morphological very uniform. The variety in microbial life is at the metabolic and biochemical level - and that doesn't fossilise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 4 of 12 (514397)
07-07-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


Just for fun, let's start with this bit of nonsense.

Now given the hyper-ability of bacteria, to mutate, given that higher organisms such as humans don't have this phenomenal ability, we would expect EVEN MORE evolution.

Please define "more evolution." How do you think evolution is measured? What units? What's the average "amount" of evoution, by which you compare the evolution of bacteria to know that it evolved "more."

It really is impossible for you to say anything intelligent about a subject that you know so little about, particularly when so much of what you think you know is wrong.

But, it least you're entertaining to those of us who do know.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 12 (514399)
07-07-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


mike the wiz writes:

Since bacteria are asexual, reproduce much much faster than humans, then a fossil of 1 billion years would represent the equivalent of a human fossil which is what? 100 billion years old?


It would represent... well, a fossil of bacteria from 1 billion years ago. Trying to equate that to a human is simply not applicable.

mike the wiz writes:

Now given the hyper-ability of bacteria, to mutate, given that higher organisms such as humans don't have this phenomenal ability, we would expect EVEN MORE evolution.


Here is where you are going wrong; you don't understand evolutionary theory at all. Mutation is not a directed process, and is not something that necessarily must accumulate. An organism can find a niche and, provided the conditions remain similar, it is quite possible that any mutations are going to make it less viable. This can lead to bacteria, or any organism for that matter, to survive extremely long periods of time without particularly significant change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 6 of 12 (514434)
07-07-2009 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


But ofcourse - just keep on stating ad nauseum, that there is no evidence for creation whatsoever. This doesn't make you scientific - it makes you dogmatic, because even a very weak theory has evidence.

Except that Creation isn't a theory, it is a construct.

Construct: a nontestable statement to account for a set of observations.
(Michael Schermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, 2d Edition, 2002, Part 1, pg 20)


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15666
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 7 of 12 (514439)
07-07-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


quote:

If creation is true, you would expect that bacteria would be found in the fossils, as recognisable. This is evidence therefore, as defined in a mdus ponen, evidence being classed as a "viable" component.

This is not necessarily true. Many creationists assume that animals diversified to the family level (beyond genus !) in a period of time that most evolutionists would consider amazingly short.

quote:

Now given the hyper-ability of bacteria, to mutate, given that higher organisms such as humans don't have this phenomenal ability, we would expect EVEN MORE evolution. Yet what do we find? Powerful evidence that they adapt but do not change over time.

Firstly, hyper-mutation only occurs under strong environmental stress. Secondly, the quote is limited to one branch - the cyanobacteria (and even then only those that form stromatolites) all we can say is that the material preserved by fossilisation - which seems to be the shells - closely resembles modern species (but is still different).

quote:

Now all you can do is ad-hoc -explain-away, the actual evidence, with nonsense such as normalised selection which is the equivalent of saying; "NOTHING is a better explanation, therefore this favours evolution".

We have another alternative. We can point out that cherry-picking some examples does not give the whole picture. (And stabilising selection is not "NOTHING").

I should add - and this is an important point - saying that all (known) ancient species are similar to modern species is not the same as saying all modern species are the same as ancient species. That some lineages have not greatly changed in the features that we cannot detect does not mean that no evolution has occurred.

quote:

It's the same with millions of years. "Nothing" is supposed to be impressive. What would be impressive is if we actually saw some evolution in the fossils. "Nothing" certainly doesn't favour you guys.

You mean like the many transitional fossils that have been found - and continue to be found ?

quote:

(Red balls only in a bag theory) -- pick one ball out, if it's red, that is evidence of red-ball theory. A weak consequent. Weak, because of the fallacy of affirmation, whereas a strong falsification is only one green ball). -- Intellectually, you have no option but to agree that if creation was true, such "evidence" would follow, and this particular evidence IS POWERFUL!

So drawing a red ball is weak evidence for the "red ball only theory". But drawing a mix of red and green balls, ignoring all the green balls and (falsely) claiming that your theory only predicted red balls would be "POWERFUL" evidence. I don't think so.

Edited by PaulK, : Added an important point


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 8 of 12 (514475)
07-07-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


mike the wiz writes:

If creation is true, you would expect that bacteria would be found in the fossils, as recognisable.

Why? What particular doctrine or tenet of creationism makes this "prediction"? Bear in mind that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that is disproved by this evidence (such as it is, lacking a lot of essential detail about how much difference there may actually be between bacteria that fossilized over a billion years ago and bacteria alive today).

This is evidence therefore, as defined in a mdus ponen, evidence being classed as a "viable" component.

I'm sorry... could you rephrase that (or fix the typos)? I really don't have a clue what you are trying to say in that sentence.

The article you cited had this additional remark about the bacterial fossil findings:

quote:
The group shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms.

Note the reference to morphology (i.e. shape). That's about all there is that can be compared. Note also the sense of uniqueness attributed to this particular finding. You wouldn't be trying to "cherry pick", would you?

In any case, now that you have locked onto this "POWERFUL" evidence for creationism, I have to ask: what particular sect or denomination of creationism are you referring to as being supported? You are accepting as evidence fossilized bacteria that have been dated to over 1 billion years ago, so you are obviously not using this in support of the various flavors of YEC.

And in what way is your "supported" form of creationism incompatible with the theory of evolution? Can you come up with some other "prediction" from this form of creationism, such that it concurs with observation, whereas ToE does not? (Extra points for being able to motivate the prediction based on specific statements from any chosen creationist literature -- not because this necessarily makes you "right", but simply because you are showing a "good faith" effort, as opposed to equivocating, prevaricating or just making stuff up.)


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 9 of 12 (514486)
07-08-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


This seems to be a variant on the old, dumb, debunked "Why are there still monkeys?" fallacy.

Do you have anything new to bring to the table?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 10 of 12 (514513)
07-08-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


Hi, Mike the Wiz.

mike the wiz writes:

If creation is true, you would expect that bacteria would be found in the fossils, as recognisable.

As opposed to evolution, which predicts that fossils will be unrecognizable.

-----

mike the wiz writes:

Now given the hyper-ability of bacteria, to mutate, given that higher organisms such as humans don't have this phenomenal ability, we would expect EVEN MORE evolution. Yet what do we find? Powerful evidence that they adapt but do not change over time.

First off, how does a bacterium adapt without changing?

Second, why do you feel that the shape of a cell must change over time? The skin cells of a giraffe look pretty much the same as the skin cells of a hagfish.

Given this observation, why do you think the Theory of Evolution needs a cell's gross morphology to change over time?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 11 of 12 (514904)
07-13-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


evidence for creation
(Red balls only in a bag theory) -- pick one ball out, if it's red, that is evidence of red-ball theory. A weak consequent. Weak, because of the fallacy of affirmation, whereas a strong falsification is only one green ball). -- Intellectually, you have no option but to agree that if creation was true, such "evidence" would follow, and this particular evidence IS POWERFUL!

While I like your (red balls only in a bag theory), because this really is often how science operates, I don't see how this could be even remotely construed as "evidence for creation." What does that even mean when you say "creation?" That God made the first bacteria? If so, where is the proof "God" was ever involved? Explain how this is evidence that God, whatever that is, was involved.

I just don't see how this is powerful evidence for creation, when it has the explanatory power of aardvarks are evidence of God's thoughts.

Help me see this amazing connection, because from where I'm sitting it seems to be you pulling the red balls only in a bag right about now.


"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 12 of 12 (515664)
07-20-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


SEVERAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS
You have misunderstood several things, including the general definitions of creationism and evolution.

Creationism relates to how life started, and many theologians who believe in creationism (i.e. that life was started by an intelligent force) also accept that life then evolved over billions of years, due to the overwhelming evidence for this.

However, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection does not state there is a law that a species MUST evolve. A species only evolves where a mutation gives an individual an advantage within its environment and therefore a better than average chance of surviving and passing on its genes to the next generation. Mutations are random and therefore most mutations do not give an advantage, so most don't lead to evolution.

It is no surprise at all that relatively simple organisms like bacteria are surviving in very similar states to those that existed 1 billion years ago. At least you accept that life has been around for at least that long! It could be that they are direct unevolved descendents, or that they have evolved from a different sub-branch of bacteria to fill the same niche.

Finally, as I'm sure you are aware, there are many, many examples of fossils that do display evidence of evolution. And there will be no mammals or other vertebrates in the same strata as your 1 billion year old bacteria.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019