Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 5:53 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Pressie, vimesey (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,657 Year: 3,694/19,786 Month: 689/1,087 Week: 58/221 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 31 of 77 (578716)
09-02-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 4:42 AM


Since I already knew you had absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the claims Darwinian evolution makes (crashfrog says so is not evidence, remember?), it was hardly necessary for you to waste four paragraphs claiming you can provide "abundance of evidence" proceeded by none.

I provided that info in my earlier post on ERV's. These ancient retroviral insertions provide information on the accumulation of mutations and common ancestry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 4:42 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 32 of 77 (578719)
09-02-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 11:17 AM


Well let's take a closer look:

I know you've seen 29+ evidences for Macroevolution

Nope, supposed evidence for macro-evolution is NOT evidence for mechanisms. I will give you a hint how you can know this. Read the article! "Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories " The fact that the article itself tells you it is about evolution independent of the mechanisms involved in creating that evolution should give you some clue that it is NOT evidence about the mechanisms involved.

In simpler math terms you may understand: Not about the mechanisms=Not about the mechanisms.

Beneficial Mutations

Hmm, what does this link take us to? An evolution page attempting to answer the question, quote "Are Mutations Harmful", which then goes on to talk about sickle cell resistance, and nylon eating bacteria, and lactose tolerance in bacteria. Sound familiar? Ok, no credit given. Stick with Bacteria Diet Theory.

I know you've seen bacterial evidence of complexity-increasing mutations because I showed it to you

Whoops, we are still on the Bacteria Diet. Perhaps you mistyped.

I know you've seen evidence of common descent by modification in this thread,...

Quck IQ test: Is evidence for common descent evidence for

A. common descent
B. aliens from space
C. random mutations and natural selection
D. crashfrog not being very clever

Ok, I confess, its a trick question, there is only one wrong answer, C. I thought if I gave you more options it might help.

You just have to open the books and read them...

Don't you think it would be more fair if I have to open the books and read them, you also should have to read them?

Now, about the new name change for evolution, The Bacteria Diet, since there appears to be no objections, are we all in agreement now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 11:17 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:28 PM Bolder-dash has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 77 (578721)
09-02-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:17 PM


Nope, supposed evidence for macro-evolution is NOT evidence for mechanisms.

But this is the same shell-game you've been playing throughout, Dash. When you ask for evidence of random mutation and natural selection, we provide it, but then you complain that it's not evidence for the vast history of common descent of organisms.

But when we provide evidence for the vast history of common descent of organisms, you complain that it's not evidence for random mutation and natural selection!

It's impossible to please you because you never understand exactly what claim we're providing the evidence for. You always play this game - evidence for one claim is not evidence for another, which is "what you were asking for all along" (even though you weren't), so you ignore it.

Evidence for macroevolution is evidence for macroevolution. You rejected it because it's not evidence for random mutation and natural selection. But bacterial evidence was given as evidence for random mutation and natural selection, and you rejected it because it wasn't evidence for macroevolution.

When we tell you "all you have to do is ask"? What we're saying is this: stop playing this dishonest game where you reject evidence for one claim because it doesn't support another. If you want evidence for random mutation and natural selection, and are then shown it, don't open threads like this one to complain that it doesn't support macroevolution, because that's not what we presented the evidence for.

Every single part of the theory of evolution can be substantiated with mountains of evidence. You just have to ask, and understand what the evidence is being presented for.

Whoops, we are still on the Bacteria Diet.

Yes, because bacterial experiments substantiate the mechanisms you've asked for evidence for. Subsequently you've complained that they aren't evidence for macroevolution and common descent by modification.

Well, ok. I gave you 29+ evidences for that. You just complained that they didn't substantiate random mutation and natural selection!

Do you think we're all so stupid that we're not going to catch on? Please.

Don't you think it would be more fair if I have to open the books and read them, you also should have to read them?

I have read them, Dash. That's how I know what's in them. When I give you textbook citations I'm opening my own textbooks, for the biochemistry classes I'm taking, and copying the information right out of them.

And when are you going to reply to, or even notice, Taq's post on ERV's?

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:17 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:40 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 34 of 77 (578722)
09-02-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taq
09-01-2010 3:39 PM


I appreciate very much that you would like the data to be about Rm mutations and natural selection, but unfortunately instead of talking about what you would like the data to be about, I am forced to talk about what the data actually is talking about-which is about constructing phylogenies from retroviruses.

Yea, sure, in an ideal world, collecting data about phylogenies through retroviruses would be exactly the same thing as demonstrating the mechanisms for evolutionary change through natural selection, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as winning the power-ball lottery twice in one day, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as having sex with Paris Hilton on a cocaine fueled all night binge, while finding out that you just won two power-ball lotteries while Nicole Richie is filming it all from on top of the headboard-but alas we live in a compromised world-where we have to just stick with boring reality shows.

But I am with you, I just wish...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 09-01-2010 3:39 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:37 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:47 PM Bolder-dash has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 77 (578723)
09-02-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:31 PM


Dash -

Do both bacteria and higher organisms have DNA?

Do both bacteria and higher organisms replicate their DNA as they reproduce?

Do both bacteria and higher organisms use DNA sequences to construct proteins?

Do both bacteria and higher organisms use proteins to interact with their chemical environments, metabolize nutrients, and perform other biochemical tasks?

Please be honest. If you can honestly answer these questions you'll be forced to conclude that bacteria are effective model organisms for higher organisms, and therefore that observations of mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection in bacteria substantiate their existence in higher organisms - and, moreover, that phylogenies constructed from ERV sequences prove that this, in fact, is the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:31 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:52 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 36 of 77 (578725)
09-02-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 12:28 PM


I know I know I know crash, I feel your pain. I keep putting this burden on you to provide evidence for something other than bacteria changing its diet, and its just not fair, because well, its hard work.

And then I make it even more difficult for you by insisting that evidence for common descent is not evidence for mechanisms. Its so unfair. I mean why shouldn't you be allowed to just draw unrelated conclusions without being called on it all the time. If you see a baseball, why shouldn't you be able to just say, that it evolved from a ping pong ball, without having to show how! God, I hate all these fussy rules! They are both balls, can't you see that plain as day!! Of course they came about through mutations! You are so stubborn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:28 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:56 PM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 37 of 77 (578727)
09-02-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:31 PM


I appreciate very much that you would like the data to be about Rm mutations and natural selection, but unfortunately instead of talking about what you would like the data to be about, I am forced to talk about what the data actually is talking about-which is about constructing phylogenies from retroviruses.

Those phylogenies demonstrate the accumulation of random mutations over time, common ancestry, and sequence divergence. This is the very evidence you have been asking for.

Yea, sure, in an ideal world, collecting data about phylogenies through retroviruses would be exactly the same thing as demonstrating the mechanisms for evolutionary change through natural selection, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as winning the power-ball lottery twice in one day, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as having sex with Paris Hilton on a cocaine fueled all night binge, while finding out that you just won two power-ball lotteries while Nicole Richie is filming it all from on top of the headboard-but alas we live in a compromised world-where we have to just stick with boring reality shows.

I don't see anthing in this paragraph to indicate that my conclusions are wrong. Care to explain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:31 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:11 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 38 of 77 (578728)
09-02-2010 12:48 PM


Bolderdash,

Why are humans different than chimps? Simple question.


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:55 PM Taq has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 39 of 77 (578730)
09-02-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 12:37 PM


Do both bacteria and otters crack open seashells with rocks?

Do both bacteria and humans know how to throw a frisbee?

Do bacteria and bartenders make good listeners for drunks at 2 a.m.?

Do bacteria and Tyra Banks have the same ideas about the best angle to tilt your chin for dramatic effect?

Please answer these questions honestly so we can make sure we can draw the same conclusions for both of them.

I know, I know, its the same thing!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:37 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:57 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 09-02-2010 1:02 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 40 of 77 (578731)
09-02-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
09-02-2010 12:48 PM


Chimps rarely, if ever, tip the cart girl after buying beers during a round of golf.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:48 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:58 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 1:40 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 77 (578732)
09-02-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:40 PM


I keep putting this burden on you to provide evidence for something other than bacteria changing its diet

Why? Bacteria are a perfectly appropriate model organism for demonstrating random mutation and natural selection.

You don't like it, for some reason that you can't explain, but why should I care?

Its so unfair.

No, it's just stupid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:40 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:01 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 77 (578733)
09-02-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:52 PM


Do both bacteria and otters crack open seashells with rocks?

Why does that matter?

Do both bacteria and humans know how to throw a frisbee?

Why does that matter?

Do bacteria and bartenders make good listeners for drunks at 2 a.m.?

Why does that matter?

Do bacteria and Tyra Banks have the same ideas about the best angle to tilt your chin for dramatic effect?

Why does that matter?

Please be specific. Bacteria are a perfectly appropriate model organism for showing random mutation and natural selection because of their genetic similarity to all other organisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:52 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 43 of 77 (578734)
09-02-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:55 PM


Ok, I admit that is not a very good criticism of chimps, because in fairness, their pants usually don't have pockets to carry extra change around. Plus they would probably get the percentages wrong anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:55 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 44 of 77 (578735)
09-02-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 12:56 PM


Why? Bacteria are a perfectly appropriate model organism for demonstrating random mutation and natural selection.

Yes! We can finally agree. The Bacteria Diet it is!! The bacteria proves it, that's why chimps and crashfrog don't have pockets!! Who needs more proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:56 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 3:18 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 45 of 77 (578736)
09-02-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:52 PM


Bolders...

What the hell is your problem man? Are you on a personal quest to disprove the aphorism that there's no such thing as a stupid question?

You can hardly expect to be treated with respect and given the answers you are asking for if this is your attitude.

Do you really imagine that you are helping the cause of creationism by behaving in this way?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:52 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019