Tal writes:
quote:
Now, can we observe evolution taking place right now?
Yes. Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It isn't very expensive and doesn't require very many materials.
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 should 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.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
This is evolution. And please don't be disingenuous and claim that it's still a bacterium. Of course it's a bacterium. Evolution doesn't go from bacterium to ostrich in one step. If you could show that happening, you would completely overthrow our understanding of how life diversified and would probably win a Nobel Prize and could write your own ticket for the rest of your life. I am simply pointing out the proof of concept: Life changes from generation to generation.
If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? We've seen speciation happen both in the lab and in the wild, but those experiments require more equipment and are much more sophisticated.
quote:
because it takes millions of years for things to evolve from one species to another.
No, it doesn't:
Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events
quote:
Now, what if I said there is a mountain of evidence to support the idea of God?
1. Personal accounts of specifically answered prayer.
Anecdotal, unverifiable, unreproducible.
Therefore, not evidence.
quote:
2. Divine protection in combat against all odds.
Anecdotal, unverifiable, unreproducible.
Therefore, not evidence.
quote:
3. Accurate "prophecies" (Isreal becoming a nation again) that number in the hundreds.
Overwhelmed by the failed prophecies that number in the thousands. The biggest one being that the world was supposed to end over 2000 years ago (Book of Daniel) and again nearly 2000 years ago (Gospels).
Thus, this renders all other "prophecies" that supposedly came true (like Israel becoming a nation again) null and void.
That is, if I tell you that you're going to win the lottery and that the world is going to end before the end of the year and then the world doesn't end and you win the lottery next year, then I do not have a fulfilled prophecy regarding you winning the lottery. My claim that the world was going to end puts a timeline on your lottery winning. It would need to happen by the end of the year because the world was going to end and there would be no next year.
The failure of the world to end means your winning of the lottery means nothing.
Therefore, we wind up with absolutely no prophecies ever being fulfilled.
Then again, the prophecies that are usually touted as having been fulfilled, when examined, turn out to be so nebulous and vague that they cannot be reasonably declared to be prophecies and in a huge number of instances, actually turn out to be unfulfilled.
Therefore, no evidence.
quote:
4. Supernatural events that have happened to me and others (astral projection anyone?)
Anecdotal, unverifiable, unreproducible.
Therefore, not evidence.
quote:
5. Bible Codes (subject to debate, but it does perk the interest)
Disproven. Every single large text contains this as a mathematical artifact.
Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick
And, as it turns out, Drosnin had to doctor his own methodology in order to get as many "hits" as he claimed, including editing the scripture he was using.
Not evidence.
quote:
6. Old Testament laws that deal with bacteria.
Source, please? Do not confuse sanitary precautions with understanding of the cause of disease.
quote:
7. Old Testament accounts of accurate astronomy (Pleadies/Orion).
Irrelevant. You can see the Pleiades with the naked eye. They are often called the "Littlest Dipper" because you can easily make out six of the seven major stars. The Greeks even had a myth as to why the seventh was so much dimmer. Do you seriously think they did that out of divine revelation? Or is it simply because all you need to do is go outside and look up?
Orion is a constellation.
There is no actual astronomical material in the Bible regarding these other than the claim that the Pleiades is a star cluster and Orion is a constellation.
Therefore, not evidence.
Hmmm...seems you haven't actually come up with any evidence at all. Just a lot of anecdotes and even claims that don't claim what you claim they claim.
quote:
We weren't there when God created everything.
No, but the universe was. We can therefore look at the universe and see what it has to say about the subject. We won't get the absolute, complete picture down to the last atom, but it's amazing what you can find out simply by examining the leftovers.
quote:
Are those prophecies really that accuarate, or a load of crap?
Yes. It's because they aren't prophecies and they aren't accurate.
quote:
Does the fossil record really show the evolution over time from, or is that just how they fell into place during the flood?
Simple experiment to prove that the fossils could not be the result of a flood:
Buy a box of cereal. Open up the box and pull the bag out but don't open up the bag.
What do you see?
All the big pieces are at the top and all the little pieces and dust are at the bottom. Do you think it's because the manufacturer deliberately did it that way? Of course not. The package settled on its way to the store and this is out everything sorted itself out. The largest pieces are at the top because, being large, they pack together tightly and have very little room to move. The smaller pieces, being able to fit between the gaps left by the bigger pieces, fall due to the force of gravity to a lower state. And the dust, being able to fit through anything, falls down to the lowest state.
How to test? Turn the bag upside down, put it back in the box carefully, and gently shake the box to agitate. After a few minutes, pull the bag back out of the box and notice that, once again, all the big pieces are on top and all of the little pieces and dust are on the bottom.
Therefore, we see that when things are left to sort themselves on their own, they sort themselves by size: Biggest ones on top, tiniest ones on the bottom.
If the fossil record were the result of a flood, then we should expect to see one of two possible outcomes: A complete jumble of fossils with absolutely no sorting or a sorting by size with the biggest organisms on top and the smallest on the bottom.
Instead, we don't see either pattern. Instead, we see completely accurate layers of a single type of organism. These layers end up being accurate world wide. We never see this organism appear in a layer below that organism. It's always the other way around...even though if they were "hydrodynamically sorted," they should appear the other way around given the way physics works as we just showed.
Therefore, using nothing more than a cereal box, we have proven that the fossil record cannot be a result of a global flood.
quote:
And we poke holes in each others evidences.
Incorrect. Instead, you show you don't understand what evidence is.
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
