Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KC · 07-23-2002, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aldehyde:
<strong>How did one specie become another brand new specie? According to Darwinism, it takes environmental distress along with ample of time for a specie to evolve into a brand new specie in order to strive through the environmental distress.

In a microbiology lab, we have this pure colony of, let's say for instance, Staphylococcus aureus. I can subculture the organism as many time as I wish and I can put as much antibiotics to the culture medium as I wish.

If subculturing = generation = time *and*
if antibiotics = environmental vector against the organism, **DOES** this satisfy Darwin's 'pre-requisites' for an evolution and can I get a brand new bug growing there anytime soon?

The answer of my rhetorical question is NO. So if time and the environment do not result in evolution, what does?

Anyone wants to disprove my statement? (or are you too fuzzy and have no clue in what I am talking about?)</strong>

You do not need environmental stress necessarily. Just reproductive isolation and time:

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292

Next!

Cheers,

KC

07-23-2002, 02:56 PM

So having lit a candle and watching it for five seconds, we can see quite clearly that candles do not burn themselves down to stubs.

Clearly only God can produce such states of affiairs. It's either a stub or a candle. A candle doesn't make a stub, a stub can't make a candle. You have all these missing links between candles and stubs but you can't produce a single intermediate!

Aldehyde · 07-23-2002, 03:50 PM

*Is totally blown away*
(I posted here last night, slept and returned here after work)

Thanks, I certainly learned something here. The reason why I decide to create this topic here is because there is nowhere else to discuss this. My friends either lack the knowledge of microbiology or if they do know what I am talking about, they are too mature to discuss this.

I've been to Doubting Didymus' link but I cannot find 'readily visable' discussions directly towards bacteria.

Anyways, thank you all for this valuable lesson. Next time I will do a little more research than to jump into assumptions.

Automaton · 07-23-2002, 03:53 PM

Hello, ketone.

Quote:

Using science to disprove evolution

Unfortunately, you don't use science to "disprove" evolution, you start from your presupposition that evolution is false, based on your faity-tale generated bias, then you make an uninformed speculation that is rigged from the start to "show" evolution is wrong. Too bad, if you knew what science was, you wouldn't be here complaining.

Quote:

(any Microbiologists here?)

I'm sure there's one or two.

Quote:

How did one specie become another brand new specie? According to Darwinism, it takes environmental distress along with ample of time for a specie to evolve into a brand new specie in order to strive through the environmental distress.

Yes, this is one way, through direct environmental pressure [direct adaptative], or there is simply the accumulation of neutral mutations [genetic drift], or positive mutations, which open up new avenues of possible evolution [indirect adaptative].

Quote:

In a microbiology lab, we have this pure colony of, let's say for instance, Staphylococcus aureus. I can subculture the organism as many time as I wish and I can put as much antibiotics to the culture medium as I wish.

This experiment has been done, over and over and over. Guess what the results are every time?

Quote:

If subculturing = generation = time *and*
if antibiotics = environmental vector against the organism, **DOES** this satisfy Darwin's 'pre-requisites' for an evolution and can I get a brand new bug growing there anytime soon?

Yes. This is known as directed evolution or directed speciation, and involves the apllication of enivornmental pressure for a generation time or so, the screening and subcultuting of mutants, then the reapplication of environmental pressure (all this does is eliminate the need for reproductive natural selection to work, in essence, just speeds things along a bit), and so on. This is a common, and almost mundane practice in microbiology labs.

Quote:

The answer of my rhetorical question is NO. So if time and the environment do not result in evolution, what does?

Oh, so it was merely rhetoric now? Big surprise.

Oh, and here's some actual (not meaningless rhetoric, actual science) results: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/1/173" target="_blank">Emergence of a dual-catalytic RNA with metal-specific cleavage and ligase activities: The spandrels of RNA evolution</a>. This is just one, out of hundreds of such published experiments.

Quote:

Anyone wants to disprove my statement? (or are you too fuzzy and have no clue in what I am talking about?)

Too fuzzy... *snort*... good one, you patronizing git.

Starboy · 07-23-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aldehyde:
<strong>
Anyone wants to disprove my statement? (or are you too fuzzy and have no clue in what I am talking about?)</strong>

Greetings Doubting Aldehyde,

I do have a beard, is that fuzzy enough for you? When you apply the anti-biotic are you completely wiping out the colony? If that is the case, then of course you will observe no evolution. Perhaps you should read up on the theory.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 07-23-2002, 04:29 PM

Now would be a good time to try to pin Aldehyde to a response. Too often creationists are allowed to abandon unpleasant conclusions and quickly move on to something else.

So, here is a direct question:
Aldehyde, Have you changed your veiws regarding the science behind speciation? If not, why not? Specifically: what further evidence do you need?

Aldehyde · 07-23-2002, 05:41 PM

I am what some of you people call a 'hypocrite' depending on your judgement. I do in fact believe in God creating life with the ability to evolve. But there are times where I doubt the idea of evolution and evolution of bacteria is one of them.

You see, I'm no doctor nor researcher but I worked in a hospital laboratory identifying bacteria everyday. It is indeed a boring job giving me plenty of 'spacing out' time.

In in response to your direct question, yes. The responses here did enlighten me.

Doubting Didymus · 07-23-2002, 05:54 PM

I do not think you are a hypocrite. Everyone needs to make their own mind about religious matters, but it is vital that they keep a rational open mind about other peoples opinions on the same issues. I think you fall into this category, as evidenced by your willingness to respond to my direct question. Many creationists would blow it off, saying something like 'macroevolution is still not proven' and starting on some other topic. I congratulate you on your honesty.

Albion · 07-23-2002, 06:57 PM

Why in particular are you having problems with the notion of bacteria evolving? is that so much more unlikely than all the millions of bacterial strains being created separately?

Here's some links to information about bacterial evolution:

<a href="http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/deadlystrep.htm" target="_blank">http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/deadlystrep.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2002/spring2002/apr3_whittam.html" target="_blank">http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2002/spring2002/apr3_whittam.html</a>
<a href="http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/32/000608/12.html" target="_blank">http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/32/000608/12.html</a>
<a href="http://www.farmasi.uit.no/~knielsen/Evolbact.html" target="_blank">http://www.farmasi.uit.no/~knielsen/Evolbact.html</a>

Enjoy.

abe smith · 07-24-2002, 05:00 AM

(just got to this thread & haven't yet read it all:, bad dog, abe.) Say, Aldehyde: I don't sense too much Biological competence in an arguer who doesn"t know that the singular AND plural (in English) of *SPECIES* is *SPECIES*. Have you been a Biologist long? And your initial-post argument at this thread appears to aver that you do not "believe" that evolution takes place currently. (Do I have your opinion correct?) Doancha know that a major difficulty in trying to combat the (e.G.) AIDS pathogen is that "it" ("they"?) keeps on MUTATING and so escapes slow-tailing efforts to catch-up w/ & control it? And have you ever heard of Darwin's Finches? And do you know that we have to keep getting FLU shots agen every winter because the "flu organism[s]" keep mutating into Some'n Else? So glad you're heading into that-now-fragmenting field of study wh/ way back in my time (antediluvian) was called "Biology". Guess Ernst Mayr & I still call it (sic) "Biology". Now I'll go back & read this thread.... Abe

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2002, 02:56 PM	#22
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	So having lit a candle and watching it for five seconds, we can see quite clearly that candles do not burn themselves down to stubs. Clearly only God can produce such states of affiairs. It's either a stub or a candle. A candle doesn't make a stub, a stub can't make a candle. You have all these missing links between candles and stubs but you can't produce a single intermediate!

07-23-2002, 03:50 PM	#23
Aldehyde Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 24	Is totally blown away (I posted here last night, slept and returned here after work) Thanks, I certainly learned something here. The reason why I decide to create this topic here is because there is nowhere else to discuss this. My friends either lack the knowledge of microbiology or if they do know what I am talking about, they are too mature to discuss this. I've been to Doubting Didymus' link but I cannot find 'readily visable' discussions directly towards bacteria. Anyways, thank you all for this valuable lesson. Next time I will do a little more research than to jump into assumptions.

07-23-2002, 04:29 PM	#26
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Now would be a good time to try to pin Aldehyde to a response. Too often creationists are allowed to abandon unpleasant conclusions and quickly move on to something else. So, here is a direct question: Aldehyde, Have you changed your veiws regarding the science behind speciation? If not, why not? Specifically: what further evidence do you need?

07-23-2002, 05:41 PM	#27
Aldehyde Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 24	I am what some of you people call a 'hypocrite' depending on your judgement. I do in fact believe in God creating life with the ability to evolve. But there are times where I doubt the idea of evolution and evolution of bacteria is one of them. You see, I'm no doctor nor researcher but I worked in a hospital laboratory identifying bacteria everyday. It is indeed a boring job giving me plenty of 'spacing out' time. In in response to your direct question, yes. The responses here did enlighten me.

07-23-2002, 05:54 PM	#28
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I do not think you are a hypocrite. Everyone needs to make their own mind about religious matters, but it is vital that they keep a rational open mind about other peoples opinions on the same issues. I think you fall into this category, as evidenced by your willingness to respond to my direct question. Many creationists would blow it off, saying something like 'macroevolution is still not proven' and starting on some other topic. I congratulate you on your honesty.

07-23-2002, 06:57 PM	#29
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Why in particular are you having problems with the notion of bacteria evolving? is that so much more unlikely than all the millions of bacterial strains being created separately? Here's some links to information about bacterial evolution: <a href="http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/deadlystrep.htm" target="_blank">http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/deadlystrep.htm</a> <a href="http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2002/spring2002/apr3_whittam.html" target="_blank">http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2002/spring2002/apr3_whittam.html</a> <a href="http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/32/000608/12.html" target="_blank">http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/32/000608/12.html</a> <a href="http://www.farmasi.uit.no/~knielsen/Evolbact.html" target="_blank">http://www.farmasi.uit.no/~knielsen/Evolbact.html</a> Enjoy.

07-24-2002, 05:00 AM	#30
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	(just got to this thread & haven't yet read it all:, bad dog, abe.) Say, Aldehyde: I don't sense too much Biological competence in an arguer who doesn"t know that the singular AND plural (in English) of SPECIES is SPECIES. Have you been a Biologist long? And your initial-post argument at this thread appears to aver that you do not "believe" that evolution takes place currently. (Do I have your opinion correct?) Doancha know that a major difficulty in trying to combat the (e.G.) AIDS pathogen is that "it" ("they"?) keeps on MUTATING and so escapes slow-tailing efforts to catch-up w/ & control it? And have you ever heard of Darwin's Finches? And do you know that we have to keep getting FLU shots agen every winter because the "flu organism[s]" keep mutating into Some'n Else? So glad you're heading into that-now-fragmenting field of study wh/ way back in my time (antediluvian) was called "Biology". Guess Ernst Mayr & I still call it (sic) "Biology". Now I'll go back & read this thread.... Abe

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.