Evolution Vs. Creationism

[Gloone]

I am not trying to debate for evolution, but since I have everyone scratching their heads I will give you a hint.

The natural environment, it houses all living and non-living things. That includes rocks and other elements that contain minerals. Nothing can live without them. So if anyone wants to start giving some persuasive arguments on how things can adapt and change over time go ahead.

 

[outhouse]

 

[slowbreath]

Just trying to educate you. However, if you choose to remain ignorant (willfully) on the subject of what defines a scientific theory by using such pitiful statements such as "it's only a theory", then there is little hope for you.

yeah, i know my ignorance is a shame, but i get by. i tell you what, i'll just call evolution, evolution , and pretent like you do that its a widely accepted principle by most of the world community, i''l never use the word theory again, and that way your ego will never be challenged again, by me.....but just speaking as a friend, i'd get that ego checked out, you'll thank me one my boy.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Just trying to educate you. However, if you choose to remain ignorant (willfully) on the subject of what defines a scientific theory by using such pitiful statements such as "it's only a theory", then there is little hope for you.

yeah, i know my ignorance is a shame, but i get by. i tell you what, i'll just call evolution, evolution , and pretent like you do that its a widely accepted principle by most of the world community, i''l never use the word theory again, and that way your ego will never be challenged again, by me.....but just speaking as a friend, i'd get that ego checked out, you'll thank me one my boy.

It is clear you do not understand.
A theory, in the colloquial sense, is hardly more than an educated guess.
A theory, in the scientific sense, is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
A Scientific Theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is generally accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole, because it presents evidence that explains the fact of biological evolution.
Other Scientific Theories are...
The Theory of Gravity
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
Circuit Theory
Germ Theory
Convection Theory
Etc, etc, etc...


Why do you feel threatened by knowledge?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am not trying to debate for evolution, but since I have everyone scratching their heads I will give you a hint.

The natural environment, it houses all living and non-living things. That includes rocks and other elements that contain minerals. Nothing can live without them. So if anyone wants to start giving some persuasive arguments on how things can adapt and change over time go ahead.

I just gave you one using Nylon Eating Bacteria. There's your evidence right there.

You keep doing this....:ignore:

 

[outhouse]

yeah, i know my ignorance is a shame, but i get by. i tell you what, i'll just call evolution, evolution , and pretent like you do that its a widely accepted principle by most of the world community, i''l never use the word theory again, and that way your ego will never be challenged again, by me.....but just speaking as a friend, i'd get that ego checked out, you'll thank me one my boy.

just to let you know bud, in all the creation websites they tell you not to call evolution a theory because it gices it to much credibility.

A scientific theory is not a hypothisis, once a scientific hypothisis makes it to become a thoery, it is both fact and theory.

there is no debate about evolution at all. it has been observed in labs everyday as facts

 

[Gloone]

I just gave you one using Nylon Eating Bacteria. There's your evidence right there.

You keep doing this....:ignore:

You provided a link and didn't say much about it. You also said bacteria are different from viruses because they don’t need anything to replicate and don’t require a host. So how is this bacterium any different?[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[LuisDantas]

You provided a link and didn't say much about it. You also said bacteria are different from viruses because they don’t need anything to replicate and don’t require a host. So how is this bacterium any different?[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Gosh, he never claimed that bacteria or virii "don't need anything to replicate". That would obviously be false.

 

[Gloone]

A big whopping and unconditional YES and NO...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe it is commonly understood that viruses are not alive per se. They are symbiotic. They need to interact with something in order to replicate. Bacteria is different. It can contain DNA or RNA. Bacteria is all around us and can thrive in a multitude of places needing no host to survive, reproduce etc.


What does biology mean to you? To me it means (to study that which is alive). Don't think just because man can reason and create and because animals eat and breath that they're the only things alive? you are sorely mistaken. Did you not learn this is biology class in grade school already. Information such as bacteria is usually the first subject covered before they move on to larger organisms.

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methane-eating bacteria alive and well in the deepest layer of Earth's crust

I am pretty sure he did.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are wrong, sorry.

 

[Gloone]

You are wrong, sorry.

Well I still ask, So how is this bacterium any different? [FONT=&quot]Saying I am wrong isn't saying much.
[/FONT]

 

[LuisDantas]

As he said, bacteria don't need hosts, while virii do.

Hosts, in case you are wondering, are living cells.

Bacteria need some circunstances to reproduce, including the presence of nutrients that often come from dead organisms. But they don't invade cells and destroy them from the inside, unlike virii. And they have either RNA or DNA, while virii don't.

 

[Gloone]

As he said, bacteria don't need hosts, while virii do.

Hosts, in case you are wondering, are living cells.

Bacteria need some circunstances to reproduce, including the presence of nutrients that often come from dead organisms. But they don't invade cells and destroy them from the inside, unlike virii. And they have either RNA or DNA, while virii don't.

They were breaking down the molecules in the byproduct of the nylon 6. How is that any different?

 

[Amill]

As he said, bacteria don't need hosts, while virii do.

Hosts, in case you are wondering, are living cells.

Bacteria need some circunstances to reproduce, including the presence of nutrients that often come from dead organisms. But they don't invade cells and destroy them from the inside, unlike virii. And they have either RNA or DNA, while virii don't.

Viruses do have either RNA or DNA, it's just that they basically let the living cell take the genetic code and assemble more viruses instead of the virus actually replicating itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

My mistake then. Sorry.

 

[LuisDantas]

They were breaking down the molecules in the byproduct of the nylon 6. How is that any different?

For one thing, nylon is not organic. It is not composed of living cells. Therefore, it can't serve as a source of hosts for virii.

 

[Autodidact]

yeah, i know my ignorance is a shame, but i get by. i tell you what, i'll just call evolution, evolution , and pretent like you do that its a widely accepted principle by most of the world community, i''l never use the word theory again, and that way your ego will never be challenged again, by me.....but just speaking as a friend, i'd get that ego checked out, you'll thank me one my boy.

It's widely accept in Biology, which is the only worldwide community that matters.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You provided a link and didn't say much about it.

Well I gave the wiki because it gives some details as to what was observed. I can go and go get more data on the subject but I wanted to give you the *gist*...The problem is you've made up your mind that bacteria is not alive and is dependent on nature. By your logic we aren't alive either. We're not much different than any other organism on the planet. Where you hit a brick wall is biologist disagree with your assertions. Viruses and most definitely Bacteria have an evolutionary history.

You also said bacteria are different from viruses because they don’t need anything to replicate and don’t require a host. So how is this bacterium any different?

Because if you knew anything about the Nylon Eating Bacteria, which I'm quite sure has been explained to you already, it evolved being able to now eat the byproduct of a man made material that wasn't produced until 1935. It is a "new species" of bacteria that evolved. That's why it's different.

Here's a time lapse of bacterial growth that need no host.

[youtube]gEwzDydciWc[/youtube]
YouTube - Bacteria Growth


Here's another great example that bacteria colonies can grow and are alive. Take note that multiple types of "living" bacteria can survive and thrive together in one area independent of each other.

[youtube]6-chXVgu8Z0[/youtube]
YouTube - Growing Bacteria - Petri Dish

Science is cool.....

 

[Gloone]

Science is cool.....

I agree and I would much rather see a video on spontaneously reproducing bunny rabbits and their ability to fill a room in a span of 5 years and eventually producing one with big floppy ears or how a tree is capable of producing fruit than debating nylon eating bacteria, disease, and agitated germs.

 

[Gloone]

For one thing, nylon is not organic. It is not composed of living cells. Therefore, it can't serve as a source of hosts for virii.

So you would agree that Nylon eating bacteria has nothing to do with evolution?

I beg to differ, Pegg. The Theory of Evolution is in fact quite capable of standing on its own without speculating on the origins of life itself.

It does hint of abiogenesis, but that is certainly not enough to make the two subjects reliant on one another.