Onlooker
Member
thats what i thought.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
Onlooker
Member
I moved a few studies up by the same guys.
Etolurion, SO(1). 1996, pp. 35-43
EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION TO TEMPERATURE. IV. ADAPTATION OF
ESCHERICHIA COLI AT A NICHE BOUNDARY
conclusion by authors
First, occupation of a habitat in
which the environment is marginal for persistence of a population
is not a sufficient condition to explain an elevated
rate of adaptation.
The second conclusion is that performances at higher and
lower temperatures in the 20°C lines are genetically correlated.
A third conclusion is that, despite our demonstration of
genetic correlations between performance at different temperatures,
there was no discernible effect of selection history
on adaptation to this novel thermal environment.
Finally, an analysis of the phenotype of experimentally
evolved lines in different environments has the potential to
lead to identification of the molecular basis of the adaptations.
Further analyses of these lines promises to expand our understanding
of natural selection to include not just the results
of selection but also the nature of the genetic variation and
its relationship to the phenotypic variation upon which selection
operates.
This tells me that, they are trying to find the unltimate grail :THE MOLECULAR BASIS OF THE ADAPTIONS.
Still not there cowboy.
Actually i like the 1st conclusion also by the authors.
I bet you didnt read any of the real studies.
You just type dont you.
:0
David M
Well-Known Member
Note that this is a primer for you. You were the one displaying ignorance.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I gave cites of studies of beneficial mutations and rates of beneficial mutations. Apparently you want to criticize those studies in some way? Or what is your point? Do you still deny that there are beneficial mutations? On what basis? Can you provide a shred of support for your false assertion?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So basically you don't have a clue what evolution is? That doesn't suprise me; creationists rarely do. Most people who understand it accept it.
People say that I look like my father. But, we are two different individual. Same look only shws that I derived my genetic components from my father. In Biochemistry, there is a phenomenon known as structure and function relationship. Certain chemicals are required for specific functions. Altering these chemicals give us altered function. Serotonin functions as aneurotransmitter in the brain of rats. Our human brain also has the same neurotransmitter function. Just because these two are similar, what basis do we have to claim that we descended from rats? If you examine the gene of various species, there is commonality in the base pair sequence. It will be there. However, there are limitations which are very very characteristic. There is definite chromosome number for each species in spite of the similarities. If you can prove to me that there are some intermediaries between different species and link them, common descent has no meaning.
No one claims that ID is science. All that ID does is to provide a reasonable and logical challenge to those who believe that Evolution is science. That is all.
waitasec
Veteran Member
ID isn't providing a reasonable and logical challenge rather it's providing a challenge based on faith which isn't reasonable or logical.
i posed this question in another thread and perhaps you can shed some light on this for me. if we can agree that science is in search for truth via the scientific method, why is faith at odds with science, since faith is about truth?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
First, no, that is not what ID says. In fact, many ID proponents accept huge chunks of evolution. Second, evolution is science, obviously, it's biology. And yes, ID proponents do claim that ID is science, and they seek to have it taught to high school science students.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
um...
Because faith is about a predetermined answer that the word truth is slapped on to?
Faith: accepting something your intellect would normally reject. If your intellect accepted it, there would be no need for faith.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Really?
Let me introduce you to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Again, let me introduce you to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
waitasec
Veteran Member
:faint:
Onlooker
Member
right.
you explained it spot on.
Onlooker
Member
[SIZE=-1]Genetics, Vol. 151, 1621-1631, April 1999, Copyright © 1999 [/SIZE]
Beneficial Mutations, Hitchhiking and the Evolution of Mutation Rates in Sexual Populations
Did you read this article?
Are you wanting to talk specifics?
Again, this study proves evolution?
I read it, a little dry but some good points.
"evolutionist" want to give science as proof they are right.
"creationist" want to give science as proof they are right.
Both beliefs have unprovable points. I know, I know, "evolutionist" specialize on the living organism only, forget about abiogenesis.
Sort of hard to "straight" faced say the origins dont matter.
But your belief system is just as unprovable as mine.
Because you still havent done it.
BTW, if you did read that article
his assumptions are unprovable but reasonable.
"by assuming the divergence to be 10 mya and assuming that an estimate of 6 mo generation for wild population of mice is representative, and CRUDELY extrapolating the data to 105 genes, an estimate......"
Onlooker
Member
Yes, i understand ToE.
You apparently dont have a clue on your belief system.
Maybe its just a big las vegas holiday.
Lots of crazy things happen, no one talks about it.
Please tell me your belief system.
Where did the universe come from?
Where did life come from?
What part of ToE has been proven that its not "directed". That is to say, a wiley, agile,cryptic computer program that self replicates, produces living organism with an orchestra of enzymes, proteins, hormones, chemical messengers, electrical messages and loves to accept change for some parts but righteously guards change in others.
This is not chance my friend.
This is an awesome machine.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You contradict your self.
Onlooker
Member
elaborate.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
ok:
You claim to understand ToE but ask about the beginning of life and universe.
Now using the ToE, and only the ToE, please show where it makes any statements concerning the beginning of life or the the beginning of the universe.
Onlooker
Member
Never ever ever stated TOE makes any statements as described.
When the "creationist" are talked about concerning TOE, it opens the whole ball of wax: origins of the universe, origins of living things and the processes that may have occurred.
When an "ID" talks about evolution, they are specifically talking about that subject, with no references to abiogenesis and cosmology.
When I refer to you, an "evolutionist", I am imparting the same respect you give to "creationist".
It is a whole philosophy, the origins as well as the end product.
In reality, how can you not see your belief system (evolution with no intelligent design, some beginnings of the universe and some beginnings of life) is just as "shaky" scientifically as any body else.
Personal note: your science concerning TOE supports my beliefs.
Also, if someone talks about ID, keep it to that subject. Whip out the "creationist" (i personally have no beef with that term) and you open the subject to which all "creationist" believe in: In the beginning, God created.............
McBell
Admiral Obvious
ID is nothing more than buttered up creationism.
Creationism/ID has been proven to NOT be science.
Evolution has nothing to say about the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe.
Your sad attempt at dragging evolution to the same sad lowest level of ID/creationism is actually rather comical.