Amazing new life form

[AnswersInHovind]

They didn't reform existing materials. They took bacteria from one place, and put it in another place. If I move a dog from my house to another person's house, have I created a new form of life? No. Please do not attempt to stretch the definition of "intelligent design" to cover this. It doesn't work.

Did your dog become a new life form because of the intentional change you made?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Did your dog become a new life form because of the intentional change you made?

This is not evidence of intelligent design. Please stop pretending that it is. There were no genetic modifications to these organisms. They did this on their own. That is, naturally.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

This is not evidence of intelligent design. Please stop pretending that it is. There were no genetic modifications to these organisms. They did this on their own. That is, naturally.

I didn't say it was evidence of intelligent design. But their circumstances were intentionally altered to developed a new life form. There was a "natural" change because of an intentional change in circumstances. This is as much evidence of naturalistic evolution as it is for intelligent design. Please stop pretending they did this on their own.

 

[Mallon]

But their circumstances were intentionally altered to developed a new life form.

I haven't read the details of the study, but my understanding is that no "new" life form developed. All that happened was that the bacteria were transplanted from the wild and grown in a lab on a medium of pure arsenic. The bacteria already possessed the capability of incorporating arsenic in their DNA -- this ability was not evolved or selected for in the lab. It was merely demonstrated

Most biologists seem to be rejecting these findings, anyway.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I haven't read the details of the study, but my understanding is that no "new" life form developed. All that happened was that the bacteria were transplanted from the wild and grown in a lab on a medium of pure arsenic. The bacteria already possessed the capability of incorporating arsenic in their DNA -- this ability was not evolved or selected for in the lab. It was merely demonstrated

Most biologists seem to be rejecting these findings, anyway.

creationists ftw?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I didn't say it was evidence of intelligent design.

Then what precisely does this mean?

they made it in a lab?

"Hey guys! We intelligently designed a new life form! This helps prove evolution!"

Hmmm?

But their circumstances were intentionally altered to developed a new life form. There was a "natural" change because of an intentional change in circumstances. This is as much evidence of naturalistic evolution as it is for intelligent design. Please stop pretending they did this on their own.

There was no new life created. If the bacteria already possessed this capability, then the evolution happened naturally. If it was induced by continued exposure to the arsenic, then it's still evolution. They put the organism into the environment. They were not directly messing with its genetic code. If you are claiming that transplanting an organism is ID, then ID is indistinguishable from natural processes. With Occam's Razor, we can then safely throw out ID (again).

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Then what precisely does this mean?


Hmmm?

It was a joke. I apologize if I offended you. There is a big gap between what I said and "That means it is proof for intelligent design!!!" that you seemed to automatically read into just because I didn't agree with your perspective.

There was no new life created. If the bacteria already possessed this capability, then the evolution happened naturally. If it was induced by continued exposure to the arsenic, then it's still evolution. They put the organism into the environment. They were not directly messing with its genetic code. If you are claiming that transplanting an organism is ID, then ID is indistinguishable from natural processes. With Occam's Razor, we can then safely throw out ID (again).

So really what the study proved is that a bacteria existed that could also exist somewhere else.

Evolution FTW! You totally pwned me there.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So really what the study proved is that a bacteria existed that could also exist somewhere else.

Evolution FTW! You totally pwned me there.

Are you purposely being dense or something? It's not that a bacteria could "also exist somewhere else." It's that a bacteria could exist in a phosphorus-depraved, arsenic-high environment. This would kill any other known creature.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Are you purposely being dense or something? It's not that a bacteria could "also exist somewhere else." It's that a bacteria could exist in a phosphorus-depraved, arsenic-high environment. This would kill any other known creature.

And this proves naturalistic evolution because....

*edit
I'm not trying to discredit the discovery, I just think it has nothing to do with evolution vs creation

 

[Dark_Lite]

And this proves naturalistic evolution because....

The significance of this bacteria is that, assuming what the paper claims is true, is that it widens up the definition of life a lot more, and it changes much of what we understand about how biology and evolution work.

It's significant evidence for evolution because it is evidence of an evolved ability to process arsenic, and significant diversion from regular lines of evolution. I don't think they have unearthed the full answer to the evolutionary lineage though. It is a different strain of an existing bacteria, however.

While it is significant for evolutionary theory because it will lead to new understanding, its main significance is the widening of the definition of life.

 

[sungaunga]

more like discovery of an existing life form