Common ground Creationists and Atheists "can" agree with - without too much effort

[BobRyan]

You lack the academic knowledge to discuss this subject.

I suspect you are an autodidact in this field.

Please state a fact and we can discuss that fact... "reaching" is not a statement of fact... and Creationists prefer fact to wild guessing.

 

[BobRyan]

1. The "claim" is that those prokaryotes did not turn into eukaryotes not even over 50,000 generations with "direct observation".
2. The "claim" was that in less than 50,000 generations the human race supposedly evolved.
3. The "claim" was that bacteria are by design farrrrr more genetically adaptive to their environment than are humans.

Did you actually refute any of those "claims"? IF so I have not seen that post of yours on this thread ... feel free to link to it

The issue here is you're trying to draw (or at least suggest) equivalencies between clearly non-equivalent scenarios.

I think we are reaching a kind of agreement here.

I will post the above ... and claim that the point is incredibly obvious as stated. You post that you don't see the point.

I think we have an agreement - because all I need is the obvious example as stated above for the sake of the unbiased objective reader, and I also need the "substantive" response to my post - to be of the form that you just posted .. I think the rest is easily "an exercise for the reader".

And we can both take that as a satisfactory state.

I didn't say that. What I said was that you seem to be trying to draw equivalencies between non-equivalent scenarios.

In fact "I seem" to be showing with observed, observable science fact that the experiment for "the salient point" in the prokaryote-goes-somewhere-overtime argument, did not work and it did not work in a time frame that was 10x longer than the current claim is for modern humans to have arrived.

This is irrefutable and you are not addressing a single detail in that single example given.

I will grant you that comparing the much more environmentally adaptive DNA design for prokaryotes as compared to humans --- gives the prokaryote a HUGE advantage over humans and so is "not equivalent" but it is not "equivalent" in a direction 100's of times more in favor of the bacteria as compared to the human. Pointing out that fact only worsens the claim that prokaryotes turn into horses over time because it turns out they don't even turn into eukaryotes over time span that is more than enough to give rise to modern humans.

How is this obvious detail so difficult to "see"?

Can you provide any sound reason why I should treat such drivel seriously? I'm willing to give it a go, but you need to do a lot better.

Your participation in the facts as stated is entirely up to you.. you have free will.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pointing out that fact only worsens the claim that prokaryotes turn into horses over time because it turns out they don't even turn into eukaryotes over time span that is more than enough to give rise to modern humans.

As we have stated repeatedly, but perhaps it needs one more time, eukaryotes did not arise by the steady accumulation of new traits from prokaryotes, but rather from the symbiotic combination of two prokaryotes into one organism. This is the current scientific consensus and it is consistent with the existence of a separate genome inside the remnants of the ingested partner organism, namely the mitochondria. Whether or not this could happen again or not is not a constraint on our current ability to propose tests of this idea and to check them. That is at the essence of science and its methods and in particular how science deals with past events that may not recur. (For example, the Sun formed once in the past and will not form again, but we can study star formation, etc.)

It is from 1-celled eukaryotes that horses and rabbits and Bobs could eventually evolve.

 

[Speedwell]

In fact "I seem" to be showing with observed, observable science fact that the experiment for "the salient point" in the prokaryote-goes-somewhere-overtime argument, did not work and it did not work in a time frame that was 10x longer than the current claim is for modern humans to have arrived.

This is irrefutable and you are not addressing a single detail in that single example given.

You haven't described the experiment sufficiently for us to draw a conclusion.

 

[pitabread]

In fact "I seem" to be showing with observed, observable science fact that the experiment for "the salient point" in the prokaryote-goes-somewhere-overtime argument, did not work and it did not work in a time frame that was 10x longer than the current claim is for modern humans to have arrived.

You're not making much sense here. The long-running E.coli experiment has been running for barely a few decades.

In contrast, everything you've been trying to compare it with has been evolutionary events that have taken at the very least hundreds of thousands to millions or even billions of years.

And in the latter case, involving populations part of a global ecosystem as opposed to a highly isolated environment of laboratory beakers.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here, but all you've done is reinforce that you have no understanding of the relative scope and scale of what you are comparing.

 

[pitabread]

As we have stated repeatedly, but perhaps it needs one more time, eukaryotes did not arise by the steady accumulation of new traits from prokaryotes, but rather from the symbiotic combination of two prokaryotes into one organism. This is the current scientific consensus and it is consistent with the existence of a separate genome inside the remnants of the ingested partner organism, namely the mitochondria. Whether or not this could happen again or not is not a constraint on our current ability to propose tests of this idea and to check them. That is at the essence of science and its methods and in particular how science deals with past events that may not recur. (For example, the Sun formed once in the past and will not form again, but we can study star formation, etc.)

It is from 1-celled eukaryotes that horses and rabbits and Bobs could eventually evolve.

Given the OP is posting like a broken record, posts like this seem to be falling on deaf ears.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Given the OP is posting like a broken record, posts like this seem to be falling on deaf ears.

"Bob" is busy gathering the likeminded to come and read this thread and then return to the "safe space" (his words, not mine) and talk about us and our silly atheist arguments. Sigh.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think one of the disconnects here is that in the Creationist lexicon single celled organisms with and without mitochondria are still basically identical "Goo Kind", where human and chimp are unbelievably radically different "Ape Kind" and "Man kind".

 

[Speedwell]

I think one of the disconnects here is that in the Creationist lexicon single celled organisms with and without mitochondria are still basically identical "Goo Kind", where human and chimp are unbelievably radically different "Ape Kind" and "Man kind".

I have the impression that YECs tend to think like Platonic Realists: if speciation occurs, it must represent a qualitative change.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have the impression that YECs tend to think like Platonic Realists: if speciation occurs, it must represent a qualitative change.

Yes and no.

400g desert creature who eats eggs versus a 200kg monster who can eat unwary jaguars... snake kind.

Also, Homo habilis was a clearly upright flat faced creature with complicated, worked stone tools... just an ape.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also, Homo habilis was a clearly upright flat faced creature with complicated, worked stone tools... just an ape.

As are those apes that think they are not.

 

[Larniavc]

Please state a fact and we can discuss that fact... "reaching" is not a statement of fact... and Creationists prefer fact to wild guessing.

The fact is that you have insufficient knowledge in biology to have a meaningful discussion about TOE.

The fact that you keep restating your assertion rather than supporting it with evidence implies that that you think your assertion is self evident.

Thus you provide no evidence while insisting that you are correct ad nauseam.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think one of the disconnects here is that in the Creationist lexicon single celled organisms with and without mitochondria are still basically identical "Goo Kind", where human and chimp are unbelievably radically different "Ape Kind" and "Man kind".

This point merits frequent repetition. There seems to be a total lack of appreciation of the diversity of unicellular life forms. Then, on this foundation of ignorance, is erected a structure of faulty assumptions, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, disregarded information and extensive bias, from which silly mantras, such "Goo to You" emerge.

 

[BobRyan]

The fact is that you have insufficient knowledge in biology to have a meaningful discussion about TOE.

State a fact ... making stuff up... is not fact.

 

[BobRyan]

I think one of the disconnects here is that in the Creationist lexicon single celled organisms with and without mitochondria are still basically identical "Goo Kind", where human and chimp are unbelievably radically different "Ape Kind" and "Man kind".

Choose something that is true. The thread already debunked Darwin's "Hope" that what HE thought was the "goo" of what we know is prokaryote and eukaryote was far more complex than he "imagined" as an evolutionist. And so much so that 75,000 generations of direct observation of those prokaryotes show ZERO EVOLUTION to eukaryote stage.

That is "science fact" and real history - not the making-stuff-up-because-I-don't-like-creationists model.

 

[Speedwell]

Choose something that is true. The thread already debunked Darwin's "Hope" that what HE thought was the "goo" of what we know is prokaryote and eukaryote was far more complex than he "imagined" as an evolutionist. And so much so that 75,000 generations of direct observation of those prokaryotes show ZERO EVOLUTION to eukaryote stage.

That is "science fact" and real history - not the making-stuff-up-because-I-don't-like-creationists model.

Then show us that you understand this "science fact." You won't answer questions about it in your own words, so cite a reference. I don't know if you ever posted a link to this research--if so, I don't remember seeing it. You post the "fact" so often it won't hurt you to post the link again.

 

[BobRyan]

In fact "I seem" to be showing with observed, observable science fact that the experiment for "the salient point" in the prokaryote-goes-somewhere-overtime argument, did not work and it did not work in a time frame that was 10x longer than the current claim is for modern humans to have arrived.

This is irrefutable and you are not addressing a single detail in that single example given.

I will grant you that comparing the much more environmentally adaptive DNA design for prokaryotes as compared to humans --- gives the prokaryote a HUGE advantage over humans and so is "not equivalent" but it is not "equivalent" in a direction 100's of times more in favor of the bacteria as compared to the human. Pointing out that fact only worsens the claim that prokaryotes turn into horses over time because it turns out they don't even turn into eukaryotes over time span that is more than enough to give rise to modern humans.

How is this obvious detail so difficult to "see"?

So then "stating the obvious"

You're not making much sense here.

You may choose not to see anything you wish. Everyone has free will.

The long-running E.coli experiment has been running for barely a few decades.

It is called "simulation". If we needed 3 million years to simulate 3 million years it would not be "simulation".

75,000 generations for humans is about 3 million years ... and we have direct observation of 75,000
generations ... not of the much more static DNA of humans - but rather the much more adaptive DNA for prokaryotes far more adaptive to environment than humans.

The point remains.

glaringly obvious.

 

[Ophiolite]

And so much so that 75,000 generations of direct observation of those prokaryotes show ZERO EVOLUTION to eukaryote stage.

Just how long do you imagine is the typical time between generations for a prokaryote? How many do you think fit into a million years? A hundred million years? And you offer up a paltry 75,000 generations and think you have made a point. (When, indeed, none of the 75,000 generations were placed in an experiment the objective of which was to encourage the emergence of a prokaryote.) Please remember you are speaking to adults, so grown up arguments from you would be appreciated.

 

[Speedwell]

So then "stating the obvious"



You may choose not to see anything you wish. Everyone has free will.



It is called "simulation". If we needed 3 million years to simulate 3 million years it would not be "simulation".

75,000 generations for humans is about 3 million years ... and we have direct observation of 75,000
generations ... not of the much more static DNA of humans - but rather the much more adaptive DNA for prokaryotes far more adaptive to environment than humans.

The point remains.

glaringly obvious.

So no link, no explanation, no response to serious questions about it. Just a bald assertion which you can't back up.

 

[BobRyan]

I think one of the disconnects here is that in the Creationist lexicon single celled organisms with and without mitochondria are still basically identical "Goo Kind", where human and chimp are unbelievably radically different "Ape Kind" and "Man kind".

BobRyan said: ↑
Choose something that is true. The thread already debunked Darwin's "Hope" that what HE thought was the "goo" of what we know is prokaryote and eukaryote was far more complex than he "imagined" as an evolutionist. And so much so that 75,000 generations of direct observation of those prokaryotes show ZERO EVOLUTION to eukaryote stage.

That is "science fact" and real history - not the making-stuff-up-because-I-don't-like-creationists model.

Another "fact" of history in this case that is "irrefutable".

Then show us that you understand this "science fact."

You want me to show you that I understand that Darwin grossly oversimplified single celled life forms?

seriously???

No, Scientists in Darwin’s Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close | Evolution News

"No, Scientists in Darwin’s Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close"

"The answer is a resounding no. Consider the article that Darwin approvingly cites in that quote, the one by G.H. Lewes in Fortnightly Review. Lewes serves as Darwin’s authority for the claim that the cell is “complex,” so let’s start by looking at what Lewes said about the protoplasm in that very article:

The simplest form of organic life is not — as commonly stated — a cell, but a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance, or protoplasm, which has been named sarcode by Dujardin, cytode by Haeckel, and germinal matter by Lionel Beale. This protoplasm, although entirely destitute of texture, and consequently destitute of organs, is nevertheless considered to be an Organism, because it manifests the cardinal phenomena of Life: Nutrition, Reproduction, and Contractility. As examples of this simplest organism we may cite Monads, Vibriones, Protam�b�, and Polythalamia. Few things are more surprising than the vital activity of these organisms, which puzzle naturalists as to whether they should be called plants or animals. All microscopists are familiar with the spectacle of a formless lump of albuminous matter (a Rhizopod), putting forth a process of its body as a temporary arm or leg, or else slowly wrapping itself round a microscopic plant, or morsel of animal substance, thus making its whole body a mouth and a stomach; but these phenomena are as nothing to those described by Cienkowski, who narrates how one Monad fastens on to a plant and sucks the chlorophyl, first from one cell and then from another; while another Monad, unable to make a hole in the cell-wall, thrusts long processes of its body into the opening already made, and drags out the remains of the chlorophyl left there by its predecessor; while a third Monad leads a predatory life, falling upon other Monads who have filled themselves with food. Here, as he says, we stand on the threshold of that dark region where Animal Will begins; and yet there is here no trace of organisation.

So protoplasm — which we now call “cytoplasm” and know to be full of cellular organelles, molecular machines, RNA molecules, enzymes, and numerous other crucial biomolecules — is considered by Darwin’s favored authority on the subject to be the “simplest form of organic life,” which is a “microscopic lump of jelly-like substance” that is “destitute of texture” and “destitute of organs” with “no trace of organization.” This same authority believed a eukaryotic organism like a Rhizopod is little more than a “formless lump of albuminous matter.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement or appreciation of the complexity of the cell."

Darwin

As, however, a cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes3 has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508), must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts.

"But what about Darwin’s citation of the gemmule? Does this help show he had an accurate understanding of cellular complexity? A gemmule is, of course, a now-discredited concept. Darwin had an inaccurate understanding of inheritance, and believed something similar to Lamarck’s long-abandoned view about the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Though I’m generally wary of citing Wikipedia, it correctly explains that “gemmules were imagined particles of inheritance proposed by Charles Darwin as part of his Pangenesis theory.” Darwin invented gemmules as a mechanism of explaining blended inheritance. His theory turned out to be wrong: gemmules don’t exist."

========================================

In The Evolution of Man by Ernest Haeckel (Watts & Co 1906, pp36-44) the author offers a longish section describing various body cells, "… living viscous particles of protoplasm enclosing a firmer nucleus in albuminoid bodies."

How many volumes of quotes needed for you to admit you understand what they were thinking back then?