How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

That is a poor answer (actually, no answer at all). Try again. Try to engage your brain when you make a reply.

I was being honest and helpful and all you can do is to flame because you failed so utterly.

Of course even your user name is based upon a strawman argument so you put yourself at a huge disadvantage here. I am merely trying to help the poor creationists here. There is no real debate, your side lost over 100 years ago. Now we are simply trying to explain how people on your side get the science wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

Opinions. You haven't shown anything you know except to
contradict other people.

I take it you know sfs is a biologist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've noticed subductionzone really doesn't present answers....usually some form of ad-hominem expression.
I typically scroll right on by her post.

I have given you answers, you were not able to understand them. When you don't understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions. Not to spout more nonsense.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

From evo-53 link:

Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection.

WOW!!!! Great answer. I'M CONVINCED!!!! Sign me up!!!

No need to yell in a sarcastic tone. We can observe natural selection.
You can do experiments on your own. In fact, a high school student won a science fair with research that he tested that resulted in a microbe that eats plastic.
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/boy-discovers-microbe-that-eats-plastic

 

[Subduction Zone]

On that page it said this:


Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

1. Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?[/
   
   
2. Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
   
   
3. How does evolution produce new and complex features?
   
   
4. Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

The whole list could be responded to with: "Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt". For example eye evolution is very well understood including the very limited changes that you are constantly complaining about. I could link you a rather simple video that explains this to you if you would watch it.

 

[Zosimus]

No need to yell in a sarcastic tone. We can observe natural selection.
You can do experiments on your own. In fact, a high school student won a science fair with research that he tested that resulted in a microbe that eats plastic.
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/boy-discovers-microbe-that-eats-plastic

I don't get it.

Some kids figured "Since plastic eventually decomposes, there must be microorganisms that eat plastic." Then they went out and found some.

Does this prove:

natural selection?
mutations?
speciation?

What the hell does this prove? As far as I can tell, nothing.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I don't get it.

Some kids figured "Since plastic eventually decomposes, there must be microorganisms that eat plastic." Then they went out and found some.

You didn't read the article.

 

[pat34lee]

I take it you know sfs is a biologist.

No, and it doesn't matter. If someone is going to skewer
my facts, I want facts in return, not just "That doesn't work."

 

[pat34lee]

You didn't read the article.

Let me guess. It took several generations of bacteria, and probably
at least one or two changes in diet before one could feed directly
on the plastic. Still adaptation of the few who had the hardiness but
not necessarily the ability to reproduce in numbers in the wild. Same
as superbugs gaining resistance to antibiotics.

 

[Zosimus]

You didn't read the article.

Yes, I read the article. Then I went and read the Wired article too. Here's what we know.

Two kids theorized that there must be some kind of microorganism that eats plastic, so they went to a landfill and got some landfill dirt that probably contained some. They mixed that with some ground up plastic, yeast, and tap water and found out that plastic doesn't take thousands of years to decompose. After experimenting to find the optimal temperature, the teen isolated the bacteria that were eating the plastic. The yeast, which is a fungus, didn't seem to play any role in the eating. The bacteria were discovered to be of the pseudomonas genus, which contains 191 known species and of the sphingomonas genus, which contains more than 20 known species.

What does this show?

Natural selection? No.
Mutation? No.
Speciation? No.

So why is this important in terms of evolutionary theory?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I read the article. Then I went and read the Wired article too. Here's what we know.

Two kids theorized that there must be some kind of microorganism that eats plastic, so they went to a landfill and got some landfill dirt that probably contained some. They mixed that with some ground up plastic, yeast, and tap water and found out that plastic doesn't take thousands of years to decompose. After experimenting to find the optimal temperature, the teen isolated the bacteria that were eating the plastic. The yeast, which is a fungus, didn't seem to play any role in the eating. The bacteria were discovered to be of the pseudomonas genus, which contains 191 known species and of the sphingomonas genus, which contains more than 20 known species.

What does this show?

Natural selection? No.
Mutation? No.
Speciation? No.

So why is this important in terms of evolutionary theory?

It does show natural selection, in this new "environment" the plastic eating bacteria thrived. It does not show much in the way of variation and definitely not speciation, though that can be observed in nature in other ways.

 

[Zosimus]

It does show natural selection, in this new "environment" the plastic eating bacteria thrived. It does not show much in the way of variation and definitely not speciation, though that can be observed in nature in other ways.

I disagree. The bacteria were selected and isolated by the youths involved. Thus no "natural" selection was involved.

Even if the situation had occurred by some random chance, and people were not involved, the test of a theory is whether it leads to novel, surprising predictions that are borne out in practice. A good example might be the theory of precession. I remember when I was in physics class and the teacher put up a bicycle wheel, which was suspended between two strings, and used a machine to spin the wheel quite quickly. He asked us what we thought would happen if he cut one of the strings. I thought (as did my classmates) that the wheel would fall straight down till it was hanging by one string and continue spinning while facing down. However, when the teacher cut the string the wheel behaved in a way I did not expect. Thus, knowledge of the theory of precession leads to novel, surprising predictions. It is a good scientific theory because it is highly testable and lends explanatory power. This doesn't mean it's right; it means it has good informational content.

By way of comparison, the theory of natural selection does not do so. People completely unelightened by the theory will nevertheless be able to work out that bacteria that cannot find a food source will die whereas bacteria that can will thrive. Thus we see that the theory of natural selection is more of a tautology than anything else. Knowledge of the theory permits no novel predictions to be made. It's as useless as saying "Wherever you go, there you are."

 

[-57]

I disagree. The bacteria were selected and isolated by the youths involved. Thus no "natural" selection was involved.

Even if the situation had occurred by some random chance, and people were not involved, the test of a theory is whether it leads to novel, surprising predictions that are borne out in practice. A good example might be the theory of precession. I remember when I was in physics class and the teacher put up a bicycle wheel, which was suspended between two strings, and used a machine to spin the wheel quite quickly. He asked us what we thought would happen if he cut one of the strings. I thought (as did my classmates) that the wheel would fall straight down till it was hanging by one string and continue spinning while facing down. However, when the teacher cut the string the wheel behaved in a way I did not expect. Thus, knowledge of the theory of precession leads to novel, surprising predictions. It is a good scientific theory because it is highly testable and lends explanatory power. This doesn't mean it's right; it means it has good informational content.

By way of comparison, the theory of natural selection does not do so. People completely unelightened by the theory will nevertheless be able to work out that bacteria that cannot find a food source will die whereas bacteria that can will thrive. Thus we see that the theory of natural selection is more of a tautology than anything else. Knowledge of the theory permits no novel predictions to be made. It's as useless as saying "Wherever you go, there you are."

When I read Zosimus' post I hear him saying the bacteria that ate the plastic already had the ability to eat the plastic.

Zosimus, did I understand you correctly?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

So, I visited your page...and clicked my way to this page. They answered the question "What are some of the big questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer?"

Here's one of the answers...
How does evolution produce new and complex features?
Berkley admits.....THEY DON'T KNOW!!!!!

...but you all believe it happens.

Sound like it would make a good novel for a primary school library to me. Can we have some artists please to draw all the intermediate stages? I must admit, it makes me laugh to think of the first sea-dwelling creature that poked its head out of the water and thought, "Maybe life would be better out of the water - I wonder what I would need to be able to survive; better get busy on developing lungs and legs for starters," or the first reptiles that threw themselves off a cliff, only to realise that wings would be a good idea. Oh, this is all wrong because it involves planning and forethought, which as I forgot, isn't part of the evolutionary story.

 

[-57]

Sound like it would make a good novel for a primary school library to me. Can we have some artists please to draw all the intermediate stages? I must admit, it makes me laugh to think of the first sea-dwelling creature that poked its head out of the water and thought, "Maybe life would be better out of the water - I wonder what I would need to be able to survive; better get busy on developing lungs and legs for starters," or the first reptiles that threw themselves off a cliff, only to realise that wings would be a good idea. Oh, this is all wrong because it involves planning and forethought, which as I forgot, isn't part of the evolutionary story.

You would also have to include why some animals thought life would be better in the water after all....and then crawl back into the water and become a dolphin once again reorganizing its lungs and legs.

 

[Zosimus]

When I read Zosimus' post I hear him saying the bacteria that ate the plastic already had the ability to eat the plastic.

Zosimus, did I understand you correctly?

I see no reason to believe that the bacteria in question did not already have the ability to digest plastic.

 

[-57]

I see no reason to believe that the bacteria in question did not already have the ability to digest plastic.

OK, I'm good with that. That's what you think.....although, I disagree.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Can we have some artists please to draw all the intermediate stages?

Or you could go to a natural history museum and see the fossils for yourself.

I must admit, it makes me laugh to think of the first sea-dwelling creature that poked its head out of the water and thought, "Maybe life would be better out of the water - I wonder what I would need to be able to survive; better get busy on developing lungs and legs for starters,"

I must admit, it makes me laugh when people demonstrate they have no idea how evolution works. You're suggesting that evolution has some sort of goal or desire in mind and that the process can take place over night. It happens in very small stages in populations over generations, not in individuals. There is no goal in mind.

Oh, this is all wrong because it involves planning and forethought, which as I forgot, isn't part of the evolutionary story.

You recognized your strawman. Good for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. The bacteria were selected and isolated by the youths involved. Thus no "natural" selection was involved.

No, the article says that he added yeast. Yeast are fungi and the active agents were bacteria. They are in a totally different biological kingdom. Your claim would be akin to claiming that he added animals when he added plants. The bacteria may have had a boost by the yeast, but it seems that they "added" themselves. Natural selection, not artificial.

Even if the situation had occurred by some random chance, and people were not involved, the test of a theory is whether it leads to novel, surprising predictions that are borne out in practice. A good example might be the theory of precession. I remember when I was in physics class and the teacher put up a bicycle wheel, which was suspended between two strings, and used a machine to spin the wheel quite quickly. He asked us what we thought would happen if he cut one of the strings. I thought (as did my classmates) that the wheel would fall straight down till it was hanging by one string and continue spinning while facing down. However, when the teacher cut the string the wheel behaved in a way I did not expect. Thus, knowledge of the theory of precession leads to novel, surprising predictions. It is a good scientific theory because it is highly testable and lends explanatory power. This doesn't mean it's right; it means it has good informational content.

What makes you think that this experiment is not repeatable? And it may have very useful information. Now you are merely clutching at straws trying to put down a very nice piece of work.

By way of comparison, the theory of natural selection does not do so. People completely unelightened by the theory will nevertheless be able to work out that bacteria that cannot find a food source will die whereas bacteria that can will thrive. Thus we see that the theory of natural selection is more of a tautology than anything else. Knowledge of the theory permits no novel predictions to be made. It's as useless as saying "Wherever you go, there you are."

There is no "theory of natural selection" that I know of. It is merely an observed fact. Yes, natural selection almost seems tautological, as I said it is an observed fact. It is not a theory. Why did you make that error?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no reason to believe that the bacteria in question did not already have the ability to digest plastic.

They probably did. Again, I have not seen anyone claiming that this is an example of evolution. It demonstrates one of the driving forces of evolution.