Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was being honest and helpful and all you can do is to flame because you failed so utterly.That is a poor answer (actually, no answer at all). Try again. Try to engage your brain when you make a reply.
Opinions. You haven't shown anything you know except to
contradict other people.
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.I've noticed subductionzone really doesn't present answers....usually some form of ad-hominem expression.
I typically scroll right on by her post.
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!!!
On that page it said this:
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
- Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?[/
- Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
- How does evolution produce new and complex features?
- Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?
I don't get it.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.
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.You didn't read the article.
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.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?
I disagree. The bacteria were selected and isolated by the youths involved. Thus no "natural" selection was involved.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."
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.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.
I see no reason to believe that the bacteria in question did not already have the ability to digest plastic.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.
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,"
Oh, this is all wrong because it involves planning and forethought, which as I forgot, isn't part of the evolutionary story.
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."
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.I see no reason to believe that the bacteria in question did not already have the ability to digest plastic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?