Intelligent Design / Evolution

[DennisTate]

Oh...just in case anybody is confused by my latest post this would make homo sapiens into possible ancestors to chimpanzees which is not exactly what Darwin had in mind a hundred and fifty or so years ago, previous to the time when it could be discovered that chimpanzees had more DNA than we do!

 

[Blayz]

The fact that chimpanzees actually have ONE MORE chromosome than we humans do

No. humans have 1 less, due to a fusion event.

chimpanzees had more DNA than we do!

Having more chromosomes does not equate to having more DNA.

 

[idscience]

Nylon is purely synthetic. Don't you get it? Most antibiotics are compounds found in nature, so we would expect them to affect bacterial evolution. Nylon is not found in nature, so before we invented it, it had no impact on bacterial evolution.

The mechanisms of resistance fall directly in what evolution is all about. Selective pressure, altered genetics and gene expression, and a phenotypic outcome that is favorable to the organism.
Oh please. Is this some other version of micro/macroevolution distinctions?
Nylon = purely synthetic.
Antibiotics = found in nature.
Do we need to go over that again?

Your so emotional.

I am sorry, I thought the paper mentioned that the bacteria was also resistant to some synthetic antibiotics as well? no? What you say is simple they seem to think is pretty amazing. Maybe you should give them a hand and straighten them out on the facts.

• "The cave, which is coated in the ancient bacteria, has never encountered modern medicine. Amazingly, these bacteria can still fight off different kinds of antibiotics, including synthetic drugs."
• "This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome."
• "As a result Lechuguilla Cave is an ideal ecosystem for investigating microbes that have not been exposed to anthropogenic antibiotics."

Hard wired? sounds designed not evolved.

I believe the bacteria does not eat nylon. It breaks down a nylon byproduct. One that is very similar to a protein it was already able to breakdown. The capability to do this is the result of loss of specificity, not increased specificity.
Nylon was created to replace silk and was modeled I believe after known protein structures. It was no a great leap for the bacteria to perform this feat. It is thought to have been a one step mutation. I also believe its consumption efficiency dropped to 1/50th its previous ability. Not exactly a poster child for increased complexity and novelty.

YOur preaching to the choir, there is no dispute about "evolution" as stated many times. You continue to, and many like you, to argue points not in contention like they have meaning to common ancestry.

I know evolutionists realy don't like to argue micro/macro and that is understandable. One is defensible and the other is not. So, you just like to combine them.

 

[idscience]

No. humans have 1 less, due to a fusion event.

Having more chromosomes does not equate to having more DNA.

Are you saying you believe we came from chimps?

 

[DennisTate]

No. humans have 1 less, due to a fusion event.



Having more chromosomes does not equate to having more DNA.

Humn...I will have to do some digging because I was watching a telecast of Creation Magazine Live on Miracle Channel and I am 99% certain that they said that chimpanzees had one more?!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Your so emotional.

Projection, much? But no, I'm not weeping while typing this.

I am sorry, I thought the paper mentioned that the bacteria was also resistant to some synthetic antibiotics as well? no? What you say is simple they seem to think is pretty amazing. Maybe you should give them a hand and straighten them out on the facts.

Here's a quote from the Discussion section of the paper:

"We surveyed the antibiotic susceptibility of 93 bacterial strains isolated from Lechuguilla Cave. This was a genetically diverse collection of oligotrophic organisms (Figure S1), highly adapted to survive in a nutrient limited environment [22]. Like surface organisms [11], the majority of these strains were multidrug resistant indicating that antibiotic resistance is a common and widespread phenotype in pristine, unimpacted environments; however, there are differences in the pattern of resistance. For example, we measured little resistance to the synthetic antibiotics ciprofloxacin and linezolid, while resistance to natural product antibiotics was more prevalent."

Also, ciprofloxacin targets the DNA gyrase enzyme, and linezolid targets the 50s ribosome. All bacteria do not have identical DNA gyrases or 50s ribosomes. There will be random variation out there, which could possibly lead to a less effective binding of either of these drugs. But looks like most of the bacteria were susceptible to these synthetic drugs.

Hard wired? sounds designed not evolved.

If you are basing your whole argument on a poor choice of words, I don't know what to tell you, man.

I believe the bacteria does not eat nylon. It breaks down a nylon byproduct. One that is very similar to a protein it was already able to breakdown. The capability to do this is the result of loss of specificity, not increased specificity.
Nylon was created to replace silk and was modeled I believe after known protein structures. It was no a great leap for the bacteria to perform this feat. It is thought to have been a one step mutation. I also believe its consumption efficiency dropped to 1/50th its previous ability. Not exactly a poster child for increased complexity and novelty.

I'm not going to let you get away with these rambling speculations.

The nylonase gene came from a duplication and frameshift that is extremely well characterized. Bear in mind that a frameshift mutation drastically changes a protein's structure. This is literally a shining example of how information can be changed drastically to form something useful for the organism.

 

[DennisTate]

OK, so I was wrong!

Chimpanzees become Human? Ape/Chimpanzee differences, how could they have evolved by natural selection?

"If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes? Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions."

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, guys -- does the amount of DNA really matter that much?

After all, God made us in His image and likeness.

Let's say someone makes a snowman and a snow monkey both.

He breathes the breath of life into the snowman, and the snowman becomes a living soul.

Even though the snowman and the snow monkey are exactly the same in composition, the snowman did not come from the snow monkey, did it?

 

[idscience]

If genes transferred horizontally are later inherited, how can you claim it has nothing to do with inherited traits? True, it does make determing inheritance difficult at the base of the tree.... so what? That's just reality. Are you now claiming the "tree is dead" because of this?

Because, some of the genes were not due to selection/mutation. The heart of your hypothesis.
Evolutionists don't stop at hgt with bacteria at the base. There is lots of talk about virus to human transfer. Face it, the tree is a mess that no one can make sense of without seriously complex and complicated ad hoc explanations.

Post 629. We have mostly discussed whales, but there are plenty of others. The reptile-mammal transition is particularly well preserved, including species showing the transition from reptile jaw joint to mammalian jaw joint.
CC215: Reptile-mammal transition

Jaws to ears in the ancestors of mammals


Oh, I see your a T.O. groupie. The only reason those examples are transitions is because someone who believes they are said so. AND, with all the species being discovered today, how do they know what they are looking at are not just other species? They Don't. Its a big guess.

Did I mention, T.O. is famous for cite bluffing?

It gives us a tool to measure the time between divergences.
Molecular clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Molecular clocks? This is an hypothesis of questionable validity. It uses fossil evidence for calibration. Fossil evidence which some evolutionist determines to be relevant. It is not independent of fossil bias and of course is going to be friendly to common descent. It is programmed to find it.

• "All molecular clock studies rely on calibrations to establish evolutionary rates throughout the phylogenetic tree. Fossils are the most common calibrations, and they are widely accepted as being underestimates of the true divergence time between two lineages. However, if fossils are gross underestimates, they can substantially miscalculate divergence times and lead to misinterpretations of evolutionary history. Therefore, it is desirable to have robust calibrations for estimating divergence times" (Hedges et al. 1996; Hedges and Kumar 2004).

You posted several papers showing the phylogenetic tree is dead? Post# please.

Darwin's tree collapsing, 64, 65,101,321,462,

The only "dismal" aspect was your use of Falsehoods like:
1. Ambulocetus was a crocodile.
2. Gingerich claimed Rodhocetus couldn't swim.

1.Again, misleading the public. I did not say Ambu wa a croc, I quoted wikipedia "Having the appearance of a 3 meter (10-foot) long mammalian crocodile"
2.Again, as I posted the video so there would be no confusion, even to the extent to post the time stamp where he said Rodho was not a power swimmer, no fluke tail, no spread out hands. Can't everything swim? Point was his faking the drawings to suit himself.
WHALE EVOLUTION - WHY THE DECEPTION ? - YouTube


Please use I.D. to explain the fact that these early whales (including Basilosaurus and Durodon) had four legs.

What? why? who says their whales? Their not, nothing to explain.

He have more than "a couple." Give me ONE for I.D.
Even under stabilizing selection for some traits, others are changing. They may change in a cyclic fashion, or in small ways, but populations are always changing. This expalins why nature does not produce "species," as I have explained more than once to you. Now, please use I.D. to explain why populations undergo such variation.

"Stabilizing selection"..Sorry, find it hard to type while laughing. Talk about problems defining ID? Evo can't even define a species. Populations undergo variation due to evolution.

So, logic is OK, but I shouldn't use logic to prove my position??? I guess that makes sense for you, since you don't use any logic in your arguments. Sorry, but I will continue using logic.

OK then.

You were given some examples earlier by another poster. But I will repeat some here:
Cichlid evolution in Lake Victoria, all within 12,000 years
The Evolution of Cichlids

• "For some reason speciation seems to occur in bouts and not steadily over time. During times of explosive speciation, a second specialisation developed"

OK, Can't argue with that much certainty.

http://www.eawag.ch/lehre/schools/f...ecture/Kocher2004_Nature_Reviews_Genetics.pdf

• ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION AND EXPLOSIVE SPECIATION:​

No argument with adaptive evolution. "explosive speciation is code for no evidence other than it must have occurred.
​

Some others:
BMC Evolutionary Biology | Full text | Rapid speciation in a newly opened postglacial marine environment, the Baltic Sea

Rapid speciation « Science Notes


OH!, more "rapid no evidence to support it hypothesis" Speciation isn't common descent. As much as you want it to be, sorry.

I asked you several times now to show us your calculations determining the minimum times required for any evolutionary event. Where are they???

Go ask a Populations Geneticist. Your argument is with them. By the way, that is an evolutionary concept, not ID and surprise, surprise, it doesn't line up with the other evidence that doesn't line up with anything.


You want a list of observed speciations?
Here:
Observed Speciation - Originally posted by Lucaspa

Speciation, Speciation. I find it funny how there is so much evidence for speciation when there isn't a clear definition of speciation. I guess little things like that don't get in the way of a good evolutionist following the evidence.
"Speciation" isn't common descent, it is variation. Speciation is just a word to identify variations of organisms. Evolutionists attach the greater meaning on it.
I am assuming you posted several pages from T.O. cite bluffing central, and since "speciation" has no relevance to the conversation, well, I will leave that with you.

 

[idscience]

OK, so I was wrong!

Chimpanzees become Human? Ape/Chimpanzee differences, how could they have evolved by natural selection?

Dennis, buddy, an onion has 200 times more DNA than us.

 

[Elendur]

Wow, your a tuff room! The original post of this thread has been reorganized.

now it's a lot better, thank you

 

[RickG]

Are you saying you believe we came from chimps?

Okay! For the humpteen-eleventh time.

Creationists say that is what science says. Science does not say that. The actual scientific literature says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor.

Is it really that hard to grasp the difference? Actually it is when one relies on literature that is dedicated to misrepresentation of the scientific literature rather than the actual scientific literature itself.

Humans and apes are genetically very similar

 

[DaneaFL]

Ok sorry to jump in but...

So far I've only seen posts trying to disprove evolution...
I still haven't seen anything to support intelligent design.

You know that even if you disproved evolution you still have to prove ID right? It's not right by default.

 

[idscience]

Okay! For the humpteen-eleventh time.

Creationists say that is what science says. Science does not say that. The actual scientific literature says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor.

Is it really that hard to grasp the difference? Actually it is when one relies on literature that is dedicated to misrepresentation of the scientific literature rather than the actual scientific literature itself.

Humans and apes are genetically very similar

Rick, just asked you a question. I know that science believes humans and chimps branched off a common ancestor. ID is not creationism for the humpteenth time as well. ID does not use biblical text as the bases for discovery, it uses observation and experimentation.

Can't help the fact some post on this thread that are drawing conclusions from obscure literature as well as the bible.

 

[idscience]

Ok sorry to jump in but...

So far I've only seen posts trying to disprove evolution...
I still haven't seen anything to support intelligent design.

You know that even if you disproved evolution you still have to prove ID right? It's not right by default.

Your logic is flawed. You are relating two different issues.
I don't think you have read the OP.
ID doesn't have to be right for common descent hypothesis to be wrong.

right now the hadron collider is being used to find a mathematical particle. Scientists have believed in the Higgs for over 40 years. If they don't find it this time, they will know they are wrong and will have to start all over again with a new model of the universe. There isn't one yet, but they still may be wrong. Considering the Atlas detector was about a billion dollars to build, and much of that was taxpayer money, then there are the 37 nations, and millions involved with the whole hadron project I think it is important to define what directions in science may be right or wrong. Between time stamps 14:15 and 17:15 we see this.

World Leaders Forum: Searching for the Higgs Particle _Panel - YouTube

Evolution can certainly be wrong in regard to common ancestry, as the evidence shows, or doesn't, without having to prove something else right.

Requiring ID to prove it is right in order to disprove common descent is a poor argument.

 

[IzzyPop]

Your logic is flawed. You are relating two different issues.
I don't think you have read the OP.
ID doesn't have to be right for common descent hypothesis to be wrong.

right now the hadron collider is being used to find a mathematical particle. Scientists have believed in the Higgs for over 40 years. If they don't find it this time, they will know they are wrong and will have to start all over again with a new model of the universe. There isn't one yet, but they still may be wrong. Considering the Atlas detector was about a billion dollars to build, and much of that was taxpayer money, then there are the 37 nations, and millions involved with the whole hadron project I think it is important to define what directions in science may be right or wrong. Between time stamps 14:15 and 17:15 we see this.

World Leaders Forum: Searching for the Higgs Particle _Panel - YouTube

Evolution can certainly be wrong in regard to common ancestry, as the evidence shows, or doesn't, without having to prove something else right.

Requiring ID to prove it is right in order to disprove common descent is a poor argument.

You are lifting those goalposts with your legs, right? Because as much as you are shifting them, lifting with your back could really lead to a bad injury.

 

[idscience]

You are lifting those goalposts with your legs, right? Because as much as you are shifting them, lifting with your back could really lead to a bad injury.

Thanks for your insight and controbution. Also, the basis for your statement.

 

[DaneaFL]

Evolution can certainly be wrong in regard to common ancestry, as the evidence shows, or doesn't, without having to prove something else right.

Requiring ID to prove it is right in order to disprove common descent is a poor argument.

Ok so you have proof that evolution by common descent is wrong? well tell me about it after you receive your Nobel prize, ok?

 

[Jazer]

Ok sorry to jump in but...

So far I've only seen posts trying to disprove evolution...
I still haven't seen anything to support intelligent design.

You know that even if you disproved evolution you still have to prove ID right? It's not right by default.

So there is a difference between TE and ID? Some consider them the same.

 

[Jazer]

Ok so you have proof that evolution by common descent is wrong? well tell me about it after you receive your Nobel prize, ok?

Actually I remember James Watson saying it is when your on the front cover of a magazine that all the girls start to get interested in you. He still got fired for saying all the wrong things. Nobel Prize or not. "James Watson, who once said re eugenics: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."