Barbarian observes:
Hence our confidence that science can give us accurate understanding of the physical universe.
Let's test your belief on this. Show me any process, required by evolution, that is ruled out by any law of themodynamics. Let's see what you have.
Strawman, since I clearly related the magical bending, accelerating and expansion of nothing to the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.......
Hall's bacteria, through a series of mutations, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like to learn how that happened?
Except the researchers clearly state it doesn't happen till the 31,000th to 31,500th generation. So that only leaves 30,999th to 31,499th generation that survived despite their claim they couldn't process citrus under those conditions. Yet apparently they did so anyways. Not really, I'm not really interested in your fantasies of how 31,000 generations before they gained the ability they survived anyways.....
Barbarian observes:
Nor would mere random variation give us the diversity of life we see. Darwin's great insight was that evolution is not a random process.
It's directly observed. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" is.
Perhaps you are simply unable to defend your stance, and that's why you fail to give any reasons....
"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own." Scott Adams
Yep. You don't know what it is. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. However, adaptation within a species is evolution, just as speciation is evolution. Both have been directly observed.
Nope, there you go again, confusing observations of microevolution (adaptation) with macroevolution, which has never been observed.
No, that's wrong, too. As you just learned, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.
Hmmm, that's funny, since we learned the exact opposite.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07
"Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are
random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."
If all there was, was random mutations, we'd never get the variety of life we see. But as Darwin showed, it is natural selection (which is not random at all) which makes the difference.
Tell that to the Grants which came to the exact opposite conclussion from watching finches in real life not fantasy theory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290
"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations.
New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be
two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation.
You see, all we really need is what God gave us for variation to occur. He placed that self repair mechanism their against mutations because they destroy the organism over time......
It's a matter of chance which organism happens to get a useful mutation. But it's not a matter of chance that such organisms tend to leave more offspring. And each generation, those new mutations are the basis for further evolution. That's how it works.
Its a matter of chance that they just happen to be able to survive better in the environment that the once in a blue moon mutation enhanced by accident......
You've been misled. Barry Hall's bacteria, over a series of mutations, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Here's how that happens:
"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Already shown to be false by experimentation....
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07
"The Lederberg experiment
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by "stamping" the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.
Esther and Joshua
hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. Their experimental set-up is summarized below:
So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic."
So I agree with the experts at Berkley, the bacteria already had the ability to process citrus aerobically, hence their ability to survive for 31,000 generations before the trait became fully dominate and became fixed in the population......
Right. Most of them don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection tends to preserve the useful ones and remove the harmful ones. And that's all that is needed.
Which happened in the first place by pure dumb luck.....
It's like fruit flies. Only the original wild population is even capable of surviving outside of a laboratory setting. All the mutated ones are damaged and would die.....
Right. In Hall's bacteria, for example, there were many more harmful mutations than useful ones. But each generation, it was the useful ones that persisted, and were the raw material for the next round of mutations. It's such an efficient way to improve fitness that engineers have started to copy it for problems that are too complex for design. God knew best, after all.
No, the ones already having the ability to process citrus aerobically survived, while those that didn't have this trait as fully died off, leaving only those that already had the ability to begin with.
Your fantasy doesn't fit the facts.
"The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate, which is unusual in
E. coli, in one population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500."
The scientists admit that it isn't impossible, just "unusual" and clearly showed that the full adaptation did not appear until the 31,000th to 31,500th generation. Again impossible if some within the colony did not already posess this adaptation. It simply took 31,000 generations to become fully fixed in the colony, but as the Lederberg experiment showed, some already possessed this ability. Did none ever have this ability beforehand, the researchers would not have used the word "unusual" showing they are aware that it is an ability some already possessed.
Remember, mutations are random, but natural selection is not. And that's why the process isn't random. If you don't understand why, I can give you an experiment that would help you see why.
Without that random mutation, there would be no natural selection.......
You mean you'll give me another misinterpretation like you misinterpreted the E coli experiment because you didn't learn from earlier experiments.....
Right. It's like capitalism. It works, even though it's not planned, even if no one understands why it works. It's just the way God created things.
No sorry, God created things after their Kind, that you refuse to accept what God told you and have fallen in with the world of man, which He warned you their wisdom would lead to your ruin, you should tread carefully......
"13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14
But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.…"
Why do you seek to rend me to pieces like a wolf and lead me along that broad way?????
