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

[VirOptimus]

Trolls gonna troll.

 

[pitabread]

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

It's not a simulation. It's a real-time experiment.

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 environment the long-term E.coli experiment is taking place (e.g. lab beakers) is not the same as evolution involving an entire ecosystem. The dynamics of the two situations are *not* analogous. No matter how much you try to ignore this, this will always remain a glaring flaw in your attempt at argument.

The point remains.

glaringly obvious.

The point is that you apparently can't see the difference between a lab experiment involving E.coli for a few decades versus evolution involving an entire ecosystem over millions of years.

You can keep repeating yourself all you want, but it won't change these facts.

 

[Speedwell]

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

You mean the experiment which you can't explain, post a link to or answer questions about?

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

Yes, unless you can explain it, post a link to it or answer questions about it, I will assume that you are making it up.

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

At this late date, nobody cares any more. I have no idea why you think it proves anything. I suspect you don't either.

 

[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.

So no link, no explanation

1. glaringly obvious info as stated.
2. Do you have point? A detail? a problem with the statement?
3. A link "to what"???

 

[Larniavc]

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

Okay. What are your academic qualifications in biology?

 

[pitabread]

<snip>

So you're just going to repeat yourself ad nauseum? What exactly do you think you are accomplishing?

Are we just being trolled?

 

[Speedwell]

1. glaringly obvious info as stated.

Incomplete info as stated.

2. Do you have point? A detail? a problem with the statement?

You have not supplied enough information about the experiment to justify the claims you are making about it.

3. A link "to what"???

Where you are getting the information about the experiment.

 

[BobRyan]

It's not a simulation. It's a real-time experiment. .

Which simulates observation of 75,000 generations for human evolution using a much more adaptive species than homo sapiens.

Obviously -- where is the difficulty here??

"A simulation is an approximate imitation of the operation of a process or system that represents its operation over time."

So you're just going to repeat yourself

Feel free to make a point.

 

[BobRyan]

Incomplete info as stated.
You have not supplied enough information about the experiment to justify the claims you are making about it. .

I claim it includes direct observation of 75,000 generations over time - for prokaryotes.
I claim that they never turned into eukaryotes
I claim that 75000 generations for humans would cover over 3 million years.
I claim that modern humans "supposedly" evolved in less than 200,000 years.
I claim that prokaryotes have a vastly more adaptive DNA architecture/design (essentially wearing it on their sleeves) as compared to homo sapiens and therefore are specifically designed to adapt at the DNA level to their environment.

What part of this do you not already know???
And gaming aside "which detail matters to you"?

 

[Speedwell]

Which simulates observation of 75,000 generations for human evolution using a much more adaptive species than homo sapiens.

Obviously -- where is the difficulty here??

"A simulation is an approximate imitation of the operation of a process or system that represents its operation over time."



Feel free to make a point.

What is your justification for the claim that it was Lenski's intention to simulate human evolution?

It seems to me that you also claimed that the experiment was designed to replicate the prokaryote/eukaryote transition. What is your justification for that claim?

 

[Speedwell]

I claim it includes direct observation of 75,000 generations over time - for prokaryotes.

OK

I claim that they never turned into eukaryotes

So what? You have provided no justification for the claim that the experiment was conducted to replicate that transition.

I claim that 75000 generations for humans would cover over 3 million years.

So what?

I claim that modern humans "supposedly" evolved in less than 200,000 years.

So what?

What part of this do you not already know???

What you think you are proving. An experiment which was not intended to replicate the prokaryote/eukaryote transition failed to produce eukaryotes therefore humans could not have evolved?

 

[pitabread]

Which simulates observation of 75,000 generations for human evolution using a much more adaptive species than homo sapiens.

No it doesn't. The long-term E.coli experiment has nothing to do with human evolution and is not designed as a simulation as such. The long-term E.coli experiment is just that: a long-term* experiment on the evolution of E.coli.

But if you think otherwise, here is a list of publications related to the long-term E.coli experiment: Publication Search Results

Feel free to point out any papers where they specifically discuss using said experiment to simulate human evolution.

Feel free to make a point.

I'm made my point: you appear to be trying to make an argument based on drawing false equivalences between things that are not equivalent nor even designed as such.

As such, the argument fails.

 

[pitabread]

So what?

An apt summary of this entire thread.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

You never justified why we should expect to see a transition from prokaryote to eukaryote in that experiment.

< analogy >
Did you know that I read the Bible and then I didn't immediately grow wings and fly to heaven? I guess the Bible must be false.
< / analogy >

Your logic is ridiculous.

 

[BobRyan]

You never justified why we should expect to see a transition from prokaryote to eukaryote in that experiment.

Yes I did. I stated that since it never happened in nature you should never expect to see it.

And I also quoted Dawkins admitting that it never happens when you observe.

But "the story" that atheists often tell about this is that modern humans supposedly evolved in less than 200,000 years -- and we know that 75,000 generations for modern humans is more than 3million years. So the question (using that story line) then becomes "why would we expect modern humans to appear over a period of 3 million years if they came into being in less than 200,000 years" (which is around 5000 generations)

-- and the answer to that is pretty obvious.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?

 

[BobRyan]

What is your justification for the claim that it was Lenski's intention to simulate human evolution?

1. All the reports they are doing on that experiment.
2. What "else" did you think was going on?
3. since when did evolution "not take place if the one watching is not expecting it to"??? what sort of reasoning is that??

It seems to me that you also claimed that the experiment was designed to replicate the prokaryote/eukaryote transition.

The experiment was "designed" to show a long term observation of 1000's of generations for a given species over time.

Is this not obvious to all??

 

[BobRyan]

No it doesn't. The long-term E.coli experiment has nothing to do with human evolution

Only for those whose story line is that bacteria DNA systems are less adaptive to environment than humans - when it comes to evolution.

So far neither you nor anyone else has made the argument for that rather wild guess.

No evolution text says "evolution won't happen if the person observing does not expect it to".

 

[BobRyan]

I claim it includes direct observation of 75,000 generations over time - for prokaryotes.
I claim that they never turned into eukaryotes
I claim that 75000 generations for humans would cover over 3 million years.
I claim that modern humans "supposedly" evolved in less than 200,000 years.
I claim that prokaryotes have a vastly more adaptive DNA architecture/design (essentially wearing it on their sleeves) as compared to homo sapiens and therefore are specifically designed to adapt at the DNA level to their environment.

What part of this do you not already know???
And gaming aside "which detail matters to you"?

So what?

So objective unbiased readers will "notice".

 

[BobRyan]

Where you are getting the information about the experiment.

I provided quotes and links in a prior post

 

[BobRyan]

Just how long do you imagine is the typical time between generations for a prokaryote?

It does not matter - what matters is how many generations they have because that is the basis for passing on new features in DNA. (the point).

How many do you think fit into a million years?

For humans? around 75,000 generations in 3 million years or more.

But human DNA structure is much more rigid and static than is the case for prokaryiotes - they would mutate/adapt much faster to their environment in 75000 generations than would humans.

i.e. (the point).

By contrast evolutionists tell stories about modern humans evolving in less than 200,000 years - which is wayyy less than 75000 generations. More like 5000 generations for humans

And you offer up a paltry 75,000 generations and think you have made a point. .

Because I am paying attention to the details in the discussion.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???