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

[Shemjaza]

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" -- and the answer that is pretty obvious.

No, that is not in the least obvious. I know you think you are right, but at least try to clearly justify yourself.

Evolution doesn't propose that species follow a strict pattern of change. It't about the changes that occur and how they interact with the environment.

The Lenski experiment and the development of eukaryotes are not the same environment, not the same organisms, not the same time scale and not the same population.

Also, what makes you think modern humans took 200,000 years to develop? Humans have been about the same for that kind of time.

In about 3 million years we've gone from much more ape like ancestors to humans... but apes and humans seems to be pretty similar structurally.

Whereas a eukaryotes has gone through the rather radical change of gaining a permanent symbiotic relationship with another organism.

 

[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"?

No, that is not in the least obvious.

I may have overestimated your attention to the details above.

Is it your claim that the DNA structure for prokaryotes are "less adaptive" than the one for humans?? You would be a true pioneer for that idea if that is your "theory"

 

[pitabread]

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

I've already pointed out some of the differences between the E.coli experiment and the evolution of living things in the Earth's biosphere.

That you keep ignoring what people are posting in favor of just repeating yourself is on you. I still don't know what you expect you are accomplishing here. You don't appear to be even attempting to have a proper discussion.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution doesn't propose that species follow a strict pattern of change. It't about the changes that occur and how they interact with the environment.

This seems to be at least part of the conceptual gap on the part of the OP. I've noticed a lot of creationists seem to have this idea that evolutionary events are strictly deterministic and therefore get very confused at the notion that evolutionary events cannot be arbitrarily repeated in a lab.

 

[pitabread]

So objective unbiased readers will "notice".

Notice what exactly?

(Besides the fact this entire thread makes no sense.)

 

[Ophiolite]

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).

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

You have that "moving the goalposts" down to a fine art, don't you. Is that dishonesty, or just incompetence? The discussion, based on your post, is the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes. Human generations have nothing to do with that.
In contrast 75,000 generations of prokaryotes would be more like 10 years or so. You suggest a prokaryote should make that transition in ten years and think it's a victory for your argument when it doesn't. Grow up. Or at least post grown up arguments.

 

[Speedwell]

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??

In other words, you are intentionally misrepresenting the propose and scope of Lenski's experiment.

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

Under strictly controlled conditions which did not include replicating the prokaryote/eukaryote transition. You are intentionally misrepresenting the purpose and scope of Lenski's experiment.

Is this not obvious to all??

It certainly is.

 

[Speedwell]

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).

What also matters is the selective environment. There was no attempt to exert selection pressure which would produce the prokaryote/eukaryote transition.

 

[Shemjaza]

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"?

Would you stop repeating your misunderstandings and attempt to explain yourself?

Humans aka, Homo sapiens "came into being" less than 200,000 years ago.

The phrase "came into being in less than 200,000 years" doesn't actually make sense. Came into being from what? From the first life? From the common ancestor with other apes? From the common ancestor with Neanderthals?

It's a nonsense statement. Species designation are necessarily arbitrary, all creatures are the same species as their parents... it's only in retrospect that we create hard borders.

I may have overestimated your attention to the details above.

Is it your claim that the DNA structure for prokaryotes are "less adaptive" than the one for humans?? You would be a true pioneer for that idea if that is your "theory"

But you haven't demonstrated that these situations or scenarios are even remotely analogous.

A very small population of microbes has been studied for decades... and you think means something about human evolution?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Speedwell said: ↑
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.

Show us one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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 keep repeating this as if it means something; what makes you think a lab culture of contemporary E.coli would ever produce eukaryotes? Do you not understand what a Eukaryote is?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.

a terrorist can turn and airplane into a scattered debris field in little more than a few seconds. By your logic ...

By my logic an infinite Creator is "more than capable" driving it the opposition direction in a single moment in time.

and... "your point"??

 

[BobRyan]

I think one of the disconnects here is that in the Creationist lexicon single celled organisms with and without mitochondria are still basically identical "Goo Kind", where human and chimp are unbelievably radically different "Ape Kind" and "Man kind".

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 keep repeating this as if it means something;

Because "objective unbiased readers" -- exist. And just because you do not approve of the details does not mean they vanish for the rest of us.

what makes you think a lab culture of contemporary E.coli would ever produce eukaryotes?

Hint: I am a creationist - I DON't expect that to happen... ever!!

Are you not following the details???

I leave the "claim" that that is supposed to happen - to the evolutionists

As I am now noting in the OP

Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such talented rock exists" (nor would an aggregation of rocks be able to do it)


Next we see some of the many times where that point gets illustrated on this thread -
here we see the point that rocks don't have the property to do that --#211
here we see the claim talented rocks should be able to do that 203
(or at the very least - prokaryotes can do it -- #190 )

.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a lot of "we don't notice...so we hope no one else will notice" on this thread as if that causes "details to vanish".

Not a compelling solution. I choose to focus on facts and we all know that non-evolutionists "exist". They will see "fact", "details" EVEN if those details are not deemed "convenient" to the stories promoted in the evolution preferences seen here and there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

The first part of this seems to be about what Darwin thought.

1. Who cares what Darwin thought. Science is not defined or sustained by the opinions of any scientist, no matter how great.

2. Can you show that Darwin actually thought these things?

Finally,

3. Eukaryote and Prokaryote aren't general "stages" in evolution. Eukaryotes are the byproduct of a particular symbiotic merger of different pre-existing (and likely prokaryotic) organisms.

 

[BobRyan]

The first part of this seems to be about what Darwin thought.

1. Who cares what Darwin thought. .

I am inclined to agree with that part of your post

 

[BobRyan]

3. Eukaryote and Prokaryote aren't general "stages" in evolution. Eukaryotes are the byproduct of a particular symbiotic merger of different pre-existing (and likely prokaryotic) organisms.

no they aren't ... that is just a story about what some people wish... lets talk facts.. observable facts... what do the prokaryotes turn in to?

Because we already have evolutionists on record on this thread for "they turn into horses" (As I am now noting in the OP)

If your argument is that prokaryotes bypass the eukaryote stage and go straight to horse -- have at it.

 

[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.

Do you not understand that you have repeated this and been responded to multiple times?

No one cares about Darwin's thoughts about microbiology... he lived hundreds of years ago and didn't have any real evidence to work with.

Also:
THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT A SMALL POPULATION PROKARYOTES WOULD AUTOMATICALLY DEVELOP INTO EUKARYOTES IN ONLY 75000 GENERATIONS.

You need to learn how discussion works. You made a statement, we dispute it and ask you to justify yourself, you just keep making the statement without any justification.

Also, many of your other nonsense statements have just been abandoned.

You are careless with your arguments and all evidence indicates that you are profoundly ignorant about the topic you want to pontificate about so arrogantly.

 

[Shemjaza]

no they aren't ... that is just a story about what some people wish... lets talk facts.. observable facts... what do the prokaryotes turn in to?

Because we already have evolutionists on record on this thread for "they turn into horses" (As I am now noting in the OP)

If your argument is that prokaryotes bypass the eukaryote stage and go straight to horse -- have at it.

Your logic is completely vapid.

It's identical to claiming that it's impossible for a log cabin to have been crafted from trees, because you just saw a woodsman cut down a tree and turn it into fire wood.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

And it is pretty much what the theory of evolution would predict. That's what makes your "argument" such a joke.