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

[SilverBear]

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

and... "your point"??

 

[Ophiolite]

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

Hint: If you keep repeating this lie then sooner or later even you will have to recognise that it is a lie. This is really rather simple:

• We would not expect 75,000 generations of prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes
• You have been told this more than once
• You keep claiming that this is what evolutionists expect would happen
• Repeating your assertion when you have had this explained to you is lying

Please stop.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

The point is, Bob, that that is not what is supposed to happen according to evolutionists. You are comparing apples with oranges using a speedometer. Let me explain...

Eukaryotic cells originated from an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells at least 1.5 billion years ago in an environment teeming with primitive early life.

Contemporary E.coli have had at least 1.5 billion years of evolution since then, and it is extremely unlikely that they could now form an endosymbiotic relationship with another prokaryote - if there were suitable ancient prokaryotes around. But, in their sterile lab environment, there aren't any other contemporary prokaryotes around, let alone primitive ones.

But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the modern E.coli in the experiment were replaced with a mix of ancient prokaryotes from 1.5 billion years ago; they would probably die very quickly in such a different environment, and if they didn't, the chances of them forming endosymbiotic relationships would be remote because the selection pressures would be so different. Such a thing would only happen if it provided a selective advantage.

Even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that the experiment contained a mix of suitably ancient prokaryotes in a suitable environment - would we expect to see eukaryotes arising? Probably not; that transition has a very low chance of success. The original transition occurred on a whole planet full of varying environments with different mixes of cells, and had tens to hundreds of millions of years to develop; it was not a relatively small number of cells in a single environment over a few tens of years.

So your claim is clearly nonsense. No sane evolutionist would expect an isolated lab colony of contemporary E.coli to produce eukaryotes.

 

[pitabread]

The point is, Bob, that that is not what is supposed to happen according to evolutionists. You are comparing apples with oranges using a speedometer. Let me explain...

Unfortunately this has already been explained to him repeatedly in this thread and it keeps falling on deaf ears.

 

[pitabread]

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

So what? That's not how evolution works.

The disconnect here is that you've apparently conceptualized evolution as the incorrect "evolutionary ladder" model, whereby organisms go through pre-determined stages to reach the next rung on the ladder. Given that is not how evolution works, any attempts to argue on that basis are irrelevant.

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

But "evolutionists" are not making that claim. All you've done is create a strawman argument based on an incorrect conceptual understanding of evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unfortunately this has already been explained to him repeatedly in this thread and it keeps falling on deaf ears.

No worries; it may inform some lurker.

 

[pitabread]

And the OP has continued to ignore all the posts correcting their blatant misconceptions of the Lenski E.coli experiment: Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

Though given they've taken this nonsense to the Creation-only forum, I guess they realized it was futile to keep peddling their misconceptions here.

 

[Speedwell]

And the OP has continued to ignore all the posts correcting their blatant misconceptions of the Lenski E.coli experiment: Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

Though given they've taken this nonsense to the Creation-only forum, I guess they realized it was futile to keep peddling their misconceptions here.

No he won't change his argument, he just wants an echo chamber for it. That's why he moved it to a forum where only Christians are allowed to post and only right-wing extremist Evangelicals are really welcomed.

 

[BobRyan]

And the OP has continued to ignore all the posts correcting their blatant misconceptions of the Lenski E.coli experiment

Well not in reality... In reality the OP has shown that we get evolutionists claiming that of course that would happen including going to a horse for the prokaryote... and others claiming we should never expect to see anything. It has been "all over the board so far" as they say

: Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

Though given they've taken this nonsense to the Creation-only forum, I guess they realized it was futile to keep peddling their misconceptions here.

not in real life. I real life I have the flexibility to post in more than one forum.

In real life my free time available for posting here has increased... praise God.

When my children were very small and we were teaching them to play hide and seek they would put their hands over their eyes while I counted to ten - "as if" the fact that they "could not see" meant no one else could either.

I find that "instructive"

 

[BobRyan]

No he won't change his argument

irrefutable details are funny that way.

 

[BobRyan]

The point is, Bob, that that is not what is supposed to happen according to evolutionists. You are comparing apples with oranges using a speedometer. Let me explain...

Eukaryotic cells originated from an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells at least 1.5 billion years ago in an environment teeming with primitive early life.

Certainly that is an entertaining story "never observed in nature" -- I grant you that.

I will argue that once a self sustaining, reproducible (with error) biochemical complex has been established there is nothing - bar chance - to stop it becoming a horse. And if it does not become a horse it will become something else, alive and potentially evolviing.

interesting...

As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

Puts a bit of a crimp in the "observable" claim

 

[Speedwell]

Well not in reality... In reality the OP has shown that we get evolutionists claiming that of course that would happen including going to a horse for the prokaryote... and others claiming we should never expect to see anything. It has been "all over the board so far" as they say

No, it's been pretty consistent: just you systematically and intentionally misrepresenting the Lenski experiment and the content of the theory of evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it's been pretty consistent: just you systematically and intentionally misrepresenting the Lenski experiment and the content of the theory of evolution.

everything that does not flatter the story telling for evolution is "a misrepresentation" ?? seriously?

we would all "agree" to that?

 

[Speedwell]

everything that does not flatter the story telling for evolution is "a misrepresentation" ?? seriously?

we would all "agree" to that?

You don't think that the prokaryote/eukaryote transmission ever happened in nature. Ok, we get that.

Then you bring up the Lenski experiment, where it didn't happen either, as some kind of "proof" of your assertion that it didn't happen in nature.

But the theory of evolution predicts that it would not happen under the kind of conditions which were maintained during the Lenski experiment.

So your "proof" is based on misrepresenting the theory of evolution to say that it should have happened under those conditions.

 

[pitabread]

Well not in reality... In reality the OP has shown that we get evolutionists claiming that of course that would happen including going to a horse for the prokaryote... and others claiming we should never expect to see anything. It has been "all over the board so far" as they say

I'm having a bit of trouble parsing the above sentence. But people here (e.g. in this thread) have been consistently pointing out your blatant misconceptions regarding both evolution and the Lenski experiment. There is really no debate over that.

That you keep ignoring those corrections to your misconceptions is entirely on you. But that doesn't change anything, since I suspect you just don't care.

 

[BobRyan]

You don't think that the prokaryote/eukaryote transmission ever happened in nature. Ok, we get that.

True - I am a creationist. I know that "prokaryotes" exist. I know that eukaryotes "exist".

I know that there is no such thing as "endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells" that will "pop-out" a eukaryote in true saltation (miracle goes here) fashion.

Then you bring up the Lenski experiment, where it didn't happen either,

Yes because evolution "not happening" is a kind of "Theme" in nature.

But the theory of evolution predicts that it would not happen under the kind of conditions which were maintained during the Lenski experiment.

No it doesn't ... Darwin was very clear that extremely tine miniscule changes "mutations" are all that is needed for the "prediction" and mutations did in fact occur over those 75000 observed generations of prokaryotes.

The common theme among evolutionists appears to be a "shell game" constantly coming up with stories about how evolution can't be seen.

So your "proof" is based on misrepresenting the theory of evolution

 

[BobRyan]

I'm having a bit of trouble parsing the above sentence. But people here (e.g. in this thread) have been consistently pointing out your blatant misconceptions regarding both evolution and the Lenski experiment. There is really no debate over that.

Well I fully agree that each time evolutionists get stuck we see a "you don't understand" response instead of a sound logical argument. But obtaining the fact that evolutionists are complaining - does nothing to refute the facts listed in the OP.

The grand saltation miracle proposed here "an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells - popped out a eukaryote" is not the great bit of "science" that one might have wished for. Rather it "hopes for" ... "wishes for" some "special prokaryote" never actually seen .. one that never existed 'could do the job' - as the bit of "observable, repeatable" science for getting to a eukaryote.

And some how that non-fact claim by evolutionists is supposed to be satisfying to the objective unbiased reader? Seriously??

=================

At this point it might be wise for the atheist argument - if atheists went back to the first two posts on this thread ... read them carefully, followed their links and then formulated a response.

 

[BobRyan]

Eukaryotic cells originated from an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells

Congratulations - I am adding that to the "front page" it is truly special.

And the fact that the mythical "kind" of prokaryote in that quote above (the kind that turns into a eukaryote in an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated prokaryotes" does not actually exist and that such a saltation cannot be observed ... is apparently another agreed upon detail between atheists and creationists.

 

[Speedwell]

Well I fully agree that each time evolutionists get stuck we see a "you don't understand" response instead of a sound logical argument. But obtaining the fact that evolutionists are complaining - does nothing to refute the facts listed in the OP.

The grand saltation miracle proposed here "an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells - popped out a eukaryote" is not the great bit of "science" that one might have wished for. Rather it "hopes for" ... "wishes for" some "special prokaryote" never actually seen .. one that never existed 'could do the job' - as the bit of "observable, repeatable" science for getting to a eukaryote.

And some how that non-fact claim by evolutionists is supposed to be satisfying to the objective unbiased reader? Seriously??

=================

At this point it might be wise for the atheist argument - if atheists went back to the first two posts on this thread ... read them carefully, followed their links and then formulated a response.

I wasn't aware that there was a specifically atheist argument being made in this thread.

 

[pitabread]

Well I fully agree that each time evolutionists get stuck we see a "you don't understand" response instead of a sound logical argument.

You've been repeatedly presented with sound, logical explanations as to why the Lenski experiment has nothing to do with recreating the evolution of eukaryotes.

The grand saltation miracle proposed here "an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells - popped out a eukaryote" is not the great bit of "science" that one might have wished for. Rather it "hopes for" ... "wishes for" some "special prokaryote" never actually seen .. one that never existed 'could do the job' - as the bit of "observable, repeatable" science for getting to a eukaryote.

This is just strawman handwaving. This also doesn't change the fact that the Lenski experiment has nothing to do with recreating the evolution of eukaryotes or to act as a simulation of human evolution or any other nonsense you've dreamed up. That is not the intent of that experiment.

At this point it might be wise for the atheist argument

There is no "atheist" argument here. Atheism vs theism has nothing to do with this.

This is simply a matter correcting your obvious gross misconceptions of why you think the Lenski experiment was conducted.