Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
Purposeful for the bacteria who can now thrive on a new food source - absolutely. It can now thrive and reduce competition with other non-nylon-eating bugs. Is it purposeful for my BBQ this evening? Heck no...:)
The bacteria developed new organs for a specific purpose?
Yes. Well, the equivalent of an organ for bacteria. Much like changes in the "brain" of a worm really is more in what we'd call a spinal column for anything else. But yes, new organs and enzymes for metabolizing the man-made materials.
Is this a result of a guided intelligent process or just some extremely good luck?
Don't know, but it is a sign of evolution. Whether it was intelligently designed to happen that way, or extremely good luck, or adaption I can't say for 100%. But it is a sign of evolution. A new species with new "organs" arising in response to a brand new food source.
Do you know if the ability to metabolize new chemicals is the result of transposable DNA being activated in the presence of a new food source?
Haven't a clue. Considering it includes new metabolizing pathways, I'd say it's a pretty significant mutation of the DNA.
Go read the link I posted, and follow up on the references. These are hard-core biological research papers, and you'll find quite a bit of information.
Is this absolute prove that evolution is 100% the only way life arose on Earth? No! But it is pretty strong proof that evolution - a change in physical characteristics and functionality in response to the environment - acutally happens.
Coyoteman, you're back and still haven't seen the light. I don't know if I can help.
If your mantra calling ID a religious belief makes you feel better so be it, but it does not change the fact that the evidence is clear and unmistakable. (I've already given you and others on this and previous threads, examples of the millions of pieces of evidence.)
Based on evidence, your evolution is much more of a religious belief than ID. Talk about blind faith. There's no evidence of species migrating into another species and yet you hold it as "scientific". Darwinism is a hoax.
ID on the other hand is a solid explanation for the origins of life, based on overwhelming evidence. I can take to the water, Coyoteman, but I can't make you drink.
Darwinism isn't true science since it doesn't have evidence of species migrating to another species. It is not practical at all but very flawed and requires an enormous amount of (blind) faith to adhere to it.
Creation is not faith-based, but based on overwhelming evidence of intelligence involved in the design of living things everywhere.
Practical facts support Creation and do not support Darwinism.
Evolution as you define it is completely uncontroversial. Thats not what we are talking about though. Decent from a common ancestor through an unguided process is controversial and that is what is being discussed.
ID is based on the Theory of Evolution.
ID is not based on the ToE. ID is based on the fact that the best explanation for the origin of some biological systems is an intelligent cause.
The only problem with ID is that it has no value at all, it makes no predictions, it simply says that things are the way they are because that is the way things are.
This argument is ridiculous. According to you, if biological systems were in fact intelligently designed, there would no value in understanding this fact? It would be better to ignore the facts and pretend that neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for the source of biological diversity? Your basic argument boils down to Darwinism is the truth and therefore no other line of questioning can possibly lead anywhere. Its pure dogma and betrays your anti science sentiments.
So if I can show proof of a species changing enough that it can no longer breed with its original grandparents, or of a species developing a new organ, would that point towards evolution?
In other words, I can show one species, several intermediate sub-species, and another species. Such that adjacent sub-species can breed, but the start and end species cannot - would that qualify as evolution?
Or if I can show a population of organisms that have a common trait, and a new population arises that contains a distinct and unique beneficial feature, and that the feature relates to changes in the evironment only, would that qualify as evolution?
You can't explain how the eye or the ear or how DNA came into being, but any detailed study of these and other living matter and its components reveals design with purpose. That equals intelligence. Something those that deny what's in front of them seem to be without.
There’s no evidence of this kind of migration of species from on to another. Yet evidence of intelligent purpose in the design of living things and their components is everywhere.
But you will accept that if I can show evidence of that kind of migration - two species that cannot breed, but all the inter-species can breed with each other - then we have an example of evolution?
Regardless of whether or not you believe such evidence exists, are you willing to accept that bar for evidence for evolution?
Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith.
Here are merely 9 points out of thousands that are scientifically contrary to evolution. Why aren’t these points being taught in our public classrooms today?
1. What is meant by spontaneous generation and has it been proven to be true or false?
Spontaneous generation is the idea that non-living matter can spontaneously form into living matter (cell). It was scientifically proven false in the mid 1800’s and never been proven otherwise.
2. What was the goal of the Miller experiment?
The goal of the Miller experiment was to form (spontaneously generate) amino acids necessary for life.
3. Miller left oxygen out of his experiment. Why did he do this and what does the scientific evidence support?
Miller left oxygen out of his experiment because he knew oxygen causes molecular bonds to come apart, such as in amino acid bonds.
Furthermore, contrary to the no-oxygen setting of Miller’s experiment, the scientific evidence supports the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere.
4. Miller did get amino acids from his experiment. How did the amino acids he got compare to amino acids found in life?
Miller got a mix of 50% left-handed amino acids and 50% right-handed amino acids. Life requires 100% left-handed amino acids. This means the Miller experiment failed to produce the correct amino acids necessary for life.
5. What can be concluded about all attempts to build proteins necessary for life (biological proteins) from amino acids by natural processes?
Every attempt to produce amino acids by natural processes has ended up with a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Even when the experiment started with all left-handed amino acids, the amino acids naturally reverted back to a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.
6. Some textbooks and other evolutionary materials suggest that life started in the ocean. Is it possible for life to start in water?
Life cannot start in water. Water contains an oxygen molecule which will insert itself into amino acid bonds. The result is that if the amino acids did bond together, they would very soon be pulled apart.
7. Why do the following three things prohibit life from arising by natural processes (evolution).
a. Oxygen: Oxygen pulls molecule bonds apart. Amino acids necessary for life will not form or bond together in the presence of oxygen.
b. No oxygen: Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no ozone to protect molecules or any life.
c. Handedness of amino acids: All amino acids in proteins of life are left-handed. The natural tendency is always to a mix of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.
8. The probability of a biological protein being formed by natural processes, even given very generous assumptions, is 10 to the 191st power. The probability of a single cell being formed by natural processes is 10 to the 40,000th power. What about the argument: “Given enough time it will happen?”
Even given enough time (20 billion years), and very generous presuppositions, there is not enough time for even a single protein to form by random chance. Plus, mathematicians agree that any probability of 10 to the 50th power or greater means that it will not happen.
9. All living forms live, grow, and exist using very complex governing codes (DNA). What are the four necessary conditions for something to gain in information and complexity?
• An open system
• A source of energy
• A mechanism to capture and store the raw energy
• A mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use
Evolution offers neither a mechanism to capture and store the raw energy nor a mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use.
Conclusion: Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith. This fact and the scientific evidence contrary to evolution is being vehemently suppressed to further a blind faith of a religious dogma that cloaks itself as science.
Actually there is such evidence, an overwhelming amount. Scientists all over the world can see it. Believers in a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity won't accept it though for purely religious reasons.
By the way, "Darwinism" is a derogatory term cooked up by creationists to include any science they don't agree with. It has no meaning in the sciences. I did six years of grad school, with half of it spent studying fossil man, evolution, osteology, human races, anatomy and the like and I don't think I ever once heard that term used. Here on FR it's used daily, much like the N..... word was used in the past -- and for much the same reasons.
ID on the other hand is a solid explanation for the origins of life, based on overwhelming evidence.
ID is a religious belief concerning the origins of life, wrapped up in a little scientific terminology in the hopes that it might fool a school board or state legislature somewhere. The modern iteration of ID came into being shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court excluded creation "science" from the schools in Edwards v. Aguilard. It first showed up in Of Pandas and Peoples along with that classic "cdesign proponentsists" word processing error. It has never come up with any of the necessary steps to be taken seriously as science, and is promoted largely by the Discovery Institute and their staff of lawyers and PR flacks.
And by the way, the theory of evolution does not include origins!
I can take to the water, Coyoteman, but I can't make you drink.
The water's fine; wine is even better. Just stay away from the Kool-Aid.
That is the only kind of evolution that there is : ) Unlike what you ID'ers seem to think, a dog doesn't come from a chicken. That isn't what evolution is about.
Darwinism is used to "prove" that all varieties of life were not created but somehow evolved. This requires species migrating from one to another. No proof exists of this because it's a hoax.
That seems to be your primary problem, species do not migrate from one to another. If they did that would disprove the theory of evolution. "Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." Over time those changes become large and profound. You have stated already that you have no problem with that theory.
You can't explain how the eye or the ear or how DNA came into being,
Actually those are easy to explain and show. There is a very clear path showing the development of hearing and vision. DNA is simply a naturally occurring acid, and as such has not increased in complexity.
but any detailed study of these and other living matter and its components reveals design with purpose.
Ahh, the salient question is what is that purpose? Are you perfectly designed?
That's what Darwin supporters say about evolution.
>Perhaps all of those details pertaining to origins are not taught as part of the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution does not include origins!<
That is not true. Evolution starts out with the Big Bang — a point of no life. Evolution very definitely assumes or outright affirms life coming form non-life. A totally unproven scenario; indeed, all the scientific evidence that is factual indicates it is absolutely impossible.
(Religious belief in evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
Don't presume to lecture me on evolution -- half of my areas/fields at the Ph.D. level were in evolution and fossil man. And you probably scanned a page or two at Answers In Genesis, then stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
And you are totally wrong in each and every sentence you wrote.
Why creationists presume to be able to define what the theory of evolution is, and what it contains, on the basis of their religious beliefs is the biggest farce of all.
Can you tell me where you find that definition for evolution? Because in this post I linked and posted the definition of evolution from:
1. The dictionary
2. Wikipedia (a compendium of information, and it's typically left-leaning)
3. Talk Origins (a pro-evolution website)
And they all pretty much agree. And the concept of the Big Bang doesn't factor into ANY of those definitions.
So can you please show where you're getting that definition, because they need to be corrected.
(Religious belief in intelligent design does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
Fixed that for you...
I know the reason you don’t want to admit that the evolution of life is part of evolutionary theory is because you can’t defend the origination of life from non-living matter. However, that’s what IS part of evolutionary dogma. Nonetheless, if you’re so smart, tell me: How did life come about? Did it evolve out of non-living molecules, or was it created by God?
Doesn't matter if it was one of these, or aliens. The theory of evolution works just fine in any case -- because the theory of evolution does not include origins no matter how many times creationists claim it does!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.